By Mahdi Mohammadi*

The ongoing war in Yemen will most probably trigger a domino-like set of important geopolitical changes in the Middle East region.

In one sense, the forthcoming changes will be continuation of past changes, but in another sense, they can be understood and analyzed independent of the Arab Spring developments and their consequences.

In its invasion of Yemen, Saudi Arabia has not shown considerable power and basically, they are not able to do that. Saudi soldiers have proven that they are unable of even protecting their own country’s frontiers, let alone dreaming about conquering another country. The same is true about the Egyptian army, which has proved incapable of keeping Sinai desert safe, but considers itself entitled to threaten Yemeni Shias who are natural born guerillas.

The hurried start of Saudi airstrikes against Yemen is the result of a number of factors.

First of all, a very important point is that we are facing a project which is totally backed by the United States. Since a long time ago, both Saudi Arabia and Israel have been accusing the United States of having changed its regional policy and that Washington “has changed in nature.” It was the same common geopolitical understanding that has brought Israel and Saudi Arabia so close together. According to that understanding, both countries have reached the conclusion that the United States has left its regional allies alone and is trying to reach a deal with Iran behind their backs. They also believe that the United States has lost its courage, power or motivation to intervene in favor of its allies and put a decisive end to regional conflicts and is, in fact, going through some kind of self-imposed expulsion from the region. This is also why both Saudi Arabia and Israel have been so staunchly against a possible nuclear deal between Iran and the United States. Both countries believe that the ongoing nuclear talks and a possible agreement over Iran’s nuclear program are all parts of a large-scale, and of course clandestine, geopolitical deal according to which Iran will no longer be an enemy to the United States and in a worse-case scenario will be just a regional rival for Washington. Otherwise, the opposition shown by Israel and Saudi Arabia to nuclear negotiations does not follow a nuclear logic. From the viewpoint of these countries, the only way that the United States could reach an agreement with Iran is exactly the same way that Washington is pursuing now, that is, through forging a nuclear deal with Tehran.

During the past months, both Saudi Arabia and Israel have been asking the United States to guarantee that a possible nuclear deal will not lead to a geopolitical agreement whose result would be recognition of Iran’s regional power. As the nuclear talks draw closer to a possible agreement, it would not be difficult to guess that the US President Barack Obama is coming under mounting pressure. In fact, in parallel with conducting final phase of the nuclear talks with Iran, Obama should also convince his regional allies that he is not seeking to secure a big deal with Iran. This point was clearly announced by the US Secretary of State John Kerry a few weeks ago in Jeddah where he announced that there would be no major agreement with Iran and the United States is just trying to contain Iran’s nuclear capacity, which more than being a threat related to proliferation of nuclear weapons, is a geopolitical threat.

Endorsing Saudi invasion of Yemen by the United States and Washington’s confirmation of this act of aggression right after it begun has left no doubt that this invasion is totally related to nuclear talks with Iran and, in fact, is meant to send two messages. One message is for Iran. As put by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Brennan in an interview with Fox News Channel, Iran should know that in geopolitical terms, the United States is still considering the Islamic Republic as an enemy. The second message is for Saudi Arabia and Israel, which can be considered a kind of geopolitical guarantee as well. That message is that a possible nuclear deal with Iran will not only fail to reduce the regional confrontation between Iran and the United States, but will even intensify it. So, Saudi Arabia may rest assured that it still enjoys the United States’ support in the face of the amazing growth of Iran’s regional power.

Apart from the geopolitical guarantee to Saudi Arabia, which is a factor that relates the war in Yemen to nuclear talks with Iran, aerial invasion of Yemen can be also considered related to the United States from another angle. To understand this point, we must go back to a keynote speech that Obama delivered at the West Point Military Academy of New York in 2014 in which he delineated the main strategic course that the United States was to adopt during the new phase of its foreign policy. In that speech, Obama implied that due to:

1. Remarkable opposition of the American people to getting involved in any new war;
2. Considerable fatigue of the US army;
3. Serious economic problems; and
4. Changing global conditions and threats;

The United States has decided to give up its past strategy of direct intervention in its foreign policy and replace it with:

1. Crisis management from afar;
2. Leaving management of regional problems to regional players;
3. Downsizing the military forces by replacing direct military operations with basic intelligence operations;
4. Encouraging establishment of regional coalitions;
5. Avoiding of direct intervention; and
6. Serious use of such soft power tools as sanctions and multilateral punishments.

Although the strategy outlined during Obama’s speech at the West Point was polished on the surface, it was effectively a clear admission of the fact that the time for the United States to be a military superpower has come to an end. One the other hand, the United States as a political superpower had reached its end many years ago. Therefore, many countries in the region reached the conclusion that the interventionist power that used to get directly involved in regional affairs has left the international scene for good and it is time for them to find a solution to their problems on their own.

Since that time, the United States has tried more than once to practice that strategy with its regional allies. Of course, when it came to forming an international coalition against the ISIS terrorist group, that coalition lost its efficiency very quickly because it was not basically supposed to enter a serious fight against the ISIS to begin with. More importantly, those countries that took part in the coalition against the ISIS were past patrons of the group and, therefore, were not expected to take a serious step against this group. At any rate and from a strategic angle, it was clear in the ISIS case that the United States did not want to get directly involved in this case and meant to achieve its goals through regional actors. As for Yemen, perhaps this is for the first time that the Obama administration is totally following suit with the West Point strategy. The region is grappling with an acute geopolitical crisis. The United States is neither willing, nor able to directly intervene while at the same time, is not willing to totally pass over this issue. As a result, it has asked regional actors that are its allies to form a coalition and go to work. In return, they can reckon on political, intelligence and, at most, logistic support from the United States. In this way, the United States believes that it can solve the problems without having to bear the brunt of finding a final solution for them or having to suffer their consequences.

At present, the United States is trying to use Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt and Sudan as its tools to solve an acute geopolitical problem in Yemen in order to avoid getting caught in another mire similar to Iraq. On the surface, this is a logical choice to make. Those countries that are involved in this issue have direct interest in solving it, have good knowledge of the region and are well aware of ethic and geographic subtleties in this region. The point that has been ignored by the United States in its planning is the concept of skill. When the US Army, which considers itself the world’s most powerful military forces, is trying to stay out of this crisis for the fear of repeating bitter experiences of the past, how they expect Saudi army or inept Egyptian soldiers to pull this off and resolve such an intense and complicated crisis on their own? As some critics of the West Point strategy said at that time, the main bug of this strategy is that it leaves resolution of many profound crises to actors that lack any skill for this purpose and expects them to solve problems that the United States, as their godfather, has been unable to encounter.

The case of Yemen will clearly show that lack of interference will be as detrimental as direct intervention. It will also prove that taking advantage of regional actors to solve this problem is as nonsensical as totally ignoring it. As a result, this coalition will finally face the same heavy defeat that has been the fate of the United States’ unilateral measures. It is also clear that the United States’ regional allies are as inefficient in solving this crisis as Washington itself. Yemen is among few countries in the region which will make the United States understand that it cannot cover up its strategic weakness by strategic smartness. Washington should also know that when it comes to the Middle East, the West Point strategy is not efficient even for the capture and management of a village.

There are many things to say about the crisis in Yemen. This article is just an effort to discuss this issue from the viewpoint of the United States regional strategy with an eye to the ongoing negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

 *Mahdi Mohammadi
Chief Editor of IranNuc.IR and Expert on Strategic Issues

Source: Mehr News Agency
http://mehrnews.com/
Translated By: Iran Review.Org

The post Iran Viewpoint: War On Yemen, Washington’s Geopolitical Assurance To Saudi Arabia, Israel – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mukul Sanwal

Since the dawn of civilization, except for the last 250 years, Asia had half the world’s wealth and two centres of gravity – China and India. With Asia estimated to possess two-thirds of global GPD in 2050, because of favourable demographics India has the potential to overtake the United States and once again become the world’s second largest economy. As in the past the Asian giants will share this space, now requiring even closer economic integration of Asia enabled by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

The new bank

On October 24, 2014, 20 countries, including India, signed an MoU in Beijing to establish the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which will have a paid up capital of $100 billion. Unlike the IMF and World Bank, no country will have a veto in this new bank. Voting rights are expected to be based on a combination of GDP and PPP, and India is expected to be the second largest shareholder. There are only three seats for non-regional countries in the Board; a sharp reversal from the current situation in multilateral financial institutions. After some initial hesitation over fears of China using the new bank to project its power in Asia, India, along with other countries in Europe and East Asia, is seeing the institution in terms of providing new economic opportunities.

