“Over the past 50 years, advances of accelerated science has generated a growing gap between public knowledge and those owned and operated by dominant elites. Thanks to biology, neurobiology and applied psychology, the “system” has enjoyed a sophisticated understanding of human beings, both physically and psychologically. The system has gotten better acquainted with the common man more than he knows himself. This means that, in most cases, the system exerts greater control and great power over individuals, greater than that of individuals about themselves.” – Noam Chomsky.

In Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania, Kosovo*, Slovenia since the advertisement “Kiki, lakše se diše” (for candy advert: “Kiki, it is easy to breathe”) everything was, is and will be as mentioned within Noam Chomsky’s Strategy No. 10.

Why?

Because the lack of knowledge and the famously ignorant can be summed up in the sentence, “it is true…it was reported in the media,” which is excellent for harvesting the conclusion that the state, corporation, company, party, city and/or municipality, as well as religious leaders, know better what is good for individuals, than the individuals do.

Instead of using science within the last 50 years to make the world of South-East Europe a better place to exist, it has been used (was it, or is it better anywhere in the world of neo-liberalism?) for manipulation and making the people to become as if they were livestock for the needed intentions of the above-mentioned manipulators.

So, what to do next with respect to the media (il)literacy issue, as a goal toward overcoming mentioned problems.

Usually, it is easy to say than to conduct. But, we should, at least try:

1. Establish media literacy subject within school system. At least to start from Secondary school.
2. Organize guest teaching process within the Secondary school when independent intellectuals will come (costs covered by the state) and talk with pupils about media literacy, regardless mentioned subject.
3. Publishing of the books related with media literacy issue – based on knowledge and not on manipulation.

To strengthen everything mentioned so far, following are MEDIA LITERACY DEFINITIONS & QUOTES (from the distinguished Frank Baker’s website):

• “Media study does not replace text. It broadens and deepens our understanding of texts.” Philip M. Anderson, “Visual & Verbal Thinking” in  Media Literacy, A Reader
• “We need a lot more critical thinking and media criticism taught in schools at a very early age.” John Stauber author of “The Best War Ever” (from Sept. 2006 interview)
• “The more I grasp the pervasive influence of media on our children, the more I worry about the media literacy gap in our nation’s educational curriculum.  We need a sustained K-12 media literacy program—something to teach kids not only how to use the media but how the media uses them.  Kids need to know how particular messages get crafted and why, what devices are used to hold their attention and what ideas are left out.  In a culture where media is pervasive and invasive, kids need to think critically about what they see, hear and read.  No child’s education can be complete without this.”FCC Commissioner Michael Copps (prepared remarks at June 2006 event)
• “the set of abilities and skills where aural, visual, and digital literacy overlap. These include the ability to understand the power of images and sounds, to recognize and use that power, to manipulate and transform digital media, to distribute them pervasively, and to easily adapt them to new forms.” 2005, New Media Consortium’s definition of New Literacies
• “Media literacy empowers people to be both critical thinkers and creative producers of an increasingly wide range of messages using image, language, and sound. It is the skillful application of literacy skills to media and technology messages. As communication technologies transform society, they impact our understanding of ourselves, our communities, and our diverse cultures, making media literacy an essential life skill for the 21st century.” (The Alliance for A Media Literate America, 2000)
• “Media literacy is concerned with helping students develop an informed and critical understanding of the nature of mass media, the techniques used by them, and the impact of these techniques. More specifically, it is education that aims to increase the students’ understanding and enjoyment of how the-media work, how they produce meaning, how they are organized, and how they construct reality. Media literacy also aims to provide students with the ability to create media products. ” ( Media Literacy Resource Guide, Ministry of Education Ontario, 1997)
• “It would be a breach of our duties as teachers for us to ignore the rhetorical power of visual forms of media in combination with text and sound…the critical media literacy we need to teach must include evaluation of these media, lest our students fail to see, understand, and learn to harness the persuasive power of visual media.” (NCTE Resolution on Visual Literacy)
• “Media literacy refers to composing, comprehending, interpreting, analyzing, and appreciating the language and texts of…both print and nonprint. The use of media presupposes an expanded definition of ‘text’…print media texts include books, magazines, and newspapers. Nonprint media include photography, recordings, radio, film, television, videotape, video games, computers, the performing arts, and virtual reality…constantly interact…(and) all (are) to be experienced, appreciated, and analyzed and created by students. (Source:  NCTE, Commission on Media, Carole Cox, 1994, p.13)
• Frank Baker: How important is “media literacy” and should it be part of teaching standards in the U.S., as it is in Canada, Australia and Great Britain?
• Amy Goodman/Democracy NOW: “Thanks for the question. Media literacy is critically important to a democratic society. The great journalist IF Stone told journalism students there are two words they should remember: governments lie. I think many people have a natural skepticism about what government officials say. The problem is when the media act as a megaphone for those in power. The media is supposed to be, as we call our book, “The Exception to the Rulers.” In the old Soviet Union, people knew to read between the lines of Pravda. Here in this country, the media has acted as a conveyer belt for the lies of the administration (and previous administrations). Just look at FAIR’s study in the week leading up to and after Gen. Colin Powell gave his speech at the UN. Of the 393 interviews done by the 4 major nightly news casts around the issue of the war, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS’s Newshour, only 3 were with antiwar representatives. That does not represent mainstream America. At the time a majority were against the invasion, for inspections and for diplomacy. This is not mainstream media, this is an extreme media, beating the drums for war and misusing the public airwaves.”
• “When people talk to me about the digital divide, I think of it not so much about who has access to what technology as about who knows how to create and express themselves in the new language of the screen. If students aren’t taught the language of sound and images, shouldn’t they be considered as illiterate as if they left college without being able to read and write?” George Lucas, filmmaker (Sept. 2004, Edutopia, Life on the Screen)
• “Media Culture is the result of the industrialization of information and culture. Images, sounds and spectacles help produce the fabric of life, dominating leisure time, shaping political views and social behavior, and providing the materials out of which people forge their identities.”  Doug Kellner
• “Media literacy is concerned with helping students develop an informal and critical understanding of the nature of mass media, the techniques used by them, and the impact of these techniques. More specifically, it is education that aims to increase the students’ understanding and enjoyment of how the media work, how they produce meaning, how they are organized, and how they construct reality. Media literacy also aims to provide students with the ability to create media products.” (Ontario Ministry of Education, 1997)
• “Media literacy refers to composing, comprehending, interpreting, analyzing, and appreciating the language and texts of…both print and nonprint. The use of media presupposes an expanded definition of ‘text’…print media texts include books, magazines, and newspapers. Nonprint media include photography, recordings, radio, film, television, videotape, video games, computers, the performing arts, and virtual reality…constantly interact…(and) all (are) to be experienced, appreciated, and analyzed and created by students.”(Source:  NCTE, Commission on Media, Carole Cox, 1994, p.13)
• “Being literate in contemporary society means being active, critical, and create users not only of print and spoken language but also of the visual language of film and television….Teaching students how to interpret and create visual texts….is another essential component of the English language arts curriculum. Visual communication is part of the fabric of contemporary life.” NCTE/IRA Standards for the English Language Arts (1996) as quoted in Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48:1, September 2002, pps.74-75
• “Our young people need to be educated to the highest standard in this new information age, and surely this includes a clear awareness of how the media influences, shapes, and defines their lives,” says Richard Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education. “And let us also recognize this important fact: These young people are the future media leaders of this nation.”  Quoted in Linkup, June/July 2002
• “Media literacy is not just important, it’s absolutely critical. It’s going to make the difference between whether kids are a tool of the mass media or whether the mass media is a tool for kids to use.” Linda Ellerbee, producer/host, Nick News
• “No matter what the source, information is only powerful if students know what to do with it. As students are inundated with media messages, the challenge is not to amass more information, but to access, organize, and evaluate useful information from a variety of print and electronic sources.” Kathleen Tyner, author, “Literacy in A Digital World”
• “While media campaigns and other prevention strategies are essential ingredients for reducing substance abuse among adolescents, it is simply not possible for any federal agency, state organization, or private sector group to reach all young Americans with compelling and frequent messages about the dangers of drugs. So, instead, we must help give our young people the essential critical viewing skills to assess those messages–both direct and indirect– that glamorize drug-taking behavior, so that youth can see through the glitz and glamour to the underlying social ills of substance abuse, and to prepare their own prevention messages for peers, parents, and opinion leaders. We are learning that media literacy can provide this vision and skill in a powerful way…” Robert W. Denniston, of the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention of SAMHSA/HHA, on the links between media literacy and problems associated with drug use by young people
• “I firmly believe that more media literacy instruction can be very useful in our efforts to promote tolerance and combat violence. With the increased exposure of young people to an incredibly broad array of messages from an equally broad array of media messengers, it¹s all the more important that we teach our young people how to make sense of what they¹re seeing, hearing, and feeling. We need to teach them how to separate fact from fiction and fantasy. Only if we provide appropriate guidance can we expect our young people to understand that not everything on the screen has a place on the street corner or in the classroom.” US Attorney General Janet Reno, in interview with Cable In The Classroom’s Al Race, 1999
• “Film and television, newspapers, books and radio together have an influence over individuals that was unimagined a hundred years ago. This power confers great responsibility on all who work in the media…[as well as] each of us who, as individuals, listen and read and watch….it is not the case that we have no power over what we take from the media.”   “When the media focuses too closely on the negative aspects of human nature, there is a danger that we become persuaded that violence and agression are its principle characteristics…good news is not remarked on precisely because there is so much of it.”  Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso’s) 1999 book Ancient Wisdom, Modern World”: Ethics For A New Millennium”  p.210-212
• “Media literacy courses can give young people the power to recognize the difference between entertainment, television that is just bad and the information they need to make good decisions.”
• What they need is “a clear awareness of how the media influences, shapes and defines their lives.” Richard Riley, US Secretary of Education, December 13, 1995
• “Media education can and has revolutionized the way we think about public health. The shift to a focus on the environment rather than the traditional focus on the host or agent has come about largely because of media education. We’ve begun to see all kinds of problems that used to be seen as individual choices or flaws — from violence to substance abuse to eating disorders — as partly the result of the environment in which people make their choices. And the most important aspect of our environment, of course, is the media.”
• “Huge and powerful industries — alcohol, tobacco, junk food, guns, diet — depend upon a media-illiterate population. Indeed they depend upon a population that is disempowered and addicted. These industries will and do fight our efforts with all their mighty resources. And we will fight back, using the tools of media education which enable us to understand, analyze, interpret, to expose hidden agendas and manipulation, to bring about constructive change, and to further positive aspects of the media.” Jean Kilbourne, author: Deadly Persuasion : How Advertising Manipulates Us in an Age of Addiction
• “It’s important that parents and citizens really lobby for media literacy to be taught in schools, starting with kindergarten. We’re doing our students a real disservice if we don’t teach them to become critical consumers of the media.” Jean Kilbourne, quoted in Christian Science Monitor, November 24, 1999
• “It is no longer enough simply to read and write. Students must also become literate in the understanding of visual images. Our children must learn how to spot a stereotype, isolate a social cliche, and distinguish facts from propaganda, analysis from banter, and important news from coverage.” Ernest, Boyer, President, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: Former U.S. Commissioner of Education.
• ” Television may well be the most important innovation in communication since the printing press, and it communicates in images that as much visual and aural as verbal: learning the vocabularies of the arts, including the media arts, is an essential tool for understanding, and perhaps one day communicating, in the medium of television.” 1988 National Endowment for the Arts report Toward Civilization
• “First of all, I don’t think anyone could claim to be media literate if he or she didn’t understand that one of the principle functions of commercial media is not so much the provision of information or entertainment, but the segmentation and packaging of audiences for delivery and sale to advertisers… It’s the audience which is the real product of the media, and not the programs.” – Len Masterman
• “We must prepare young people for living in a world of powerful images, words and sounds.” UNESCO, 1982
• “The professional persuaders have the upper hand: money, media access, sophisticated personnel utilizing scientific techniques, aided and abetted by psychologists and sociologists skilled in analyzing human behaviour. All of that on one side. On the other side the persuadees: the average citizen and consumer. Who trains the citizen?….There is no coherent, systematic effort in the schools today to prepare our future citizens for a sophisticated literacy.”  Hugh Rank, 1976,  “Teaching About Public Persuasion: Rationale and A Schema.” Teaching About Doublespeak
• Media literacy is a basic tool for citizenship in an Information Society. Pat Aufderheide, Professor, School of Communication, American University
• Patricia Aufderheide, Associate Professor of Communication, American University, writes about the necessity of becoming media literate in a report of The National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy: “Media literacy, the movement to expand notions of literacy to include the powerful post-print media that dominate our informational landscape, helps people understand, produce, and negotiate meanings in a culture made up of powerful images, words, and sounds….
• A media-literate person – and everyone should have the opportunity to become one – can decode, evaluate, analyze, and produce both print and electronic media. The fundamental objective of media literacy is critical autonomy in relationship to all media. Emphases in media literacy training vary widely, including informed citizenship, aesthetic appreciation and expression, social advocacy, self-esteem, and consumer competence” (Aufderheide, l993).
• “The development of curricula in media and visual literacy will not only sharpen people’s ability to decipher their world, but it will also contribute to a broadening of the public sphere. Literacy is never just about reading; it is also about writing. Just as early campaigns for universal print literacy were concerned with democratizing the tools of public expression–the written word–upcoming struggles for media literacy must strive to empower people with contemporary implements of public discourse: video, graphic arts, photography, interactive digital media. More customary mainstays of public expression–expository writing and public speaking–must be resuscitated as well.
• “Media literacy cannot simply be seen as a vaccination against advertising, public relations and other familiar strains of institutionalized guile. It must be understood as an education in techniques that can democratize the realm of public expression and will magnify the possibility of meaningful public interactions. Distinctions between publicist and citizen, author and audience, need to be broken down. Education can facilitate this process. It can enlarge the circle of who is permitted–and who will be able–to interpret and make sense of the world, of who will be seen and heard from in America’s future.” Stuart Ewen (excerpt from “PR, A Social History of Spin,” Used with permission)
• If, as Aristotle said, “The unexamined life is not worth living,” so, in today’s life, “the unexamined culture is not worth living in.” George Gerbner, Bell Atlantic Professor of Telecommunication, TempleUniversity, Philadelphia

