Since the launch of the summer offensive ‘Azam’ by insurgent groups, Afghanistan has gone through one of its most challenging periods of the last 14 years. Afghanistan national security forces have witnessed huge number of casualties. Insurgency in North of Afghanistan and the fallout of districts in Kunduz, Badakhshan and Nuristan echoes the unpreparedness of Afghan forces to fight without international forces air-support. Similarly Kabul was lucky not to witness the massacre of its member of parliament, as a group of suicide bomber were unable to reach their desires, otherwise, the intrusion would have cost the National Unity Government (NUG) a huge price.

Besides these insecurities and political uncertainties, the leadership of the NUG still believes that peace negotiations should be prioritiesed. They also have been adamant that the Memorendum of Understanging (MoU) between the intelligence organisations of Afghanistan and Pakistan has not yet been inked while copies of the signed MoU are circulating in the social media websites.

As the leadership of the NUG is tilting and flexing their foreign policy towards Pakistan in hope of peace and security that could be attained with their support. However, there are groups of ‘opposition’ to the approach taken by President Ghani and his team. Amongst them is the former President Hamed Karzai, who has remained politically active, despite stepping down last year.

The former President has recently held informal talks with the major stakeholders in India, China and Russia. Amongst these meeting two are of core importance a meeting he held with Prime Minister of India Narender Singh Modi and the Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has informed both of them about the challenges that Afghanistan is facing with the transitioning of power to Afghan forces, while also voicing his concerns about policies of the NUG. In his visit meeting with President Putin, he reiterated that “We have entered a new sort of relationship with Russia,” he further added, “And that relationship is now blossoming.”

The question with Afghans is that whether the growing insecurities, political uncertainties, and unemployment were the things that they were expecting from the NUG. It has almost been now 10 months, and the NUG has not delivered on any of the promises that the leadership of NUG promised to the people of Afghanistan.

The people of Afghanistan do understand that the core to all the above stated issues is insecurity, but how far more will the people of Afghanistan have to suffer. President Ashraf Ghani has offered Pakistan exceptional opportunity to work out peace for them. We don’t think this opportunity will come again, as failure to Ghani’s will dishearten other Afghan leaders to make such an offer to its western neighbors. We do understand that Pakistan wants Afghanistan that its territory and institutions should not be used against its national interest but Afghans would expect the same.

However we do understand that the movement of Taliban is not now only confined to support from Pakistan, as there are other regional and international miscreants that have provided them funding and logistics over the years to ensure that Afghanistan remains a mayhem to regional counties. We would therefore ask for a more comprehensive approach from neighboring countries including China, India, Russia and Saudi to think out of box, about durable peace in Afghanistan, otherwise the continuity of the insecurity would have direct and indirect impact on these counties.

*Habib Wayand is a freelance political and security analyst. He previously advised in several government ministries.. He could be contacted at habibwayand@gmail.com

The post Afghanistan-Pakistan Emerging Relations: An Opportunity Or A Threat appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In the aftermath of the attack on a church in Charleston, South Carolina by a white Christian supremacist, the media ran extensive analysis on the who’s and why’s of the assault which led to the murder of nine people attending service. One of the debates to emerge from the reverberation of this ghastly act was whether this was indeed an act of terrorism or simply a young man gone “temporarily insane”.

In the past, the US news media flinched from identifying such acts as acts of terrorism simply because they did not fit the profile. I mean there was no one named Mohammed in the picture, no heavily bearded and swarthy individual that the public would love to hate, and no evidence of public rhetoric against the Western world. Therefore, it made sense for the right-wing US corporate media to dismiss acts such as the crime committed in Charleston by a young white male, the 21-year-old Dylann Roof, as anything but “terrorism”.

A couple of months earlier there was another sinister plot by another white Christian terrorist, only this one failed to capture the attention of the national media. Robert Rankin Doggart, a former congressional candidate from Tennessee, was caught red-handed on tape and on social media discussing elaborate plans to wipe out a complete Muslim community in upstate New York!

Doggart, an ordained minister himself, felt no remorse in planning such a heinous plot. The target was the community of Islamberg near Hancock, New York. He focused on that particular town after watching a Fox News report on the Muslims in that town. His plans came to light when an informant passed on the information to the FBI who began a series of telephone recordings and surveillance which led to his eventual arrest.

In one of the calls recorded by the informant, the ordained minister was clearly heard saying: “Those guys have to be killed. Their buildings need to be burnt down. If we can get in there and do that without losing a man, even the better.” The buildings Doggart was referring to included a mosque, a school and a cafeteria.

Another recording revealed the true nature of this Christian terrorist’s murderous intent: “When we meet in this state, the people we seek will know who we are. We will be cruel to them. And we will burn down their buildings [and] if anyone attempts to, uh, harm us in any way, our standoff gunner will take them down from 350 yards away. The standoff gunner would be me.”

Doggart then took to social media and on Facebook blatantly posted: “Target 3 (Islamberg) is vulnerable from many approaches and must be utterly destroyed. We shall be Warriors who will inflict horrible numbers of casualties upon the enemies of our Nation and World Peace.”

Doggart’s words were not those of someone simply blowing off hot air. Investigations revealed that he had actually traveled around “to recruit gunners and ’battle test’ his M4 rifle” as was disclosed during the court hearings after his arrest. One of the charges at the court read: “The defendant was fully aware of the religious character of the mosque when he identified it as one of the buildings that needed to be burned. Additionally, the defendant suggested on a cellular telephone call that he and his group would kill some residents of Islamberg in order to carry out the plan.”

So what did eventually transpire with this Christian terrorist with such murderous intent? He was first allowed to plead guilty only to interstate communication of threats with a maximum five-year jail term. Although initially detained, a Federal magistrate later allowed his release on certain conditions after his attorneys said he had stopped taking pain medication and was no longer abusing alcohol. I suppose his hatred was driven by the pills he was popping and by alcohol. No Guantanamo for this terrorist! And none of the national media showed any interest in this diabolical conspiracy.

And why should they? He is not named Mohammed.

This article appeared in the Saudi Gazette and is reprinted with permission.

The post A US Christian Terrorist Plot That Goes Unreported – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Successful implementation of the AEC2015 should have a positive impact on ASEAN’s agri-food sector, leading to improved food availability for the region and increased exports. Sadly, early signs are not encouraging. Major constraints apparent on investment need to be addressed.

By Paul S. Teng and Jurise Athena Oliveros*

Investment has long been a key engine for inclusive growth and development. Through the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) 2015 agenda, the region aims to establish a unified and harmonised market and usher in fresh investment. However, most recent reports show that the AEC agenda has been falling short of reaching target goals on investment liberalisation measures. Identifying the specific constraints will be critical to hasten progress and improve food security conditions in the region.

Until this century, agriculture was a major source of employment for much of ASEAN. Currently, agriculture’s contribution to the economy of individual ASEAN states ranges from less than 1% of GDP (Singapore, Brunei Darussalam) to more than 30% (Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar). Notwithstanding this, ASEAN is a major producer of key food, fruit and industrial crops as well as aquacultural products, which generate sizable export revenues across the region. Intensifying investment in the agri-food sector will provide critical support not only in raising productivity growth to drive income uptrends in the agri-food sector but more importantly to uplift the welfare of agriculture dependent low-income sectors of ASEAN.

The agri-food sector in AEC2015

AEC’s progress across the four main pillars is monitored through a scorecard mechanism undertaken in biennial phases, starting with phase 1 (2008-2009), and ending with phase IV (2014-2015). Key areas from each pillar are rated in terms of target measures achieved in each phase. Based on the recent AEC scorecard report for phase 2 in 2012, Pillar 1 or the single market and production base pillar which includes goals on investment flows, showed the lowest implementation rate.

Furthermore the investment measures, which are subsumed under pillar 1, recorded the least improvement on targets reached as compared with other key areas. The laggard performance of the pillar 1 agenda therefore stands as a decelerator of agricultural development, since investment is a key growth driver for the sector.

Constraints on investment

Enforceability of Agreements: Roadblocks exist in enforcing regional agreements. Currently, the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA) is the prevailing agreement governing regional investment. The agreement merged the promotion and protection provisions of the ASEAN Investment Guarantee Agreement (AIGA) with the liberalisation and facilitation elements engendered in the ASEAN Investment Agreement (AIA). Most investment agreements subsume clauses that defer implementation of particular measures such as temporary exclusions (TEL) and the sensitivity list (SL), which originally were in AIA.

These lists elaborate the conditions and sectors that are cordoned off from foreign investors. The majority of restrictions target not only the agriculture sector but food-related activities and services under the manufacturing sector (i.e. food processing). Foreign participation is strictly curbed by setting foreign equity percentages, hiring quotas and export requirements. While the single reservation list of ACIA offers more progressive and definite elimination of restrictions, there remains leeway for modification of commitment.

This means member countries have the flexibility to withdraw or modify their reservation list subject to compensatory adjustments. It is not surprising that protectionist reflexes are triggered in negotiating agreements due to the economic importance and inherent sensitivity of agricultural issues. However these restrictions defeat the very goal of AEC to establish a unified and competitive ASEAN market. It is most essential that member countries would follow through by phasing out restrictions.

Diversity in Policy Formulation: ASEAN is the epitome of diversity. With different sectorial priorities, institutional impediments and dissimilar natural endowments to consider, policy formulation and implementation in the agriculture sector becomes highly politicised. The degree to which member states maintain strategic controls on investments is more prominently observed in the agriculture sector and food manufacturing sub-sectors than other sectors.

For instance the lengthier exemptions in the 37-page reservation list of Indonesia as compared to the 9-page reservation list from Cambodia show discernible disparity in terms of the extensiveness of measures undertaken by each country. These differences raise questions on unequal gains made possible by integration. It is important to ensure that disparities in controls does not exacerbate the development gaps but rather, serve to strengthen comparative advantages across member states.

Investment Climate: The investment agreements are intended to improve the attractiveness of ASEAN as an investment destination. However, based on ASEAN FDI data, intra-ASEAN investment remains low as compared with extra-ASEAN investment sources. This means that the preferential advantages of the AEC2015 agenda are not being fully optimised. Across industries, foreign investment in the agriculture sector still takes up a meager share of investment inflows. Considering that many ASEAN economies remain agriculture-dependent, these less than stellar figures show the sector at a disadvantage. Part of the challenge is agriculture’s inherent vulnerability to varied forms of risks (e.g. weather vagaries), which is a major drawback given the private investor’s intrinsic aversion to risks.

Easing the bottleneck

Thus, for the agri-food industry it takes more than promoting an investment-enabling environment; it would necessitate managing these risks through further investment on agricultural research and technological innovations (e.g. weather resilient crops) as well as sustainable farming practices. The private sector’s involvement will be crucial for these goals to reach fruition. By and large, the attractiveness of a regional bloc such as ASEAN as an investment destination still remains, with considerable “upside” for intra-ASEAN investment growth on both upstream and downstream business links in the agri-food industry.

The sluggish progress towards investment liberalisation is a bottleneck in realising agricultural development gains. Stronger commitment and intensified efforts from each ASEAN member state in easing restrictions are necessary to accelerate progress. The role of the state is paramount in achieving these goals because ASEAN as an entity only has limited authority over its members. The national government holds the sovereign power to implement rules and take policy action.

The complementary role of the private sector in boosting investments is fundamental to accelerate progress. Although the full realisation of AEC by the Dec 2015 deadline is generally considered foregone, prioritising and streamlining the investment bottlenecks will catalyse development in the agri-food sector and more importantly enhance regional food security.

*Paul S. Teng is Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is Professor and Principal Officer at the National Institute of Education (NIE). Jurise Athena Oliveros is a Research Assistant in Natural Sciences & Science Education Academic Group, NIE.

The post Implications For Investment In ASEAN Agriculture – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ken Ballen, Terrorists in Love: The Real Lives of Islamic Radicals, Free Press, 2011.

This is a strange book—a racy title, documenting the way six jihadis turned to al-Qaeda and its spin-offs in desperation to find some kind of fulfilment in life. There are several Romeo and Juliette stories, though the author seems oblivious to the fact that the ‘love’ in the title is mostly about devotion to God, however mistaken.

Ballen is president and founder of Terror Free Tomorrow, “a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization that investigates the causes of extremism”. Ballen’s CV suggests “nonpartisan” can be taken with a grain of salt, as he spent two decades in law enforcement and intelligence, and was given grudging accommodation by the Pakistani ISI intelligence, and free access to the Saudi Ministry of Intelligence (MOI) Care Center, where captured jihadis are sent for rehabilitation.

As well as his extended interviews in Saudi Arabia, he gained access to several jihadis still on the run, and relates a truly remarkable story—if he is to be believed—of a Saudi royal son who discovers he is gay and has a passionate affair with his cousin before joining the jihad.

The six jihadis—Saudi, Pakistani, Afghanil—include:

*Ahmad al-Shayea, the Saudi suicide bomber in Baghdad in 2004, who killed eight and wounded 20, but miraculously survived and was given a new face by his American occupiers. He convinced his captors and the Saudi MOI that he was reformed while in the Care Center and was eventually released, supposedly a success story in defeating terrorism humanely. (See the conclusion for an update.)

*The Saudi Abby, whose marriage proposal to Maryam was rejected for lack of sufficient dowry, and she was married off as a fourth wife to a rich old man. Abby wanted to immortalize their love in martyrdom, posting his love poem on a jihadi website, and went to Syria, were some Algerians took his money and sent him off to Iraq.

His jihadi experience as an inexperienced young poet was a disaster, moving from safe house to safe house, beaten and ridiculed by his controllers, till he was helped by an Iraqi youth to escape. He crossed into Syria where he was beaten again until the US found him—a precious live jihad in captivity, and he ended up in the Saudi Care Center and was eventually released, contrite and eager to preach the anti-al-Qaeda gospel.

His beloved Maryam escaped her own captivity and took a plane to Dubai in search of Abby and martyrdom, joining the ranks of the “women disappeared”.

*The Pashtoun Malik, the only genuine insurgent of the group. He grew up in an Afghan refugee camp in Pakistan and joined the Taliban in the 1996, quickly proving himself in battle, helping liberate his home province. What sent him on his jihad was a precognitive dream in 1996 where he saw Mullah Omar in the white robe of the Propheti accompanied by Malik’s classmates, turned into girls. In fact, Mullah Omar the next day put on the white robe, which has been in Afghanistan for centuries, and was hailed as the Leader of the Faithful.

