By Riad Kahwaji*

The Iraqi government’s over-reliance on Shiite militias to do the job of the Iraqi military has raised eye-brows over Baghdad’s true intentions in the current war on terrorism and whether it has a hidden agenda with its strategic ally, Iran, to weaken and cleanse Sunni provinces and thereby reach oil-rich areas in the north.

The ease with which the forces of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) advance into predominantly Sunni towns and cities with little if any significant resistance from the Iraqi regular troops or paramilitary police units has raised the suspicion of many observers and officials regionally and internationally.

What was more surprising to see was the Iraqi government seeking the assistance of Iranian-backed Iraqi Shiite militias under the banner of Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) to do the job that the Iraqi Armed Forces should be doing.

According to defense contractors and Iraqi security sources Baghdad has been investing heavily in building the PMF. “The Iraqi government is transferring most of the procured ammunition and arms to the PMF and leaving Iraqi troops and police most of the time with limited ammunition and defense capabilities,” says one defense contractor who deals with Iraq, requesting not to be named.

“Once an arms shipment reaches the Baghdad airport we see Iraqi security giving way to PMF men to move in and unload the weapons on their own trucks and drive away… The Iraqi government is even providing legal documentations like end-user certificates to procure stuff for the PMF,” he adds. According to another Iraqi security official who asked not to be named, “between what ISIS captured from Iraqi Army depots and from what the government has given the PMF, the Iraqi military has lost around 65 percent of its arms, equipment and assets.”

The last city to be lost to ISIS was Ramadi, and it repeated the same scenario of what happened earlier at Tikrit and many other places. ISIS fighters would push in with Iraqi regular forces backed by some poorly armed Sunni tribesmen putting up a desperate fight with limited ammunition and resources. Pleas for assistance from Baghdad would go unanswered until the city is lost, and then the government would call out intervention from the PMF.

In Tikrit, the PMF failed to expel ISIS from the city and the International and Arab Coalition fighting ISIS initially refused to provide air cover for PMF for fear of being caught up in the sectarian tensions sweeping across Iraq. Tikrit was later liberated from ISIS by regular Iraqi troops with Coalition air cover. But PMF moved into the city shortly afterwards and was accused by the Human Rights Watch of committing atrocities against residents of the overwhelmingly Sunni-majority city. Iraqi Sunni officials called for public enquiries and the Iraqi government promised to investigate, but nothing has yet materialized. Many of the city’s residents remain unable to return for fear of reprisals by PMF militias roaming the city.

The same scenario appears to be unfolding in Ramadi now where a Shiite militia is being asked to move in to evict Sunni militants. The Arab members of the Coalition, especially the Arab Gulf States appear to have suspended all operations in Iraq. According to an official Arab Gulf source the United States, which leads the Coalition, was informed that the Arab warplanes will not be able to take part in any operations that provide air support to the PMF.

Worried about the unity of the Coalition, Washington adopted a similar position and has pressed Baghdad to invest more in building the regular forces and arming Sunni tribesmen to fight ISIS. While the Iraqi government has been very slow in reacting, the U.S. Congress has moved faster to pass a law allowing Washington to provide arms to Sunni and Kurdish forces in Iraq without going through Baghdad.

President Obama has also ordered additional US Army Advisors to train the Iraqi Armed Forces. However, the current policies of the Iranian-influenced Iraqi government seem to be heightening Sunni grievances and sectarian tensions because the war on ISIS is being used as a cover for sectarian targeting and as a means to widen Shi’ite control in oil-rich northern territories.

However, Baghdad is likely to soon find itself in direct conflict with neighboring Arab Gulf countries and even the West. Exasperating the anxieties of Iraqi Sunni population especially among the conservative tribes will push more of their young men into allying with ISIS and shifting the current war on terrorism into a sectarian conflict in Iraq once again.

The international community should exercise more scrutiny in its arms deals with Iraq and impose stricter conditions to monitor and penalize Baghdad for passing on weapons and ammunition to the militias. Turning the war on ISIS in Iraq into a sectarian conflict will ultimately escalate into a larger regional conflict at the expense of the war on terrorism, and devastate any regional stability and security.

*Riad Kahwaji, CEO, INEGMA

The post Baghdad’s Reliance On Shi’ite Militias Raises Concerns Of Hidden Agenda – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

It looks like open season has been declared on the battle flag of Army of Northern Virginia, which is commonly referred to as the Confederate battle flag. But, if you are looking for a flag to ban as racist, you might as well start with the American flag.

After all, the American flag is associated with the United States government that sanctioned slavery from the enactment of the US Constitution in 1789 to the addition of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in December of 1865 — months after the end of the war with the Confederate States. The CS government, in comparison, existed for less than five years, with slavery legal the entire time.

The American flag flies now for a government whose drug war and larger law enforcement system is responsible for black Americans being harassed, arrested, and incarcerated in extraordinary numbers. Remember the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution makes an exception to allow slavery as “a punishment for crime.” This is an exception that has been employed much in America recently, with the number of people incarcerated in prisons and jails growing five-fold in the last thirty years.

Of course, the Confederate battle flag opponents come out every four years to yell out “gotcha, you’re a racist!” at any presidential candidate who refuses to recite that the South Carolina government should remove the “racist” Confederate battle flag from the grounds of the state capitol building. This occurs again and again despite the fact that the flag’s presence is a state matter over which the US president has no role in deciding.

The killing of several people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina last week has helped inflame the quadrennial attacks on the Confederate battle flag.

Some people even believe the root cause of the killings resides in a statewide hatred of back people that is interwoven with the fabric of that Confederate battle flag flying on the state capitol grounds.

It is not too surprising to see film director Michael Moore’s vehement comments calling for someone to tear down the Confederate battle flag on the South Carolina capitol grounds and relating the flag’s presence to the killings. His comments are one sample of the torrent of similar comments being made since the killings.

Over at The Intercept, Jon Schwarz does not want to stop at taking down one flag. Schwarz writes that taking down the Confederate battle flag at the South Carolina capitol grounds “seems like a good start, but maybe not the place to end.” Schwarz lists six additional cultural items to purge from the state — three statues, the name of a street in Charleston, the Charleston city seal, and the South Carolina state flag. He doesn’t claim that any of these cultural items say anything explicitly racist. Rather, he says they all have some connection to slavery.

Schwarz sees this purge of his listed cultural items as just a start. Indeed, he is seeking suggestions for expanding the purge list:

I’m sure there’s much more that could be added to this list. If you’re from South Carolina and would like to make some suggestions, please get in touch. (Also please get in touch if you have any ideas for getting Andrew Jackson off our money.)

As alluded to in the Andrew Jackson reference, Schwarz’s desired purge goes far beyond South Carolina. As he says, “every other place in America also celebrates the ugliest parts of our past.”

It is doubtful that a very high percentage of people looking at a twenty dollar bill or one of the statues Schwarz wants removed from South Carolina are celebrating the most inhumane things the individuals represented, did, or may be associated with. Some people take in the aesthetic and leave it at that. Some people ponder the times during which the individuals represented lived. Some people curse or celebrate the individuals represented. Different strokes for different folks.

The call for a widespread elimination of cultural items that may cause some people discomfort because of a relationship to slavery — and potentially a much longer list of verboten people, occurrences, and beliefs — brings to mind the destruction of cultural items in war. Addressing the intentional destruction of cultural items by the Islamic State (ISIS), Sturt W. Manning, the director of the Cornell Institute of Archaeology and Material Studies and professor of classical architecture at Cornell University, explains:

All attacks on archaeological sites and artifacts are brutal assaults on our collective human memory. They deprive us of the evidence of human endeavors and achievements.

The destruction eloquently speaks of the human folly and senseless violence that drives ISIS. The terror group is destroying the evidence of the great history of Iraq; it has to, as this history attests to a rich alternative to its barbaric nihilism.

While the sought purge of cultural items in South Carolina and throughout America is different in many ways from the destruction of cultural items pursued by ISIS, Manning’s observations suggest some important similarities. In America such cultural cleansing similarly threatens to obliterate Americans’ “memories” and the evidence of history. The whitewashing also attempts to alter the American narrative to remove the alternatives, with their both good and bad aspects, that may be suggested by the purged cultural items.

The German government’s attack on “degenerate art” in the 1930s and ‘40s is an illustrative example of the systematic destruction of cultural items.

Many people will find more surprising than Moore and Schwarz’s comments the articles by writers identified with libertarianism who single out the Confederate battle flag as universally conveying a predominantly or solely racist message.

Cato Institute Executive Vice President David Boaz wrote in 2001 that the Mississippi state flag should be altered because “the Confederate emblem in the state flag can’t be separated from slavery.” But of course it can, just like the American flag can be separated from slavery.

The governments of both the US and CS recognized the legality of slavery in their respective jurisdictions throughout their war. As the war proceeded, the US began eliminating slavery in conquered territory, but slavery remained legal and enforced in states that had not seceded from the US. Still, today many of the people singing the national anthem while looking at the US flag at any given sporting event are not all seeing the American flag as a symbol of slavery. Many of these people look past the decades of slavery and slave trade under US government protection. They also look past the Fugitive Slave Act that denied slaves their freedom even if they could escape to a state that outlawed slavery, as well as the fact that the US Constitution guaranteed through the year 1808 the legal continuation of the importation of slaves

Boaz’s conclusion derives from defining the Confederate States War as being about one thing: the Confederate States desire to protect slavery. This is a conclusion with which many people disagree. And even people who agree with Boaz’s conclusion about the war can still revere the Confederate battle flag while opposing slavery and racism.

Why is this so hard for so many people to understand? All sorts of Americans revere the American flag even though they don’t agree with everything the US government has done. An American Indian may cherish the American flag, not defining it as a representation of a government that slaughtered his ancestors and drove them from the land on which they lived. A liberal may cherish the American flag, not defining it as a representation of a government that does not guarantee single-payer health care, a $15 an hour minimum wage, and gay marriage. A conservative may cherish the American flag, not defining it as a representation of a government that imposes too much taxes, is soft on illegal immigration, and allows abortions. A libertarian may cherish the American flag, not defining it as a representation of a government that engages in endless offensive wars, mass surveillance, and the war on drugs.

Steve Chapman is emphatic in a Monday article at Reason that the Confederate battle flag has a universal racist message. Chapman states:

In 2015, anyone displaying that flag knows what it means to viewers, particularly black ones. It’s an expression of hostility, not only toward black people, but to broader ideals of how the nation should come to terms with the legacy of racism.

Yet, in the same article, Chapman discloses that in 1972 he displayed a Confederate battle flag from his dorm room window at college. And he says he did so for reasons that had nothing to do with expressing racism. Chapman explains:

Like a lot of people below the Mason-Dixon Line — white people, anyway — I saw the emblem as a token of regional pride. I didn’t revere slavery and Jim Crow. But I thought there was much about the South to love.

And if the flag annoyed the Yankees a little, that was OK. They were not as noble and blameless as they pretended to be. They were not going to make me repudiate my native region.

Chapman provides no explanation in his article why someone, like himself, could revere and display the Confederate flag without any racist motivation in 1972 while, in 2015, displaying the flag with a motivation like he had as a college student is impossible. It is hard to imagine what sort of tortured reasoning would be used to argue that point.

In 2011, Byron Thomas, a student at the University of South Carolina Beaufort, did just what Chapman did nearly forty years earlier. Thomas hung a Confederate battle flag in his dorm room window. Thomas even stood up to university administrators who demanded he take the flag down. As reported in a 2011 Associate Press article, Thomas presented an explanation for his action that is very similar to how Chapman describes Chapman’s motivations as a college student. Says Thomas: “When I look at this flag, I don’t see racism. I see respect, Southern pride.” This week, Thomas discussed in a CNN interview his reasons for his continuing reverence for and display of the Confederate battle flag.

