A hostage situation in a museum in Tunisia has ended after two gunmen were killed by security forces. Seven tourists and one local died during the attack, which took place in the building next to the parliament.

Local television reports the siege at the Bardo Museum in Tunis has come to an end after the gunmen were killed by Tunisian security forces. A government official stated that two militants have died, while one policeman lost his life. All the hostages have been freed.

Earlier, a spokesman for the Tunisian Interior Ministry, Mohammed al-Aroui, has confirmed that seven tourists have been killed during the attack, and one more victim is a Tunisian citizen. Unconfirmed reports suggest some of the tourists are from France, Spain and Italy.

Poland’s Foreign Ministry also says three Polish nationals have been injured in the attack. Earlier, Al Arabiya said eight wounded people have been taken out of the building.

The country’s ministry said there were at least two men armed with Kalashnikovs in the museum. The museum is part of the Bardo Palace, which is also home to the parliament. The parliamentary building has been evacuated as a precaution.

Unconfirmed images of hostages are circulating on the web. Geotags suggest they were taken inside the Bardo National Museum. Children can be seen in the photos, which were allegedly taken inside.

The post Tunisia: 7 Tourists, 1 Local, 2 Militants Killed In Museum Attack appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Governments of India and Sri Lanka signed a bilateral agreement on cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in New Delhi on February 16, 2015, during the state visit of Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena to India. The deal will enable India to train Sri Lankan personnel in peaceful uses of nuclear energy and in measures relating to nuclear safety and radiation fallout. Further, Indian experts are expected to share information on safety features incorporated in the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant. This article looks at the contours of this bilateral agreement in the context of Sri Lanka’s nuclear programme.

Civil Nuclear Agreement

The agreement is considered a “breakthrough” to the extent that this is the first time that Sri Lanka has signed an agreement on nuclear cooperation with any country, and it is also the first such that India has signed with any of its neighbours. It is symbolic of trust and cooperation between the two neighbours and opens new avenues for cooperation, including in areas like agriculture and healthcare. The agreement is the outcome of deliberations that had begun in 2012.

The bilateral agreement is focused on peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and cooperation under this agreement will include education and training of Sri Lankan scientists and engineers. There will be collaboration on issues of nuclear safety, radiological disaster mitigation and environment protection, nuclear security and treatment and management of radioactive wastes. Basically, besides familiarising and training Sri Lankan personnel to deal with nuclear hazards, India would assist the country in accessing the full range of benefits that nuclear technology offers.

The agreement also aims to fulfil the obligations towards multilateral conventions signed by both India and Sri Lanka on nuclear and radiological emergency notification & assistance in case of a nuclear equipment related emergency. To that extent it has been ensured that all activities implemented in terms of this agreement are in compliance with standards and guidelines set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from time to time and the 1980 Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material as applicable.

IAEA

Sri Lanka has been an IAEA member state since 1957. The Atomic Energy Authority (SLAEA) of Sri Lanka established by the Act No. 19 of 1969, has functioned as the national focal point for interaction and cooperation with IAEA as well as overseeing nuclear energy related activities within the country. The SLAEA signed the Country Programme Framework (CPF) for the period of 2014-2017 with IAEA on September 17, 2013. CPF is the frame of reference for the medium-term planning of technical cooperation between a member state and the IAEA and identifies priority areas for the transfer of nuclear technology and technical cooperation. The Sri Lankan CPF identified six priority areas: food and agriculture, human health, environment and water resources, industrial applications, radiation safety infrastructure and radiological emergency preparedness and lastly, sustainable energy development.

Institutional Structure

The mandate of the SLAEA established in 1969 included providing scientific services, conducting manpower development programmes, demonstrating the applications of this technology to potential users, undertaking research and development in areas of national relevance. SLAEA also strived to be a centre of excellence for activities related to peaceful applications of nuclear technology including safety. Over the past few years, SLAEA acquired technical capabilities and developed human resources needed to provide services to the national end-users. The facilities of an early warning centre established at the SLAEA, for an effective response to any radiological emergency and nuclear accidents, has been upgraded in collaboration with relevant stakeholders.

In 2011, Sri Lanka announced that it would establish an Atomic Energy Regulatory Council to allow for the introduction of nuclear power generation technology in the country, to address concerns over the security of radioactive sources and to deal with radiation emergencies. The Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Authority Act, Number 19 of 1969, which established the SLAEA, was repealed and two new institutions – the Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Board and The Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Regulatory Council, were established by the Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Act, No. 40 of 2014.

The new Act, which came into operation on January 1, 2015, fulfils Sri Lanka obligations under relevant international instruments in the field of nuclear energy entered into by Sri Lanka, and in particular the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Safeguards Agreements. The Atomic Energy Board (AEB) of Sri Lanka, a statutory body, functions under the Ministry of Power and Energy and is responsible for facilitating the peaceful use of nuclear technology. The new Chairman of the AEB assumed duties on January 30, 2015. One of the drivers for the recent change in the Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Act was the need to have a regulatory framework amenable to nuclear power generation.

Quest for Nuclear Energy

Analysts evaluating Sri Lanka’s future energy requirements against the existing power generation capacity and the capacity being added feel there exists no case for the country to go in for nuclear power. The environmentalists on the other hand oppose nuclear power on the grounds of geographical size of the country. Yet the government of the day in 2010 began the process to build a nuclear power plant.

Speaking at the 54th General Conference of the IAEA in Vienna, Austria, September 20, 2010, Sri Lanka’s then minister of power and energy Ranawaka justified the quest for nuclear energy as “In order to meet our energy demands in the future, we need to feed our base load”. The secretary of the Sri Lankan Ministry of Power and Energy told an investor forum in Colombo “We have received government clearance to set up a nuclear power plant of 1,000 MW.” In meeting these priorities and plans, Sri Lanka took a decision to consider incorporating nuclear power into its energy mix and establish 600 MW of nuclear capacity by 2030.

Accordingly, in 2010 the Sri Lankan government commissioned SLAEA and Ceylon Electricity Board to conduct a pre-feasibility study of using nuclear energy for power generation beyond 2020, with technical cooperation from the IAEA. Sri Lankan scientists and technical experts were also sent to Russia for training.

Kudankulam

India’s nuclear power plant at Kudankulam, Tamil Nadu has also influenced the India-Sri Lanka nuclear agreement. Sri Lanka has raised the spectre of a possible mishap at Kudankulam and even Kalpakkam, in the state. A tracking station was set up at the islet of Kachchativu to monitor any potential leaks from reactors at Kudankulam. With technical support from the IAEA in November 2013, Sri Lanka had successfully established a baseline data for marine radioactivity around the island. India has aimed to address Sri Lanka’s concerns regarding Kudankulam within the nuclear agreement.

Assessment

Sri Lanka is considering signing bilateral agreements on cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy with other countries including Pakistan and has an extensive cooperation mechanism with IAEA in place; the India-Sri Lanka nuclear cooperation must be seen in this context. Also besides being a symbol of trust and cooperation, the agreement on cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy between India and Sri Lanka will open new avenues for cooperation. A working group is expected to look into this aspect soon.

Though Indian and Sri Lankan officials have denied that the agreement envisages India setting up nuclear power plants for Sri Lanka, it cannot be denied that India is one of the few countries with expertise in reactors suited to smaller power grids. There exists the potential for provision of a nuclear reactor in the future, maybe not for power generation, but an experimental reactor within Sri Lankan nuclear research facility, which India wishes to augment.

The India-Sri Lanka nuclear cooperation agreement aims to address Sri Lanka’s concerns as well requirements on nuclear energy within IAEA guidelines, and in the process provides India an opportunity to conduct itself and cooperate as a responsible member of the global nuclear energy fraternity.

This article was published at South Asia Monitor.

The post India-Sri Lanka Nuclear-Deal: Opening New Avenues Of Cooperation – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(RFE/RL) — Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a pact with a Moscow-backed breakaway region of Georgia, despite condemnation by Tbilisi and the West.

Putin and the de facto leader of South Ossetia, Leonid Tibilov, signed the “alliance and integration treaty” in the Kremlin on March 18.

Part of the treaty gives Russia responsibility for ensuring the defense and security of South Ossetia, including guarding its borders.

Security and mliitary forces currently tasked with defending the region are to be incorporated into Russia’s armed forces or Russia security bodies.

Shortly after the signing, Georgia’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying the pact amounted to the “actual annexation of the occupied Tskhinvali region” by Russia. Tskhinvali is the regional capital.

Russia recognized the region as an independent state after fighting a five-day war against Georgia in 2008, though only a handful of countries have followed Moscow’s lead in doing so.

EU foreign-policy chief Federica Mogherini said on March 17 that the agreement “clearly violates Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Washington would not recognize the treaty.

The post Putin Signs Pact With Breakaway Georgian Region South Ossetia appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Russia has always fascinated me—the stern heroes who defended Muscovy against the Golden Horde, the ornate and mysterious orthodox faith, the vast spaces, the remarkable learning and philosophy, the Bolshevik Revolution against imperialism… It’s clear the West has always been jealous of a race of genius, highly deserving respect.

Today’s fearful standoff is yet another epic struggle reflecting Russia’s past glory, but unfortunately, now in a nightmarish world of drones and nuclear bombs. Far more tragic than could be easily reconstructed in tales of how Boris Gudonov pushed the Poles out of Moscow, leading eventually to the rise of Moscow.

That is perhaps the underlying reason for the vindictive animosity that shrieks forth from the western media, as the American bully tries to taunt the Russian bear into doing something foolish—to attack that foolish Poland, for instance. But the Russian leader stands by his principles and his fellow Slavs, and holds firm, despite the provocations. No one is going to destroy Russia nor will they succeed in breaking up the ancient slavic federacy into Wal Marts.