Having in mind that this is the the last essay within this issue, here are the links for the previous essays on this subject:

1. Self-Blame Strengthen
2. Encouraging Public To Be Complacent With Mediocrity
3. Keep Public In Ignorance And Mediocrity
4. Use Emotional Side More Than Reflection
5. Go To Public As A Little Child
6. The Strategy Of Deferring
7. The Gradual Strategy
8. Create Problems And Then Offer Solutions
9. Depending Who You Ask – Media (Il)literacy

“Media (il)literacy is tool for manipulators. For the people Media literacy must and will be a toy – against manipulators.” – Sabahudin Hadžialić

China uses WWII history against rival Japan for power, but cooperation could be the better lesson.

By Börje Ljunggren*

China and Japan each commemorated the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War – how the two countries marked the occasion not only showed their differing perspectives of history but how they view the future.

For Japan it was time to move on. Given his personal conviction, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe went surprisingly far in his speech on August 14 atoning for Japan’s role, but seeking to leave the war behind and prepare for Asia’s new challenge.

President Jinping Xi did the opposite – not by criticizing Abe´s Japan directly for not “recognizing history,” but by giving the commemoration unprecedented assertive grandness. I served in China in 2005 and can hardly remember commemorations for the 60th anniversary taking place inside the Great Hall of the People. Last year, after 69 years, September 3 was made a national holiday – a day, in Xi’s words, “etched in the memory of the people all over the world.” The Chinese people had “crushed the plot of the Japanese militarists to colonize and enslave China” preserving “China’s 5,000 year old culture and upholding the cause of peace of mankind.”

For the first time a huge military parade marking the anniversary was staged, manifesting China’s rise and promoting an image of Xi being China’s most authoritative military commander since Mao and Deng.

The guests who attended and those who stayed away helped underline China’s political clout as well as the disquiet provoked among many. Invitations had been extended to 51 countries, and all except the Philippines and Japan accepted. The Philippines abstained because of its tense relationship due to the territorial disputes in the South China Sea. For Japan’s Abe, accepting the invitation was, as expected, considered too much of a political risk. The government conveyed regrets with reference to the “situation in parliament.” In a sadly ironic coincidence, Abe’s security legislation that would reinterpret Japan’s pacifist constitution and smooth the way for its military to fight in defence of allies was on the table. Japan’s former Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama was present in his personal capacity. In 1995, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary, Murayama had made the most comprehensive apology expressed by any Japanese leader.

Only one leader of an Allied country, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, attended the celebrations. France was represented by its foreign minister and Britain by a former justice minister, the United States just by its ambassador to China and so was the European Union. Putin’s presence would have been reason enough for other Allied leaders not to attend, the nature and projection of China’s rise being additional reasons for not be seen as lending support.

Both South Korean President Park Geun-hye and North Korea’s Choe Ryong Hae, secretary of the Central Committee of North Korea’s Workers’ Party, attended. Not only is China South Korea top trading partner, friendship with China is a key stabilizing factor in South’s conflict with erratic North Korea.

For years, China’s government had described the Nationalists as enemies of the people who did little to defend China. Credit for the war effort went to the Communist Party alone, more specifically to Mao, and according to this narrative, Japan’s aggression was secondary.

But for this celebration, “the great renewal of the Chinese nation” was the centrepiece, and the role of the Nationalist Army was recognized in an unprecedented positive way – all in the spirit of the Communist Party’s increasingly nationalistic definition for itself. Taiwan was not represented but Lien Chan, honorary chairman of the Kuomintang, attended in his personal capacity.

Beijing wanted to interpret the international presence as evidence that the western world had abandoned a Eurocentric view of the history of the war and recognized the Asian theater. Already prior to the event the Global Times noted the large attendance showed “worldwide recognition of China’s growing strength, as well as its legitimacy in building the world order.” Xi expressed gratitude to those “who supported and assisted the Chinese people in resisting aggression,” but did not recognize the crucial role of the United States and other Allies in breaking Japan’s determination to pursue the war.

China has ample reasons to be proud of its role in defeating Japan. Despite immense destruction and suffering, the country held out for eight long years, the first four, from 1937 to 1941, on its own, and later with critical assistance from the Soviet Union. Rana Mitter of the University of Oxford gives due recognition to China’s role in the war in his ground-breaking 2013 book, Forgotten Ally – China’s World War II, 1937-1945. China did not defeat the Japanese, but played a crucial role in the war by tying up 600,000 Japanese soldiers who otherwise could have been sent to other theaters of war.

According to Mitter, not less than 14 million Chinese died while the number of internal refugees amounted to more than 80 million, one fifth of the entire population. Historian John Dower comes to similar conclusions in his book Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Second World War. In his speech Xi stated that “China suffered over 35 million casualties” (dead and wounded) while “the Soviet Union lost more than 27 million lives.”

Mao regarded the defeat of the Japanese as one of his foremost achievements, and China long glossed over that most of the fighting was done by the Nationalist army consisting of some 2 million men, often in collaboration with warlords. In 1936, after the Long March, communist forces amounted to just 50,000. In 1945 the number had grown to 800,000, strategically engaged in guerrilla warfare in northern China. Mao’s strategy was to avoid direct major confrontation with the Japanese army and bide his time. Only one-tenth of the losses were suffered by the Communist side. The war gave, again quoting Mitter, “birth to Mao’s China.”

Japan’s expansion and Hitler Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 dramatically changed the geopolitics of the war. Suddenly, China mattered in the gobal anti-fascist context, and the nation joined the United States, Russia, Britain and others as an Ally, though not fully acknowledged as such. President Chiang Kai-shek attended the Allied Cairo meeting in the fall of 1943, but was not invited to Yalta in February 1945 and was not even informed about the Allied agreement to have Soviet troops enter the war in Asia three months after Nazi Germany’s capitulation. Still, China became one of the five permanent members of the Security Council of the UN from the outset in October 1945.

Today, China undisputably is a major, increasingly restless power, and the complex global power shift we are witnessing is of grave concern to Tokyo as well as to Washington. Sino-Japanese relations are comprehensive but equally distrustful, with the territorial conflict over the Senkaku-Diaoyu islands intractable.

Both China and Japan, as well as the rest of the world, have much to gain from enhanced cooperation, but the bitter history is not likely to come to rest. The drama will continue unfolding with competition for power and influence.

*Borje Ljunggren is a former Swedish ambassador to China and author. Ljunggren’s most recent book, Den kinesiska drömmen – utmaningar för Kina och världen (The Chinese Dream – Challenges for China and the World) was published in spring 2015.

By Gautam Sen*

The August 2015 parliamentary elections have installed Ranil Wickremesinghe and his United National Party (UNP) in power. They have also ensured that Wickremesingh’s political cohabitation with the anti-Rajapakse liberalist President Maithripala Sirisena will continue. The UNP has secured a total of 106 parliamentary seats, through the direct nationwide election process and on the basis of party-wise proportional votes received. The United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA), of which the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) is the dominant constituent and within which former President Mahinda Rajapakse exerts substantial influence, is slightly behind with 95 seats. The elections indicate that the SLFP, which has won 83 directly elected seats as against the UNP`s 93, still holds sway over many southern and central districts. Therefore, it may not be inappropriate to construe that the Rajapakse factor will continue to influence Sri Lankan politics for some more time to come. It remains to be seen how this scenario plays out, and whether Rajapakse is able to advance his political fortunes.