Chapman and Thomas also serve as an example that people’s views regarding the Confederate battle flag are not determined by their race. Chapman is white. Thomas is black. Yet, as college students they both displayed the Confederate battle flag and did not view their doing so as an expression of racism.

Many people who would heap scorn on Chapman or Thomas for displaying the “racist” Confederate battle flag would praise someone for displaying the American flag. Yet, the American flag is associated with a government that has done much wrong, including to black people.

The “racist” label can be affixed to the American flag just as it can to the Confederate battle flag. The histories of the governments associated with both flags provide plenty of ground for arguments supporting the label’s applicability. Yet, each flag is cherished both by people who abhor racism and by people who embrace racism. If the Confederate battle flag must be taken down because of the history of the government with which it is associated, then why not take down the American flag as well?

This article was published by the RonPaul Institute.

The post If You Want To Get Rid Of ‘Racist Flags,’ How About Starting With US Flag? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Saudi Arabia has strongly condemned the attack that on Wednesday targeted a UAE relief convoy including the UAE ambassador in the Somali capital of Mogadishu, resulting in killing and wounding a number of innocent people.

Head of the Information Department at the Foreign Ministry Osama Nugali stressed the Kingdom’s condemnation of cowardly terrorist acts that are contrary to all humanitarian principles and values, confirming the Kingdom’s stand with the UAE in its relief efforts.

Nugali congratulated the UAE on the safety of its delegation and also offered condolences to the families of the victims and to the Somali government and its people. He wished a speedy recovery to the injured.

The post Saudi Arabia Condems Attack On UAE Convoy In Somalia appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Conjecture about a Rosneft-Essar deal shows how the oil market dynamics have shifted in the past few years. Just as supply security is important to oil buyers, demand security is crucial for oil suppliers. Buying refining and marketing assets in big markets like India is the route to demand security for Russia, whose economy depends on petroleum exports.

By Amit Bhandari*

Energy trade is not just about securing supplies–it is also about securing demand. News reports suggest that Russia’s state-owned oil company, Rosneft, is close to acquiring a stake in India’s private sector refiner Essar Oil. In its official statement, Essar Oil said there were no developments so far that require an update to the stock exchanges. However, if there were no discussions underway, the company could have simply issued a denial–so there is a possibility that such a deal may be in the making.

Reports say Rosneft will buy one share less than a 50% stake in Essar Oil. It may also need to make an open offer for another 26% of the shares under the Indian law governing significant acquisition of shares. If this happens, Rosneft will have a controlling stake in an oil refinery that can process 20 million tonnes of petroleum every year, and a network of 1,876 petrol pumps.

This is a reversal of the usual trend. So far, India has been investing in oil and gas fields in Russia–ONGC Videsh Limited has a stake in the $10-12 billion Sakhalin-1 project and in 2009, acquired Russia-based Imperial Energy for $2.1 billion. Both of these investments are part of a bid to secure India’s energy supplies.

Rosneft is among the world’s largest oil producing companies, with daily oil production of 4.2 million barrels: more oil than is consumed by India. So why is Rosneft interested in acquiring a downstream asset?

The deal, or the speculation around it, underlines a new, emerging dynamic in the oil market, where buyers and consumers have had more bargaining power than suppliers.

Russia is one of the world’s top oil producers, pumping out 10.8 million barrels per day, while India is the fourth largest oil consumer, consuming 3.8 million barrels of petroleum products per day. However, as of now, there is very little direct oil movement between India and Russia because of logistical reasons.

During FY14, India imported 189.2 million tonnes (approximately 3.8 million barrels per day) of petroleum, of which Russia accounted for only 0.27 million tonnes, or 0.16per cent.. Russia’s oil exports travel via the Black Sea or through the Pacific. In both cases, there are large markets close by: Europe and East Asia. Europe accounts for two-thirds of Russia’s oil exports and East Asia accounts for one-sixth.

However, this could soon change, and not for the better. Major European economies such as Germany, Italy and Spain presently meet 7%-12% of their energy needs from renewable power. This share could increase, alongside a consequent reduction in demand for fossil fuels.

The dropping demand in a key market could not have come at a worse time for the Russians, as a global increase in oil supplies by a massive 3.1 million barrels per day over the last year (according to the International Energy Agency), has caused stress to economies such as Russia, Venezuela and Iran, which depend on petroleum exports for a majority of their income. The abundance of oil makes it possible for European nations to now import more oil from other sources, following the geopolitical tensions over the Ukraine and European sanctions on Russia.

As a result, Russia may face a fall in demand from its most important market at a time when global supplies are increasing. Meanwhile, this demand is completely non-existent in the world’s fourth largest (and still-growing) oil market, India. Owning a strategic stake in an oil refinery and the downstream network of petrol pumps will provide Russia a path to the Indian market. India also exports refined petroleum products such as petrol and diesel, so this refinery can be used to service other regional markets as well.

By acquiring a large petroleum refinery, Rosneft is trying to secure its market.

*Amit Bhandari is Fellow, Energy & Environment Studies, Gateway House. This article was written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

The post Rosneft-Essar Deal – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Some coral populations already have genetic variants necessary to tolerate warm ocean waters, and humans can help to spread these genes, a team of scientists from The University of Texas at Austin, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and Oregon State University have found. The discovery has implications for many reefs now threatened by global warming and shows for the first time that mixing and matching corals from different latitudes may boost reef survival.

The findings were published this week in the journal Science.

The researchers crossed corals from naturally warmer areas of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia with corals from a cooler latitude nearly 300 miles to the south. The scientists found that coral larvae with parents from the north, where waters were about 2 degrees Celsius warmer, were up to 10 times as likely to survive heat stress, compared with those with parents from the south. Using genomic tools, the researchers identified the biological processes responsible for heat tolerance and demonstrated that heat tolerance could evolve rapidly based on existing genetic variation.

“Our research found that corals do not have to wait for new mutations to appear. Averting coral extinction may start with something as simple as an exchange of coral immigrants to spread already existing genetic variants,” said Mikhail Matz, an associate professor of integrative biology at The University of Texas at Austin. “Coral larvae can move across oceans naturally, but humans could also contribute, relocating adult corals to jump-start the process.”

Worldwide, coral reefs have been badly damaged by rising sea surface temperatures. Bleaching — a process that can cause widespread coral death due to loss of the symbiotic algae that corals depend on for food — has been linked to warming waters. Some corals, however, have higher tolerance for elevated temperatures, though until now no one understood why some adapted differently than others.

“This discovery adds to our understanding of the potential for coral to cope with hotter oceans,” said Line Bay, an evolutionary ecologist with the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Townsville.

Reef-building corals from species in the northern Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea are similar to those used in the study. There, too, reefs may benefit from conservation and restoration efforts that protect the most heat-tolerant corals and prioritize them for any restoration initiatives involving artificial propagation.

“This is occasion for hope and optimism about coral reefs and the marine life that thrive there,” Matz said.

The post Corals Already Adapting To Global Warming appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope have discovered an immense cloud of hydrogen dubbed “The Behemoth” bleeding from a planet orbiting a nearby star. The enormous, comet-like feature is about 50 times the size of the parent star. The hydrogen is evaporating from a warm, Neptune-sized planet, due to extreme radiation from the star.

This phenomenon has never been seen around an exoplanet so small. It may offer clues to how other planets with hydrogen-enveloped atmospheres could have their outer layers evaporated by their parent star, leaving behind solid, rocky cores. Hot, rocky planets such as these that roughly the size of Earth are known as Hot-Super Earths.

“This cloud is very spectacular, though the evaporation rate does not threaten the planet right now,” explains the study’s leader, David Ehrenreich of the Observatory of the University of Geneva in Switzerland. “But we know that in the past, the star, which is a faint red dwarf, was more active. This means that the planet evaporated faster during its first billion years of existence because of the strong radiation from the young star. Overall, we estimate that it may have lost up to 10 percent of its atmosphere over the past several billion years.”

The planet, named GJ 436b, is considered to be a “Warm Neptune,” because of its size and because it is much closer to its star than Neptune is to our sun. Although it is in no danger of having its atmosphere completely evaporated and stripped down to a rocky core, this planet could explain the existence of so-called Hot Super-Earths that are very close to their stars.

These hot, rocky worlds were discovered by the Convection Rotation and Planetary Transits (CoRoT) and NASA’s Kepler space telescope. Hot Super-Earths could be the remnants of more massive planets that completely lost their thick, gaseous atmospheres to the same type of evaporation.

Because the Earth’s atmosphere blocks most ultraviolet light, astronomers needed a space telescope with Hubble’s ultraviolet capability and exquisite precision to find “The Behemoth.”

“You would have to have Hubble’s eyes,” says Ehrenreich. “You would not see it in visible wavelengths. But when you turn the ultraviolet eye of Hubble onto the system, it’s really kind of a transformation, because the planet turns into a monstrous thing.”

Because the planet’s orbit is tilted nearly edge-on to our view from Earth, the planet can be seen passing in front of its star. Astronomers also saw the star eclipsed by “The Behemoth” hydrogen cloud around the planet.

Ehrenreich and his team think that such a huge cloud of gas can exist around this planet because the cloud is not rapidly heated and swept away by the radiation pressure from the relatively cool red dwarf star. This allows the cloud to stick around for a longer time. The team’s findings will be published in the June 25 edition of the journal Nature.

Evaporation such as this may have happened in the earlier stages of our own solar system, when the Earth had a hydrogen-rich atmosphere that dissipated over 100 to 500 million years. If so, the Earth may previously have sported a comet-like tail.

GJ 436b resides very close to its star – less than 2 million miles — and whips around it in just 2.6 Earth days. In comparison, the Earth is 93 million miles from our sun and orbits it every 365.24 days. This exoplanet is at least 6 billion years old, and may even be twice that age. It has a mass of around 23 Earths. At just 30 light-years from Earth, it’s one of the closest known extrasolar planets.

Finding “The Behemoth” could be a game-changer for characterizing atmospheres of the whole population of Neptune-sized planets and Super-Earths in ultraviolet observations. In the coming years, Ehrenreich expects that astronomers will find thousands of this kind of planet.

The ultraviolet technique used in this study also may also spot the signature of oceans evaporating on smaller, more Earth-like planets. It will be extremely challenging for astronomers to directly see water vapor on those worlds, because it’s too low in the atmosphere and shielded from telescopes. However, when water molecules are broken by the stellar radiation into hydrogen and oxygen, the relatively light hydrogen atoms can escape the planet. If scientists spot this hydrogen evaporating from a planet that is slightly more temperate and less massive than GJ 436b, it could be an indication of an ocean on the surface.

The post ‘Behemoth’ Bleeding Atmosphere Discovered Around Warm Exoplanet appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Drones generally get a bad press but there’s far more to them than destruction and war – for example drone technology can help save lives in disaster zones reaching places that no humans can tread. Now researchers from Laval University in Canada have revealed another surprising and positive drone application – tracking the impact of climate change in the Arctic.
Laval University’s Argo drone can survive in the extreme conditions of the Arctic Ocean, plunging depths of almost 2 000 metres to collect data about marine organisms. This means that it can collect previously inaccessible information to improve our understanding of the Arctic marine ecosystem and track the effects of climate change.

The Argo drone is a few years in the making – in 2000, the UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and the World Meteorological Organisation launched the Argo programme with the aim of creating a global network of beacons for an integrated global ocean observing system. Now there are thousands of Argo ‘floats’ or drones in our oceans however the unforgiving conditions in the Arctic mean that it hosts very few, as Brigitte Robineau, executive director of Québec-Océan explains: ‘There are now nearly 4,000 Argo floats deployed in the oceans. However, because of the constraints imposed by the cold sea ice and icebergs, there are very few in the Arctic Ocean. As these instruments can provide valuable data to researchers who conduct work, the team of Marcel Babin and Claudie Marec undertook the design and manufacture of a float adapted to this environment.’