A more recent episode in Russia’s history involves the German statesman Bismarck, who recognized that the rimland powers (then Britain, now the US, which use superior naval might to dominate the world) had to neutralize Russia to keep in control of the European heartland. That the British (now Americans) had to keep Germany and Russia apart, as “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.” (MacKinder)

Today’s ‘moralists’ find it difficult to explain that Bismarck, yes, was a cold calculator and his decisions were rarely subjected to ethical criteria—but the result of his Realpolitik was a relatively stable German state which under Bismarck’s chancellorship managed Europe’s adjustments without armed conflicts. Between 1871 and 1890, the German Empire was on the whole a stabilizing factor in Europe. During the Berlin Congress to end the Balkan crisis in 1878, Bismarck effectively presented himself as an honest broker, respected by all of Europe. However, with Bismarck’s departure in 1890, this period of the relaxation of European tensions and Germany’s stabilizing influence was over. The German chauvinists recklessly abandoned Bismarck’s plan to keep the rimlanders at bay, denying Europe peace and prosperity for the next century, but providing lots of spoils for the (rimlander) victors.

We now have more than enough proof that if Germany and Russia get along, it is a blessing for Europe; if we go to war, the whole continent lies in ruins, picked apart by rimlanders.

The current western decision to invade Ukraine is for no other reason than once again crushing the spirit of Bismarck. Weaken Germany through a pointless war with Russia, and walk into the devastation with a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a kind of NATO for the destitute masses. And then the “West” will rule forever.

As Pepe Escobar puts it, “the Empire of Chaos dream of regime change in Russia has always hinged on controlling large swathes of Eurasia. A puppet in Moscow—a carbon copy of the drunken stooge Yeltsin—would free up Russia’s immense natural resources for the West, with those from the contiguous Central Asian “stans” as a bonus.”

If on the other hand Russia maintains its influence, even indirectly, in Ukraine and on Central Asia’s oil and natural gas wealth, Moscow is capable of projecting itself again as a superpower and putting a hold on the US unipolar world.

Russia has not backed down. In a spirit of goodwill, the Soviet Union joined the landmark Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (how much proof do NATO warmongers need that Russia has always wanted peace?). By 2007, it was clear what NATO was up to in Ukraine, and Putin wisely canceled the treaty and is now protecting Crimea and testing NATO’s defenses by flying their planes into NATO’s defensive perimeter.

Ukraine and Russia have always been allies. Most Ukrainians are Russian (the few xenophobic Ukrainians that the West praises so lavishly were molded in Poland in the 1930-50s and are largely fascist.

But that doesn’t matter to western world conquerors, who encouraged Nazis in the past, whose sense of morality is zero. They thought that Ukraine would be a walk-over, lured like the Lithuanians into accepting US arms and luxuries in lieu of national integrity. But that didn’t work. This duplicity among western media means that no such media can be respected. It is more worthwhile to reflect on the fact that Ukraine’s Prince Shuysky was elected Tsar until the Russian pretender came of age 500 yrs ago. That was the age of heroic politics.

The post Russian History Exposes Media Lies – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ershadul Huq*

The common people in Bangladesh are pushed into a tight corner as the horror of the past 60 days unrest has left the economy bleeding.

The significance of political factors on economic performance is well established. Political instability takes a toll on economic growth by way of lower investment and subdued economic activities.

Bangladesh’s economic growth had seen improvement over the last few years, which was billed as an economic surprise by experts. But the economic growth during the last two months following the political stalemate has taken a lower turn. As a result, GDP has plunged from 7 percent to 6.

It has become almost impossible to make the economic growth rebound to 7 percent.

It is barely a year that the economy was in a smooth tract after being hit by political violence for months in 2014. It seems that the general election held in that year gave some relief to the country.

Hartals (work stoppage) and blockades are back in the country and in full force. The country once again is watching confrontation politics and there is no sign of respite even after two months. Life has come to a standstill on many fronts.

The pace of economic growth slowed down in financial year 2014 due to political disturbances. The peaceful situation prevailed for almost a year because the general election in January 2014 showed hope for picking up the growth.

The government last year targeted in its budget a 7.2 percent growth of GDP, but the experts and donors set the target upward. But the current political stalemate is going to cast a shadow on the GDP growth target.

The first area of impact is the investment situation. Inadequate investment has been a problem in the country due to which economic activities cannot be expanded. Hence the growth cannot be increased, productivity cannot be boosted.

Despite the macroeconomic stability for quite some time, the growth is somewhat hamstrung in recent years.

Bangladesh’s growth has been impressive in the past decades and the economy showed many promises despite some shortcomings. The country attained 1 percent growth in every decade for the last 30 years.

The agriculture, industry and service sectors have contributed to the growth. Economists dubbed Bangladesh’s progress as a ‘development surprise’.

Investment flow witnesses an increase in any economy when the fiscal policy of that economy is good and the infrastructure facilities sound, but the two conditions are absent in Bangladesh.

Due to the current political standoff, industrial growth is being hampered, which is influencing the agriculture sector because the farmers are not able to bring their produce to towns and cities because of the ongoing general strike and non-stop blockade.

It has been seen in many parts of the country that farmers are not harvesting their agriculture produce like vegetables as they are not able to bring those to towns to get better prices. In the rural areas the vegetables are not being sold. Even livestock farmers are seen pouring the milk into water bodies as they are not able to sell it. As a result, the financial condition of farmers is worsening.

On the other hand, the consumers in urban areas are purchasing the products at high prices. This is the situation of the economy.

Education, which is called the backbone of the nation, is suffering badly as all educational institutions have been declared closed due to the general strike, during which picketers chuck petrol bombs.

Reports say about 90 people were killed in petrol bomb attacks, torching of vehicles and police firing during the last two months.

The school authorities are failing to hold the school final examinations, which began on February 1. Only two examinations are being held every week on the weekends – on Friday and Saturday as the Bangladesh Nationalist Party-led 20 party combine is enforcing a general strike on the other days of the week.

The garment sector, which fetches 85 percent of the total export earnings, is hit badly as the owners are not able to supply their items on time. In such manner they are losing supply orders.

The common people are pushed to a tight corner as everyone is a victim of the current political strife in one way or the other

*Ershadul Huq is a veteran Bangladeshi journalist. He can be reached at contributions@spsindia.in

The post Bangladesh’s Volatile Politics Hurting Economy – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Avigail Abarbanel*

So he won and I have to say I am relieved. There wll be no more endless cycles of pointless ‘negotiations’ with Israel pretending that some day it will agree to a two-state solution while continually escalating both settlement (colony) building and the maltreament of the Palestinians. Now everyone will see that the Palestinians were right all along and that Israel has never been a partner for negotiations.

There is no real political Left in Israel and if the other side got to form a government, all we would have seen is more of the same. Now we’ll see if the EU has the decency and conviction to enact proper sanctions. Then of course there is the US. The US Administration might stall for a while, but we’ll see if they have what it takes to do the right thing. Israel is no friend to the US and the sooner they realise it the better.

Israel is on a slippery slope of its own making. Get your popcorn, sit and watch. Israel is becoming more radicalised than ever before. Certainly much more than when I was growing up there. Of course I could be wrong — and I hope I am — but I think Israel’s pathological siege mentality will now become more pronounced and more evident to outsiders. Israel has for a long time been readying itself for when the time comes, to bunker down, live with austerity and give up the fancy lifestyle the country has become increasingly accustomed to in the last 20-25 years. They can do this.

Israel has always prepared itself psychologically and economically to being isolated. All that openness to the rest of the world that Israel has enjoyed increasingly in the last generation or so, and Israel’s acceptance by others, have always been seen as temporary in the eyes of most Israeli Jews. They had always expected it to end and had the mentality of ‘let’s enjoy it while it lasts and make the most of it while we can’. Fundamentally Israeli Jews believe that the world hates them because they are Jewish (in their mind it has nothing to do with colonialism or the Palestinians). So although Israel has brought its own situation upon itself, that is not how Israeli Jews see it. They believe things are ‘happening to them’ for no fault of their own. They expect isolation and have dropped all pretences to pander to the West and are behaving more in line now with their true nature. Even less radical people will become radicalised now in Israel. There will be even more propaganda and more brainwashing than ever before.

Netanyahu really does represent most Israeli Jews even though some of them do not like him. But the reasons they do not like him are not what you expect. Most Israeli Jews identify with Netanyahu’s perception and understanding of what the rest of the world is like and of the world’s relationship with Israel. After all Netanyahu is a product of Israeli society just like I was, and believe me, when you have that kind of psychology and that incredibly effective, powerful propaganda machine all around you, it is easy to believe that what you see is really how it is… Israeli Jews have always lived in a psychological ghetto and it’s that ghetto that I got out of back in 1991.

Life will get very difficult for Jews in Israel soon enough, and many with dual citizenship will abandon ship. Those who remain will be the die-hard fanatics and zealots who are dangerous because they might have the psychology of murder suicide. I believe that before it is over, things will get really bad there and extremely dangerous. Israel will become much more fanatic and extremist than ever before with a lot less inhibitions.

I am therefore worried about the Palestinians and wonder how much more of this they could possibly take and what they can expect in the next few months and years. Israel isolating itself is more dangerous for the Palestinians because world public opinion will no longer be a moderating factor on Israel’s behaviour. And believe it or not, it did have a moderating effect. What you have been seeing so far and what Palestinians have been experiencing is not yet the worst. Gaza gives you the idea of what Israel has in mind for all Palestinians.

So the message to those of us who support the Palestinians is to get ready to escalate our support. It is about to get very very tough. With Netanyahu at the helm the end of colonialism and occupation is nigh, but it is about to get a lot worse before it gets better.

About the author:
*Avigail Abarbanel was born and raised in Israel. She moved to Australia in 1991 and now lives in Scotland. She works as a psychotherapist in private practice and is an activist for Palestinian rights. She is the editor of Beyond Tribal Loyalties: Personal Stories of Jewish Peace Activists (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2012).

Source:
This article was published at Mondoweiss.net, which may be found here.

The post Netanyahu Won. Now What? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By William Chislett*

Spanish banks are conquistadores. In the latest drive to conquer banks abroad, Banco de Sabadell has boldly offered €1.7 billion for TSB, the UK retail bank carved out of the ailing Lloyds Banking Group two years ago.

While the much larger Banco Santander and BBVA have become household names in the UK, Brazil and Mexico after acquiring banks in these countries over the last 20 years, Sabadell is much less well known.

