The regime of President Bashar al-Assad now effectively controls only about one-sixth of the territory of original Syria and its control is diminishing on a daily basis because it is losing territory to insurgents and facing a manpower shortage in the military.

Until recently the regime continued to hold the core urban centres across the country while letting the countryside, mostly desert, be controlled by the opposition groups including the Islamic State (IS). On 26 July, Assad admitted that the regime had difficulty in holding on to all the provincial centres that it had so far endeavoured to do and that it would now concentrate available military resources on securing the Damascus-Homs-Hama-Latakia coastal belt in the west. The IS is attempting to move into the regions that have been abandoned by the regime. The undeniable fact is that Syria has already been dismembered into several ‘fiefdoms’.

The Syrian Civil War has now been raging for four years and there does not seem to be any end in sight. The major participants are the Assad regime and its primary supporters Iran and Hezbollah, the IS, Turkey, the moderate Southern Front, the Saudi Arabia sponsored Islamic fundamentalist group Jaysh-al-Fatah and the al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat-al-Nusra. In addition the Kurds are extremely active as are the Western nations fighting an air war against the IS. Somehow, if these groups could be aligned into two distinct camps it may have been easy to understand the civil war. Unfortunately each one of these entities have different and self-serving objectives and, perhaps more importantly, are at odds with each other.

The Assad regime is essentially fighting three main enemies—the IS, which holds almost half of Syrian territory although much of it is desert; the Islamic rebel coalition Jaysh-al-Fatah that is supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar; and the Southern Front, a moderate opposition coalition that holds much of the south of Syria. The regime is supported by Hezbollah and both have suffered heavy personnel losses to an extent that they can no longer carry on a three-sided conflict. They seem to have therefore decided to let the IS fight the other Islamic groups and the moderate opposition.

Assad’s calculation in doing so is not difficult to fathom—if and when the IS is able to defeat the other groups, the international community will come to his aid to fight the scourge of IS. This sequence of events can only be considered a pipedream, fundamentally because of the fact that if IS remains the only opposition to the regime, the international forces are unlikely to fight to keep Assad in power. The only reason he is allowed to continue to hold on to some vestige of power is because the international community does not want the IS to fill the vacuum that would be left in the wake of the removal of Assad. Therefore the current tactics of letting the IS fight the others is bound to fail in the long term.

The Southern Front

The only remaining moderate opposition to the regime is the Southern Front, which openly renounces extremism. From a military perspective this group is relatively well organised and has support from the US and some European countries. The Front controls the provincial centre Daraa about 100 kilometres from Damascus. The changed tactics of the regime has facilitated the IS to take on the Southern Front, indicated by the situation on the ground where from early 2015 almost all the battles that the Southern Front has fought have been against the IS—the regime and Hezbollah are not engaged anymore.

The Southern Front is now the only moderate group that can stand up to Jaysh-al-Fatah and other more fundamentalist groups. To its credit, it has provided ethical guidelines for its members and has also established a political wing in preparation for an anticipated political role in the inevitable transition that has to take place in Syria. The Front works closely with the local civilian councils in the areas that it controls and has managed to gain the trust of the citizens, much more than any other group. This has resulted in people joining the group not out of ideological support, but in order to ensure social order and stability in today’s extremely turbulent time.

Further, the Southern Front hopes to wean members of the less fundamentalist groups to join them, although this might require greater financial capabilities since other groups, especially the Jaysh-al-Fatah provide financial incentive to its members. The Front needs greater financial and military assistance if it is to prevail against the better supported groups.

Saudi Arabia and Jaysh-al-Fatah

Since the beginning of the war against IS, Saudi Arabia has felt that the flagging of its regional influence. The situation was exacerbated by the US-Iran deal that led to the international community’s acceptance of the Shiite nation and Iran’s increasing influence in the region. Saudi Arabia expects that removing the Syrian President, who is supported by Iran, from power would bolster its position and lead to greater regional influence. The Islamic group Jaysh-al-Fatah was created by Saudi Arabia as a pragmatic response to the US ambivalence regarding a regime change in Syria, which from a Saudi Arabian viewpoint is critical to improving their influence and to achieve any further progress in resolving the conflict.

Even in the creation of one more fundamentalist organisation, Saudi Arabia is playing its usual double-game. It supports the Southern Front against the regime in Southern Syria while actively involved in supporting the Jaysh-al-Fatah in the north and also trying to create a branch to function against the Southern Front in the regions under its control.

Riyadh also wants Jaysh to be independent of Jabhat-al-Nusra, the Syrian franchise of al Qaeda. This requirement is being emphasised since currently there is some amount of affiliation between the two groups. Only with complete delinking of the two can Saudi Arabia and Qatar hope to have predominant influence in the post-Assad Syria. If the Jaysh-al-Fatah manages to outgrow the Southern front, it will become the most influential militia inside Syria and will play a significant role in Syria after Assad is removed, a situation that will effectively sideline all other moderate groups.

Jabhat-al-Nusra, the al Qaeda affiliate is sensibly moderate in its approach to the conflict, but also harbours political ambitions. However, the group has also made it clear that its objectives are restricted to being an influential element within Syria and that it does not entertain any global ambitions. Its fundamental political objective is to influence Syria’s transition and to ensure that it becomes an ‘Islamic’ nation.

The Turkish Factor—Kurds and IS

From the beginning of the US involvement in the Syrian Civil War the US has concentrated on defeating the IS, while Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have focused on ousting Bashar al-Assad. While the US has supported the Kurds as ‘effective partners’ on the ground in the fight against IS, Turkey and the others supported opposition militia in their fight against the Assad regime. However, there is no unified command amongst these militia to achieve the removal of Assad and there is no consensus regarding the shape of the post-Assad Syria.

Ankara is the joker in the pack, with President Erdogan steadfastly insisting on Turkish hegemony over a transitioned Syria. Turkey perceives Syria and the Kurds as the fundamental threats to its security. The US disagrees with this assessment but have not been able to convince Turkey that defeating the IS is critical for any other regional initiative to succeed. Till such times as Turkey joined the military alliance against Syria and started taking part in the military operations, it was banking on the Islamic groups who were sympathetic towards Turkey and operating in Syria to remove Assad from power.

Although the Kurdish militia has been the most effective fighters against IS on the ground, Erdogan has reopened the Turkish civil war with the Kurds instead of attempting to achieve a negotiated settlement for a more durable peace. Currently the official chatter in Turkey is about the ‘Kurdish threat’ to national security, encouraged by the AKP government to achieve its declared aim of preventing the formation of an independent Kurdistan. The AKP government is pursuing the perpetuation of dual tactics. One, to create a ‘buffer zone’ in northern Syria so that the land area controlled by the Syrian Kurds will not be contiguous to set up an autonomous Kurdish state; and two, rounding up Kurdish activists within Turkey to prevent them from initiating any action towards a ‘greater’ independent Kurdistan.

Turkey finally entered the war last month (July 2015), after four years of siting on the sidelines and cheering the wrong teams. It faces two direct threats along its southern border—the IS and the Kurds. The IS controls large swaths of desert between Aleppo in north-west Syria, Mosul in northern Iraq and Ramadi in the south near Baghdad.

Turkey denies abetting the rise of the IS, although they maintained a porous border from 2012 to 2014 and turned a Nelson’s eye to the influx of large numbers of weapons and foreign fighters crossing it to join the IS. This was obviously done in the mistaken belief that the IS would have an easy victory over the Assad regime. They did not cater for the tenacity of the Syrian government and the support it would receive form Iran and the Hezbollah. Turkey also stoked the anti-government resentment of the Sunnis in Iraq by repeatedly accusing the al-Maliki government of having a Shia bias. Turkey has consciously attempted to destabilise Iraq through increased support for IS in Iraq and more importantly through its support for Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq. Turkey continued to aid both the Kurds and IS by buying oil from them, over al-Maliki’s protests. The Frankenstein is now coming home to roost.

Turkey had undertaken a brutal repression of domestic Kurds in the 1980s and 90s, who still account for about 20 per cent of the population. It is also noteworthy that the Kurdish rate of population growth is higher than the national average and therefore this percentage is likely to increase into the future.

Apart from Turkey, the Kurds are spread over Syria, Iraq and Iran with their fight for independence starting to gain traction with the arrival of IS into the fray. Currently the Kurdish controlled areas of Iraq and Syria can be considered almost a single entity. Turkey has realised that the Iraqi-Syrian Kurds are now far advanced in their quest to be an autonomous State and are fearful of the influence it will have on their own Kurdish population. Turkey fears that it may not be able to stop Turkish Kurds from joining their brethren. If this happens, it would translate to the loss of about a quarter of Turkish territory where Kurds are in majority. Such a turn of events, would see Turkey losing its common borders with both Iraq and Iran and suffering a commensurate decrease in its regional influence.

This is where the Turkish demand for the ‘buffer zone’ comes into play. It is significant that the creation of a ‘buffer zone’ has been Turkey’s fundamental demand from the beginning of the Syrian Civil War and denial of which was primary reason for Turkey so far not joining the fight. Turkey has a two-fold aim in the creation of this zone, nominally north of Aleppo in areas currently controlled by IS—one, push the IS away from its southern borders while filling up this ‘safe zone’ with Syrian refugees; and two, by doing so they will prevent the Kurds from linking the eastern and western parts of the territories that they control. Logically such a buffer zone should be controlled by the Kurds since it lies in Syria and is essentially a part of the Kurdish territory but Turkey will not let them take control. In combination with the domestic crackdown on Turkish Kurds, this situation could lead to a sub-conflict in the region.

Turkey has also calculated that if the ‘buffer zone’ is established then the Jabhat-al-Nusra will be able to concentrate fully against the Assad regime, because the IS will not be able to attack it from its flanks. This is a secondary bonus in Turkish calculations since their primary aim remains the removal of the current Syrian regime from power. Turkey is essentially superimposing its domestic political compulsions on the Syrian Civil War. This is Erdogan’s risky gamble, since it can benefit Turkey only to a point—the Kurdish issue cannot be swept under the carpet nor can an ostrich-like attitude lead the way to peace and stability. Return to the negotiating table with the Kurds can only happen after the train of events that Erdogan has set in motion runs its course and much blood—both Turkish and Kurdish—is spilt on the streets and sand of Turkey.

Iran’s Peace Initiative

The Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has put forward an updated version of an earlier peace proposal, which has a four-point agenda: cessation of hostilities within Syria; a five-year transition period; retention of Syrian sovereignty; and the expulsion of all foreign terrorists from Syrian territory.

Unlike the last time, this proposal is likely to be debated seriously by the major parties involved because of two factors—Iran’s greatly improved status and re-entry into mainstream international politics following the ‘nuclear deal’; and the extensive consultation that was done with Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon and the Syrian regime itself before the plan was announced in public. The plan is for extensive political dialogue to be conducted among the Syrian people when physical combat ends in order to chart an acceptable way forward.

The problem with the Zarif Plan is; first, the difficulty in enforcing the cessation of fighting considering the wildly different hues of the parties involved, second getting Turkey on board, and third, creating a transitional Syrian Government acceptable to all. The need, as everyone recognises, is to arrive at a negotiated settlement. The longer the conflict lasts, greater are the chances of the IS increasing its influence in failing Syria.

Even Russia, so far a staunch supporter of Assad, recognises that Syria could rapidly become IS country and therefore it is common sense to unite against the IS. The transitional government, if it ever gets established, needs to have representation across the Syrian political spectrum and should include the opposition diaspora as well as members of the current regime willing to shift their stance. It has to be a compromise solution and must avoid all the challenges that Iraq faced when a less than optimum solution was foisted upon the people after the 2003 invasion.

The antagonism inherent in the Turkey-Kurd relationship complicates the implementation of the Zarif Plan. The Plan also discounts the fact that the IS will not negotiate with any of the other groups or countries involved and must therefore be defeated in order for the peace process to proceed. Turkey holds the key at the moment to the way forward. However, at least for the moment it seems that unless the Kurdish issue is sorted out Ankara will continue the impromptu responses that it has so far put forward without any consideration of the long-term strategic consequences of such actions. At the absolute baseline the chances of establishing successful peace comes down to Turkey-Iran relations.

While their bilateral relations remain satisfactory and trade is gradually being boosted, the interventionist policy that Turkey is currently following may in the end become a bone of contention. The gravity of the situation in Syria requires secondary and self-centred interests to be set aside. The real threat remains the fact that the Syrian could rapidly engulf the neighbouring countries.

Conclusion

The Syrian conflict has not only dismembered the nation but has ravaged the greater Middle-East. While there has been continuous air strikes by the US-led coalition against the IS, no grand strategy has been articulated or is being followed. Containment as a strategy is an open admission of a dearth of imagination. Neither has any political agreement followed in the footsteps of all the diplomatic activity that has been carried out with more than adequate fanfare.