The challenge posed by Rajapakse and his dominant faction in the SLFP has been overcome in a commendable way by the UNP and its broad coalition of nearly 100 political parties (though many enjoy only minuscule electoral support), civil society groups, the Sirisena faction of the SLFP, trade unions, Jathika Hela Urumaya and the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress – all forming an United Front for Good Governance (UNFGG). Though the pre-election posture of Sirisena and his supporters was marked by an air of confidence and lack of apprehension about Rajapakse, the political situation in the pre-election phase seemed rather fluid to many observers. Now it appears that the political configuration and the concomitant support base which brought Sirisena to power as President in January 2015 is still intact.

Notwithstanding the UNP victory, the parliamentary election results also show that Rajapakse and his supporters will continue to wield substantial influence within and outside parliament. They cannot be ignored in matters of state because of their parliamentary strength and thus the potential ability to stall the implementation of basic reforms in constitutional governance. They have the capacity to impede the smooth implementation of the 19th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution, which was intended to re-introduce the Westminster form of parliamentary government (this part of the Amendment has not taken effect as per the judicial pronouncement of the Supreme Court and the former Sirisena government`s acceptance for the present), limit the presidency to two terms, and put in place a Constitutional Council to bring about multi-partisanship in select areas of governance as well as promote public confidence in the constitutional and state machinery.

The 19th Amendment had been passed on 28 April by the previous parliament and constitutionally validated by the Supreme Court after certain clauses which required approval through a referendum (e.g. in regard to institution of executive presidency and empowering the prime minister to determine the size of the cabinet), were dropped by the government. It needs to be noted that Rajapakse and SLFP parliamentarians who supported him had, in the previous parliament, successfully ensured that an executive presidency was retained in the fond hope that a successor prime minister and Sirisena may not always follow convergent policies and end up at loggerheads on which political mileage can be derived.

Rajapakse’s impact will also depend on how successfully the UNP government is able to deal with a number of issues including: constitutional challenges on federalism and decentralisation, minority rights, women`s rights, reverse centralisation of political power and its concentration with a few related individuals, undo the politicisation and interference in the judiciary by executive and legislative authorities. These are formidable tasks, but the process of initiating a positive turn on these issues seems to have begun. The successful enactment of the 19th Amendment is a hopeful sign. The Sirisena presidency needs to be commended on its mature approach when, in the face of a challenge before the judiciary by Rajapakse`s supporters, the government agreed to do away with those provisions incorporated in the 19th Amendment that would have necessitated a referendum as per the existing Constitution.

There is nevertheless further scope for Rajapakse to create discord in the new governance structure, through participation in the re-incarnated Constitutional Council. The revamped Council, which will also consist of the Leader of the Opposition, i.e. Rajapakse, can disturb the process of appointment of members of a number of commissions being accorded statutory status such as the Election Commission, Audit Commission, Public Service Commission, and Bribery Commission, to name a few. Moreover, the Rajapakse combine will have the capacity to mobilise the masses against the policies and administrative measures of the Wickremesinghe government, thus checkmating the anti-Rajapakse political interest groups. In short, the new government can reasonably expect, at least for some time, concerted efforts by Rajapakse and his SLFP faction to thwart the implementation of progressive policies in the socio-economic sphere and in matters of national reconciliation.

The UNP government can, however, gradually overcome the Rajapakse factor by decentralising governance, instituting genuine devolution to all the provinces, and adopting a wide array of socio-economic measures to improve public welfare and economically empower people across provinces and regions. Though not endowed with substantial natural resources, Sri Lanka does not have an adverse per capita resource ratio. The new government should endeavour to enhance the value-addition capacity of its domestic units and enterprises, and build upon the high human development attributes of its population. Countries like India, Singapore, South Korea and Japan could provide suitable assistance towards upgrading human resources and entrepreneurial support as well as promote institutional capital investment flow. If re-oriented along the above lines, the new government`s economic policies and welfare measures will pay political dividends. This will undercut oligarchical and political family-based institutions as well as mafia-type groups (which were promoted extensively by the earlier Rajapakse regime) and inhibit their activities. Rajapakse may then find it difficult to contend with such a new political challenge from the UNP government backed by the Sirisena faction of the SLFP and functioning within a canopy of a broad UNFGG, with an active former president, Chandrika Kumaratunga, networking the urban elites against him.

*A former Additional Controller General of Defence Accounts, the author had served in the Indian High Commission in Sri Lanka.

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

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/TheRajapakseFactorafterSriLankasParliamentaryElections_gsen_070915.html

The American response to the Syrian civil war and resulting refugee crisis should illustrate to all the unfortunate militarization of U.S. foreign policy. The nation’s anti-militaristic founders—who blanched at the militarism of European kings and thus refused, in the U.S. Constitution, even to authorize a standing army—would be horrified.

And militarism in America is not just an affliction of the politicians and chattering classes in the media, it now infects the people. The current militarism originates from public guilt about alleged poor behavior by the American populace toward returning conscripts from the Vietnam War (dubious because the conflict was popular for a long time until public exhaustion set in) and is stoked by even more guilt now, because most people just watch America’s wars (and mostly other stuff) on TV, while letting today’s smaller all-volunteer military bear all of the heavy costs in life and limb for America’s largely unneeded overseas military adventures. Now a much fewer number of Americans have sons, daughters, neighbors, or friends going off to fight in faraway hellholes.

Of course, if Americans really wanted to show respect for military personnel, instead of giving them discounted baseball tickets and preferred airline boarding, they would have the courage to stop their politicians and media from peddling the fear that gets American service men and women sent to perform military social work in foreign lands, such as the brushfire wars of occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iraq again. But how does this all relate to the brutal, multi-sided Syrian civil war and its accompanying refugee crisis?

After the ISIS group cut off the heads of a few Americans (and other nationalities), the supposedly war-exhausted public again became unnerved—in a miniature version of the hysteria after 9/11—and immediately supported a reintroduction of American military personnel into Iraq and American air power to bomb the group in Iraq and Syria. No matter that such an emotional public response—which after 9/11 led to the over-the-top Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, occupations, and quagmires—is usually counterproductive. And, of course, many Republican presidential candidates have no problem implying that President Obama is a wimp and demanding even more military action against what is largely a threat to the Middle East region. Unfortunately, politicians can often demagogue such issues, because the public is receptive to appeals to fear in advertising, from bad breath to worn tires to terrorism—even though the average American’s chances of ever getting killed by a foreign terrorist is lower than getting struck by lightning. The public, fully imbued with militarism, also seems to buy into counterproductive military responses to the problem. For example, U.S. aid to Mujahideen Islamic radicals in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s gave us al Qaeda, and the post-9/11 unnecessary invasion of Iraq gave us the even nastier al Qaeda in Iraq, which has now morphed into the yet more brutal ISIS. What uber-Frankenstein will the U.S. military’s return to Iraq and bombing of Iraq and Syria create?

The hair-trigger mentality of the American people has existed only since World War II. Prior to that time and throughout most of American history, the public actually respected the founders’ vision that America’s very secure position away from the world’s conflicts allowed the country to stay out of useless and costly wars of intrigue. With fewer wars (even those were mostly unnecessary) than other continents, the relative peace allowed America to build what is still the largest economy in the world. Wars were foolish bravado for foreign despots; America concentrated on creating prosperity. With the current $18 trillion dollar debt, about $3.3 trillion to $4 trillion of it racked up by the extended wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, American militarism has helped drive the country off its enlightened historical path.

And the adoption of militarism is not the only repudiation of the country’s history. All of this chest-beating jingoism on the part of the American political class (backed by the media and the public) is in stark contrast to the caution with which politicians of both parties are approaching the taking in of Syrian refugees from a civil war in which the United States is now an active participant. Because of public resistance to the influx of refugees in a slow economy and immigration being a major issue in the 2016 political campaign, the Obama administration and the 2016 candidates are treading gingerly on the issue. In contrast, for most of its history, the American people recognized that immigrants brought new ideas and talents, thus making the economy and country stronger. Pathetically, in 2014, the United States took in only 132 of the four million refugees from the Syrian civil war, and only about 2,000 will be allowed in 2015 if the policy is not changed.

Some Republicans are even warning that taking in more Syrian refugees could allow terrorists to slip into America. These are some of the same people who say we should escalate U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict. First, we don’t live in a riskless society, and the rapid need for a humanitarian response is real. Second, even if there is a minimal risk of severely pre-occupied Syrian opposition groups trying to sneak terrorists into the United States in the guise of refugees, more bombing of Syria or even an intervention with U.S. ground forces would increase their motivation to do so.

Thus, unfortunately, the U.S. response to the Syrian civil war and resulting refugee crisis may be a warning to us about the decay of our own original principles and traditions: avoiding unneeded foreign wars while being a beacon of liberty and prosperity to the world.

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

It is more often that we hear questions such as why do people comply with authoritarian exploitation? Why don’t they rebel, reform or change the status quo? Don’t they like to live in a democratic system? And many other questions. Well, People are more likely to wish for the end of authoritarian exploitation, but they lack the collective organization to do otherwise. Thus, the answer is more related to organizational issues than people’s aspirations. People are organizationally outmanoeuvred by ruling elites. Their rebellion against authoritarianism is more likely to serve dictators than populations.

Let’s take Egypt as an example: When people in Egypt were subjected to authoritarian rule since independence, they were controlled by military, police and political elites at the top (what can also be called the ruling blocs). The masses complied for over 60 years because they lacked collective organization to do otherwise. Any involvement of people in decision-making processes meant a loss of power to the regime in control. Therefore, the regime under Nasser, Sadat, Mubarak and most notably Al-Sisi created structures to guarantee their survival. Organization and reorganization of ideological, political, economic and military networks were enforced through coercion and imposition, even if some (mostly incapable to make fundamental change) rebelled and resisted.

However, by 2011, the collective incapacity to change the status quo in Egypt turned into a collective action resulting in mass protests on a huge scale. While these dynamics are dialectical and intertwined, a division of labour among the elites of the ruling blocs occurred in an attempt to counterbalance the collective action of the public. After the fall down of Mubarak, this collective action brought new elites to share power such as the Muslim brothers and Salafi parties. Due to the power struggle among political yet conflicting actors, it was necessary for the regime, namely the military and police forces, to outflank the organization of rival actors to remain in power.