Based in Catalonia, Spain’s most economically dynamic region which is pushing for an independent state, Sabadell has doubled in size since 2007 –the year before the bursting of the country’s massive property bubble– as a result of snapping up smaller rivals hit by their overexposure to the real-estate sector, such as Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo (CAM) and Banco Gallego. Before the crisis, Sabadell bought Banco Atlántico in 2003 and Banco Urquijo in 2006.

The collapse of various banks in 2012, most notably Bankia, formed from the merger of seven ailing savings banks, forced the government to accept a €42 billion bailout for the financial sector (exited in January 2014).

Sabadell paid just €1 for the savings bank CAM, which gave it more than 1,000 branches and 3 million clients, as well as €5.25 billion in capital from the Spanish government and a promise to bear 80% of any additional losses arising from CAM over the next decade. This purchase catapulted CAM into the top five banks in Spain.

In 2013 it bought Lloyds Banking Group’s retail and private banking business in Spain and local investment management business. Under this deal, Lloyds took a 1.8% stake in Sabadell.

Sabadell also ventured abroad, acquiring TransAtlantic Bank, Mellon United National Bank and JGB Bank in Miami, but nothing on the scale of its bid to enter the highly competitive UK retail banking market.

TSB is smaller and more specialised than Sabadell, but better capitalised and more profitable (see Figure 1). The European Commission forced Lloyds to sell 600-odd branches as a condition of its 2008 bailout. The Co-operative Bank was originally going to buy them, but the deal was cancelled and these branches then formed the stand-alone TSB.

Sabadell, unlike Santander, the euro zone’s largest bank by market capitalisation, and BBVA, currently earns a small share of its profits (8%) from its international business. Latin America generated 38% of Santander’s total profits in 2014 and Mexico provided 39% of BBVA’s (see Figures 2 and 3).

Vince Cable, the UK Business Secretary, welcomed Sabadell’s offer, saying the deal could provide a much-needed boost to small business lending, an area that Santander is pushing. Lloyds, which still owns half of TSB, also indicated its approval, suggesting that Sabadell’s bid will go through unless other bids are made.

Sabadell is prepared to offer 340p per share, a handsome price for TSB shareholders, particularly those who bought at last June’s 260p initial public offering, but costly for Sabadell shareholders.

Spain’s international expansion began in earnest during the late 1980s, starting with Latin America, where today Santander and BBVA are major players. The region’s banking underdevelopment, attractive margins, high potential rates of return and improved supervisory and regulatory systems in an environment of liberalisation opened up the kind of business opportunities that had existed in Spain 20 years before the expansion abroad. In addition, there was a shared language and cultural affinities.

Acquisitions in Latin America were followed by purchases in the US, the UK, Germany and China, among other countries.

Santander’s US operation –it has fully owned Sovereign Bank since 2008 (rebranded as Santander Bank in 2013)– took a knock earlier this month when the Federal Reserve vetoed its capital plans after finding serious deficiencies in capital planning and risk management. This was the second year running that Santander failed the test known as the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review.

Failing the test, which is designed to assess whether lenders can withstand another financial crisis, prevents the US entities of foreign banks from distributing capital to their parent companies. Santander, however, was not prevented from paying dividends.

Spain’s depressed banking market is picking up. Banks sailed through the health test imposed on them last year by the European Central Bank and the European Banking Authority.

Santander more than doubled its profit in Spain to €1.12 billion, driven by a lower cost of funds, reduced costs and a fall in provisions from the credit risk improvement. Lending grew for the first time since 2008.

Sabadell has outperformed Santander and BBVA in recent years on their home turf as it is thinly diversified. This will change with the purchase of TSB. Only time will tell whether it made the right move or over stretched itself.

About the author:
*William Chislett is Associate Analyst at the Elcano Royal Institute | @WilliamChislet3

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute

The post Spanish Banks’ Internationalisation: Sabadell Offers To Buy UK’s TSB – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Rajeshwari Krishnamurthy*

On March 10, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi embarked on a five-day visit to Seychelles (March 11), Mauritius (March 11-12), and Sri Lanka (March13-14) – India’s island nation neighbours in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). This is Modi’s first overseas visit in 2015. The Maldives too was part of the original itinerary, but given the problematic domestic political turn of events in that country, his visit to Malé was dropped during this tour. This is an important visit, and the timing is strategic. What makes this trip important for India, and more importantly, what does Modi hope to achieve through this?

Regional Security from Bilateral Lenses

India has been called the Net Security Provider of the IOR. Furthermore, there is a desire in New Delhi to keep the IOR free of extra-regional navies. Given the significance of these island-nations in the IOR spectrum, a considerable focus of these visits will be on security cooperation in the Indian Ocean maritime domain. India already has significant relations with these countries in the security sector.

India and Seychelles share extensive defence ties: The Seychelles Peoples’ Defence Forces (SPDF) have trained in India under New Delhi’s Indian Technical & Economic Cooperation Programme (ITEC); the Government of India-assisted Coastal Surveillance Radar System Project in Seychelles is being implemented; the Indian navy has gifted two naval ships (INS Tarasa in 2014 and PS Topaz in 2006) to the Seychelles navy.

India and Mauritius have, signed Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) and/or Agreements on Cooperation against Terrorism; Protocol on the Sale of Navigational Charts; Cooperation for the establishment of telemetry, tracking and tele-command station for satellites and launch vehicles and for cooperation in the fields of space research, science and applications; supply contract for the Coastal Radar Surveillance System, supply of an offshore patrol vessel; agreement on an Early Warning of Coastal Hazards, among others. Apart from economic reasons, ability to harness Mauritius’ geostrategic location is crucial for India. Modi’s visit will also witness commissioning of the first India-manufactured vessel to be exported, Coast Guard Ship Barracuda, into the Mauritian navy.

India and Sri Lanka have long engaged in a love-hate relationship over security issues. India’s role in the civil war in Sri Lanka’s Northern Province has defined bilateral relations over many years. Sri Lanka’s increasing importance vis-à-vis the Indian Ocean sea lanes makes good maritime security relations with the island nation indispensable for India. In this regard, India is building two coast guard ships scheduled to be exported to Sri Lanka soon.

The China Factor

As Modi maneuvers his way into these Indian Ocean littorals, India’s efforts to counterbalance China’s forays into the region cannot go unnoticed. Whether or not India tries to counter China in the IOR, maintaining good and/or ramping up bilateral relations with Seychelles, Mauritius and Sri Lanka is not something New Delhi can afford to overlook if it wants to continue to remain relevant in the Region. All these three countries are Beijing’s key partners in China’s Maritime Silk Road (MSR) project. China has already started funding and/or constructing ports, naval facilities, other domestic infrastructure, engaging in trade of military equipment, and investments in various sectors.

As island nations, these countries will seek and prefer to engage with both India and China as opposed to choosing a side; and as sovereign nations, they are within their rights to do so. Therefore, it would be prudent on India’s part if it chooses not to put the leaderships of these countries in a spot over their choices. India must present an opportunity wherein these countries do not feel pressurised, while also allowing for ample scope for positive cooperation. Any pressure on these countries to choose between India and China would make them uneasy, and given the resources at its disposal, China is more likely and capable of making more inroads into these countries.

An Overview

A slew of agreements and MoUs, and development-oriented initiatives are to be signed and kick-started during this trip. The trip will also place significant emphasis on economic relations, not just to improve trade and ensuring effective measures to prevent money laundering, but also to make the economies of this neighbourhood cohesive vis-à-vis India. The trip is expected to witness measures to improve cultural relations – using the Diaspora route.

India would be far-sighted to take efforts towards better coordination with these countries to establish a precedent for comprehensive cooperation and coordination towards manning the IOR – thereby setting itself on a path to becoming a responsible regional and global player. However, New Delhi must also focus on understanding domestic dimensions that influence foreign policy of nations: for instance, it would have been more pragmatic and productive for Modi to visit Colombo after the conclusion of the Sri Lankan parliamentary elections scheduled for July 2015.

The maritime Great Game appears to have begun unofficially, and India would be wise if we ensure that we aren’t distracted, and that our priority is to further our foreign policy objectives instead of looking for the failure of others’ efforts – while at the same time trying our best to understand others’ strategies to our benefit.

*Rajeshwari Krishnamurthy is Research Officer (IReS), Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS). She can be reached at RajeshVvari@gmail.com

The post Modi’s Three-Nation Tour: Kicking Off The Maritime Great Game? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

NASA’s Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution (MAVEN) spacecraft has observed two unexpected phenomena in the Martian atmosphere: an unexplained high-altitude dust cloud and aurora that reaches deep into the Martian atmosphere.

The presence of the dust at orbital altitudes from about 93 miles (150 kilometers) to 190 miles (300 kilometers) above the surface was not predicted. Although the source and composition of the dust are unknown, there is no hazard to MAVEN and other spacecraft orbiting Mars.

“If the dust originates from the atmosphere, this suggests we are missing some fundamental process in the Martian atmosphere,” said Laila Andersson of the University of Colorado’s Laboratory for Atmospherics and Space Physics (CU LASP), Boulder, Colorado.

The cloud was detected by the spacecraft’s Langmuir Probe and Waves (LPW) instrument, and has been present the whole time MAVEN has been in operation. It is unknown if the cloud is a temporary phenomenon or something long lasting. The cloud density is greatest at lower altitudes. However, even in the densest areas it is still very thin. So far, no indication of its presence has been seen in observations from any of the other MAVEN instruments.

Possible sources for the observed dust include dust wafted up from the atmosphere; dust coming from Phobos and Deimos, the two moons of Mars; dust moving in the solar wind away from the sun; or debris orbiting the sun from comets. However, no known process on Mars can explain the appearance of dust in the observed locations from any of these sources.

MAVEN’s Imaging Ultraviolet Spectrograph (IUVS) observed what scientists have named “Christmas lights.” For five days just before Dec. 25, MAVEN saw a bright ultraviolet auroral glow spanning Mars’ northern hemisphere. Aurora, known on Earth as northern or southern lights, are caused by energetic particles like electrons crashing down into the atmosphere and causing the gas to glow.