This inspired Malik and his 400 classmates to go immediately to Afghanistan under the guidance of the local Taliban leader. Malik’s fame spread and he met the Afghan Leader of the Faithful and worked directly with him, becoming chief of the Virtue and Vice police in Kabul. He proved to be incorruptible, and administered harsh sharia sentences, lashing or stoning adulterers and chopping off hands of thieves.

He resented the al-Qaeda interlopers, just as he resented Pakistanis who belittled Afghanis as primitive and naive. He was not impressed by 9/11, like many, concluding it was most likely a plot by the imperialists to justify invading Afghanistan. When the US invaded Afghanistan, he escaped to Pakistan and eventually rejoined the Taliban resistance, inspired by another dream of Mullah Omar appearing in a blinding flash “like a Stinger missile”.

He became a courier transporting arms from Pakistan to insurgents, and opium back to the Pakistani military. He loathed this work, seeing the Pakistanis, openly involved in the drug trade, as being as bad as the Americans, and he abandoned the insurgency. Ballen was hopeful that Malik was reformed, having experienced the corruption of the insurgency first-hand , but Malik instead hoped to see a renewed Taliban. “It is time to attack Pakistan and free the Taliban of the near enemy … Then we will go after the far enemy of America, free Afghanistan and Pakistan from the infidels.”

He chose to speak to the Jewish American Ballen because he knew Ballen’s ‘ngo’ was respected, and trusted him not to turn him in. “I want the world now to know the real faces of those who are truly fighting for Islam. We are alive, and we are marching forward. We are the new Taliban.”

Ballen was terrified by Malik’s fervor and open call to kill all Jews and Americans. “Americans are the second arrogance who will be punished, for the Americans and Jews are one.” “The tears flowed down his cheeks, writes Ballen. “He still held my had in a vise. By that point—interview be damned—I just wanted to get away from him.” Two months later, Malik’s jihadi group the Fedayeen-e-Islam took responsibility for the bombing of the Marriott, killing 53 and injuring 266.

*Zeddy, “the Captain of Terror”. He was close to Osama bin Laden, for three decades a “career terrorist for Islam”. Ballen met Zeddy (Zahid) in 2008 in Islamabad. He was a member of the Islamic Society, the Pakistani equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood founded by Maulana Maududi, but then moved on to the terrorist schemes of ISI and al-Qaeda, and bragged to Ballen that he had once been eager to get hold of nuclear weapons. He described how ISI was actively supporting the Taliban and al-Qaeda, even as ISI took funds from the US to fight them.

He admitted to being responsible for the recruiting and deaths of thousands of mujahideen, not to mention the victims of the bombings he facilitated. Not surprisingly, he lost his faith, and was now sad and broken. “I have no peace.” He welcomed 9/11 because it shut down his terrorist camp and allowed him to retire. He supposedly was working in Pakistani jails as a medical assistant, “to make all those young boys who want to go to jihad get a job.” He feared that ISI would read this account and murder him.

*Pakistani Shaheed, also a dreamer, though he was focused on jinn in his dreams, learned from his grandmother. Like Malik, he had had a precognitive dream, this time prophesying the fall of the World Trade Center, which bin Laden mentioned in a subsequent video. He was a member of Malik’s group that claimed responsibility for the Marriott hotel bombing. Like Abby, Shaheed suffered from an unhappy love life, exacerbated by a cruel father who was an army officer, steeped in British tradition and disdainful of Shaheed’s increasing devoutness.

Shaheed met Ballen in 2009 at the urging of Malik, and became Ballen’s greatest victory. Just before their meetting he had another precognitive dream of Ibrahim and his almost sacrifice of his son Isaac, though Isaac was an American. Though he was a comrade in jihad with anti-Jewish Malik, he did not quote a hadith about killing all Jews. When he revealed to Ballen the meaning of his dream, he politely quote the Quran: “Sometimes you love a thing, and it may be the worst for you, and sometimes you hate a thing, and it may be the best for you.”

Before leaving Ballen, “he took my right foot in his hand and, as with his grandmother, kissed my foot. ‘No more Daniel Pearls.’” The next day he went to the Tablighi (Islamic missionary) headquarters in Lahore and began his “greater jihad, the struggle to change our human souls, submit fully to Islam, and love God in peace—that’s what will change the world.”

*The star of Terrorists in Love is handsome, brilliant (gay) Kamal, a high-level member of the Saudi religious elite, being a direct descendant of the 19th century founder of the Saudi branch of Islam, Wahhab. Kamal’s tale is very hard to believe, though Ballen swears all but the names and most of the facts are real. “Kamal’s identity as a member of the royal family—in particular, its clerical branch—has been corroborated by two high-level sources at the Saudi Ministry of Interior, as well as my personal visits, along with interviews of his relatives and colleagues.” Ballen even went to Indonesia to meet with Kamal’s nanny.

Ballen’s account of his meetings with Kamal provide a fascinating glimpse of what life as a Saudi royal is like. Kamal adores American TV, and has bootlegged collections of I Love Lucy and Seinfeld. Despite his Americanization and sexuality, he remained a loyal follower of Wahhabism, even arguing with Ballen that there is no prohibition of male-male sex in either the Quran or Wahhab’s writings. According to Kamal, Wahhab argued that “the true test of love in God’s eyes is always whether love is equal.” Kamal interpreted this to mean no anal intercourse, but otherwise not to prohibit male-male love. Kamal confirmed what many believe about Saudi Arabia—that homosexual relations are widespread but kept quiet.

After his affair with his cousin was exposed and his cousin banished to the US, Kamal toyed wih the idea of martyrdom, and found a gay terrorist site on the internet. He wrote and was propositioned (and entrapped) by Al Akbot, “the love jihadi”. He was sentenced to three years and a 100 lashes, but neither sentence was carried out. Instead, he spent a few months in the Care Center with other young jihadis, some of them gay as well. Like Shaheed, Kamal turned to “the greater jihad” of propagating the faith.

Ballen genuinely admired and even liked his motley collection of Islamists, and sympathized with their frustrations in life. “American policies, of course, play a large role in fomenting radicalism. Without US troops in Iraq, would Ahmad ever have gone off to fight?” But Ballen can hardly be expected to denounce US policies, given his own career, and he doesn’t.

Instead, he argues that jihadis are motivated more by dysfunctional families, sexual repression or forbidden love than anti-imperialist zeal. Even without the US invasion of Iraq, these jihadis would have found other reasons to fight. At the same time, he was impressed by their willingness to give their lives “for a holy cause”. He concludes that the story is “as much about love as hate. A missed love, a love you cannot have, a love you can find only in God and not your fellow man, … a love that turns violent and cruel, that is never allowed to grow.”

But he downplays the fact that their overriding love, which is spiritual, love of God above material concerns. None of the jihadis were after money. Their actions were a spiritual quest, however misguided. None of them are evil or mad or rationally pursuing genocide. They are truly ‘love children’.

Ballen concludes that, “While we must defend ourselves against attack … Muslims must find their own answers to extremism.” Bravo.

Then without any support, he dismisses the jihadis are “a small group that can be isolated and defeated.” As US policies have yet to moderate, both the external and domestic forces feeding violent jihad continue to generate recruits. To dismiss them as a tiny group easily defeated hardly makes sense given two failed decades pursuing this disastrous American dream. As long as the invaders are killing and occupying, defiling Islam, these voices will continue to arise, sometimes in isolation, sometimes gathering force and sweeping large areas, as ISIS is doing now.

However, flag-waving Ballen is nonetheless on the right track. “It is time we let the American Dream speak for itself. It is time we let the US be the leader by example.” Given who he is writing for, his concern for understanding the jihadis more sympathetically is to be lauded. His conclusion is: less bombs and more compassion. Intelligent intelligence (and massive reconstruction aid) should this rule of thumb. They can more cynically also hope that US mass culture will continue to erode Muslim culture.

As for Care Center poster child Ahmad, like 100 other supposedly reformed jihadis, he disappeared from Saudi Arabia last year and announced from Syria, that he had rejoined the resistance.

Reviewed by Eric Walberg

iAccording to legend, Ahmad Shah Durrani, who founded Afghanistan a quarter of a millennium ago, brought the cloak to Kandahar from a great conquest. It is displayed only when there is great danger in the country.

The post Ken Ballen, Terrorists In Love: Real Lives Of Islamic Radicals – Review appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The U.S. and Iranian nuclear negotiators have just announced a one week extension of their nuclear talks.  If, as expected, there is an agreement next week, it will open a new stage of tension in the process leading to its final formal ratification by all parties.  For then, the U.S. Congress will have 30 days to vote the agreement up or down.  This vote, forced on an unwilling president by his own party’s Senate members several weeks ago, poses a new threat.  For the Israel Lobby, it offers a new opportunity to sabotage the deal.

With this in mind, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), originally founded as Aipac’s policy think-tank, organized a letter (text) criticizing the impending Iran nuclear deal being finalized by the P5+1.  Among its signatories are hawkish policy analysts who managed the Iran portfolio in the first Obama administration, and several retired generals.  They include Lobby perennial-favorite, Dennis Ross; Gary Samore, who now leads United Against a Nuclear Iran; David Petraeus, former CIA director, adulterer and compromiser of U.S. national security, Robert Einhorn, the State Department’s sanctions czar, James Cartwright and Stephen Hadley, Dick Cheney’s national security adviser.

Since most of them formerly served Pres. Obama, the tone of the letter takes a curious passive-aggressive tone: we really don’t like the deal, except for the parts that are pretty good.  Note, they all contributed at an earlier stage to devising the talking points for a deal.  Their criticism at this juncture raises the question: what were they doing back then when they served in government?  Were they raising these issues then?  Or were they doing precisely what the current officials sitting in their seats at the negotiating table are doing now?

In fact, there is probably a good reason these individuals (especially Samore and Ross) are no longer in the Obama administration.  They are the hawks, the maximalists who drove Iran policy in the first term.  But when a softer, more flexible hand was necessary the president and Secretary Kerry chose Wendy Sherman to lead the talks.

Even in this statement from the letter, it hard to understand what the precise nature of the criticism is:

“Most of us would have preferred a stronger agreement,” the letter begins, going on to assess the proposed accord as useful for delaying Iran’s program, but not a long-term solution to the problem of a nuclear Iran.

“The agreement will not prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapons capability,” it continues. “It will not require the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear enrichment infrastructure. It will however reduce that infrastructure for the next 10 to 15 years. And it will impose a transparency, inspection, and consequences regime with the goal of deterring and dissuading Iran from actually building a nuclear weapon.”

Their opening statement, saying they would prefer a stronger agreement, is probably shared by Secretary Kerry as well.  Everyone on the U.S. side and in Israel would prefer Iran to give up its nuclear program entirely.  But it ain’t gonna happen.  So the question is, what is the minimum that will satisfy everyone’s concerns?

It continues that the nuclear deal won’t prevent an Iranian bomb.  That’s not quite true.  It will prevent an Iranian bomb for at least a decade or more.  But it won’t prevent an Iranian bomb forever.  This is true.  What this letter doesn’t say is that both the U.S. and Iran aim to create an infrastructure during that period that will guarantee good relations and constructive engagement so that Iran will not feel the need to build a bomb 15 years down the line.

The letter implies that the signatories would prefer the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.  Curiously, this is precisely the position of the Israelis and the Israel Lobby.  One wonders how Israel’s position crept into this document!  Similarly, it’s curious that WINEP’s key role in developing and publicizing the letter isn’t mentioned until the penultimate (26^th) paragraph in Sanger’s story.  One wonder: why bury the lede?

Letter Not Intended as “Poison Pill:” Who’s Kidding Whom?

David Einhorn is quoted in the report saying the letter is not intended as a “poison pill” to sabotage the negotiations.  Which is, of course, nonsense.  Of course it’s intended to sabotage a deal on any other than the Lobby’s terms.

How else to interpret this?

The letter said inspections “must include military (including I.R.G.C.) and other sensitive facilities. Iran must not be able to deny or delay timely access to any site anywhere in the country.

The inspectors, they write, must be able “to take samples, to interview scientists and government officials, to inspect sites, and to review and copy documents as required for their investigation of Iran’s past and any ongoing nuclear weaponization activities.” The letter adds, “This work needs to be accomplished before any significant sanctions relief.”

The signers of this letter must know that their position, if the government attempted to implement it, would end the talks.  Ayatollah Khamenei has already said inspections would not include military sites.  And he has also clearly indicated that Iran expects significant sanctions relief immediately after an agreement is signed.  Making the prior fulfillment of all Iranian commitments contingent on such relief is akin to rejecting the deal entirely, since Iran will not sign such an understanding.

The following also offers an example of the bad faith of the letter-writers:

…The letter [insists] that the United States publicly declare — with congressional assent — that even after the expiration of the agreement Iran will not be permitted to possess enough nuclear fuel to make a single weapon.

This too is an absolute non-starter.  No Iranian government will ever agree to a deal in which its negotiating partner publicly pledges Iran must never have a nuclear weapon.  This too is an Israeli position.

In this passage the authors rattle those war sabers once again:

“Precisely because Iran will be left as a nuclear threshold state (and has clearly preserved the option of becoming a nuclear weapon state), the United States must go on record now that it is committed to using all means necessary, including military force, to prevent this.”

Iran has not “clearly preserved” the nuclear option.  In fact, the Ayatollah has publicly stated just the opposite, that Iran will not develop or use nuclear weapons.  The notion that Iran has an intent of nuclearizing is unsupported.  To advocate threatening Iran with military attack is another tired old meme from the Bush-Netanyahu playbook.  We will not attack Iran.  Not even Israel will attack Iran.  So let’s stop the theatrical brandishing of this sword in the final act of the nuclear drama.

It’s also no accident that the New York Times reporter who wrote this story is none other than David Sanger.  Sanger’s Iran reporting relies heavily, at times, on Israeli talking points and reflects a hawkish perspective that includes maximum suspicion of Iranian intentions and motives.

Dexter Filkins: Iran on a Wire—Why Not Ask for More?