The challenge now is that the civil war is not a Syrian Civil War anymore, it is a Middle-Eastern Civil War in which the opponents are not clearly divided, where friends become foes and foes become allies in very short order, creating a confusing mosaic of half-truths and grey areas. There are far too many parochial interests being pushed and a number of proxy wars being fought in Syria, leading to the reluctant conclusion that a considered political solution recognised by all participants can never be achieved.

No one nation, group or alliance has the strength or quantum of force necessary to regain control over the lost territories in Syria in order to stitch together even a fractured State with geographic credibility. The US and its allies do not have a coherent strategy to bring about an acceptable solution so that the people of Syria can start to rebuild their ravaged lives. It seems inevitable that Syria will continue its path towards complete fragmentation. The threat of IS is real, but the complete dismemberment of Syria will have far greater consequences than what the IS currently pose in the region. Meanwhile as the world watches and waits—more than half the Syrian people have become refugees in their own country; their erstwhile ruler continues to bomb his own people; and the IS destroys millennia old artifacts in the name of religion. Syria’s death knell is audible, loudly and clearly.

The nations of the Middle-East and Turkey should be carefully listening the sounds and remembering the words of the 17th century poet John Donne, ‘Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.’

*Dr Sanu Kainikara – Canberra-based military and political analyst – Visiting Fellow UNSW – Distinguished fellow IFRS First published in the Blog www.sanukay.com on 24 August 2015

(EurActiv) — Ignoring the will of the people by pursuing unpopular austerity policies plays into the hands of Europe’s extreme right, say Yanis Varoufakis and Arnaud Montebourg.

“Fakis, Fakis,” the militant socialists chanted in Frangy-en-Bresse, in France, on Sunday (23 August). The annual “Fête de la Rose”, a gathering regularly attended by France’s former finance minister Arnaud Montebourg, has taken place since 1972.

Once the scourge of the Eurogroup, the rock star economist Yanis Varoufakis was visibly delighted to be in the village of Frangy (dubbed Frangis in his honour), despite the rain, and to launch a fresh attack on European leaders and the current Greek government.

A coup d’état

“What happened on 12 July was a real coup d’état and a defeat for all Europeans,” the former finance minister said, referring to Greece’s acceptance of the harsh conditions attached to the latest aid package. A package that also cost him his job as the country’s minister of finance. Similarly, Arnaud Montebourg lost his job as French Minister of the Economy exactly one year ago, after openly criticising the French government’s austerity policies at the 2014 Fête de la Rose.

“I do not believe the September elections can lead to an alliance that will create the conditions for an economic policy that works for Greece,” Yanis Varoufakis warned. He said he was “torn” by the splitting of the Syriza party, although he was not officially a party member.

25 Syriza MPs announced on Friday that they would form a new party, following the resignation of the Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras, who hopes the elections will give him a larger majority and a stronger mandate to enact his plans.

The two ex-ministers strived to highlight the dangers of continued austerity in Greece.

“Without political union, the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) is a big mistake. Now that we have it, we must repair it. What we need today is a real common investment policy, and a real banking union,” the Greek economist said.

Yanis Varoufakis told EurActiv that the emergence of an allied European left, in opposition to the current system, was a possibility.

“I believe that an alliance of Europeans from across the political spectrum, who share one radical idea, the idea of democracy, is possible,” he joked. “For 20 years, the principle of democracy has been trampled on in Europe. But it remains a common idea. If we want to make the transition to a democratic Europe, we need to empower the citizens, rather than the current cartel of lobbies.”

This view was shared by his host. Arnaud Montebourg said, “Power is held by an oligarchy in Europe.”

The organisers of the Fête de la Rose had hoped that the occasion’s European outlook would lead to the emergence of a new European movement. But not a single MEP or representative from the radical left party was present. Even the French “rebels”, who openly criticise the government, preferred not to appear alongside Yanis Varoufakis.

Economic mistakes play into the hands of the extreme right

For Varoufakis, the Greek government made a serious mistake in agreeing to sell off assets and implement regressive austerity measures. He believes that the “Athens Spring” was crushed by the bankers, just as the Prague Spring was crushed by tanks.

“In 1929, there was a financial crisis after the Wall Street Crash, which led to the loss of the gold standard. Voters abandoned the left because they were afraid. You know what happened next. In 2008, we had the Wall Street crisis, which brought about a financial crisis and a eurozone crisis. But the leaders keep applying the same economic policies. This crisis must not be allowed to result in the rise of the extreme right,” Yanis Varoufakis warned. The neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party represents a serious threat in Greece.

Arnaud Montebourg, now employed by the furniture company Habitat, also slammed Europe’s democratic deficit.

He said, “If when you vote, you don’t see any change in political choices, and if in spite of the political choices, the eurozone system means that the same policies are still applied, then there is a problem.”

The former politician added that “the decision to bring down Syriza puts Greece a great risk” from the Golden Dawn party.

Comparing the situation in Greece with that in France, Arnaud Montebourg said that if the Socialist party could not bring France out of the crisis, French voters would also turn to the extreme right.

2015 has become a year of living dangerously. Wars are spreading across the globe. Wars are escalating as new countries are bombed and the old are ravaged with ever greater intensity. Countries, where relatively peaceful changes had taken place through recent elections, are now on the verge of civil wars.

These are wars without victors, but plenty of losers; wars that don’t end; wars where imperial occupations are faced with prolonged resistance.

There are never-ending torrents of war refugees flooding across borders. Desperate people are detained, degraded and criminalized for being the survivors and victims of imperial invasions.

Now major nuclear powers face off in Europe and Asia: NATO versus Russia, US-Japan versus China. Will these streams of blood and wars converge into one radiated wilderness drained of its precious life blood?

Living Dangerously: The Rising Tide of Violent Conflicts

There is no question that wars and military threats have replaced diplomacy, negotiations and democratic elections as the principal means of resolving political conflicts. Throughout the present year (2015) wars have spread across borders and escalated in intensity.

The NATO allies, US, Turkey and the EU have openly attacked Syria with air strikes and ground troops. There are plans to occupy the northern sector of that ravaged country, creating what the Erdogan regime dubs a ‘buffer zone’ cleansed of its people and villages.

Under the pretext of ‘fighting ISIS’, the Turkish government is bombing Kurds (civilians and resistance fighters) and their Syrian allies. On Syria’s southern border, US Special Forces have accelerated and expanded operations from their bases in Jordan on behalf of the mercenary terrorists – funded by the monarchist Gulf States.

Over 4 million Syrians have fled their homes as refugees and over 200,000 have been killed since the US-EU-Turkey-Saudi-sponsored war against the secular Syrian government was launched four years ago.

Dozens of terrorist, mercenary and sectarian groups have carved up Syria into rival fiefdoms, pillaged its economic and cultural resources and reduced the economy by over ninety percent.

The US-EU-Turkish military intervention extends the war into Iraq, Lebanon and…. Turkey – attacking secular governments, ethnic minority groups and secular civil society.

The feudal, monarchist Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have invaded Yemen with tanks, launching air strikes against a country without any air defenses. Major cities and towns are devastated. Saudi ground troops and armored carriers are killing and wounding thousands – mostly civilians. The brutal Saudi air and sea blockade of Yemen’s ports have led to a humanitarian crisis, as ten million Yemenis face starvation deliberately imposed by a grotesque and obscenely rich monarchy.

The Yemeni resistance fighters, driven out of the major cities, are preparing for prolonged guerrilla warfare against the Saudi monsters and their puppets. Their resistance has already spread across the frontiers of the absolutist Saudi dictatorship.

The brutal Israeli occupation troops, in collaboration with armed ‘settler’ colonists, have accelerated their violent seizure of Palestinian lands. They have stepped up the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, Bedouins, Druze and Christian inhabitants replacing their communities with racist ‘Jews-only’ colonial settlements.

Daily assaults against the huge ‘concentration camps’ of Gaza accompany an armed blockade of land, air and water, preventing the reconstruction of the tens of thousands of homes, schools, hospital, factories and infrastructure, destroyed by last year’s Israeli blitzkrieg.

Israel’s continued annexation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian territory precludes any diplomatic process; colonial wars have been and continue to be Israel’s policy of choice in dealing with its Arab neighbors and captive populations.

Africa’s wars, resulting from earlier US-EU interventions, continue to ravage-the Continent. Somalia, Sudan, Kenya, Libya are riven by bloody conflicts between US-EU backed regimes and armed Islamic and nationalist resistance movements.

Throughout North and Sub-Sahara Africa, US-EU backed regimes have provoked armed upheavals in Libya, Nigeria (Boko Harem), Egypt (ISIS, Moslem Brotherhood et al), Chad, Niger, South Sudan, Somalia and elsewhere.

Imperial client Egyptian and Ethiopian dictators rule with iron fists – financed and armed by their EU and US sponsors.

Imperial wars rage throughout the Middle East and South Asia. Hundreds of experienced Baathist Iraqi military officers, who had been expelled or jailed and tortured by the US Occupation army, have now made common cause with Islamist fighters to form ISIS and effectively occupy a third of Iraq and a strategic swath of Syria.

There are daily bombings in Baghdad undermining its US client. Strategic advances by ISIS are forcing the US to resume and escalate its direct combat role

The US-Baghdad retreat and the defeat of the US-trained Iraqi military in the face of the Baathist-Islamist offensive is the opening salvo of a long-term, large-scale war in Iraq and Syria. The Turkish air-war against the Kurds in Iraq will escalate the war in Northern Iraq and extend it into southeast Turkey.

Closer to ‘home’, the EU-US-backed coup (‘regime change’) in Kiev and the attempt to impose dictatorial-pro-West oligarchic rule in Ukraine have detonated a prolonged civil-national war devastating the country and pitting NATO’s proxies against Russian-backed allies in the Donbas.

US, England, Poland and other NATO powers are deeply committed to pushing war right up to Russia’s borders.

There is a new Cold War, with the imposition of wide-ranging US-EU economic sanctions against Russia and the organizing of major NATO military exercises on Russia’s doorsteps. It is no surprise that these provocations are met with a major counter-response – the Russian military build-up. The NATO power grab in Ukraine, which first led to a local ethnic war, now escalates to a global confrontation and may move toward a nuclear confrontation as Russia absorbs hundreds of thousands of refugees from the slaughter in Ukraine.

The US puppet regime in Afghanistan has faced a major advance of the Taliban in all regions, including the capital, Kabul.

The Afghan war is intensifying and the US-backed Kabul regime is in retreat. US troops can scarcely advance beyond their bunkers.

As the Taliban military advances, its leaders demand total surrender of the Kabul puppets and the withdrawal of US troops. The US response will be a prolonged escalation of war.

Pakistan, bristling with US arms, faces a major conflict along its borders with India and permanent war in its semi-autonomous Northwest frontier states with Islamist and ethnic Pashtu guerrilla movements backed by mass regional political parties. These parties exercise de facto control over the Northwest region providing sanctuary and arms for Taliban militants operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Armed ethno-religious conflicts persist in western China, Myanmar and northern India. There are large-scale popular resistance movements in the militant northeast Thailand opposed to the current military-monarchist dictatorship in Bangkok.

In the 21st century, in South and Southeast Asia, as in the rest of the world, war and armed conflicts have become central in resolving ethnic, social, tribal and regional differences with central states: diplomacy and democratic elections have been rendered obsolete and inefficient.

Latin America – On the Verge

Burgeoning violent extra-parliamentary right-wing movements, intent on overthrowing or ‘impeaching’ elected center-left Latin American governments face major confrontations with the state and its mass supporters.

In Ecuador, Venezuela and Brazil, US-backed opposition groups are engaged in violent demonstrations, directed toward ousting the elected regimes. In the case of Ecuador, ‘popular sectors’, including some indigenous leaders and sectors of the trade union movement, have called for an ‘uprising’ to oust President Correa. They seem oblivious of the fact that the hard-right oligarchs who now control key offices in the three principal cities (Guayaquil, Quito and Cuenca) will be the real beneficiaries of their ‘uprisings’.

The resurgent Right envisions violent ‘regime change’ as the first step toward ‘wiping the slate clean’ of a decade of social reforms, independent regional organizations and independent foreign policies.

‘Civil war’ may be too strong a word for the situation in Latin America at this time – but this is the direction which the US-backed opposition is heading. Faced with the mess and difficulty of dislodging incumbent regimes via elections, the US and its local proxies have opted for the choreography of street violence, sabotage, martial law and coups – to be followed by sanitized elections – with US-vetted candidates.

War and violence run rampant through Mexico and most of Central America. A US-backed military coup ousted the popularly elected, independent President Zelaya in Honduras. The ensuing US-proxy regime has murdered and jailed hundreds of pro-democracy dissidents and driven thousands to flee the violence.

The 1990’s US-brokered ‘Peace Accords’ in El Salvador and Guatemala effectively blocked any agrarian reform and income redistribution that might have led to the rebuilding of their civil societies. This has led to over two decades of mass disaffection, the rise of armed ‘gangs’ numbering over 100,000 members and an average of six to ten thousand homicides a year with El Salvador becoming the ‘murder capital of the hemisphere’ on a per capita basis. The annual murder toll under the US-brokered ‘Peace Accords’ now exceeds those killed each year during the civil war.

