Recent Western reports confirm that China is militarising disputed reefs and shoals in the South China Sea. China will obtain no military benefit from this but will simply acquire some weak naval bases at the cost of antagonising rival claimants.

By Sukjoon Yoon*

Even as ASEAN nations are responding warmly to China’s “Maritime Silk Road” initiative, dredging operations for land reclamation works are going on at seven disputed reefs and shoals in the South China Sea. Naval and air force facilities are being established: new piers and wharves, extended airstrips, and military garrisons with radar installations and coastal artillery. Does this militarisation of the South China Sea really help China to become a “true maritime power” as exhorted by President Xi Jinping?

The South China Sea is a large semi-enclosed sea which carries a third of the world’s shipping and has vast oil and gas reserves; it therefore has enormous geostrategic and economic significance. Recently, there have been growing tensions between China and ASEAN members concerning numerous small islands which are either permanently submerged or exposed only at low tide. Seeing China’s determination to apparently reestablish its historical dominance of the South China Sea, all the Southeast Asian nations, especially those with territorial claims disputed by China, are currently building up their naval capacities.

Does the PLAN understand modern naval warfare?

Unfortunately, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy (PLAN) seems to be ignoring the reality of modern naval warfare, which does not need widespread and numerous geographical assets, but instead relies upon expeditionary naval forces which are permanently at sea and always prepared to go where they are required.

In fact, the PLAN is taking some sensible steps to transform itself into a modern navy capable of undertaking far-sea operations: it is building its first true aircraft carrier much bigger and more capable than the refurbished Russian-designed Liaoning, and also the Type 055, a new-generation destroyer with phased array air-defence radar and impressive missile capabilities.

US-based Defence News reports that the PLAN is investigating the feasibility of establishing a Fourth Fleet, apparently in the Indian Ocean. The Chinese Coast Guard has also become more prominent: last year they rammed and used water cannons against Vietnamese vessels trying to intercept a Chinese drilling rig.

The PLAN has successfully developed into a blue-water navy, expanding its submarine forces and deploying a surface task unit to the Indian Ocean. But the militarisation of the Paracels and Spratlys in the South China Sea over the last few years, building military garrisons, coastal defence positions, runways, large aircraft hangers, logistics facilities etc., does nothing to extend the PLAN’s far-sea operational capabilities. These efforts are of dubious military value, so presumably they represent a political statement.

Questionable decisions

The South China Sea is notorious for its bad weather conditions and rough seas, and the difficulty of conducting all-weather naval patrols and maritime interdiction missions in such circumstances is obvious; there may be less than 60 days per year when the weather allows the berthing of small- or medium-sized naval vessels at piers or wharves of the artificial islands. Unless the facilities are built on a very large scale, they will be inadequate to protect even fishing vessels from the frequent typhoons.

As to aircraft, it will not be straightforward for the PLA Air Force to operate its Su-27SKs from such artificial islands. Their state-of-the-art technology requires advanced logistical and maintenance capacities, and their pilots are unused to taking off and landing from runways without taxiways. Moreover, hangered Su-27SKs could be easily monitored by satellites and targeted by long-range drones.

The radar installations on the artificial islands are also likely to prove inferior to those already available on a variety of PLAN surface platforms, which have better three-dimensional coverage. Basically, there is no military justification to build these artificial islands, so the PLA leaders who took the decision undoubtedly have more political than operational experience.

Sadly, therefore, we should see the militarisation of the South China Sea as a misguided statement of China’s political choices, rather than an expression of military flexibility. For more than 10 years now, the PLAN’s naval modernisation has focused on the assertive manifestation of solid naval power. Of course, this has disturbed China’s neighbours, the small and weak ASEAN countries, as well as sending the wrong signals to Japan and the United States: this is not the way to become a true maritime power.

Throughout history, most maritime powers striving for “command” of their seas to protect their national commerce and other interests have faced severe financial and military resources deficits, so that absolute sea control has remained a matter of political imagination.

True naval powers respect their neighbours and cooperate with them; maritime peace and prosperity is best maintained by recognising maritime domains protected by properly codified international law: purely military tools are insufficient.

What next?

The US is now clearly treating China as a major threat: it has transferred some older naval and coast guard vessels to ASEAN navies, and the commander of the US Navy Seventh Fleet has expressed support for US-ASEAN joint naval patrol operations in the South China Sea. Likewise, although the ASEAN countries have welcomed Xi Jinping’s “Maritime Silk Road” initiative, their navies are lobbying for funds to upgrade their dilapidated naval bases, and to acquire advanced platforms and weapons from foreign suppliers.

The South China Sea disputes are unnecessarily complicating China’s own progress: surely China’s “peaceful rise” should contribute to the common destiny of East Asia. On a more positive note, the PLAN is starting to develop a conceptual understanding of modern naval warfare and to incorporate this into its strategic approach. This militarisation of the South China Sea is a fruitless distraction: China will only become a true maritime power by making further adjustments to outdated mindsets, both within the PLAN and also in the wider political leadership.

*Dr. Sukjoon Yoon is a retired Captain of the Republic of Korea Navy. He is Senior Research Fellow at the Korea Institute for Maritime Strategy (KIMS), and a visiting professor at the Department of Defence System Engineering, Sejong University, Seoul, South Korea. He contributed this specially to RSIS Commentary.

The post Why Is China Militarising The South China Sea? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Nilova Roy Chaudhury*

Prime Minister Narendra Modi paid official visits to France, Germany and Canada from April 9-16, his first major engagement with three industrialised Western countries, as part of what he called his ‘Link West’.

On why these three countries were chosen, Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar said, “These three countries are all G7 countries, they are industrialised democracies. We have a considerable economic interest in partnering with these countries. They are very relevant to lot of our national development programmes. They are all democratic countries as well. So, in that sense, we have a larger political convergence with them.”

Commenting on the substance of the visits, former diplomat Jayant Prasad said, “on substance there is more continuity than change” – between policies of the previous United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime and the current National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government.

“The change is in the style, in a sort of activism in maintaining continuity in dialogue at the highest levels,” Prasad said at a recent Society for Policy Studies-organized talk on Prime Minister Modi’s trip to France, Germany and Canada.

There is no real difference in policy, but “Prime Minister Modi picks his destinations to develop his vision of comprehensive national power,” Prasad said, comprising technology, defence and research and development.

His first destination was France where, other than Paris, the prime minister visited Toulouse, headquarters of Airbus Industrie and CNES, the French space company.

“In the case of France, our traditional relationship has focused on this trio of defence, nuclear and space,” said Jaishankar, and those were “at the heart of the discussions.”

But it was the decision to buy 36 Rafale aircraft, off the shelf from Dassault, and do away with the deal to acquire 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) that was painstakingly negotiated four years ago that was stunning. The deal provided a lifeline to the ailing Dassault aviation company and would provide immediate relief to the Indian Air Force, which desperately requires new aircraft.

However, as Admiral (retd) Arun Prakash, former Navy Chief and an aviator, asked, “How will the company manufacture 36 Rafale aircraft to deliver to the IAF in two years?” The details of the agreement remain sketchy. “Also, what does this mean for the prime minister’s hyperbole about ‘Make in India?”

There was also an agreement between Areva (the French nuclear power company) and L&T for construction of casings for nuclear reactors, which would likely reduce the cost of the Jaitapur reactors.

The prime minister’s visit to Germany, where India was again the partner country for the Hannover Messe industrial fair, was primarily to seek investment and skills and technology transfer.

As in Paris, there was a boat ride down a once-polluted river, but the atmosphere was more business-like. The focus was on infrastructure, issues relating to Clean Ganga, waste management, smart cities, skills development (hence the visit to Siemens) and renewable, clean coal and solar energy technology. Germany has the most cost-effective solar power technologies available and is a manufacturing giant.

The visits to France and Germany could not, however, be coupled with a visit to Brussels (as earlier intended) for an engagement with the European Union. The India-EU summit, not held since 2013 because of the issue of the Italian marines, or the “lowest common denominator” as Prasad called it, will further delay the India-EU Free Trade Agreement with a major trading partner.

The prime minister was in Canada from April14-16, during which he packed in the cities of Ottawa (the capital, where no Indian prime minister had been in 42 years), Toronto and Vancouver. His Canadian counterpart Prime Minister Stephen Harper, facing elections soon, accompanied him throughout the visit, even sharing the Indian prime minister’s aircraft.

Canada is the world’s 11th largest economy. For India, the possibility of investment is very attractive, as in terms of assets, the top five Canadian pension funds alone control nearly $700 billion.

Additionally, Canada is an energy superpower, with which India’s nuclear programme is closely linked. Having concluded a bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement in 2013, Canada will now supply uranium for India’s nuclear power reactors, auguring well for the atomic power sector.

“The agreement on procurement of uranium from Canada for our civilian nuclear power plants launches a new era of bilateral nuclear cooperation,” the prime minister said.

India and Canada had lost the vibrancy of their relationship over the past few decades, first when India conducted its Pokhran tests both in 1974, and even worse in 1998, and then with the so-called ‘Khalistan’ movement from the 1980s, culminating in the blowing up of the Indian national carrier’s ‘Kanishka’ aircraft.

“While Canada had become the symbol for the West’s disenchantment with India,” an analyst said, “India was not exactly thrilled with Canada’s attitudes and excessive preaching, opting to support separatists over the Government of India.”

However, the rise of the 1.2 million people of Indian origin in Canada and their close integration into that society has, perforce, altered the paradigm. India’s economic growth has added to the urgency to re-engage.

While this visit did not bring the conclusion of the Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, the prime minister said it would be concluded “soon” and “We will also implement the road map to conclude the Comprehensive Economic Co-operation Agreement by September 2015.”

Prime Minister Modi’s visits to France, Germany and Canada, all members of the G-20 also, reflect the ‘Link West’ aspect of India’s foreign policy, providing the opportunity to reinforce strong links with each of these countries with a focus on raising investment, building skills and technological tie-ups.

Joint efforts to counter terrorism was another crucial undercurrent of this visit, which Prime Minister Modi linked with a leadership role for India at the United Nations Security Council, as a matter of right.

Interacting with the Indian diaspora, particularly in Canada, was the prime minister’s effort to thank them for their support and lay emphasis on their linkages with the home country.