“What’s especially surprising about the aurora we saw is how deep in the atmosphere it occurs – much deeper than at Earth or elsewhere on Mars,” said Arnaud Stiepen, IUVS team member at the University of Colorado. “The electrons producing it must be really energetic.”

The source of the energetic particles appears to be the sun. MAVEN’s Solar Energetic Particle instrument detected a huge surge in energetic electrons at the onset of the aurora. Billions of years ago, Mars lost a global protective magnetic field like Earth has, so solar particles can directly strike the atmosphere. The electrons producing the aurora have about 100 times more energy than you get from a spark of house current, so they can penetrate deeply in the atmosphere.

The findings are being presented at the 46th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in The Woodlands, Texas.

MAVEN was launched to Mars on Nov. 18, 2013, to help solve the mystery of how the Red Planet lost most of its atmosphere and much of its water. The spacecraft arrived at Mars on Sept. 21, and is four months into its one-Earth-year primary mission.

“The MAVEN science instruments all are performing nominally, and the data coming out of the mission are excellent,” said Bruce Jakosky of CU LASP, Principal Investigator for the mission.

MAVEN is part of the agency’s Mars Exploration Program, which includes the Opportunity and Curiosity rovers, the Mars Odyssey and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft currently orbiting the planet.

NASA’s Mars Exploration Program seeks to characterize and understand Mars as a dynamic system, including its present and past environment, climate cycles, geology and biological potential. In parallel, NASA is developing the human spaceflight capabilities needed for its journey to Mars or a future round-trip mission to the Red Planet in the 2030’s.

The post Aurora And Mysterious Dust Cloud Detected Around Mars appeared first on Eurasia Review.

“In order to survive and preserve its leading role on the international stage, the US desperately needs to plunge Eurasia into chaos, (and) to cut economic ties between Europe and Asia-Pacific Region … Russia is the only (country) within this potential zone of instability that is capable of resistance. It is the only state that is ready to confront the Americans. Undermining Russia’s political will for resistance… is a vitally important task for America.”

-Nikolai Starikov, Western Financial System Is Driving It to War, Russia Insider

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

-The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the original version of the Defense Planning Guidance, authored by Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992

The United States does not want a war with Russia, it simply feels that it has no choice. If the State Department hadn’t initiated a coup in Ukraine to topple the elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, then the US could not have inserted itself between Russia and the EU, thus, disrupting vital trade routes which were strengthening nations on both continents. The economic integration of Asia and Europe–including plans for high-speed rail from China (“The New Silk Road”) to the EU–poses a clear and present danger for the US whose share of global GDP continues to shrink and whose significance in the world economy continues to decline. For the United States to ignore this new rival (EU-Russia) would be the equivalent of throwing in the towel and accepting a future in which the US would face a gradual but persistent erosion of its power and influence in world affairs. No one in Washington is prepared to let that happen, which is why the US launched its proxy-war in Ukraine.

The US wants to separate the continents, “prevent the emergence of a new rival”, install a tollbooth between Europe and Asia, and establish itself as the guarantor of regional security. To that end, the US is rebuilding the Iron Curtain along a thousand mile stretch from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Tanks, armored vehicles and artillery are being sent to the region to reinforce a buffer zone around Europe in order to isolate Russia and to create a staging ground for future US aggression. Reports of heavy equipment and weapons deployment appear in the media on nearly a daily basis although the news is typically omitted in the US press. A quick review of some of the recent headlines will help readers to grasp the scale of the conflict that is cropping up below the radar:

“US, Bulgaria to hold Balkans military drills”, “NATO Begins Exercises In Black Sea”, “Army to send even more troops, tanks to Europe”, “Poland requests greater US military presence”, “U.S. Army sending armored convoy 1,100 miles through Europe”, “Over 120 US tanks, armored vehicles arrive in Latvia”, “US, Poland to Conduct Missile Exercise in March – Pentagon”

Get the picture? There’s a war going on, a war between the United States and Russia.

Notice how most of the headlines emphasize US involvement, not NATO. In other words, the provocations against Russia originate from Washington not Europe. This is an important point. The EU has supported US-led economic sanctions, but it’s not nearly as supportive of the military build up along the perimeter. That’s Washington’s idea and the cost is borne by the US alone. Naturally, moving tanks, armored vehicles and artillery around the world is an expensive project, but the US is more than willing to make the sacrifice if it helps to achieve its objectives.

And what are Washington’s objectives?

Interestingly, even political analysts on the far right seem to agree about that point. For example, check out this quote from STRATFOR CEO George Friedman who summed it up in a recent presentation he delivered at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs. He said:

“The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars–the First, the Second and Cold Wars–has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” … George Friedman at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, Time 1:40 to 1:57)

Bingo. Ukraine has nothing to do with sovereignty, democracy or (alleged) Russian aggression. That’s all propaganda. It’s about power. It’s about imperial expansion. It’s about spheres of influence. It’s about staving off irreversible economic decline. It’s all part of the smash-mouth, scorched earth, take-no-prisoners geopolitical world in which we live, not the fake Disneyworld created by the western media. The US State Department and CIA toppled the elected-government in Ukraine and ordered the new junta regime to launch a desperate war of annihilation against its own people in the East, because, well, because they felt they had no other option. Had Putin’s ambitious plan to create a free trade zone between Lisbon to Vladivostok gone forward, then where would that leave the United States? Out in the cold, that’s where. The US would become an isolated island of dwindling significance whose massive account deficits and ballooning national debt would pave the way for years of brutal restructuring, declining standards of living, runaway inflation and burgeoning social unrest. Does anyone really believe that Washington would let that to happen when it has a “brand-spanking” trillion dollar war machine at its disposal?

Heck, no. Besides, Washington believes it has a historic right to rule the world, which is what one would expect when the sense of entitlement and hubris reach their terminal phase. Now check out this clip from an article by economist Jack Rasmus at CounterPunch:

“Behind the sanctions is the USA objective of driving Russia out of the European economy. Europe was becoming too integrated and dependent on Russia. Not only its gas and raw materials, but trade relations and money capital flows were deepening on many fronts between Russia and Europe in general prior to the Ukraine crisis that has provided the cover for the introduction of the sanctions. Russia’s growing economic integration with Europe threatened the long term economic interests of US capitalists. Strategically, the US precipitated coup in the Ukraine can be viewed, therefore as a means by which to provoke Russian military intervention, i.e. a necessary event in order to deepen and expand economic sanctions that would ultimately sever the growing economic ties between Europe and Russia long term. That severance in turn would not only ensure US economic interests remain dominant in Europe, but would also open up new opportunities for profit making for US interests in Europe and Ukraine as well…

When the rules of the competition game between capitalists break down altogether, the result is war—i.e. the ultimate form of inter-capitalist competition.” (The Global Currency Wars, Jack Rasmus, CounterPunch)

See? Analysts on the right and left agree. Ukraine has nothing to do with sovereignty, democracy or Russian aggression. It’s plain-old cutthroat geopolitics, where the last man left standing, wins.

The United States cannot allow Russia reap the benefits of its own vast resources. Oh, no. It has to be chastised, it has to be bullied, it has to be sanctioned, isolated, threatened and intimidated. That’s how the system really works. The free market stuff is just horsecrap for the sheeple.

Russia is going to have to deal with chaotic, fratricidal wars on its borders and color-coded regime change turbulence in its capital. It will have to withstand reprisals from its trading partners, attacks on its currency and plots to eviscerate its (oil) revenues. The US will do everything in its power to poison the well, to demonize Putin, to turn Brussels against Moscow, and to sabotage the Russian economy.

Divide and conquer, that’s the ticket. Keep them at each others throats at all times. Sunni vs Shia, one ethnic Ukrainian vs the other, Russians vs Europeans. That’s Washington’s plan, and it’s a plan that never fails.

US powerbrokers are convinced that America’s economic slide can only be arrested by staking a claim in Central Asia, dismembering Russia, encircling China, and quashing all plans for an economically-integrated EU-Asia. Washington is determined to prevail in this existential conflict, to assert its hegemonic control over the two continents, and to preserve its position as the world’s only superpower.

Only Russia can stop the United States and we believe it will.

The post Washington’s War On Russia – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Anahita Mathai*

The potential ideal of cyberspace has always been a free-flowing, borderless utopia. In this vision, information and ideas travel freely from user to user, with technology overcoming language barriers and common standards ensuring compatibility all around. However, the digital domain is a reflection of the offline world. To keep it running and to maintain security, territory and responsibility have to be demarcated somehow. When an infraction or a dispute takes place, it is natural to turn to the international legal system.

There is no universally accepted international cyber treaty. However, the Council of Europe’s Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, which has been in force for a decade and has been ratified by 44 countries, is the closest there is to one. Part of the success of the Budapest Convention can be attributed to its relative flexibility, allowing signatories to choose how they will implement the requirements of the treaty. It seeks to build on existing international cooperation mechanisms, including Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) and extradition agreements.

The Budapest Convention seeks to make international cyber cooperation more efficient by harmonising two different legislative strands. The first is determining what conduct is criminalised – such as illegal access of computer systems, fraud, child pornography, copyright infringement etc – and the second the investigative procedures used thereafter. The investigative procedures include seizing, storing and sharing computer data, both traffic and content related. The convention also requires that adequate measures, like judicial oversight, are taken to safeguard human rights and that the principle of proportionality is followed.

For countries which are not signatories, the Budapest Convention provides an informal guide to cooperation, suggesting useful measures. The informal adoption of provisions in the convention could lead to it becoming a de facto global cybercrime treaty. As mentioned earlier, the Budapest Convention relies and builds upon other international cooperation mechanisms. One of the common complaints about the existing mechanisms, particularly MLATs, is that they are not well suited to time-sensitive cyber cases. The premier investigative body in India, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) reports that getting a response through the MLAT system takes on average 3 years and 4 months. Attempts were made to address this in the Budapest Convention, which established a 24/7 ‘points of contact network’, which would allow requests for assistance to be made at any time with the aim of getting quicker results.