Asia needs $8 trillion over the next decade and the new bank, supported by China’s reserves of $4 trillion, is a step towards meeting that requirement. So far it was not clear how this gap would be met, as the existing multilateral financial institutions had taken no initiatives apart from pointing out the need. The new bank could be the trigger, much like the Marshall Plan in post war Europe, for the Asian Century, and bring together the Asian giants.

Moving away from steps to contain China

The geo-political world order established by the United States after World War II is unravelling because of the geo-economic shift to Asia. China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has served to focus minds in Europe and East Asia. The new Bank will be a rival to the IMF and World Bank and the US risks losing its ability to shape international economic rules, and the global influence that goes with it. The UK described the new bank as an “irresistible opportunity”, which led to accusations from Washington about London’s “constant accommodation” of China, reflecting the two world-views on the emerging global order.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the aim of American policy has been to prevent any power, or group of powers, from assuming hegemony in any region of the world. With the largest military in the world, the Pentagon’s strategic objectives were aligned with this goal. Consequently, the US response to the re-emergence of China as the largest economy in purchasing-power-parity terms has been to reposition two-thirds of its military assets to the Pacific as well as to extend overtures to India and nudging it into increased naval cooperation, for the purpose of containing China. So far, India has been ambivalent on its role with respect to the alliances America has with Japan and Australia; and now the latter are also questioning the US world-view.

For India, the lesson from the failed attempt by the US to obstruct the new bank is that, as Asia’s urbanization will require more than $8 trillion to be spent on infrastructure in this decade, countries in the region will welcome all the support they can get. Rather than be suspicious of China’s motives and seek to prevent the Maritime Silk Road, we should deal with the strategic concerns by joining in the development projects, for example, by providing the software packages required in the management of the ports. A mutual recognition of the special interests of each other in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean should be a strategic objective, and will be a strategic win-win for both.

China’s “Belt and Road initiatives” are really about economic integration of Asia with the Chinese economy and the emerging Asian market, and by joining in and shaping the alignment of the rail, road, sea routes and gas pipelines (from Iran, with the impending settlement of the nuclear issue) India can become a node for Western and South Asia. Including a services component in the projects will add to their productivity and support cooperation between the Asian giants; trade is a win-win proposition.

India and China have complementary roles in the Asian Century

The global trend is that countries are gaining in influence more because of the strength of their economies than the might of their militaries, and institutions and rules serve to maintain that influence. India can either drift into the future remaining in its periphery or it can shape the future jointly with China to become one of the two engines of the Asian economy. China is likely to remain the world’s largest producer of goods and India has the potential to be the largest producer of services in the largest consumer market.

According to McKinsey and Company, the services sector will be the real driver of growth in Asia as affluence will be concentrated in cities. Digitization is challenging the way banks operate. A growing number of companies are incorporating payment processing and other financial services that have traditionally been with banks. Establishing secure data networks to enable flows across countries has emerged as a pressing need. India can match China’s expertise in infrastructure with equally important products that an urbanized Asia will need – digital governance implementing Aadhar-type cards linked with government and other services, e-commerce, low cost health treatments and pharmaceuticals, new seed varieties, are examples. India and China have evolved in complementary ways that reduces competitiveness between them.

Triumph of geo-economics

The future opportunities require a bold new vision. Firms in both countries will have to develop cooperative relationships with new mindsets and business models to make the region more open with integrated investment and trade. Asia is a dynamic and diverse market, and successful companies are already thinking about connectivity across the region. The ability to design, finance, build and implement the big data-technology systems will be the defining comparative advantage in the future, and India and China should work together to make this happen by sharing their respective expertise. The complex interdependencies will be a strong stabilizing force.

The new bank should focus on three areas defining ‘infrastructure” broadly to enhance productivity. First, a “Digital Asia initiative” to complement the ‘Road and Belt Initiative”; second, developing Shanghai and Mumbai as truly global cities and financial centres, to leverage capital; and, third, jointly establish a think-tank in Delhi, on the lines of the OECD, to provide a forum where Asian governments work together to analyse data to predict future trends, develop standards for Asia, seek solutions to improve the quality of life and provide inputs to governments and to the new bank. The new world order will not only need new institutions but also new norms, rules and practices.

According to Prime Minister Modi, China and India are “two bodies, one spirit”, and for his part President Xi has emphasised the “need to become global partners having strategic coordination”. India’s National Security Adviser has expressed satisfaction with the progress of the border talks, where agreement was reached to maintain peace and expedite a solution that is fair. The Chinese Premier has also suggested a triangular partnership with respect to Sri Lanka which would include India and it is now for us to flesh this out. The new bank provides a new opportunity for the two Asian giants to work together for their future prosperity, and make the Asian Century a reality.

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

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/GeoeconomicSignificanceoftheAsianInfrastructure_msanwal_300315.html

The post Geo-Economic Significance Of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Legal and diplomatic battles in United Nations organizations and international sport associations involving charges of war crimes and efforts to suspend membership of one or the other are likely to shape future Israeli-Palestinian relations in the wake of last month’s electoral victory by Benjamin Netanyahu.

The contours of the coming battles are emerging on the soccer pitches even before Mr. Netanyahu forms his cabinet with a Palestinian campaign to suspend Israeli membership of world soccer body FIFA and the petitioning by an Israeli law firm of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate Palestine Football Association (PFA) president Major General Jibril Rajoub for war crimes allegedly committed during last year’s Gaza war.

A statement on the PFA’s website sought to win support for a PFA resolution calling for the suspension of its Israeli counterpart, the Israeli Football Federation (IFA), slated for submission at FIFA’s Congress in May. In the statement, Mr. Rajoub said the resolution was designed to force Israel and the IFA to:

• Lift all restrictions on the free movement of Palestinian players, staff and officials within Palestine defined as both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as well as on the import of soccer equipment;
• Removal of al obstacles to the development of Palestinian soccer;
• The banning of soccer clubs belonging to Israeli settlements on the West Bank from playing in IFA competitions, a demand that goes to the core of disputes over occupied territory between Israelis and the Palestinians;
• Take firm action to combat racism in Israeli soccer, a reference to Israeli club Beitar Jerusalem, the only top Israeli club that refuses to hire Palestinian players and whose fan base is overtly racist. The IFA, the only Middle Eastern soccer association to have launched an anti-racist campaign, has repeatedly penalized Beitar, but has stopped short of cracking down on it.

The Palestinian campaign that has been building up for several years is embedded in a strategy that seeks to achieve recognition of Palestinian statehood by and membership in United Nations agency while at the same time isolating Israel. The strategic effort has gathered steam with the recognition of Palestinian statehood by various European countries and acceptance of Palestine by various UN bodies, including the ICC, since last year’s breakdown of US-sponsored Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

“It is clear that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will form the next government, so we say clearly that we will go to the International Criminal Court in The Hague and we will speed up, pursue and intensify” all diplomatic efforts, Palestinian peace negotiator Saeb Erekat told Agence France Presse.

Several years of failed attempts to negotiate a solution to Palestinian soccer problems stemming from Israel policies, have forced soccer’s top global executives to take serious pressure to act against Israel. FIFA president Sepp Blatter last June averted a push for sanctions against Israel by creating a committee that to oversee efforts to address Palestinian grievances and report back to the FIFA executive committed within six months. The committee handed back its mandate in December after failing to negotiate a solution, according to the PFA.

Michel Platini warned the IFA recently that Mr. Rajoub, a former Palestinian security chief with presidential ambitions who also heads the Palestine National Olympic Committee, planned to not only petition FIFA but also UEFA, the European soccer body that Mr. Platini heads. “This time it is serious,” Mr. Platini was quoted as telling the IFA’s UEFA representative, Ali Luzon, saying that several European associations would side with the Palestinians, “even if you are right.” Israel has been grouped in Europe after Arab soccer associations forced its expulsion from the Asian Football Confederation in the early 1990s.