According to José Lagunas-Morales, a specialist embedded systems engineer on the project, the main challenge was to protect the drone from the threat posed by ice. The drone actually spends most of its time under water but it is when it surfaces and possibly collides with ice that the telecommunications equipment, temperature sensors or other equipment could get damaged. Or it could become trapped by the ice – which would be very costly. Lagunas-Morales notes, ‘We have to avoid the device getting trapped in ice because it would then become useless for research. Any error in design or programming could be very costly, literally and figuratively, since each tag is worth about $90 000 (EUR 80 300).’

With this in mind, Lagunas-Morales developed an optical system which allows Argo to detect the presence of ice: ‘When it nears the surface, it emits a laser beam and the reflected light is collected and analyzed which allows it to distinguish the ice-free water. The float needs only 1 metre squared of free water to the surface, but we programmed it with a safety margin of 3 metre squared.’

It has already been tested in the waters of Baffin Bay, located between Baffin Island and the southwest coast of Greenland. According to the University of Laval, if the tests are successful, four Argo floats equipped with this optical ice detection system will be deployed in the Arctic Ocean in the coming months. Within three years, it is expected that researchers will be able to rely on data from an armada of 23 devices. The drone has an impressive ‘battery life’ of four years. As engadget notes, ‘If everything goes well, however, the drone will be tracking the biological effects of climate change within a matter of months.’

Source: CORDIS

The post New ‘Arctic-Proof’ Drone To Track Effects Of Climate Change appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By David Inserra*

On Monday, the FBI charged Justin Sullivan with attempting to provide material support to a terrorist group as well as two weapons charges. Sullivan was planning to attack a public venue, such as a bar or a concert, with a rifle in support of the Islamic State (ISIS). This is the 71st Islamist terrorist plot or attack against the U.S. homeland since 9/11 according to publicly available information. It is the third plot foiled this month alone and part of an ongoing spike in terrorist activity within the U.S.

The U.S. must recognize that terrorists have not stopped trying to strike us and, indeed, have only grown bolder in the past few months. While the U.S. should not give in to fearmongering, it cannot naively ignore the threat that confronts it. The U.S. must use all the tools of its national power to prevent terrorists from striking.

Plot No. 71

In April 2015, Sullivan’s father called 9-1-1 after Sullivan began to destroy various household items, particularly religious items, seemingly in support of ISIS. Sullivan’s father said that they were “scared to leave the house.” Following this incident, the FBI assigned an undercover agent (UC) to communicate with Sullivan. Sullivan praised ISIS and swore his allegiance to it, describing himself as a “mujahid,” a guerilla fighter engaging in violent jihad.

Sullivan told the UC that the two of them should remain in the U.S. to support ISIS since they would likely be captured if they tried to travel. Instead, Sullivan had settled on attacking a U.S. target with a gun, saying that “[yo]u only need 600 dollars… for the gun and bullets.”[1] Sullivan said that he would be purchasing an AR-15 rifle “in about two weeks” at a nearby gun show, promising that “I’ll kill people this month.” Sullivan estimated that he and the UC could kill 1,000 people with AR-15s.[2]

Sullivan then began to talk about firearm silencers and poisons that could be used on the bullets or in a bomb. He asked if the UC could make the silencers for use in June or possibly July. In addition to seeking out a silencer and poisons, Sullivan also sought 100-round drum magazines for the AR-15 as well.[3] After gaining as much information as possible from Sullivan, the FBI then provided him with a silencer that Sullivan believed was homemade on June 19. The FBI then raided the Sullivans’ house, finding the silencer and arresting Sullivan. Sullivan admitted that he was planning to use the silencer during an attack on a bar or a concert between June 21 and June 23. He intended to buy a rifle from a gun show on June 20.[4]

Combating Terrorism

This 71st plot is the ninth Islamist terrorist plot in this calendar year and the third in June alone. As was the case with all the other plots this year, Sullivan was inspired by ISIS. Sullivan’s was also the 60th plot or attack involving a homegrown terrorist, meaning one who was radicalized here in the U.S. In targeting a bar or a concert, Sullivan was also going after the third most common terrorist target: different types of mass gatherings (plots against the U.S. military and New York City are the most and second most common targets, respectively). Together with the recent release of State Department research showing a spike in global terrorism in 2014, the U.S. must come to grips with the true nature of the terrorist threat, both at home and abroad.[5]

To combat the real and growing threat of terrorism, Congress should:

• Ensure that the FBI shares information more readily and regularly with state and local law enforcement and treats state and local partners as critical actors in the fight against terrorism. In this case, a local 9-1-1 call seems to have triggered FBI involvement. While using state and local partners as important sources of information is half the battle, local partners must also receive timely information from the FBI. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should play a role in supporting these partners’ efforts by acting as a source or conduit for information and coordinating information sharing between the FBI and its partners.
• Designate an office in DHS to coordinate countering violent extremism (CVE) efforts. CVE efforts are spread across all levels of government and society. DHS is uniquely situated to lead the federal government’s efforts to empower local partners. Currently, DHS’s CVE working group coordinates efforts across DHS components, but a more substantial office will be necessary to manage this broader task.
• Support state, local, and civil society partners. Congress and the Administration should not lose sight of the fact that all of the federal government’s efforts must be focused on empowering local partners. The federal government is not the tip of the spear for CVE efforts; it exists to support local partners who are in the best position to recognize and counter radicalization in their own communities.
• Maintain essential counterterrorism tools. Support for important investigative tools is essential to maintaining the security of the U.S. and combating terrorist threats. Legitimate government surveillance programs are also a vital component of U.S. national security and should be allowed to continue. The need for effective counterterrorism operations, however, does not relieve the government of its obligation to follow the law and respect individual privacy and liberty. In the American system, the government must do both equally well.

Winning the Long War on Terrorism

As the U.S. experiences the highest level of terrorist activity since 9/11, Congress must remember that this is not a short-term skirmish but a long war. Failure to recognize the nature of this conflict, our enemy, or the reality of the threat will leave the U.S. unprepared. Instead, the U.S. must remain vigilant and provide U.S. counterterrorism officials with additional legal tools to confront the growing threat.

About the author:
*David Inserra is a Research Associate for Homeland Security and Cyber Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation.

Source:
This article was published by The Heritage Foundation

Notes:
[1] Criminal Complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina: United States of America v. Justin Nojan Sullivan, Case No. 1:15-MJ-82, June 22, 2015, http://www.justice.gov/opa/file/479816/download (accessed June 24, 2015).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Paul Richter, “Terrorist Attacks and Their Toll Soared in 2014, U.S. Reports,” Los Angeles Times, June 19, 2015, http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-terror-report-20150620-story.html (accessed June 22, 2015), and U.S. Department of State, Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights, Bureau of Counterterrorism, “National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism: Annex of Statistical Information,” April 2015, http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2014/239416.htm (accessed June 24, 2015).

The post Terrorist Plot No. 71 In US: Rise In Terrorism Calls For Increased Vigilance – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

With the Eurozone portion of Greece’s $276 billion bailout credit expiring on June 30, Europe is in the midst of a standoff over this unsustainable debt. But it is only the latest in a number of Eurozone crises since 2008, and if the prospects for economic growth remain dim, how will the EU address its interlocking problems?

By Jivanta Schottli*

Europe is once again in the midst of a standoff, a battle of wills and nerves over the issue of Greece’s unsustainable and insurmountable debt, and the growing possibility of a “Grexit” from the Eurozone.

A number of doomsday scenarios are being projected, including potential financial chaos, social unrest, even an eventual dissolution of the European currency union should contagion spread to weaker economies within the European Union (EU).

This is the latest round in a number of recurring crises since the 2008 global financial crisis that have plagued the Eurozone, a monetary union of 19 of the 28 EU member states.

On June 30, the Eurozone portion of Greece’s €245 billion ($276 billion) bailout credit expires and on the same day, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is due a repayment from Athens of €1.6 billion ($1.79 billion) in loans. [1]

Despite a growing sense of urgency and calls for compromise, negotiators have failed to agree on the policy overhauls and spending cuts that Athens must agree to make, in order to unlock further credit. Unlike previous rounds of crises, negotiations, firewall measures, and eventually the damage-control outcomes that ensued, it is not clear if this time round all participants are actually preparing for an end-game option.

European leaders have spoken out, urging for a resolution of the crisis. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said “Where there is a will, there is a way,” adding however, “that the will must come from all sides.” [2] French Prime Minister Francois Hollande has appealed to all parties that “We have to get to work… everything must be done in order that Greece remains in the eurozone.” [3]

On the other hand, long-time sceptics of the Euro, and those who argue Greece should never have been allowed to join the Euro in the first place due to its weak economic credentials, propose that a Grexit would finally bring to an end years of wrangling, brinkmanship, and blackmail. Allowing Greece to leave the Euro would be a catharsis (to borrow a term from Ancient Greek tragedy). One complication however, lies in the fact that there is no mechanism in place to expel a member from the currency union. The country has to want to leave voluntarily and current polls indicate that a majority of Greeks do not want an exit.

A number of sticking points have hampered talks between Greece, its two main creditors (the IMF and European Central Bank) and the European Commission. The leftist Syriza government in Greece, elected to power in January 2015, promised to resist demands for any further cuts to social spending.

Initially the Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, and his intrepid finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, toured through Europe expecting to raise support among other Southern economies, previously considered to be on the verge of bankruptcy. Instead, the economies of Spain, Portugal, and Ireland were not-so empathetic, given the tough reforms their government had implemented, and were thus unwilling to show leniency for another country’s profligacy.

The economic troubles in Europe have exposed entrenched historical rivalries, crude prejudices, resentments, and stereotypes. Right-leaning, nationalist, anti-immigration political parties in many European countries have capitalised on the sense of crisis, and there remains the pressing challenge of how to engage and enthuse a younger generation about the European idea, especially when faced with double-digit unemployment rates.

And herein lies the crux of the problem that faces a supranational project: how far should integration go to create a federation of Europe? Can a common currency really work given the vast differences in economic conditions and constraints across Europe and without a common fiscal or taxation system?

Originally, the European Economic Community (formed in 1958) aimed to raise living standards, to uphold and operate the principle of solidarity on a continent that, over centuries, had been ripped apart by religious wars, totalitarianism, nationalism, and civil war. The ideals of a single market, of the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital, were meant to overcome and prevent the historical excesses carried out, in part, by one of Europe’s very own political creations, the nation-state.

Yet today a number of the EU’s initial objectives are under attack—the economic union to spread prosperity, a political union to overcome prejudices, and a strategic union to enhance the EU’s bargaining power in the world as a trade giant and economic power.

Waves of migrants from failed states including Libya, Syria, and in North Africa, have risked their lives crossing the Mediterranean to reach a Europe that cannot decide on the bureaucratic formalities of how to act in the face of human desperation. Since 2014 the Crimean crisis and Russia’s operations have brought home the realisation that geo-strategy and military power remain instruments of global politics.

So long as the prospects for economic growth remain dim in the Eurozone, the European conundrum will continue. The crises are a necessary reminder that Europe should not take for granted its reputation as an island of peace and prosperity, a model for political union and soft power. Member states must introduce painful structural reforms. But to make Europe more competitive, the EU requires a vision that goes beyond bureaucratic coordination and bookkeeping, an outward orientation perhaps harking back to a time when Ancient Greece provided trade and cultural connections between Europe and India.