The real ‘carnage capital’ of the hemisphere is Mexico. Over 100,000 people have been murdered during the decade-long, US-backed ‘war on drugs’ – a war which has become a state-sponsored war on the Mexican people.

The internal war has allowed the Mexican government to privatize and sell the crown jewels of the national economy – the petroleum industry. While thousands of Mexicans are terrorized and slaughtered, the US and EU oil companies are curiously shielded from the drug lords. The same Mexican government, its police, officials and military, who collaborate with the drug lords in dividing up the billions of drug dollars, protect foreign oil companies and their executives. After all, narco-dollars are laundered by banks in New York, Miami, Los Angeles and London to help fuel the speculation!

From Regional to Nuclear Wars

Regional and local wars spread under the shadow of a looming world war. The US moves its arms, planes, bases and operations to the Russian and Chinese borders.

Never have so many US troops and war planes been placed in so many strategic locations, often less than an hour drive from major Russian cities.

Not even during the height of the Cold War, did the US impose so many economic sanctions against Russian enterprises.

In Asia, Washington is organizing major trade, military and diplomatic treaties designed to exclude and undermine China’s growth as a trade competitor. It is engaged in provocative activities comparable to the boycott and blockade of Japan which led to the Second World War in Asia.

Open ‘warfare by proxy’ in Ukraine is perhaps the first salvo of the Third World War in Europe. The US-EU-sponsored coup in Kiev has led to the annexation of Western Ukraine. In response to the threat of violence toward the ethnic Russian majority in Crimea and the loss of its strategic naval base on the Black Sea, Russia annexed Crimea.

In the lead-up to the Second World War, Germany annexed Austria. In a similar manner the US-EU installed a puppet regime in Kiev by violent putsch as its own initial steps toward major power grabs in Central Asia. The military build-up includes the placement of major, forward offensive military bases in Poland.

Warsaw’s newly elected hard-right regime of President Andrzej Duda has demanded that Poland become NATO’s central military base of operation and the front line in a war against Russia.

Wars and More Wars and the Never-ending Torrents of Refugees

The US and EU imperial wars have devastated the lives and livelihoods of scores of millions of people in South Asia, North and Sub-Sahara Africa, Central America, Mexico, the Balkans and now Ukraine.

Four million Syrian refugees have joined millions of Afghan, Pakistani, Iraqi, Yemeni, Somali, Libyan, Palestinian and Sudanese refugees fleeing US-EU bombs, drones and proxy mercenaries ravaging their countries.

Millions of war refugees escape toward safety in Western Europe, joining the millions of economic refugees who have fled free market destitution in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, the Balkans and other EU satellites.

Panic among the civilian population of Western Europe sets in as hundreds of thousands cross the Mediterranean, the Aegean and the Balkans.

Droves of refugees perish each day. Tens of thousands crowd detention centers. Local labor markets are saturated. Social services are overwhelmed.

The US builds walls and detention camps for the millions trying to escape the harsh consequences of imperial-centered free markets in Mexico, narco-terror and the fraudulent ‘peace accord’-induced violence in Central America.

As Western wars advance, the desperate refugees multiply. The poor and destitute clamber at the gates of the imperial heartland crying: ‘Your bombs and your destruction of our homelands have driven us here, now you must deal with us in your homeland’.

Fomenting class war between the refugees and ‘natives’ of the imperial West – may not be on the agenda . . . for now, but the future for ‘civil’ society in Europe and the US is bleak.

Meanwhile, more and even bigger wars are on the horizon and additional millions of civilians will be uprooted and face the choice of starving, fleeing with their families or fighting the empire. The ranks of seasoned and infuriated resistance fighters are swelling in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Ukraine and elsewhere.

The US and EU are becoming armed fortresses. US police deal with the marginalized citizenry as an occupying army, assaulting African-Americans, immigrants and dissidents – while looting poor communities . . . and protecting the rich…

Conclusion

War is everywhere and expanding: No continent or region, big or small, is free from the contagion of war.

Imperial wars have spawn local wars . . . igniting mass flights in a never-ending cycle. There are no real diplomatic success stories! There are no enduring, viable peace accords!

Some pundits may protest this analysis: They point to the recent US – Cuba rapprochement as a ‘success’. They conveniently forget that the US is still subverting Cuba’s biggest trading partner, Venezuela; that Washington’s major regional proxies are demanding regime change among Cuba’s allies in Ecuador, Brazil and Bolivia and that Washington is increasingly threatening Cuba’s alternative markets in Russia and China. The vision of the US flag flapping in the breeze outside its embassy in Havana does little to cover Washington’s iron fist threatening Cuba’s allies.

Others cite the US – Iran peace accord as a major ‘success’. They ignore that the US is backing the bloody Saudi invasion of neighboring Yemen and the massacre of Shiite communities; that the US has provided Israel with a road map detailing Iran’s entire defense system and that the US and EU are bombing Iran’s Syrian ally without mercy.

As for the US – Cuba and Iranian agreements– are they enduring and strategic or just tactical imperial moves preparing for even greater assaults?

The war epidemic is not receding.

War refugees are still fleeing; they have no homes or communities left.

Disorder and destruction are increasing, not decreasing; there is no rebuilding the shattered societies, not in Gaza, not in Fallujah, not in the Donbas, not in Guerrero, not in Aleppo.

Europe feels the tremors of a major conflagration.

Americans still believe that the two oceans will protect them. They are told that placing NATO missiles on Russia’s borders and stationing warships off China’s shores and building electrified walls and laying barbed wire along the Rio Grande will protect them. Such is their faith in their political leaders and propagandists.

What a packet of lies! Inter-continental missiles can ‘rain down’ on New York, Washington and Los Angeles.

It is time to wake up!

It is time to stop the US – EU headlong race to World War III!

Where to start? Libya has been irrevocably destroyed; it is too late there! Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are aflame. We are being plunged deeper into war while being told we are withdrawing! Ukraine sucks in more guns and more troops!

Can we really have peace with Iran if we cannot control our own government as it dances to the Israelis tune? And Israel insists on war – our waging war for them! As the Israeli war criminal General and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once told some worried American Zionists: “Trouble with the US? We lead them by the nose . . . !”

Just look at the terrified families fleeing carnage in the Middle East or Mexico.

What is to be done?

When will we cut our losses and shake off the bonds of these war makers – foreign and domestic?

Following an attack in which a gunman, Ayoub El Khazzani, was successfully tackled and disarmed by three Americans, Spencer Stone, Alek Skarlatos and Anthony Sadler, a Briton, Chris Norman, and a Frenchman who chose to remain anonymous, Time’s Mark Thompson writes:

Friday’s fight on the high-speed Amsterdam-to-Paris train can be viewed a miniature version of the clash of civilizations that some fear may now be unfolding. If so, Sadler, Skarlatos and Stone stepped up to the plate. “He seemed like he was ready to fight to the end,” Stone said of Khazzani. “So were we.”

Among the lessons Thompson draws is this:

If Islamic militants are determined to launch lone wolf attacks that threaten everyone in the West, everyone in the West is on the front lines. The solution isn’t to put undercover soldiers wherever the public gathers, or to arm every civilian. Instead, it simply requires donning a new mindset. Ever since the 9/11 attacks, airline passengers have no longer been willing to give strangers the benefit of the doubt if they appear threatening. Such an attitude will become more common, in more places, so long as such attacks persist. Importantly, as Friday’s outcome shows, attackers are not invincible. “Basically, in times of crisis…do something,” Sadler, 22, said.

No doubt the men who thwarted this attack, deserve all the praise they have received.

The wheels of French bureaucracy move impressively swiftly when it comes to dishing out medals. And politicians and government representatives have been just as swift in snatching photo opportunities.

Anyone witnessing the news conference for the three Americans could be forgiven for thinking that the grinning women next to Stone was his mom — it wasn’t, it was U.S. Ambassador Jane Hartley.

As for Thompson’s conclusion that we’re now all on the front lines of a clash of civilizations, that seems to me like the worst way of spinning what happened.

When the young Americans took action, they weren’t just being heroic — they were also very lucky not to get cut down in a hail of bullets.

As Americans, having grown up in a society that commonly prizes action more than deliberation, at that moment they arguably had a cultural advantage. The military experience that Stone and Skarlatos possessed must also have been a great asset.

But whether in a time of crisis people do something or not, will have as much to do with circumstances as it may with any mindset they have previously cultivated.

Just like any other animal, we’re hard-wired for fight or flight, yet the so-called fight-flight response is somewhat of a misnomer. The choices are actually three: fight, flight, or freeze.

The freeze response is almost a will to become invisible — a goal that many animals can effectively accomplish simply by remaining motionless.

People can have the same instinctive response yet will be at a distinct disadvantage compared with a rabbit that can hide in long grass.

How each passenger on the train responded to an immediate threat must to some extent have been the result of proximity, but when it comes to the question of what constitutes the best mindset, I would argue vehemently against those who believe we should now all be primed to tackle lone wolf terrorists.

Indeed, the mindset of most relevance here is one that has nothing to do with how we view the threat of terrorism.

The mindset that makes people in the modern world individually and collectively most vulnerable is one that has become almost universal: the desire to remain inside a private bubble within a public space.

Thanks to the ubiquity of mobile devices everyone now has the means to be physically present and mentally absent.

It’s quite likely that a significant number of passengers on the train to Paris were oblivious to what was unfolding as they remained entranced by their own soundtrack on life.

When Justin Valdez was murdered on a Muni train in San Francisco two years ago, his death could have easily been prevented had the passengers around him simply been paying attention.

The Muni camera revealed a gunman raising and lower his pistol several times — even using the gun to wipe his nose — yet no one saw what he was doing until it was too late.

“These weren’t concealed movements – the gun is very clear,” said District Attorney George Gascón. “These people are in very close proximity with him, and nobody sees this. They’re just so engrossed, texting and reading and whatnot. They’re completely oblivious of their surroundings.”

The scene is emblematic of the world in which we now live and the least of our fears should be the relatively small risk we face from terrorists or random gun violence.

Our real fear should be that we are creating societies in which we regard most strangers as people who can be ignored — people who don’t matter.

Such a society is one that is losing its humanity and losing its sense that life, if not shared here and now, is really no life at all.

European Union (EU) spokesperson Maya Koijanic’s recent outburst against a planned Russian, Belarusian and Serbian military exercise, is hypocritically ironic, in line with an ongoing bias against Russia – prevalent among some key elements within Western foreign policy strategizing and media. This slant targets those outside Russia, who’re sympathetic to reasoned mainstream Russian views. (Related to this subject, is my July 7, 2014 Global Research article “Twisted History Against Russia And Serbia” and the July 9, 2015 Sputnik News piece “UN Srebrenica Resolution Shows Double Standards, Justifying Russia’s Stand“.)

Along with some other former Soviet areas, there has been open Western military involvement in the strategic flash points of Moldova and Ukraine – a point leading to whataboutism on the Russian troop presence in the disputed former Moldavian SSR territory of Pridnestrovie, Crimea and the Donbas conflict.

In the role as peacekeepers, the limited Russian troop presence in Pridnestrovie, involves a mostly pro-Russian area that isn’t so historically a part of Moldova. Rather ironically, the support for having Pridnestrovie in Moldova and Crimea as a part of Ukraine, is something that was Soviet initiated. Crimea’s changed territorial status doesn’t conflict with the majority in that region, who were aghast at the violent street demonstrations in Kiev (some of it caused on the anti-government side), which led to an increased Russia unfriendly influence in the Ukrainian capital. Kosovo has essentially been taken away from Serbia, in contradiction to UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and the preference of Belgrade. There’s a good basis to believe that the Donbas situated rebels are overwhelmingly native to the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR – a term used to include Crimea. Numerous polls in the Donbas show negativity towards the Kiev regime. That region’s close historical and cultural ties to neighboring Russia makes it perfectly understandable why the Kremlin is concerned with what happens there. Some on the Kiev regime side have openly spoken of an Operation Storm like action in the Donbas. The aforementioned Croat military operation saw the ethnic cleansing of at least 150,000 Serbs from Krajina in 1995. In the event of such an action in Donbas, the Russian government would be perceived as weak for letting it happen. As is, the Kiev regime military activity has resulted in noticeable civilian casualties, infrastructure damage and the creation of many refugees.

For the likes of Kocijanic, Western military activity in the former Communist bloc isn’t provocative, unlike when Russia, Serbia and Belarus announce a planned military exercise. Mind you that the Belarusian and Serb governments exhibit policies which simultaneously reach out to the West and Russia. Reaching out to the latter is what continues to be scorned in some influential Western circles.