Mr. Platini and FIFA secretary general Jerome Valcke have argued in the past that there were no legal grounds on which to act against Israel given that obstacles to the development of Palestinian soccer were being imposed by the Israeli military rather than the IFA.

That argument is being called into question by Palestinians who argue that the IFA is in effect an arm of the Israeli state – a charge that matches Israeli allegations against the PFA in the complaint against Mr. Rajoub in the International Criminal Court. Palestinians bolster their assertion with fact that the IFA like the military is regulated by Israel’s State Comptroller and that it allegedly is funded to a significant degree by the government.

In the latest of a series of reports on alleged Israeli transgressions of FIFA rules and regulations issued this weekend and circulated by PFA executive committee member Susan R. Shalabi, the Palestinians moreover charged that IFA demands that the Palestinian association should “operate through the formal channels of the state of Israel” violated the world soccer body’s statutes that stipulate that its members manage their affairs “independently and with no influence from third parties.”

The report argued further that the IFA’s failure to take a stand against Israeli policies that inhibit the development of Palestinian soccer makes it difficult for the PFA to exercise its rights and fulfil its obligations in accordance with the statutes.

In a shot across the Palestinians’ bow, Sherut HaDin – Israel Law Center, a law firm that in February convinced a US jury to order the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and President Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestine Authority to pay $218.5 million to American families of victims of two Palestinian bombings more than a decade ago, petitioned the ICC to investigate Mr. Jibril on charges of war crimes.

The petition asserts that Mr. Rajoub wearing another of his many hats as deputy secretary general of Al Fatah, the largest Palestinian faction in the PLO headed by Mr. Abbas was aware, abetted and endorsed rocket and mortar fire from Gaza on largely civilian targets in Israel during last year’s war by Al Fatah and the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, a militia that is associated with the group.

Relying on media reports, the complaint seeks to establish Mr. Rajoub’s guilt by association based on his own statements and those of other Fatah members. ´Our decision is resistance in the occupied territories in order to bring an end to the occupation (using) all forms of resistance,” the complaint quotes Mr. Rajoub, who spent 17 years in Israeli prison, as saying. It further quotes him as praising the armed resistance in Gaza.

Sherut HaDin failed to answer questions about the complaint despite repeated promises to do so. Those questions included why the law firm had singled out Mr. Rajoub and not included in its petition other senior Fatah officials, including those it quotes in its complaint.

It was also unclear whether by identifying Mr. Rajoub as a Jordanian national, the law firm was deliberately ignoring the fact that Palestine was joining the ICC as a state rather than an entity or political grouping, both of which would not be eligible for membership.

By design or default, the complaint not only serves as an early indicator of likely diplomatic and legal battles to come, but also effectively seeks to undermine the credibility of Mr. Rajoub at a time that he is believed to be positioning himself as a candidate in a future Palestinian presidential election.

If successful, it could strengthen another potential candidate and arch rival of Mr. Rajoub, Mohammed Dahlan, who is widely viewed as an US, Israeli and Emirati favourite. Mr. Dahlan, a former head of Al Fatah in Gaza, who sought to overthrow the strip’s Hamas rulers with US and Israeli backing, currently serves as an advisor to United Arab Emirates Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed.

The post Contours Of Future Israeli-Palestinian Battles Emerge On Soccer Pitch – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Kuwaiti authorities broke up an opposition protest in Kuwait City on March 23, 2015, and detained 16 protesters, according to Human Rights Watch.

Eleven of the protesters were released on March 25 and are expected to face charges of illegal gathering. Five remain in custody and may face charges of attacking law enforcement offices in addition to the illegal gathering charges, a local activist told Human Rights Watch.

“Kuwait should respect people’s freedom to demonstrate peacefully against the government,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director. “Prosecuting people for illegal gathering is the wrong way to respond to legitimate protest.”

Special Forces detained the 16 people, among the 800 who gathered to protest in Kuwait City’s Irada Square shortly before 9 a.m. on March 23, said Hakeem al-Fadhli, founder of Q8citizens, who was at the demonstration. The 16 included a human rights activist, Nawaf al-Hindal.

Authorities released him and 10 others on March 25, after indicating they would face the illegal gathering charges, said Rana al-Sadoun, founder of the National Committee for Monitoring Violations. She said she had contacted the lawyers of the people arrested, and that the lawyers said the protesters still in custody also expected to face charges of attacking law enforcement officers and refusing to obey their orders. Human Rights Watch was unable to contact the police or Interior Ministry for comment

Hadeel Bo Qrais, a human rights activist who was at the protest, said that police were there from the outset but did not intervene, even when a small group of protesters broke away and began marching toward the parliament building. The demonstrators were demanding an end to judicial corruption, new parliamentary elections, the release of prisoners held on politically motivated grounds, and an end to the government’s policy of revoking some Kuwaitis’ citizenship as a punishment for political opposition, Qrais said.

At around 9 p.m., Bo Qrais said two vehicles containing water cannon tanks and others containing scores of Special Forces armed with batons arrived. Some protesters threw plastic water bottles at them, but nothing more serious as far as she could see. The police shouted at the demonstrators to leave the square, and within minutes moved in to disperse them, as the protesters were trying to check with police whether the dispersal order was official. She told Human Rights Watch that she saw Special Forces officers physically threaten protesters and that they injured Sarah al-Hamar, a lawyer.

Al-Hamar, who corroborated these accounts, told Human Rights Watch she was peacefully sitting on a sidewalk in the middle of the protest when a Security Forces commander yelled at her to leave, then grabbed her by the shoulder when she didn’t. A masked officer struck her leg with his baton. She said another police officer then intervened and she was able to leave and seek hospital treatment for bruises. Kuwaiti authorities should investigate whether police used excessive force against Al-Hamar, Human Rights Watch said.

Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Kuwait ratified in 1996, states that “the right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized,” and that “no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and that are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials provides that officials acting in a law enforcement capacity “shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force.” Whenever the use of force is unavoidable, security forces shall “[e]xercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved.

Kuwait’s constitution guarantees the right to freedom of assembly for Kuwaiti citizens. In 2006, the constitutional court struck down 15 of the 22 articles of the 1979 Kuwaiti Public Gathering Law, including article 4, which required official permission to hold public gatherings. Official permission is still required for marches. “Illegal gathering” is prohibited under law but is not clearly defined. In recent years, the authorities have used “illegal gathering” charges against people participating in public protests against the government.

“Kuwaiti authorities should fully respect the right to peaceful assembly and clarify the scope of the illegal gathering offense,” Stork said.

The post Kuwait: Opposition Protest Broken Up appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Walter Diamana*

For the past decades, Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) engagement with the International community through their foreign policies has been limited. There are few reasons for this, ranging from our failure to implement it or just the fear of running the risk of a loss, to pressures from traditional partners.

During the Cold War era, the Pacific region came under the West’s sphere of influence and the scenario remains to the present, however, Cold War gestures should be reserved aside and PSIDs must start looking beyond these old lines to explore opportunities in the wider world. Today, 21st Century international relations calls for more constructive engagement, rather than confrontation.

The current trend of relying too much on Traditional Partners put PSIDS in a state of standstill and to the extent that they tend to see the moving world from a “stranger’s perspective”, and failing to acknowledge their role in this competitive globalized world.

As East Asia is experiencing healthy growth in their economies, many opportunities are also available in the region. China’s booming economy has created an avenue for the East Asian region to enhance their economic and trading postures to a more competitive market.

PSIDS can learn more and benefit from this region, despite our many similarities in cultural diversity, food or climate etc. Nevertheless, technological advancement, creativity and entrepreneurial skills and attitude are the key to PSIDS success. PSIDS need to establish an “Asian Approach with Pacific Characteristics” to meet their aspirations practically. For this, PSIDS can have a common foreign policy that takes an Asian Approach, but with Pacific Characteristics. The point here is simple, PSIDs will take the Asian Approach for one common purpose, and that is economic benefits, but the Pacific Characteristics will determine the approach or the process each PSIDs wishes to take.