*Jivanta Schöttli is a lecturer in the department of political science, South Asia Institute, Heidelberg University, Germany. This feature was written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

References

[1] Forelle, Charles, ‘Greece’s Fragile Banks Leave Alexis Tsipras Few Options in Bailout Talks’, The Wall Street Journal, 24 June 2015, <http://www.wsj.com/articles/greeces-fragile-banks-leave-tsipras-little-room-to-maneuver-in-bailout-talks-1435178635>, and BBC News, Greece debt crisis: EU leaders step up efforts for deal, 22 June 2015, <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33217910>

[2] Clark, Charles, Merkel on Greece: ‘Where there’s a will, there’s a way, Associated Press, 12 June 2015, http://www.businessinsider.in/Merkel-on-Greece-Where-theres-a-will-theres-a-way/articleshow/47645716.cms

[3] Markey, Patrick, France’s Hollande sees ‘little time’ to avoid Greek euro exit, Reuters, 16 June 2015, < http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/06/15/us-eurozone-greece-hollande-idINKBN0OV2MX20150615>

The post Can Europe Overcome Its Crisis? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Petrit Collaku

A vote to change the constitution to allow the establishment of a controversial new special court to try Kosovo Liberation Army guerrillas failed because not enough MPs voted in favour.

The long-delayed vote on constitutional changes to establish the new court to try alleged war crimes committed during the 1998-99 conflict failed on Friday to gain enough votes in favour to pass the legislation.

After a heated debate, only 75 MPs voted for the changes – six short of the number required to approve the legislation. Seven voted against and two abstained but the remainder of the MPs in the 120-seat legislature refused to take part in the voting process.

The proposed establishment of the EU-backed court has been highly controversial in Kosovo.

Veterans’ associations and opposition parties have claimed that it is an insult to the KLA’s armed struggle to escape Serbian control during the 1998-99 conflict, and some demonstrated outside parliament during Friday’s session.

At the beginning of the session, Kosovo’s Prime Minister Isa Mustafa told MPs that the court would try individuals and not the KLA’s war.

“I invite all of you to vote for the proposed amendment,” Mustafa urged.

Foreign Minister Hashim Thaci also told parliament that it was in Kosovo’s interests to create the special court.

“We will prove that we have nothing to hide and preserve the historical and strategic alliance with our partners the United States of America, the European Union and NATO. We have to establish this independent and international institution,” said Thaci.

But Glauk Konjufca from the opposition Vetevendosje (Self-Determination Movement) party said that the court was an insult to the KLA’s struggle.

“A court that tries Kosovo’s Liberation Army, I wouldn’t vote for it even if I knew that [not doing so] would cause the end of the world,” Konjufca said.

Ramush Haradinaj, leader of opposition party the Alliance for the Future of Kosovo opposition party said justice was being imposed selectively because Belgrade was not being forced to set up a similar court.

“This is not happening to other republics of the former Yugoslavia. This is not happening to Serbia. This is not happening to all the others that were parties in war,” Haradinaj said.

The establishment of the so-called Specialised Chambers, often referred to as the ‘special court’, first became public in an exchange of letters between Kosovo President Atifete Jahjaga and the EU’s foreign policy chief last year.

It is widely considered by the Kosovo public and most political parties to have been imposed by Pristina’s western allies.

The US had also threatened not to continue opposing Russian attempts at the UN Security Council to establish a Kosovo tribunal if the new court is not established.

Opposition parties have blamed the ruling parties for bowing to international pressure and acting against Kosovo’s interests.

The mandate for the court is derived from a report published in early 2011 by Council of Europe rapporteur Dick Marty, who claimed that crimes against civilians such as kidnapping, torture and organ-harvesting were committed by members of the KLA during the conflict.

The report implicated Thaci, the former political head of the KLA and the ex-prime minister of Kosovo, who is now foreign minister. Thaci strongly denies the allegations.

The post Kosovo Vote On New War Crimes Court Fails appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The chain of attacks in France, Tunisia and Kuwait is a stark reminder that no country and no region can ignore the challenge posed by terrorists, said Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission.

Mogherini said in a statement, that terrorists “aim at destabilising our societies by spreading fear, suspicion, prejudice. Both Europe and the Arab world are targeted. Together we cry for our victims – and together we will stand against violence and sectarianism.”

According to Mogherini, “The terrorists want to divide us: our response will be more unity. No nation, no power can carry out this fight alone. We need a truly global alliance, an alliance of civilisations. For this is not a fight among different worlds, the North versus the South, the West versus the Rest.”

Mogherini said that the world in general faces the same challenge. “We are witnessing an unprecedented attempt to manipulate religion to justify terrorism and to foster divisions inside our societies,” Mogherini said.

“We will not fall into the trap. Europe stays committed to defending the security of its citizens while safeguarding the diversity of our societies. The European Union will keep working with all its partners to fight terrorism and shore up peace and stability in our neighbourhood,” Mogherini added.

Mogherini offered condolences to the people of France, Tunisia, and Kuwait and to all the families of those killed and wounded today.

“My thoughts also go to the people of Syria, Iraq and also Nigeria, who are among the first victims of terrorist attacks almost every day,” Mogherini said.

The post Mogherini: ‘Unprecedented Attempt To Manipulate Religion To Justify Terrorism’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Spain’s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy declared in Brussels that the government has no intention of freezing pensions. He also claimed that public servants will recover the Christmas bonus that was withheld in 2012 as and when revenue and the budget so allows.

Rajoy made the comments in Brussels, where he took part in the European Council of Heads of State and Government, adding that that the government has never frozen pensions, and has no intention of doing so and “their future is guaranteed”.

The Spanish Prime Minister underlined that employment is the main objective because as the number of people in work rises, “so will pensions”. In his opinion, the economic policies that are leading to such positive results must be maintained, together with the rate of job creation “to thus reach 20 million people in work by the end of the next term of office”.

As regards the treatment of private pension funds, he remarked that “this is already good” but can be improved in the future.

When asked about possible economic increases for public servants, Rajoy responded that the government is studying the repayment of the Christmas bonus that was withheld: “In regard to this extra payment that we had to withhold in 2012, which was the worst year, 25% has already been recovered, and now, to the extent that revenue and the budget so allows, we will continue to repay it”.

The post Rajoy Stresses Spain’s Public Pensions ‘Are Guaranteed’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The present pessimism about India’s dipping exports is a misreading of the numbers—the country’s exports have fallen because of the lower price of petroleum, and not due to any slowdown in industrial activity or reduced demand from foreign markets.

By Amit Bhandari*

India’s merchandise exports for May 2015 have fallen by 20% in dollar value compared to last year—from $28 billion in May 2014 to $22.3 billion—a drop of $5,652 million.

Some see this as a case of falling global demand made worse by India’s infrastructure bottlenecks. But Gateway House’s analysis suggests that this is a misreading of the data. In fact, the trade data is actually more favourable to India as compared to the past. The bulk of the fall in exports is a result of price fluctuations; it is not due to any underlying changes in demand or industrial activity.

India is among the major exporters of petroleum products globally, and one of the largest importers of crude oil. These exports come from India’s excess capacity, beyond its immediate needs, to refine crude petroleum into products such as diesel, petrol, and aviation fuel. So India imports extra crude oil, processes it into refined products and after meeting its own needs, exports the surplus products to markets across the world.

India produced 219 million tonnes of petroleum products during financial year 2014-15—of which it exported 65 million tonnes. This is approximately 40 million barrels of petroleum products being exported every month. A fall in the price of crude oil and its derivative products will therefore also show up as a fall in India’s exports.

But this number will be misleading, because it is not only exports which are down—the crude oil which was imported to make these products has also become cheaper and will show up as reduced imports.

In fact, India imports much more petroleum than it exports—189 million tonnes during financial year 2014-15, or three times higher than the country’s exports. This is consumed by the domestic economy as fuel for trucks, cars, trains, and aircraft. The fall in the value of crude oil represents a far greater saving for the economy than the fall in the export value of petroleum products

Crude oil prices have moved from $100-plus per barrel a year ago to $60-65 per barrel now. This fall is reflected in the trade data. India’s export of petroleum products in May 2014 was $5,935 million, which fell to $2,428 million in May 2015—a difference of $3,508 million. This one item accounts for 62% of the net fall in India’s exports during the month. The fall doesn’t necessarily indicate that India’s oil exports have fallen—it only means that the value of these exports is down even though the volumes may be unchanged.

Production figures from the Ministry of Petroleum for May are not yet available, but the previous month’s data underlines this point: in April 2015, India’s petroleum exports were down by $2,398 million as compared to April 2014—a fall of 46%. This contributed to a 14% drop in India’s merchandise exports for that month. However, Indian oil refineries processed almost the same volume of crude oil. So even though the physical performance of the industry was almost unchanged, the value of exports fell sharply, and this was also reflected in that month’s overall trade figures.

The present pessimism about trade figures is thus a false narrative, and this reinterpretation of the data should set the record straight.

*Amit Bhandari is Fellow, Energy & Environment Studies, Gateway House. This article was written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

The post Unmasking India’s Exports Data – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Once again, five Supreme Court justices have invented a right that is nowhere mentioned or implied in the U.S. Constitution. Instead of allowing the states the right to make decisions about marriage, these judges have elected to impose their will on the nation.

Moreover, their reasoning is sociologically illiterate. The idea that marriage is a matter of individual autonomy—and not a social institution—is the most profound flaw in their ruling. In their mind, society is composed of monads.

For people of faith, this decision is ominous. On p. 27, the majority declares that religious Americans “may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage s hould not be condoned.” It is nice to know they respect our First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

“The First Amendment,” the five justices say, “ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives….” That’s the best they can do? Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, rightly criticizes this genuflection to religious rights. “Religious liberty,” he says, “is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally”—it is not confined to advocacy.

In order to stop the IRS from revoking the tax-exempt status of religious institutions that refuse to marry two men or two women, Congress needs to pass the First Amendment Defense Act that was introduced last week. Nothing less is acceptable.

The post Gay Marriage Ruling Is Ominous – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The staging of China’s former security czar Zhou Yongkang’s secret trial last month suggests schisms in the upper echelons of the Chinese Communist Party. Crucially, it is a clear sign that further arrests of other ‘big tigers’ within the Party’s top leadership will be unlikely for the foreseeable future.

By James Char*

The muted announcement by China’s state media a fortnight ago that the former security czar, Zhou Yongkang, had been tried behind closed doors and sentenced to life imprisonment has raised more questions about the sustainability of Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign. Does the fact that the trial was held behind closed doors indicate schisms in the upper echelons of the CCP? Is the life sentence – rather than the widely anticipated suspended death penalty – an indication that the CCP’s crackdown on graft is about to end with a whimper?

While the Communist regime has reasserted its ability to stay on top of matters yet again, its decision to choreograph proceedings behind the scenes – reportedly carried out on the 22nd of May – has led to speculation over what might have led to the unexpected verdict. Indeed, the life sentence handed out by the Tianjin People’s Intermediate Court on the former Politburo Standing Committee (PBSC) member carries great significance, and has also cast doubts on the CCP’s proclamations of combating endemic official malfeasance.

An Inexplicable Turn of Events

Zhou’s grizzled hair and his apologetic tone in accepting his sentence may well have served as a useful reminder for other Party leaders who continue to resist the authority of the current CCP general secretary and his anti-graft movement. Still, the political overtone of the abrupt announcement of a behind-the-scenes trial calls to mind the schisms at the top of the Party leadership. Similar to weighing the pros and cons not long ago of whether Zhou would have been executed, this latest development can be interpreted in a number of ways.

Although life imprisonment may not differ much from a suspended death penalty – in both cases, the ‘tiger’ is kept alive – the lighter tenor of the former, coupled with what many believe to be vastly watered down figures of the sums Zhou allegedly received in bribes, suggests that the fallen ‘tiger’ has been let off the hook. Even though the sentence may have assuaged popular expectations for matters to be finally brought to a close, the abruptness of the proceedings have the inadvertent effect of portraying the Party’s move as a desperate course of action.