This advocacy meshes with the EU’s zero sum game stance, in the lead-up to the ouster of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. Prior to his overthrow, Yanukovych and Russia sought joint Russian, Ukrainian and Western talks on how to best develop Ukraine, at a time when Ukraine’s population was closely split over viewing the EU and the Russian involved Eurasian Union. The EU and the Obama administration opposed this three way approach, in preference to a zero sum game option, that sought to limit Russian involvement.

In dire need of support, the post-Yanukovych Kiev regime isn’t getting the degree of aid it needs on account of its hostility towards the Kremlin and the EU’s exhibited limits that include being suspect of an entity that has corrupt aspects linked to it. Rather than face reality, there remains further posturing against Russia and the pro-Russian constituency in the former Ukrainian SSR. In a way, this unreasonable position comes as no surprise, given how Russia related issues are frequently covered in Western mass media.

An August 20 NATO affiliated meeting in Riga, highlighted support for a concerted Western effort to combat “Russian propaganda”. This advocacy is an overkill to the already overhyped imagery about a perceived evil seeking to misinform many. Downplayed in that mindset, is the effort for an evenhanded approach in understanding the differences of opinion on Russia related matters.

The tag on Russians at large having a limited knowledge of events related to their country can be easily applied to its nay sayers. A case in point relates to Eugene Bai’s commentary. His opinions are indicative of the kind of minority Russian perspectives that have been favored at such outlets as Newsweek and The New York Times. In turn, many in the West (especially those with a secondary interest in Russia) have an overly negative impression of Russia, which (to a certain extent) is subconsciously based on what they’re prone to regularly get from their preferred news sources.

Bai’s January 21, 2015 Russia Direct article “What Is Behind The Kremlins Sensitive Response To Obamas Speech?” includes this introductory header:

“Russia’s emotional response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech might be accounted for by both Russia’s historic inferiority complex and the mounting toll of the country’s current economic difficulties.”

Later on this contradictory thought appears in his piece:

“Furthermore, such an emotional reaction can be explained psychologically. One can suggest that the Russian political elite is trying with all its force to attract America’s attention to Kremlin politics. Their calls for equal relations conceal a profound inferiority complex that was formed after the fall of the Soviet Union. How far they are prepared to go with this rhetoric is difficult to divine.”

The introductory header says a “historic inferiority complex“, with the excerpted follow-up stating that this manner “was formed after the fall of the Soviet Union.” Either way, both characterizations constitute psychobabble. Role reversal could reasonably argue a superiority complex among Russia’s detractors, which has a level of arrogance, ignorance and hypocrisy. This attitude seems to believe that it’s in the right, without looking at the full picture.

In some influential to relatively influential Western circles, it appears acceptable to:

• believe that Russia needs to pay a price for Crimea, when the examples of Kosovo and northern Cyprus suggest otherwise
• give disproportionate inaccurate accounts of extreme Russian nationalists, while downplaying the nationalist anti-Russian variant
• highlight the LGBT situation in Russia, while being mum on the LGBT issue when the US president visits Saudi Arabia and Lithuania
• use terms like “Kremlin troll” against sources utilizing facts and fact based opinions in formally presented commentary.

Human nature at large tends to not take kindly to repeated insults in one form or the other. Mainstream Russians are answering back in ways that fluctuate in terms of accuracy and sophistication – as some others choose to not provide substantively direct counter-replies.

In his April 7, 2015 article “Sorry, But Soft Power Isn’t A Part Of The Rusisan Tradition“, Bai writes of an RT network “with a huge budget” that “has the clout to hire top Western presenters and pay them more than the likes of CNN.” (RT is the Russian government funded 24/7 TV news station, which broadcasts in several languages.) Those familiar with the Anglo-American 24/7 TV news media scene, know that RT hasn’t hired away well established Western TV personalities, who command high salaries in their field.

To a degree perhaps, Larry King serves as an arguably possible exception. King has presented himself as his own boss, whose show appears on RT and another network in a contractual arrangement. Thom Hartmann seems to have this relationship with RT as well – a show that’s currently available in a  contracted agreement with more than one network. Without knowing for sure King’s annual income over the years, one gets the impression that he might’ve willingly taken a pay cut upon leaving CNN, for the purpose of having greater flexibility. From a distance, he seems to be in a good position to pursue that option, if that’s indeed the case.

Overall, RT’s presenters, reporters and hosts, typically appear younger and less experienced (in terms of media employment experience) than those of numerous Western TV news networks – thereby suggesting a lower pay scale. That said, RT has some adept professionals with Western mass media and non-Western mass media experience. At RT, Max Keiser, Kevin Owen, Afshin Rattansi and Bill Dod, appear to be among the most (if not most) tenured, when it comes to prior Western mass media TV experience.

Al Jazeera/Al Jazeera America has hired a good number of seasoned North American TV/radio professionals (like John Siegenthaler, Ray Suarez, Sheila MacVicar, Soledad O’Brien, Ali Velshi, Randall Pinkston, Jennifer Glasse, Antonio Mora and some others), whose respective salary level are most probably greater than what RT has tended to offer. In short, RT doesn’t come close to having the same track record as Al Jazeera/Al Jazeera America, when it comes to hiring high profile North American TV/radio professionals.

Upon further review, one can find additional evidence which indicates that RT isn’t the recipient of greater funding than its main Western competitors. In his article concerning RT, Bai’s idea of objectivity is shown by his uncritical admiration for John O’Sullivan and David Remnick – two individuals who don’t come across as being more objective than RT. (For a different impression of RT, see my December 29, 2014 Eurasia Review piece “With Room For Improvement, RT Gives Time To Diverse Views“.)

*Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic.

The above article first appeared this past August 24 in the Strategic Culture Foundation.

By Michael Lelyveld

China’s poorly executed responses to the economic downturn and the Tianjin disaster have raised doubts about the government’s competence and could deter investment, experts say.

In July, China’s regulators tried to control investors’ behavior in the stock market and aggravated the crisis with heavy-handed manipulations, leaving many with staggering losses.

On Aug. 11, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) ordered a one-day devaluation of the yuan against the U.S. dollar, sparking fears of a global currency war when the currency continued to drop.

Days later, the government’s policies came under fire again when it restricted reporting on the toxic chemical blasts that swept the Binhai New Area of the port of Tianjin on Aug. 13, killing at least 129 and injuring hundreds more.

In each case, efforts to suppress public reactions did little to restore confidence and instead added to distrust.

On the economic issues, government attempts to keep a lid on the consequences of policy changes may have only caused pressures to boil over and increased volatility.

After the 8.5-percent drop in the Shanghai Composite Index (SCI) on July 27, some experts questioned the government’s competence in implementing market reforms as it froze trading in many stocks, threatened short-sellers and ordered funds to buy shares.

Analysts say pressures had been building for months with warnings of a speculative bubble before the first 5.9-percent fall on July 8.

But by trying to control the selloff, China’s authorities demonstrated that “the nation’s rulers have no idea what they’re doing,” New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote on July 31.

After a semblance of calm, the market reacted to economic concerns and the removal of controls with another 6.2-percent drop on Aug. 18, raising expectations of more interventions.

The SCI lost 11.5 percent in trading last week and another 8.5 percent Monday as investors reacted to “signs that Beijing’s policymaking has grown not only more erratic but less effective,” Reuters said.

On Friday, the China Securities Regulatory Commission warned it would “severely punish” major shareholders for selling in defiance of a six-month ban, state media reported.

“The initial impetus in many of these things is to move in the direction of the market, but only when the market moves in the direction that the leadership wants it to go,” said David Bachman, a China scholar and political science professor at University of Washington in Seattle, in a phone interview.

Virtual replay

The government staged a virtual replay of its regulatory reversal with its “one-off depreciation” of the yuan by nearly 2 percent, which the PBOC said was part of a new market-driven policy to determine exchange rates.

The shift, following an 8.9-percent plunge in July exports, was widely seen as a bid to restore China’s edge in trade, prompting predictions of a greater devaluation of as much as 10 percent.

While both the stock market and the currency moves can be traced to economic weakening, the PBOC showed little taste for letting the yuan find its market value, instead intervening as depreciation neared 4 percent. The limit has only added to concerns that the currency will be devalued again.

“Right now, the devaluation looks very tepid, and the reason people think there’s going to be more devaluation is because it was such a small move,” said Derek Scissors, a China economist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

“This looks like a wimpy compromise,” said Scissors. “It’s a half-measure,” he said.

The currency and share scares have heightened concerns that the government’s official 7-percent economic growth rate has been greatly puffed up.

Scissors agrees with a widening consensus that actual growth has probably been around 4 percent. Indicators like electricity use have been flat or negative for months. Some reports have suggested that gross domestic product (GDP) is now in decline.

But beyond the pretense of high growth rates, a common theme linking the stock and currency interventions is the government’s distrust of markets, despite the reform agenda that President Xi Jinping advanced at the Communist Party’s third plenum meeting in 2013.

“The common thing in these wild policy swings is that China’s leadership keeps imagining that it can order markets around, telling them what prices to reach. And that’s not how things work,” Krugman said in another column on Aug. 14.

Stability and control continue to be higher priorities, bringing China’s hesitant version of market economics to a halt whenever its operation poses a risk.

Barring critical comments

Similar forces have been at play in the government’s response to the Tianjin tragedy.

Despite pledges of “transparency” in disclosing the dangers, damage and casualties, the authorities simultaneously blocked independent reporting and barred critical comments from social media networks.

“From the outset, the government has insisted that everything is under control, that the levels of toxic chemicals in the air and water are normal — despite the fact that there were hundreds of tons of highly toxic sodium cyanide on site,” The Washington Post reported on Aug. 17.

Two days later, under public pressure, the official Xinhua news agency began to give a fuller accounting of the chemicals and the owners of the warehouse where they were stored.

But the government has continued to control public access to information, treating disclosure as a risk and undermining credibility.

“Zero tolerance will be shown by the central government to online rumors, especially those stemming from breaking news,” the Cyberspace Administration of China said in a statement on Aug. 19, according to the official English-language China Daily.

“Accounts that posted violent pictures, negative comments about firefighters or that spread false information have been closed temporarily, but those that intentionally spread rumors have been shut permanently,” the paper said.

Restrictions on the free flow of information have only contributed to mistrust.

“There are clear signs that people are very upset about what’s going on and not sure who’s responsible,” Bachman said. “The typical news blackout and the spread of rumors, all of it feeds into this,” he said.

The government’s reflexive responses to the series of challenges seem bound to affect investment prospects in ways that go beyond the immediate production cuts of manufacturers that sustained losses in the Tianjin fire.

“When you’re trying to recruit your CEO … and they see these kinds of things on TV, or their family and relatives see this, they start to talk and think, should I really be going to China?” Chet Sheltema, regional manager at international consultancy Dezan Shira & Associates, told the Associated Press.

“Are they really the state-of-the-art economy we thought they were?” he said.

The issues of secrecy and safety have become part of the growing cost of the government’s fixation with stability.

“If you’re looking to get ahead in your corporation, you don’t see China as a step up these days, I think,” Bachman said.

Scissors argued that the crises will have an effect on China’s investment outlook, but only among those who held a unjustifiably rosy view of returns based on the country’s inflated growth reports.

“This is going to wash out the people who just wanted to blindly believe that everything would be about the same in China tomorrow as it is today,” Scissors said.

“That was never realistic, … but now you can’t believe it if you wanted to, because the Chinese are actively undermining that belief,” he said.

Turkey and the US have finalized the technical details of Turkey’s involvement in the anti-Daesh coalition, the Turkish foreign minister said on Tuesday.

Mevlut Cavasoglu did not provide any exact information on Turkey’s involvement. Last month, Turkey carried out air strikes against Daesh targets in Syria and earlier this month, US F-16 jets began flying missions over Syria from Incirlik air base in southern Turkey.

“Technical negotiations of the agreement were finalized between Turkey and the US with respect to operations against Daesh,” Cavusoglu said at a joint news conference with his Turkish Cypriot counterpart in Ankara.

On Monday, a White House spokesman said he was unable to confirm the agreement but Cavusoglu said the deal was signed between Turkish and US defense chiefs later.

The deal is thought to include how Turkish combat aircraft will be incorporated into the anti-Daesh coalition.

Original article

International media is reporting that Moroccan and Spanish authorities jointly and successfully led a joint operation that dismantled a group of 14 people suspected of recruiting for the Islamic State.

“Those arrested formed part of a network who recruited and sent fighters to join the ranks of the Islamic State terrorist organization in Syria and Iraq,” a statement from the interior ministry said

Spain’s Interior Ministry said the arrests took place in San Martin de la Vega, just south of Madrid, and in five locations in northern Morocco — Casablanca, Fez, Nador, Al Hoceima and Driouech.

In fact, and over the last two years, the Moroccan security services have broken up a considerable number of cells that recruited young Moroccans embracing with jihadist thoughts.

In an interview published by the international weekly “Jeune Afrique” last July the Moroccan Minister of Interior Mohammed Hassad stated that eight jihadist cells were dismantled between January and May this year and another 14 in the year 2014, noting that the terrorist threat is “real Morocco, as elsewhere.”