Records shows that a good number of PSIDS are starting to enhance their engagement with the region. This is a good path; however adjusting foreign policy towards this region needs a thorough assessment and calculation based on both the economic opportunities and the political dynamics of this region as well. PSIDS priority is to create new friends; however they have to ensure that there are no miscalculations between their new friends and their existing ones.

Therefore their strategy should not be to over-estimate the beliefs and hopeful assumptions of their traditional friends. This is to allow their confidence in setting new visions and goals with their new friends, based on strategic partnership and mutual cooperation. This will allow them to set standards and conditions that are favourable to their context, and which heavily connects to their domestic policies. And this will keep them abreast on a win-win position.

At the same time they should formulate their uncertainties, by preparing to engage with East Asia on the issues that their traditional friends cannot provide for them. In this, they are creating a balanced means of engagement from their side towards both their traditional partners and their new strategic partners.

The United States is re-dialing its engagement in the Asia Pacific with its so-called “Pivot to Asia”, and China’s rising influence and soft diplomacy is also absorbed highly in the region, and Russia is also inventing its own version of “Pivot to Asia”. Japan under Shinzo Abe’s administration is becoming more conservative and Taiwan and China have imposed a diplomatic truce in 2011 vowing not to disturb each other’s allies. ASEAN is entering into its economic integration in 2015, yet one of their key issues, the South-China Sea issue is still pending.

All these issues will have an impact towards PSIDS engagement in the region, therefore PSIDS policy should be to position their neutrality towards the political dynamics, at the same time pressing their economic engagement with the region. By this, their policy will prepare them for the best in terms of economic achievements and also prepares them to avoid the worst, (in any event a conflict occurred in the region).

By pushing economic incentives over political postures towards the East Asian region, PSIDS also limit the avenue for third party interference and politicization of decisions to penetrate their capitals, and this will help strengthen their governance structures and political systems. In this, PSIDS are placing their bargaining chips rightly at the center of “many choices”, thus pulling them out from the “only option syndrome” of ”abiding to receive” that has been imposed on them by their traditional partners. After all, PSIDS foreign policy engagement with the wider world does not only seek to explore opportunities but to also examine approaches that directly anchors their solidarity domestically. This is what foreign policy should be for PSIDS if they continue to refer to their foreign policies as “an extension of their domestic policies”.

*Mr. Walter Diamana is a Public Servant in the Solomon Islands Government. He is an Alumini of Shandong University in the People’s Republic of China, Majoring in International Relations and Diplomacy.

The post Adjusting Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) Foreign Policy Towards East Asia – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Manoj Joshi*

The buzzword across three principal Asian countries ­ India, China and Japan ­ is `reform’.

It’s clear that their impulses are interlinked and have consequences for the world. Coincidentally, all three have been having key annual sessions of their respective Parliaments whose proceedings provide us some markers as to their respective priorities.

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang’s opening speech at the annual National People’s Congress in early March laid out the agenda for transforming China into a middle-class nation, by creating an economy based on consumption and innovation, rather than merely investment and export.Arun Jaitley’s budget is seeking to initiate his government’s huge agenda in a modest and workmanlike fashion. As for Japan, the challenges are different ­ structural change is needed to give a second wind to an advanced economy trapped in multiple layers of regulation and red tape.

For both India and Japan, China is a benchmark of sorts. Growth of Chinese power has implications for them. Both have outstanding boundary disputes that periodically flare up. But equally important are their concerns relating to the economic and military rise of China.

India, whose economic size approximated that of China in the 1980s, may not be able to match China in this century, with attendant political and strategic consequences. Japan, which has had a troubled history with China, worries about the consequences of Chinese hegemony in East Asia.

What is striking is the clarity with which China is adjusting to what President Xi Jinping calls the `new normal’ ­ economic growth slowing to 7.4% in 2014 and possibly 7% in 2015. Beijing has clearly understood that it needs to become an economy based on entrepreneurial skills and better off consumers. NPC is likely to follow the recommendation of the National Reform and Development Commission, China’s Niti Aayog, which has proposed cutting down the number of restricted areas in investment from 79 to 35. Xi told a group of Shanghai parliamentarians on the sidelines of NPC that China will quicken the pace of creating free trade zones and make institutional innovation key to development. `Innovation’ has become the new motto of the Chinese, whether it relates to economy or foreign policy.

In his remarks, Li also noted that China has taken steps to cut red tape for private companies, permit online retail to expand.He promised that China will make it even easier to do business. Currently China is listed 90th among 189 nations in terms of ease of doing business; we are listed at 142.

China’s strategic goal is among the first of Xi’s four comprehensives: “To build an all-round well-off society by 2020″. Recall, in 2012, the key word was “moderately” well-off society. The second is to comprehensively deepen reform, the third to create a society which works under the rule of law, and the fourth to “push for stricter governance” of the Communist party itself. The last may sound innocuous, but anyone who has observed the Chinese anti-corrup tion campaign, knows that it means business, given the list of the high and mighty `Tigers’ who have been brought low.

The test for China is tough enough, but the challenge for India is far tougher. Most Indians are desperate to see PM Modi’s government succeed, if only because it is India’s last chance at getting onto the high-growth track which can help eliminate poverty by 2030. But what is absent is a sense of self-confidence and clarity over the direction we are headed. As of now we have a slogan: Make in India. Yet it is not even clear as to what this means.

As for policies, government is still grappling with the problems of the past.Recently it passed an insurance reform bill pending since 2008; likewise an overdue mines bill has been passed as well, though the crucial land acquisition bill remains to be passed.

But equally important steps such as the need to cut through the thicket of regulatory regimes that plague India are not yet on the agenda. Whether it is universities, banks, airports, India is one of the most over-regulated countries in the world, a consequence of government’s desire to retain the levers of power through regulators, who are almost always former civil servants.

There are no signs, as of now, that the Modi government has a plan to reform the administrative and regulatory system of the country, an important element in any `ease of business’ strategy. It is one thing to say that India will enhance the ease of doing business in the country, quite another to clearly spell out the steps that will be taken and their timeline. As for eliminating corruption, that item seems to be absent from the current government’s agenda, though it remains a real problem for the common man.

As for Japan, PM Shinzo Abe has promised “the most drastic reforms since the end of the Second World War”. But his efforts have been tangled in the politics of the country and its powerful lobbies ­ of doctors, farmers, bureaucrats and workers. In the current Diet session, he has slashed the powers of the agriculture lobby, but he still has a long road ahead. Two of his “three arrows” of reform ­ higher government spending and massive monetary stimulus ­ have been blunted and the third, structural reform, remains in his quiver.

One reason for the energy that Beijing exhibits is that the consequences of failure there will be severe ­ probably the collapse of the Communist party rule. India and Japan only risk the possibility of sinking back into the torpor of low growth or deflation.

*The writer is a Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

Courtesy: The Times of India, March 30, 2015

The post China, India And Japan: Same, But Different – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot of the Germanwings plane that crashed in the French Alps with 150 people on board last week, had undergone treatment for suicidal tendencies in the past, prosecutors said.

“Several years ago before obtaining his pilot’s license the co-pilot was in a long period of psycho-therapeutic treatment with noticeable suicidal tendencies,” the prosecutors’ office in Duesseldorf, where the pilot lived and where the flight from Barcelona was heading, said in the statement.

No signs of suicidal behavior nor aggressive tendencies towards others had been shown by Lubitz during his visits to doctors after the treatment, the prosecutors’ office added.

The co-pilot appears to have visited a hospital in Dusseldorf prior to the tragedy. According to Tagesspiegel daily, Lubitz this happened several times in February and March. Although details of the visits have not been made public, reports suggest eyesight problems, possibly a detached retina, were behind the calls.

On Monday, the University Clinic in the German city passed Lubitz’s medical records to investigators, TASS news agency reported, citing sources in the hospital.

Last week, more revelations about the co-pilot’s health surfaced, questioning his allowability to fly a commercial airliner.

Citing anonymous sources within Lufthansa, Germanwings’ parent company, Bild newspaper said that Lubitz had spent 18 months overall under psychiatric treatment. The pilot was diagnosed with a “severe depressive episode” in 2009, the German daily said.

On Friday, prosecutors also cited documents “with medical contents” that pointed towards “an existing illness and corresponding treatment by doctors.” They added the co-pilot could have concealed his illness from his employers. A torn sick leave note for the date of the crashed Germanwings flight was found in Lubitz’s home.