*Nilova Roy Chaudhury is a senior journalist and foreign policy analyst. She can be reached at contributions@spsindia.in

The post Modi’s Great Leap West – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Felix K. Chang*

The U.S. Department of Defense’s latest assessment of the Chinese military provided new detail on China’s land reclamation efforts on several of the islets that it occupies in the South China Sea. These include Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson South Reef, Mischief Reef, and Subi Reef in the Spratly archipelago. By December 2014, the report estimated that China had reclaimed as much as 500 acres of new land, creating full-fledged islands where only coral reefs or sand spits existed before. Since then, China has only accelerated its efforts, expanding the total land area that it has reclaimed to 2,000 acres and building military facilities, ports, and at least one airstrip on the islands.[1]

China is not alone in reclaiming land in the Spratly Islands. Though dwarfed by the massive scale of China’s efforts, Vietnam’s land reclamation work has recovered a total of 21 acres of land on West London Reef and Sand Cay. Satellite imagery shows that not only are the two islands larger, but that Vietnam has constructed defensive positions and gun emplacements on them.[2]

Meanwhile, Taiwan is carrying out a more modestly-paced land reclamation effort on Itu Aba Island—the largest natural island in the Spratly archipelago—reclaiming roughly five acres of land. By the end of this year, Taiwan plans to complete a large wharf that can accommodate its frigates and coast guard cutters. Eventually, it hopes to extend the island’s runway and deploy P-3C maritime patrol aircraft there.[3]

Hence, China regards criticism from Southeast Asian countries over its island-building activities as a case of the pot calling the kettle black. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently shot back at its most vocal critic, the Philippines, which it claims “has conducted large-scale construction of military and civil facilities, including airports, ports and barracks on [Philippine-occupied] islands for many years.” As a result, China called upon the Philippines to end its “malicious hyping and provocation.”[4]

Accusations aside, bigger islands that are bristling with weapons will not settle the disputes in the South China Sea. No doubt military installations on the islands can be useful. They can improve the ability of claimants to monitor and rapidly respond to incidents in the area. And ultimately, they serve as a tripwire against hostile action. But further fortifying the islands makes them only marginally more secure. However strong an island’s defenses are, they are inherently vulnerable.

If push comes to shove, an island’s defenses can exact a toll on an attacker, especially if they are armed with anti-ship or anti-air missiles. But eventually they will be lost without control of the sea and air around them. A determined attacker that dominates both can always overcome an island’s defenses, no matter how skillful their defenders are. Only superior naval and air power can ensure the safety of island outposts. On that score, China has its rivals beat at the moment.

There once was a time when claimants in the South China Sea vied to demonstrate how their occupied islets met certain criteria to be considered islands under international law. That way they could claim the rights to exclusive economic zones around their specks of land. Today, a growing list of claimants, chief among them China, would rather build artificial islands than quibble over the finer points of international law. There is an out-and-out scramble to establish de facto zones of control and land reclamation is part of that.

About the author:
*Felix K. Chang is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is also the Chief Strategy Officer of DecisionQ, a predictive analytics company in the national security and healthcare industries. He has worked with a number of digital, consumer services, and renewable energy entrepreneurs for years. He was previously a consultant in Booz Allen Hamilton’s Strategy and Organization practice; among his clients were the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of the Treasury, and other agencies. Earlier, he served as a senior planner and an intelligence officer in the U.S. Department of Defense and a business advisor at Mobil Oil Corporation, where he dealt with strategic planning for upstream and midstream investments throughout Asia and Africa.

Source:
This article was published at FPRI.

Notes:
[1] Office of the Secretary of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2015 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, May 2015), p. 72; James Hardy, Sean O’Connor, and Michael Cohen, “China’s first runway in Spratlys under construction,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, Apr. 16, 2015.

[2] Gordon Lubold and Adam Entous, “U.S. Says Beijing Is Building Up South China Sea Islands,” Wall Street Journal, May, 9, 2015.

[3] Gavin Phipps and James Hardy, “Taiwan to deploy P-3Cs to Spratlys,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, Apr. 21, 2015.

[4] Ben Blanchard and Manuel Mogato, “China says Philippines violating South China Sea code,” Reuters, May 5, 2015.

The post Digging In: Land Reclamation And Defenses In The South China Sea – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(EurActiv) — A senior US official rejected Monday an EU proposal to create an international investment court that was aimed at resolving one of the disputes holding up their free trade deal.

The EU’s trade commissioner Cecilia Cecilia Malmström last week proposed creating an investment court to allay concerns among Europeans that the ISDS arbitration panel forseen in the deal would effectively allow companies to bypass national courts if they feel their investments are under threat.

However US Undersecretary for International Trade at the Commerce Department, Stefan Selig, noted Monday that some so-called Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanisms already exist in international trade agreements and had not resulted in a loss of sovereignty for countries.

“The criticisms that they undermine governments’ right to regulate, I think are just misguided,” Selig said during a visit to Paris when asked about Malmström’s proposals.

Malmstroem’s proposals included making the ISDS arbitration tribunals more like traditional courts, with a view to eventually setting up a permanent international investment court.

Selig said the United States believes the ISDS mechanism “increases the security of companies willing to make investments and arguably makes that country, whether it’s the United States or any country in Europe, a more attractive investment destination.”

Diplomatic sources told EurActiv France that the US position is not surprising as the country has always profited from the ISDS system.

“France is working on a proposal to reform ISDS which we will unveil soon and send to the European Commission,” the source continued. France has pushed for a thorough reform of the system in the past, advocating for the establishment of an international court.

The EU-US are unlikely to meet a year-end deadline to wrap up talks on their free trade deal, which is called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

If concluded, TTIP would be the world’s biggest trade deal, linking about 60 percent of the world’s economic output in a colossal market of 850 million consumers, creating a free-trade corridor from Hawaii to Lithuania.

The post US Rejects EU Proposal For Investment Court, Insists On Retaining ISDS appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By R.S. Kalha*

The rise of China as a great power is no longer a matter of speculation; it is a given fact. Most nations today seriously consider the Chinese factor when determining policy. The question uppermost in the minds of Indian policy makers is: should we contain or oppose the rise of China, singly or in tandem with others, or should we seek an accommodation? There are no easy answers. No doubt Modi’s closest advisors would be grappling with this question on the eve of his first official visit to China as the prime minister of India.

Just as India became independent, a vast strategic shift in the power matrix of Asia took place. Japanese power lay completely shattered at the end of the Second World War. The British withdrew from India leaving India politically divided into two states and its armed forces split – and soon in serious conflict over Kashmir. On the other hand, China wracked by civil war in the last century, with warlords holding sway, not only became politically united, but a new invigorated and a determined government assumed office. The strategic fulcrum of power had shifted in Asia from south to the north of the Himalayas.

The question therefore that faced India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru was how to deal with Chinese power on our northern borders. In short, Nehru’s answer was to seek an accommodation with China and play for time till India was able to fully develop economically and militarily to meet the emerging challenge. That he failed is another question.

Unfortunately, for present-day policy planners, the power equation with China has worsened since Nehru’s time to the detriment of India. China’s economy is five times larger than that of India; its military budget three times larger; and its foreign exchange reserves are ten times larger than ours. The Chinese have developed first-rate communications infrastructure right up to our borders; we are still struggling. But we still retain one great strategic advantage – the Indian Ocean where the Indian Navy dominates.

The Indian Ocean is the third largest ocean in the world covering about 20 percent of water on the earth’s surface. The Indian peninsula, which stretches about 1,600 km straight into the heart of the ocean, dominates its geographical space. The importance of the Indian Ocean region also lies in the fact that nearly 100,000 ships traverse it on an annual basis carrying 700 million tonnes of cargo, but most important of all there are four transit ‘choke-points’ of which the Straits of Malacca dominate. The Malacca Straits are a shallow, narrow waterway that connects the Indian Ocean with the South China Sea. At some points it is only 23 metres deep.

China relies heavily on imported oil, gas and other natural resource commodities to feed its growing economy and it is estimated that its crude oil imports may exceed 300 million tonnes shortly. Nearly 18 percent of China’s total energy consumption is based on imported oil and at current trends, nearly 80 percent of oil imports pass through this route. In case the Straits of Malacca were ever to be blockaded, it would mean a detour of at least three to four days extra through unsafe waters.

Since Nehru and the 1962 conflict, successive Indian prime ministers have sought neither strategic accommodation nor confrontation with China. While serious attempts were made to settle the boundary question, it was realized that a settlement was not imminent. Therefore it made better policy to first stabilize the border areas to minimize incidents. From denying that a dispute existed under Nehru, to stating that till the issue was settled, there would be no normalization, to Rajiv Gandhi’s assertion that relations may develop side by side with the boundary negotiations, the Indian position has moved quite significantly.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee went even further and agreed that a boundary settlement be explored “afresh from a political perspective”, thus abandoning Nehru’s stance that the Sino-Indian boundary was established by “treaty, custom and usage”.

Finally, in Article III of the Political Parameters and Guiding Principles Agreement signed in April 2005, Manmohan Singh accepted a “package settlement” and “adjustment of its position” on the boundary issue. So with India having moved so far, why then does China not agree?

Suffice it to say that China senses no pressure from India, be it military, political or economic. In fact, if gestures be read as harbingers of policy change, we seem to be signalling a move towards the old policy of accommodation. The Rafale deal has been reduced from 126 fighters to a more financially viable 36 fighters; the strength of the Mountain Strike Corps reduced from 90,000 to 35,000 soldiers and politically there has not even been a pro-forma protest when President Xi Jinping announced the building of railway lines, oil and gas pipelines and the China-Pakistan economic corridor through Pakistani-occupied Kashmir. The Chinese remain protectionist on facilitating Indian exports in the key pharma and IT sectors, thus ensuring a continued massive trade deficit.

The task before Modi is daunting as no easy solutions are obvious. He would need the unstinting support of all, for whichever policy option he adopts it will have momentous repercussions.

One thought: Modi should announce the upgrading of the Andaman and Nicobar base to a full-fledged naval command before departure. It would be a signal of intent that the Chinese will not miss.

*R.S. Kalha is a former secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, India, and author of book “India-China Boundary Issues – Quest for Settlement (ICWA 2014). He can be contacted at rskalha@gmail.com

The post Modi’s Tour To China, Mongolia And South Korea – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Hernán Scandizzo

In recent years criminalization of social protest in Argentina has spread from the large urban centers to the periphery, particularly protests organized to support indigenous territorial demands and struggles in defense of common lands led by socio-environmental assemblies.