The Minister added that twenty-seven jihadist cells have been dismantled in Morocco since 2013, said Minister of the Interior, Mohamed Hassad, stressing that the Kingdom adopts both an operational and preventive approach in the fight against the terrorist threat.

The minister also said that counter-terrorism operations, both internally and in the framework of cooperation with foreign partners including Spain, are “inconclusive,” stressing that “nothing is possible without preventive work “.

It has, in this regard, emphasized the importance of religious guidance, upgrading of criminal law, the fight against precariousness and exclusion through the INDH and enhanced security feature Hadar set up throughout the country, noting that “this multidimensional commitment was more than once hailed by the international community.”

“It is no coincidence that Morocco was elected in May as co-chair of the Global Forum of fight against terrorism,” he argued.

Morocco, which is aware of the risk of recruiting Moroccans including ex-prisoners by terrorist groups, radicalization has initiated measures through the Mohammed VI Foundation for the reintegration of prisoners and support programs for micro-projects and self-employment, adding that the religious field by promoting a moderate and tolerant Islam is not neglected in prison.

Since 2003, Morocco has been adopting a pre-emptive strike policy against the terrorist groups. Morocco doesn’t want to be involved in supplying any region with terrorist fighters because it is itself a victim of that. Morocco’s counter-terrorism policy, which involved legal, social and religious reforms, has worked, in general.

Nevertheless, there have been reversals with each policy area with human rights shortcomings and corruptions working to undermine the pace and rate of reforms. These accumulated reversals eventually fed the February 20, 2011 social movement which forced a return to more active reforms. There are certain default patterns of thought present among some in the country that could create a political opening for the convicted terrorists and their sympathizers.

To help, the outside world needs to proceed in a manner that includes the Moroccan public. The Moroccan government is aware broadly of the problem and has offered a package of reforms.

Morocco follows a complex anti-terrorism policy borne largely out of the state’s reactions to the events of May 16, 2003, when a group, later found to be associated with al-Qaeda, attacked a number of sites in the city of Casablanca with home-made suicide bombs, killing about three dozen people including most of their own. The terrorist attacks of that day continue to shape anti-terrorism policy, broadly speaking, although with some recent and significant modifications. The strategy adapted after May 16, 2003 included an anti-terrorism law, social assistance programmes and a reform of the religious sector. In each of these three sectors there have been both successes and failures.

In general, the anti-terrorism law 03.03 has worked well to prevent further attacks. Unfortunately, it has become the target of attacks by both human rights activists and Islamists who believe that it is being used unfairly. Among the arguments raised is that the law itself is not the issue, but rather excesses that are believed to have been committed in law enforcement. Concerning social reforms, these were well intentioned and appear to have made some dent in reducing certain forms of substandard housing.

Finally, the religious reforms included better education and female inclusion in the religious establishment. From a purely security perspective, the policy was effective because it reduced the number of attacks and prevented the transformation of Morocco into an open territory for al-Qaeda, like Algeria and Mauritania. However, Morocco is totally aware that the security approach on its own will not lead to positive results. Therefore, an ambitious social policy was launched to improve the well being of Moroccans. Health, decent housing and major economic investments to create jobs especially for the youth.

Besides, Morocco’s amended anti-terror law now stipulates a prison sentence of between 5 and 15 years for anyone found guilty of inciting terrorism. The aim of this is to protect the youth from becoming victims of sweeping propaganda.

Morocco has set up a model for other neighboring nations to fight terrorism and extremist ideologies. So far it has been successful but certainly a regional effective cooperation will put an end to this threat that does not menace only countries in north Africa and Sub Saharan Africa, but Europe and even the United States.

Sambo Dasuki, former National Security Adviser under ex-president Goodluck Jonathan, was officially charged with illegal possession of weapons and acts that pose potential harm to national security.

Security forces in mid-July searched properties belonging to Dasuki and his father, announcing the discovery of “large quantities of arms and ammunition”, including 5 bulletproof vehicles. Dasuki was removed a few days earlier from his post by the new President Muhammadu Buhari, who replaced the armed forces leadership.

Meanwhile, Boko Haram attacks continue in northern Nigeria: at least 6 people were killed and 28 injured today when a young female suicide bomber blew herself up at a bus station in Damaturu, capital of Yobe State.

The People’s Bank of China has lowered its interest rate for the fifth time since November boosting European and US stocks higher in Tuesday’s trading. The one-year lending rate has been reduced by 25 basis points to 4.6 percent, which is record low for China.

The decision by the central bank immediately sent European stocks higher. London’s FTSE is up over 2 percent, the German DAX and France’s CAC are gaining 4.5 percent and Russia’s RTS is almost 5 percent higher as of 15:00 GMT. Wall Street opened in positive territory on news from China. The Dow Jones Industrials and the S&P 500 were up over 2 percent, while the Nasdaq was 3 percent higher at opening bell.

Oil prices have also rebounded from Monday’s lows. Brent crude is trading 2 percent higher at $43.52 per barrel, while US benchmark WTI is up 3 percent, trying to get back up to $40 per barrel as of 15:30 GMT.

The rate cut comes on the heels of the biggest four-day nosedive by the key Shanghai Composite Index in the last 20 years. Chinese stocks have lost 22 percent since August 19. Liu Li-Gang, China economist at ANZ Bank in Hong Kong says that the move from Beijing was aimed more at the real economy.

“Although this has some elements of giving comfort to the market, this is more about giving a real boost to the real economy so the government can continue to have its seven percent growth rate fulfilled,” the economist told Reuters.

The one-year deposit rate has been cut by 25 basis points to 1.75 percent. The change comes into force on Wednesday.

According to China’s Central Bank the decision was to cut “the social cost of financing to promote and support the sustainable and healthy developments of the real economy.”

Burundian President Pierre Nkurunziza presented a new government today after being sworn in for a controversial third term. Many names from the past appear on the new list, despite promises over the past weeks of the formation of a national unity government.

Some key ministers were confirmed, in particular Emmanuel Ntahomvukiye as Defence minister and Tabu Abdallah Manirakiza at the head of Finance. Aimée Laurentine Kanyana, a member of the Constitutional Court that ratified the election of Nkurunziza despite international criticism, instead assumes the post of minister of Justice. Her predecessor Pascal Barandagiye will instead head the Interior ministry.

The new cabinet has already drawn criticism from the civil society that in the past months mobilized against Nkurunziza’s third term. Innocent Muhozi, who heads the independent Renaissance Radio, banned by the government, expressed concern particularly over the return of Alain Guillaume Bunyoni, former minister of Security. “This means that the authorities intend to fight any opponents”, he explained.

In mid August, a statement by Nkurunziza’s CNDD-FDD party had assured that with the President’s confirmation a unity government would be formed. A commitment reiterated also by Foreign minister Alain Nyamitwe. Also Nyamitwe was confirmed.

By Dalan McEndree

OPEC next gathers December 4 in Vienna, just over a year since Saudi Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi announced at the previous OPEC winter meeting the Saudi decision to let the oil market determine oil prices rather than to continue Saudi Arabia’s role of guarantor of $100+/bbl oil.

Despite the intense financial and economic pain this decision has inflicted on Saudi Arabia, its fellow OPEC members, and other oil producers, the Saudis have given no indication they plan to alter course. In fact, Saudis have downplayed the impact of lower prices on their country, asserting that the kingdom has the financial wherewithal to withstand lower oil prices.

Presumably swayed by Saudi equanimity, financial markets do not see the Saudis abandoning their current policy before, during, or after the upcoming OPEC meeting. CME Brent oil futures project continuity: as of August 18, 2015, CME Brent futures projected the price remaining below $60/bbl until June 2017. A CNBC poll of oil traders, analysts, and major fund investors, aired on CNBC August 17, showed 95 percent believing the Saudis will not alter course.

Are the futures market, CNBC’s oil traders, analysts, and major fund investors, and others, being lulled into an unjustified consensus?

The damage the Saudi decision has inflicted on Saudi Arabia itself provides reasons for the Saudis to change course.

Saudi Policy: OPEC-centric or Self-Serving?

Stresses within OPEC should add to the pressure on the Saudis to rethink their strategy. The Saudis sold their change to their fellow OPEC members as being in OPEC’s general interest. They asserted that the their traditional method of stabilizing the oil market, production cuts, would not work since non-OPEC producers would increase output; second, that “market” forces would reduce investment and therefore increase prices in the medium and longer term and ultimately benefit all OPEC members; and third, that any Saudi increase in output was aimed at defending its market share, not reducing theirs.

As the first anniversary of the Saudi decision approaches, it would be reasonable for OPEC outsiders–OPEC members, other than the Saudis and their Gulf Arab allies, Kuwait, UAE, and Qatar—to interpret Saudi policy shift as designed to serve Saudi interests and those of its Gulf Arab allies rather than their interests and those of OPEC in general.

“Market” forces include many components. A key component—perhaps the key component—is a country’s capability, at a minimum, to maintain output, and better yet, to increase output. Financial wherewithal is the foundation of this component. Saudi and Gulf Arab OPEC members’ foreign currency reserves and sovereign wealth funds (SWF) comprise approximately 78 percent of total OPEC member holdings, $2.73 trillion of $3.05 trillion.

As the following table shows, their advantage is particularly large on a per capita basis. Of the non-Saudi, non-Gulf Arab ally OPEC members, only Libyan per capita resources exceed the average. (The UAE includes data for three SWF funds only: Abu Dhabi Investment Authority ($773 billion), Abu Dhabi Investment Council ($110 billion), and Investment Corporation of Dubai ($183 billion)).Given the other budgetary demands on their oil revenues, $50/bbl or $60/bbl oil leaves these OPEC outsiders with little to invest in maintaining oil output, much less expanding output. Budgetary pressures and limited financial resources, for example, have forced the Iraqi government to request its foreign partners, BP in the Rumaila field and Exxon in the West Gurna-1 field, to reduce spending to cut 2015 investment by $500 million ($1.1 billion vs. $1.6 billion) and $1 billion ($2.5 billion to $3.5) respectively.

While all OPEC members, including Saudi Arabia, have suffered from the Saudi decision, they have not shared the pain equally. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Arab allies, except Qatar, have increased output, while the output of other OPEC members, other than Iraq and Angola, has either flat-lined or decreased, compared to 2014:Given Saudi determination to defend its export markets, it is interesting that the percentage gain in their crude exports exceeded the percentage gain in crude output in 1H 2015, by 2.7 percentage points. For Iran, the only other OPEC country for which the IEA provides domestic demand data, the increase in exports, 0.7 percent, matched the increased domestic output.Interestingly, also, the Saudis increased their share of OPEC average daily output in the first half of 2015 over 2014 average daily volume—and their share of average daily global output. Their share of OPEC output increased to 26.6 percent in 1H 2015, from 26 percent on average in 2014, while their share of world output increased to 10.4 percent from 10.2 percent.

For the OPEC outsiders, this should be particularly distressing, since the increase in output likely deepened the decline in prices the Saudi decision to abandon its role as guarantor precipitated.

Both results continue trends seen since 2010. Saudi share of OPEC output increased three percentage points, from 23.6 percent in 2010 to 26.6 percent in 1H 2015. At the same time, the Saudi share of world output increased 1.1 percentage points, from 9.3 percent to 10.4 percent, during the same period; during the same period, OPEC output as a share of global output declined slightly, from 39.5 percent to 39.2 percent.In fact, over this period, Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Arab allies increased their total output 18.1 percent while the output from the other OPEC members decreased 5.4 percent. During this period, the Saudi and Gulf Arab share of global output was flat, declining only 0.1 percentage point, while the share of the other members declined 1.5 percentage points, from 16.7 percent to 15.2 percent.

Impact on Non-OPEC Producers as Advertised?

In defense of their policy, the Saudis could point to IEA projections that show the rate of growth in output from major non-OPEC producers slowing substantially in 2016, particularly in North America, a major Saudi target, and Brazil:

However, it is reasonable for the OPEC outsiders to question the actual efficacy of Saudi policy on non-OPEC producers and the benefit it will bring them. In both the United States and Russia, each of which produces roughly as much as Saudi Arabia, output increased in 2015 rather than decreasing, and will continue to increase in 2016 in the U.S.

The IEA projects Brazil’s output, despite Brazilian political turmoil, growing 6.45 percent in 2016. Moreover, Saudi policy, combined with the impact of U.S. and EU sanctions on Russia, led to the undesirable result for OPEC (and other oil exporters) that Russian exports have increased, from 7.21 million barrels/day in 2014 to 7.55 million barrels per day in 1H 2015, in part because as Russia’s economy contracted, reducing domestic crude demand to 3.47 MMbbls/day in 1H 2015 from 3.65 MMbbls/day, while crude output increased to 11.025 MMbbls/day from 10.86 MMbbls/day.