“The investigation lacks any rational explanation, as well as there is no discovered confession. No clear evidence of a possible motive has been found neither in [Lubitz’s] personal and family circles, nor in his working environment,” prosecutors said in a statement Monday, RIA Novosti reported.

A number of witnesses, including the co-pilots’ friends and colleagues have been questioned, but little indication of a motive or signs of immediate physical illness have been found, the prosecutors said, adding that the authorities refuse to be involved in any speculation regarding Lubitz’s actions.

After a transcript of the Germanwings’ flight 4U9525 cockpit “black box” was leaked to German media, revealing the plane’s final moments, there has been criticism of the prosecutors, who confirmed and released details from the voice recorder.

Calling “the leaking of the CVR (cockpit voice recorder) data a serious breach of fundamental and globally accepted international accident investigation rules,” the European Cockpit Association said a full investigation had to be complete before such announcements, adding that “the motivation for and consequences of this will need to be addressed.”

The post Germanwings Co-Pilot Treated For Suicidal Tendencies Years Ago, According to Prosecutors appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Sweden hopes to further enhance the existing economic and trade relations with Sri Lanka, Prime Minister of Sweden, Stefan Löfven said during the bilateral discussions with President Maithripala Sirisena on the sidelines of Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference 2015, in Boao, Hainan Province, China.

Prime Minister Löfven congratulated President Maithripala on his presidential election victory and said that he and the Swedish government are pleased to see the positive development in post-election Sri Lanka.

President Sirisena explained new development initiatives undertaken by the new government in Sri Lanka.

‘We will take steps to increase the number of Swedish tourists visiting Sri Lanka,’ the Prime Minister stated. Sweden is keen to further enhance the existing economic and trade relations with Sri Lanka, said the Premier, and these ties will be stronger than before, he added.

President Sirisena requested Swedish assistance to develop the irrigation sector to improve the living standards of farmers. The Swedish Premier responded positively to the request.

The post Sweden To Strengthen Bilateral ties With Sri Lanka appeared first on Eurasia Review.

An agreement was signed Monday to enable more than 16,500 Spanish public-funded primary and secondary schools to start enjoying ultra-fast Internet access. Over 6.5 million pupils will benefit from this investment.

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said this is “a firm commitment to modernizing our education system at a national level.”

Rajoy stressed that investing in education means “investing in the betterment of people” and is the best investment for the future. A commitment to education “is the best thing we can do for the Spain of today and, above all, for the Spain of tomorrow”.

The Prime Minister said that the Spanish education system, which has 670,000 teachers working at over 28,000 learning centers, offers the same quality and the same opportunities to all children, regardless of whether they live in rural or major urban areas. Hence, all children in Spain are guaranteed equal opportunities.

Rajoy said that the agreement signed this morning has a clear objective. “We want all pupils to have the infrastructure they need to learn with the latest educational technologies available, regardless of where they are geographically”, he said. He went on to add that “the present is already online and the future will be much more so”.

Rajoy also said that, although progress has been made on the incorporation of new technologies into the classroom, Internet connection speeds have not developed at the same pace. “That is what this agreement aims to resolve”, said the Prime Minister. It is “a firm commitment to modernising our education system on a national level, a commitment that will especially help reduce the digital gap and foster equal opportunities.”

The post Spain: Invests 330 Million Euros To Expand Ultra-Fast Internet Access In Learning Centres appeared first on Eurasia Review.

China may be losing the ideological battle against Islamic extremism due to a lack of “respected” religious leaders, a leading Muslim official in restive Xinjiang province said on Monday.

A lack of state-sanctioned Islamic leaders means too many of Xinjiang’s 12 million Uyghurs have turned to extreme interpretations of the Qu’ran, Adudulkrep Tumniaz, deputy director of the Xinjiang Islamic Association, told the state-run China Daily newspaper.

“If the religious leaders compete with the extremists on Islamic knowledge, I cannot guarantee that they would win. That’s what worries me,” said Adudulkrep, who is also head of the state-run Xinjiang Islamic Institute.

“The extremists often start by teaching people about the parts of the Qu’ran — Islam’s holy book — that have never been mentioned by their imams and then inject violent thoughts in people by misinterpreting doctrines,” he said.

In a bid to counter what the government views as extremist Islamic teaching, last year the Xinjiang Islamic Institute in the regional capital Urumqi began a US$48 million expansion with the aim of teaching 1,000 students by 2017, including future religious leaders.

It remains the only school in China legally permitted to teach in the Uyghur language.

“Our institute aims to prepare respectful, knowledgeable religious leaders who can lead the Muslims of Xinjiang in the right direction,” said Adudulkrep.

As violence has escalated in Xinjiang — at least 500 people were killed due to Xinjiang-related attacks last year — authorities have tried to eliminate all forms of non-state sanctioned Muslim teachings for Uyghurs.

Security forces raided underground madrassas and “rescued” more than 270 children during operations in and around the regional capital Urumqi in August and September last year, and under-18s were banned from attending mosques in Xinjiang.

Earlier this month, authorities reportedly paraded 25 teachers in handcuffs and shackles at a public trial in a town square for providing illegal Islamic instruction in Hotan prefecture, a hotbed of recent violence on China’s border with Pakistan. All were found guilty of endangering state security.

“The Communist Party has tried to present itself as the arbiter of the correct interpretation of Islam but up until recently that hasn’t been a particularly important task for it,” said David Brophy, a Uyghur-speaking lecturer in modern Chinese history at the University of Sydney.

Critics of recent Chinese government policy have said that stricter rules on Islamic behavior in Xinjiang have placed some Uyghur Muslims within a wider definition of extremism, while inciting others to violent resistance against Beijing’s rule.

A 38-year-old man was sentenced to six years in prison for “provoking trouble” and growing a beard, and his wife received two years behind bars for wearing a veil, the China Youth Daily reported last week following a government ban on long beards and burqas in Xinjiang enacted last year.

“The policies they have adopted towards Uyghur culture and what they define as illegal religious activity has obviously made Xinjiang quite fertile ground for Islamic opposition at the moment,” Brophy said.

The post China Losing Battle Against Extremist Islamic Teachings, Says Muslim Official appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dr. Subhash Kapila*

Kissinger’s prognostication for China to pend the South China Sea dispute for future generations can best be termed as suggesting a face-saving exit from the international isolation on this issue arising from its conflict escalation record.

Speaking at Singapore on March 28. 2015, Henry Kissinger asserted in relation to China’s conflictual postures on the South China Sea, especially with Vietnam and the Philippines, that “ Deng Xiao Ping dealt with some of the problems by saying not every problem needs to be solved in the existing generation. Let’s perhaps wait for another generation, but let’s not make it worse.”

Harmless on the face of it, if taken by itself, but when read in conjunction with his further remarks that China and the United States should “remove the urgency of the debate”, there are more implicit strategic underpinnings.

The South China Sea disputes “urgency of debate” and international concern was brought about by China’s unprovoked conflict escalation and brinkmanship against Vietnam centred on complete domination of the South China Sea maritime expanse.

It was these Chinese destabilising moves in the strategically crucial South China Sea that prompted the United States Strategic Pivot to Asia Pacific.

Kissinger’s advocacy of China and the United States “defusing the debate” reflects alarm that his good friend China may be walking into a strategic minefield over the South China Sea dispute, as a tipping point may not be far off where United States may have to make a limited intervention against China’s unrestrained escalation of conflict.

Kissinger’s record of being a “China apologist” is well known and that background well reflects his concerns for China. Kissinger expectedly would be well aware that in case of even a limited intervention by the United States in the Western Pacific maritime expanses, China would not come off even second-best with its asymmetrical power equations with the United States.

There is another contradiction here that surfaces in Kissinger’s statements on the South China Sea when one reads the reviews of his latest book on ‘World Power’, Kissinger refers to the South China Sea disputes as “national rivalries”. Presumably, here too, Kissinger is implicitly suggesting that the United States should not get involved in any escalation of the South China Sea dispute and leave China to solve its “national rivalries” with its neighbours. In other words, let China prevail.