“In the 1990s, the state response to the demands of unemployed people was clearly criminalization and, in recent years identified as kirchnerism, it is not so much repression which is the mechanism by which protests are broken up,” claimed Eduardo Hualpa, president of the Association of Lawyers for Indigenous rights (AADI), to Latinamerica Press. “There are other mechanisms, there are complicated dialogues, there are some who say there is cooptation, others who say that there is the incorporation of political projects; but, definitely, there are other phenomena in play that don’t happen in the case of the demands of indigenous communities or institutions. The state does not have a political proposal to integrate or incorporate indigenous demands with respect to the self-determination of peoples,” he added.

The jurist Alberto Binder, member of the board of directors of the Latin-American Institute for Democratic Security (ILSED), agreed with the analysis of Hualpa, although he pointed out that in the urban areas a change in the state’s response has begun to take shape, a “greater repression” is being used against labor commissions of the leftist-classist tendencies that have departed from the “channels of standard negotiation” used by the union bureaucracy.

Binder regretted that the national government has not persisted in order that the protocols of state interventions in social protests are implemented by provincial police. According to the jurist, the application of these procedural norms, in whose development human rights organizations such as the Center for Legal and Social Studies and the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights participated, would avoid or reduce violence in instances of repression.

The report, “Minimum Criteria for the Actions of Police and Security Forces in Public Demonstrations”, released in 2011 by the Ministry of National Security establishes, among other points, that the intervention of forces will be progressive, beginning with dialogue with the protest organizers; prohibits the police that could have direct contact with the demonstrators, carry firearms — a measure in effect since 2010 nationwide —, also prohibits the use of tear gas guns and limit the use of rubber bullets.

Due to the decrease in social protests in urban areas, led in some cases by social movements echoing the demands of peasants, indigenous and socio-environmental assemblies, “the middle class has begun to look at these problems as remote from themselves, so this makes these causes remain hidden,” warned Binder. According to the jurist, the loss of presence in urban centers has weakened the causes of the original peoples and of the socio-environmental assemblies that “have minimal support structure” and “paves the way for increased repression by provincial governments.”

“The defense structure of the human rights groups in the provinces is minimal and it is difficult for the larger human rights organizations in Buenos Aires to get there,” he added.

On the other hand, in his analysis about the advances and setbacks on criminalization, Binder emphasized the Antiterrorist Law, whose reform was approved in December 2011. The jurist cautioned that the definition of terrorism is not precise, and leaves a wide margin for interpretation and application.

“Now terrorism is any crime in the Penal Code that is done with terrorist purpose; that is to say, with the end of terrorizing, of imposing conditions on public authorities,” he said. The previous law, product of a reform in 2007, penalized the participation in an illicit association with the purpose of generating terror in the population and the financing of terrorist organizations.

Indigenous protest

For Hualpa, the indigenous people “again appear to limit the economic and productive development of the country. We return to the texts of Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, of Juan Bautista Alberdi, of the 19th century [that introduced the dichotomy ‘civilization or barbarism’],” he declared.

On April 13 charges were brought against three Mapuche leaders from the Neuquén province, in Patagonia, Argentina: Relmu Ñamku was accused of homicidal intent, and the werken (messenger), Martin Maliqueo, and the logko (political authority), Mauricio Raín, were charged of severe damages. The court case was originated in the Winkul Newen community’s resistance to the exploitation of hydrocarbons in their territory.

On Dec. 28, 2012, conflicts occurred when a judicial employee accompanied by police and representatives of the Apache petroleum company tried to notify the community of their eviction due to an official request of the company that intended to enter and work the oilfield, which had been immobilized by the Mapuche. During the conflict, the justice official, Verónica Pelayes, was wounded in the face by a rock.

The state prosecutor and the plaintiffs will ask for a sentence of 15 years in prison for Ñamku. If she is found guilty, the case could establish a negative precedent not only for indigenous demands but for social protests in general.

“Clearly with this judgment comes a warning to the communities to beware,” affirmed Darío Kosovsky, defense lawyer for the Mapuche. “There is an authoritarian criminal policy in the Neuquén’s Public Ministry because there is no legal basis for this type of judgment that is being attempted to be applied in this case.”

“The conflict is not about the throwing of a rock and the wound of this person, which is lamentable, but rather the real conflict is between the state, the petroleum company and the community. This fact remains as an adjustment variable to avoid any kind of resistance,” emphasized Kosovsky.

“This court case, besides the persons involved, has a more profound meaning; to create the domino effect, to bring the weight of the Penal Code on everyone who struggles against petroleum exploitation in the way that is occurring in Neuquén,” claims Ñamku. The Mapuche leader emphasized that the trial is disciplining measure “meant for all who oppose fracking.”

Petroleum criminalization

Along the same lines, the exploitation of hydrocarbons in Vaca Muerta, one of the main fields of shale oil and shale gas in the world, where fracking have unleashed territorial conflicts with the neighboring town of Añelo, should be mentioned. On Aug. 13, the Campo Maripe community suffered a fire of two homes, a community center and a warehouse after the provincial legislature approved the YPF-Chevron project to extract shale petroleum and gas in the area of Loma Campana, in a territory that the Mapuche claim as their own.

The exploitation of Vaca Muerta has generated a demographic explosion in Añelo by the possible jobs in the petroleum industry. In 2010 the area had 2,449 inhabitants, according the Population Census, and in 2015 would grow to 13,736 inhabitants, according to Idom, a consulting firm. This situation has overwhelmed the provincial and municipal capacity to respond so the company’s contributions are very important. For example, the YPF Foundation with the Inter-American Bank for Development have developed guidelines for the urban design of Añelo to accomodate its growth. Also, the Argentine petroleum company through its foundation, as well as the French company Total, will finance the works to increase the supply of potable water in the area and have provided assistance to education and health centers.

In this regard, the federal prosecutor in Neuquen, María Cristina Beute, has expressed her concern about the financial contribution by the oil companies to ensure a wider deployment of police in the area.

“The Police function belongs to the State, it shouldn’t be outsourced, much less be put in the hands of someone with interests, such as not allowing production to stop. Security will then be organized in function of this economic interest and all that impedes it will be resolved in a manner that suits them,” warned Beute.

The post Argentina: Criminalization Of Protests Spreads To Periphery appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Governments of Spain, Germany, the United States, France, Italy and the United Kingdom reaffirmed their commitment on Monday to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Libya and to guaranteeing that the economic, financial and energy resources of Libya are used for the benefit of all the people of Libya.

In a joint communiqué, the above-mentioned countries said that, “At a time in which the political process sponsored by the United Nations is progressing towards a lasting solution to the conflict in Libya, we express our concern at the attempts to divert Libyan resources to the benefit of any specific party to the conflict and thus harm the smooth operation of the financial and economic institutions that belong to the Libyan people as a whole.”

“We reiterate our hope that all those that represent the independent institutions of Libya, in other words, the Central Bank of Libya (CBL), the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA), the National Oil Corporation (NOC), and the Libyan Post, Telecommunications and Information Technology Company (LPTIC) will continue to act in defence of the long-term interests of the Libyan people to help ratify the unified administrative structure under a National Unity Government,” the communiqué continued.

The communiqué stressed that only a government able to effectively supervise and protect the independent institutions of Libya, whose function is to safeguard the resources of Libya to the benefit of all Libyans, can tackle the challenges facing Libya at this time.

“Terrorists are exploiting this conflict to establish a presence in Libya and are seeking to harness the national wealth of Libya to enhance their appalling transnational designs,” the communiqué noted.

“Libya is fortunate to have sufficient resources to become a peaceful and prosperous nation, with a strong and positive impact on the region in general. We would urge all Libyans to support the continued independence of their financial and economic institutions,” the communiqué concluded.

The post Joint Communiqué On Libyan Institutions Issued appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Öznur Keleş

International credit rating agency Moody’s announced that the countries like Turkey, South Africa, and Brazil are vulnerable to negative shocks. Robust growth in the US and stabilizing financial conditions will help the global economy to achieve stronger growth, says Moody’s in its quarterly Global Macro Outlook report. Also, the report points out that divergence between global economies is likely to widen. Moody’s expects the GDP of the G-20 to grow by 2.8% in 2015, and by 3% next year.

Moody’s emphasizes that countries like the US and India have built resilience, while others like Turkey, Brazil, and South Africa remain vulnerable to the strong US dollar and changes in capital flows. Thus, the outcome is likely to be increased divergence between these two groups.

According to the report, India will have the strongest growth among the G-20 at a rate of 7.5% over the next two years. For China, Moody’s forecasts a growth of 6.8% in 2015 and 6.5% in 2016, which are both lower than the 7.4% it achieved last year. Also, it predicts that the GDP of the US should grow by 2.8% in both 2015 and 2016.

The weaker euro in combination with falling oil prices is expected to give a boost to the eurozone economy, as it could see a GDP growth of 1.5% over the next two years, according to the report. This differs from predictions made last year, which forecast around 1% growth for the euro area.

Moody’s notes several risks to the global economy such as a Greek exit from the eurozone, a disorderly reaction to tighter US monetary policy, and the impact of any future correction of Chinese equity or property prices. It is reported that the possibility of Greece leaving the eurozone would greatly impact the Greek economy for the worse.

The post Moody’s Says Turkey, South Africa And Brazil Vulnerable To Strong US Dollar appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Treating the Syrian conflict in isolation from other regional problems just might facilitate a US-Saudi-Iran rapprochement, argues Neil Thompson. ‘De-escalating’ the material support provided to the warring factions and imposing a complementary economic embargo might also help spur the process along.

By Neil Thompson*

It has proved impossible for the West to wish away the realities of the interlocking conflicts in Iraq and Syria. While the so-called Islamic State has been driven back from about 25 percent of the Iraqi territory it seized last summer and significant leaders have been killed, the group nevertheless remains resilient and capable of staging comebacks. For instance, reports are starting to surface that Ramadi, capital of Iraq’s disputed Anbar province, is on the verge of falling to IS militants. In addition, IS is also expanding its reach in Syria, where it recently cooperated with al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra to consolidate both groups’ control over the disparate rebel movement. Having ruled out cooperation with the Syrian government on account of its human rights abuses the West lacks a local partner with whom it can fight the militants on the ground. Successful action against IS in Iraq is ultimately useless if the group can compensate with gains in Syria. It’s time for fresh thinking.

Ground-Pounders Wanted

Having backed away from directly overthrowing the Assad regime in 2013, Washington instead sought to train and arm moderate anti-regime forces with advanced weaponry. However, attempts to create a Syrian version of the anti-jihadi Sunni Sahwa (Awakening) movement have demonstrably failed. During the recent Idlib offensive, for example, Jabhat al-Nusra militants were photographed using American TOW anti-tank missiles, which were probably seized from the US-backed Syrian Revolutionary Front (SRF) during intra-rebel feuding last year. Back in November 2014, Jabhat al-Nusra also attacked the SRF and other moderate groups linked to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and absorbed their equipment, territory and many members. Other FSA cells have simply defected en masse to the more prestigious fundamentalist rebel formations, taking their US weapons and training with them.