A corollary to the letter and Sanger’s report is a new piece by Dexter Filkins in The New Yorker, Why Aren’t We Asking Iran for More?  His title brought to mind this lyric from Leonard Cohen’s Bird on a Wire:

I saw a beggar leaning on his wooden crutch,
he said to me, “You must not ask for so much.”
And a pretty woman leaning in her darkened door,
she cried to me, “Hey, why not ask for more?”

That’s the tension that is at the heart of Filkins article. He says “why not ask for more” from the Iranians. While the pragmatists among us warn that asking for too much may end up getting you nothing.

Dexter Filkins is a stellar war correspondent.  But in writing about Iran he comes a-cropper.  The ostensible point he seeks to make is that while negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran is important, why don’t we also attempt to force Iran to become house-trained.  Why don’t we force it to end its alliance with Hezbollah?  Why don’t we force it to end its aggressive interventions in the affairs of other states?

The answer to the question is implied within it and Filkins even alludes to it himself.  As a diplomat, you decide what are the most important issues to resolve and you set yourself the task of doing so.  Of course, there will always be important issues you would like to address.  But how important are they compared to your first priorities?

In this case, the Obama administration has correctly judged that limiting nuclear proliferation is the foremost goal. Changing Iran’s behavior in conventional conflicts in the region is a far more complex issue that includes many other players like Hezbollah, Syria, Israel, and others.  If you follow Filkins suggestion you will likely get neither a nuclear deal nor a deal limiting Iranian interventions.

Further, Obama is betting that achieving a nuclear deal will bring about a sea change in U.S.-Iran relations.  From this, it will be far easier to encourage Iran to restrain itself from military adventurism in Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere.

The most disturbing aspect of Filkins piece is that he denies any context to Iran’s alleged (for Filkins it’s not even that, it’s assumed and unsubstantiated) involvement in various terror attacks over the past three decades.  You won’t find “Israel” mentioned a single time here.  You won’t hear of the interventionist role Israel has played in regional affairs for even longer than Iran.  You won’t hear of the 1982 Lebanon invasion which spurred the creation of Hezbollah.  You won’t hear the provocative role Israel has played in the Syrian civil war supporting Islamist rebels opposed to Iran’s allies: Pres. Assad and Hezbollah.

Considering Filkins’ previous excellent reporting on Iraq, it’s astonishing how ahistorical this piece is.  It’s also worth mentioning that the reporter quotes two sources, one is Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA analyst and currently a fellow at the neocon Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and the self-same Gary Samore, head of United Against a Nuclear Iran.  Interestingly, Filkins mentions Samore’s far more mainstream affiliation with Harvard’s Belfer Center and omits his affiliation with UANI.

The latter organization stands accused of using Mossad intelligence data to threaten businessmen with violating Iran sanctions.  In a libel suit brought by one UANI victim, the Justice Department quashed the entire case claiming testimony would endanger U.S. security.  In fact, it would have exposed Mossad collusion with the CIA and their dirty tricks in enforcing the sanctions regime.

Israel Lobby Strategy to Undermine Nuclear Deal

As the final deadline for a P5+1 nuclear deal nears, anti-Iran forces have kicked into high gear.  But the Israel Lobby is engaging in rather clever strategy.  It realizes that Bibi Netanyahu and Israel itself are “damaged goods” as far as impacting the domestic conversation.  Instead, pro-Israel forces have turned to hawkish Democratic policy advisers and military figures to undermine the President’s agenda.  It would be easy for Obama to overcome opposition from GOP and neocon naysayers.  But it’s harder to refute those who once served in the Obama administration itself.

None of these efforts will succeed any more than Netanyahu’s address to Congress succeeded in undermining an Iran deal.  Hawkish forces opposing such an agreement are a spent force.  Though passage in the Senate is by no means a given.  I believe the Lobby sees statements like WINEP’s as new ammunition it can bring to bear to sway senators against the deal.

Sanger, in his report, tries to make the case that there are hawks inside the administration echoing the position of Filkins and the WINEP letter.  Regardless of whether this is true or not, the future holds not just a nuclear arrangement, but a resurgent Iran playing a much more constructive role in the region and, in the process, competing and possibly eclipsing Israel’s role.  That’s the real threat that frightens Israel.  It is used to having its own way both militarily and economically.  It is not used to, and wishes to avert at all costs, having regional competitors who might circumscribe its freedom of action.

This article was published at Tikun Olam.

The post Anti-Iran Lobby Steps Up Game Before Deadline For P5+1 Talks – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Job creation, diversification of industry, sustainable development and the war against poverty has been a top priority for the current government of Nicaragua. This year is continuing the second phase of the Better Work Program which is estimated to create 150 thousand new jobs in the Free Trade Sector.

According to Mr. Roberto Gonzalez, leader of the Central Sandinista Workers Union (CST), “Better Work program is a comprehensive initiative that protects labor rights for workers; provides education for their children, offers health care to mothers, training for employees, empower women and organizes HIV-AIDS awareness programs. In the last six years, Better Work has raised production levels, reduced cost of employers and improved life quality for workers.”

Additionally the Government of President Ortega has supported a strategy to diversify the industrial production. According to Carlos Vargas, Director of Industrial Parks Federation, “Nicaraguan government is raising the bar supporting private sector efforts that lead towards diversifying the industrial production. For many years Nicaragua has been known for its textile and clothing industry. Now the country is garnering international attention and recognition as the new rising star in other sectors including auto parts, footwear, honey production, seeds and other agribusiness items.”

Coffee production and its exports is a noteworthy commodity in Nicaragua’s economic development, in its agricultural sector as well as an unwavering source of employment. As a result of its long lasting traditions, development role and its international reputation, a number of Nicaraguan coffee cultivation companies including Mercon Coffee Group, Cooperativa Santiago, CAFENOR, Cinsa Coffee, Ramacafé, Cafetalera Albir and Santa Rita Coffee Estate, have participated in the World’s largest event of Coffee, namely the World of Coffee 2015 hosted in Gothenburg, Sweden. According to Arturo McFields, a Press Secretary of the Nicaraguan Embassy in Washington, DC, “coffee products of high quality from across the globe were promoted in this event.” For Mr. Emilio Baltodano, President of Mercon Coffee Group, “Nicaragua coffee is well known for its quality, aroma and 100% organic production. Nicaragua is promoting its international profile and is being recognized for the high quality of its products.” Coffee growers and companies are currently playing a fundamental role towards embracing Sustainable Development at a national level in Nicaragua.

The Administration of Daniel Ortega together with CARGILL of the United States is exploring the possibility to implement an agricultural program that is introduced by the World Economic Forum, to increase production and strengthen the fight against poverty in rural areas. According to Bayardo Arce, the Presidential Economic Adviser, “the World Economic Forum New Vision for Agriculture Program has been very successful in Asia, Africa and Mexico. [Nicaragua] is analyzing the possibility of implementing this program at a national level, taking into account the positive impact it could have on the fight against poverty.”

Under the framework of reducing poverty levels and bolstering sustainable development, the Nicaraguan Investment Promotion Agency (ProNicaragua) has announced that it will participate and showcase the national seafood products in the ANUGA 2015 Fair, the most important platform in International Food Business in Europe. In 2014 Nicaragua emerged as the largest producer of shrimp, due to its cutting edge farming technology, in Central America and seafood exports recorded US$39 million in revenues. Managua’s products where mostly exported to the United States, European Union, Central American and Asian nations.

On the other hand the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) is supporting renewable energy projects in Nicaragua. During the first six months of 2015, this financial institution has approved nearly US$100 million dollars for clean energy projects and electricity service coverage. IDB has also approved a US$65 million loan to expand the electricity grid across the country and in May 2015 there was approved the amount of US$30 million destined to the Climate Investment Fund. From the latter program more than 400,000 citizens mainly on the Nicaraguan Caribbean Coast, are expected to benefit. President Ortega’s government is in the right direction while leading – with a steadfast support provided by international institutions – a number of visionary projects that make it impossible for Nicaragua to be ignored, reach its economic zenith and earn a privileged standing among other Central and Latin American nations.

The post Agriculture, Industry Become Priorities For Nicaraguan Economy – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(EurActiv) — Greece was officially declared in default Friday, injecting even more urgency into a make-or-break weekend referendum that new polls suggest is too close to call.

The EU fund providing Greece’s financial lifeline declared “an event of default by Greece”.

The European Financial Stability Facility added, though, that it had decided to not immediately demand repayment of its loans — a step that analysts say could have triggered sudden “Grexit”, or Greece’s exit from the eurozone.

The news will come as a fresh shock to Greece’s 11 million people, and will hang over two major, rival rallies taking place in Athens late Friday seeking to galvanise ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ support for Sunday’s referendum.

High stakes

Stakes were already high before the EFSF announcement, with EU leaders warning a ‘No’ in the plebiscite would jeopardise Greece’s place in the 19-nation eurozone.

But Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras rejects that, insisting a ‘No’ result would strengthen his hand and force international creditors withholding bailout funds to drop “humiliating” austerity terms.

Only a last-minute challenge to the legality of the ballot in Greece’s top administrative court, the Council of State, might be able derail it. The court is to give its ruling today.

Confusion, however, is widespread over the very technical question posed in the referendum.

That, and capital controls that have reduced Greeks to lining up at ATMs to make daily withdrawals capped at €60, has prompted many who formerly supported the government to swap sides.

The two latest polls published Friday showed voter intentions were effectively tied.

An Alco institute poll found 44.8% of Greeks intend to vote ‘Yes’ and 43.4% are for ‘No’. A Bloomberg survey for Greece’s Macedonia University was equally split, showing 43% to vote ‘No’ and 42.5% ‘Yes’

European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker warned that Greece’s negotiating position with creditors would be “dramatically weakened” in the event of a ‘No’.

Even if the ‘Yes’ vote wins, there would still be “difficult” negotiations ahead, he added.

Confusing question

Greek voters, however, are confronted with a referendum question that has stumped many.

The question reads: “Should the deal draft that was put forward by the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund in the Eurogroup of 25 June 2015, and consists of two parts, that together form a unified proposal, be accepted? The first document is titled ‘Reforms for the Completion of the Current Programme and Beyond’ and the second ‘Preliminary Debt Sustainability Analysis’.”

Eurozone officials have firmly said that the “deal” referred to expired on Tuesday — the same day Greece failed to repay a €1.5-billion repayment to the IMF, becoming the first developed country to ever do so.

On 20 July, Greece looks likely to be unable to repay another €3.5 billion euros owed to the ECB.

Some voters who initially backed the government have swapped sides ahead of Sunday’s ballot.

“I was going to vote ‘No’ because I think the Greek people are being treated with contempt. But Tsipras has made the situation so much worse, it’s his fault the banks are closed,” said an Athens shop assistant Suzanna Alizoti.

Despair

Greek pensioners without bank cards have been limited to one €120 over-the-counter withdrawal, prompting despair among many.

In Greece’s second-biggest city of Thessaloniki, one retired man unable to withdraw his €120 crumpled to the ground, scattering his papers. A bank manager quickly resolved the problem.

In Athens, another pensioner, Kostas, was regularly withdrawing his and wife’s daily euro limits from ATMs for fear they might be seized by the government or converted to drachmas. “My money is safer at home,” he said.

Many cash machines were running short of denominations, allowing only the withdrawal of a €50 note.

Government future

Varoufakis has said he would step down as finance minister if a ‘Yes’ vote carried the day, and the rest of the government “may very well” do the same.

But Tsipras has been ambiguous, telling Greek television late Thursday he would respect the referendum’s result and take the necessary steps “set out in the constitution”.

As the clock ticked down to the fateful vote, the IMF said yesterday Greece would need €60 billion more in bailout money to get through the next three years. It also cut the country’s 2015 growth forecast to zero from 2.5%.

Europe’s main stock markets slipped during Friday trading, as all eyes were riveted on Greece’s referendum and what that might mean to investors at the beginning of next week.

“The vote seems tight,” said VTB Capital economist Neil MacKinnon. “A ‘No’ vote increases the chances of a Grexit as the ECB would pull the plug on the Greek banks,” he said.

“A ‘Yes’ vote would likely result in the resignation of the Greek government, though it is not clear that this would necessarily result in a more creditor-compliant Greek administration that would sign up to the creditors’ proposals quickly.”

The post EU Officially Declares Greece In Default appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A new Islamist rebel alliance, including Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, was locked in a fierce battle Friday to seize government-held areas of Aleppo, the divided former economic capital.

Once a powerhouse of industry, Aleppo has been devastated by years of fighting between regime forces and a succession of rebel groups.

Clashes raged overnight as the Islamist alliance, which calls itself Ansar al-Sharia, sought to take control of the air force intelligence headquarters in Zahra, on Aleppo’s northwestern outskirts, said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

According to the British-based monitor, the 13 groups in the alliance announced the launch of the “Ansar al-Sharia operations room” on Thursday.

They said the aim was to “liberate Aleppo and the countryside” and “to draft a joint covenant to run Aleppo after its liberation in line with sharia” Islamic law.

The rebel fighters advanced to take control of several buildings in Zahra despite regime air strikes, according to Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman.

“There were at least 35 dead among insurgent ranks and dozens of killed and wounded on the regime side,” he told AFP.

Syrian state television said that the army had “foiled attempts to infiltrate Aleppo on several fronts, killing more than 100 terrorists” – the regime’sstandard term for all rebel groups.

Ansar al-Sharia launched a multi-district assault on government-held parts of Aleppo city on Thursday, in attacks that killed at least four civilians, the Observatory said.

Rebels fired several hundred rockets and projectiles into at least seven government-held neighborhoods, with the army returning fire and regime aircraft carrying out raids.

Fighting resumed Friday morning before dawn on pro-government areas of the Ashrafiyeh and Khaldiyeh neighborhoods in the city’s north and western sectors, the monitor said.

Abdel Rahman said hundreds of shells fell on both government- and rebel-held areas of the city, in what he said was Aleppo’s “worst night” since 2012, when rebels first attacked.

One Aleppo resident, a 23-year-old student who gave her name as Sahar, said fighting had been “intensive.”

“We are used to the sound of explosions but yesterday there were so many. We heard the blasts but because they were coming from everywhere we didn’t know where the shells were falling,” she told AFP by telephone.

City, province divided

The coalition, which includes Al Qaeda’s Syrian branch Al Nusra Front, the rival of the Islamic State (ISIS) jihadist group, pledged “victory for the Muslims of Aleppo.”

Control of Aleppo has been divided between government and rebel forces since shortly after fighting began there in mid-2012.