Kissinger has been a great practitioner of ‘balance of power’ realpolitik throughout his life. Does Kissinger not realise that what China is indulging in the South China Sea by its conflict escalation and ‘creation of artificial islands’ is aimed at nothing but as repeatedly asserted by me is ‘full-spectrum dominance’ of the South China Sea. Would that not be considered by Kissinger as China’s attempt to upset the ‘balance of power’ in the region and that too against the United States?

Further, when Kissinger suggests that China pend the South China Sea dispute for coming generations to solve, is it aimed at giving China strategic time to complete its complete mastery of the South China Sea maritime expanse?

Concluding, one would like to assert that China’s conflict-escalation and brinkmanship in the South China Sea needs to be checkmated internationally as “global balance of power”, security and stability is involved. It is “global rivalry” that is involved and not “national rivalries’ of Vietnam and Philippines with China-latter two, unequal to take on China in any rivalry.

*Dr Subhash Kapila is a graduate of the Royal British Army Staff College, Camberley and combines a rich experience of Indian Army, Cabinet Secretariat, and diplomatic assignments in Bhutan, Japan, South Korea and USA. Currently, Consultant International Relations & Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. He can be reached at drsubhashkapila.007@gmail.com

The post South China Sea: Kissinger Offers Wrong Prognostic For China – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Adam Dick

Indiana Governor Mike Pence on Thursday issued an executive order (EO 15-05) declaring a “public health disaster emergency” in Scott County in southeastern Indiana due to an epidemic of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the county. The extraordinary measures allowed under the executive order include permitting the Scott County Board of Health to seek the state government’s permission to design and administer a short-term needle exchange program for the sole purpose of suppressing the HIV epidemic in Scott County.

The Republican governor’s executive order further says that all 79 HIV cases the Indiana State Department of Health has confirmed in Scott County since December “directly relate to intravenous drug use.” According to the executive order, no more than five confirmed HIV cases, irrespective of how transmitted, are expected yearly in the county.

If you are in one of Indiana’s 91 other counties and wish to access new, clean needles to protect yourself from infection, tough. (Less than half of one percent of Indiana residents live in Scott County.) Yet, people outside Scott County will be no less dead or debilitated because of infections they receive from using old, dirty needles.

Pence has a war on drugs to fight, and wars have casualties.

Transferring new, clean needles and injecting drugs into your body are nonviolent acts that, due to politicians like Pence, are declared a legal crime punishable by fines and incarceration. Meanwhile, there are no negative repercussions for the perpetrators, including Pence, of the moral crime of the drug war that is responsible for monumental pain, suffering, and death, including because of the transmission of infections through shared needles.

Eight years ago, as a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Indiana, Pence voted for an amendment that sought to prohibit needle exchange in Washington, DC, which has long had a high prevalence of HIV. Indeed, Pence still opposes needle exchanges. Shari Rudavsky reports at the Indianapolis Star that Pence, in announcing his executive order, said he is only making “an exception” to his “long-standing opposition to needle exchange programs.”

Pence’s drug warrior attitude extends beyond wanting to prevent people from using new, clean needles. He also is doing his best to slow Indiana’s participation in the trend of states and local governments decreasing marijuana penalties and even ending marijuana prohibition. For example, Brandon Smith of Indiana Public Radio notes Pence expressed concern in 2013 that state legislation to reduce a list of criminal penalties “was not tough enough on drug crimes” resulting in the bill being altered so marijuana penalty reductions would be less than the penalty reductions for other crimes.

Of course, a needle exchange program run by local, state, or US government bureaucrats is not the optimal means to respect dug users’ freedom and protect their health. New, clean needles should be legal for anyone to own; any store to sell; and any individual, business, or charitable organization to give away. And, if you really value people’s freedom and health, the drugs injected through the needles should be legal to use, possess, transfer, and sell as well. Just don’t hold your breath for a drug warrior like Pence to support such changes.

This article was published by the RonPaul Institute.

The post After HIV Spike, Drug Warrior Governor Grants Limited Temporary Needle Exchange – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ivana Nikolic

The international war crimes court revoked the temporary release of Serbian Radical Party leader Vojislav Seselj, ordering him to return to custody in the Netherlands immediately.

The appeals chamber at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) ruled on Monday that war crimes defendant Seselj, who was temporarily released last year for cancer treatment, must go back into detention.

It said that Seselj’s statements since his return to Belgrade last November, insisting that he would not return to the UN-backed court for the verdict in his war crimes trial, “eroded the essential pre-conditions for provisional release”.

The merits of a further provisional release could be discussed, but only after Seselj is back in the Tribunal’s detention unit, it added.

Seselj reacted defiantly to the announcement, defying Serbia’s leaders to send him back by force.

“Let’s see how [Serbian Prime Minister] Aleksandar Vucic and [President] Tomislav Nikolic will arrest me now,” Seselj told the Vecernje Novosti newspaper.

“The police can come, they are the ones who make arrests. If the gendarmerie [armed interior ministry officers] come, they beat [people]; I will have to watch my back. It won’t be an easy job for them to arrest me,” he said.

Seselj also said that Serbia will have to respect the extradition time procedure and during that period he will “try to question The Hague’s request for a return [to custody]” because his rights in the Netherlands would be threatened, he alleged.

Rasim Ljajic, Serbia’s deputy prime minister and the president of the national council for cooperation with the ICTY, admitted that the decision could cause diffculties for the Belgrade government.

“They didn’t ask us when they released him. The guarantees we gave [to the ICTY about Seselj’s release] were under the condition that he accepts them, just like he was supposed to accept the ICTY’s conditions for provisional release. They didn’t pay attention to that and now they have made a decision that will be problematic again,” Ljajic told newspaper Blic.

Serbian premier Vucic said meanwhile that his government still has no definitive stance on the ruling.

“I am not in a position to hide the anger about the immoral decision they made. We will give our stance on that in the coming days,” Vucic told media.

The Tribunal ordered Seselj’s temporary release in November last year on humanitarian grounds because of his poor health, but since returning to Belgrade, he has led nationalist protests and made a series of hardline statements that have angered war victims.

He said immediately after his release that he would not voluntarily return to the court in The Hague for the verdict in his trial and would stage protests against any attempt to send him back.

“There will be no voluntary return to The Hague for me,” he said.

The European parliament in November adopted a resolution urging the Tribunal to rethink its decision to free Seselj.

“The European parliament strongly condemns Seselj’s warmongering, incitement to hatred and encouragement of territorial claims and his attempts to derail Serbia from its European path,” said the resolution.

Croatia has also condemned his release and called for him to be returned to The Hague.

Seselj had been in custody since 2003, when he voluntarily surrendered. He is on trial for wartime crimes in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia.

The verdict in his case was scheduled for October 2013, but was postponed after one of the judges in the trial was removed for alleged bias.

The new judge is expected to take until at least the end of June 2015 to familiarise himself with details of the case, causing yet another delay in the marathon trial.

The post Hague Tribunal Orders Seselj Back Into Custody appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mohammed Fahad Al-Harthi

The Arab Summit, held recently at Sharm El-Sheikh, can be the beginning of a new phase in joint Arab action and the credibility of Arab countries if decisions are translated into reality.

Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman was clear in identifying the shared Arab operation and his vision for the Arab plan of action. He made it clear that Operation Decisive Storm won’t cease until it achieves its goals.

I was among the foreign and Arab journalists at the summit, where journalists were talking about a new reality in the Arab world that the Saudi leadership created with this alliance for Operation Decisive Storm. Arabs initiated the operation instead of waiting for external intervention.

Saudi Arabia was firm in creating the alliance with international political support to re-establish legitimacy in Yemen. Most of the analyses and comments highlighted the new spirit Saudi Arabia ignited by this joint action, and in the role of the Arab League, which many have criticized for its negativity regarding Arab issues and summit decisions which were repetitive and not abided by.

Many observers agree that international action to counter Al-Houthi was required. The war, albeit ugly, was the last resort and based on a formal request by the legitimate government head, President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, who sought intervention.

Thus, there was strong international support for this military operation with the participation of ten countries. The US and Europe are supporting the campaign and have issued clear messages on Iran’s expansion in the region and that leniency would only encourage it in its expansionist dreams. Decisive Storm was a strong response, coming from wise, not weak policies. The message is: It necessitated a military response and that the Gulf states were ready for such a moment if it became a necessity.