Moreover, any comfort the OPEC outsiders gain at best may be cold comfort. While the IEA projects surplus production will begin to recede in 2H 2016, they are suffering now (and in any case, it is a projection). As we have pointed out, RBC Capital’s fragile five, Algeria, Libya, Nigeria, Iraq and Venezuela, the pain is intense. Also, it is wealthy Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Arab allies and non-OPEC members, in particular the U.S., Canada, Mexico (foreign investment), and also Russia (Chinese investment), that will have the financial wherewithal to grow output to satisfy the 18 million barrel per day increase in demand that OPEC sees by 2040.

The December 2015 OPEC Meeting

Given the Saudi decision’s positive impact on their and their Gulf Arab allies’ relative position within OPEC and its negative impact on OPEC outsiders, it is possible, perhaps even likely, the Saudis will face an OPEC outsider revolt at the December 4 OPEC meeting.

The Saudis and their Gulf Arab allies would seem to have three possible approaches, should a revolt occur:

Reconciliation, as Saudi Arabia acquiesces in the wishes of OPEC’s weaker members to bring price increases forward through OPEC production cuts, Saudi Arabia bearing the brunt;

Separation, as the Saudis and their Gulf Arab allies ignore their fellow members’ entreaties and force them to wait for “market” forces to balance supply and demand; or

Divorce, as the Saudis and their Gulf Arab allies decide to exploit their financial wealth and go their own way, therefore forcing their fellow OPEC members, unable to finance their domestic oil industries, unwillingly to bear the brunt of global production cuts.

In October 2014, the Saudis began signaling their intention to abandon their role as guarantor. It is unlikely however, that whatever Saudi decision makers are now considering, they will show their hand in advance of the December meeting, since this would reduce pressure on the non-OPEC producers that the Saudis claim to be targeting, before necessary.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudis-Could-Face-An-Open-Revolt-At-Next-OPEC-Meeting.html

Using religious frameworks in political contestation and mobilisation has become more eminent in recent decades spiralling an intricate debate on the conceptualisation and implementation of such references in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. The contradiction, it is argued, mainly lies in the compromising nature of politics and the relatively dogmatic nature of religion. Boosted by inaccurate media coverage and primordial analytical frameworks, it has become tempting to see religion as responsible for conflicts and underachievement in the MENA region.

In the conventional sense, Islamic movements are often held responsible for implementing religion towards political ends. However, this is not always true as the nondemocratic states in the MENA region and elsewhere in the Muslim majority world had constantly attempted to control ideological power – Islamic religion and its organisations in this case – before Islamic movements even came to exist in the form we know today.

By the end of 2010 and the beginning of 2011, uprisings across the Arab world toppled long-lasting dictators starting from Tunisia’s Zine Al-Abidine Ben Ali to Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, Libya’s Muammar Al-Gaddafi and then Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh. These changes altered the political systems in these countries brining new overlapping, intertwined and intersecting networks of relations, by which new political actors and temporal dynamics have emerged.

Islamic factions, Salafists and Muslim Brotherhood and their shades, did not join the revolutionary momentum in Egypt from the very beginning, yet they played a major role after the “25 January revolution” winning 351 seats from 498, around 70% of the Egyptian parliament. The conservative Islamic Freedom and Justice Party owned 45.7% while the ultra conservative Salafi Al-Noor Party 23.6%, according to the Official Elections Portal of Egypt.

The Egyptian uprising was not per se a social revolution aiming at changing the social structures, but rather a political one aiming at deposing a 30-year rule of dictatorship. Yet we can witness a shift in power balance altering the ideological power relations with other power organisations pushing Islamic factions to the top of the political pyramid to appoint a president – Mohammad Morsi – at one time and a shift back to elect a coup installed regime under Abdulfattah Al-Sisi, who accordingly called for an Islamic revolution and reformation of religious discourse at another time. How can we account for such dramatic divergences in trajectories within less than five years?

Acknowledging that political contestation and mobilisation processes in the state of Egypt, or any other state for that matter, cannot be reduced to only ideological dimensions. The increase of political instrumentalisation in politics owes not to the nature and features of the Islamic religion, but rather to the constant power struggle between the elites of the ruling blocs to practice dominance over ideological power networks and sources in order legitimatise, mobilise, persuade, contest, control, lure, coerce and eliminate.

This power struggle within military, security, political and religious institutions could pave the way for political instrumentalisation of Islam and trigger elimination and outbidding processes instead of democratic contestation. Elimination processes create new network-like formations on the periphery and interstitial to official power networks relying (as we see in Egypt) on religion’s transcendence and socio-spatial extensive organisation.

Seizure of power or change of its distribution is more likely to trigger new forms of relations and perhaps networks, variable in their efficiency and capacity, following a division of labour between those who control security, the military, political institutions and those who control ideological networks. This division of labour necessitates new emergent social relations to satisfy these actors’ needs. Precisely somewhere at the beginning of this process, a space for political instrumentalisation of Islam could occur to seize power.

Interstitial forms of extensive interactions, increasingly out of the official control emerge attracting more diffused masses of people, such as the Muslim Brotherhood’s followers, to become part of these interstitial networks. Thus, power struggle to have a good grip on ideological power emerges from its distinctive form of social organisation to legitimatise specific forms of authority and to solve contradictions in society.

Ideology is a source of power exercised by an ideological network like other political, military and economic powers. However, ideological power can be more resilient if it is shared, divided, organized, reorganized and mobilized by other power networks. While ideological power enjoys a level of autonomy, which impels its networks to serve their own interests individually if possible, it can be stretched over other power organizations passing on a space for dangerously religious outbidding game and a cynical use of religion. That is why ideological power plays a decisive role in the power struggle in the Middle East. Thus, it is not the nature of the religion, but rather the usefulness of the ideological power for integrating, stabilising and mobilising social life.

By Sasa Dragojlo and Sinisa Jakov Marusic

A new wave of about 2,000 refugees is shortly expected to reach Presevo, in southern Serbia, on the border with Macedonia, the local Red Cross said.

A new wave of refugees is expected to reach the refugee reception centre in Presevo in southern Serbia, the Red Cross in Presevo said on Tuesday.

“At the moment, we have about 500 refugees but we have an information that during the day about 2,000 more will arrive,” Ahmet Halimi, Secretary of the Red Cross in Presevo, said on Tuesday.

He added that the centre is ready to welcome them and they have enough food and water for three to four days.

According to the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, about 7,000 refugees entered Serbia from Macedonia in the last three days.

Fahmi Mustafa, Mayor of Presevo, said around 60,000 people had received help in food and hygiene products in Presevo so far.

Almost all the migrants arriving from the border with Macedonia leave for Belgrade in order to continue their journey towards Hungary and other EU countries.

It is expected that on Tuesday night about 1,000 refugees will cross the Serbian border with Hungary, looking to continue their way to wealthier EU countries.

They are due to arrive on buses from the capital Belgrade in Subotica in the north, where most will quickly move on in buses to Kanjiza, a town close to the border with Hungary.

The Hungarian government on Tuesday meanwhile submitted a draft law on “sealing” the border of with Serbia after the installation of a fence along the border in July.

“The criminal law will be tightened in the work of legislation against human trafficking, while the procedures towards migrants will be faster and more efficient,” Robert Repasi, Hungarian State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice, said.

Aleksandar Vucic, the Serbian Prime Minister, on Tuesday said in an interview for the German newspaper Handelsblatt that Europe must find a joint solution for the “migrant crisis” and that border fences will not help.

“Fences do not solve any problem in Europe. Immigrants will easily find other routes to Western Europe. Unfortunately, Hungary’s fence reminds us of our past in Eastern Europe,” Vucic said.

Last week saw chaotic scenes near the southern Macedonian border at Gevgelija with clashes between refugees who broke through police lines to enter the country and Macedonian police who used stun grenades to stop them.

The situation normalised on Sunday when Macedonia laid on trains and buses to help transport the arriving refugees to the northern border with Serbia.

The Macedonian authorities have complained that they are not getting much help from the EU in dealing with a complicated situation. They said they were doing everything in their power to organize the relief effort and transport of refugees towards the border with Serbia.

According to UNHCR statistics, since the start of the year almost 300,000 people have crossed the Mediterranean.

Of that number, 181,000 landed in Greece seeking to continue their journey trough Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary and then Western Europe. Around 66,500 refugees, mostly from the Middle East, have reached Serbia this year.

South Korea refuses to panic over North’s provocations, turns on border loudspeakers to secure agreement on peace talks.

By Shim Jae Hoon*

The blood-curdling threats against the South emanating from North Korea are all too familiar, but ironically the repeat performance only underlines the North’s weakness. A changing global landscape for the Koreas, especially weakening Chinese support for Pyongyang, is making the North Korean threat increasingly hollow.

On August 20 North Korea declared a “quasi state of war” following the exchange of artillery shells across the misnamed Demilitarized Zone, once again raising the specter of conflict on the Korean Peninsula.

Yet instead of waging war, Pyongyang, chastened perhaps by Chinese counsel for restraint, began talks with Seoul and agreed to call off its state of war and start dialogue with the South.

For more than half a century since the signing of the 1953 armistice agreement, the capitalist-based, democratic South has had to cope with an endless series of armed provocations from the aggressive, totalitarian system of the North. But the end of the Cold War in 1991 brought increasingly closer relations between US-backed South Korea and China and Russia allied with the north. Today, North Korea confronts dramatically new international dynamics as it seeks to alter the status quo. The strong-arm tactics by Kim Jong Un, the 33-year-old hereditary leader who came to power in December 2011, to gain political concessions simply are not working.

The current crisis erupted August 8 when a landmine secretly placed by the North underneath the line dividing the two sides exploded, seriously wounding two South Korean patrol guards. Pyongyang’s refusal to take responsibility for this case of armistice violation prompted Seoul to respond with loudspeakers installed along the demarcation line, about 255-kilometers long, which had been silenced by agreement during the past 11 years. The loudspeakers blast news of the outside world, including human rights violations in the North, to North Korean troops on the other side of the line. The news blasts, which prompt a few North Korean soldiers to defect each year, are powerful enough to reach North Korean civilians within 25 kilometers.

North Korean defectors in the South also occasionally launch balloons carrying propaganda leaflets across the line. Such psychological warfare has been a source of great irritation, undermining grassroots-level loyalty to the regime. Uncensored news about the outside world encourages civilians as well as those in uniform to defect.

Shortly after midnight Tuesday, North and South negotiators at Panmunjom agreed on a joint statement. The blasts caused so much concern for the North that the government expressed “regrets” over the landmine incident in exchange for the South’s promise to silence the loudspeakers. The statement’s wording indicates that the South will resume the broadcasts if the North commits fresh provocations. The North also agreed to call off its declaration of the semi-state of war and restart the peace process including a reunion for families divided by the war that began in 1950.

South Korea has won this round of confrontation, but that does not end its serious concern over the North’s use of hit-and-run guerrilla style attacks designed to wear down the South. Since signing of the armistice agreement in 1953, the North has committed some 2,000 cases of such provocations, half taking place along the armistice border. These include infiltration of individual saboteurs, group incursions, firing across the line, or planting of landmines inside the southern border.

One such provocation in 1976, the ax murder of two US Army officers inside the neutral area of Panmunjom, nearly triggered full-scale war. That incident so outraged the US Command that President Gerald Ford ordered B-52 bombers and the USS Midway to the Korea Peninsula in a move to punish the attack. In the face of a massive show of force, North Korean leader Kim Il Sung backed down and issued his first statement of apology.

His grandson Kim Jong Un, the North’s new leader, is focusing on the Yellow Sea zone, where he is probing to neutralize the US-imposed Northern Limit Line, serving as an effective maritime border between the two sides. Two naval clashes flared there in 1999 and 2002, but the most spectacular attack occurred in 2010 when the North launched a submarine torpedo attack on the battleship Cheonan inside the South’s territorial waters, killing 45 seamen.

The sinking of the Cheonan was a wakeup call for Seoul. Since then, no amount of North Korean saber-rattling or its trademark brinkmanship appears likely to move Seoul’s determination to dispense with the recurring tension. Although Radio Pyongyang declared that North Korean combat-ready troops were being massed close to the border, average citizens go about their daily routines. To provoke a panic in the South, the North also let it be known that 50 of its 70 submarines left port. Kim’s implicit message: Stop the loudspeakers or he would start a war.

Analysts have pondered what may happen after South Korea called Kim’s bluff. For the most part, analysts anticipate the regime to resume peaceful contacts, especially since the North’s economy is in a bad shape, including a recent drought that promises food shortages. North Korea continues to rely on China for half its food needs.

In the long run, economic hardships and continuous rounds of executions and purges raise questions about the stability of Kim’s leadership. A case in point is the bad timing for stirring tensions while the US–South Korean annual military exercise, Ulchi Freedom Guardian, is underway. US and South Korean air force fighter jets are flying sorties over bombing practices along the border. “The North understands it risks annihilation if it starts another war,” said Hong Hyun Ik, a leading North Korea watcher for authoritative Sejong Institute in Seoul, during a television roundtable. “What Kim is saying is that ‘Don’t undermine my position with loudspeakers. Don’t embarrass me with UN resolutions on human rights violations…leave me in peace.’”