The Muslim Brotherhood was later banned while Salafi parties were generally co-opted. This process was set up through conflict and cooperation to achieve the actors’ conflicting interests and goals taking the form of institutionalized laws and norms of social life. These shifts towards institutionalization of social life grant the ruling blocs a license to overlook the whole and reorganize power networks, keeping the bottom compliant. Any dissenting actors outside the institutionalized realm of social life become illegitimate and can be coercively outflanked. It is most obvious when we consider the crackdown against the Muslim Brotherhood and their protests against the military coup in 2013. Under the interim President Adli Mansour, the new coup elite passed a new protest law under the act 107 on 24 November 2013, by which the Ministry of Interior has the right to cancel, postpone or move any protest if serious intelligence suggests that the protestors might breach the law. This law was an implementation of the Constitutional Declaration issued on 08 July 2013, only five days after the deposal of the Islamist President Mohammad Morsi.

We can see dynamics of two configuration of power. The power over people by imposition and coercion, and that is coordination. And the power through people by sharing a collective understanding, and that is cooperation.

Due to the fact there has not been an elected parliament in Egypt since 2013, Al-Sisi enjoys the privilege of passing laws in the form of decrees and impose his will despite people’s resistance (preventing the bottom from sharing control). The assassination of Hisham Barakat in a car bomb on 29 June 2015, the Prosecution General of Egypt and the architect of thousands of prosecutions including controversial death sentences against Muslim Brotherhood followers can be easily, and actually already, politicized increasing Al-Sisi’s function in communication and interaction networks and granting him more organizational superiority over Egyptians.

At Barakat’s funeral, President Al-Sisi promised to amend the laws to make them responsive to the implementation of justice. “Under such circumstances, courts are useless and so are laws … The arm of justice is chained by the law,” said Al-Sisi promising to carry out any death or lifetime sentences against what he called “terrorists”. Consolidating his distributive power faster than any other dictator in the Middle East to impose his decisions over the Egyptian population and territory, Al-Sisi co-opted the judicial system as well as communications means. Succeeding in doing so, Al-Sisi controls the means of persuasion (institutionalized means) – the law, government loyal clergy and media – and the means of coercion – military, police and security forces.

Thus, people comply because they don’t know how or have the means to change power networks and organizations. They are embedded in organizational power structures, which they don’t control. They are bypassed and weakened by those at the top to make a significant change. This pattern doesn’t apply only to Egypt, but rather to the whole Middle East and North Africa region. It is not going well for Syrians nor Yemenis or Libyans. Revolutions often do not serve people’s aspirations. It seems it is too difficult to turn incapacity of people into a collective capacity for a long time.

As George Orwell said in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four: “One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”

By Sandip Kumar Mishra*

A Victory Day Parade in Beijing was organised on 3 September 2015 to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, in which one of the most important spectacles was the top leaders of China, Russia and South Korea waving together at the crowds. This is the third occasion in the past three years when the Chinese President Xi Jinping and the South Korean President Park Geun-hye have met with each other, apart from a few other meetings in third countries. The participation of the top leader of South Korea in the parade is undoubtedly an important shift in East Asian inter-State relations. South Korea, which is one of the closest allies of the US in the region, appears to be moving closer to China, when another ally, Japan, is in loggerheads with Beijing. It would be incorrect to infer at this point that South Korea has drifted away from the US alliance but it does indicate that the coordination among the US, Japan and South Korea in regional politics is not the same as it was earlier.

The changing South Korean approach towards China was also quite obvious when Seoul decided to be one of the founder members of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), even at the cost of some displeasure from the US. At one point of time, the US wanted South Korea to join their Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) project and hold itself back from joining the AIIB. Then, the US indicated that if South Korea joined both as a balancing act, Washington would not have any problem. However, at present, South Korea has joined AIIB and its decision to join THAAD is pending. China has serious reservations about South Korea joining the THAAD. Geun-hye’s participation in the Victory Parade could be read in the context of these recent developments and it definitely indicates a shift in the South Korean approach towards China.

There could be three main explanations for this shift. First, South Korean business and economic interests in China are very substantial and are growing. China is South Korea’s number one trading partner and their bilateral trade is more than South Korea’s combined bilateral trade with the US and Japan. More importantly, South Korea enjoys sufficient benefits in trading with China, which is very rare. Even though there has been a slowdown in the Chinese economy, it is very important for South Korea to maintain the best possible political relations with China to harness more benefits.

The second reason for South Korea’s growing proximity to China is related to North Korea. It could be said that China enjoys the highest leverage over North Korea. Chinese assistance to South Korea in dealing with North Korea has been and would be the most critical strategic asset and South Korea by moving closer to China has been trying to articulate this possibility. There are definite sign that North Korea is getting increasingly upset with the South Korea’s growing closeness with China and Seoul would like to pursue this line of actions to further isolate North Korea.

The third reason has to do with the growing Japanese assertiveness and the US unwillingness to cease Shinzo Abe’s provocative gestures. South Korea has not been happy with Japan’s approach on the issues of history, comfort women, visit to the Yasukuni shrine, attempt to change the peace constitution, and repeated claims over Dokdo islands. However, the US has remained either silent or indirectly supported Japan on many of these issues. Perhaps, by becoming closer to China, South Korea wants to send a message to Washington that its silence on Japan’s behaviour and bias towards Tokyo must be reviewed and changed.

From China’s point of view, having South Korea in most of its regional initiatives means that it has gradually started to strip the US from its allies in the region and emerged as a more acceptable leader in regional politics. It also means that in China’s contest with Japan, Tokyo may not have support from Seoul in the wake any crisis. It might also mean that China would have less smooth relations with North Korea in future. Improved Beijing-Seoul relations would have far-reaching consequences for China’s acceptance as the key player in the region, replacing the US.

Thus, Park Geun-hye’s participation in the Victory Parade and the growing ties between South Korea and China mark an important shift in regional politics. Although many scholars would caution against reading too much into one incident, a study of inter-State East Asian relations in recent years shows this to be just one of many such developments. There is a clear trend that is gradually but definitely emerging in East Asia and it is impossible not to connect the dots. However, it is another matter whether this shift has reached a critical point from where it would become irreversible.

* Sandip Kumar Mishra
Assistant Professor, Department of East Asian Studies, Delhi University

By Jamal Kanj*

Many years ago I read Men in the Sun, a novel by late Palestinian writer Ghassan Kanafani. He, along with his young niece Lamis, were blown up by Israel in 1972.

In the book, Kanafani told the tale of three desperate Palestinian refugees from Lebanon who hid in an empty water tanker trying to reach Kuwait where they hoped to find work.

The truck was delayed at the borders and the three travellers suffocated quietly inside the empty tank.

The tormented driver tried desperately to understand why they didn’t try to escape their fate.

The parable: daring death rather than looking in the eyes of starving children waiting in the camps.

Kanafani was a brilliant writer and a great illustrator, but I never realised just how prophetic his words were.

Today, you can see the same desperation all over the faces of Arab refugees jumping from unsafe boats trying to reach European shores, or waiting in camps in rain or sun seeking sanctuary in a strange land.

Those in the camps are the lucky ones.

Thousands of their compatriots were either swallowed by deep seawater, decomposed in truck containers or left behind to choose between a dictatorship or an even crueller alternative.

It is a shame when non-Arab countries are more hospitable to those refugees than their own supposed brethren.

For example, Syrian refugees fared much better in Turkey than those who went to Arab countries.

Unlike Turkey, which tried to integrate the refugees in its marketplace as a cheap labour resource, Arab countries like Lebanon and Jordan pushed Syrian refugees into isolated camps – where they survive on crumbs from economic assistance that host countries receive on their behalf from foreign donors.

Further west on the other side of the Mediterranean, the refugee problem is seen today as Europe’s biggest threat.

You could argue Europe is being punished for its economic success, but while that has some merit the reality is different.

Europe has enjoyed economic prosperity for decades, yet it never experienced the problem it is now facing.

The Syrian and, before them, Iraqi refugees left their war torn countries only after international military interference seeking regime change.

In other words, when the US and Europe decided to continue the Bush doctrine of democratisation through military intervention.

In the recent past, the sea and the stability of Arab countries in North Africa represented a natural barrier between Europe and immigrants seeking economic opportunities or political refuge from sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the Arab world.

The UN Security Council, however, created a hole in that wall when it authorized foreign military intervention to topple Libyan dictator Muammar Gadaffi instead of allowing the civil process to take its course, as it did in Tunisia and to a degree in Egypt.

The UN Security Council sanctioned regime change, but disowned its responsibility for providing arms to the likes of Islamic State and the chaos that ensued.

In the East, the dreams of the Syrian people to rid themselves of the Al Assad dynasty became a nightmare.

As in Iraq before, outside interference was the main impetus for anarchy that led to the creation of the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

European leaders must remember when they discuss the current refugee crisis that the embryo of today’s problem was yesterday’s support for the Security Council-sanctioned war on Libya, as well as the training and financing of “freelance” fighters who turned Syria’s civil protests into a military conflict.

The fire started by members of the international community has finally spread to their shores.

In the process, it has demonstrated there is no safe haven. Just ask Nero.

*Jamal Kanj (www.jamalkanj.com) writes weekly newspaper column and publishes on several websites on Arab world issues. He is the author of “Children of Catastrophe,” Journey from a Palestinian Refugee Camp to America. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. (A version of this article was first published by the Gulf Daily News newspaper.)

By Mel Frykberg

Israel has contributed to Global Citizenship in a number of ways including assisting students from developing countries to tackle development challenges, using the Jewish state’s experience in emergency situations to provide assistance and emergency relief around the world.

Israel’s founding fathers, including David Ben Gurion, expressed a vision to be a force for good in the world by sharing expertise and resources with developing countries.

“I am prouder of Israel’s international cooperation programme than I am of any other single project we have ever undertaken. It typifies the drive towards social justice that is at the very heart of Judaism,” said former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir as she highlighted the importance of Israel’s foreign aid programme.

A number of Israeli universities provide scholarships for students in developing countries to study public health and agriculture in Israel.

The Pears Foundation, a British Foundation, which works closely with Israeli universities and academia, is one such organisation, which provides support infrastructure for Israel’s emerging international development sector.

“Our initiative contributes essential skills and builds lasting relationships between Israel and the developing world,” said the organisation.

“Our programmes set out to create meaningful social change, increase respect and understanding and inspire people to support their communities and the causes they care about.”

As part of it Global Citizenship enterprise, Israel has also developed a formidable conflict resolution industry offering MA graduate programmes to international students.

“Israel has about 65 academic institutions and dozens of programmes involved in conflict resolution which is a significant number for a country of less than eight million people,” Professor Gad Barzilai, the dean of Haifa University’s Law Faculty told IDN.

However, Palestinian critics say there is a wide chasm between Israel’s expertise in theory and its behaviour on the ground.

“Israel giving advice on resolving conflict is a bit of an oxymoron when it fails to put its advice into practise,” media consultant, former Al Jazeera correspondent and Palestinian Authority (PA) spokeswoman, Nour Odeh told IDN.