Yemen was definitely the dominant topic at the summit, but there was broad consensus that Saudi Arabia decision was timely after all other political solutions failed. During his speech, Hadi stressed on the legitimate government’s request for military intervention and that his government requires the continuation of Operation Decisive Storm until legitimacy is back.

The Arab summit’s resolutions were a source of optimism, particularly the agreement to establish a joint Arab force and actualize it through Operation Decisive Storm. It is a message to the world that Arabs have decided to take the initiative themselves, and a message to the neighboring regional powers that the Arabs will not allow their countries to become bases for other nations’ interests and a bargaining chip in negotiations.

Prince Saud Al-Faisal, foreign minister, was honest to say that Russia is arming a government that kills its people — a reference to Syria — and the decision is helping in perpetuating the crisis there and, therefore, Russia bears great responsibility.

When Arab officials clearly articulate their message in this powerful language, it means that they want to assume their nations’ responsibilities without external interference. Decisive Storm is an example of this thought, leading to an alliance, and at the same time, earning the support of international public opinion and world leaders.

Through this approach, the Arab Summit decided to support the Decisive Storm and stressed that it will continue until it defeats the Houthis and brings back the legitimate government in Yemen headed by Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi.

Perhaps this decision and the decision to form a joint Arab military force will lead to an Arab regional system that will pave the way for a new Arab regime led by Saudi and the Gulf states, in alliance with Egypt, to protect the Arab countries and ensure the security and stability of their peoples.

The post Egypt Summit: Beginning Of A New Era – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The FBI Baltimore office said it is investigating a shooting incident that occurred Monday morning at a gate at the National Security Agency at Fort Meade just off I-295 in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

“The shooting scene is contained, and we do not believe it is related to terrorism,” the FBI said in a statement.

According to various news reports, two men disguised as women tried to ram their vehicle into the NSA’s headquarters in Fort Meade, Md.

Police responded to the threat by opening fire, shooting one of the men dead and injuring the other, according to news reports.

The FBI said in they are investigating the incident with NSA Police and other law enforcement agencies.

“Our Evidence Response Team is processing the crime scene, and FBI special agents are doing joint interviews with witnesses. We are working with the US Attorney’s Office in Maryland to determine if federal charges are warranted,” the FBI said.

The FBI said there was no further information available at this time.

The post FBI Says Car Attack On NSA ‘Not Terrorism’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(EurActiv) — Rich nations provided around five times as much in export subsidies for fossil-fuel technology as for renewable energy over a decade, according to OECD data seen by Reuters.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) figures on export credits are central to a debate on targeting funding ahead of UN climate talks in Paris at the end of the year.

Just when the European Union is leading the push for a new global deal on curbing emissions and is phasing out domestic coal subsidies, the documents underline the scale of the developed world’s investment in exporting technology for the most polluting fossil fuel.

Earlier this year, a document seen by Reuters provided the closest yet to official figures on coal export credits.

Further documents give the context of all energy export subsidies.

One, dated 4 March, when the OECD held closed-door talks on the issue, shows OECD governments provided preferential loans and state-backed guarantees worth $36.8 billion between 2003 and 2013 for exporting fossil fuel power-generation technology, including almost $14 billion for coal.

A document from October 2014 shows another $52.6 billion in export credits was allocated for the extraction of fossil fuels, including coal, taking the fossil fuel total to $89.4 billion.

Export credits for technology for renewable energy, which has no extraction costs, were $16.7 billion.

An OECD spokesman said he could not comment on documents marked confidential. But the documents themselves say the data should be public.

“There would seem to be a pressing need to issue coherent, complete and accurate figures on official export credit support that is relevant to climate change issues,” the 4 March document says.

EU officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the March talks made little progress and the issue would be raised again at OECD level in June.

The OECD has said it wants a decision on how export credits can help tackle climate change in time for the UN summit that begins on 30 November in Paris.

A debate within the EU, which accounts for two thirds of OECD nations, is deadlocked because Poland has blocked as too ambitious a compromise to allow export funding for only the most efficient coal technology, the EU officials said. Britain and France objected, saying the compromise was not ambitious enough.

Germany, the biggest EU user of export credits both for coal and renewables, the data shows, is planning measures to make operators of coal plants, such as RWE, curb production at their oldest and most-polluting power stations as part of efforts to achieve climate targets.

A letter to the European Commission from industry associations, the European Power Plant Suppliers Association, EU Turbines and Germany’s VDMA, said halting coal export credits would lock developing nations into less-efficient technology and curtail European industry’s competitiveness.

Environment campaigners dismiss those arguments.

Sebastien Godinot, an economist at WWF, said the industry had “failed to bring any concrete evidence that the OECD export finance policy drives more efficient technology”.

The post Rich Nations’ Fossil Fuel Export Funding Dwarfs Green Spend appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The SUCCIPACK project has come up with a technical solution to progressively phase out fossil fuel-based packaging in favour of bio-based solutions. The new, biodegradable and recyclable packaging also promises longer shelf life and better protection of food products.

Each year, the average EU citizen generates some 159 kg of packaging waste, around 40 % of which is not recycled. As the world population and the Pacific trash vortex keep growing, any packaging option that would tick the recyclability and biodegradability boxes while maintaining or even improving product protection and preservation would be celebrated.

Well aware of these high hopes, 18 companies from across Europe have teamed up to create innovative food packaging materials based on polybutylene succinate — more commonly known as PBS. The consortium has spent two years tweaking PBS grades, structure, formulation, treatment and recycling routes to make the material suitable for a wide adoption by the food packaging market. All this, while keeping investment costs on the low.

The stakes are high: if successful, the commercial deployment of PBS in industry would provide Europe with a competitive edge over the USA and Asia, while bringing the EU one leap closer to the advent of the circular economy.

Christophe Cotillon, who coordinated the project on behalf of ACTIA, details the specifics of the EU-funded project SUCCIPACK (Development of active, intelligent and sustainable food PACKaging using PolybutyleneSUCCInate) and its technology, and discusses its potential for large-scale commercialisation over the next two years.

Packaging is generally seen as trading sustainability for increased food safety. How does your technology reconcile both?

PBS-based packaging is able to offer a very good quality of packaging for food, which doesn’t have to shy away from comparisons with existing packaging especially with regards to meeting food safety requirements. By improving the barrier properties of this new packaging, the shelf-life of food products can be improved, and as we develop multi-functionality only one film will be needed to protect the food product, thus eliminating the need for different layers of packaging and over-packaging.

In this respect, SUCCIPACK’s packaging is contributing to the protection of our environment. But it is also biodegradable and can easily be recycled.

What are SUCCIPACK’s expected benefits?

PBS-based packaging has been tested on different food products such as cheese, ready-to-eat vegetables, meat and fish products. The expected benefits in terms of shelf life are at least comparable with existing packaging and sometimes even perform better. By continuing to improve barrier properties like antimicrobial coating and other aspects (gas, vapour, aroma), we will be able to achieve better preservation of food products compared to existing food packaging.

Why choose PBS as a material?

PBS is a platform component having applications in different industrial sectors. It is already used by the petrochemical industry, but it can also be 100 % bio-based. Bio-based PBS can be produced easily from cellulosic material and renewable sources of plant biomass, be it plants or plant waste. In the future, we expect the capacity of production to increase, so availability of bio-based PBS will not be a problem.

Your website mentions the expected impact of your technology on SMEs. Can you elaborate on that?

Packaging producers can use PBS packaging to produce films, trays and pouches with the exact same technologies they are using for current packaging materials — injection, moulding, extrusion film blowing and thermo-forming. They don’t need to change the process, and switching to PBS only requires very limited investments. This means that SMEs can produce this packaging easily, at a competitive price.

Now, for SMEs producing food, replacing existing packaging by SUCCIPACK packaging will not be a problem either in terms of process. At the end of the day, the only change is better preservation, a longer shelf-life and lower-priced food products.

When do you hope to see your packaging material being commercialised?

Our packaging should be commercialised in two years. In the early stages, the PBS used for packaging fabrication will not be 100 % based on bio-material. It will be a mix of petrochemical and bio-based raw materials.