The CCP’s decision to do a volte-face and shy away from a public inquest into at least two of Zhou’s charges – namely, bribery and abuse of power – on the pretext of safeguarding state secrets that the former head of China’s internal security apparatus might have disclosed, similarly, seem unfathomable. To be sure, the same communiqué did stipulate that whatever classified information Zhou had leaked – given his privileged access to confidential data of the party-state’s key figures – did not apparently lead to any grievous consequences for the nation.

Ultimately, the decision to try Zhou behind closed doors could well betray a lack of confidence on the part of the Party’s top leaders. Given that Zhou’s immediate family members are also being held by the Chinese authorities, the chances of him straying off the script – à la Bo Xilai in 2013 – would have been remote. Indeed, trying the ‘tiger’ in secret can only invite speculation as to whether other Zhou associates from the country’s state security apparatus still at large, are in possession of other incriminating evidence about CCP elites.

Schisms in the Inner Sanctum?

A roaring start to a campaign that began with Xi Jinping’s ascension to the top Party post and Wang Qishan’s appointment at the helm of the CCP’s anti-graft body has in recent months been seen to be slacking off. With the life imprisonment meted out to Zhou no different from that received by Bo Xilai – in spite of his being considered to be Bo’s political patron – Xi and his allies at the apex of power have confounded expectations with what appears to be a commuted death penalty for Zhou. To be sure, most China watchers had predicted prior to the trial that the ex-security chief would, at the very least, be handed a suspended death sentence.

Still, the attenuated sentence should not come as a surprise considering that there had been discrepancies between Zhou’s charges and earlier allegations dating from December last year. Gleaning from an article published on the website of the Central Discipline and Inspection Commission (CDIC) – depicting the ongoing anti-graft efforts as “a double-edged sword” which has “hurt the party and tarnished its reputation” – one cannot help but wonder if Party leaders have long been making plans to temper the high societal expectations of the anti-corruption drive.

Even as Xi Jinping has moved swiftly to assert his authority over the entire CCP machinery since assuming its leadership, the handling of China’s purported trial of the century has demonstrated that the Party’s top leader has had to acquiesce in his political choices by factoring in the interests of rival groups. While it is speculative to claim that Xi has actually yielded to pressure from other heavyweights within the CCP, it can be expected that the ‘tigers’ in the crosshairs of Wang Qishan’s CDIC henceforth will be those with limited political clout.

A Missed Opportunity for Xi and the Party

Following Zhou’s trial and the subdued coverage of the event by China’s state media, an equipoise of power between the factions at the upper echelons of the CCP appears to have been established. While Xi Jinping can be expected to push forward with his signature campaign, public yearnings for the capture of the Party’s so-called ‘mega tigers’ – political elders purportedly behind the likes of Zhou and Bo Xilai – can be put to rest.

Having snared the big beast that is Zhou Yongkang, the days of netting ‘big tigers’ appear to be over. In light of recent criticisms pointing to the easing off of the ongoing anti-corruption movement, quite how the Party would have passed up on the opportunity to burnish the standing of Xi’s war on graft is anybody’s guess. More crucially, it may also represent a missed opportunity for the CCP in starting the campaign in the first place: to bolster the legitimacy of its rule.

*James Char is a Research Analyst with the China Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU).

The post The ‘Big Tiger’s’ Curtain Call: A Sign Of Lesser Things To Come? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Two days ago an email came from an Iraqi doctor in Baghdad in response to a brief greeting I sent for the month of Ramadan.

“Thanks so much for remembering us…In fact we are the same if not worse. Our hearts are broken at the organized ruining of our country. We are targeted by those criminals and gangs coming from everywhere, even from the west who are all witnessing this drama and, if not supporting it, are keeping silent. We wonder what sin we committed to face this gloomy black fate. In fact, what is going on is beyond words. “

This courageous woman doctor never left the side of gravely ill children despite the great exodus of doctors due to kidnappings, assassinations and threats to their lives and families. Sadly she reports that another of her siblings has cancer, and she needs to leave the medical students for some days. This happens she says regretfully in “the critical time of final exams.” She herself is a cancer survivor and both her mother and sister had cancer. They have no choice, she says, but to go on and try to survive.

Another long-time friend is working in southern Iraq in a job that will soon end. He is away from his family in Baghdad, and it is dangerous for him in the south, but he has no choice with a wife and seven children to support. There was already an assassination attempt on his life in Baghdad and houses near their own have been bombed. There are nightly explosions and gunfire, assassinations and kidnappings. Approximately 200 people across Iraq have been killed each day in this month alone.

We have been frantically trying to find a safe place for him and his family to escape to. If they could go to Kurdistan they would join the ranks of the already three million IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons) within Iraq. If they could get to Turkey, they might eventually get refugee status. But it is expensive there, they don’t speak the language, are not allowed to work and resettlement could take years.

Our friend emailed that his wife decided to send their second oldest son, 16 years, to her mother’s house due to kidnapping cases. “Two kids were kidnapped two days ago.” Ali, I will call the son, has exams and his grandmother’s house is closer to the school. When I stayed with this family for two weeks in 2013, one of Ali’s twelve year old friends was kidnapped and was never found.

The grandmother takes her grandson each day to school and sits against a wall under its shadow until Ali finishes his exam. She is “old and weak,” Ali’s father writes, “and honestly it is meaningless to think she could protect Ali as she can’t really protect herself. But I do appreciate her efforts.” Ali told his dad that his grandmother was causing him “too much embarrassment as she doesn’t understand the rules of the exams.” She always tries to enter the exam class to give Ali cold water because it is very hot. The first day the director of the exam allowed her to do this, but another day during the exam she tried again. This time it was not to give him water. She had cooked a rooster and told the staff that he had to eat well to do good on the exam! Ali was a little bit angry but his love for her “let him forget the embarrassing feeling!” He is “crazy in love” with his grandmother as she is the only grandparent left.

Ali was complaining to his father about the insufferable heat and lack of air cooling system, as well as the terrible mosquitoes. He uses a kerosene lamp for studying at night. The father was trying to encourage him by phone to overcome the difficulties saying: No pain, no gain. Ali responded “Dad, since we opened our eyes in this life, we have only known pain.”

Just yesterday two civilians were killed as Ali and his grandmother approached the school. This happened right in front of their eyes. His father emailed: “Ali couldn’t answer exam well as he saw the accident. Let us pray for his safety.”

Our friend and his wife worry excessively about their oldest boy, 18 years, as militia come to the houses seeking young men to fight ISIS, and they “will take young guys by force to do battle.” Although this son is needed to guard the house at night and help his mother, the mother felt compelled to send this son away too.

My friend concluded: “Cathy, It’s hard to sleep. Don’t worry. The family is still fine.”

*Cathy Breen has represented Voices for Creative Nonviolence in many visits to Iraq. She lived in Baghdad throughout the 2003 Shock and Awe bombing and the initial weeks of the U.S. invasion. She lives and works at Maryhouse Catholic Worker in NYC.

The post In Baghdad, Organized Destruction – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ian Storey*

The phrase ‘game changer’ is often overused in international affairs. However, China’s terraforming in the Spratlys—transforming submerged or semi-submerged features and rocks into artificial islands—may well prove to be a genuine game changer in the long-running and increasingly contentious dispute.

Since mid-2013, China has been undertaking large-scale reclamation work on seven features under its control in the disputed Spratly Islands: Fiery Cross Reef, Johnson Reef South, Cuarteron Reef, Hughes Reef, Gaven Reef, Mischief Reef and Subi Reef. Extensive infrastructure is being constructed on the reclaimed features, including harbours, radar and surveillance systems, multi-storey buildings and airstrips. Once completed, these artificial islands will enable China’s navy, coast guard and air force to maintain a permanent presence in the Spratlys and strengthen Beijing’s ability to enforce its territorial and jurisdictional claims within the so-called ‘nine-dash line’ that covers approximately 80 per cent of the South China Sea.

Beijing has fiercely defended its reclamation activities on the grounds that it is acting within its sovereign rights, providing public goods and merely ‘catching up’ with the other claimants. However, the strategic implications of China’s terraforming has aroused considerable concern across the Asia-Pacific region. Ultimately China’s man-made islands are likely to fuel tensions with the other claimants, particularly the Philippines and Vietnam, exacerbate the emerging strategic rivalry between Washington and Beijing in Southeast Asia, and further call into question the South China Sea conflict management process between ASEAN and China.

AN OVERVIEW OF CHINA’S RECLAMATION PROJECTS

Reports of Chinese reclamation activities in the Spratlys first emerged in May 2014. But it was not until the release of high-definition satellite imagery later in the year that the full extent of the terraforming became apparent.1 The imagery shows that since September 2013, China has employed a large fleet of dredging ships to reclaim land around seven features using sand and coral, incorporating small concrete outposts constructed during the 1990s. Even before the reclamations were completed, heavy construction equipment and cement plants were transported to the man-made islands. Work commenced immediately on military and civilian infrastructure including piers, harbours, helipads, multi-storey buildings and landing strips. The United States estimates that China has so far reclaimed 2,000 acres of land in the Spratlys.2

The largest development is at Fiery Cross Reef where an artificial island approximately 3,000 metres long and 200-300 metres wide has been created, increasing the size of the atoll 11 times (from 0.8 square kilometres to 0.96 square kilometres).3 Fiery Cross Reef has now overtaken Taiwan-occupied Itu Aba as the largest feature in the Spratlys. An airstrip which runs almost the entire length of the reclaimed feature is also under construction. A second airstrip is reportedly being built on Subi Reef.4 Although China has an airstrip on Woody Island in the Paracel Islands, it was the only claimant except Brunei not to have one in the Spratlys (Taiwan has a runway on Itu Aba, the Philippines on Pagasa, Malaysia on Swallow Reef and Vietnam on Spratly Island).

STATED AND UNSTATED RATIONALES

China has rejected criticisms of its reclamation work and provided three main justifications.

First, because China exercises “indisputable” sovereignty over the South China Sea atolls, it has the right to undertake any activities it deems necessary on the features without interference or protest from other parties.5

Second, Beijing has argued that it is playing catch up with other claimants. As the Philippines undertook reclamation activities in the 1970s, Malaysia in the 1980s, Taiwan on Itu Aba in 2014 and Vietnam over the past two years,6 China has accused critics of hypocrisy and applying double standards. However, as many observers have pointed out, China’s reclamation work far exceeds that of the other claimants in terms of scope and pace.

Third, the facilities under construction are designed primarily to improve the living conditions of personnel stationed on the atolls and will enable China to provide public goods such as search and rescue services, disaster relief, marine scientific research, weather forecasting and typhoon shelters for fishermen.7 China’s foreign ministry has emphasized the civilian uses of the artificial islands before their military role: “After the construction, the islands and reefs will be able to provide all round and comprehensive services to meet the various civilian demands besides satisfying the need of necessary military defense.”8
At the 2015 Shangri-La Dialogue in May in Singapore, PLA Admiral Sun Jianguo reiterated these rationales and added that compared to the other claimants China had “exercised enormous restraint” and that its activities did not undermine freedom of navigation nor regional peace and stability.9

China’s justifications have been met with scepticism by the international community, and especially neighbouring countries in Southeast Asia. Four rationales have been advanced to explain China’s reclamation activities: strategic; jurisdictional; legal; and to pre-empt the proposed ASEAN-China Code of Conduct for the South China Sea (CoC).

Strategic Purposes

Contrary to China’s claim, the primary purpose of the reclaimed atolls is strategic. The harbours on the manmade islands will enable PLA-Navy and Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) vessels to conduct round-the-clock presence missions in the South China Sea without the need to return to ports in mainland China. Radar and satellite communications systems will significantly enhance China’s maritime domain awareness in the South China Sea. The airfield on Fiery Cross Reef is able to accommodate almost every aircraft in the PLA’s inventory, including heavy transport and combat aircraft.10 As the PLA currently lacks a fully operational aircraft carrier, and has limited in-flight refuelling capabilities, the atolls should enable China’s military to base fighter aircraft in the Spratlys on a permanent basis.