The regime largely controls the west of the city, with rebels from different factions present in the east.

The situation is largely reversed in the countryside surrounding the city, and both government and rebel forces have at times sought to encircle their opponents and besiege them.

Activist Karim Obeid said the rebel coalition had targeted Aleppo’s Zahra “because the (Syrian) army regularly bombs opposition-held locations from there.”

Taking Zahra would help to open up rebel access to the border with Turkey, Obeid added.

In recent months, Al Nusra has allied elsewhere with Islamist rebels to win large swathes of territory from the regime, particularly in the northwesternprovince of Idlib.

Most of that province is now under rebel control, after a grouping named the Army of Conquest, which includes Al Nusra and its allies, seized the provincial capital and most remaining government strongholds.

Also overnight, anti-regime forces attacked an army outpost at the entrance to Zabadani near Damascus, according to the Observatory.

Zabadani is around 20 kilometers north of the capital and was one of the first towns to fall into rebel hands in early 2012.

Following a fightback aided by Shia terrorist group Hezbollah, the government has seized control of several towns and villages close to the Lebanese border and Zabadani is the last in rebel hands.

The Observatory said the army responded by dropping more than 40 barrel bombs – crudely made, non-guided missiles – on the town, after at least three rebels and five regime troops were killing in skirmishes.

More than 230,000 people have been killed in Syria since the country’s conflict began in March 2011.

The post Syria: Rebel Alliance Battles For Control Of Aleppo appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Uma Purushothaman*

With the challenge from terrorism and the ISIS looming large, turmoil in the Middle East, the rise of China, etc., foreign policy is going to be an important issue in the US Presidential elections of 2016. The Democrat candidates for the party’s nomination have surprisingly devoted little time to this aspect so far. But as the campaign progresses and the less serious candidates drop out of the race, the issue is likely to gain greater attention from candidates and the public alike.

The leading candidate for the Democratic Party’s nomination, Hillary Clinton, had little to say about foreign policy during her campaign announcement. Only 7% of her speech was devoted to foreign policy — a total of 319 words out of a total of 4,687 words. This is surprising for someone who has not only served as Secretary of State, but also been First Lady of the US and has travelled around the world. This tactic was probably adopted to distance herself from President Obama’s foreign policy. Obama had an approval of over 50% during his first term as President, but this is now down to around 30%.

Hillary Clinton’s biggest challenge will be to maintain a delicate balancing act: how to stick by the policies that she helped to draw up in Obama’s first term and yet separate herself from an administration her opponents criticise as weak and vacillating. She has already tried to do the latter through her memoir, Hard Choices, where she said that the Obama administration should have been tougher on Putin and should have provided more support to the Syrian Free Army.

But her record as Secretary of State and speeches and interviews do provide more insights into her thinking on foreign policy. As Secretary of State, she was in charge of the outreach to Iran, which has led to the current negotiations. She has supported President Obama on the framework agreement with Iran while saying that Iran should never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. She has said that relations with Israel, which are currently under a lot of stress, should be brought back on a constructive footing. She sees the two-state solution as the way to solve the Middle East conflict. She has also expressed a desire that Israel does not become a partisan issue, in order to appeal to Jewish voters, who have traditionally supported the Democratic Party. On Iraq, she has said that her vote in favour of the invasion in 2002 was a mistake. In the past, as Secretary of State, she has supported military intervention in Libya and providing more arms to the Syrian opposition, suggesting that it was the failure to do so which helped the ISIS gain power.

She has taken a hawkish position on Russia and has been quite harsh on Russian President Vladimir Putin (even comparing him to Adolf Hitler at a fundraiser) and has in the past asked for more sanctions on Russia over Ukraine. She is realistic on China, saying in her memoir that China cannot be neatly fitted into any category as a “friend or a rival”. In the past, Clinton has been critical of China’s human rights records. She had a key role to play in President Obama’s rebalance to Asia policy, making her a hated figure of Chinese netizens. But as President, she is likely to engage with China while reassuring America’s allies.

Though she had supported the Trans Pacific Partnership earlier, she is now trying to distance herself from it. In a recent interview, she said that she would probably have not have voted to give President Obama the Trade Promotion Authority is she was a Senator.

Interestingly, while Clinton has pivoted left on domestic issues, she has turned right in her positions on foreign policy. It remains to be seen if this will be a winning strategy for her Presidential campaign. But by taking too far right a position on foreign policy, if she wins the Presidency, she would find it tough to negotiate with countries like China and Russia.

The second most popular Democratic candidate is Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator, who has taken a non interventionist stance on foreign policy. As member of Congress, Sanders voted to authorize the use of military force against al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks but has since consistently been opposed to the use of US military force during the War on Terror. This may mean that he will not authorise the use of force unless as an option of last resort. He is against any intervention in the Middle East and opposed the war against Iraq in 2002, asking quite presciently “Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed?”…”And what role will the US play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country?.

Later, as the Syrian crisis unfolded, he campaigned actively against any US intervention. In fact, he has said that Arab countries should fight against the ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

He has consistently opposed the TPP, claiming that it will lead to a loss of American jobs while helping Asian economies. However, he has supported the talks with Iran and sanctions on Russia.

A Sanders administration would cut defence spending so much that Republicans and moderate Democrats would be very nervous.

Sanders’ positions on foreign policy might appeal to the liberal base of his party. But this alone will not help him win the nomination. His biggest liability on foreign policy will be his lack of experience in it.

Jim Webb, the former Democratic senator from Virginia, who is also running for the nomination, has said that Congress has to be participate more in foreign policy making and that the President should not establish long-term military agreements alone. Arguing that the US needs a clearly articulated foreign policy statement, he has stressed on the need for the United States to “state its national security objectives clearly, to develop relationships with allies it can trust, to work with countries that are not hostile to its citizens, to honour its treaty agreements, to maintain superiority in strategic systems and technology, and to preserve and exercise the national right of self-defence overseas”. He has been quite hawkish on China, describing it as authoritarian.

The fourth contender, Martin O’Malley, the former Governor of Maryland, has focused on the economy saying that the source of America’s global strength is its own prosperity. While he has not given any specific proposals for addressing any major foreign policy issues, he has spoken generally about strengthening US cybersecurity, combating climate change and “degrading” the Islamic State, “not only with military power” but with “political solutions.”

Other than Clinton, the rest of the Democratic candidates are handicapped by their lack of foreign policy experience. As the campaign progresses, candidates from both parties are likely to come out with more details about their foreign policy choices. But it is unlikely that there will be any radical shift from what they have said so far.

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

The post Democratic Candidates’ Surprisingly Low Focus On Foreign Policy – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Elmar Baghirov*

The proposed Trans-Caspian Pipeline (TCP), which aims to bring Turkmen gas to Europe, has recently become a topic of intense debate. Despite the existing barriers to the implementation of the project, there have been positive shifts towards its construction. The Ashgabat Declaration launched the work of the intergovernmental committee and provides a foundation for the practical implementation of the project. The EU is much more interested in the TCP than before, as it may face natural gas shortages after 2019 when the gas contract between Russia and Ukraine expires. Turkey’s regional energy hub ambitions mean that it is keen to play a political role. Turkmenistan sees not only financial benefits, but also advantages in terms of diversifying its export routes. The collective commitment by the interested parties – Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Turkey and the EU – in overcoming the various obstacles to the project’s implementation indicate strong prospects for success.

Analysis

Foundations for high-level negotiations were laid during the visit by the Turkish president to Turkmenistan (November 7, 2014), when he stated that the Trans-Anatolian Pipeline (TANAP) is dependent on gas supplies from Turkmenistan. During the visit, an agreement on cooperation was signed between Atagas (a private Turkish Gas Company) and Turkmengas (the national gas company of Turkmenistan) over the purchase and sales of natural gas. In 2013, the TCP was placed on the list of Projects of Common Interest of the European Commission.

In the absence of a pipeline capable of transporting large volumes of gas from the Caspian Basin to Europe, the potential role of the TCP was unclear. But by 2019, with the expansion of the South Caucasus Pipeline (SCP), the construction of TANAP and Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP), a Caspian-European route will become available. The other problem was the lack of available gas ready to be transported from the eastern coast of the sea.

However, Turkmenistan is currently constructing the ‘East-West Pipeline’, with an expected completion date of 2015-2016. This pipeline will deliver gas from the resource-rich fields in the east of the country to its western territories. When the construction started in 2010, the plan was to feed the Russian-backed Prikaspiisk pipeline (or Caspian Coastal pipeline), but that project has been scrapped, freeing the gas up for export elsewhere. Notably, the capacity of the pipeline is as the projected capacity of the TCP (30 bcm/year). The Caspian Coastal line was scrapped in 2010 and is unlikely to be revived given the current tensions between Russia and the EU. This raises questions about the purpose of the East-West pipeline. Russia is not planning to import more Turkmen gas, and there is no need to allocate additional volumes to Iran.

Turkmenistan’s intention is to prepare for gas exports via the TCP. By 2016 Turkmenistan will technically be able to transport hydrocarbons from the east to the Belek compressor station, which is located next to the city of Turkmenbashi (where the TCP will presumably start). The pipeline will not be confined to the Dovletabat field, but will also be connected to the Galkynysh Field. Thus, the opportunity to deliver vast gas reserves to the eastern coast of the Caspian together with the availability of transportation on the western coast clearly indicates the importance of the Trans-Caspian line.

Turkey’s role and the Trilateral Format

Due to the absence of existing pipelines between Turkey and Turkmenistan, energy cooperation agreements remain poorly implemented. In 1997, the sides signed the first agreement on the import of 30 bcm of Turkmen natural gas to Turkey. However, without the available conduits it was impossible to realize the agreement. Therefore, the Turkish government is seeking grounds for future cooperation. In November 2014 Turkey and Turkmenistan reached a framework agreement for pumping Turkmen gas into the TANAP. Although the details of the agreement have not been revealed, it is clear that steps are being taken to enable the supply of Turkmen gas to European market.

Just ahead of the Berdymuhamedov’s visit to Turkey, Turkmenistan’s Ministry for Oil & Mineral Resources released a statement promising to supply natural gas to Europe. According to the statement, Turkmenistan intends to supply 10-30 bcm per annum. Turkey understands its role in making this a reality. Ankara has increasing influence in Turkmenistan; it is now the country’s second biggest trading partner after China. Moreover, Turkish construction companies occupy a leading position in Turkmenistan’s economy. Nonetheless, Turkey’s influence in Turkmenistan is not on its own sufficient to guarantee the success of the TCP. It will have to face down the major opponents of the project, Russia and Iran.

The increasing cooperation among Turkey, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan reveals another perspective on the TCP. The trilateral meetings, previously among ministers, have been upgraded this year to the presidential level. Turkey’s idea for trilateral energy consultations dates back to 2008, when Turkey invited both Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan to cooperate on a drilling project in the Black Sea. Since then Turkey has been promoting the idea of bringing both sides to the table to further cooperation and partnership. As such, the upcoming meeting of leaders in Ashgabat must be regarded as a diplomatic achievement of Ankara.

The position of the EU

The intention of the EU is to reduce its dependence on Russian gas and thus diversify the routes and sources of supply. Although there is no official data on the amount of gas to be supplied by Turkmenistan, initially the EU was planning to purchase about 14 bcm per annum out of the total 30 bcm (the TCP was designed to accommodate 16 bcm of gas for the Turkish market). The distribution of volumes may change, but it is clear that by gaining access to the Turkmen resources, the EU will benefit enormously in terms of diversification of its gas supplies. Consequently, the EU is committed to helping Turkmenistan to overcome the existing barriers to the project’s realization. For instance, experts have emphasized that “the EU has repeatedly expressed its support to Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan regarding the exclusive right to lay a pipeline in the Caspian Sea between the two littoral countries in line with international agreements and conventions.” Furthermore, according to resent research, “the European Commission proposed in 2009 the creation of the Caspian Development Corporation envisaged as a single commercial vehicle that could aggregate the purchase of Turkmen gas. Finally, in apparent desperation at the lack of progress, the Commission in September 2011 se- cured an unprecedented decision by the EU’s governing Council, mandating it to negotiate a legally binding treaty with Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan providing for pipeline construction.”

Is Turkmenistan interested?

Ashgabat appears to be intensely engaged in the diversification of export routes. Given that Russia has reduced its gas imports from Turkmenistan to 4 bcm per annum, compared to 11 in 2014, Turkmenistan’s interest in finding an alternative market should not be underestimated. Further- more, because of the disruption of plans to deliver vast volumes of natural gas to Europe, Russia has pivoted towards China. Five years from now, it will be able to deliver extra 40 bcm/year to China via the Power of Siberia (known as Yakutia–Khabarovsk–Vladivostok pipeline).

Competition with Russia over the Chinese market may lead to cheaper Turkmen gas. Iran, the second biggest consumer of Turkmen gas, is also refusing to buy the gas at current volumes. Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh said on August 11, 2014 that his country no longer needed gas from Turkmenistan. Zanganeh went so far as to say, “Iran is importing Turkmen gas just because it is important to promote political and economic relations with Turkmenistan. Iran is rapidly boosting its domestic gas production. Moreover, once the sanctions are lifted, Iran, which has the world’s second largest gas reserves, may become an export rival. In this context, official Ashgabat is urgently seeking new energy partners. Note that Turkmenistan may only support the TCP in line with the golden rule of “zero financial burden, hundred percent effectiveness”. In addition, it will never agree upon the construction of the pipeline to the detriment of relations with Russia.

Light at the end of the tunnel

In general, there are two hurdles to the implementation of the TCP: the uncertainty over the status of the Caspian (along with opposition from Russia and Iran) and the financial burden that few are willing to share (because of the high risks of the project). In regard to the resolution of the legal status of the Caspian, many consider the Astrakhan summit as a big step forward and a chance to consolidate the final document, now that parties have reached agreement on points of dispute.

Khalaf Khalafov (deputy foreign minister of Azerbaijan) characterized the last summit as the beginning of a new stage in negotiations. “I believe we will be able to agree upon all the points of the convention before the summit in Astana so that we can sign the final act.” In addition, the Caspian states agreed on six more points on the juridical status of the Caspian, reported Iranian Prime Minister Ibrahim Rahimpoor. Khalafov said that the sides had agreed upon some controversial issues. At the 39th meeting of the Working Group on the determination of the legal status of the Caspian Sea, issues related to environmental problems and use of water were agreed among the Caspian littoral states, according to the Azerbaijani side. However, one of the remaining questions is how to resolve the issues related to the division of undersea territory. This question must be solved in accordance with the sovereign rights of each littoral state, as claimed by Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.