Barzilai said that most Israeli academics were critical of the occupation and that they were more active than American academics when it came to involvement in human rights issues.

“Israel has enormous security challenges and this has to be part of the discussion. Israel is stuck in a turbulent Mideast and ISIS is only 9 miles away,” said Barzilai.

Odeh countered, “Israel has been using the security context since its inception and it’s become a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy as well as a means of justifying the occupation.”

“While talking about security Israel continues to build more settlements and commit more human rights abuses, further fuelling the conflict,” added Odeh.

Under Barzilai, Haifa University’s Law Faculty holds about 40 conferences annually on human rights in Gaza, international law, and the rule of law under extreme circumstances, and many of its students are involved in human rights issues. The University also holds ‘legal clinics’ across the spectrum of human rights.

Students at Israeli schools also have at least one programme on democracy.

“From an early age Israelis are politically aware and concerned about the problems with our neighbours,” said Barzilai.

“The views on how to resolve the conflict, however, differ between the left-wing and the right-wing which compromise 50-50 of Israeli society respectively.

“Thirty percent of Israelis believe human rights trump security while the other 70 percent say security is more important.

“These views have been convoluted and polarised due to rocket attacks from Gaza. Some Israelis advocate a military solution, while others want a more peaceful resolution.

“Although Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is the most right-wing in Israel’s history it only has a narrow margin,” Barzilai told IDN.

Nour disagrees with Barzilai.

“Israeli settlers are part of Israel’s government and most Israeli governments have supported the settlements politically and economically,” said Odeh

“When Israelis say they are against the occupation one has to define their definition of the occupation which differs from that of the international community and international law.

“Many of them support the separation wall, the larger settlements remaining in place, and the continued Judaisation of East Jerusalem,” Odeh told IDN.

“I think the Israelis have an immature interpretation of the occupation with their refusal to acknowledge the historical background of the conflict and the dispossession of Palestinians.

“Let’s not forget Netanyahu won the 1996 elections by saying there were no Palestinians.”

Dr Keren Sharvit, heads Haifa University’s International MA Programme, Peace and Conflict Management Studies, a programme which has been running for four years with the majority of students coming from abroad and the rest Israeli.

“It is an inter-disciplinary programme founded on the social sciences, part of it in English,” Sharvit told IDN.

“My students study intergroup conflicts on the local level, diverse communities, ethnic conflict at the intra-state level and on the international level.

“In regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there are different perspectives and approaches.

“Some of the students research the community level, including how it would be possible for Israeli Jews and Palestinians to live in the same neighbourhood.

“Other students look at the issue at the state level in regard to what policies could be implemented to facilitate a better relationship between Jews and Arabs, the latter believing they are second-class citizens in Israel.

“On the international level the input of the global community is examined,” said Sharvit.

Despite Sharvit’s programme only running for four years, already some of her students have made significant contributions to the peace industry.

One of her graduates is the coordinator of the Haifa Centre for Dialogue and Conflict Resolution, which was created by the Haifa Municipality.

“Another of my students has developed a programme at Givat Haviva, The Centre for a Shared Society,” said Sharvit.

Sharvit says many Israelis are not concerned with resolving Israel’s conflict with the Arabs and believes there has to be more education.

“If we want to resolve our political problems there needs to be more work done to educate the public,” Sharvit told IDN.

Rightwing politics now dominate the globe. Broadly speaking, the Right can be divided into a US-centered rightwing bloc and a variety of anti-US rightwing regimes and social forces.

The US-centered rightwing includes absolutist monarchies, like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States and Jordan; neoliberal electoral regimes and opposition parties in the European Union and Latin America and the military dictatorships of North and Sub-Sahara Africa and Thailand. Finally, there are US-armed and trained terrorists operating in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen – which make up a kind of extra-parliamentary US-centered political force.

Israel is a special case of a rightwing regime, allied with the US, which acts more independently to pursue its own colonial priorities and hegemonic ambitions.

The anti-US rightwing includes capitalist China and Russia; the nationalist, Islamist and secular republics of Iran, Syria and Lebanon; and the armed and civilian Islamist mass movements of the Middle East, East and West Africa and South and Southeast Asia.

Leftwing governments and movements, faced with the competing and conflicting rightwing power centers, find themselves having to operate precariously in the interstices of global politics, attempting to play-off one or the other. These include the center-left regimes and movements in Latin America; anti-capitalist opposition parties and trade unions in the EU; nationalist-democratic movements and trade unions in North and South Africa; nationalist and populist movements in South Asia; and a broad array of academic leftists and intellectuals throughout the globe who have little or no direct impact on the direction of world politics. A number of supposedly ‘Left’ regimes have capitulated to the US-EU bloc, namely Syriza in Greece and the Workers Party of Brazil.

In sum, the major conflicts in the world are found between competing capitalist centers; between rising (China and Russia) and established capitalist blocs (US and EU); between financial centers (US-England) and primary export states (Africa, Asia and Latin America); between dominant Judaic/Christian and emerging Islamist states; and between imperialist states and occupied colonized nations. We will explore the nature of each form of right-wing conflict.

The Nature of the Conflicts between the Rightwing Regimes

Despite their common capitalist basis, the conflicts between Rightwing regimes are intense, violent and enduring.

The US-centered Right has annexed former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe and the Baltic and Balkan states. They have encircled Russia with their military bases, seized control of Ukraine through a violent putsch (color-coded revolution) and invaded Russian allies in the Middle East (Iraq and Syria).

The US has mobilized its EU followers to impose crippling economic sanctions on the Russian state and private enterprises in order to weaken its oligarchical ruling class under President Vladimir Putin, force ‘regime change’ and return Russia to the status of the pillaged vassal state under Boris Yeltsin (1990-2000).

Russia’s capitalist state, dependent on the oil and gas industries and western investments and markets, has responded by building up its military defenses. Faced with a US-imposed economic blockade and the growing militarization of US clients on Russia’s periphery, Moscow is finally developing local industries to substitute for EU and US imports and establishing alternative trading partnerships with capitalist China, India, Islamist Iran and the center-left regimes in Latin America.

The US-centered Right has sought to weaken China by encircling it through expanded military base agreements with Japan, Australia and the Philippines; and by promoting Asian-Pacific trade agreements excluding China. Washington relies on its historic military ties to counter its loss of Asian markets to rising Chinese economic exporters.

China, as the emerging Asian world power, has countered by deepening its trade, investment and financial ties with regional economies. Beijing is cultivating and formalizing trade and investment relations with the EU and Latin American economies. China has increased its defense spending and is constructing a series of offshore military installations to counter US military superiority in the Asia Pacific region.

In both the European and Asian regions of conflict, the struggle is between rival capitalist countries: On one side, there is the declining US-EU-Japanese regimes relying on ever more overt military expansion; while, on the other, China and Russia have turned to trade and economic expansion while fortifying their military defenses.

Both compete to influence the ‘Left’, and the independent Islamist countries by intervening wherever possible in internal conflicts.

The Tactics of the Competing Rightwing Blocs

The US-centered bloc relies on various forms of political-military intervention in the politics of their Chinese, Russian, leftist and Islamic adversaries.

These interventions include: (1) Fomenting ethnic conflicts, e.g. Uighurs and Tibetans in China; Islamists and Chechen terrorists in Russia; Western-oriented liberals in the Islamist countries; and neo-liberals in Latin American countries under leftist regimes.

(2) Outright military invasions in the Middle East and South Asia against Islamic and nationalist regimes, including the recent invasions and attacks against Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

(3) Financing and organizing ‘regime change’ via coups and street mobs in Leftist, nationalist and Islamist countries have increased in recent years. US-backed coups have taken place in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras and Ukraine; street uprisings have been financed and orchestrated by the US and its allies in Iran, Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, Libya, Brazil, Ecuador and numerous other countries.

(4) Economic sanctions and exclusive trade pacts are directed against Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Gaza, Syria and elsewhere.

The intent of US-centered bloc interventions is to weaken capitalist competitors, undermine Leftist and Islamist economies and convert them into political and economic vassal states.

The anti-US capitalist bloc, headed by Russia and especially China, has relied predominantly on economic aid, trade and investment to counter Western capitalist political intervention. They have arranged large-scale infrastructure loans and financed major trade agreements with less developed countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America and signed oil and gas agreements with the independent Islamic Republic of Iran and with energy producers in Latin America, especially Venezuela.

On the other hand, they have pushed military sales and loans for their weapon systems with Pakistan (South Asia), Egypt (North Africa), and Iran and Syria (Middle East).

The so-called, BRICS and China have organized new financial institutions as a response to the US – dominated IMF and WB.

Capitalist competition may provide some economic options to independent leftist governments, but it does not advance the class struggle. The reason is obvious: Each bloc pursues the capitalist strategy of enhancing market shares, increasing profits and exploiting labor and primary products.

The Dilemmas of the Left in a World of Capital Competition

The Left is not a major player in the current configuration of world power. It has a presence in governments and especially among mass-based opposition movements. The current rivalry among capitalist blocs presents opposition movements with options not possible in a unipolar world dominated by US imperialism.

If the Left chose to ally with a ‘lesser evil’ – Russian or Chinese capitalism would be the likely choice. While Leftists, who sign pacts with capitalists, may end up losing their own identities, when faced with a hostile US-centered bloc the survival of a Leftist regime dictates the need to take risks by establishing such ties.

The best option is to avoid any political alliance while seeking favorable trade and investment agreements to diversify the economy, trade and investment sources and provide ‘negotiating’ leverage .

Leftists under military threat cannot think of self-sufficiency but must concentrate on independence and options.

In today’s almost exclusively capitalist world, the Left has to decide whether it makes sense to speak of progressive or regressive capitalist states or enterprises. They have to decide which is the least regressive or repressive and dangerous economic bloc to deal with. They need to reduce the negative and extract the positive aspects from their negotiations among the competing capitalist blocs.

Criteria for Left Politics

In general terms, the left should choose to work with less militarist and more trade-oriented capitalist states because these are less prone to intervene violently on behalf of their multi-national corporations or embark on ‘regime change’ campaigns against leftist governments, which have been elected to nationalize strategic assets and property.

For this reason Chinese-Russian capitalists are less malignant than those within the US-EU bloc.

Capitalists, willing to invest in minority shares of joint public-private enterprises, are better than those who demand majority shares and managerial control over strategic national assets.

Capitalists, willing to finance local research and development and transfer technology, are preferable to those who monopolize their technology in their ‘imperial headquarters’.