President Assad has rightfully been accused of manipulating the issue of Sunni fundamentalism to shore up domestic support for his regime. However, pointing this out does not mean that Syria’s minorities will not share the fate of their Iraqi neighbours should Islamic State or Jabhat al-Nusra seize their areas. Indeed this has already been tacitly admitted since the US has been bombing parts of Syria now controlled by the Support Front and Islamic State, thus helping the military efforts of a dubious regime it is official American policy to overthrow. The West cannot keep fighting and arming all sides of Syria’s multisided civil war simultaneously and claim to have a coherent strategy. It will need to chart a path out of the Syrian quagmire that does not involve blanket support for either party.

Towards A Post-Assad Syria

The key issue to resolving the Syrian struggle remains the organized departure of President Assad, which can only be achieved by negotiating his exit through the actors who keep him in power, principally the Iranian government. Yet, parting Assad from his foreign backers would only be the first step along a much longer road to peace inside Syria. There is nothing inevitable about Assad receiving continued Iranian backing if changing factors cause Tehran’s calculations to shift. After all, it eventually abandoned former Iraqi strongman Nouri al-Maliki once it realised that he had lost too much legitimacy to continue as the country’s Prime Minister. With a deal seemingly approaching over the previously intractable nuclear issue, perhaps the time has come to seek a slow rapprochement over the Syrian half of the interlinked Iraq/Syria conflicts.

Civil wars which have become internationalised like Syria’s are also notoriously difficult to resolve by force alone. Any real peace accord would only be acceptable to the communities inside Syria currently supporting Assad if they believe their security would be guaranteed. Assad himself would only agree to step down if his safety outside Syria could be guaranteed, probably by providing a refuge in Iran so he could avoid an international criminal prosecution. Likewise, any exit arranged for him would have to be such that there can be no possibility of his staging an armed comeback as has been the case with former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh. This would be completely unacceptable to the fragmented Syrian opposition. After so much bloodshed the transition to peace will be tortuous and complex, but the internal strains can be considerably reduced if the international environment is right and external actors push together for a peace treaty.

A Syrian Taif Agreement

What might be needed is a Syrian version of the Taif Agreement that ended the civil war in neighbouring Lebanon. Any grand bargain would have to be backed by the United States, Iran and Saudi Arabia and cover political reform (i.e. the dismantling of the Ba’ath party’s monopoly on power), the return of refugees and the disarmament of all state and non-state militias. This seems less likely in the short term after the divisive events in Yemen, since the Syrian conflict has come to be perceived as inseparable from wider Saudi-Iran regional power struggles. On the other hand, the expense for Iran of supporting the Assad regime will shortly be matched by a drain on Saudi finances that support the fighting in Yemen.

Moreover, the recent interim breakthrough over Iran’s nuclear program demonstrates that the best way to achieve momentum in the Syrian peace talks might be to treat the struggle in isolation from other regional events. It was only after Iran’s nuclear program was prioritised by the P5+1 as a single issue separate from Tehran’s behaviour in other spheres that international diplomatic progress towards an agreement was made. Likewise, Russia’s diplomatic initiative earlier in the Syrian conflict succeeded with the dismantling of government chemical weapons under international supervision without toppling the Assad regime or ending the civil war.

Complaining about Russian or Iranian protection of the Assad regime will not change that fact both national governments consider it in their interests to do so. Nor will it alter the situation inside Syria, where after four years of fighting, no side has proved strong enough to overcome all the others. But unless Syria’s rival foreign backers can take some shared responsibility and start to come to an international agreement first, the warring factions will have no incentive to come to terms. What is needed now is an agreement to implement a comprehensive international de-escalation of material support to all sides, including the regime. If this was combined with an economic embargo to stop funds for military purposes getting out and smuggled arms getting in, this could slash the resources available to any group to keep their fighters armed, fed and paid. Properly enforced by neighbouring states it would hurt the ability of both the rebels and the regime to continue the struggle and help push them towards the negotiating tables, whilst in theory still allowing aid for civilians in.

With loud Saudi concerns about sinister Iranian influence in Damascus, Baghdad, Beirut and now Sana’a, such a process can seem unlikely. But consider that US airstrikes supported Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps advisers fighting alongside the Shi’ite militias that took Tikrit and one can sense that behind the scenes areas of cooperation are already being explored. The fracking revolution in America means Washington has fewer concerns about energy security and placating its Gulf Arab allies, including Saudi Arabia.

For its part, Tehran has seen its influence in the Middle East grow but, as with the Soviet Union in the 1970s, a moribund economy is also absorbing the costs of other people’s wars. President Hassan Rouhani is keener on economic engagement to raise everyday living standards than spreading the Iranian revolution. All this means that the prognosis for a US-Iran rapprochement over Syria is not as far-fetched as critics may assume. Even Riyadh may raise fewer objections than expected. Above all Saudi Arabia is determined to remain the unchallenged leader of the Arabian Peninsula. While Saudi proxies have failed to drive Assad from power in four years of fighting, the Kingdom now perceives it faces a threat closer to home from the Yemeni Zaidi Houthi movement. The day may soon come when the Saudis are happy to explore toning down their support for rebels in Syria in exchange for a similar reduction in aid to the troublesome Houthis by Iran.

*Neil Thompson is Content Editor at News4Media and freelance contributor at the Diplomat, Informed Comment, Geopolitical Monitor and similar publications. He holds an MA in International Relations of East Asia from the University of Durham.

The post US-Saudi-Iran Rapprochement Needed Before Peace In Syria Can Happen – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By David Cupples*

Given the radical decrease in belief in the reality of global warming among the population of the United States and various Western nations in recent years, it may seem premature and a bit hysterical to cry wolf about the dangers of remedial measures that may never be implemented. Yet given that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human activity is largely responsible for the 0.8 degrees Celsius increase in mean global temperature since the beginning of the Industrial Age and that further increases are surely coming our way, the matter is beyond urgent. Way beyond urgent.

Ninety-seven percent agreement means that if there are, say, 100,000 climate scientists in the world, only 3,000 of them dispute the data indicating that anthropogenic climate change is real. Take any group of 100,000 persons, whether bakers, candlestick makers or rocket scientists, and a few thousand are pretty much guaranteed to march to the beat of a different drummer. True, nonconformity can be an important social good, and consensus-challenging ideas of visionaries who have the basic science correct must be evaluated. Given independent laboratories and freedom from the taint of big money with an agenda—such as rightwing think tanks funneling cash to climate denial—this, in fact, is what science does, and it does it well.

Ninety-seven percent agreement means that of a group of thirty-three, thirty-two have reached consensus, with one holdout. In a group trained to think critically and make careful observations and rational judgments, this is impressive. Adrift at sea in a lifeboat with thirty-two navigators and oceanic geographers who agree unanimously on Plan A, versus one guy in the corner with wild eyes who argues for Plan B, who ya gonna believe? How about if it is clear that Plan A would mean a loss of significant amounts of money for the rich and big corporations in return for a clean environment, whereas Plan B would keep the bigwigs rolling in dough in return for an end to life as we know it on the planet?

Science has spoken loud and clear: Unless radical measures to deal with climate change are made soon, very very soon, the earth and its flora and fauna, including Homo sapiens, face a troublesome future and possible Extinction with a capital E. And Africa is likely to be Ground Zero.

The 0.8 degrees C increase has been accompanied recently by monster storms like Katrina and Sandy, flooding in the UK and severe drought in California. The (fading) hope of climate scientists is to be able to check the increase in temperatures at 2 degrees C. Given the observed severity of weather events accompanying a rise of 0.8 degrees, a bump of +2 degrees seems fairly horrifying. As Naomi Klein writes in her recent book ‘This Changes Everything’, it is likely to mean a “death sentence” for low-lying island states and large parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. And this is the best case scenario. As Klein notes, the World Bank—hardly a bunch of hippie radicals—has concluded we are on track for +4 degrees warming, which could raise sea levels by two meters by 2100 and several meters more beyond then; the International Energy Agency projects +6 degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit). With each passing month, a nightmarish, post-Apocalyptic future of suffering, despair and death (and the lurking Big E) looms like the full moon through a telescope.

Clearly the profit motive of the big polluters—the “extractivist” economies like gas and oil, industrial mining and Big Agriculture, in particular—and their iron grip on politicians are the major obstacles to action, but lurking in the mainstream subconscious also is the hubris of belief in a last minute quick fix through geoengineering (anything to avoid having to wean ourselves from addiction to fossil fuels and the consumer-based Western lifestyle). If by some quirk anthropogenic climate change turns out to be real, this line of thinking goes, technology will save us in the end. When change becomes undeniable even to the deniers, we need only turn to our genius scientists—who until this time had been discounted as ranting fools—to come up with some futuristic but foolproof hi-tech plan to pump reflective particulates into the stratosphere to block sunlight or dump iron sulphate into the oceans or some other untested scheme having unforeseen consequences (such radical ideas as restoring habitat and preserving natural resources much too quaint to be considered, evil “socialism” to be fought to the bitter end, and by then it will be too late for that anyway).

As Klein points out, it’s difficult to predict with any reasonable degree of certainty all the effects these hi-tech quick fixes will wreak upon global weather patterns—and even more difficult if not impossible to control or channel them in uniformly beneficial ways. One such fix which on the surface seems relatively straightforward, Solar Radiation Management (SRM), involving the pumping of reflective particles into the stratosphere, may transform blue skies to a permanent gray pall everywhere. Other consequences, however, are unlikely to be so equally distributed.

Klein points to several computer-modeling studies indicating that SRM interventions could have disastrous effects on the African and Asian summer monsoons; one study examining a Northern Hemisphere point of origin for the spraying of reflective particles estimated a 60 – 100% decrease in plant productivity in the Sahel. Sixty to one hundred percent! Africa would fare better with a Southern Hemisphere point of origin, at the expense of increased hurricane frequency in the United States. But as Klein notes,

“Does anyone actually believe that geoengineering will be used to help Africa if that help could come only by putting North America at greater risk of extreme weather?”