Now the focus is on the summit in Astana, where some experts expect the final agreement to be signed. The future of the TCP has been closely linked to the determination of the legal status of the Caspian; without the inked document there is no room for progress. Thus, further intensification of the dialogue over the implementation of the TCP is expected following the Astana Summit in 2016.

Problems & Prospects

Along with some major political hurdles to the project (such as the question over the status of the Caspian), there are some others of minor importance that bear mention. For instance, significant efforts must be taken to resolve the dispute between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan over the oil fields, Kapaz (Serdar). A positive sign is that the leaders of both countries have demonstrated their willingness to work hand in hand within the framework of trilateral cooperation with Turkey.

Turkish pipeline politics

There is also significant scope for the EU to persuade Iran to set aside its intentions to block the construction of the Trans-Caspian. Previously these negotiations would have been unthinkable, and so once the sanctions are eliminated, the opportunity will be there. One potential means to appease the Iranian government would be to propose a spot for Iranian natural gas in the TANAP and TAP pipelines. If this were not enough, the EU could additionally offer a helping hand in modernizing Iran’s outdated gas infrastructure. Iran has also made clear in the international arena that it is ready to offer its territory as alternative and reliable route for delivering Turkmen gas to Europe.

Brussels has put all its efforts into achieving a breakthrough on the realization of the TCP. It has called upon European energy companies to join the negotiation process. The Caspian Development Corporation, established in 2009, can help in this regard. This will help Turkmengaz find common ground with the relevant European energy companies. Experts also believe that Ashgabat is especially interested in cooperation with companies willing to invest in the development of the Turkmen sector of the Caspian Sea. Earlier, during talks with Turkmenistan, the Eni management voiced its willingness to assist with the Turkmen gas delivery to the world markets in the long term. The dialogue between the EU, Turkmenistan and the representatives of energy giants does not require any additional outside help, as the parties involved are committed to the project’s realization. This is a strong indicator of success.

It has also been argued that Turkey may utilize its leverage over Russia, via Turkish Stream – the only viable route for gas delivery from Russia to Europe – to address Russian opposition to the TCP. In other words, the subsea pipeline between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan could progress in light of Turkey’s increased diplomatic power. However, one should not overlook the strategic interests of Russia in the region, as well as its desire to remain Europe’s major gas supplier. If the second part of the puzzle can be solved easily (since the capacity of the Turkish Stream is twice that of the TCP), the first part remains unanswered.

Despite the existing political obstacles, the technical requirements of the TCP have been met. Most of the projects that may feed the TCP are either under construction (East-West, TAP and TANAP) or already in place (South Caucasus Pipeline). Thus, only 300 km is remaining, needed to link one port to another in order to connect Turkmenistan with Europe. However, this step has always been something of a Herculean task. The key to the whole success of the project lies in those 300 km.
The elimination of political challenges will not immediately bring the pipeline to life; there remain financial constraints. First of all, the European companies have to come to an agreement with Turkmenistan over the sales of gas; there may be a need for a Production Sharing Agreement. This is not a question of a few weeks.

Conclusion

The actual implementation of the Southern Gas Corridor (SGC) has accelerated talks on the construction of the Trans-Caspian pipeline. The climax of these talks resulted in the Ashgabat Declaration, with some minor practical results (such as the establishment of the inter-governmental committee). At the same time, the trilateral meetings among Turkmenistan, Turkey and Azerbaijan have achieved top levels of engagement. At first glance, this trilateral energy cooperation does not seem to be directly linked to the TCP, and progress remains suspended until the Astana Summit. However, in the long term, this new format could facilitate energy dialogue between Baku and Ashgabat; and involvement in joint projects, no matter how small, could be a positive step during this initial stage.

Furthermore, the East-West pipeline of Turkmenistan will be commissioned soon. Thus, Turkmen gas will be delivered right to the coast of the Caspian Sea, ready for transportation to Europe. The other SGC components, aside from the TCP, will be operational by 2019, delivering Azerbaijani gas. In other words, the pipelines to the east of the TCP are almost ready. The only fly in the ointment is that that the most complex part, i.e. the sub-sea conduit (TCP), needs much more work.

However, given the commitment of the EU, Turkey and Turkmenistan, there is significant impetus for the realization of this final step. Along with Azerbaijan, these parties more committed than ever. The EU needs to meet its energy demand once the Russian supplies via Ukraine are terminated in 2019. Turkey, which has harbored ambitions to become a regional gas hub, sees great potential in the opportunity to play a crucial role in both the project implementation and the transportation of Turkmen gas to Europe. Turkmenistan, which has been forced to reduce its exports to Russia, is urgently seeking new partners and customers in order to avoid dependence on a single buyer, namely China. Moreover, Iran may not need gas from Turkmenistan for its northern region, because once the sanctions are lifted it will be able to cover that demand through domestic production. Azerbaijan is also willing to become a transit country and thus contribute even further to EU energy security. This raft of potential benefits cannot be ignored.

About the author:
*Elmar Baghirov is a foreign policy expert based in Azerbaijan. His areas of expertise include the energy policy of Azerbaijan and the Black Sea-Caspian region energy security.

Source:
This article was published by the Caspian Center for Energy and Environment as CCEE Policy Brief Number 17 (PDF)

The post The Momentum For The Trans-Caspian Pipeline – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Gustavo Plåcido Dos Santos*

In June 2015, the Angolan President, José Eduardo dos Santos, paid state visits to Beijing and Abu Dhabi. These two stop-overs came at a complicated time for Angola: the sharp decrease in oil prices had a troubling impact on state finances, placing the post-war course of Angola’s socioeconomic development and political stability at risk.

Given the close proximity between Luanda and Beijing, the visit of José Eduardo dos Santos to Beijing is hardly surprising. In fact, the trip to the Middle Kingdom aimed at guaranteeing the steady flow of Angolan oil to China, extend economic ties beyond the oil sector, obtain better conditions on Chinese loans and, equally important, raise part of the $10bn that Luanda needs “to push ahead with key infrastructure projects”.1

For its part, the stopover at Abu Dhabi is also relevant for Angola’s interests. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been actively investing in the African continent, namely in infrastructures, and asserted itself as a key axis in the new Silk Road, i.e. in the “new ‘South-South’ trading routes connecting Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America,” which “are set to revolutionize the global economy”.2

As a result of the UAE’s geographical position at the center of the new trade corridors and its state of the art logistics and transports, Dubai extended its commercial portfolio to such an extent that it today manages nearly 80% of national imports, exports and re-exports, and established itself as a hub for emerging economies in Asia to other regions. Dubai’s Jebel Ali port is the 9th busiest in the world and one of the most important transhipment hubs globally. In addition, the Dubai International Airport is the 7th busiest in the world and the global leader in aerial links.3

UAE’s affirmation as an axis of global trade, coupled with the fact that it is an oasis of stability in a turbulent region, led several multinationals to establish headquarters in Dubai to manage operations in Africa and the Middle East.4

The Emirates’ shift towards Africa

The UAE, and Dubai in particular, has been deepening its involvement in the African continent. It is estimated that trade between Dubai and Africa is worth $35bn.5 Although trade is largely dominated by oil, economic ties have been diversifying beyond energy resources: non-oil trade with Africa grew 700% since 2002, increasing 141% between 2008 and 2013.6 Most of that trade is in the form of re-exports, turning the African continent into “the fastest-growing market as a group for Dubai”.7

Several UAE-based companies have also been investing in Africa, especially in transports, ports, airports, telecommunications and tourism. These investments provide an important boost to the development of infrastructures in Africa, which in turn plays a key part in improving the continent’s internal and external connectivity. In fact, it is Africa’s infrastructural deficit that represents some of the greatest obstacles to the development of national economies and to greater regional integration.

Having said this, since 90% of world trade is made via sea routes, the development of maritime links in African countries can surely be a driving force to their global and regional trade ties, as well as to their national economies. In this context, the active investments by Dubai Ports World (DP World) – the world’s fourth largest port operator – in Africa, is a potentially game-changing factor, in the sense that the company’s operations rely on developing and managing ports in the continent, while providing training to African staff.

Air links are also key to economic development and regional integration, in which Emirates Airlines have had an important role. The company is the major air carrier, in terms of cargo and passengers, in several African markets – operates direct flights to 25 African destinations – and plans to create new routes in the continent. Africa is in fact crucial to the company’s strategy: the continent represented 9.6% of Emirate’s revenues during the financial year 2013/2014, having grown 15.1% annually.8

Moreover, Dubai has attracted an increasing number of African businessman, who regard the city-state as a base to trade with Africa. The Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Investment (DCCI) has been making efforts to attract companies to Dubai – the number of African companies listed in the DCCI increased 171% between 2008 and June 2014 –9 has organized two Global Africa Business Forum, and has offices in Ethiopia and Ghana – plans to open new ones in Angola, Nigeria, South Africa and Kenya. It is also worth noting that four of the main Chinese banks and 20 of the main Indian ones have already settled in Dubai, with the purpose of basing there their centers of operations to Africa.10 China was UAE’s main trade partner during the first half of 2014, with nearly 60% of Chinese exports transiting via the UAE, from where they are re-exported to Africa and Europe. On the other hand, with China’s growing involvement in Africa, a growing number of businessman have been traveling to the African continent using Dubai as a transit point. In addition, there are already more than 3,000 Chinese companies registered in Dubai.11

Also relevant is the fact that more than 2,000 Chinese companies have invested in Africa over the last decade, with estimates suggesting that by 2020 Chinese foreign direct investment in Africa will quadruple, while trade will double.12

Having said this, one can conclude that as the relationship be- tween China and the UAE deepens, and China-Africa ties accelerate, the UAE will position itself as an increasingly strategic gateway and hub for China’s relations with the African continent. Angola, given its status as a regional power and China’s strategic partner, is well placed to benefit from this.

The UAE as Angola’s strategic partner

The countries from the ‘South’ have become Angola’s main trade partners. In the first quarter of 2015, Portugal, Angola’s former colonial power, ceased to be the country’s main supplier, only to be surpassed by South Korea (21.5%) and China (16.8%). Additionally, China is the main recipient of Angolan exports with 43.9%, followed by India with 7.7%.13

According to some estimates, there are 500 Chinese companies operating in Angola and 260,000 Chinese nationals living in the country – a quarter from the total of Chinese people in Africa. In addition, Luanda is among Beijing’s main African partners and is China’s second largest oil-supplier. Angola has benefited from the development of infrastructures by Chinese companies and is increasingly regarded as a promising consumer market for Chinese exports. Thus, the deepening of ties between Luanda and Abu Dhabi is likely to boost Angola’s relationship with China.

Moving forward to UAE’s interests, Angola is seen as a market with high potential, not only in the trade field – UAE was the 10th largest exporter to Angola in the first quarter of 2015 –14 but also in terms of investment. In September 2013, DCCI’s chair, Abdul Rahman Saif Al Ghurair, stated that the Angolan economy presents good investment opportunities in a number of sectors for Dubai-based companies.15

The $19bn pledged, in September 2014, by UAE companies to West African nations for the construction of infrastructures through public-private partnerships (PPPs),16 is likely to have caught Luanda’s attention to the UAE’s potential in meeting Angola’s finance needs. In fact, when on his visit to Abu Dhabi, José Eduardo dos Santos expressed his interest in creating PPPs with UAE companies so as to “press ahead with infrastructure construction” and promote the diversification of Angola’s economy.17

Some UAE companies have already invested, or are willing to invest, in Angola, thus contributing to the desired economic diversification: Dubai Investments setting up an industrial park in Angola;18 in 2014, Araaj Group announced it had successfully exited an investment in Fibrex, an Angolan industrial company;19 in September 2014, Dubai-based air carrier Emirates signed an agreement with Angolan air carrier TAAG – of which it is the main shareholder – to manage the company for a 10 year period and also to cooperate in commercial opportunities in Africa; and hotel chains Rotana and Jumeirah have shown interest in exploring Angola’s tourism market.20

The mining sector is also key to this relationship. Angola is the world’s fourth largest diamond producer by value, and nearly half of its diamond exports are destined to Dubai – from where it is re-exported to other countries. Diamond trade in Dubai has grown to such an extent that in 2013 and 2014 it was worth almost $35bn.21

With this said, it is worth noting that diamonds are Angola’s second major source of export revenue after oil, although it represents a mere 2% of the country’s total exports. In 2013, Angola’s Vice-President, Manuel Vicente, reiterated that the diamonds industry will be a priority for the country over the course of the next decade, as it can play a key role in the diversification of the national economy. To that effect, the government has designed a strategic geological plan aimed at developing the mining sector until 2025.22

Being located at the center of the new Silk Road, Dubai has been affirming itself as a global diamond trade hub, opening up the possibility for Angola to use the diamond sector as an economic driving force. In sum, Angola has in Dubai a strategic partner to develop and build key infrastructures, boost exports and thus contribute to its economic diversification.

Conclusion

The new Silk Road promises to radically change international trade and investment patterns. The UAE, and Dubai in particular, have taken advantage of its extensive air and sea links, efficient customs processes and modern transport and logistic facilities, to consolidate itself as the main logistical actor in the Middle East and as an axis of global trade and investment. Dubai’s success is directly relevant to the African continent, to the extent that it can boost trade and investment between African countries and promote regional integration. In fact, as the data related to EAU-Africa interaction show, this relationship is well placed to be deepened and improved in every domain.

Africa’s relevance to Dubai’s economy will certainly increase as the UAE emerges as the next global logistical hub. The strategic investments in Africa, such as in the case of DP World and Emirates, point to a growing strategical consideration with which the UAE regards the African continent. With this said, Africa will become increasingly key to UAE’s interests, in terms of diplomacy, trade and foreign investment and, consequentially, in regards to national security.

The deepening of UAE-Africa relationships makes the Angolan President’s visit to Abu Dhabi no less than a strategic need. Due to the impact of low oil prices in Angola’s national finances, the government in Luanda urgently needs to diversify its economy and safeguard finance sources. Otherwise, the country risks falling into a dangerous spiral of socioeconomic instability and political turbulence.