Enhanced surveillance capabilities and the presence of combat aircraft raises the prospect that Beijing will establish an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the South China Sea as it controversially did in the East China Sea in 2013. Over the past several months, Philippine and US military aircraft have been issued with verbal warnings by the PLA-Navy to leave international airspace above the reclamation projects and this has been interpreted as a precursor to a Chinese ADIZ.11 China maintains that while it is entitled to establish a South China Sea ADIZ, a decision “depends on whether the air safety is threatened”.12

Once completed, the facilities on the atolls will enable China to project military power into the heart of maritime Southeast Asia, and this will assist the PLA in two of its core missions: first, defending the country’s maritime trade routes that pass through the South China Sea; and second, forward-deployed PLA-Navy ships and aircraft could be used as part of what the United States calls China’s anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategy to deter or defeat third- party (i.e. American) intervention in military contingencies in the Taiwan Straits or Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.

Enforcing China’s Territorial and Jurisdictional Claims

China has never clarified what the nine-dash line that appears on its official maps of the area denotes, or how it comports with international law. Increasingly, however, it appears that China is not only claiming sovereignty of the features within the line, but also “historic rights” to resources and even navigation.13 China will be able to bolster its sovereignty and jurisdictional-enforcing activities using warships and coast guard cutters operating from the artificial islands. In particular, CCG vessels will be able to protect Chinese fishing boats, survey ships and drilling platforms operating within the nine-dash line.

Legal Motivations

China’s reclamation work in the Spratlys will not strengthen its sovereignty claims because under international law a state cannot transform a submerged feature or a low-tide elevation (neither of which are entitled to a maritime jurisdictional zone) into a rock (which is entitled to a 12 nm territorial sea) or an island (which can generate a territorial sea and an EEZ).14 Fiery Cross Reef, Johnson Reef South and Cuarteron Reef are probably rocks entitled to a 12 nm territorial sea; but Hughes, Mischief, Subi and Gaven Reefs are submerged features or low-tide elevations which are not entitled to maritime jurisdictional zones; at best the artificial islands under construction may be entitled to a 500 meter safety zone.15

Perhaps more importantly, however, the reclamations undermine the Philippines’ legal challenge of China’s nine-dash line claims which Manila submitted to the United Nations Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in January 2013 and which is currently being assessed by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). In its original submission, the Philippines made two assertions: first, that Johnson Reef South, Fiery Cross Reef, Cuarteron Reef and Scarborough Shoal are rocks that are entitled to a territorial sea but not an EEZ; and second, that China’s occupation of Mischief, Hughes, Subi and Gaven Reefs is illegal because they do not lie on its continental shelf.16 By turning these features into artificial islands, however, the PCA can no longer determine whether the reclaimed features were originally submerged features, low-tide elevations or rocks – in effect, China has destroyed the evidence. The Philippines is considering seeking a provisional measure, i.e. an interim injunction, at ITLOS to stop the reclamations because they have altered the status of the features under arbitration.17 The arbitration case is currently on-going and a decision is expected in 2016.

Pre-empting the Code of Conduct?

ASEAN and China have been in talks on a CoC since 2013, though little progress has been made. From the outset, Chinese officials have indicated that they are in no rush to conclude a code, even though ASEAN leaders have repeatedly called for an “early conclusion”.18 ASEAN Secretary-General Le Luong Minh has complained that ASEAN has been unable to engage China in “substantive discussions” on the CoC and that there “has been a widening gap between the diplomatic track and the actual conditions at sea”.19 China’s lack of enthusiasm has led to speculation that it seeks to prolong the talks because it wants to expand and consolidate its position before concluding a code with ASEAN. The reclamation projects, which change the status quo in the South China Sea, strengthen the view of those who believe China is playing for time.

SOUTHEAST ASIAN AND US RESPONSES

Southeast Asian Responses

Among the four Southeast Asian claimants, the Philippines has been the most vocal critic of Beijing’s island building. Manila has protested and criticized the reclamation work for four reasons. First, because three of the features—Mischief, Johnson Reef South and Hughes—are located inside the Philippines’ EEZ, China has violated its sovereign rights. The Philippine government estimates that the destruction of coral reefs caused by the reclamations will cost Filipino fishermen $100 million in losses per annum.20 Second, that China has breached Article 5 of the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DoC) which calls on the parties to “exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes” and is trying to pre-empt the CoC.21 Third, that China’s island-building is motivated in part to prevent the PCA from determining the status of the features under arbitration. Fourth, that the reclamations are part of an effort by China to exert de facto control over the area within the nine-dash line and this undermines regional peace and stability.22 President Benigno Aquino has accused China of playing a “dangerous game of brinkmanship and gunboat diplomacy” and that its actions in the South China Sea should “engender fear for the rest of the world”.23

Vietnam has not been as strident as the Philippines in its criticism of China, though it has protested the reclamations as a violation of its sovereignty and a breach of the DoC.24 Vietnam’s foreign ministry has demanded that China halt its reclamation activities and abide by the DoC.25

On the diplomatic front the Philippines has pushed its ASEAN partners to take a stronger line with China. Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario has argued that failure by ASEAN to take action will undermine its centrality, unity and credibility.26 Fellow claimant Malaysia, and Chair of ASEAN for 2015, has taken a more moderate position. Foreign Minister Anifah Aman rejected Philippine calls for ASEAN to issue an ultimatum to China, and instead said it would be “much appreciated” if Beijing halted the reclamation work and sat down with ASEAN member states to discuss the problem.27 Nevertheless, the Philippines has been able to achieve a measure of success: the chairman’s statement at the 26th ASEAN Summit in April expressed “serious concerns” that the land reclamations had “eroded trust and confidence and may undermine peace, security and stability in the South China Sea”.28 This represents ASEAN’s strongest statement ever on the South China Sea. But even though the statement did not blame China directly, its foreign ministry reacted angrily, claiming that the reclamations were “reasonable, justified and lawful” and, in a veiled reference to the Philippines, that it was “firmly opposed to a few countries’ oblique charges against China as well as the pursuit of their private ends at the expense of the overall China-ASEAN relations.”29

The reactions from the other ASEAN members have been mixed. Brunei, a claimant in the dispute, has remained characteristically silent, as have Thailand and Myanmar. Indonesia has stressed its neutrality in the dispute, offered to act as an “honest broker” but rejected the legality of China’s nine-dash line.30 Singapore, a major maritime trading hub, has highlighted the potential for territorial disputes to disrupt global trade routes.31 In his keynote address at the 2015 Shangri-La Dialogue, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called for the speedy conclusion of the CoC “to break the vicious cycle”.32 His call was echoed by the defence ministers of Cambodia and Malaysia.

The US Response

America has been highly critical of China’s reclamations. Senior US officials have accused Beijing of changing the status quo in the South China Sea, intensifying the militarization of the dispute, destabilizing the region, undermining international norms and rules and violating the DoC.33

Initially the US called for a “voluntary freeze” on tension-generating activities.34 However, when China rejected that call, and as the sheer size and scope of the reclamations became apparent, US criticism mounted, as did calls from senior US politicians for America to adopt a tougher line with Beijing in the South China Sea, both to protect US national interests — including freedom of navigation—and retain credibility among its friends and allies concerned about China’s man-made islands.35 In response to these calls, the US Department of Defense (DoD) has underscored its commitment to strengthen alliances and partnerships in the region, increase America’s military rebalance to Asia—including a “robust regional presence in and around the South China Sea”—implement conflict-avoidance mechanisms with the PLA, and provide security assistance to regional states.36 With regard to the latter, at the 2015 Shangri-La Dialogue, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced a $425 million “Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative” to provide capacity-building support for regional navies, and on a visit to Vietnam a few days later he pledged $18 million for the Vietnamese coast guard to buy US-made patrol boats.37

In May it was reported that DoD was considering a range of additional options, including sending US navy ships and aircraft into the 12 nm limit of some of the submerged features being reclaimed should China declare territorial seas around them.38 Over the years, the US has regularly conducted so-called “Freedom of Navigation Exercises” in response to countries which in its opinion have declared excessive or illegal maritime jurisdictional zones. However, such exercises are almost certain to provoke a robust response from China, and could result in dangerous confrontations between the US and Chinese militaries.

They also risk strengthening the Chinese narrative that America is to blame for rising tensions in the South China Sea, and could embolden hardliners within the Chinese government and military who seek to restrict US access to the area.39 If the media report was deliberately leaked by DoD to telegraph to Beijing that Washington was prepared to adopt a harder line unless China changed its behaviour, China has chosen to ignore that message. At a joint press conference with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi in May, US Secretary of State John Kerry called for “smart diplomacy” to reduce tensions rather than “outposts and military strips”.40 Wang stood his ground, however, and reaffirmed that China’s determination to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity was as “firm as a rock” and that the reclamations “fall fully within the scope of China’s sovereignty”.41 At the Shangri-La Dialogue a few weeks later, the speeches by Ashton Carter and Admiral Sun Jianguo were measured, but neither side deviated from their existing positions. The United States has called on all parties to halt reclamation activities in the South China Sea (including Vietnam) but there seems little prospect that China will heed this call.

OUTLOOK

China’s man-made islands in the Spratlys are likely to reinforce negative trends in the South China Sea dispute in three ways: first, they will further heighten tensions between Beijing and the Southeast Asian claimants, especially the Philippines and Vietnam; second, the dispute is set to become a growing source of discord in Sino-US relations, possibly leading to dangerous confrontations between their armed forces; and third, the reclaimed features further undermine the credibility of the ASEAN-China conflict management process.

As noted, the military infrastructure on the seven features will enable the PLA and CCG to significantly increase their presence in the South China Sea and provide Beijing with greater powers of coercion over the other claimants. The Philippine armed forces have expressed concern that China may use its military and paramilitary assets to blockade atolls under its control, including Second Thomas Shoal and Pagasa which lie very close to the reclaimed features.42 In order to uphold its sovereignty claims, the Aquino government will look to buttress military ties with the United States, and may even request US warships to escort its supply ships. The Philippines is also likely to accelerate the development of its Oyster Bay naval base on Palawan Island, and allow access to naval ships from America, Japan and Australia.43 The reclamations will also strengthen the Aquino government’s determination to pursue its legal challenge against China’s claims at the PCA.

Tensions generated by China’s island-building could push the other claimants, and especially Vietnam, into strengthening the defence infrastructure on the atolls they occupy. On-going tensions in the South China Sea will also accelerate the arms build-up in Southeast Asia as regional states prepare themselves for all possible contingencies in an era of growing strategic uncertainty. According to one estimate, defence spending in Southeast Asia is projected to rise from $42 billion in 2015 to $52 billion by 2020.44

China’s reclamations have already sparked a war of words between the US and China, and tensions could escalate further if Beijing declares territorial seas around some of the reclaimed features and/or an ADIZ over the South China Sea. The US may seek to challenge these declarations by moving military vessels and aircraft to within 12 nm of the artificial islands, and by flying through a Chinese ADIZ unannounced. US Defense Secretary Carter has been blunt: “There should be no mistake: the United States will fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows, as we do all over the world.”45 Freedom of Navigation exercises by the US military would increase the risk of close and potentially dangerous encounters between the armed forces of China and America at sea and in the air. The reclamations have triggered a debate in the US on whether it should adopt a more hardline policy towards China that challenges and imposes costs on Chinese actions in the maritime domain.46 That debate is likely to intensify as America prepares for presidential elections in November 2016.

China’s activities in the South China Sea over the past two years appear to have fostered a greater sense of ASEAN unity over the dispute. Although in July 2012, ASEAN solidarity collapsed over this issue, in May 2014 and April 2015 the member states stood together and issued statements expressing serious concern at China’s activities. Yet even as ASEAN looks more united, the reclamations will likely impede the conflict management process with China, and indeed call into question the efficacy of the entire DoC/CoC process. The reclamation of 2,000 acres of land, and the development of extensive military facilities on the man-made islands would seem to be wholly incompatible with the DoC’s “self-restraint” clause. Moreover, the reclaimed features will enable China to become the dominant player in the Spratlys before a CoC is concluded.