The efforts to harmonise substantive criminal laws will make mutual legal assistance easier, as many provisions rely on a ‘dual criminality’ clause to operate. Under dual criminality, a request – say for extradition – can depend on the offender’s actions being classified a crime in both the country requesting extradition and the country fulfilling it.

Growing numbers of requests for data has meant that both governments and private entities must adapt and formulate strategies to categorise the information they have and respond appropriately to requests. Particularly for multinational companies which may store large amounts of data around the world, this would require at least two separate investments. The first would be the creation of databases, to organise the information being requested, the parties doing the requesting, and the users who would be affected. The second would be an authentication procedure of some kind, to ensure that data protection – mandated by law in several jurisdictions – was ensured. The Googles of this world might well be able to accomplish such a feat, but for smaller companies, it is a monumental task. This would involve each party, public or private, having its own method for requesting data and for responding to those requests – a hugely time-consuming and cost-intensive approach. It would also doubtless lead to dispute and confusion when differing methods clashed. The lack of a standard procedure means that, unlike case law which forms precedent, the individual decisions taken under this method cannot be taken together to form a coherent body of reference. The system would be missing three key factors: predictability, transparency and accountability. A standardised procedure for information requests and authentication, such as the one proposed by the Internet & Jurisdiction Project based out of France, would help to ensure due process.

If the digital domain is a reflection of the offline world, then it is plausible that they dynamics of jurisdiction would be the same both on- and off-line. Nevertheless, the perennial problem is the uniqueness of data. It may be simple to determine jurisdiction depending on where a data packet originates and where it ends up, but what about when it is in transit? Carrying forward principles from the laws of the sea, tagging data packets with a nationality, like a flag on a ship, could be one way to resolve such issues.

The challenges involved in managing cross-border jurisdiction may lend further support to the data localisation movement. Mandating that data pertaining to citizens of a particular country is stored on domestic servers or otherwise made automatically accessible would greatly aid law enforcement agencies.

*The author is a Junior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

Courtesy: ORF Cyber Monitor, March Issue

The post The Budapest Convention And Cyber Cooperation – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mel Frykberg

Six world powers are looking towards the end of June to reach an agreement in regard to Iran’s nuclear programme in return for lifting the sanctions imposed on the Islamic theocracy.

In the interim Iran’s nuclear ambitions are once again dominating the headlines as the Western powers look to the end of March for an agreement on a political framework before June’s deadline.

This framework agreement comes shortly before the next Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference from April 27 to May 22, 2015 at UN Headquarters in New York.

IDN spoke to Israeli and Palestinian experts on their perspectives in regard to a future Mideast free of nuclear weapons, the likelihood of this ever becoming a reality and what obstacles may prevent this goal from being achieved.

Ephraim Asculai, is a senior research fellow at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in Tel Aviv, an expert on Iran and nuclear issues facing the Middle East, and reflects Israel’s conservative point of view.

“I’m not sure we will see any progress in the framework talks towards the June deadline,” Asculai told IDN.

“Deadlines have come and gone and we are hearing conflicting views, nothing is official. Different sources are stating different opinions about reaching agreement with some sources outlining difficulties.

“The Iranians are very clever negotiators. Their main goal isn’t an agreement that satisfies the international community but rather to get the international sanctions lifted.

“However, in order to get these lifted they need to be seen as having reached a compromise, while simultaneously not giving up their nuclear ambitions,” said Asculai.

“They already have some capability for developing weapons and they don’t want any international restrictions on their current capabilities,” said Ascalai.

“I don’t believe that Iran will attack Israel”

He added: “I don’t think the Iranians are trying to develop a nuclear weapon at this point but they want advanced capabilities to be able to develop one should they feel threatened.

“Once they have the advanced capabilities, should they receive orders from the Iranian leadership to develop a weapon they will. Ultimately I think the Iranians are just postponing the inevitable.”

Asculai believes that there is a possibility that regional Arab countries would also try to obtain nuclear weapons – should Iran’s nuclear programme not be curbed – as part of a mutual Sunni defence against Shi’ite Iran.

Furthermore, Asculai said, Israel’s nuclear weapons were not a factor in the Gulf countries possibly pursuing nuclear weapons programmes. He dismissed accusations that current Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu was being provocative in his constant accusations that Iran poses an existential threat to the Jewish state.

“I don’t believe that Iran will attack Israel. The chances of that are very low. However, Netanyahu is right to be cautious in regard to Israel’s security and Israel should reserve the right to attack Iran if necessary,” Asculai told IDN.

“Iran consistently attacks Israel verbally. It has denied the Holocaust and this touches a raw nerve with Israelis.

“Teheran has also threatened to wipe Israel off the map which is a very dangerous game. Israel responds by defending itself verbally. Both sides are engaged in a war of word,” he said.

“Israel is not a threat to Iran and it’s not a case of Israelis being against Iranians. We used to have very good relations with that country prior to the Islamic republic coming into power.”

Asculai believes that a nuclear-free Middle East is possible if Iran gives up its nuclear ambitions and decides to become a respected member of the international community.

“But at the moment they are not being transparent, they are blocking nuclear inspectors from sites and they are lying about their capabilities,” stated Ascalai.

In regard to whether the public is being told the full story, Asculai believes that the media has not been given access to the full story because of Iranian intransigence but that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is even handed and reporting what it knows.

“An agreement with Iran is possible”

However, Political scientist, Professor Samir Awad, from Birzeit University near Ramallah, disagrees with Asculai and challenged his analysis.

“I think there is a possibility of reaching an agreement with Iran. Iran has made it abundantly clear that it has no intention of pursuing a nuclear programme for military purposes and this claim has been supported by both the Russians and the Chinese,” Awad told IDN.

“Iran wants to develop its nuclear programme for civilian purposes to help its economy develop, i.e. to have the same capabilities that are possessed by Germany, Japan, Brazil and South Africa.

“It aims to have sufficient nuclear technology for generating energy and has the same right as other countries to possess this. President Rohani wants to open the country up to the world.

“He doesn’t want an isolated and secluded country where Iranians with their high standard of education and level of enterprise are stunted economically because of high unemployment and lack of international investment due to sanctions,” said Awad.

“I think recently there has been a more positive approach to Iran by both the Americans and the Europeans.

“The Europeans are less sceptical and less afraid of Europe being threatened by a nuclear Iran.

It is also now less of a national issue of security for Americans and more of partisan politics with hard-line Republicans being anti-Iran and the Democrats being more in favour of reaching a settlement, explained Awad.

“Israel, meanwhile, is being absolutely hypocritical in its approach to Iran by accusing Tehran of not being transparent in regard to its nuclear ambitions.

“However, Israel has the largest nuclear arsenal in the Middle East. In addition to being the strongest power in the region it is also the most belligerent and aggressive.

“Netanyahu has been using the alleged threat of a nuclear Iran as a way of winning political points, especially with the current Israeli election.

“Israelis tend to vote for far right-wing parties when they feel their security is under threat and Netanyahu is an expert at manipulating this for political vantage.

“The Iranian bogeyman is also a very convenient way of avoiding the issue of peace talks with the Palestinians by fabricating a larger more existential threat from Iran,” said Awad.

“The fact remains that Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad has stated that Iran is not working towards acquiring a nuclear bomb and neither do they want one.

“One should also ask why the proliferation theory should not apply to Israel. Why should Iran feel any less threatened by Israel already possessing over 250 nuclear warheads than Israel feeling threatened by Iran possibly wanting to develop them?

Awad doesn’t believe regional Arab countries want to obtain nuclear bombs but like Iran wants to develop nuclear facilities for domestic purposes.

“Egypt has signed a deal with Russia to build two nuclear reactors and the United Arab Emirates has signed a similar deal with France,” said Awad.

Awad believes that Israel is the main obstacle to a nuclear-free Middle East.

“Even if Iran did have a nuclear bomb it wouldn’t be so stupid as to attack Israel. Israel on the other hand appears to have no real intention of giving up its occupation nor its nuclear weapons and this remains the biggest threat to peace in the region,” Awad told IDN.

The post Israel And Iran Obstacles To Nuclear Free Mideast Depending On Perspective – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Michael Lelyveld

China has announced continuing progress in reducing coal mine fatalities, although doubts remain about death counts and cover-ups in one of the most dangerous industries in the world.

On March 10, the director of the State Administration of Work Safety (SAWS) told a Beijing press conference that coal mine accidents claimed 931 lives last year, as the death toll dropped below 1,000 for the first time.

“The situation has been greatly improved,” said the SAWS director, Yang Dongliang, according to Agence France-Presse.

Speaking on the sidelines of China’s annual legislative sessions, Yang mixed praise for safety advances with a promise that the agency was determined to do more.

The most recent fatality figure represented an 86.7 percent decline from the toll of some 7,000 in 2002, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

“The nation is still confronted with grave and complicated challenges in coal mine work safety, as the authorities aim to achieve a zero-death target,” Yang said.

There seems little doubt that China has made major steps forward in lowering the casualty count in an industry that accounts for half the world’s coal output.

In 1996-2000, deaths in coal mines averaged 7,619 annually, or over 20 per day, about eight times more than last year, as cited in previous official reports.

Dramatic cuts in reported deaths

Government efforts to tighten safety rules and close thousands of smaller, more dangerous mines have led to dramatic cuts in official death counts and fatality rates over the years.

In 1990, the ratio of deaths per million tons of coal production stood at 6.1, according to a 2004 study by Wang Shaoguang at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. That rate was 24 times higher than that calculated from earlier SAWS data for last year.

Safety campaigns, gas monitoring, mine closures and consolidations have produced more rapid results in recent years, based on government reports.

In 2005, for example, China mined 2.1 billion tons of coal and recorded 5,986 deaths.

By that reckoning, the death toll has dropped 84 percent, while production has grown by 84 percent In the course of the past decade.

But the 2014 figures appear inconsistent with the official reports that accidental deaths declined 14.3 percent from a year earlier, when 1,049 miners were listed as killed or missing.

Based on that tally, deaths dropped 11.2 percent, or far less than the declines of 24 percent and 30 percent reported for 2013 and 2012.