It is widely known that Brazil and China are Angola’s major sources of infrastructure building. Nonetheless, Luanda needs to recognize that in order to overcome economic and financial challenges it has to widen the array of strategic partners.

With this in mind, UAE’s financial availability and private sector experience, coupled with the country’s assertion as a trade, investment and financial hub, serve this purpose, providing a potentially game-changing contribution to the diversification of Angola’s export base and economic development.

About the author:
* Gustavo Plåcido Dos Santos, analyst with Portuguese Institute of International Relations and Security (IPRIS)

Source:
This article was published by IPRIS as IPRIS Viewpoints #177 (PDF)

Notes:
1. Andrew England, “Angola seeks $10bn for infrastructure despite oil price collapse” (Financial Times, 22 April 2015).
2. Most of Brazil’s and India’s exports are destined to other countries in the “South”, while China’s near half already. Around 2050, 73% of Chinese exports will be directed at other emerging countries, while India and Brazil will send 83% of their exports through that very same route. Stephen King, “The Southern Silk Road” (HSBC Global Economics, June 2011), p. 3.
3. A new airport is being built in the Jebel Ali area. When of its inauguration – expected for 2020 –, the new airport will become the world leader in air freight transport. Natalie Robehmed, “How Dubai Became One Of The Most Important Aviation Hubs In The World” (Forbes, 4 June 2014).
4. Some of those multinationals are Nestlé, Louis Dreyfus, MIDOM Group and Huawei.
5. Sarie Khalid, “Dubai is Africa’s emerging trade and financing hub” (Khaleej Times, 2 November 2014).
6. John Bambridge, “Chamber of Commerce chief details the rise of the gateway emirate (Gulf Africa Review, 14 September 2014).
7. “Dubai Chamber seeks stronger economic ties with African countries” (Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 18 December 2013).
8. Londiwe Buthelezi, “Emirates grows African revenue as profit soars” (Business Report, 9 May 2014).
9. “Chamber of Commerce chief details the rise of the gateway emirate”.
10. Simeon Kerr, “Dubai becomes centre for Mideast-Africa trade” (Financial
Times, 25 November 2014).
11. 18 in 2005. “China to overtake India to become Dubai’s largest trading partner for 2014” (Emirates 24/7, 17 December 2014).
12. Denise Leung e Lihuan Zhou, “Where Are Chinese Investments in Africa Headed?” (World Resources Institute, 15 May 2014).
13. South Korea’s lead is a one-off event, as previous data on Angola’s imports from the Asian country is acutely less representative. “Estatísticas de Comercio Externo” (Instituto Nacional de Estatística de Angola, 2015).
14. Ibid.
15. Such as in infrastructures, transports, agriculture, tourism, logistics, banking
and industry. “Dubai Chamber examines business opportunities in Angola”
(Albawaba, 9 September 2013).
16. “UAE firms sign contracts worth $19bn for West Africa” (Arabian Business, 10
September 2014).
17. “Angola: Presidente da República convida empresários dos Emirados Árabes Unidos a investir no país” (Agência Angola Press, 15 June 2015).
18. “Dubai Investments invests in industrial park in Angola” (Macauhub, 19 March 2015).
19. Fibrex produces materials for the Angolan construction industry. “Abraaj successfully exits first investment in Angola” (Gulf Africa Review, 17 August 2014).
20. Sananda Sahoo, “Rotana leads UAE hotels checking in to Africa” (The National, 15 January 2015).
21. Stian Overdahl “The New Diamond Capital” (Bloomberg, 1 April 2015).
22. Oil represents 97% of total exports. Avi Krawitz “Angola, 100 Years Later.” (Diamond.net, 28 June 2013).

The post The United Arab Emirates, Africa And Angola In New Silk Road – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Tomorrow the United States of America celebrates the Fourth of July that commemorates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, the date when the United States separated formally from Great Britain. Still, it is worth noting that Morocco was the first country to seek diplomatic relations with the Government of the United States in 1777, and remains one of the oldest and closest allies in the region.

Formal U.S. relations with Morocco date from 1787, when the two nations negotiated a Treaty of Peace and Friendship. Renegotiated in 1836, the treaty is still in force, constituting the longest unbroken treaty relationship in U.S. history. As testament to the special nature of the U.S.-Moroccan relationship, Tangier is home to the oldest U.S. diplomatic property in the world, and the only building on foreign soil that is listed in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, the American Legation in Tangier (now a museum). Certainly since the signing of the Moroccan-American Treaty of Peace and Friendship 225 years ago, the first of its kind between the United States and a foreign country, the rulers of the Alawite dynasty have deployed great efforts to ensure good relations with Washington.

Every time the issue of relationship between the United States and Morocco is brought up, there is always a historical fact that characterizes this powerful relation: Morocco was the first country to recognize the independence of the United States. Since then, the two countries have always deployed tremendous efforts to consolidate their already excellent bilateral relations. This strategic historical partnership has undoubtedly given a fresh impetus to the two countries and has opened up vast promising prospects.

Throughout history, Morocco has always reiterated its keen desire to pursue consultation and coordination with the United States of America with a view to developing mechanisms to make sure their promising partnership leads to concrete projects that benefit key sectors in respective countries and serve as models of solidarity and complementarity in the region.

At the UN, the two countries’ views have always converged on key international issues to promote peace and stability around the world. Morocco has always offered wise advice and even concrete actions to boost the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians in total coordination with the American administration. This has never discouraged Morocco to offer candid and honest views to put the peace process back on the negotiation table. A position that has gained Morocco a lot of credibility and respect in the eyes of the American leadership.

Since King Mohammed VI acceded to the throne on 23 July 1999, all his efforts of in-depth reform in Morocco were highly appreciated and supported by the American leadership. Under his leadership, Morocco‐US relationship has witnessed an impressive evolution on economic, political, social, and security fronts. The 2004 Free Trade Agreement, the designation of Morocco as a non‐NATO Ally, and the signing of a $697.5 million Compact with the Millennium Challenge Corporation to reduce poverty and increase economic growth crowned that close cooperation. In recognition of this strong alliance, on September 13, 2012, Morocco and the United States launched a Strategic Dialogue.

Letters from former President Bush and current President Obama praising Morocco’s commitment to democracy, rule of law and sustainable development including Morocco’s continuous endeavors to set up a complementary, integrated Maghreb Union to promote a regional environment in which the people concerned can enjoy security, prosperity and stability.

Morocco shares US earnest ambition regarding the achievement of sustainable development in Africa. Morocco has always stood by American side to uphold the ideals of freedom, justice, equality and dignity, to foster good governance and shared progress, to promote the lofty human values of tolerance and intercultural, inter-faith coexistence and to reject all forms of violence, extremism and insularity. The most recent King Mohammed’s trip in West Africa came once more as a powerful testimony of tremendous credibility that Morocco enjoys in this part of the continent. Therefore, Morocco has become a gateway to Africa and is ready to welcome American investments interested to access the African market.

Morocco pledged to do whatever it can to contribute to the emergence of a better, safer, more peaceful and more equitable world which is committed to upholding the principles of solidarity and to international legitimacy.

This “parfaite entente” between the two countries resulted into the creation of the Strategic Dialogue, recognition of than a decade of peaceful reforms and stability under the leadership of King Mohammed VI. The two countries signed the Strategic Dialogue, which will not be affected by changes in administration, leadership or personnel, officially begins and builds on bilateral advances already achieved, including the Morocco-US Free Trade Agreement, the Millennium Challenge Compact, and Morocco’s designation as a major non-NATO ally.

It is high time now to give a new impetus to the private sector, NGOs, think tanks, universities…from both countries to implement many of the agreements and accords reached between the two countries. Both Moroccans and Americans should now accelerate their initiatives and projects in different fields to give a meaning to excellent political relations between the two countries. An economic, cultural, educational road map should be elaborated to open doors for potential projects from both sides.

Rabat is and will remain a key regional ally of Washington, particularly in the fight against terrorism and extremism. King Mohammed VI met President Barack Obama at the White House for the first time in November 2013. In a Joint Statement issued following their meeting, King Mohammed VI and President Obama:

“reaffirmed the strong and mutually beneficial partnership and strategic alliance between the United States and the Kingdom of Morocco, stressed that this important visit provides an opportunity to map out a new and ambitious plan for the strategic partnership, and pledged to advance our shared priorities of a secure, stable, and prosperous Maghreb, Africa, and Middle East. The two leaders also emphasized our shared values, mutual trust, common interests, and strong friendship, as reflected throughout our partnership.”

In fact, both diplomatic and economic relations between Morocco and the United States have sometimes evolved in different ways, but they have never witnessed an overall positive development until the current reign of King Mohammed VI. Since his accession to the throne in 1999, the Moroccan monarch has indeed done everything to reduce the distance between his country and the American giant.

With the launch of this strategic dialogue, analysts say, trade exchanges and political coordination will surely be increased and therefore political and diplomatic relations between Rabat and Washington will continue to strengthen.

If Morocco was the first country to recognize the independence of the United States, it should now be the first country to develop a strong win-win partnership with the United States.

The post Morocco First Country To Recognize US Independence In 1777 – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

On Wednesday, the Pentagon released its 2015 National Military Strategy, a 24-page blueprint for ruling the world through military force. While the language in the report is subtler and less incendiary than similar documents in the past, the determination to unilaterally pursue US interests through extreme violence remains the cornerstone of the new strategy. Readers will not find even a hint of remorse in the NMS for the vast destruction and loss of life the US caused in countries that posed not the slightest threat to US national security. Instead, the report reflects the steely resolve of its authors and elite constituents to continue the carnage and bloodletting until all potential rivals have been killed or eliminated and until such time that Washington feels confident that its control over the levers of global power cannot be challenged.

As one would expect, the NMS conceals its hostile intentions behind the deceptive language of “national security”. The US does not initiate wars of aggression against blameless states that possess large quantities of natural resources. No. The US merely addresses “security challenges” to “protect the homeland” and to “advance our national interests.” How could anyone find fault with that, after all, wasn’t the US just trying to bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria?

In the Chairman’s Forward, Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey attempts to prepare the American people for a future of endless war:

“Future conflicts will come more rapidly, last longer, and take place on a much more technically challenging battlefield. … We must be able to rapidly adapt to new threats while maintaining comparative advantage over traditional ones … the application of the military instrument of power against state threats is very different than the application of military power against non state threats. We are more likely to face prolonged campaigns than conflicts that are resolved quickly … that control of escalation is becoming more difficult and more important.” (Document: 2015 U.S. National Military Strategy, USNI News)

War, war and more war. This is the Pentagon’s vision of the future. Unlike Russia or China which have a plan for an integrated EU-Asia free trade zone (Silk Road) that will increase employment, improve vital infrastructure, and raise living standards, the US sees only death and destruction ahead. Washington has no strategy for the future, no vision of a better world. There is only war; asymmetrical war, technological war, preemptive war. The entire political class and their elite paymasters unanimously support global rule through force of arms. That is the unavoidable meaning of this document. The United States intends to maintain its tenuous grip on global power by maximizing the use of its greatest asset; its military.

And who is in the military’s gunsights? Check out this excerpt from an article in Defense News:

“The strategy specifically calls out Iran, Russia and North Korea as aggressive threats to global peace. It also mentions China, but notably starts that paragraph by saying the Obama administration wants to “support China’s rise and encourage it to become a partner for greater international security,” continuing to thread the line between China the economic ally and China the regional competitor.

“None of these nations are believed to be seeking direct military conflict with the United States or our allies,” the strategy reads. “Nonetheless, they each pose serious security concerns which the international community is working to collectively address by way of common policies, shared messages, and coordinated action.” (Pentagon Releases National Military Strategy, Defense News)

Did you catch that last part? “None of these nations are believed to be seeking direct military conflict with the United States or our allies. Nevertheless, they each pose serious security concerns.”

In other words, none of these countries wants to fight the United States, but the United States wants to fight them. And the US feels it’s justified in launching a war against these countries because, well, because they either control vast resources, have huge industrial capacity, occupy an area of the world that interests the US geopolitically, or because they simply want to maintain their own sovereign independence which, of course, is a crime. According to Dempsey, any of these threadbare excuses are sufficient justification for conflict mainly because they “pose serious security concerns” for the US, which is to say they undermine the US’s dominant role as the world’s only superpower.

The NMS devotes particular attention to Russia, Washington’s flavor-of-the-month enemy who had the audacity to defend its security interests following a State Department-backed coup in neighboring Ukraine. For that, Moscow must be punished. This is from the report:

“Some states, however, are attempting to revise key aspects of the international order and are acting in a manner that threatens our national security interests. While Russia has contributed in select security areas, such as counternarcotics and counterterrorism, it also has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not respect the sovereignty of its neighbors and it is willing to use force to achieve its goals. Russia’s military actions are undermining regional security directly and through proxy forces. These actions violate numerous agreements that Russia has signed in which it committed to act in accordance with international norms.” (2015 NMS)

Russia is an evildoer because Russia refused to stand by while the US toppled the Ukrainian government, installed a US stooge in Kiev, precipitated a civil war between the various factions, elevated neo Nazis to positions of power in the security services, plunged the economy into insolvency and ruin, and opened a CIA headquarters in the Capital to run the whole shooting match. This is why Russia is bad and must be punished.

But does that mean Washington is seriously contemplating a war with Russia?

Here’s an excerpt from the document that will help to clarify the matter:

“For the past decade, our military campaigns primarily have consisted of operations against violent extremist networks. But today, and into the foreseeable future, we must pay greater attention to challenges posed by state actors. They increasingly have the capability to contest regional freedom of movement and threaten our homeland. Of particular concern are the proliferation of ballistic missiles, precision strike technologies, unmanned systems, space and cyber capabilities, and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) technologies designed to counter U.S. military advantages and curtail access to the global commons.” (2015 NMS)

It sounds to me like the Washington honchos have already made up their minds. Russia is the enemy, therefore, Russia must be defeated. How else would one “counter a revisionist state” that “threatens our homeland”?

Why with Daisy Cutters, of course. Just like everyone else.