About the author:
* Ian Storey is ISEAS Senior Fellow and editor of Contemporary Southeast Asia.

Source:
This article was published by ISEAS as ISEAS Perspective 29 (PDF)

Notes:
1. See “China goes all out with major island building project in the Spratlys”, HIS Jane’s Defence Weekly, 20 June 2014; subsequent satellite imagery was released by the online Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington D.C, available at <http://amti.csis.org/>.
2. “US says Beijing is Building up South China Sea Islands”, Wall Street Journal, 8 May 2015.
3. See “Fiery Cross Reef Tracker”, AMTI, <http://amti.csis.org/fiery-cross/>.
4. “New photos to show China’s work in Spratlys”, Straits Times, 20 April 2015.
5. “China tells PH off on reef reclamation, says ‘it’s none of your business’”, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 8 June 2014.
6. “Sandcastles of Their Own: Vietnamese Expansion in the Spratly Islands”, AMTI available at <http://amti.csis.org/vietnam-island-building/>.
7. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying’s Regular Press Conference on 9 April 2015.
8. Ibid.
9. “Strengthening Regional Order in the Asia-Pacific”, Admiral Sun Jianguo, Deputy Chief, General Staff Department, PLA, China, 30 May 2015.
10. Ethan Meick, China’s First Airstrip in the Spratlys Likely at Fiery Cross Reef, (Washington D.C.: US-China Economic Security Review Commission Staff Report, 18 December 2014), pp. 1-2.
11. “China warns Philippine military planes away from disputed sea area: Manila”, Reuters, 7 May 2015; “China warns U.S. surveillance plane”, CNN, 21 May 2015, available at < http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/20/politics/south-china-sea-navy-flight/index.html>.
12. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying’s Regular Press Conference on 7 May 2015.
13. Zhiguo Gao and Bing Bing Jia, “The Nine-Dash Line in the South China Sea: History, Status, and Implications”, The American Journal of International Law 107, No. 95 (2013), p. 108.
14. See, for instance, Robert Beckman, “Large-Scale Reclamation Projects in the South China Sea: China and International Law”, RSIS Commentary, No. 213/2014 (29 October 2014).
15. Article 60, The Law of the Sea (New York: United Nations, 2001), pp. 41-42.
16. Notification and Statement of Claim, January 2013, pp.6-10, available at < http://www.dfa.gov.ph/index.php/newsroom/unclos>.
17. “Manila seeks UN help to stop reclamation”, Straits Times, 20 June 2014.
18. Statement by YB Foreign Minister, ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Retreat, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, 28 January 2015.
19. “Asean sec-gen Minh: Urgent to engage China over sea spat”, The Star, 26 April 2015.
20. Pia Ranada, “China reclamation poses P4.8B economic loss for PH”, Rappler.com, 23 April 2015, available at < http://www.rappler.com/nation/90878-china-west-philippine-sea-reclamation-fisheries- food-security>.
21. “Sea Spat: Call to stop provocative action”, Straits Times, 17 June 2014.
22. “Aquino: Rise of China creating new country on disputed isles”, Straits Times, 27 March 2015.
23. “Philippine president warns on China expansion”, Financial Times, 26 May 2014; “China dismisses Philippine leader’s call to fear Beijing”, Agence France-Presse, 15 April 2015.
24. “Vietnam blasts China for building military airstrip in flashpoint island”, Thanh Nien News, 9 October 2014.
25. “”Vietnam joins Philippines in the war of words against China island building”, Thanh Nien News, 23 January 2015; “Land reclamation further complicates East Sea issue, Vietnam says”, Thanh Nien News, 13 November 2014.
26. “China wants ‘de facto’ control of the sea, says PH”, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 27 April 2015.
27. “Southeast Asia Divided on Response to Chinese Reclamation in South China Sea”, Wall Street Journal, 26 April 2015.
28. Chairman’s Statement of the 26th ASEAN Summit, Kuala Lumpur and Langkawi, 26-28 April 2015.
29. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei’s Regular Press Conference on 27 April 2015.
30. “Indonesian president says China’s main claim in the South China Sea has no legal basis”, Reuters, 23 March 2015.
31. Speech by Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen, at the Opening Ceremony of International Maritime Defence Exhibition Asia 2015, Singapore, 19 May 2015.
32. “Keynote Address”, Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore, Shangri-La Dialogue, Singapore, 29 May 2015.
33. “US defense chief warns against militarization of territorial rows in Asia”, Reuters, 8 April 2015; “China expands island construction in disputed South China Sea”, Wall Street Journal, 18 February 2015; Daily Press Briefings, Jeff Rathke, Director, Press Office, Washington D.C., 20 March 2015.
34. Regional Telephone Conference in Rangoon, Burma, Remarks, Daniel R. Russel, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Rangoon, Burma, 10 June 2014.
35. See, for example, Senators McCain, Reed, Corker, and Menendez Send Letter on Chinese Maritime Strategy, 19 March 2015, available at < http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/press- releases/senators-mccain-reed-corker-and-menendez-send-letter-on-chinese-maritime-strategy>.
36. Statement of David Shear, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 13 May 2015.
37. “The United States and Challenges of Asia-Pacific Security”, Ashton Carter, Secretary of Defense, United States, Shangri-La Dialogue, Singapore, 30 May 2015.
38. “US Military Proposes Challenge to China Sea Claims”, Wall Street Journal, 12 May 2015.
39. Yanmei Xie, “Raising the Stakes in the South China Sea”, International Crisis Group, 16 May 2015.
40. Joint Press Availability with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Remarks, John Kerry, Secretary of State, Beijing, China, 16 May 2015.
41. Ibid.
42. “From rundown outpost, Philippines watches China island take shape in disputed sea”, Reuters, 11 May 2015.
43. “Manila to beef up facilities at base near disputed islands”, Straits Times, 13 May 2015.
44. “South China Sea Dispute: Southeast Asia maritime build-up accelerates”, Sydney Morning Herald, 26 May 2015.
45. “U.S. Rebukes China over Maritime Dispute”, Wall Street Journal, 27 May 2015.
46. See, for example, Robert A. Manning, “America’s ‘China Consensus’ Implodes”, The National Interest, 21 May 2015; David Feith, “The Great American Rethink on China”, Wall Street Journal, 28 May 2015.

The post China’s Terraforming In The Spratlys: A Game Changer In South China Sea? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a global corporate noose around U.S. local, state, and national sovereignty – narrowly passed a major procedural hurdle in the Congress by gaining “fast track” status. This term “fast track” is a euphemism for your members of Congress – senators and representatives – handcuffing themselves, so as to prevent any amendments or adequate debate before the final vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership – another euphemism that is used to avoid the word “treaty,” which would require ratification by two-thirds of the Senate. This anti-democratic process is being pushed by “King Obama” and his royal court.

Make no mistake. If this was only a trade treaty – reducing tariffs, quotas, and the like – it would not be so controversial. Yet, the corporate-indentured politicians keep calling this gigantic treaty with thirty chapters, of which only six relate to traditional trade issues, a trade agreement instead of a treaty. The other twenty-four chapters, if passed as they are, will have serious impacts on your livelihoods as workers and consumers, as well as your air, water, food, and medicines

The reason I call President Obama “King Obama” in this case is that he, and his massive corporate lobbies (royal court), have sought to circumvent the checks and balances system that is the very bedrock of our government. They have severely weakened the independence of the primary branch of our government – the Congress—and fought off any court challenges with medieval defenses, such as no American citizen has any standing to sue for harm done by such treaties or the subject is a political, not judicial, matter.

Only corporations, astonishingly enough, are entitled to sue the U.S. government for any alleged harm to their profits from health, safety or other regulations in secret tribunals that operate as offshore kangaroo courts, not in open courts.

President Obama has weakened two branches of our government in favor of the third, which is currently his executive branch that has secret negotiations with 11 other nations, some of which are brutal regimes.

Allowing foreign investors (aka corporations) to bypass our courts and sue the U.S. government (aka the taxpayers) for money damages before secret outside tribunals is considered unconstitutional by many, including Alan Morrison, a constitutional law specialist and litigator now at George Washington University Law School.

In the mid-nineties, I opposed the creation of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. President Obama and some members of Congress say that the TPP will be different from NAFTA and the WTO, but I doubt that they have read the entire draft of the TPP. They’re relying on summary memos by the U.S. Trade Office and corporate lawyers, for example, drug companies that sugarcoat the complex monopolistic extension of the pharmaceutical patents and how this will result in higher prices for your medicines.

I challenge President Obama to state publically that he has read the entire TPP. Even a benign monarch would do this for his/her trusting subjects.

Inside these hundreds of pages of cross references and repeals of conflicting existing laws is the central subversion, subordinating our protective laws for labor, consumers and the environment (impersonally called “non-tariff trader barriers”) to the supremacy of international global commercial traffic.

One very recent example – by no means the worst possible – just occurred. After Congress passed a popular “country-of-origin” labeling requirement on meat packages sold in supermarkets, Brazil and Mexico, both exporters of meat to the U.S.A, challenged this U.S. law in a secret (yes, literally secret in all respects) tribunal in Geneva under the World Trade Organization Treaty. Brazil and Mexico won this legal challenge.

“Many Americans will be shocked that the WTO can order our government to deny U.S. consumers the basic information about where their food comes from and that if the information policy is not gutted, we could face millions in sanctions every year,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “Today’s ruling spotlights how these so called ‘trade’ deals are packed with non-trade provisions that threaten our most basic rights, such as even knowing the source and safety of what’s on our dinner plate.” A May 2013 survey by the Consumer Federation of America found that 90% of adult Americans favored this “country-of-origin” requirement.

Fearing billions of dollars in penalties, the U.S. Congress is racing to repeal its own law. See how the noose works: foreign countries trying to pull down our higher standards can take conflicts to secret tribunals with three trade judges, who also have corporate clients and can say to the U.S., “Get rid of your protections or pay billions of dollars in tribute.”

The same noose can choke efforts by the U.S. to upgrade our health, safety, and economic rights. Had air bags been proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation under today’s global trade uber alles regimes, the proposal would have had to go to a harmonization committee of the WTO’s signatory countries that would sandpaper or reject this life-saving technology. Or if the U.S. went it alone, it would expose itself to repeal or pay by car-exporting nations.

For ten reasons why the TPP is a bad idea for our country and the world see my recent Huffington Post column.

If this all sounds so outrageous as to strain credulity, go beneath the tip of this iceberg and visit: http://www.citizen.org/tradewatch and http://www.flushthetpp.org/. Then, get ready for the battle over the TPP itself in the late autumn. The following are three examples of how to build resistance to an international problem in your local communities.

First, send the legislators who supported the fast track handcuffs a CITIZENS’ SUMMONS to appear at a town meeting where you, not they, present the agenda. If the lawmakers think 500 or more determined people will show up, it is very likely they will relent and meet with you. The unions and other groups working to stop the TPP around the country can get their people to attend these town meetings. August is the congressional recess month. The senators and representative will have no excuse to avoid a town meeting with their constituents. For a list of those legislators who need to be focused on, visit https://www.stopfasttrack.com/.

Second, hustle together some modest money from groups and individuals, rent an empty storefront, plaster the windows with large signs, and start a rumble of civic resistance in all directions. Politicians sometimes shrug off the warnings of losing contributions from unions. What politicians do fear is their inability to control groups of resurgent voters indeterminately expanding from inside their district or state.

Since opposition to TPP reflects a Left-Right alliance in Congress and back home, store fronts spell real worry for politicians. They should worry because they chose not to do their homework for their home country.