It becomes clear why Naomi Klein subtitled her book “Capitalism vs. the Climate.” The extractivist plundering of earth’s resources in the name of corporate profits and rampant consumerism is at war with the planet. The book could equally be subtitled “Capitalism Massacres the Natural World” or “Capitalism Causes Suffering for Billions” or, more to the point of the present discussion, “Capitalism Continues its Centuries-Long Ravaging of Africa (and Asia) to the Very End.”

There isn’t much time left to avoid (possibly Ultimate) Catastrophe. Years, not decades. Western leaders—as illustrated by Obama’s championing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which tramples environmental rights to further the rampages of “free trade,” i.e., corporate greed—show no sign of being anything other than foes, not allies. Only a worldwide mass movement will turn the tide. Starting with you and me.

* David Cupples is the author of ‘Stir It Up: The CIA Targets Jamaica, Bob Marley and the Progressive Manley Government’, a novel. Connect with David at http://stiritupbob.wix.com/stiritupcia or http://www.facebook.com/StirItUpCIAJamaica

The post Geoengineering The Climate: Cautionary Tale For Africa, Asia And Planet Earth – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Although many in the United Kingdom thought that the Conservative Party would ultimately lose control of the government to a coalition of the Labour Party and the Scottish National Party in the recent election, Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservatives won an outright majority of seats in parliament and will be stronger than in their former coalition government with the Liberal Democratic Party. Most Americans probably don’t pay much attention to British elections, but perhaps this time they should.

Instead of using Keynesian economics, massive new government spending leading to or aggravating budget deficits, and money printing to artificially jumpstart the economy after the Great Recession—as George W. Bush and Barack Obama did in the United States and many European governments and the European Central Bank have done on the continent—Cameron, like his astute German counterpart, has run a policy of moderate austerity by cutting government spending to reduce budget deficits to ensure long-term economic growth. Instead of following the profligate policies of Bush and initially Obama (Obama eventually has brought the U.S. deficit down somewhat), Cameron has followed the example of U.S. presidents Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Dwight Eisenhower, and Bill Clinton, undertaking austerity in the wake of a recession to help ensure a period of long-term prosperity. In general, cutting government spending, balancing the budget, and reducing the national public debt as a portion of the total economic output (Gross Domestic Product) reduces government drag on long-term economic growth.

During his re-election campaign, Cameron courageously vowed to double down on this austerity program if re-elected. Many politicians usually turn on the government spending and money printing spigots to essentially buy their re-election—for example, as Richard Nixon did in 1972. When these irresponsible practices were combined with the economic ill-effects of the Vietnam War, they helped lead to a long period of U.S. stagflation (an economic slowdown coupled with high inflation) of the 1970s.

So it is no surprise that the two countries—the United Kingdom and Germany—that took a different path than the usual Keynesianism practiced by most governments are doing fairly well in comparison to the others. Instead, the United States has had a long period of anemic recovery, because its massive national public debt, which now exceeds $18 trillion, is dragging the economy, much like a ball and chain.

And in this regard, one of the big differences between the British Conservative Party and the American Republican Party is that the British Conservatives are willing to cut defense spending and Republicans are not. The British Conservatives have endured criticism for lessening Britain’s role in the world by such defense cuts and by Cameron’s promised referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain in the European Union. In fact, both policies may lead to Britain’s long-term rejuvenation. The public in the United Kingdom, and its national treasury, became exhausted by the previous Labour government’s slavish following of the Bush administration into two pointless and costly nation-building wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thus, Cameron has refused to help the United States lead the charge in dealing with problems in non-strategic areas: for example, dealing with the Syrian civil war, ISIS, or Russia’s meddling in the Ukraine. In addition, Britain’s ultimate exiting from the European Union might remove the albatross of European regulation from the British economy.

The United States should realize what Harding and Coolidge realized after World War I, what Eisenhower realized after the Korean War, and what Clinton realized after the Cold War— the United States needs to reduce public spending, including on defense, so as to allow the rejuvenation of the American economy. America should probably even go further and reduce its overseas commitments, so that it is no longer pledged to defend the world.

Instead, the Republicans in the nascent presidential campaign are calling for a “New American Century” or to “Make America Great Again” by adopting a hawkish foreign policy and hiking the already massive U.S. defense budget (the United States already spends what the next 13 countries spend on defense combined). The Republicans of today exaggerate the Chinese threat and at the same time refuse to learn from China’s rise. Since the 1970s, when China went “capitalist,” the Chinese generally placed defense spending at the bottom of their priorities, instead choosing to channel their resources into developing their economy. Only fairly recently, after years of rapid economic growth, have they begun to significantly increase their defense budget. Of course, their overall level of defense spending still pales in comparison to U.S. defense spending.

Today’s Republicans, beginning with Ronald Reagan, began focusing on fraudulent tax cuts while failing to cut government spending—in fact, increasing it—as a portion of GDP, including massive hikes in defense spending, thus leading to the accumulation of huge deficits and national debt. Thus, they didn’t cut either social entitlements or defense. As Eisenhower, a former general, had realized long ago, such policies weaken the country and its security in the long term. And the history of prior empires has proven the recent Chinese “economy first” principle to be the right one: many empires have failed from financial exhaustion—in the twentieth century, the British, French, and Soviet Empires, to name just a few.

The American Empire, with its overextended military commitments around the world and its already bloated defense budget, is need of a period of retraction and reinvigoration if it wants to compete with China in the long-term. Whoever wins the 2016 election should take a lesson from the Cameron Conservatives in the United Kingdom about rejuvenation—more austerity at home and abroad can revitalize the economy, which is the basis of all other indices of power. However, Hillary Clinton and almost all of the Republicans running are probably incapable of such an enlightened policy.

This article was published at Huffington Post and is reprinted with permission.

The post What Americans Should Learn From The British Election – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The UK may set conditions for EU on immigration – or go its own way, losing global influence.

By Alistair Burnett*

Foreign policy received little mention during Britain’s long election campaign, but the surprise victory of David Cameron’s Conservative Party portends lasting significance for the country’s role in the world.

Why this is so lies in the future of two unions – the European Union and the United Kingdom itself.

Cameron’s return to No. 10 Downing Street has increased the odds that the UK could leave the EU, and the landslide victory of the Scottish National Party in Scotland, SNP, means the chances the UK itself could break up have also risen. A country that leaves one of the world’s major economic blocs and cannot hold itself together is not one that will continue to carry the same weight in the world.

The Conservatives went into the election promising to renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the EU and then hold a referendum on continuing membership by the end of 2017.

Cameron has said that if he gets the changes he wants to the EU, especially tightening freedom of movement and the ability of people from other countries to claim welfare benefits in Britain, he will campaign for a vote to stay in.

There are powerful forces ranged against Britain’s threatened exit from the EU, what the media call “Brexit.” Big business is dead-set against leaving the world’s largest marketplace and has already started to lobby. In parliament, the two next largest parties, Labour and the SNP, need no convincing. Both are strongly pro-EU and despite the anti-EU, United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, gaining almost 13 percent of the vote nationally, it only returned one MP to the House of Commons; its public face, Nigel Farage, lost re-election.

So on the face of it, Cameron would have plenty of support if he campaigns to stay in and if his renegotiation is successful and the referendum won, it may well settle the long-running debate in Britain on Europe, and anchor the country in the EU for the foreseeable future.

But, despite opinion polls suggesting more support for staying than leaving, there is no guarantee Britain will vote to stay.

Prime Minister Cameron may well convince Britain’s partners to agree to changes restricting the right of EU citizens to claim welfare benefits in other member states. But on his demand to restrict the right of people from other countries to stay in the UK if they do not have a job, he has little support in other countries, particularly Germany and Poland, which embrace the free movement of people as a keystone of the EU. If the British prime minister must compromise on this, he may find it difficult to argue he has negotiated enough changes to justify campaigning for a vote to stay in.

The other complicating factor is – ironically – the fact the Conservative leader confounded the pollsters, media commentators, and maybe even himself, by winning a narrow overall majority.

This means backbench Conservative MPs will have more influence on the government than during the past five years of coalition. Up to a third of them are strongly Eurosceptic and will keep the pressure on Cameron to drive a hard bargain in negotiations, making the necessary compromises more difficult. They will also make a lot of noise if they think the prime minister has only managed to secure agreement for partial changes.

Indeed, within hours of the election, one of the most influential Eurosceptics, the former cabinet minister John Redwood said “the British people will leave the EU unless there is a sensible offer on the table” and sensible for him includes “the need to regain control of our borders.”

EU Divide over Immigration: UK’s net migration has been stable over past decade and the country could shape EU policies (Data from UK Office for National Statistics)

Cameron is also facing a phalanx of right-wing newspapers, implacably hostile to the EU, cheering on the skeptics. And if their track record is anything to go, by these papers will campaign vociferously with scant regard for the facts.

Traditionally, the pro-EU forces have a much lower profile than their opponents and have based their arguments on pragmatic economic arguments, but the stagnation of the eurozone since the economic crisis now makes such a positive case support more difficult.

If the British do vote to leave the EU, it would threaten the future of that other Union – the UK – almost certainly triggering another referendum on Scottish independence with a likely majority willing to quit the United Kingdom this time.

Polls on the EU consistently show more support for membership in Scotland than in England meaning the EU referendum could see a majority of Scots voting to stay in while a majority in the UK votes to leave. And although SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon, says its landslide win in last week’s election, where it won 50 percent of the vote and 95 percent of the seats in Scotland, is not a mandate to hold another vote on independence, she has vowed to seek another independence referendum so Scotland could remain in the EU in the event of a UK vote to leave the union.

The post Future Of Two Unions, The EU And The UK, Hangs In Balance – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Christians represent a smaller share of the US population, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center that noted the number of US adults who do not identify with any organized religion is growing

The Pew Research Center survey reported these changes are taking place across the religious landscape, affecting all regions of the country and many demographic groups. While the drop in Christian affiliation is particularly pronounced among young adults, it is occurring among Americans of all ages. The same trends are seen among whites, blacks and Latinos; among both college graduates and adults with only a high school education; and among women as well as men, the survey found.

That said, Pew Research Center said the US remains home to more Christians than any other country in the world, with a large majority of Americans – roughly seven-in-ten – continue to identify with some branch of the Christian faith.

More specifically, the new survey of more than 35,000 Americans by the Pew Research Center finds that the percentage of adults (ages 18 and older) who describe themselves as Christians has dropped by nearly eight percentage points in just seven years, from 78.4% in an equally massive Pew Research survey in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014.

By comparison, the percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated – describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – has jumped more than six points, from 16.1% to 22.8% over the same period.