Capitalists, willing to add value and invest in the local ‘chain of production’ make better partners than to those who simply invest in raw material extraction, exporting ‘raw materials’ and importing finished goods. China has been notorious in pursuing this model of naked ‘colonial extraction’, which does not advance the economies of the resource-rich countries. However recently, Latin American, African and Asian governments have started to demand that China invest more heavily in local manufacturing and processing sectors.

Capitalists who invest in infrastructure linking domestic producers to each other through a ‘grid pattern’ bring more long-term economic benefit than those who operate through a ’spoke infrastructure’, where transport networks are built exclusively to foreign-owned operations in order to bring raw materials directly to export ports.

It is better to work with capitalists who invest in ‘integrated manufacturing complexes’ with high percentage of local suppliers than speculators and capitalists who set up low skill assembly plants using imported parts.

All capitalists seek to maximize market shares and profits by securing tax breaks, finding sources of cheap, docile labor with minimal environmental and workplace protection and easy remittances of profits. The question for the Left is which capitalists are flexible and open to making concessions on these local issues?

Over the past decade, the US capitalist bloc has increased domestic inequalities, cut social expenditures and undermined labor unions and workplace protections.

For their part, over the past two decades, China and Russia have gone through a period of intense concentration of wealth, spiraling inequality, wholesale dismantling of social welfare programs and privatization of resources, banks and factories – all in the course of their headlong transition to capitalism. However, during the last 10 years, Russian workers have benefited from a substantial economic recovery and Chinese workers have secured double-digit wage increases – in contrast to workers in the West with shrinking incomes.

The Left shouldn’t expect to find any expression of labor solidarity from either capitalist bloc but is more likely to negotiate concessions from the East, without the threat of military intervention or ‘regime change’ it confronts from the West.

Clearly there are dangers in dealing with capitalists of any complexion or bloc: US-centered capitalists threaten financial destabilization; Russian oligarchs engaged in pillage and gangster-capitalism in their ascent to state power. Neither should be allowed easy entry and quick exit in any economic relations.

Conclusion

For Left governments, operating in a capitalist world, there are no permanent allies; there are only permanent interests. The distinctions should be very clear.

Foreign market-oriented capitalism, which increases the productive forces, creating value and raising the proportion of wage workers, can help provide the material basis for the state to socialize the economy – if it operates under strict control.

In contrast, militarized capitalism, like that of the US, poses a constant security threat and is a drain on the resources of any leftist government.

In an insecure world, and under the conditions of an unfavorable balance of power, it is best to tactically ally oneself with emerging capitalists, who may have their own reasons for opposing established imperialism. However, the Left must never give up control of their strategic economic sectors.

The Chinese-Russian bloc has its own set of oligarchs and billionaires, exploiters and speculators, but these are not accompanied by imperial state-directed street mobs and saboteurs, militarists and Special Forces.

Left governments should not idealize their relations with tactical allies. Russia and China have betrayed agreements with Left governments when they capitulated under threats and enticements from the US-EU bloc.

‘Agreements’, whether with tactical allies or strategic adversaries, should serve to expand and strengthen the social presence, power and influence of the working class in the economy and state. That should be the strategic priority for Left governments as they navigate in these treacherous waters.

Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Agriculture has announced that 3.3 percent, or 7,700 out of the 233,000 camels in the Kingdom, are infected with the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus.

Forty survey teams and 200 veterinarians examined 32,000 samples from 8,000 animals, with results showing that 81.5 percent of camels are immune to the virus, while 3.3 percent carry or spread it, said Ibrahim Qassem, director general of the ministry’s livestock department.

The ministry held a press conference in Riyadh on Monday about how it was fighting MERS. There was undisputed proof that camels pass the virus to humans, said Qassem, a local publication reported on Tuesday.

Qassem reportedly said research has confirmed the relationship between camels and the virus, but it was likely debate would continue on the issue. He said the ministry was currently working on determining how the virus infects animals initially, including the possibility that they are infected by other animals.

Qassem said that a fatwa was not required to kill animals infected with the virus.

If an animal is infected, then the country’s laws allow the government to slaughter it. “The regulations include a list of diseases that may require us to dispose of the infected animal to protect human health or livestock in general,” said Qassem.

Meanwhile, primary school number 84 in Riyadh saw only 20 students turn up for classes after two students were reportedly in contact with a relative who died from the virus.

On Tuesday, the Health Ministry announced three more cases of infections but there were no deaths. A total of 627 people have now died from MERS in the country, out of 1,223 cases.

By Eric B Brown and Maj Gen (Retd) Dipankar Banerjee*

The US’ foreign policy dilemmas have much in common with India’s concerns regarding its extended neighbourhood. On the one hand, the structures of power in West Asia are being modified by protracted sectarian and strategic struggles, which are further aided by fundamental demographic changes. On the other, peace in the Asia Pacific region over the past thirty years, which has thus far been beneficial to both Chinese and US interests, is now threatened by unfounded territorial claims by Chinese factions. Treated in isolation, these two above issues are already complicated in themselves. But is now becoming increasingly difficult to separate them. The One Belt One Road initiative, which highlights China’s geopolitical ambitions to create a great cross-border heartland with dependencies on the Chinese mainland is the primary link between these two otherwise geographically disparate developments.

The standard assumption in the US has traditionally been that the Chinese political system is likely to see increasing democratic change as its economy develops, but this assumption is being questioned right now. There is an evolving maritime-continental dialectic in Chinese grand strategy – a movement away from the oceans-oriented grand strategy of pursuing China’s rise can be detected. More and more in China’s ruling regime (strategists within the party, army, think-tanks etc) argue that the rise should be pursued on land, and the reasons for this are primarily domestic and internal. However, to fully operationalise this vision, China needs peace in the Asia Pacific and many naval strategists are re-emphasising maritime strategy for this purpose. There are therefore competing visions for China’s rise within the country.

The Communist Party of China (CPC) since Deng Xioping developed China’s eastern seaboard very rapidly, leading to the interior and western regions lagging behind. This disparity created resentment within the party and its people, and these dissonances were perceived as an issue of regime survival. In considering the issue, the CPC was confronted with a unique set of problems: they wanted to replicate the development of the eastern seaboard on the western side and in the interiors, but this would have effectively placed the different regions of China in direct competition with one another. The CPC had to figure out how to develop China’s interior regions without having it threaten other parts of China, and the solution to this was to “march west”- to create land ports and configure institutional requirements to revitalise cities like Chengdu, Urumqi etc. This began in earnest in 2008-2009, when the rise of China was still viewed primarily as a maritime development and not envisaged in the heartland of Eurasia.

Developing the Tibetan Autonomous Region, Yunnan and Xinjiang as land ports through which a march west could be launched is very real for those who live in these areas. With decades of Chinese demographic colonisation, the situation is approaching cultural genocide – for example, during Ramzan, Muslim shopkeepers are being forced to sell food, alcohol and cigarettes, and there are attempts to wipe out the indigenous language of the area. In addition to this is the Chinese militarisation of the Himalayas over the last decade. Large infrastructure is under construction and surge capacity is being developed for the military and as an important element of China’s march west. It is unclear whether the US or India is entirely prepared for this, and the US must be more attuned to India’s continental concerns.

What happens when China begins to pursue its ambitions in the continent and comes into greater interactions with the political crises in West Asia? Does Chinese power seek stability and will it attempt to reign in some of the pathologies that can be seen in West Asia? Will it try to recreate the region in ways that are more conducive to Chinese interests, or not play a role at all in regional upheaval?

In terms of what the Chinese march west can offer towards the stabilisation of West Asia, there is in Beijing a faction of people with revisionist ambitions who seek to pursue their own strategic aggrandisement. Their assistance in building the strategic capacity of states in the region could create problems for states like the US. A successful implementation of their strategy would allow the CPC greater strategic latitude for its ambitions.

Here, US-Pakistan bilateral ties are important, based as it is on a transactional relationship with the military and a very narrow understanding of the Pakistani government. There is the lack of a deeper understanding of the political nature and role of the military; the assumption is that it is somewhat similar to the US military in the sense that it is concerned about territorial integrity etc. Influence in Pakistan is seen by some in China as a way to keep India in check and counter the Indo-Pacific security architecture that the US is trying to build in collaboration with a host of other states, including India.

It is against this backdrop that US interests in Pakistan are shrinking. There is a general political movement in the US towards India, but how this is achieved will be difficult to pull off. Simultaneously, Chinese power is growing in Rawalpindi and Islamabad, and it might soon outstrip the US, particularly in Rawalpindi, which is significant because there is no evidence that China has the same concerns as the US, such as federal stabilisation. In this context, Chinese President Xi Jinping’s promise of investing US$46 billion to develop linkages with Pakistan will be a useful tool to exert influence on the country’s Punjabi elite. The more China becomes involved in Pakistan, the harder it will be for a workable federal structure to emerge.

The US should look at how to promote political stability in Pakistan while reducing the political role of the military. Moreover, an agenda for India’s strategic and economic reemergence must also be created so that it can become the dominant Asian power in West Asia. It is in US interests to preserve the peace in the Indo Pacific and to build capacity to deal with the potential threats and fall-out in West Asia, the Gulf, and Pakistan.

• Speaker: Eric B Brown, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Washington, DC
• Chair: Maj Gen (Retd) Dipankar Banerjee, Mentor, IPCS

Interview with Hossein Rouyvaran, Faculty Member, University of Tehran

Saudi Arabia’s King Salman, who just recently forwent a US visit, is now in Washington in order to seek solutions to the existing problems facing his country in meeting with the US President Barack Obama. These problems constitute a wide range from Iran’s nuclear agreement with the West to the continued war on Yemen and, of course, other domestic security and political issues with which the Saudi king, who ascended to the throne less than a year ago, is grappling. One must wait and see what would be the achievement of Salman’s controversial visit to the United States and his meeting with the US president. In the following interview, Hossein Rouyvaran, Faculty Member of the University of Tehran, has answered questions in this regard. He believes that “the United States will never allow Saudi Arabia to get in line with Israel with regard to regional developments and try to influence the nuclear deal with Iran or any other issue in this regard and, therefore, Obama is looking for a way to prevent Salman from doing this.” The text of his interview follows:

Q: What is your opinion about Salman’s trip to the United States and his meeting with Obama at the present sensitive juncture?

A: This trip is an important trip because it takes place at a time that the two countries are at serious loggerheads with regard to Iran’s nuclear agreement. While the United States believes that this agreement will strengthen security in the Middle East region, Saudi Arabia believes that it only bolsters Iran’s international standing and brings “instability” to the region. For this reason Saudi Arabia and Israel have taken coordinated measures in this regard, of course, with the difference being that Israel is able to challenge the United States, but Saudi Arabia is not. Therefore, Saudis have hidden behind Israel in order to achieve their goals in this regard.

Q: Can Saudi Arabia’s coordination with Israel have any negative impact on its relations with the United States?