The 2014 toll rises to 978 if the calculations follow SAWS figures for deaths per million metric tons of coal mined, based on National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) reports that China produced 3.87 billion metric tons of coal last year.

Statistical gaps

It is unclear whether the statistical gaps are the result of revisions or reporting flaws, but earlier releases of partial figures may reflect concern that the reductions should have been larger at a time when coal production fell 2.5 percent from the year before.

By comparison, U.S. coal accidents claimed 16 lives last year, according to the Mine Safety and Health Administration. At that rate, China suffered 58 times more deaths to produce
four times as much coal.

Experts have noted a major difference between the U.S. and Chinese industries, in that U.S. mining operations are largely opencast, or above ground.

But that difference also highlights the high costs and continuing dangers for China’s miners underground, despite progress in reducing risks over the decade.

The government seems to be focusing more intently on prevention of methane gas explosions and major accidents to reduce the fatality rate further.

Last month, the National Energy Administration (NEA) said in a statement that 266 people were killed in 47 coal mine gas accidents last year, the official Xinhua news agency reported on Feb. 12.

Methane gas blasts

The number of deaths from methane gas blasts was down 27.5 percent from 2013, the NEA said, without giving the total of number of fatalities from all accidents in coal mines.

“More effort must be made in 2015 to avoid major accidents (those with over 30 deaths), reduce those that kill more than 10 and achieve a year-on-year reduction of casualties by over 10 percent,” the NEA said.

Tim Wright, an expert on China coal mine safety and professor emeritus of Chinese studies at Britain’s University of Sheffield, said official classifications of “serious” accidents (10 or more deaths) and “exceptionally serious” accidents (30 or more deaths) may help the government to portray progress in a more favorable light.

“They claim to have had no exceptionally serious coal mine accidents for 21 months. No doubt, they use whichever figure is most favorable to them, but there is no doubt that a high priority was to reduce the very large number of disasters in the mid-2000s,” said Wright.

“As these mostly resulted from gas explosions, so the focus on controlling gas and reducing gas explosions has been an important part of policy,” he said.

The thresholds for defining major accidents may have their drawbacks, as some mine operators try to sidestep the rules that require higher penalties or suspensions for each category of fatalities.

Understated deaths?

In a 2006 article for the Jamestown Foundation research and analysis organization in Washington, China energy expert Jianjun Tu argued that official reports understate the real totals, “as mine owners routinely falsify death counts in order to avoid mine closures or fines.”

The highest accident category of 30 or more deaths automatically triggers an investigation led by the State Council, or government cabinet, the Hong Kong-based China Labour Bulletin said.

In what may be the worst recent case involving the accident definitions in 2013, a State Council probe found that mine operators in northeastern Jilin province understated the death toll from a gas explosion to avoid falling into the 30-or-more category.

The Babao Coal Mine Co. in Baishan City reported 28 deaths and 13 injuries from the accident, although the real death toll reached 36, Xinhua reported at the time.

Investigators then found that the mine had concealed six additional deaths in five other accidents during 2012. Seventeen more miners died in another explosion in 2013, when the mine ignored a government-ordered shutdown, Xinhua said.

In January 2014, a district court sentenced 14 managers and officials in the case to jail terms ranging from 10 months to five years.

Despite government efforts and penalties, cases of concealment continued in 2014.

Cover ups common

In July, mine owners in northeast Heilongjiang province covered up an accident for more than two weeks after seven workers died in a collapse at the Xingcheng Coal Mine in Hegang City, according to a Xinhua report.

The mine was found to be operating illegally.

“The mine management secretly cremated the bodies and compensated the families,” Xinhua said.

The State Council’s Work Safety Commission also determined that the Mingshan Coal Mine in southeastern Jiangxi province covered up a gas explosion that killed three in July, claiming instead that two workers had died of carbon monoxide poisoning.

In September, prosecutors also began investigating a mine fire that killed 24 workers at an illegal operation in Lushan County of central Henan province that was allegedly covered up since 2009.

Officials of the county’s Coal Industry Bureau and the Bureau of Land and Resources have been under investigation, Xinhua said.

While no accidents reached the threshold of 30 or more deaths last year, several claimed over 20 lives.

The worst was an explosion at the Dongfang coal mine in Huainan City of eastern Anhui province in August that killed 27. Sixteen people have been indicted for illegal mining operations and storage of explosives, according to state media reports.

The post China Cuts Coal Mine Deaths, But Count In Doubt – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Riad Kahwaji*

Despite extensive efforts by the Obama administration to assure its Arab allies that their long-term strategic partnership will remain strong and will not be affected by the signing of a nuclear deal with Iran, a very skeptical mood prevails in the traditionally pro-Western Arab capitals.

“The U.S. has sold us to Iran and it is now executing an agenda aimed at helping Tehran assert its influence in the region,” said one Arab official. The official reiterated views expressed by many of his counterparts in the region. “Look how Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) are spearheading the Iraqi army attack against Tikrit under the eyes of the Americans who have troops deployed in the country and are providing air cover to forces advancing against Daesh,” he added. Daesh is the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) that controls large swathes of Iraq and Syria and is today under attack by an International and Arab Alliance providing air power to the Iraqi forces.

Fears expressed earlier by the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, that the Iranian involvement in the fighting in Iraq could turn the war on terrorism into a sectarian war is proving truer by the day. Media reports out of Tikrit are talking about dozens of billboards and banners of Iranian leaders like Ayatullah Khoumaini and Ali Khaminei were put up at all the main gates of Tikrit, a Sunni stronghold.

The IRGC has reportedly even deployed Iranian-made multiple rocket launchers around the city. An Iraqi Shiite Memeber of Parliament Ahmed Al Assadi told the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat on March 18 that Iran was providing the Iraqi Shiite militias with all the weapons they need, which is a clear violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions that bar Iran from exporting arms.

There are growing fears of atrocities and massacres that could be committed by the Shiite militias operating under the IRGC against the Sunni residents of Tikrit. The Iraqi House Speaker and other members of Parliament have repeatedly called over the past few weeks for independent investigations into reported massacres and sectarian cleansing committed by the Shiite militias known as the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) in Sunni towns and villages that were occupied by ISIS. Failure of the international community to investigate these reported acts of genocide and the continued role of the PMU alongside the IRGC are making the United States look complicit with Iran in a war against the Arabs in a conflict that is quickly turning into a large-scale sectarian war.

Iran is seen by the Arab Gulf States to be implementing a well-planned move to encircle them from the north and the south. While the IRGC are leading the offensive against ISIS in the north, Iran has unleashed its allies in Yemen, the Houthis, to take over the country and extend Tehran’s influence all the way to the Red Sea.

“The U.S. has not done anything more than simple, useless condemnations against the Iranian-backed Houthis in their occupation of most of the country,” an Arab Gulf official said. He added that if the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) did not react quickly two years ago against Bahraini Iranian-backed activists, “Bahrain could have also fallen under Tehran’s control with American consent.”

America’s ambiguous policy in Syria has all but given more ammunition to the Arab skeptics who accuse the U.S. of conspiring with Iran. The recent statement by Secretary of State John Kerry on the inevitable need to hold talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad to end the Syrian conflict has greatly damaged the U.S. image and reputation. Many Arab officials and media outlets took turns in condemning Kerry’s statement and accusing Washington of using the Syrian issue as a bargaining chip in the negotiations with Iran. Kerry’s statement came a day before his meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister to discuss the anticipated nuclear deal.

Many Arab officials appear to have lost hope in President Barack Obama’s administration changing course on Iran. They believe Washington is using the war on ISIS as a means to bring Iran closer to the West by showing that they have a common enemy called “Sunni extremist groups.”

Arab analysts and commentators are raising a lot of questions about the way thousands of Al-Qaeda members were let out of jails in Iraq (in 2013) and Syria (in 2011) and allowed to establish ISIS and then Syrian and Iraqi troops pulled out of vast areas (in Raqa and several Iraqi provinces in May-June 2014) that allowed the formation of ISIS state.

“The main beneficiaries from the rise of ISIS were Iran and the Syrian regime because the war on the group helped Iran improve its relations with Washington and helped the Syrian regime undermine the revolution and consolidate its place in a future settlement to the Syrian conflict,” the Arab official said, echoing similar views expressed by some Arab media outlets.

The secret letter sent last year from Obama to Khamenie that was reported in November 2014 by the Wall Street Journal presented a clear view of Washington’s policy towards Iran: Exchange Iranian nuclear concessions for U.S. assistance to Iran in the war on terrorism (ISIS). What Iran wants through the current wars on Sunni extremist groups like ISIS is to create a geographic depth and areas of influence for itself in the Arab world.

The events in Iraq, Syria and Yemen indicate that Iran is on a massive offensive under the cover of a U.S.-led war on terrorism to gain strategic depth that has extended its areas of control all the way to the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. This is a conclusion shared by several Arab officials. “We have no choice but to watch Washington hand over the region to Iran,” one official said. “It will be a very long 21 months before a new U.S. administration is in place and hopefully it will do something to stop this chaos that if unchecked will only lead to a very radicalized and angry Sunni world of over one billion people,” he added.

Intensified anti-American sentiments which are now shared by traditional allies of the U.S. will simplify ISIS and Al Qaeda efforts in exporting their ideologies via cyberspace and new media. This will subsequently place U.S. interests in large parts of the Arab and Muslim world in extreme danger over the next few years.

Washington must immediately put an end to Iran’s expansionist scheme in the region and prevent at all cost the current war on terrorism from sliding into an all-out sectarian war. The current international alliance fighting ISIS is on the verge of losing its Arab component, which will complicate the whole scene and only serve fundamentalist powers, Sunni and Shiite alike. A deal with Iran must increase stability regionally and internationally and not set the stage for a much more serious conflict at a global scale.