The NMS provides a laundry list of justifications for launching wars against (imaginary) enemies of the US. The fact is, the Pentagon sees ghosts around every corner. Whether the topic is new technologies, “shifting demographics” or cultural differences; all are seen as a potential threat to US interests, particularly anything related to the “competition for resources.” In this skewed view of reality, one can see how the invasion of Iraq was justified on the grounds that Saddam’s control of Iraq’s massive oil reserves posed a direct challenge to US hegemony. Naturally, Saddam had to be removed and over a million people killed to put things right and return the world to a state of balance. This is the prevailing view of the National Military Strategy, that is, that whatever the US does is okay, because its the US.

Readers shouldn’t expect to find something new in the NMS. This is old wine in new bottles. The Pentagon has merely updated the Bush Doctrine while softening the rhetoric. There’s no need to scare the living daylights out of people by talking about unilateralism, preemption, shrugging off international law or unprovoked aggression. Even so, everyone knows that United States is going to do whatever the hell it wants to do to keep the empire intact. The 2015 National Military Strategy merely confirms that sad fact.

The post The Pentagon’s ‘2015 Strategy’ For Ruling The World – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Olaya Alvarez

The beginning of the European project took place with the aftermath of the Second World War. After years of war, destruction and nationalism, Europeans decided not to repeatsuch an awful experience.

However, previous steps were done before the creation of the European Communities.

In 1947 the USA launched the Marshall Plan (aimed at grant economic aid for European States), which for its administration required a certain degree of institutionalized cooperation and coordination between States.

Then, in 1948 was signed the Brussels Treaty between France, UK, Belgium, Luxembourg and Netherlands; and in 1949 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization came into existence. A further important step took also place in 1949 when the Statute on the Council of Europe was signed, giving place in 1950 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Given that trend towards unity context, the French foreign minister Robert Schuman came up with the creation of a single Franco-German High Authority to join coal and steel resources: the ‘Schuman Plan’. This proposal was aimed not only to re-establish Franco-German relations after the war, but to set up a control upon coal and steel productions in order to erase the fear against a military threat and put an end to the century-old conflict between France and Germany[1]. This pooling of production would make ‘any war between France and Germany […], not merely unthinkable, but physically impossible.’[2]Coal and steel were considered as ‘heavy industry’, which served as a base for other sectors, among which is armament.

The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) lingered for fifty years, from 1951 to 2002, being the original signatories France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux[3] countries. This treaty is considered as the beginning of the current European Union, and an essential step towards the Franco-German relations normalization and the European federation.

The creation of an European Defence Community was also intended, involving a need of coordinated foreign policy and a certain degree of economic integration. However, this proposal was rejected by the French national assembly.

The other Communities project was born in 1956, when a committee chaired by Paul-Henri Spaak (the Belgian Prime Minister) issued its report establishing the key features for what became the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), and the European Economic Community (EEC). Finally, in 1957 that treaties were signed.

Among the main economic aims were to set up a common market, promote stability, the economic approach of state policies and increase the standard of living, among others. The original signatories were the same countries as in the European Coal and Steel Community.

The result of this process were three individual Communities, with its own powers and functions, which after a complex process of integration would lead to the current European Union. Since the very beginning, the purpose was not to create a traditional intergovernmental organization, but to achieve a unified Europe. Firstly the purpose was to avoid the past war episodes, and then join forces against the Soviet Union. Nowadays the European Union is a solid reality which embraces 28 Member States, joint in a common project and a common future.

Texts consulted:
Craig, P. and De Búrca, G. (2008). EU LAW. TEXT, CASES AND MATERIALS. Oxford.
Hartley, T. C. (2004). EUROPEAN UNION LAW IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT. Text, Cases and Materials. Cambridge.

Notes:
[1]SchumanDeclaration.
[2]Hartley, T. C. (2004). EUROPEAN UNION LAW IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT. Text, Cases and Materials. Cambridge.

[3]Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg

The post The Beginning Of The European Union – Background appeared first on Eurasia Review.

According to research about the electoral behavior of Turkish people, it seems pretty obvious that retrospective and ego-tropic factors determine the political attitude. This means that people check their personal recent past and decide their political preference. For instance, through the general elections held after the economic crisis in 2001, electors punished the traditional political parties that were responsible for the nightmares of their recent past and put the AKP (Justice and Development Party) into power in 2002.

Throughout the AKP governments, in consequence of its perception management policies, electors were consolidated via ‘political stability’ which was symbolized as a motto: ‘don’t stop, keep going on’ and via ‘economic development’, whose symbol was ‘the divided highway’. Therefore, recent past of electors was full of these symbols in the process of the general elections held in 2007 and 2011.

Then, what were the major figures on the elector’s recent past before voting in 2015 general election held on June 7, the result which constrained the AKP from coming to power alone? So, why did people leave the -so to say- divided highway?

To begin with, after the 2010 referendum of constitutional amendment and general elections held in 2011, the AKP accelerated the creation of a ‘new Turkey’ that brought authoritarianism and corporatism to forefront.

Accordingly, this authoritarianism created some sufferers, such as the working class, women, eco-activists, peasants, Alevîs, Kurds, journalists, Kemalists, youth, atheists, entrepreneurs, i.e., people who were not pro-AKP. These sufferers became integrated when restriction on unions, suggestion for women to have at least three children, the abortion law, haphazard construction sector, nuclear power plant and hydroelectric dam projects, imprisonments, bans on alcohol usage, pressure over student houses, criticism of smoking styles, and stepping into the writing of columns, tweets, and even gestures were at the top of Turkish government’s busy agenda.

This integration of different fractions posed a danger for the hegemony of the AKP. So much so that, this way of conduct hit the wall in Gezi Park protests and METU (Middle East Technical University) resistance in 2013, in which sufferers of this strategy demonstrated.

Another factor of these mass movements was the AKP’s fetish of developmentalism that was a driving force for electors before. During the METU resistance, this raving desire for developmentalism in the construction of a divided highway was put into words by the AKP leaders as, ‘I would even demolish a mosque for the highway’s sake’.

Interestingly, this discourse did not get an adverse reaction from the AKP grassroots who substantially describe themselves as religious and conservative individuals. This silence was repeated, in the mocking on the section names of the Quran by the AKP members, in the sacred-themed pastry ceremonies, and in the declamations for the AKP leaders as if they were prophets or God himself. Therefore, such a kind of silence also generated cleavages between AKP supporters and ordinary Muslims of Turkey.

The Soma coal mine disaster added new phases to the AKP conduct which demonstrates characteristics of authoritarian, corporatist, clientelist, and paternalist way of policy making. The affiliation between the holding owner and the AKP leaders eased the sale of the mine to the holding owner. This type of relation becomes apparent when the networks between the AKP and the pro-government bourgeois fraction in the construction sector are considered. That’s why the AKP governments have amended the public procurement law innumerable times.

After the death of 301 mine workers, in May 2014, the AKP government immediately sent their ‘legitimization gang’ comprised of ecclesiastics to Soma to persuade the people that the disaster was not a result of government politics, but instead was an act of God. Therefore, the AKP government utilized Islam as an instrument once again.

Interestingly enough, even after one year from the massacre, some miners, who survived after the disaster, were persecuted due to their march in which one of them was kicked by a high bureaucrat.

In this context, the new hegemonic project of the AKP, the so-called ‘new Turkey’, was a stillbirth and hopeless owing to the marginalization of the different fractions of the public that had paved the way for the ‘us-them’ separation. Thus, new discourses were included in the political science literature of Turkey, such as ‘common enemy’, ‘excuse me Armenian’, ‘superior mind’, ‘attempted coup’, ‘you know Alevî’, and ‘parallel structure’.

Ultimately, when the electors checked their recent past before voting in the general election of 2015, all they found was authoritarianism, corporatism, fetish of developmentalism, marginalisation, anti-democratic implementations, harsh discourses during electioneering, clientelism, paternalism, ever-mounting oppression, arrogance, and unlawfulness.

That is why the Turkish public decided to leave the ‘divided highway’ of the AKP and decided instead to take the road that seems more reconciliatory, pluralist, and peaceful.

About the author:
*Halil Ibrahim Canbegi is researcher fellow at Global Policy and Strategy Institute in Turkey. His work focuses on the Middle East regional politics, Turkish domestic and foreign policy, and the political Islam. He is double-majoring in political science and international security at graduate level.

The post Why The Turkish People Left The Divided Highway – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Turkish soccer player Alpaslan Ozturk’s decision to risk fame and wealth by expressing support for the embattled Turkic Uighur minority in Xinjiang reflects pressures in China’s ties to Turkey, its most complex relationship in the Muslim world and a key node on the Silk Road that Beijing hopes to revive with massive investment in infrastructure across the Eurasian land mass.

In Mr. Ozturk’s case, two Chinese clubs could simply penalize the player for his remarks by calling off plans to hire him after he demanded that ten percent of his future salary be donated to Uighurs in ‘East Turkestan.’ By using the term employed by nationalist Uighurs rather than Xinjiang, the Chinese reference to the region, Mr. Ozturk poured fuel on the fire.

In a Facebook posting quoted by Turkish media, Mr. Ozturk, a 22 year-old Belgian-Turkish national, said that “it is not right for me to breath in a country that skins our Muslim brothers alive. I thought so and I decided so. We see it on the television and in newspapers every day. Uighur Turks are being slaughtered since they are fasting (during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan).”

Mr. Ozturk said his statement was his way of rejecting the Chinese offers.” I condemn a country that slaughters people for being Muslims and fasting. I wasn’t thinking of going to China when I received offers. Since I wasn’t willing to live there, I laid down these conditions and thus the transfer was cancelled,” he said.

Mr. Ozturk’s statement may not have been appreciated in Beijing, but it resonated with Turks, including the government, whose affinity to the Uighurs is based on both ethnicity and religion. Turkey is also a major gathering point for Uighur exiles and opposition groups that have long complained about discrimination and restrictions on following their Muslim faith.

As many as 28 people were killed last month in a clash in the city of Kashgar when police stopped a car at a checkpoint. It was the latest in a series of incidents involving protests as well as political violence in recent years.

“While Mr. Ozturk’s decision may of course be his own personal preference, it is hard to separate the footballer from the politics in this case,” said John Konuk Blasing, who first highlighted the soccer player’s action on his blog, thisisfootballislife.com

Mr. Ozturk’s statement provided grist on the mill of Turkish nationalists as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan sought to forge a coalition government in the wake of last month’s parliamentary election that failed to produce an absolute majority for his ruling Justice and Democracy Party (AKP). If successful, discussions to form a coalition with Turkey’s ultra-nationalist, Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) which traces its roots to pan-Turkism could complicate relations with China.

Politicking over Xinjiang was evident in recent reporting in pro-government media of a visit to Beijing by the left-wing Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), which dashed the AKP’s hopes in the election and became the first pro-Kurdish party to be represented in parliament. An AKP-MHP coalition could also deal a death knell to a Turkish-Kurdish peace process that would end violence in south-eastern Turkey and grant Kurds greater rights.

To sully the HDP, a pro-AKP newspaper published a bloodied image of Xinjiang saying that a HDP delegation was visiting Beijing “despite the East Turkestan torture.” An opposition newspaper, meanwhile, published time a statement by actors and academics calling for Uighur independence in Xinjiang.

Despite broad-based Turkish support for the Uighurs, China has to be more circumspect with Turkey than its clubs were with Mr. Ozturk given Turkey’s status as a regional power in Central Asia and the Middle East and its geographic location at the western end of the One Belt, One Road (Silk Road) initiative that has become a cornerstone of Chinese policy.

Turkey dropped official support for Uighur separatist groups following a 2010 visit by then Prime Minister Wen Jiabao during which China upgraded relations to strategic. The two countries hoped that the emphasis on cultural and economic rights backed up by Turkish investment in Xinjiang would help dampen nationalist sentiment. At the same time, China favours Turkey over Egypt or Saudi Arabia for the education of its imams.

The Turkish-Chinese strategy has yet to pay off. Global Times, a Communist Party newspaper, estimates that some 300 Chinese nationals have joined Islamic State (IS), the jihadist group that controls a swath of Syria and Iraq.

An IS video with Chinese subtitles portrayed in October 2014 “a Chinese brother before he did a martyrdom operation (suicide bomb attack)” in the town of Suleiman. Months earlier, Chinese police aided by satellite images detected dozens of cross-border tunnels in northwest Xinjiang that could facilitate the infiltration of operatives of Uighur separatist groups.

Fears of the IS’s potential impact on Xinjiang, has prompted some Chinese analysts to call on their government to join the US-led coalition in Iraq. “China lacks military capabilities to join anti-terror operations…. China can instead provide funding, equipment and goods for the allies. It can also help by providing training local army and police personnel, an area in which China is experienced,” said prominent Chinese Middle East scholar Ma Xiaolin in a posting on his blog. He noted that China was already sharing intelligence with coalition partners.

Chinese concerns were bolstered when IS identified East Turkistan as one of its target areas and the group’s caliph, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi listed the People’s Republic at the top of his list of countries that violate Muslim rights in his declaration of the caliphate. Maps circulating at the time on Twitter purporting to highlight IS’s expansion plans included substantial parts of Xinjiang.

Mr. Ozturk is not known as an IS supporter even if the group may emerge on the ground in Xinjiang as one of Uighur nationalism’s foremost promoters as a result of Chinese policies that choke of more moderate expressions.

“I said what I said. It is not a message bearing the intention of showing off. I just posted a message on my Facebook profile to my friends who follow and love me. I never thought this would come to this point. I said what I said and it was obvious,” Mr. Ozturk said.

The post Pitfalls Of Turkish-Chinese Relations In A Microcosm – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The US Bureau of Indian Affairs is recognizing the tribe of Pocahontas more than 400 years after she encountered the first permanent English settlers in what is now the United States.

Virginia’s Pamunkey Indian Tribe’s decades-long bid for recognition came to an end on Thursday, when they finally received federal designation. The designation is shared by hundreds of other recognized tribes around the country and allows Native American tribes to receive federal benefits, including education, medical care and housing. The process cost them more than $2 million.

The decision, which goes into effect for the 200-member tribe in 90 days, allows for other special legal privileges such as the ability to sell tax-free goods on tribal land, which is located 25 miles east of the Richmond, the state’s capital. Additionally, the recognition opens the door for the Pamunkey to begin a separate process to open a casino.

“We’re looking at all economic opportunities, but we have nothing on the table right now,” Bob Gray, Pamunkey’s assistant chief, told the Associated Press.