Third, hold rallies designed to attract, collectively, hundreds or thousands of people around the country. These rallies could have an array of high-profile speakers and entertainers, as well as workers who have been harmed by past so-called trade agreements. Rallies can bring in new people and start the process of galvanizing them about the many problems with the TPP.

Remember, 75 percent of Americans think that the TPP should be rejected or delayed according to a bipartisan poll from the Wall Street Journal. People know what these “pull–down,” misnamed trade agreements have done in their own communities. Start organizing today to win tomorrow!

The post Ralph Nader: ‘King Obama,’ His Royal Court, And The TPP – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(EurActiv) — Creditors offered a five month extension to the current Greek bailout which expires on 30 June, after Athens brought its proposals closer to the demands of the “institutions”. But Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras called the terms “political blackmail”, as they offer little money outside of what Athens needs to service its debts.

Lenders have expressed careful, but positive assessments after Greece tabled a new proposal during the EU summit which ended today. A representative of the ECB said they were quite close to the proposal of the IMF, the ECB and the Commission.

The Greek proposal offers a 0.93% of GDP annual revenue increase from a reform of the value added tax system, while creditors want the changes to deliver a 1.0% rise.

The Greek government must make a €1.6 billion payment to the IMF on 30 June, but doesn’t have the money. Athens is negotiating with other eurozone countries and the IMF to get €7.2 billion in loans, the last installment in the bailout package expiring at the end of this month. Without the funds, Greece will likely default on the IMF loan.

Even bigger payments come due later this summer. Creditors are demanding that Greece make reforms and cuts, including to public pensions, before releasing funds to cover them.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande held talks with Tsipras on the sidelines of the summit, and proposed that €15.3 billion be released until the end of November on the condition of Greece accepting the creditors’ plan.

The total is slightly more than Greece needs to service its debts over the next six months, but contains no new money.

Tsipras left the summit defiant, saying that he would fight for the European principles of democracy, solidarity, equality and mutual respect.

Speaking at the presser after the summit, Merkel said that she and Hollande strongly encouraged Tsipras to accept the “exceptionally generous offer from the three institutions now”.

She stressed that the meeting of the Eurogroup tomorrow was of the utmost importance.

Indeed, the Eurogroup will meet for a last attempt to find an agreement with Athens before time runs short for avoiding a default on 30 June, when the current bailout expires.

“We all think the offer is very generous and now we hope the internal process on Greece’s side will lead to a situation where everyone in the talks will be working towards a solution,” Merkel insisted.

At a separate press conference, Council President Donald Tusk commented on what Tsipras had said: “It is not political blackmail when we repeat day after day that we are very close to this day [30 June] when the game is over.”

“Leaders are not here to discuss details. I cannot imagine a realistic and substantive discussion about details of VAT in Greece, or pension reform,” he said.

But Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said that what was true for Tusk was not true for him. Juncker stated that he had spent 15 hours holding discussions with the Greek Prime Minister overnight, between Tuesday and Wednesday.

Indeed, Tusk and Juncker have had different priorities and responsibilities. However, their different styles and approaches have become more and more obvious lately.

Tusk was blamed by Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel for having made the summit spend five hours discussing two words in its conclusions on immigration.

Others have criticised Tusk’s bias towards the Eastern European member states, against the older members of the Union.

Juncker also indirectly commented on Tsipras’ blackmail accusation.

“This is not a take-or-leave situation,” he said, explaining that the Commission, the ECB and the IMF had agreed on a common position. The Greek side also had a new position, and that on this basis, negotiations were going to take place.

He said that tomorrow’s Eurogroup meeting was a real opportunity to reach an agreement, adding “I’m quite optimistic, but I’m not over-optimistic.”

In the event of failure, Eurogroup ministers are expected to discuss what is now called “Plan B”, that is, limiting the damage from the Greek default.

In the meantime, Tsipras would go back to Athens to confer with his cabinet and his party on the next steps.

Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis had another blast at the creditors’ approach in an interview with Irish radio today, saying their demands for tax increases and pension cuts as conditions for disbursing aid were putting Greece in an impossible position.

“I am against increasing the corporate tax, but then again I am against raising the tax on hotels and against cutting the pensions of people who live below the poverty line,” Varoufakis said on Irish national radio RTE.

“These issues are putting me and my government in an impossible position, having to make a bad choice among really hard, difficult, bad choices.”

But he did not rule out accepting the terms.

The post Tsipras Calls Merkel And Hollande’s Offer ‘Blackmail’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

“WAR IS HELL!” the US general George Patton famously exclaimed.

War is the business of killing the “enemy”, in order to impose your will on them.

Therefore, “humane war” is an oxymoron.

War itself is a crime. There are few exceptions. I would exempt the war against Nazi Germany, since it was conducted against a regime of mass murderers, led by a psychopathic dictator, who could not be brought to heel by any other means.

This being so, the concept of “war crimes” is dubious. The biggest crime is starting the war in the first place. This is not the business of soldiers, but of political leaders. Yet they are rarely indicted.

THESE PHILOSOPHICAL musings came to me in the wake of the recent UN report on the last Gaza war.

The investigation committee bent over backwards to be “balanced”, and accused both the Israeli army and Hamas in almost equal terms. That, in itself, is problematic.

This was not a war between equals. On one side, the State of Israel, with one of the mightiest armies in the world. On the other side, a stateless population of 1.8 million people, led by a guerrilla organization devoid of any modern arms.

Any equating of such two entities is by definition contrived. Even if both sides committed grievous war crimes, they are not the same. Each must be judged on its own (de)merits.

THE IDEA of “war crimes” is relatively new. It arose during the 30 Years War, which devastated a large part of Central Europe. Many armies took part, and all of them destroyed towns and villages without the slightest compunction. As a result, two thirds of Germany were devastated and a third of the German people was killed.

Hugo de Groot, a Dutchman, argued that even in war, civilized nations are bound by certain limitations. He was not a starry-eyed idealist, divorced from reality. His main principle, as I understand it, was that it makes no sense to forbid actions that help a warring country [or “party”] to pursue the war, but that any cruelty not necessary for the efficient conduct of the war is illegitimate.

This idea took hold. During the 18th century, endless wars were conducted by professional armies, without hurting civilian populations unnecessarily. Wars became “humane”.

Not for long. With the French revolution, war became a matter of mass armies, the protection of civilians slowly eroded, until it disappeared entirely in World War II, when whole cities were destroyed by unlimited aerial bombardment (Dresden and Hamburg) and the atom bomb (Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Even so, a number of international conventions prohibit war crimes that target civilian populations or hurt the population in occupied territories.

That was the mandate of this committee of investigation.

THE COMMITTEE castigates Hamas for committing war crimes against the Israeli population.

Israelis didn’t need the committee to know that. A large share of Israeli citizens spent hours in shelters during the Gaza war, under the threat of Hamas rockets.

Hamas launched thousands of rockets towards towns and villages in Israel. These were primitive rockets, which could not be aimed at specific targets – like the Dimona nuclear installation or the Ministry of Defense which is located in the center of Tel Aviv. They were meant to terrorize the civilian population into demanding a stop to the attack on the Gaza strip.

They did not achieve this goal because Israel had installed a number of “Iron Dome” counter-rocket batteries, that intercepted almost all rockets heading for civilian targets. Success was almost complete.

If they are brought before the International Court in The Hague, the Hamas leaders will argue that they had no choice: they had no other weapons to oppose the Israeli invasion. As a Palestinian commander once told me: “Give us cannons and fighter planes, and we will not use terrorism.”

The International Court will then have to decide whether a people that is practically under an endless occupation is allowed to use indiscriminate rockets. Considering the principles laid down by de Groot, I wonder what the decision will be.

That goes for terrorism in general, if used by an oppressed people that has no other means of fighting. The black South Africans used terrorism in their fight against the oppressive apartheid regime, and Nelson Mandela spent 28 years in prison for taking part in such acts und refusing to condemn them.

THE CASE against the Israeli government and army is quite different. They have a plentitude of arms, from drones to warplanes to artillery to tanks.

If there was a cardinal war crime in this war, it was the cabinet decision to start it. Because an Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip makes war crimes unavoidable.

Anyone who has ever been a combat soldier in war knows that war crimes, whether in the most moral or the most base army in the world, do occur in war. No army can avoid recruiting psychologically defective people. In every company there is at least one pathological specimen. If there are not very strict rules, exercised by very strict commanders, crimes will occur.

War brings out the inner man (or woman, nowadays). A well-behaved, educated man will suddenly turn into a ferocious beast. A simple, lowly laborer will reveal himself as a decent, generous human being. Even in the “Most Moral Army in the World” – an oxymoron if there ever was one.

I was a combat soldier in the 1948 war. I have seen an eyeful of crimes, and I have described them in my 1950 book “The Other Side of the Coin”.

THIS GOES for every army. In our army during the last Gaza war, the situation was even worse.

The reasons for the attack on the Gaza Strip were murky. Three Israeli kids were captured by Arab men, obviously for the sake of achieving a prisoner exchange. The Arabs panicked and killed the boys. The Israelis responded, the Palestinians responded, and lo – the cabinet decided on a full-fledged attack.

Our cabinet includes nincompoops, most of whom have no idea what war is. They decided to attack the Gaza Strip.

This decision was the real war crime.

The Gaza Strip is a tiny territory, overcrowded by a bloated population of 1.8 million human beings, about half of them descendents of refugees from areas that became Israel in the 1948 war.

In any circumstances, such an attack was bound to result in a large number of civilian casualties. But another fact made this even worse.

ISRAEL IS a democratic state. Leaders have to be elected by the people. The voters consist of the parents and grandparents of the soldiers, members of both regular and reserve units.

This means that Israel is inordinately sensitive to casualties. If a large number of soldiers are killed in action, the government will fall.

Therefore it is the maxim of the Israeli army to avoid casualties at any cost – any cost to the enemy, that is. To save one soldier, it is permissible to kill ten, twenty, a hundred civilians on the other side.

This rule, unwritten and self-understood, is symbolized by the “Hannibal Procedure” – the code-word for preventing at any cost the taking of an Israeli soldier prisoner. Here, too, a “democratic” principle is at work: no Israeli government can withstand public pressure to release many dozens of Palestinian prisoners in return for the release of one Israeli one. Ergo: prevent a soldier from being taken prisoner, even if the soldier himself is killed in the process.

Hannibal allows – indeed, commands – the wreaking of untold destruction and killing, in order to prevent a captured soldier from being spirited away. This procedure is itself a war crime.

A responsible cabinet, with a minimum of combat experience, would know all this at the moment it was called upon to decide on a military operation. If they don’t know, it is the duty of the army [or “military”] commanders – who are present at such cabinet meetings – to explain it to them. I wonder if they did.

ALL THIS means that, once started, the results were almost unavoidable. To make an attack without serious Israeli casualties possible, entire neighborhoods had to be flattened by drones, planes and artillery. And that obviously happened.

Inhabitants were often warned to flee, and many did. Others did not, being loath to leave behind everything precious to them. Some people flee in the moment of danger, others hope against hope and stay.

I would ask the reader to imagine himself for a moment in such a situation.

Add to this the human element – the mixture of humane and sadistic men, good and bad, you find in any combat unit all over the world, and you get the picture.

Once you start a war, “stuff happens”, as the man said. There may be more war crimes or less, but there will be a lot.

ALL THIS could have been told to the UN committee of inquiry, headed by an American judge, by the chiefs of the Israeli army, had they been allowed to testify. The government did not allow them.

The convenient way out is to proclaim that all UN officials are by nature anti-Semites and Israel-haters, so that answering their questions is counterproductive.

We are moral. We are right. By nature. We can’t help it. Those who accuse us must be anti-Semites. Simple logic.

To hell with them all!

The post War Crimes? Us? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.