Additionally, the share of Americans who identify with non-Christian faiths also has inched up, rising 1.2 percentage points, from 4.7% in 2007 to 5.9% in 2014. Growth has been especially strong among Muslims and Hindus, albeit from a very low base.

The post Christians Represent Smaller Share Of US Population, But Still 70% appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Singapore’s first prime minister is hard to sum up. Whilst he was tough and a perfectionist, he was respected as the last of the era of the great post-war leaders. The younger generation of Singaporeans should try to understand his pivotal role in the making of Singapore.

By Chan Heng Chee*

Over the years, I came to know three Lee Kuan Yews: the tough prime minister, the perfectionist writer, and the elder statesman.

The first time I met Mr Lee was in May 1969. I was a young assistant lecturer newly returned from Cornell. The Prime Minister had come to speak to the staff of the University of Singapore. A week earlier he had been deeply disturbed by the reactions of students who did not seem to understand the gravity and implications of the May 13 racial riots in Malaysia, judging by their questions and mood at his public lecture. The PM was seized by the potential contagious impact on Singapore, then a fledgling nation. How could he make them understand the stakes and our vulnerabilities? I stood up to say something in defence of the students. Mr Lee dismissed what I said. I came back with another response. Someone who was present mumbled: “She is very young.”

Lee Kuan Yew the perfectionist

Mr Lee was seen as a stern, no-nonsense, authoritarian figure. He was respected and feared. He brooked no opposition. He felt the weight of the immense tasks ahead of him. He probably disagreed with and did not like most, if not all, of my writings as a political scientist for the next two decades.

I saw him again after I returned from my posting as the Permanent Representative to the United Nations. I was invited to the Istana with Tommy Koh and Kishore Mahbubani to lunch with him. It was 1993. We ate simply in a small room. There I met a different Lee Kuan Yew. He was putting forth his views on the world. The Cold War was over, the Soviet Union had collapsed, the US and Europe were triumphalist. He was thinking through his assessment of the new power configuration and what this meant for Singapore.

In hindsight, he was positioning Singapore in the new world order to ensure maximum prospects for its survival. We were his sounding board. He wanted us to challenge his conclusions. I realised then that he was open to argument, but you had to have strong arguments. He was rigorous and robust in arguing back, like an advocate in court. After several lunches, I learnt gradually that his brusque and strong response was his debating style. If the argument was good, he would accept it.

This was demonstrated again in 1995 when he started writing his memoirs. He sent each draft chapter around to a few people to critique. I was one of them. He would ask what we thought of what he had written, and how he could improve it. Was it tedious? Factual errors, statistics, misremembered dates, he took in at once. He accepted comments telling him it was tedious and he would lose the reader’s interest.

There were occasions when one or a couple of us would disagree with his reading of an event or conclusion in his analysis of domestic or international developments. Again if the arguments were good he deleted or amended the paragraphs. But it did not end there. He would revise his chapter and send it back to us to ask again: Is this better? Could he improve it further? Only when we had no further comments did he leave the draft.

I was posted to Washington by mid-1996. I received his faxed chapters in the morning. My comments were sent to him by noon. My astonished secretary would come to my office at 2.30pm to say he had sent back the revised version. It was 2.30am in Singapore. This rhythm of exchange was repeated again and again. He was a perfectionist.

Elder statesman

As ambassador in Washington, I accompanied him and Mrs Lee when he visited the US as Senior Minister and later Minister Mentor. Whatever his title, Americans at the highest levels – presidents, secretaries of state, defence or treasury, elected representatives – made time for him. They wanted to hear his assessments of Asia and the world.

Ex-presidents and prime ministers of other countries do not normally get a White House meeting with American presidents. Mr Lee was the rare exception. The captains of industry and business, the chairmen and CEOs too were eager to get a share of his time and insights.

Mr Lee knew how to put a point across that landed the punch and left a strong impression with his American hosts. He never told anyone what they wanted to hear. He told them what he thought. In these meetings he infused American officials and industry with confidence and trust in Singapore and Singaporeans. He created our brand name, and investments flowed into our country.

Mr Lee was strong and energetic when he came to the US in the mid-1990s. His visit was the best thing for an ambassador, for his name opened doors. I noticed then that sometimes when asked a question, he would admit frankly that he did not know the answer. He was a mellower and more philosophical Lee Kuan Yew.

Last of the era of great post-war leaders

I came to know how close and devoted he was to Mrs Lee. He was touchingly solicitous of her and more so as she became frail after her first stroke. But her presence calmed him. Later, after her death, he himself turned frail. In 2010 when he went to Washington to receive the Lincoln Medal, his last trip to the US as it turned out, he was widely acclaimed as “one of the great statesmen of Asia”. Everyone spoke of how he built a remarkable success of Singapore out of so little. The admiration and respect for him and for Singapore were genuine and universal. They saw him as the last of the era of great post-war leaders.

It is hard to sum up Lee Kuan Yew. He was truly a patriot. He worked indefatigably for Singapore. He had the interest of his country at heart. My wish is that younger Singaporeans should read about him, know him and understand his role in the making of our nation.

*Chan Heng Chee is a member of the Board of Governors of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She is also Ambassador-at-large and Chairman of the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities at the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD). She was a political science professor before becoming ambassador to the United States from 1996 to 2012. This appeared in The Straits Times on 25 Mar 2015.

The post The Three Lee Kuan Yews That I Know: Tough Prime Minister; Perfectionist Writer; Elder Statesman – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A U.S. Marine Corps UH-1Y Huey helicopter with six Marines and two Nepalese service members aboard was declared missing today near Charikot, Nepal, Joint Task Force 505 officials reported.

Officials said the status of those aboard is unknown.

The Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 469 helicopter was flying in support of Joint Task Force 505, delivering humanitarian aid to people affected by a recent earthquake and was evacuating casualties back to Kathmandu.

Joint Task Force 505 personnel are responding to the emergency, officials said, and Nepalese military forces near the helicopter’s last known location are searching for the missing aircraft.

U.S. and Nepalese aircraft will resume aerial search procedures at daybreak, officials said.

The post US Marine Helicopter Goes Missing During Nepal Relief Mission appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A diet containing walnuts may slow colorectal tumor growth by causing beneficial changes in cancer genes, according to a new animal study from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, led by Dr. Christos Mantzoros.

This is the first study that evaluates whether walnut consumption can cause changes to micro-ribonucleic acids (miRNA), the nucleotides that are involved in altering gene expression. miRNA are the focus of much research in the growing field of epigenetics, or the study of how genes may be changed by environmental factors.

“Our research demonstrates that a walnut diet causes significant changes in the expression profile of miRNAs in localized colorectal cancer tissue, and that a walnut diet incorporates protective fatty acids in the colonic tumor either through its direct effects or through additive or synergistic effects of multiple other compounds present in walnuts,” said Dr. Mantzoros. “While future studies are needed, we’re optimistic of the role of miRNAs as biomarkers of disease and prognosis, and may demonstrate a potential therapeutic target for colorectal cancer treatment.”

Researchers conducted the randomized study with two groups of mice. One group was fed the equivalent of two servings (2 ounces) per day of walnuts for humans, while the second group received a similar control diet with no walnuts. After 25 days, researchers found that in walnut-fed mice, key miRNA that may affect cancer cell inflammation, vascularization (blood supply) and proliferation were positively engaged.

The tumors of mice fed the walnut-containing diet were found to have 10 times the amount of total omega-3 fatty acids, including plant-based alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), in the tissue compared to the mice fed the control diet. The study results found that a smaller tumor size was associated with greater percentage of omega-3s in tumor tissues, suggesting that ALA may provide a protective benefit. Tumor growth rate was also significantly slower in the walnut group compared to the control group. As this study was conducted on animals, results cannot yet be implied for humans.

ALA is an essential fatty acid critical to various body processes and is known to reduce inflammation. Walnuts are the only nut that contain a significant source of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) (2.5 grams per ounce). Walnuts also contain a variety of antioxidants, (3.7 mmol/ounce), and numerous vitamins and minerals.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer worldwide and is second to only lung cancer as the leading cause of death in Western Countries.1 Diet has been shown to be a modifiable risk factor in preventing many types of cancer, including colorectal cancer. It is estimated that 30-50 percent of colorectal cancer in men and 20 percent in women can be prevented by diet and other lifestyle changes.2

An article detailing these findings, “Dietary Walnut Suppression of Colorectal Cancer in mice: mediation by miRNA patterns and fatty acid incorporation” has been published in the Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry.3

The post Walnuts May Help Slow Colon Cancer Growth appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By David Danelo*

In January 2011, Colleen Geske, a Canadian expatriate and Amsterdam resident for seven years, started the blog “Stuff Dutch People Like” as a forum for describing the Netherlands to foreign visitors. Unexpectedly, her online community became an internet portal where Dutch citizens reflect on their own eccentricities. Based on the comments, the blog’s popularity comes more from Dutch readership than tourists or transients. The discussion threads, as much as the posts themselves, offer a glimpse into one of northern Europe’s most distinctive cultures.

According to Geske, high on the list of stuff the Dutch enjoy is making fun of Germans. Mockery at Deutschland’s expense is almost a national sport in the Netherlands, as the Dutch weave colorful parodies of German stereotypes into common and uncommon events. Order, efficiency, and precision are roasted as German extremes, as the Dutch contrast with their own self-image of balance, practicality, and tolerance. With 16.9 million inhabitants compared to Germany’s 80.7 million, the biting humor suggests sibling rivalry. Many common jokes end with cruel punch lines, such as:

A Dutch man sees a man on his knees using his hand to drink water from one of Amsterdam’s canal. He walks up to him and says in Dutch: “Hey – you can’t drink that water, it’s dirty and will make you sick.”

The tourist shouts back in German: “What are you saying?”

The Dutch man responds in German: “Use both hands, it’s much better!”

Jokes are often rooted in painful truth, and seventy years ago, the German-Netherlands relationship was no laughing matter. About 230,000 Dutch citizens died during World War II, or 2.5% of the wartime population of nine million, many from disease and famine as much as violence. Before World War II, bicycles had come quickly to Holland, and the flat terrain made cycling the most affordable and functional form of public transport. After Nazi Germany occupied the Netherlands in 1940, soldiers confiscated bicycles and recycled the metal and rubber for war materiel. Dutch citizens responded by making bicycle possession a protest symbol; as Nazi convoys careened through Amsterdam’s streets, Dutch cyclists would join hands, up to four abreast, and slow their pace to thwart the convoy’s progress. Even today, Dutch football fans are often seen holding bicycle signs during matches against Germany, and Dutch citizens feels no shame in asking new German acquaintances to “give me my bike back.”