Compounding Kim’s problems is a deficiency of sympathy from China, his closest neighbor and economic lifeline. Beijing has informally told Pyongyang that it should lower its war fever and “exercise restraint.” China’s foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chinying called for calm on both sides, but her message was more painful for Kim. China is in the midst of an economic slowdown and wants to prevent any border conflict that would threaten regional stability.

Lest Kim misses this message, China is reportedly deploying troops along the border with the North in a pointed show of force – amounting to more than a gentle arm-twisting as Beijing prepares for the September 3 World War Two Victory March with President Park as guest on the podium. Her presence should be doubly goring for Kim, whose regime claims legitimacy in Kim Il Sung’s war against Japan in China.

Kim’s friends in Moscow, as those in China, have similarly advised calm, asking for “restraint on both sides,” a calculated expression of neutrality. Russian President Vladimir Putin is more interested in selling oil and gas to South Korea than supporting Kim’s adventurous course.

The political and military dynamics surrounding the Korean Peninsula have transformed, limiting North Korea’s space to disrupt the current balance of power. Kim faces a sobering choice: Either he should call for peace and focus on the economic well-being of his nation, or risk facing a catastrophic end to his regime.

*Shim Jae Hoon is a Seoul-based journalist.

Rather than a contest between two or three viable candidates, U.S. presidential elections have historically been a referendum on the administration holding power. With at least some awareness of this fact, Republican candidates are busy criticizing President Barack Obama’s foreign policy and desperately trying to link Hillary Clinton, his former Secretary of State and still the most likely Democratic nominee, to it (for example, beating the inconsequential Benghazi incident to death). Obama can be faulted for many bad policies domestically—for example, increased government intrusion into the health care market, a massive pork barrel “stimulus” program, and socialization of some of the big American car companies—and an unneeded war to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi that has brought chaos and terrorism to that country and destabilized surrounding nations. However, Obama cannot be blamed for the rise of Iran in the Persian Gulf region and the heretofore acceleration of its nuclear weapons program.

The fifth anniversary of Obama declaring that the U.S. combat mission in Iraq had ended should make us rewind even farther back to George W. Bush’s invasion of that country, which aggravated both of these major problems with Iran. Before this invasion, Lt. Gen. William Odom (Ret.), the general that was Ronald Reagan’s blunt-talking chief of the National Security Agency, was one of the few military men to oppose what turned out to be a predictable disaster. Although many military men are well versed military operations and tactics, fewer do strategy well—the late Odom was one of them. Even in the hysteria after 9/11 that led to the invasion of Iraq, Odom courageously objected to that invasion for the same reason that he had opposed the Vietnam War: such a war would help the main American adversary. In the Cold War, it was the Soviet Union, and in the Persian Gulf, it was Iran. Odom’s reluctance to fight these questionable conflicts shows that all wars are not patriotic or even smart. Odom couldn’t have been more prescient about either conflict.

And although the number of public voices objecting to Bush’s military adventure were few, many experts in the region certainly raised their eyebrows about Bush’s plan to democratize Iraq using military power and then use the example to create a domino effect in the Middle East. Iraq was probably one of the least likely candidates for democracy in the Middle East because of its historically ruthless political culture and because, as prior and subsequent events had demonstrated, it is an artificial country with severe ethno-sectarian cleavages. Even when the president’s own intelligence community blew another one of Bush’s justifications for the alleged preventive military action by concluding that even if Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his chemical and biological weapons—no one believed he had nuclear weapons, the only true weapon of mass destruction—he was not likely to use them unless backed into a corner (read: by a U.S. invasion). The last rationale for the war was that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden and the other perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks in al Qaeda, which was preposterous dissembling. And so Bush foolishly marched to war.

A war conducted for no good reason, and with little thought to the predictable and adverse unintended strategic consequences, fulfilled Odom’s prediction of a resurgent, yet uneasy, Iran. In the Persian Gulf, overthrowing Saddam in Iraq removed the major counterbalance to the much larger and more populous Iran. Also, Bush’s lack of respect for non-nuclear Iraq made Iran accelerate its nuclear program to keep the same thing from happening to it. Obama, with a nuclear agreement containing a good inspection regime for enforcement has now put that nuclear program in the deep freeze for at least 10 to 15 years. Even though Congress’ rejection of the agreement likely would make Iran race toward getting a bomb as the international sanctions regime fell apart, Israel and Iran’s Sunni Arab enemies, supporting such a rejection, apparently aren’t worried as much about an Iranian nuclear weapon as they are Iran’s rise as a powerful regional adversary. A nixing of the agreement might result in the United States eventually bombing Iran, which would weaken their main regional adversary.

The Republicans complain about Obama not doing enough to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, nor enough to blunt Iran’s increasing regional influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, yet one of their own—George W. Bush—had a big hand in aggravating these problems in the first place. On the campaign trail, Republican candidate Jeb Bush recently became red-faced and flummoxed when a college student reminded him that ISIS originated as a derivative from opposition to his brother’s invasion of Iraq. Yet another unintended consequence of that same fiasco, however, is the rise of Iran and the acceleration of its nuclear program, which the Democrats should mention to the Republicans. But Hillary Clinton may not be the best candidate to do so, because while she was in the Senate, she gleefully supported Bush’s idiotic war of aggression.

This article appeared at The Huffington Post and is reprinted with permission.

By Kamer Kasim

The end of the Cold War brought an expectation that Moscow and Ankara would turn over a new leaf in their relations. Indeed, during this period economic relations between the two saw real progress as witnessed in their increasing trade volumes of $4.2 billion in 1997, $28.2 billion in 2007, and $31.2 billion in 2014. Turkey’s energy imports from Russia hold an important share in this augmentation. In 2014, while Turkey’s exports to Russia amounted to $5.9 billion, its imports therefrom amounted to $25.2 billion. The number of Russian tourists who visited Turkey in the 1990s were numbered in the hundreds of thousands while this number has exceed 3.5 million after 2012. Moreover, abolishing visas between two countries has increased mobility. Despite all these developments, Turkey’s trade deficit with Russia continues to be a major problem.

In this context, Turkey has come to expect the removal of obstacles to its exports to Russia while Turkish businesspeople hope to see less bureaucracy-related delays in their bilateral business ventures. These two countries have a lofty objective of attaining a $100 billion trade volume. In line with this objective, in order to accelerate customs procedures, the Simplified Customs Line (SCL) was agreed upon by both countries in 2009. Despite the problems encountered, Turkish-Russian economic relations have achieved significant progress.

However, it is hard to say that the two countries’ political relations have enjoyed the same advancements. The main reason for this is that Turkish-Russian relations have not been able to overcome the Cold War mentality, thus resulting in a significant obstacle especially to bilateral cooperation with regard to regional problems. In this vein, for many years, Russia was suspicious of Turkey’s close relations with the Turkic Republics. Russia also interpreted Turkey’s actions in the Balkans and the Middle East as an indication that “Turkey serves Western interests”. However, on 1 March 2003, the Turkish Grand National Assembly refused to grant permission to the US military to use Turkish territory to launch a ground invasion of Iraq, an act that was perceived by Russia as the dawn of a Turkey that could act independently in the region.

Moreover, while Turkey is enhancing its relations with Russia particularly in the field of energy, Russia’s use of armed force in the region – such as during the intervention in Georgia in August 2008 – has raised several question marks for Turkey. Nevertheless, the US’s request to provide assistance to Georgia via the Dardanelles and Bosporus Straits in August 2008 was refused by Turkey, as the latter emphasized the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits. These case have shown that Turkey has begun to interpret its relations with Russia separately from its other NATO allies. Additionally, Turkey, which has sought to further improve international cooperation in the field of energy, came to an agreement with Russia regarding the construction of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant in Turkey’s Mersin Province. However, up until now, Russia has not responded to Turkey’s various moves which have opened a window of opportunity for the improvement of bilateral political relations.

Does the Ukraine Crisis represent the dawning of a new era?

Regardless of the fact that the political rapprochement between the two countries at hand has been quite limited following the Cold War, the strained state of relations between the West and Russia due to the Ukraine Crisis may open a new age and set new parameters for Turkish-Russian relations. Given that Russia’s relations with the West and Ukraine have been severely damaged, Russia has needed to rearrange a variety of policies, and particularly its energy policy.

It is obvious that an unstable Ukraine has totally distanced itself from Russia in the aftermath of the latter’s annexation of Crimea. As can be observed from the political dynamics of the country, pro-Russian blocs will not be able to maintain the dominance they once enjoyed in earlier elections. After all, Russia now wants to completely bypass Ukraine when it comes to selling its energy resources to Europe. In this regard, Russia is making plans for the period following 2019, when the gas transit agreement between itself and Ukraine will come to an end. Thinking ahead, Russia has now come to Turkey with the idea of the Turkish Stream after the South Stream project failed.

From the viewpoint of Russia, Turkey, as a regional power which pursues independent policies, is a more reliable partner than other alternatives. Moreover, this reasoning has been supplemented by the fact that Turkey pursued a pragmatic policy when deciding not to partake in the Western sanctions against Russia due to the Ukraine Crisis. In this case, this new form that Turkish-Russian relations has taken on exemplifies Turkey’s position as distinct from the West in particular points, especially in the eyes of Russia. Moreover, the West, with its numerous sanctions against Russia, does not act in an organized and comprehensive manner, and more importantly, it does not share Turkey’s opinion regarding policies toward Russia. Under these circumstances, why would Turkey take joint action with the West and the US and harm its relations with Russia? If Russia takes Turkey’s sensitivity about Crimean Tatars into account, the Ukraine Crisis can actually pave the way for a new form of cooperation in Turkish-Russian relations that will range from the Black Sea to Central Asia.

Turkey should determine its priorities in its relations with Russia and provide the country with clear-cut messages thereon. Here, Caucasian security, Turkey’s relations with the Turkic Republics, and energy may be some of the priorities Turkey would like to emphasize. Cooperation between these two regional powers on issues related to Caucasia and Central Asia would generate mutual benefits. For example, the two could work toward formulating a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem, and therewith take an important step in providing Caucasian security. Russia has the necessary tools to pressure Armenia on this issue as Armenia is dependent on Russia not only in terms of security but also economically. The recent Armenian protests against a rise in electricity prices also goes to show that energy is one of the delicate points of the Armenian administration, and in the end, Russia is the one with the loudest voice in this field, particularly in terms of electricity distribution. Yet despite Russia’s ability to exert leverage over Armenia when it comes to solving persistent regional conflicts, Putin went to Yerevan on 24 April and gave a speech which made Turkey feel uncomfortable. In this regard, those in Russia who support closer relations between their country and Turkey contend that the current conjuncture is not a result of inter-state relations between Armenia and Russia but instead due to the activities of the Armenian diaspora within Russia. However, given the fact that Putin maintains powerful leadership in Russia, this explanation remains insufficient. Either Russia does not understand Turkey’s sensitivity to this issue – as a precious regional power – or Turkey has been unable to explain its position to Russia.

If Russia changes its policy towards the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, not only would new avenues of cooperation be opened among Turkey, Russia, and Azerbaijan, but also Turkmenistan could be included in this constellation as a country whose relations with Azerbaijan are swiftly developing. Nonetheless, the conflicts which have become chronic in the Middle East, especially the chaos in Syria, should not be handled as an issue in the realm of Turkish-Russian bilateral relations considering that Syria has become a global issue and should be analyzed multi-dimensionally as such. Moreover, it will be difficult for Russia to change its existing position in Syria in the short-term. And in this respect, Russia’s main concern is in fact those Russian citizens who have gone to the region to fight and the potential security risk that these individuals’ return to Russia poses. Considering this, Russia is trying to minimize such security risks by negotiating with various actors including Saudi Arabia.

Ultimately, both the regional powers at hand will benefit from cooperation in this new era. Turkey could improve its relations with Russia by not joining the Western efforts to isolate it and Russia should engage in joint action with Turkey with regard to delicate subjects such as the Armenian allegations.

*This article was first published in Analist Monthly Journal’s August issue in Turkish language.

By Bhaskar Roy*

On September 3, China will hold a huge military parade in Beijing to commemorate its victory over Japan, and the end of the Second World War. The Chinese people will see this parade, foreign dignitaries will also be there, and the event will be reported all over the world.

China has reasons to celebrate, even if it is the 70th anniversary. Around 15 million Chinese died during the Japanese aggression from 1937 to 1945. It is true that Chinese civilians suffered enormously at the hands of the Japanese army, including women who were taken as “comfort women” or “sex slaves”. The Koreans suffered as much at the hands of the Japanese.