*Riad Kahwaji, CEO, INEGMA

The post America’s Perceived Complicity With Iran In Sectarian War: Policy Failure Or Diplomatic Bungle? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By C Uday Bhaskar*

The three island-nation trip that took Prime Minister Modi to Seychelles, Mauritius and Sri Lanka in mid-March may well mark the beginning of India’s long overdue maritime awakening. For a nation so richly endowed with a distinctive maritime geography, the paradox has been the tenacious indifference, often veering towards inexcusable sea-blindness, that has characterised Delhi’s policy orientation as regards the Indian Ocean.

However the very fact that Modi embarked upon such a trip to three strategically important island states in the Indian Ocean which have been long neglected by way of a summit visit reflects a political determination that has the potential to become the beginning of the end of this self-inflicted strategic myopia.

In Mauritius, Modi handed over an Indian built off-shore patrol vessel (OPV) to that country’s Coast Guard and this marks the first such export of a naval ship designed and built in India. Christened the MCGS Barracuda, the 1350 tonne ship, valued at US $50, million was commissioned by Modi on March 12 and his speech at this ceremony could well be described as the most lucid and comprehensive articulation of India’s resurrected maritime vision for the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).

Highlighting the centrality of a cooperative strategy to manage the vast water body of the Indian Ocean and the role of the smaller island nations, Modi drew attention to the strategic significance of the IOR and noted: “Because, the Indian Ocean is critical to the future of the world. This Ocean bears two-thirds of the world’s oil shipments, one-third of its bulk cargo; and half of its container traffic. Over three-fourths of its traffic goes to other regions of the world.”

This overview is familiar to the professionals but what is instructive is the manner in which Modi invoked rich symbolism related to the national flag and endorsed the need for India to embark upon a Blue Revolution. In the course of his remarks at Port Louis, Modi observed: “To me the blue chakra or wheel in India’s national flag represents the potential of Blue Revolution or the Ocean Economy. That is how central the ocean economy is to us.” The speech writers in the prime minister’s stable warrant praise for the manner in which form and substance have been leavened.

India has witnessed two seminal revolutions that transformed the profile of the nation and the well-being of its people – namely the Green Revolution that began in 1963 and transformed India from a ‘basket-case’ to becoming self-sufficient in food production; and later the White Revolution (also referred to as Operation Flood) of 1970 that made India into the world’s largest milk producer.

The Blue Revolution endorsed by Modi, if realized in its entirety, has the potential to transform India in similar manner and both the normative vision and the policy clarity are laden with deep import. Asserting that the “Indian Ocean Region is at the top of our policy priorities”, Modi added that the regional vision “is rooted in advancing cooperation in our region; and, to use our capabilities for the benefit of all in our common maritime home.”

The five elements prioritize the core security interests of India and yet combine the collective well-being of the IOR. Inter alia, they include: “We will do everything to safeguard our mainland and islands and defend our interests; we will deepen our economic and security cooperation with our friends in the region, especially our maritime neighbours and island states; collective action and cooperation will best advance peace and security in our maritime region; we also seek a more integrated and cooperative future in the region that enhances the prospects for sustainable development for all; and those who live in this region have the primary responsibility for peace, stability and prosperity in the Indian Ocean but we recognize that there are other nations around the world, with strong interests and stakes in the region.”

This maritime pentagon provides the foundation for the Modi vision of the IOR and is in many ways a logical extension of the modest but relatively still-born ‘sagar mala’ (ocean garland ) enunciated by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in August 2003 that sought to revitalize the moribund Indian ports sector and inland connectivity.

India’s comprehensive national power that includes the economic and trade sinews and the military component can be robustly advanced by sustained investment in the maritime sector. This is a well-trodden path taken by many major powers before India and the symbiotic relationship between ship-building, port efficacy and inland cum coastal connectivity lie at the core of such national endeavor.

China, which is the most recent of the major powers to focus on the maritime sector, offers many policy cues for India. One of the first priorities is to review and rationalize the myriad ministries and departments that have sectoral and insular responsibility in managing India’s maritime assets.

This is a subject worthy of immediate cabinet and legislative attention and Modi would be well-advised to fast-track the implementation of the Blue Revolution. Furthermore, the coastal states need to become committed stakeholders in this national endeavor and this in turn will strengthen the federal character of the Indian polity – an often stated Modi objective.

The Indian Ocean is not India’s ocean alone but the Modi vision is laudable: “We seek a future for the Indian Ocean that lives up to the name of SAGAR – Security and Growth for All in the Region.”

Acronyms are addictive but the challenge now is to walk the talk and convert rich rhetoric into tangible reality.

*C Uday Bhaskar is Director, Society for Policy Studies. He can be contacted at cudyabhaskar@spsindia.in

IANS, March 17, 2015

The post India’s Maritime Awakening? Modi Endorses A Blue Revolution – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Although Southeast Asian economies rely on international labour as a key element of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), the progress of labour liberalisation has been disappointing. It is obstructed by domestic laws and regulations due to differing concerns of labour-exporting and labour-importing countries.

By Kaewkamol Pitakdumrongkit*

ASEAN recognises the crucial role that labour plays to help realise the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). The region’s leaders have pledged to “hasten the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community by 2015 and to transform ASEAN into a region with free movement of goods, services, investment, skilled labour, and freer flow of capital”.

Migration of labour is a crucial factor driving the Southeast Asian economies and mutual economic dependency is substantial. For example, Singapore has the highest ratio of foreign labour to the local population in the region. About 25 percent of Malaysia’s workforce consists of migrant workers who fill several sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture. Inward remittances from expatriates account for about 10 percent of the Philippines’ GDP annually.

Making process, not progress

Despite the importance of labour at the domestic and international levels, liberalising labour flows across the member states has been very slow and limited. Although significant progress has been witnessed by the ASEAN Scorecard under Pillar I, with significant achievements in several areas including free flows of skilled labour, one must also be aware that so far only eight Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) have been signed.

This means that only engineers, nurses, surveyors, architects, accountants, medical practitioners, dental practitioners, and tourism professionals can travel to work abroad. These personnel flows account for less than 2 percent of total ASEAN employment. In short, in regard to labour migration ASEAN appeared to engage in a “process” rather than make progress.

Even so, such MRA implementation faces obstacles mainly due to domestic regulations and labour laws that directly and/or indirectly curb their mobility. Moreover, it must be emphasised that AEC welcomes only free flows of skilled workers while being silent on the liberalisation of cross-border mobility of unskilled labour which is also in high demand for several industries.
.
A joint study by the International Labour Organisation and Asian Development Bank in August last year calculated that ASEAN integration would boost regional GDP by about 7 percent and create 14 million new jobs by 2025. Without additional effort to advance further the liberalisation of labour, the prospect of hiring the right personnel to do these jobs seems grim.

Different strokes for different folks

There are key reasons why the member states have been reluctant to ease the inflow of migrant workers. Labour-sending governments are more likely to be disturbed by the plight of their own nationals working abroad due to abuses and unfair treatment from employers in host states. For worker-receiving states, their worries tend to centre on the impact of migrant workforce on domestic employment and national security.

Domestic employment concerns usually stem from the idea that the lower wages of migrant workers make them more competitive than the locals with higher wages, and likely to take away the latter’s jobs. This notion sometimes fuelled the local citizens’ outcry, making the host country feel pressured to curb labour migration. Another cause of host countries’ unwillingness to open up their domestic labour market is national security concerns.

Labour-importing states occasionally view migrant workers as a security problem. Illustratively, when foreign labour was viewed as agents carrying out illegal activities, the Malaysian public was agitated. The government cracked down on migrant workers in 2002 and 2005, resulting in about 400,000 foreign workers (mainly Indonesian and Filipino) either leaving the country or being evicted by the government.

Policy considerations

As the international labour issue is multi-faceted, tackling it requires a combination of several policies to address different concerns. Firstly, to deal with possible abuses and bad treatment of migrant workers by labour-receiving states, host governments should work together with local and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to obtain more information about abuses and unfair treatment of migrant workers. It is because these agencies are usually closer to and have better access to the people on the ground than the governments.

Secondly, labour-receiving countries should rectify the misperception of migrant workers being a threat to the host economy by informing their citizens that cheaper wages alone do not always win. In the world of transnational production networks and value chains, businesses are not too naïve to go for cheaper migrant workers only. Rather, they pragmatically seek labour that is “cost-efficient” with sufficient quality to carry out desired tasks.

In other words, employers search for most cost-efficient labour (not necessarily the cheapest) to fill in particular niches of their production chains. Also, the services sectors increasingly involve higher levels of customisation, making businesses more selective in choosing the right workforce for the right tasks.

For example, customer care companies look to hire phone responders who are trilingual and familiar with local cultures, which could dampen the chance of foreign workers taking up this job in the host economy. Thus, even though labour migration is more liberalised, the degree of lower-wage foreign workforce “stealing” the local people’s jobs may not be as dramatic as generally viewed.

To mitigate national security problems, labour-importing governments can systematically document foreign workforce in their country. Although it is challenging to put up a comprehensive record of migrant workers, doing so begets multiple benefits. Firstly, it can deter individuals who are prone to commit crimes. By being registered and put into the system, these people can be discouraged from carrying out unlawful activities.

Moreover, the records of migrant workers can facilitate police work as they help the law enforcers to identify the suspects once the crime has been committed. Labour-exporting states, on the other hand, can help worker-receiving countries by providing the necessary information from their side.

In sum, ASEAN can benefit significantly from additional liberalisation of labour. However, the issues of foreign workers often tempt states to be reluctant to go down the liberalising path, resulting in slow progress. By employing the policies above, certain misperceptions about the effects of migrant workers on the host economy can be redressed and concerns lessened. These policy considerations can help pave a way for a brighter future for labour migration in ASEAN.

*Kaewkamol Pitakdumrongkit is an Assistant Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

The post ASEAN Economic Community: Slow Progress On Labour Issues – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Nineteen foreigners and two Tunisians were killed after militants attacked a museum in the Tunisian capital, and now the EU said it was Daesh (ISIS) that should be held responsible, Reuters reported Wednesday.

One Tunisian tourist and a policeman were among the casualties in Tunis.