A: Certainly! It is by no means acceptable to the United States that Saudi Arabia would get in line with Israel’s regional moves in order to weigh down on Iran’s nuclear deal or any other regional issue. Therefore, Obama is trying to find a way to prevent Salman from continuing this approach and Salman’s visit to Washington provides White House with an good opportunity to do this.

Q: What about Yemen? How important is it for Obama to solve this issue one way or another?

A: As for the US president, it is evident that he supports an anti-war manifest and the votes that took him to the White House were given on the basis of his promises to take US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, he must not be happy with the ongoing war in Yemen. However, despite this issue, Saudi Arabia has been able to have the United States’ support in this regard so far and this is why the war in Yemen has continued for about six months despite Saudi Arabia’s early promises to wrap up the aggression against Yemen in a few weeks. Therefore, it is easy to guess that during his trip to Washington, Salman seeks to find a way out of the crisis in Yemen and will certainly ask for Obama’s help and cooperation in this regard.

Q: Saudi Arabia is entangled in “conflicts” which have faced Riyadh with challenges inside the country. Can the United States provide a roadmap for Salman in order to get out of the current critical situation?

A: The main problem with Saudi Arabia is the behavior of ISIS Takfiri group, which believes it should occupy Saudi Arabia because the holy cities of Mecca and Medina are located there and this will maximize its legitimacy among Muslims. It is true that Saudi Arabia has been instrumental in the creation of ISIS, but the group has no respect for the stability of the Saudi government and is planning to appoint its own governors in the important cities of Mecca and Medina, and this issue has turned into a major challenge for Saudi Arabia.

Q: Is Saudi Arabia facing power struggle within the country as well?

A: The nature of Saudi government requires the king to be always concerned about plots by those who covet his position due to their thirst for power. This is why there have been already talks about King Salman’s succession and steps have been taken in this regard. As a result, one can say that Saudi Arabia is facing many problems in both security and political spheres.

Q: Than you; any last words?

A: Salman’s trip to Washington is a sign that Saudi Arabia is under heavy pressure.

Source: Shargh Daily
http://www.sharghdaily.ir/
Translated By: Iran Review.Org

Last month’s historic nuclear agreement breakthrough, following nearly two years of grueling, frequently contentious negotiations, manifests the efficacy of diplomacy conducted in an atmosphere of mutual respect to solve shared challenges among states that were formerly enemies.

This achievement, according to Iranian college students from whom this observer has been learning a lot recently while engaging in far reaching discussions in Iran, and the nuclear pacts momentum, leads logically to the next step, which should include opening the Iranian and American embassies. This so our two countries can talk freely and facilitate the work of the queuing trade delegations from both countries eager to discuss business opportunities and countless other benefits, including but not limited to the fact that opening our embassies will facilitate the quick restoration of banks financing of trade deals, restoration of consular passport and other services to the more than one million Iranians living in the US and travel of American to the Islamic republic. This and much more can be repaired that has been severely damaged by US-led sanctions that targeted Iran’s civilian population for political purposes including regime change. By opening our embassies, economic benefits will quickly flow to both peoples according to the UN World Trade Association and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD.

Despite obvious benefits to US citizens, according to recent polls, Democrats and Republicans appear to be polar opposites in their view of the agreement and opening our embassies. Nearly 7 in 10 Democrats favor it while an identical share of Republicans rejects it. Among independents, 6 in 10 favor it.

In contrast, accordingly to the results of an admittedly unscientific poll of students at Tehran University and random shoppers and shopkeepers in an ancient Tehran bazaar, as well as outside the former US Embassy, approximately 90 % of Iranians support the agreement and opening of our embassies. And Iranians seem to be quite optimistic, indeed enthusiastic about prospects for future US-Iran bi-lateral relations. No doubt one reason is the harsh US-led economic sanctions that have targeted the civilian population for political purposes, i.e. regime change. During the same period that the public opinion survey was being conducted, the 2nd International Congress on Terrorism was being held in Tehran and international delegates overwhelmingly agreed that economic sanctions targeting innocent civilians for political purposes is Terrorism.

Approximately 63 percent of Iran’s population is under 30 years of age, and a vast majority wants to re-connect with the world. Many are reformists but they want change to come peacefully and from the Iranian people not from outside. They want to reform their government over time and believe they have the political power to do so and to safeguard the nuclear deal in the process. Students interviewed last week in Tehran were nearly unanimous in their insistence that funds coming to their government from the scrapping of sanctions must be spent on domestic needs that directly serve the Iranian people and not scattered around the region.

Iran’s conservative-dominated parliament and many hardliners are deeply suspicious of the USA and Britain and have not hidden their disdain towards the reopening of both embassies. However the decision to restore relations fully, according to one Iranian official intimately involved with the subject, would not be blocked by Iran’s parliament when the issue comes up for a vote.

Expressions like “Death to America” are less common today here in Tehran and these insults are being increasingly replaced among youth with “Hello World!” slogans on T-shirts. This observer believes that the “Death to America” slogan has been misunderstood somewhat in the west. This is because many times when the slogan was chanted in Iran it was not intended to be taken literally but because the slogan’s author was the still much loved Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who reputedly coined the slogan during the tumultuous Iranian revolution. People often use it to identify with and express veneration for the founder of the Islamic Republic.

Equally misunderstood was former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s alleged threats to “wipe Israel off the face of the map.” But as Iranians explain to foreign visitors-and as Ahmadinejad becomes more politically active and still maintains a popular political base, the reality is that as Middle Eastern commentator Juan Cole has clarified, such a threat was never made. Wrote Mr. Cole, “The actual quote does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all … [Ahmadinejad] quoted Khomeini that ‘the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.’ It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.”

Some attitudes expressed in Tehran these days remind one of recent surveys by the Pew Research Center suggesting that younger American Jews are much less likely to regard caring about Israel as essential to their Jewish identity and are more inclined to regard America’s support for Israel as excessive, including that Israel is not an embattled underdog but rather a threat to peace. Similarly, Iranian youth are becoming more politically active. This, as they seek a future that grants them more control over their personal choices, careers and lives along with the implied criticism of some of their country’s leadership.

The American Embassy is located on the corner of Taleqani Ave and S. Mofateh St. in Tehran, and the 65 year old structure has been emptied of US diplomats for the past 36 years. Physically, it is in pretty good shape, all considered. The chancery building is a long, low two-story brick building, and looks strikingly similar to the Milwaukie Union High School in Clackamas county Oregon, this observer’s alma mater. Both were built in the 1940’s.

While not generally open to the public except by special permission, the US Embassy has been put to use over the years as a Middle School and for housing student organizations offices as well as for Basij units of the Revolutionary Guards. It also houses a museum of sorts exhibiting tools and equipment from the “Den of Spies,” “Den of Espionage,” and “Nest of Spies as the diplomatic compound has sometimes been labeled, but less frequently so these days. Also a large mural with anti-American graffiti surrounds the lobby staircase but as an acquaintance noted, it will be quickly painted over when the time is right.

Clean up work is being done on the exterior walls and the painted “Death to America”, “Great Satan,” “criminals,” “corrupt,” “arrogant,” and “anti-Koran,” signs have virtually disappeared.

The rationale for opening both Iran’s and America’s embassies is compelling and goes back to the reasons for The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 to which 190 countries are signatories. Embassies contribute to the achievement of international peace and security and facilitate the work, cultural exchanges, business, travel, and development of both countries.

To paraphrase British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond at a ceremony the other day here in Tehran to mark the reopening of his country’s embassy, as Iran reopened its embassy in London, removing the barriers from the Iranian and American embassies is the logical next step for our countries.

And it will help build confidence and trust between two great nations. This observer submits that both the Iranian and American people are ready for reconciliation.

And we should direct our leaders accordingly.

A split within the largest Yakuza syndicate in Japan has been confirmed by the offshoot. Thousands of excommunicated members of the Yamaguchi-gumi formed a new crime syndicate over the weekend. Police expect a wave of violence. The Yamaguchi-gumi reigns supreme over all other conglomerates, with about half Japan’s gangsters directly or indirectly employed by it. The Yakuza grouping has had a tumultuous history, and splits in its ranks have always deserved the attention of authorities, owing to the wave of bloody retributive violence that inevitably follows such events. The last such rift occurred in the mid-80s, leading to 293 violent clashes and a series of killings.

Now, the newly-formed group which according to Kyodo News would call itself Kobe Yamaguchi-gumi has officially declared its split, issuing a document, according to investigative sources speaking to Japanese media. The document contains quite brazen descriptions of Shinobu Tsukasa (aka Kenichi Shinoda), the sixth-generation leader of the syndicate.

Many in his ranks accused Tsukasa of extreme egotism, sources said Monday as cited by the Japan Times. Reportedly, another reason is his desire to expand the gang’s turf from its native Kobe into Tokyo and other areas.

The secession document was signed by Kunio Inoue, the leader of the Yamaken-gumi – a Yakuza clan within the Yamaguchi-gumi, also based in Kobe, and consisting of 2,000 members.

Inoue and others who seceded explain that they did so in order to honor the wishes of the previous leaders of the Yamaguchi-gumi. The newly-formed Kobe Yamaguchi will continue to use the logo currently used by Tsukasa’s syndicate, which is a controversial move, and might escalate matters further. Recent news of the possible split between the two had the police on high alert – although some in law enforcement circles say this is an opportunity to weaken the clan structure.

It remains to be seen how the power balance between the two will play out. The original Yamaguchi-gumi wishes to spread itself thin by branching out; however, its more than 23,000 members comprise nearly 50 percent of all of Japan’s Yakuza – a substantial advantage over the Kobe Yamaguchi figure, so far only boasting 3,000.

Suspicions within the Yamaguchi-gumi began to emerge over the summer, leading to the excommunication of the 13 Yakuza leaders of clans thought to be the most dangerous to the syndicate’s unity. The Yamaguchi-gumi was born in 1915, founded by a western-Japanese fisherman. It’s Japan’s largest syndicate, existing in 44 out of 47 of Japan’s prefectures, while its reach also spreads to overseas operations in Asia and the United States.

Its wealth measures $80 billion, Fortune magazine said last year, making it by far the richest syndicate in the world – a wealth acquired from drug trafficking, prostitution and white collar crime; although, in a bid to expand, the Yakuza have been branching out into new crime sectors, which is a departure from the golden age of Japanese Yakuza – the 1980s.

On the 50th anniversary of the establishment of Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), resulting from the dismemberment of the historic Tibet occupied in 1950, Chinese authorities took the opportunity to launch a new attack against the 80 year-old Dalai Lama, once also the temporal leader of the Tibetans but who for years renounced to this role, focusing on that of monk that destiny posed at the head of Lamaist Buddhism.