Then, progressively, PBS packaging will contain more and more PBS from bio-based material because the production capacity for PBS will increase in Europe.

Supposing that the product is successful, can it be produced on a large scale?

Large-scale production depends on raw bio-based material availability if we want to produce 100 % bio-based packaging, but in the meantime petrochemical PBS can be produced on a large scale.

With the project now being completed, do you have any follow-up plans?

We would like to set up a new project like a ‘fast track to innovation’ project supported by the EU to reach and penetrate the market more easily. The existing consortium consists of relevant and efficient partners who are very motivated to keep going further until commercialisation is achieved.

Source: CORDIS

The post Could PBS Revolutionise Food Packaging As We Know It? appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Europol and Eurojust supported an operation on 24 March targeting several organized crime groups (OCGs) suspected of excise fraud. Millions of euros were recovered and 61 searches and seizures were conducted. Law enforcement and prosecution authorities of six Member States executed 53 freezing orders and arrested eight individuals.

Excise fraud is often cross-border in nature, involving Member States and third countries alike. It is a high impact crime, perpetrated by sophisticated OCGs who abuse customs procedures to avoid billions of euros in excise duties. Some of the major issues that need to be tackled to reduce cross-border excise fraud are: differences in national excise legislation; weaknesses in EU excise control and inspection systems; and corruption.

Operation Sturm Oil resulted from a large-scale Italian operation carried out by the Public Prosecution Office in Rome and the Guardia di Finanza against an OCG involved in massive carousel fraud of excise duties. The investigated OCG was found to be mixing diesel fuel with additives to disguise the real nature of the product and avoid VAT.

The oil, purchased in Germany and allegedly transported to Malta and Greece, was instead stockpiled and sold on the black market in Italy through a sophisticated network of buyers. A complex network of companies provided false invoices and bogus transport documents, while several associates in various Member States provided logistical support and transportation facilities.

Representatives of the national authorities of Italy, the UK, Romania, Germany, Malta and the Czech Republic, worked closely at Eurojust’s coordination centre in The Hague. Europol deployed a mobile office while Eurojust’s Case Analysis Unit provided real-time analytical and operational assistance.

The operation set a milestone in the fight against carousel fraudsters, not only for the excellent operational results of the coordinated action across six Member States, but also because criminals have been deprived of money and property to compensate for the economic losses suffered by Italy due to the fraud.

The post Million Of Euros Recovered In Operation Against Excise Fraud appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Operation Decisive Storm is for the protection of the Yemeni people and defense of their legitimate government and not a proxy war between the Kingdom and Iran, said Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir, Saudi ambassador to the US.

“This campaign is against a group supported by Iran and Hezbollah,” he said during a Meet the Press program on NBC News of America channel.

Al-Jubeir rejected claims that the operation was a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Asked about the possibility about Saudi Arabia and Iran coexisting in the Middle East, he said the Kingdom has faced many aggressions from the Iranian side, while there has been no aggression from the Kingdom against Iran.

“We have extended the hand of friendship to the Iranians, but they have rejected it for the past 35 years; we want friendly relations with them because it will be good for the region. But what is happening is the result of Iranian actions, and not that of the Kingdom,” the ambassador said.

Responding to a question on negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program, he said, “We are waiting to see the outcome of the negotiations before we assess the deal.”

Earlier, in a Face the Nation program on the US CBS News, Al-Jubeir insisted that the aim of the military campaign was to defend the legitimate government in Yemen, and open the way for political talks.

He said Saudi Arabia tried its best to avoid the war and was forced to resort to military action after all efforts failed.

Al-Jubeir said even Yemenis tried every possible way to avoid war by offering avenues for a peaceful agreement, but the Houthi terrorists continued with their campaign to control the cities of Yemen.

“When the Houthis were on the verge of taking control of Aden, the legitimate government’s call to intervene under Article 51 of the UN had to be heeded.”

Asked about using ground forces in Yemen, Al-Jubeir said, “We have a coalition of more than 10 countries and so far the goal is being achieved through the air campaign.”

The post Saudi Arabia Stresses Yemen Operation Not Proxy War With Iran appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed

The son of isolated former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh has been injured with more than half of his body suffering from burns.

Despite this, Saleh — who is allied with the Houthis who support Iran — is the mastermind of the current mayhem in Yemen that erupted months ago. Saleh, the wounded fox, was betrayed by his own intelligence and hasn’t yet comprehended that his chances to return to power in Yemen are minimal. He was ousted following mass demonstrations across the country calling for his ouster. He should have realized back then that he had lost all legitimacy and credibility.

Just like he himself was burned by the revolution, he is now behind the burning of the political future of his eldest son Ahmad, whom he wanted the Yemenis to appoint as their president. What destroyed Saleh’s conspiratorial plan were the leaked details of the secret message, which he previously sent via his son Ahmad to Saudi Defense Minister Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The letter was leaked after Saleh appeared on a Yemeni television channel after the Saudi-led coalition began to bomb his forces. He claimed neutrality and patriotism saying he has always stood by a political solution and that he and his family members have no power ambitions.

He appeared as a lamb before the Yemeni people claiming his innocence in any involvement in the coup and war, which he had in fact caused. His lies pushed Riyadh to leak the details of the secret message. Al-Arabiya News Channel’s report aired details of how two days before the Saudi-led military attacks began, Saleh sent his son to negotiate a deal with the Saudis.

The deal stipulated that he would be willing to stand by the Saudis and abandon his Houthi allies in exchange for a series of demands — which were all personal.

He wanted lifting of the UN Security Council sanctions imposed on him — like ending the travel ban and unfreezing his assets in Yemeni and foreign banks and that his son be allowed to govern the country.

The aim of making the message public was to show the true face of Saleh to the Yemeni people. In case of not meeting his demands, he threatened to continue his alliance with the Houthis and to sabotage the transitional political process sponsored by the Gulf states and the United Nations. Naturally, Saudi Arabia refused and launched the military campaign.

In the past, we described Saleh as Yemen’s fox. He described himself as “dancing on the heads of snakes” because he governed the country for decades via slyness and not via institutions until the Yemenis revolted against him in 2011. He did not accept to step down until he was forced to after he suffered burns in an explosion, which targeted him in a mosque. When he returned from Saudi Arabia after receiving medical treatment, he conspired against it and allied with its Iranian rivals and their Houthi proxy and stoked unrest in Yemen to sabotage the political process.

The Saudis decided that what’s best for them and for the Yemeni people is to go ahead with the reconciliation plan and with the political solution which the UN adopted because this would be the only guarantee for Yemenis and not just for Saleh and his son. This choice is also the best option for Saleh if the latter had wisely considered it. Engaging in the reconciliation for the sake of Yemen’s stability, instead of sabotaging it, would have made him a father figure to Yemenis and it would have also improved the future of his son, Ahmad, who could have been one of the possible leaders of the country.

The stupidity of this isolated fox destroyed his present and his son’s future. He failed at calculating the Saudi reaction since the very start. His slyness led him to using the Houthis because he was confident that while he transfers power to himself and his son, they — like Hezbollah in Lebanon — could assassinate, destroy, invade and cancel out legitimacy without being deterred by anyone.

However, he was surprised by the strong Saudi reaction. He did not expect the Gulf countries to become part of the Saudi-led coalition.

Saleh was also under the impression that the Americans would reject any Saudi action to avoid upsetting Iran with which the US is negotiating over its nuclear program. He was wrong in his calculations. The “Operation Decisive Storm” brought together the Qataris with the Emiratis on a military level and gained the support of the Egyptians and the Turks. Saleh also saw how the Americans rushed to publicly support the campaign as the American president called Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman to voice support for the campaign. The Americans also offered their intelligence and logistical services.

The recent Arab League summit turned into a conference that supported the campaign and the legitimacy of President Hadi who was celebrated as he represented Yemen at the summit and delivered a speech on behalf of the Yemeni people. All this happened while the fox Saleh is in hiding to escape the military operation against his forces and the tribes who are pursuing him to detain him and bring him to justice after he violated the vows of reconciliation and immunity guarantees.

The post Yemen: Conspiring Against One’s Own People – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.