Al Arabiya News reported lawmakers were also held in the country’s parliament, after gunmen stormed the building with Kalashnikov rifles in the middle of a session discussing anti-terrorism legislation. The TAP state news agency said gunfire was exchanged at the parliament building between the attacker and police, who evacuated the captives.

“With the attack that has struck Tunis today, the Daesh terrorist organization is once again targeting the countries and peoples of the Mediterranean region,” EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said in a statement. “This strengthens our determination to cooperate more closely with our partners to confront the terrorist threat.”

An interior ministry spokesman told Reuters two gunmen at Bardo Museum, which is next to the parliament building, have been surrounded by security.

The committees suspended their meetings, a parliament member told AFP.

Tunisia has been battling extremists since the country’s revolution in 2011 against former President Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali inspired the Arab Spring. The North African nation has so far managed to avoid the violence the rest of the region has been facing.

Original article

The post EU Blames Islamic State For Tunisia Attack appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In Ecuador, the oil sector accounts for more than half of the country’s export earnings and approximately two-fifths of public sector revenues.¹ Resource nationalism and debates about the economic, strategic, and environmental implications of oil sector development are prominent issues in the politics of Ecuador and the policies of its government.

Ecuador is the smallest producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and it produced 556,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) of petroleum and other liquids in 2014, of which crude oil production was 555,000 bbl/d. A lack of sufficient domestic refining capacity to meet local demand has forced Ecuador to import refined products, limiting net oil revenue.

In 1992, Ecuador left OPEC owing a debt of more than U.S. $5 Billion. Ecuador rejoined the organization following a near 15-year hiatus in 2007.² Ecuador has a challenging investment environment prompted by government initiatives to increase the share of crude oil revenue for the state, which has contributed to near-stagnant oil production as output has stayed within a close range over the past 10 years.

Ecuador’s energy mix is largely dependent on oil, which represented 79% of the country’s total energy consumption in 2013 (see Figure 1).³ Hydroelectric power was the second-largest energy source. Natural gas and nonhydro renewable fuels are also important to Ecuador’s energy mix.

Oil

Ecuador has the third-largest oil reserves in South America.

Sector organization

Ecuador’s hydrocarbon resources are exclusively owned by the state, and changes to Ecuador’s legal framework continue a trend toward policies of resource nationalism.

Exploration and production

Ecuador is the fifth-largest oil producer in South America. The country’s oil production has been mostly stagnant over the past ten years, although it has increased slightly in recent years. Substantial oil reserves are located in the Ishpingo-Tambococha-Tiputini (ITT) fields in Yasuní National Park. The fields were under moratorium from oil extraction between 2007 and the summer of 2013, an effort by the Ecuadorean government to protect biodiversity and avoid dislocation of two isolated indigenous cultures.

Trade

Ecuador exports roughly 70% of the crude oil it produces, and it is a leading source of crude oil imports to the U.S. West Coast. In 2014, the United States imported 210,000 bbl/d of Ecuadorean crude oil. Other leading destinations for Ecuadorean crude are Chile, Peru, and Panama.

Pipelines

Ecuador’s domestic pipeline infrastructure is old and limited. Ecuador has one international pipeline, the TransAndino. The 50,000 bbl/d TransAndino pipeline connects Ecuador’s oil fields with the Colombian port of Tumaco.

Downstream

Ecuador has three commercial oil refineries, with a combined capacity of 176,000 bbl/d. Ecuador and Venezuela have been in discussions to construct a new refinery, and China’s Sinopec and/or CNPC might fund a portion of the project.

Natural gas

Ecuador has relatively small proved natural gas reserves and a limited natural gas market.

Electricity

In 2014, hydroelectricity accounted for more than 45% of the country’s electricity generation. The other large source of electricity supply is a group of oil-powered conventional thermal power plants.¹¹

The post Ecuador Energy Profile: Smallest Oil Producing Member Of OPEC – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

“We killed him because he was defending Shakil Afridi, who is our enemy”, said Jamaatul Ahrar, a splinter group of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which claimed responsibility for the killing of prominent former lawyer Samiullah Afridi.

Afridi had told his family some time ago that he received death threats since accepting to defend Shakil Afridi, a doctor who helped American CIA agents hunt al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Shakil Afridi is in prison awaiting a new trial. The US has requested Shakil Afridi’s release, which has been rejected by Pakistan.

According to police, Samiullah Afridi was shot dead in his car while returning home in the city of Peshawar. He had recently returned from Dubai, where he had moved last year for security reasons.

The targeting of lawyers by militant groups is not uncommon in Pakistan. According to observers, it has become difficult to find a lawyer because nobody wants to risk their lives, and therefore cases stay pending and nothing happens.

Pakistani militant groups have also cracked down on polio-vaccination drives following bin Laden’s killing and Dr. Afridi’s prosecution, saying they are un-Islamic and either fronts for espionage or an attempt to sterilize Muslims. Last Tuesday, armed militants killed two female immunization workers at an Afghan refugee camp near Pakistan’s northwestern city of Mansehra. The incident is the latest in a recent spate of attacks against polio workers, 77 of whom have been killed since December 2012.

The post Pakistan: Ex-Lawyer Who Defended Doctor Connected To Bin Laden Shot Dead appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Jihadists Infiltration and Response

By Abe Jimenez*

A preventative approach to the further expansion of jihadi networks in the Levant starts with helping Lebanon cope with its Syrian refugee crisis. Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State infiltration into East Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley, from the Qalamoun border region in Syria, could provide the necessary ingredients for destabilization and undermining of the Lebanese State.

JN and to a lesser extent, IS, have two main objectives in Lebanon: First, they intend to both secure their own rebel supplies lines through northern Lebanon and cut off Hezbollah supply lines into Syria. Second, both have an interest in attacking Hezbollah within its own territory and areas of influence, in order to divert Hezbollah resources back into Lebanon and away from Syria and Iraq. Both these two objectives are crucial in putting pressure on Lebanon’s two most important political and military entities, the Lebanese government and Hezbollah.

The territorial losses suffered by Islamic State in Iraq and Northern Syria, have prompted it to seek territorial gains in areas that appear to be more advantageous and offset their besiegement in Iraq. Despite their continued clashes with Jabhat al-Nusra in Qalamoun, according to Institute of the Study of War analysts, it is not out of the question that the two will work together to attack Hezbollah.

The Qalamoun region northwest of Damascus has been under the control of Syrian rebel forces since the rebels were pushed out of the Homs-Qusayr region in 2013. Jabhat al-Nusra has been the key player in the Qalamoun ever since, but recently Qalamoun has been infiltrated by the Islamic State in an attempt to consolidate other jihadi rebel groups into itself  and establish an emirate in Lebanon. Lebanon’s military has commendably maintained order despite the bombing of the Iranian Embassy in the fall of 2013 and a short takeover of the town of Arsal by elements of Jabhat al-Nusra and other jihadi networks, in August of 2014. Twin suicide bombing attacks in January and recent statements by Lebanese officials in regards to a renewed campaign by JN within Lebanon, has sparked fears of a return to a heightened state of violence.

Hezbollah, aware of the threats posed by jihadi border incursions, did not wait for Jabhat al-Nusra to launch its Qalamoun campaign. In early March, Hezbollah launched a surprise attack on Jabhat al-Nusra positions in Ras Al-Ma’arat and ‘Assal Al-Ward, inflicting several dozen casualties. Hezbollah understands that it is imperative to keep groups like Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State out of Lebanon and eliminate their havens along the Syrian border, because these havens are used to launch attacks within Lebanon and to set up recruiting campaigns within Syrian refugee camps. Hezbollah is working with both the Lebanese government forces and Syrian pro-government militias to achieve this goal.

The refugees Issue and Lebanon’s Precarious Position

Since the beginning of the Syrian civil war and the massive inflow of refugees from Syria into Lebanon, jihadi networks have sought to establish havens of support among the refugees and other anti-Assad elements within Lebanon. In addition, they have tried to exploit Lebanon’s confessional fault lines by amping up rhetoric about Sunni oppression under the Lebanese government, its reliance on Hezbollah and its difficulties dispensing aid to Syrian refugees. There are over one million Syrian refugees in Lebanon, close to half are located in the Bekaa Valley, where Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State are known to have a presence.

The horrid conditions that Syrian refugees are living under is a scandal upon the international community, which seems incapable of handling and addressing the . The reports documenting the level of human suffering within the camps are too numerous to mention here. Though, a recent Vice piece demonstrated that not only is there a daily struggle for survival, but an increasing frustration with Lebanese authorities who’ve been charged with dispensing aid. Lebanon is simply too small, does not have enough resources and its infrastructure is ill equipped to handle the societal pressures of adding over one million people to its 4.3 million in population. The international community must work to alleviate Lebanon’s burden and make sure that aid makes it to those who need it most. If possible, economic and possibly military aid may need to be given the Lebanese government to alleviate the stresses upon its economy. This may sound like too much of a demand, but may be necessary in order to keep Lebanon from a repeat of the 1970’s and the effects of the Palestinian refugee crisis.

Let us remember that the banishment of the PLO from Jordan and its establishment in Lebanon, in conjunction with the influx of Palestinian refugees after 1948 and 1967, exacerbated confessional tensions to the point where they boiled over into conflict in 1975. Recent scholarly work on the aftermath of the Ta’if Agreement that concluded the Lebanese civil war in 1989, has pointed to deep feelings of resentment and lack of reconciliation among Lebanon’s religious groups. The situation is still far from the conditions we saw in 1975, but like many conflicts we’ve seen throughout history, it only takes the right conditions and spark, to ignite war where underlying distrust already existed. State actors like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Russia, the EU and the United States, looking to stop the societal and governmental collapse in the Middle East should concentrate their efforts starting with Lebanon. The Syrian war is now in its fifth year and unless real attempts are made to end the conflict, as stated by the Soufan Group, “a uniform commitment to pressure for cessation of hostilities, from all sides.”

*Abe Jimenez is a researcher for the Southwest Initiative for the Study of Middle Eastern Conflicts. His research focuses on the genealogies of Islamic Movements, issues of war trauma and its cultural and social effects. Social Media: @A_Ximenez

The post Lebanon: On The Razor’s Edge – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.