Other countries also suffered under Japanese occupation, including prisoners of war (POWs) who were expected to be treated differently. Those who survived the infamous Japanese “death rail”, railway line constructed for the Japanese army, lived to tell terrible tales of torture and deprivation. Many of them later suffered from mental disorders. They were not Chinese but nationals of other countries, who also need to be remembered. Yet how long can retributions and demand for reparations continue?

Post Second World War, occupation armies have committed unpardonable atrocities on the occupied people and those who resisted them. For instance, during the war of liberation in 1971 which led to the birth of Bangladesh, the Pakistani army committed comparable atrocities on the Bengali people of East Pakistan. An estimated three million Bengalis were killed, three hundred thousand of their women raped, and thousands of children, the old and infirm massacred. Bengali children were rounded up for target practice by the Pakistani army. The Bangladeshis too require closure and reparations.

At least some Japanese leaders were executed as war criminals. No Pakistani leader or war criminal was ever called to account because Pakistan had powerful international supporters, especially the USA and China. It would only be in the fitness of things if China’s president also mentions such crimes against humanity in his address on September 3.

These do not take away, in any way, the sufferings of the Chinese people. The war against the Japanese was fought not only by the army of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), who were peripheral. The nationalist army of KMT fought the main war on China’s soil and although the KMT was defeated by the Red Army in 1949, they deserve congratulations, praise or at least a mention.

It was the American nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that broke the back of the Japanese war machine. Post-war Japan signed on a peace constitution dictated by the Americans. The war and how it ended had a profound impact on the Japanese people, who renounced militarism and war. This sentiment still prevails largely in Japan.

Germany made a clear apology for the holocaust unleashed by Nazi Germany. Japan’s best apology came from Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama in 1995. China was happy with this but China senses insincerity and revival of militarism in Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. His long apology and expression of regret for “aggression” on August 14 this year was somewhat suspect to not only Chinese eyes but also in the view of some international experts. Abe tried to work a fine line.

But there are other parts to the story. For decades China unleashed its massive propaganda machinery to name and shame. Initially, Japan did not protest, it tried to pacify China through economic means, Overseas Development Assistance (ODA), and investments. It remained within its constitutional obligations, maintained only a Self Defence Force (SDF) under its supervision, and its forces followed the constitutional requirement to operate only for defending the nation within its territorial waters and air.

Something went wrong. From 2008 China became emphatically aggressive over its maritime territorial claims in the region, including with Japan. In 2012-13 Japan articulated that China’s military policy was opaque, perceiving a threat from China. This not only altered Japan’s view but also the view of countries of the region and the larger international community. Japan also wanted to exist as a normal nation.

The world has moved a long way since the Second World War. Even China has dropped its theory of a possible Third World War and Japan is not seen as a threat any longer. But it has to defend itself and act with other nations if required to maintain peace, stability and keep the global commons open.

There is a strong perception that China is militarizing faster than any other country. It wants to build a military to counter the United States in the Asia-Pacific region, to start with. China’s military build up is not a reaction to the US pivot in Asia. In fact it is the other way round.

China may claim its military modernization is for self-defense. But the “self-defense” can be extended far away from China’s shores. Further, its aggressive pursuit of territorial claims like the Spratly islands, based on nebulous historical claims, does not inspire confidence in the “peaceful rise of China”.

The military parade will display new advanced weapons made in China, accordingly to the Xinhua. This display of military power will not be missed by anyone, especially the neighbouring countries which have territorial issues with China and are already under pressure. South China Sea is an important maritime route for global trade. There is a suspicion derived from official and semi-official Chinese statements, that China may ultimately control the South China Sea.

The parade, however, has a greater importance for China’s internal problems and issues. It is an ace for President Xi Jinping. President Xi is in a hurry to save the communist party which fell into disrepute with the people because of massive corruption.

Xi has taken on the corrupt in the PLA, which had begun to harm the morale of the armed forces. To win over the PLA he has to promote to the people the strength and capability of the military. Every army loves new and powerful weapons, especially when these are displayed to the people. They feel proud and elated, and naturally rally around the leader who gives them this power and respect. The PLA is a very important pillar of the Chinese Communist Party. The party commands the gun, and the gun protects the party. It has happened several times in the past. Especially at this juncture when Xi has made powerful enemies with his anti-corruption drive which has a huge political edge, he needs the PLA firmly on his side.

Finally Xi wants to establish himself as the next Mao Zedong but without a Cultural Revolution or a Great Leap Forward. He is building a personality cult quietly. The coming party plenum will be very important for Xi, and he is preparing for the 19th Party Congress in 2017, when he expects to establish his leadership.

For this, great pomp and show is required. No other leader before Xi Jinping has commemorated the victory over Japan with such splendour. He brings forth more clearly China’s contribution to the Second World War victory. None can beat this.

*The writer is a New Delhi Based Strategic analyst. He can be reached at e-mail grouchohart@yahoo.com

General Prayut Chan-o-cha’s reshuffled cabinet includes a new economic team led by Dr. Somkid Jatusripitak, a seasoned hand in handling the economy. To revive the Kingdom’s economy, the new team must quickly undertake multi-faceted policy actions.

By Kaewkamol Pitakdumrongkit*

Three days after the devastating bomb blast at the Erawan Shrine in central Bangkok Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha’s reshuffled cabinet was approved by the King. The bombing, which killed 20 people and injured scores more, had struck a big blow to the country’s tourism industry, which accounts for some 10 percent of its GDP.

That day the National Economic and Social Development Board slashed its 2015 GDP growth forecast from 3-4 percent this year to 2.7-3.2 percent. The new cabinet appeared like a silver lining in the gloomy outlook.

Eyes on new economic team

Of all the cabinet changes, most eyes turned towards the new economic ministers – the so-called “Dream Team”, led by Dr. Somkid Jatusripitak who replaced Pridiyathorn Devakula. With his credentials and experience, Somkid is a familiar face in Thai politics as he had previously served as deputy prime minister, finance minister and commerce minister. He received his PhD in marketing from the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University.

Gen. Prayut has given a free rein to Somkid to manage the economy. The incoming individuals to fill in some key positions have known and worked with Somkid before. Some of the new faces were said to sync well with him. Examples include Apisak Tantivorawong (finance minister), Uttama Savanayana (the information and communications technology minister), Suvit Maesincee (deputy commerce Minister) and Omsin Cheevapruek (deputy transport minister).

As for other key positions which interact with the international community, civilians were promoted or selected to replace the incumbent military personnel. For instance the new foreign minister is Dom Pramudwinai who succeeded Gen. Tanasak Patimapragorn. Dom’s track record reveals his vast experience and networks as he is the former ambassador to several countries including Germany, China, and the United States. Such reorganisation will undoubtedly facilitate Somkid’s work as the Dream Team’s leader.

If the junta’s primary goal was to boost confidence, this cabinet reshuffle immediately achieved that. On 20 August, Bangkok University released its opinion poll which surveyed about 1,200 residents aged 18 and above. The nation-wide poll found that 47.6 percent of the respondents viewed the new line-up more favourably than the previous one. 65.8 percent believed that a smaller military role in the cabinet will enhance its credibility among foreigners.

Dream Team’s challenges

Yet, the poll revealed that expectations ran high for the new economic team. Some 66 percent of individuals surveyed were confident the team will alleviate the country’s economic sluggishness. Also, 54 percent of them believed that the team will roll out policy actions which will effectively improve the country’s economy. The top three items that the Thai public wanted the revamped cabinet to tackle immediately were falling prices of agricultural products, rising cost of living, and the restoration of market confidence in the tourism sector. Clearly, there is no honeymoon period for the Dream Team.

The Dream Team will inevitably face a challenging task to stimulate the country’s troubled economy. For instance, domestic consumption has been weak. High household debt has discouraged spending. The recent drought undermined the agricultural sector, which employs about 30-40 percent of the entire population, painting another grim prospect. Private investment fell because of the rising labour cost and skilled labour shortage. There appear to be some signs of Thailand losing its competitiveness as some activities were relocated overseas. Moreover, the global economic slowdown and falling prices of agricultural goods continue to harm the country’s exports.

To revive the economy, the Dream Team must act quickly. For example, it must speed up the implementation of government spending projects, especially mega-infrastructure ones, to boost employment and grass-root purchasing power. Long-run plans for industrial upgrading, skills training and innovation (R&D) must be put in place to increase the productivity of the exporting sector. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) should be given more access to finance and technical support.

Regulations on foreign equity restrictions and foreign investment protection must be adjusted to raise opportunity for international joint ventures, attract foreign investment, and restore market confidence. Additionally, efforts must be stepped up to form special economic zones, border trade zones as well as identify the locations where industrial clusters can be formed to further draw in investment.

Yes, this sounds like a daunting task that Somkid and his colleagues must undertake. Will his Dream Team live up to expectations? The time is running out.

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

Reviewing 50 years of diplomatic relations between Australia and Singapore, Australian diplomats highlight the potential for a strong and enduring partnership.

By Daniel Wei Boon Chua*

During celebrations of 50 years of Australia-Singapore diplomatic relations on August 18, 2015, Australian diplomats past and present recounted the reasons for Canberra’s decision to establish diplomatic relations with Singapore and offered perspectives on how the next 50 years of Singapore-Australian relations would look like.

On August 9, 1965, the day Singapore became independent from the Federation of Malaysia, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew wrote to Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies, informing him about Singapore’s momentous exit from Malaysia. On August 18, Prime Minister Menzies released a press statement announcing: “The Australian Government has recognised the State of Singapore and I have informed the Singapore Prime Minister that we will be happy to establish full diplomatic relations with Singapore at the level of High Commissioner, and that we wish Singapore well in its new sovereignty and look forward to a continuance of close friendly relations with the new State and with Malaysia.”

Looking back: 1965

The statement marked the start of 50 years of a close and abiding relationship between the two countries that has straddled the physical distance between them and forged bonds of strategic solidarity and partnership that transcend differences of size, population and politics. Australia’s recognition of Singapore’s sovereignty took place against the backdrop of Australia’s defence of Malaysia against Indonesian Confrontation (Konfrontasi).

As former Australian Deputy High Commissioner to Malaysia Richard Woolcott recounted during an event in Singapore, Australia’s decision to recognise Singapore’s independence was made amid President Sukarno’s accusations that Malaysia was a product of British neo-colonialism, as well as the Philippines’ territorial claim over North Borneo (Sabah). Menzies’ decision to recognise Singapore could affect Australia’s diplomatic relations with Jakarta and Manila, the two Southeast Asian states nearest to Australia.

Nevertheless, imperatives to support newly independent Singapore had strong Commonwealth roots. Australian troops had contributed to the defence of Malaya and Singapore during the Second World War and the Malayan Emergency. To give Singapore’s independence unequivocal support transcended geopolitical calculations. In fact, Woolcott opined that it was in Australia’s greater interest to support both Singapore and Malaysia, and establish diplomatic relations with independent Singapore. Since then, Australia has provided multi-form support and cooperation to Singapore including providing training spaces in Australia for Singapore Armed Forces.

Strong relations in 2015

Singapore-Australian relations have grown stronger over the years. When Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott made his first official visit to Singapore on 28-29 June 2015, he signed the Singapore-Australia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. In his speech at Shangri-La Hotel, Prime Minister Abbott spoke about a deepening of bilateral ties that should go beyond friendship, emphasising that Singapore and Australia should be “family in the years and decades to come”.

In their joint press conference, both Prime Ministers highlighted that Singapore and Australia are like-minded, sharing similar views about United States’ presence in Asia, the centrality of ASEAN in the region, and counter-terrorism. The signing of the CSP was touted as a “transformational agreement” that provides closer cooperation in “trade, investment, foreign policy, defence and security, education and cultural cooperation and people-to-people links”. PM Abbott expressed the hope of seeing Australians and Singaporeans enjoying “the same kind of work and residency situation…as Australians and New Zealanders had”. Such optimism points to the potential for an even deeper relationship between the two countries.

A positive trajectory for the next 50 years

Australian High Commissioner Philip Green, assessing Singapore-Australian relations in the next 50 years, indicated potential for closer ties in the future. He not only highlighted the similarities shared by both countries, but also the crucial ways that Singapore and Australia are different. These differences, he stressed, have unique complementarity. Whereas Australia possesses vast land and is endowed with natural resources, Singapore is strategically located in Asia and plugged into a highly globalised economy. Furthermore, Green mentioned that Australia has always benefited from Singapore’s deep understanding of the region.

Underlying the positive outlook of the Australians is their awareness that Australia and Singapore share a common geopolitical space in Southeast Asia and South Pacific, and common values of democracy, economic liberalism, multi-racialism, and cultural freedom with sections of their populations closely linked to the Asia-Pacific region.

Singapore-Australian relations have come a long way. As a close observer of this bilateral relationship that began in August 1965, Woolcott rightly pointed out that diplomatic ties between the two countries are strong because the leadership on both sides could “speak frankly with each other”. Having established the foundation for enduring bilateral ties 50 years ago, there is good reason to expect closer links for the next half century.

*Daniel Wei Boon Chua is a Research Fellow at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.