The countries share more common World War II heritage than the Dutch might want to admit. As Holland’s most visited tourist attraction, the Anne Frank House has endured in Holland’s consciousness as a physical symbol of the inhumanity the Nazi regime visited upon the Netherlands. Visitors are told of the horrors “the Germans” brought; when touring the house, German schoolchildren, according to an Amsterdam resident, are often brought to tears.

Although the Netherlands was occupied during World War II, the scope of complicity the Dutch shared during the Holocaust seems to have been greater than Holland may care to publicly admit. About 20,000 Dutch men fought in the SS, and close to 100,000 were members of the Dutch Nazi Party. Dutch citizens sheltered the Frank family, but it was also Dutch citizens who betrayed them to the Gestapo; Dutch police who supervised their detention; Dutch municipal workers who loaded them onto trains; and Dutch rail workers who drove them to execution. The Nazis killed about 107,000 of the 140,000 Jews, or 80%, living in Holland during World War II. The only country with a higher percentage of Jewish residents murdered was Germany.

Historical tragedies aside, Holland in the 21^st century welcomes Germany’s rise to continental power. “Relations have never been better between the Netherlands and Germany,” an official from the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs told me. “We share the same mindset, interests, and values, especially with the European Union.” The Netherlands is the largest foreign investor in Germany, and 20% of Dutch exports go to Deutschland. The Netherlands says Chancellor Angela Merkel is “firm at the helm” of Europe, and her policies have the Dutch foreign ministry’s full support. “Through Europe, Germany became strong,” said the policy official. “And through Germany, Europe will remain strong.” It is a far cry from 1989, when then-Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers opined that German citizens lacked the right to choose their own future when Western European heads of state discussed German reunification.

Beyond sharing the same mindset, interests, and values—traits that have endured, in varying degrees, throughout the history of Dutch-German relations—the Dutch believe Germany grew to power as a collaborative unifier rather than a belligerent authority. Having struggled stoically through reunification in the 1990s, the Dutch culture affirms a working class sensibility that the German heartland shares.

Beneath the platitudes of shared interests, it is the view that Germany achieved power in Europe through simple, determined hard work that enables the Netherlands citizens to affirm German continental primacy. Consider Herbert Grönemeyer’s Bochum, a 1984 song about the artist’s hometown that is, for many Germans, an unofficial cultural anthem.^[1] Located in the Ruhr Valley 50 miles from the Holland-Germany border, Bochum combines with ten other cities and parts of four districts to form Germany’s largest metropolitan area. The song frames modern Germany’s view of itself, and the lyrics resonate across borders:

I know you’re no beauty
                        For work’s lined your face
                        You don’t like wearing make-up
                        You’re an honest place…

                        Your heartbeat’s of metal
                        It hammers out through the night
                        The foundation of prosperity
                        You’re a working town

Reactions to another cultural unifier, European football, offer more insight into the evolving Holland-Deutschland relationship. During the Cold War, football matches between the two countries were metaphors for war; the 2-1 loss to West Germany in the 1974 World Cup Final was, for the Dutch, a national humiliation. Vengeance came June 21, 1988, when the Netherlands defeated West Germany 2-1 in Hamburg during the European Football Championship (Euro) semifinals. Following the victory, Dutch defender Ronald Koeman mocked German fans by pretending to wipe his backside with a German player’s shirt. Despite public repudiation, Koeman refused to apologize, citing “hatred” he felt for Germany. Amsterdam residents describe the cathartic revelry as a “moment of national liberation,” and their eventual championship victory against the Soviet Union was, by comparison, anticlimactic.

But when I asked an Amsterdam resident how he felt about Germany’s 2014 World Cup championship victory, he struck a different tune. “I was happy the Germans won,” he said, going on to describe how Germany’s style of play and team attitude had changed since the old days. The German Mannschaft and Dutch Oranjie remain rivals, but now they seem to share mutual respect. Germany is the abusive older brother who went to rehab and made good. “The Germans represented Europe well in the World Cup. They won the right way.”

Unfortunately, football also highlights less pleasant parallels between darker forces lurking in the cultural consciousness of both countries. In April 2015, Dutch fans of FC Utrecht were captured on video chanting anti-Semitic slogans at their opponents, Ajax Amsterdam, while waving Nazi salutes. “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas,” they sang. “My father was in the commandos, my mother was SS; together they burned Jews because Jews burn the best!” The team apologized after the video surfaced, claiming they would be conducting an investigation to identify and punish those responsible.

Offensive chants at European football matches are nothing new, but racism and anti-Semitism in the Netherlands seems to be a just-barely-unacceptable social taboo. “I feel more comfortable in Brussels than Rotterdam,” a Dutch citizen of mixed racial ancestry told me. Despite its iconic status as a symbol of tolerance, the Anne Frank House has never had a Jewish director, and, according to writer Jeffery Goldberg’s March 2015 Atlantic report, members of Amsterdam’s Jewish community widely understand that none of them should apply for the job. Every Christmas in the Netherlands, thousands dress up in blackface as Zwarte Piet (Black Pete), who arrives on ship for an annual parade as a white Sinterklass’ “helper.” Dutch protestations that the tradition is “cultural and not racist” might be easier to accept if two hundred years ago, those same ships had not been carrying real slaves, and if apartheid was not the most commonly recognized Dutch word worldwide.

At the same time, the Dutch reputation for tolerance, particularly in Amsterdam, also has well-earned history. In February 1941, Dutch workers, none of whom were Jewish, were the first to defy Nazi anti-Jew policies by holding a two-day national strike. Three organizers died and 12 were jailed for the resistance. After World War II ended, Queen Wilhelmina, who was exiled in during the war, added a scroll bearing Amsterdam’s city motto—“valiant, steadfast, compassionate”—to the city’s coat of arms as a sign of national respect. “Never will I forget the emotion that overwhelmed us, when eyewitnesses first notified us in London of how the entire population had actually turned against the inhumanity of the cruel tyrant,” the Queen said during a 1947 ceremony.

Significantly for the Netherlands given their cultural connections, and for all of the continent because of German dominance, no European leader has been more vocally opposed to xenophobia than Chancellor Angela Merkel. “Anyone who hits someone wearing a skullcap is hitting us all,” Merkel said in September 2014 at a rally against anti-Semitism in Berlin. “Anyone who attacks a synagogue is attacking the foundations of our free society.” The German leader has also affirmed Islam as “part of Germany,” repudiating anti-immigration activists following the January 2015 Charlie Hebdo attacks. “I am the Chancellor of all Germans,” Merkel said. “And that includes everyone who lives here permanently, whatever their background or origin.” The nation that was once Europe’s cruel tyrant has become the continent’s moral compass.

“Wilhelmus van Nassouwe ben ik, van Duitsen bloed,” read the first lines of Wilhelmus, Holland’s national anthem. When literally translated, they read: “William of Nassau am I, of German blood.” In 1574, when the anthem was penned, Deutschland was not yet a nation, and the modern Dutch bristle at any hint that they are of German ancestry. William’s leadership in the Dutch Revolt against Spain enabled the Netherlands to become an independent country. Ultimately, his bloodline mattered little in what defined his national identity.

And it is the question of German—and European—identity that we will examine in the third and final article. Will working class towns like Bochum affirm Chancellor Merkel’s vision of cultural harmony, or are racial ideals still a bridge too far for northern Europe to cross?  How will Germany respond as increasing numbers of economic migrants, asylum seekers, and war refugees travel north from throughout Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and even southern Europe in search of opportunity? Can the country balance the tension many of its citizens feel between preserving and sustaining prosperity and reducing the political influence of racism and xenophobia?  What will it mean to be German in the 21^st century?

About the author:
*David J. Danelo is director of field research at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. A U.S. Naval Academy graduate, he served seven years as a Marine Corps infantry officer, including a 2004 Iraq deployment as a convoy commander, intelligence officer and provisional executive officer. His initial freelance assignments came in 2005, when he reported on U.S. military strategy from Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti, from the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina, and postwar observations from Vietnam. His first book, Blood Stripes: The Grunt’s View of the War in Iraq, was awarded a 2006 Silver Medal, and Gen. James Mattis listed the book among mandatory reading for Marines deploying to combat. His second book, The Border, earned a spot on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner’s reading list. His most recent book is The Return: A Field Manual for Life After Combat. In June 2011, Danelo was appointed to direct policy and planning within the Department of Homeland Security. While serving in government, he stabilized and led a policy and planning team, helped create the U.S. Border Patrol’s four year strategic plan, and developed U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s first-ever integrated planning guidance. He returned to the private sector in August 2012.

Source:
This article was published at FPRI.

Notes:
[1] Grateful acknowledgement to Timo Lochocki of the German Marshall Fund for this cultural insight.

The post Germany In the 21st Century, Part II: The View From The Netherlands – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Earlier Tuesday, Madhi Hashi, 25, of Somalia, Ali Yasin Ahmed, 30, of Sweden, and Mohamed Yusuf, 32, of Sweden, pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, al-Shabaab.

The guilty plea was announced by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, Acting U.S. Attorney Kelly T. Currie of the Eastern District of New York and Assistant Director in Charge Diego Rodriguez, of the FBI’s New York Field Office.

The guilty plea took place before U.S. District Judge John Gleeson of the Eastern District of New York. At sentencing, each of the defendants faces a maximum of 15 years in prison and automatic removal from the United States.

As stated in court today and according to court documents, between approximately December 2008 and August 2012, the defendants served as members of al-Shabaab in Somalia, where they agreed with others to support al-Shabaab and its extremist agenda. Defendants Mohamed Yusuf and Ali Yasin Ahmed fought in battles in Somalia against African Union forces. Defendant Madhi Hashi was a close associate of American-born jihadist Omar Hammami, with ties to a known al-Shabaab suicide bomber. In addition, defendant Yusuf is featured in an al-Shabaab propaganda video titled “Inspire the Believers.”

In early August 2012, the defendants were apprehended together in East Africa by local authorities shortly after leaving Somalia on their way to Yemen. On Nov. 14, 2012, the FBI took custody of the defendants and brought them to the Eastern District of New York for prosecution.

“Hashi, Ahmed and Yusuf all pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, al-Shabaab,” said Assistant Attorney General Carlin. “The National Security Division remains committed to identifying, disrupting and holding accountable all who seek to provide material support to terrorists both at home and abroad. I would like to thank all of the agents, analysts and prosecutors who are responsible for this case.”