The tribe’s quest for recognition was actively opposed by MGM Resorts, which is currently building a casino of its own in nearby Maryland. As part of its strategy to deny the tribe recognition, MGM pointed out that the Pamunkey had banned interracial marriage during their history, even though the practice was abandoned long ago.

“This is a group that Pocahontas was a member of, so it truly is a historical act,” Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn told the Washington Post in an interview. “This is one of the most solemn duties we have in my job, to determine who the United States has a government-to-government relationship with. It’s really gratifying to go through this rigorous process and be at this stage.”

The Pamunkey Tribe is historically renowned, counting the famed Pocahontas as one of its ancestors. When John Smith and other English settlers arrived to build the first successful American settlement of Jamestown, the Indians warmly received the colonists, granting them food and aid.

The Pamunkey Tribe is the second to gain recognition during Barack Obama’s presidency. Six other Virginia tribes are currently seeking designation through acts of Congress.

The post Pocahontas’ Tribe Finally Recognized By US After 400 Years appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Friday, June 26, 2015 was a day of horror. In the seaside resort of Sousse in Tunisia nearly 40 sunbathing tourists were mown down by gunfire; earlier that morning a decapitated head was found at the scene of a terrorist attack near Lyon, France; around noon, a suicide bomber in Kuwait killed at least 25 people worshipping at a Shia mosque. Meanwhile Islamic State (IS) fighters slaughtered at least 200 people during an attack on the Syrian town of Kobane – an attack that was mercifully repelled by Kurdish Peshmerga fighters.

Were the incidents of June 26 intended as a grotesque commemoration of the first anniversary of IS, which self-proclaimed itself on June 29, 2014? They were certainly in the same order of bloodthirsty barbarity as the succession of inhumane and philistine IS acts that have dominated the world’s media, and shocked and sickened decent people everywhere, for the past twelve months.

What is IS, and what does it seek? IS claims to be re-establishing the caliphate of the early days of Islam, and declares its intention first to entrench its rule over Iraq and Syria, then to extend its sway over the Middle East as a whole, and finally to impose its version of sharia law on the entire world. Mainstream Muslim opinion rejects IS’s pretension to represent a worldwide caliphate, and refuses to acknowledge its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as caliph over all Muslims. It refutes his assertion that “the legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organisations, becomes null by the expansion of the caliphate’s authority and arrival of its troops to their areas”.  There is a general consensus in the Muslim world, Sunni and Shia constituents alike, that Baghdadi’s pretensions are absurd, and that the ruthless and vicious savagery of IS’s terrorist activities against communities and individuals represents a perversion of Islam.

So far the world’s response to the global jihad waged, sponsored and fed by IS, has been woefully deficient. Politically hampered by the unhappy results of its incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq, the West has taken half-hearted action against IS in Iraq and Syria under the less-than-inspiring banner of “No boots on the ground”. Personnel sent in to train local forces, allied to air support for local military offensives, have produced little by way of positive results, and IS continues to go from strength to strength.

But IS’s bloodthirsty onslaught on the civilized world – its strategy in its preposterous struggle to dominate the globe – simply cannot be allowed to continue, and at last influential voices in the West are beginning to proclaim the obvious: Islamic State can and must be defeated militarily. Only when it is totally vanquished, and the areas in Iraq and Syria that it has occupied are liberated, will the baleful influence that IS exercises over so many vulnerable young Muslim people be exorcised. And of course, if a West-led coalition can muster the will, it certainly possesses the military might to overwhelm, crush and annihilate IS. Israel’s former prime minister, Ehud Barak, may be a tad optimistic in asserting that it could be defeated in a matter of days, but that it could be defeated reasonably speedily is certain.

In the US a pair of Senators – one Democrat, the other Republican – have just launched an attempt to force Congress to provide the administration with specific authority for the fight. Democrat Timothy Kaine and Republican Jeff Flake have introduced a Bill that would authorize military force for three years against Islamic State and “associated forces”. President Obama appears to favour the initiative.

In the UK, Lord Dannatt, former head of Britain’s armed forces, has called for British troops to be deployed on the ground to fight IS in Iraq and Syria.

Even the Vatican, appalled by the beheading by IS of 21 Coptic Christians in Libya, has declared that the jihadists must be stopped. Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s top diplomat at the UN in Geneva, said: “What’s needed is a co-ordinated and well-thought-out coalition to do everything possible to achieve a political settlement without violence. But if that’s not possible, then the use of force will be necessary.”

How right he is – though the idea of reaching “a political settlement without violence” with IS is clearly a pipe dream. But “a co-ordinated and well-thought-out coalition”, especially if led by the US, certainly would be a desirable basis for a massive onslaught against the forces of IS.

The template for such a strategy has thoughtfully been supplied to the world by the proactive new monarch of Saudi Arabia, King Salman. Faced by the militant Iranian-backed rebel organization, the Houthis, rampaging through Yemen – his country’s backyard – he put aside any past disagreements with Muslim states and quickly assembled a coalition of no less than twelve of them, not only in the Middle East but including Malaysia and Senegal. He then led an air-backed military strike against the rebels, forcing them very quickly to a truce.

Most of the countries in Salman’s coalition would be prepared to join a new US-led alliance dedicated to destroying IS in Iraq and Syria, for most are as opposed to IS as to Iran. No Muslim nation would wish to see self-proclaimed Caliph Baghdadi lording it over their territory, or even stirring up supporters within their borders.

Turkey would have its own, additional, reasons for participating, for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is already reported to be preparing to send a force of perhaps 18,000 troops into Syria. It would have twin objectives: to establish a buffer zone along the border so as to accommodate refugees on Syrian rather than Turkish soil (Turkey has accepted some two million since the start of the Syrian civil war), and to prevent the emergence of a Kurdish state on Turkey’s doorstep by blocking the two current zones of Kurdish control from joining up. “We will never allow the establishment of a state in Syria’s north and our south,” said Erdogan recently.

Turkey is not alone in actively considering armed intervention against IS. Jordan – another member of Salman’s anti-Houthi coalition – is also reported to be drawing up plans to establish a safe zone in southern Syria, following concerns that IS could take over territory close to its border if the Assad regime was to withdraw from the city of Deraa.

The mood music is changing. The accepted Western view – that putting Western boots on the ground of Iraq or Syria would be seen as “an army of occupation”– is being challenged on all sides. The time for indecisiveness is over. If the world is to be freed from the madness of IS, the time for positive action is now.

The post This Islamic State Madness Has Gone On Long Enough – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Hardliners in the U.S. argue that the Obama administration’s eagerness to declare success has given Iran an advantage in the negotiations on its nuclear programme. Even if the agreement between the U.S., its partners, and Iran is finalised in the coming days, Obama has the tough task of convincing the U.S. Congress to lift sanctions.

By Seema Sirohi*

The Iran nuclear deal is U.S. President Barack Obama’s biggest foreign policy gamble, one that his administration has spent considerable political capital crafting and defending.

But critics say the agreement is not tough enough and doesn’t hold Teheran’s feet to the fire. They argue that no deal is better than a bad deal. The Obama administration’s eagerness to declare success has given Iran the upper hand, they argue.

Stirring the American pot are Saudi Arabia and Israel, who have used their influence on the U.S. Congress to raise questions.

The deadline for reaching a final agreement is June 30, but reports suggest it may be extended. A framework agreement, which broadly says that Iran will restrict its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, was crafted in April, leaving the details to be worked out over the next three months.

Several hurdles remain over how much access Iran would allow to international inspectors to ascertain the state of its nuclear programme. Iran has said military sites are off limits, something the critics have seized upon as a sign of Teheran’s games, although it appears the hard line may be a negotiating tactic.

Senator Bob Corker, a Republican and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote to Obama last week saying the U.S. should be willing to walk away from negotiations unless Iran allows “anytime, anywhere” inspections of all nuclear sites.

“Walking away from a bad deal at this point would take courage, but it would be the best thing for the United States, the region and the world,” Corker wrote. He was the architect of a law passed recently giving the U.S. Congress the right to review the final deal before sanctions can be lifted.

Other critics include Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a Republican presidential candidate, who has used the Iran deal to tar Obama’s foreign policy record. Calling the preliminary agreement “very troubling,” he questioned why Teheran was being allowed to keep thousands of centrifuges. Besides, the deal does nothing to curtain Iran’s ballistic missile programme.

He has also raised the issue of Iran’s alleged support for terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah. “Under this President’s watch, Iran has expanded its influence in the Middle East, sowing instability throughout the region,” Rubio said recently. “The nuclear deal is nothing but an attempt to “spin diplomatic failure as a success.”

There is no doubt that even if the deal is finalised in the coming days, Obama will face an uphill battle in the U.S. Congress before sanctions can be lifted.

Latest reports say the U.S. and its partners (China, Russia, France, Britain, and Germany) are inching towards an agreement with Iran given that both sides have staked so much on success.

Signs of compromise can be detected—Iran may allow inspection of military sites while the U.S. may not insist on a complete investigation of Teheran’s past research, which many experts believe was geared towards making a nuclear weapon.

If true, both moves are major concessions, and something that hardliners in both countries are likely to seize. The Investor’s Business Daily, a right-wing business weekly, has called it a “hemorrhage of concessions” by Obama, saying he was fixated on getting the deal.

The nuclear deal is just as important for Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as it is for Obama. For Rouhani, failure means political obscurity and ultimately an end to his career. Reports say that supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, although a hardliner, supports the nuclear agreement.

The negotiations started nearly two years ago in Vienna to end the nuclear stalemate between Iran and the west. Through the years, UN-mandated sanctions have seriously affected Iran’s economy as western countries pressured all its partners to stop buying Iranian oil.

Aaron David Miller, a seasoned U.S. negotiator in the Middle East peace process in years past, has called the agreement “the least bad of the terrible options available to slow Iran’s nuclear programme.” But he warned that the deal will produce other results—it will make Iran stronger and richer, which would lead to a Middle East more hostile to the U.S. And Iran will “still retain the capacity to build nuclear weapons.”

If the two sides succeed in the coming days and the sanctions are lifted—two very big “ifs” —the game in the Middle East will change.

*Seema Sirohi is a Washington-based analyst and a frequent contributor to Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. Seema is also on Twitter, and her handle is @seemasirohi. This article was published by Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

The post Critics Of Iran Nuclear Deal Press On – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Melanie Keyte

Coca-Cola has defended its business practices in Burma after an international industry watchdog pointed out connections between the corporation’s local partner and the US Treasury-blacklisted company Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited (MEHL).

Prior to recommencing business in Burma, the drinks giant insisted it had conducted “comprehensive” due diligence checks in the years 2009 to 2012 “based on the information at the time”. But it wasn’t until Global Witness alerted Coca-Cola to these links that the conglomerate realised that its only local director in Burma, Shwe Cynn, was also a shareholder in the jade mining company Xie Family.

Juman Kubba, a spokesperson for Global Witness, told DVB on Thursday that while there may not have been any actual wrongdoing by either company, the fact that Coca-Cola’s partner had a stake in the jade business should have raised some red flags.

“The jade sector is notorious for corruption, military involvement, and environmental and human rights abuse, and Myanmar jade is still subject to US sanctions,” she said.

“Xie Family itself has had a long-standing partnership with the army company, Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited, which is also subject to US sanctions and which has been embroiled in allegations of land-grabbing, pollution and the use of violence against protestors in connection to the Letpadaung mining project.”

Coca-Cola responded, saying that having recently completed further checks on their local entities and directors, they concluded that there were no breaches of ethical business conduct.

“Our findings from the additional due diligence conducted in 2015 are in line with our earlier assessment and we remain confident that our investment is in compliance with applicable laws,” read the statement released by the US-based corporation on 30 June.

“Daw Shwe Cynn’s relationship with the Xie Family is unrelated to our business,” Coca-Cola public relations Christine Shapiro told DVB on 2 July.

In 2014, a ‘report card’ released by US Campaign for Burma (USCB) assessing American companies investing in Burma declared Coca-Cola the only “responsible investor” of the six corporations investigated. However, the beverage manufacturer’s report fell down in failing to properly explain how it selected Pinya Manufacturing Co Ltd – where Shwe Cynn is a shareholder – as its local partner.

USCB Executive Director Simon Billenness said that due to the pervasive presence of the military in the Burmese market, avoiding connections somewhere along the line can be difficult.

“Coca-Cola spent a lot of time and money doing its due diligence on prospective business partners in Burma,” he said.

“The fact that the military is so intwined with the economy and local business community means that such due diligence is insufficient. It is virtually impossible to find a local business partner in Burma that is not complicit in human rights abuses or in business with the military.”

Kubba agrees, saying that this case highlights the limitations of private due diligence, but questions how the checks, reportedly amounting to a seven-figure sum, could have missed the connection.

“Despite spending huge sums on big-name [due] diligence companies, Coca-Cola failed to pick up on this connection – and the question is why. Were the right questions asked in the first place? Were points such as the local partner’s known connection to the jewellery trade pursued?” she said.

The Global Witness spokesperson added that in order to avoid such “nasty surprises” in future, the company needed to maintain transparency in its business dealings.

“Of course, in an opaque environment like Myanmar, there may be times when even the most thorough due diligence has gaps.

“It is therefore crucial that international companies publish details of the local individuals who own and control their Myanmar business ventures, to provide an opportunity for any such gaps to be identified and filled.”

Coca-Cola has since made moves to cool the issue, publishing the names of two corporate shareholders in their Burmese business venture, but has not released the names of the individuals who control them. The Atlanta-based firm also said it is working with Shwe Cynn and Global Witness to “raise concerns” regarding the unethical reputation of the jade mining industry.

“While the jade mining industry is unrelated to our business, we encouraged and facilitated engagement between Daw Shwe Cynn and Global Witness.

“We hope that Global Witness will agree and is willing to play a role to work with related parties in Myanmar to bring about the positive and long-lasting change in the country.”

In June 2013, Coca-Cola opened a bottling plant in Hmawbi Township in the outskirts of Rangoon, part of a reported investment of around US$200 million in Burma, as the multinational firm re-entered the country after a hiatus of more than 60 years.

It was one of the first US companies to announce investment in Burma after the suspension of economic sanctions on the country in 2012, following decades of military rule.

At the time, Burma was one of only three countries in the world where Coca-Cola did not have business, the other two being Cuba and North Korea.

The post Burma: Coca-Cola Hits Back At Military Link Claims appeared first on Eurasia Review.