“The defendants were committed supporters of al-Shabaab, a violent terrorist organization that has demonstrated its capabilities and motives in numerous terrorist attacks overseas, and has publicly called for attacks against the United States,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Currie. “We will use every tool at our disposal to combat terrorist groups, deter terrorist activity, and incapacitate individual terrorists around the world. Today’s convictions demonstrate that criminal prosecution is an effective tool in our efforts to combat international terrorism.”

The post Three Members Of Al-Shabaab Plead Guilty In US Court appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Europol said it supported the Spanish Guardia Civil in carrying out Operation Snake. The operation targeted and dismantled a large transnational organized crime network which operated in Spain and was composed of Chinese citizens laundering the proceeds of various criminal activities.

Operation Snake so far has resulted in the arrests of 32 members of the Chinese network, the search of 65 private residences and company premises in Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia as well as the seizure of 20 high-value vehicles and more than EUR 1 million in cash. The Operation is still on-going and new arrests and seizures are expected to take place, Europol said.

Operating since at least 2009, this criminal network is thought to be the subsidiary of an even larger criminal network based in China, Europol said. Over the last six years, the European branch of the group collected and laundered more than EUR 300 million primarily in southern European countries. Most of the laundered funds are believed to have already been transferred out of the EU.

According to Europol, the network imported various types of products into the EU, including counterfeit products, using fraudulent document and engaging in excise tax fraud. The criminal network facilitated its activities by establishing complex corporate structures and relying on front men and third parties in their transactions.

Imported products were sold in the EU without declaring excise taxes and generated significant profits of at least EUR 14 million. These undeclared profits were laundered using a large number of low-level associates, who deposited small sums of money in hundreds of personal bank accounts and transferred the money back to China.

Having established an infrastructure to successfully launder significant amounts of money, the Chinese network also offered money laundering and international remittance services to other organized crime groups in exchange for the payment of a negotiated percentage of the laundered funds. The Chinese network had contacts in various EU Member States including Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom. The group also operated several clothing factories in the vicinity of Madrid where Chinese labourers were exploited.

Operation Snake involved more than 200 Spanish law enforcement officers and was supported by Europol’s Financial Intelligence Group. The Operation was the result of a complex international criminal investigation lasting for more than two years.

Europol was able to make valuable and tangible contribution to this successful operation by assisting the Spanish Guardia Civil with the deployment of a Europol team to Madrid. The team provided on-the-spot real-time intelligence analysis, which allowed for the identification of several transnational links.

The post Spain: Large Chinese Money Laundering Network Dismantled appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Interview by Kirthi Jayakumar with Professor Mark N Katz

The winds of the Arab Spring blew over Yemen, the Middle Eastern country, as peaceful protests against the regime began a few years ago. Recently, one of the rebellious factions in Yemen, the Houthis, gained control of Sanaa and made inroads into other parts of the country. In November 2014, President Hadi of Yemen fled to Saudi Arabia. But it was only a month ago that Saudi Arabia led a military campaign called Operation Desert Storm, in response to President Hadi’s request for a military intervention against the Houthi Rebels, who, if allegations are to be believed, are supported by Iran.

Professor Mark N Katz of George Mason University, USA, talks to Kirthi Jayakumar in this interview, on The Conflict in Yemen.

What is the Yemen conflict about?

Katz: The thing about Yemen is that it is so very complicated that there are really a number of conflicts going on. This goes back to the 1960s, or even before, that there are so many different elements. There is this one President Ali Abdul Saleh, who ruled North Yemen from 1978 until the unification in 1990, and was in power until the Arab Spring. He had a lot of enemies, whom he was able to deal quite successfully with, sort of playing them off against each other. These included the Southerners who he united with, who weren’t so happy afterwards, it included the Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, it included these so-called Houthis in the north, also various Sunni tribes and of course – they were all kinds of different things. I think that while he was successful for a long time, what happened in the Arab Spring is that all of these things came together and he was injured. He ended up stepping down, and turned over authority to his vice president – though he didn’t want to do that. That’s what a lot of it is. The people who he allied with – these people in the North, the Houthis, he was once at war with. Now, they’ve combined forces against the successor, President Hadi, and of course, their conflict has allowed Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to have more control over Yemen. But there is also an independence movement in southern Yemen. People who oppose independence call these people Al Qaeda, but they’re really not. So it’s, it’s a war against all unfortunately. This is where we are!

Who are the Houthis?

Katz: Up until 1962, there had been a kingdom in Northern Yemen, which had its origins in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans used to rule in conjunction with the locals, and the locals. The locals were strong. The religious leaders of the Zaidi Shia community dominated Northern Yemen. Even under President Saleh, in the North, the Yemeni revolution of the 1960s dispossessed those who claimed to be descendants of the Prophet. These people dominated under the Imams. The Imams and the group of Saids were being overthrown. These groups were sent to the far North of Yemen and wanted to come back. It is not clear – they have denied that they wanted to restore the Imamate, and that their Shiaism differs from the Iranian Shiaism, and that the distinctions are many. But, they have been a dominant group for a long time, and they were dispossessed. We’ve seen this in many other countries, obviously. The removed minority wants to comeback on occasion. I think this is a large part of their motivation.

What are the sectarian elements in the Yemeni conflict?

Katz: There certainly is a Shia versus Sunni element to it. I think that the former President Saleh and the Houthis managed to make common cause, and the successor President Hadi is from the South and is a Sunni. In the past, Sunni and Shia differences were not so strong in Yemen. Southern Yemen was Sunni, and in the North, there were tribal identities that were most important. What has happened though, is that the Sunni and Shia distinction is becoming more important in Yemen. This could be partly because of the external supporters. The Saudi support is for the Sunnis, and they are taking action against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Iran is sympathetic towards the Houthis and fellow Shias. It is becoming a Sunni – Shia conflict. Whether it will stay that way is not clear. But that seems to be the direction it is going in.

Are there any precedents where a leader asked a third country to intervene?

Katz: I think this happens pretty frequently – a lot of American counter insurgency efforts were taken in conjunction with the local governments who sought American assistance because they could not deal with their rebels on their own. In the Cold War, the Soviet Union claimed the same thing – that they were invited to intervene in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. But they always claim this sort of thing. The problem of course is that it delegitimises the government that brings in the foreign support. It happened in Yemen in 1962 – when the new Yemeni government invited Egyptian forces under President Nasser. There were more Egyptian troops than Yemeni troops. It tended to delegitimise them. It is interesting – once Nasser withdrew forces after defeat in the 1967 war, the Yemeni Republic actually survived! They did fine without them. The objection was to the presence of the Egyptians.

What implications does the conflict have for the Middle East and for the world at large?

Katz: Yemen is a place that is not well known in the West, and it is not really that well-known for the Middle East either! It is like the back of beyond. I’ve been there about six times, and it is very old in the sense that even Islam feels like it is something new because there is something older, and it is the tribes. The tribes dominate in Yemen. If you went outside of the major cities, you would have found that there was no government – there were only tribes. You had to know someone to travel into Yemen, like a human visa – otherwise, your vehicle will be liberated and sold in a huge car lot somewhere! It is a very heavily armed populace. I think that for many Arabs, they say that Yemen is something backward, not something to set an example for them. What is interesting about Yemen is that we always think that what happens in Yemen is really important because it is right next to Saudi Arabia, but what is fascinating is that for all the conflict that has been there, despite all the external involvement, what happens in Yemen seems to stay in Yemen. It is a self-contained place that the implications of it seem to be quite contained. It doesn’t mean that it has to remain that way – at a given time, something might have significance in terms of geopolitics. The Yemenis themselves are not so interested in international relations and geopolitics. They have their own conflict within for power. Anyone who gets involved gets bogged down by all of these disputes. They are like Afghanistan, that way, built for uncertainty and rebellion. Anyone who gets in there finds himself in a mess.

Where do we see Yemen going from now on? Is there an end in sight to the conflict? If there isn’t, how long do you see the conflict drawing out?

Katz: That’s a really good question. I’m not sure I have an answer. The thing with Yemen is that despite the fact that it always seems like there is war there, they do have a capacity for internal conflict resolution. In the 1960s, the civil war ended and the 1970s saw a series of meetings that led to some stability for a while. The unification that followed was the result of a long process of negotiation between north and south. Had procedure been followed, it would have worked out. But the Yemenis have this propensity for internal conflict resolution – but often times, because of foreign involvement, one party or the other thinks that they don’t have to go through with it. I think that is part of the problem that is happening now. With the Saudi intervention, it is not helping the internal process. I’m not sure what the Saudi intervention has accomplished. In the Ottoman era, they were the most powerful, in North Yemen. The British were in the South for a while. Except for Aden, they ruled all over and were in force. In the end, it didn’t work. Then the Egyptians came in and it was a fiasco. The British left Yemen – they are actually good in counterinsurgency but this was their notable failure. Then came the Soviets, and they couldn’t do much. In 1986, two branches of the Yemeni Socialist Party fought each other and killed each other off. Moscow was able to do very little. Then the Americans were involved – we didn’t send troops there, just drones, I guess. That doesn’t pacify things. Now, the Saudis have sent their troops – and they did this in the 1930s. I think that Saleh was wise because he insisted on withdrawing. What is now South Western Saudi Arabia, is ethnically Yemeni. The Yemeni Imamate fought with Saudi Arabia for them, but Saudi won. It is their neighbourhood and the Yemeni people belong there. Right now, though, it’s not going very well – they have a bombing campaign that hasn’t stopped the Houthis. It is a difficult place to use force successfully.

But, what struck me when I studied Yemen 30 years ago was that it has enormous potential, good population, some oil wealth, and a population that is productive. Yemen could achieve its potential and become an important country – or so it seemed. I’m still waiting for that. Some countries like some people never seem to achieve their potential. It is possible, but it just doesn’t happen. That is the difficulty. There is just so much – it is a young and poor population. They are impatient for change and it doesn’t seem to come. External powers can be interested to some extent. No one wants to invest much there. That is the problem. What we can see is that there could be long periods of instability like in Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. It is likely to be inconclusive. The first thing that is going to happen is that the alliance between Saleh and the Houthis is going to come to an end. They fought in the past, and it was but inevitable that they would again. It is also possible that the Houthis and Al Qaeda and Sunnis might come up against each other in Yemen. We’re in for a long period of conflict! The US is in no hurry to intervene anywhere else. The Saudis cannot conclude the fight, either – which is a bit of a problem, because they can’t necessarily pacify the people. However, it might just happen that the conflict might end because everyone is losing because of the prolongation of the conflict.

The post The Conflict In Yemen – Interview appeared first on Eurasia Review.