As a tireless globetrotter, the Dalai Lama has however never stopped reminding the world of the fate of his land, which he was forced to abandon to avoid capture after the failed 1959 insurrection of Lhasa, not asking for independence but a more concrete autonomy.

The Chinese leadership once again, this time through its ‘number 4′ of the Communist Party hierarchy, Yu Zhengsheng, accused the Dalai Lama of promoting violent separatism.

Speaking today to thousands of local officials, students and others gathered in Tibet in front of the iconic Potala Palace, former residence of the Dalai Lama, Yu stated that “people of all ethnicities are steadfastly engaged in a struggle against separatism, continuously thwarting the Dalai clique and foreign hostile forces’ splittist and sabotage activities”. An intervention that echoes that of Monday, always in Lhasa, addressing local police and court officials.

Also yesterday, rights group Free Tibet denounced the celebrations, saying they “may be dressed up in 21st century PR but they belong in the era of Mao”, referring to the founder of modern China, Mao Zedong.

Hillary Clinton has publicly apologized for using a private email server while she was secretary of state, calling her actions “a mistake.” It’s the first time Clinton has admitted fault, despite previously arguing that what she did was lawful.

“That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility,” Clinton said in an interview with David Muir of ABC News. “And I’m trying to be as transparent as I possibly can.”

Clinton’s much-awaited statement comes just a day after the former secretary of state sat with the Associated Press and told the news agency that what she did was “allowed” and that there is nothing to apologize for.

In another interview with Andrea Mitchell of NBC News last week, Clinton said that she was only “sorry that this has been confusing to people and has raised a lot of questions.” She insisted that there were “answers to all these questions.”

“I do think I could have and should have done a better job answering questions earlier. I really didn’t perhaps appreciate the need to do that,” she told ABC News on Tuesday. “What I had done was allowed, it was above board. But in retrospect, as I look back at it now, even though it was allowed, I should have used two accounts. One for personal, one for work-related emails.”

Clinton, the front-runner in the Democratic presidential primary, has been arguing for months that the information in her emails was not classified at the time. The State Department confirmed earlier that 125 of the emails contained “confidential” information, but said they were “not marked ‘classified’ at the time the emails were sent.”

Since Clinton’s server did not encrypt emails, critics have also raised concerns that hackers may have obtained classified information from her correspondence. The Clinton campaign maintains there were no breaches in security.

Clinton’s advisers see the email conflict as one of the main issues that have hindered her campaign, resulting in a slide in the polls and a barrage of criticism.

A Monmouth University Poll released Tuesday pegged Clinton’s support among Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters nationwide at 42 percent, a drop of 10 points since last month. In her AP interview, however, Clinton maintained that the email saga had not hurt her 2016 campaign.

“It’s a distraction, certainly,” she said. “But it hasn’t in any way affected the plan for our campaign, the efforts we’re making to organize here in Iowa and elsewhere in the country.”

She also said the conflict did not affect her personally “very much.”

“I have worked really hard this summer, sticking to my game plan about how I wanted to sort of reintroduce myself to the American people.”

Clinton’s private email set-up was first revealed in March, leading to heavy criticism. The FBI has launched an investigation to find out who at the State Department sent the information to Clinton’s private email account. The Justice Department has also begun an investigation into the legality of the use of a private email server for government communication.

Under a court order, batches of Clinton’s emails have been published monthly since May. So far, she has turned over some 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department, which is currently reviewing and releasing them. The largest batch was released on September 2.

Meanwhile, Reuters reported on Tuesday that the State Department is planning to hire 50 temporary workers to boost the office’s capacity. The extra staff will not work on the monthly email releases, but on the backlog of more than 10,000 Freedom of Information Act requested in 2014. Currently, 20 full-time State Department employees and 30 part-time staff are working on Clinton’s emails.

On Saturday, Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton’s campaign, confirmed that both Hillary and former President Bill Clinton personally paid the State Department staffer who managed their private email server.

During his tenure in power, Mahinda Rajapaksa was considered a very clever politician. Some even called him Machiavelli. However, the way he behaved before and after the presidential election called into question his political judgment and even intelligence.

It was increasingly becoming clear for example in 2014 that Rajapaksa and his government were growing unpopular especially among minority communities. Tamils of course disliked Rajapaksa. The Muslims were also becoming wary of his attitude. With limited support within the Sinhala-Buddhist constituency and almost no support within the two major minority communities, even a political novice would know that Rajapaksa could not win a presidential election in 2015. He however, had two more years to go as president.

An intelligent leader would have used the remaining two years to address the issues that made his government unpopular and then called the election at the end of his term in office. Rajapaksa was overconfident, which coupled with the arrogance produced by the war victory prevented him from looking at his chances in the presidential election realistically. The contribution of Rajapaksa’s advisors within and outside of his government for his downfall cannot also be underestimated.

Parliamentary Election

This author does not believe that Rajapaksa wanted to continue in active politics in the immediate aftermath of the presidential election. Rajapaksa wanted to retire like the presidents before him. That was exactly why he left his office even before the final results were announced officially. However, during his semi-retirement he was made to believe that he has the capacity to win the parliamentary election. Two major factors played a role in this belief.

One, the meetings, like the one held in Nugegoda were pulling massive crowds. The huge turn-outs thrilled Rajapaksa and his surpporters.They started to call him the Nugegoda man; suggesting that he will rise again. Rajapaksa failed to recognize that these crowds did not represent the demography of the country and the political sentiments that prevailed. The crowds were really misleading.

In an article entitled Nugegoda: Rajapaksa Exploited?, this author pointed out that “the real implication of the Nugegoda rally, perhaps, is the slowing down of the reform agenda, not the rise (or re-rise) of Rajapaksa.” Rajapaksa and his advisors were looking at these meetings in isolation.

Two, Rajapaksa believed that the 58 lakhs votes he received in the presidential election were solid and they will not disintegrate. The Rajapaksa faction also believed that the votes Maithripala Sirisena gained against Rajapaksa would scatter among the United National Party (UNP), the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP). The “58 lakhs votes” slogan was in a way a lie because all of them were not genuine votes. A portion of them included votes gained through coercion and inducements. The unlimited resources Rajapaksa had in his disposal as the president allowed him to gain these votes. It is possible that some of these votes were obtained illegally. These votes could not be regained in the general election without the assistance of state power. In the parliamentary election the UPFA gained only about 47 lakhs votes, 10 lakhs less than what Rajapaksa polled in the presidential election.

Convinced that he could easily win the parliamentary election, Rajapaksa eventually contested as the de facto prime ministerial candidate. Obviously, Rajapaksa’s reentry did not help the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) to win the election. His party managed to secure only 95 parliamentary seats in the 225 seat national legislature. The question is did he help the party to gain more votes than it could have done without Rajapaksa. This author believes that Rajapaksa in fact dented UPFA’s chances of winning the election.

Cause of the Defeat?

When Rajapaksa was contemplating the idea of contesting the general election, Ranil Wickremesinghe challenged him to do so, if he had the courage. This was not mere rhetoric, but strategic. The UNP wanted Rajapaksa to contest the election because his candidacy would provide a concrete slogan against the UPFA. Without Rajapaksa the allegations of authoritarianism and abuse of power would look feeble because conventional wisdom was that it was Rajapaksa, his family and close allies who abused power and others in his government were helpless.

During the election campaign, the United National Front (UNF) targeted Rajapaksa’s personality, his style of governance and the abuses that took place under his administration. The UNF also effectively used the fear of the possibility of returning to the era of darkness to its advantage. The campaign advertisements that reminded the voter of the culture of “white vans,” for example, worked well for the UNF. By supporting and promoting Rajapaksa, the UPFA owned the abuses of the Rajapaksa era providing the UNF an added advantage.

It is also safe to assume that Rajapaksa’s candidacy also mobilized the minority communities against the UPFA. The Tamils voted for the TNA while the Muslims favored Muslim parties that aligned with the UNF. Without Rajapaksa, at least a small segment of the minority votes could have been salvaged by the UPFA.
A movement for good governance came into force during the presidential election which eventually brought Rajapaksa down. The movement dissipated with the defeat of Rajapaksa in the presidential election. Rajapaksa’s involvement in the general election on the other hand reenergized the movement as there was a strong desire to preserve the victory achieved in January 2015.

Rajapaksa’s candidacy in fact threatened the continuation of the gains made in January. For example, Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera’s National Movement for a Just Society and about hundred civil society organizations officially renewed their understanding with the UNF a few weeks before the election. This coalition and the understanding reached certainly, helped the UNF to win more votes.
President Maithripala Sirisena despite being the president of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, the predominant entity of the UPFA, refused to be part of the campaign because of Rajapaksa’s involvement. This announcement would have also removed a segment of the SLFP votes from the UPFA. Without Rajapaksa, the responsibility of leading the UPFA campaign would have rested with President Sirisena. Sirisena’s leadership had the potential to facilitate more votes to the UPFA. For example, some of the minority groups, independent advocates of good governance and Sirisena supporters themselves would have voted for the UPFA. These factors indicate that Rajapaksa indeed damaged the possibility of a UPFA victory in the just concluded parliamentary election.

According to Reuters as many as 800 ground troops were deployed in Yemen late Tuesday evening, adding on to the already present Saudi-led coalition’s numbers in their mission to neutralize the Houthi rebels threat to Exiled President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi and his government after a 5-month civil war.

This instance is the first reported deployment of ground troops there by Egypt which commands one the Arab world’s strongest armies.

The Saudi led coalition has achieved significant progress on the ground against Houthi militia, backing a push by Yemeni fighters loyal to exiled president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi to recapture much of the country’s south and now advancing on the Houthi-controlled capital Sanaa.

Four Egyptian units of between 150 – 200 troops accompanied by tanks and transport vehicles arrived in Yemen late Tuesday evening, said two Egyptian security sources.

“We have sent these forces as part of Egypt’s prominent role in this alliance … the alliance fights for the sake of our brotherly Arab states, and the death of any Egyptian soldier would be an honor and considered martyrdom for the sake of innocent people,” a senior Egyptian military source said.

Yemeni officials estimate the number of foreign troops from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates to be around at least 2,000, while Al-Jazeera TV reported at least 10,000 foreign troops including 1,000 from the UAE.

They are part o f a coalition force that plans to eventually aid Yemeni Loyalist Militia in retaking the Yemeni capital Sanaa which the Houthis seized earlier this year.

Original article

By Sven Milekic and Marien Chiriac

Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, on Wednesday proposed a new plan for accepting an additional 120,000 refugees in the EU and at the same time proposed that non-EU countries in the Western Balkans be put on a list of safe countries.

The proposition presented to the European Parliament adds another 40,000 to an existing plan for quotas set in May.

Under the newly revised quotas, Croatia will receive 1,064 incomers, Bulgaria 1,600 and Romania 4,646. The biggest quotas are given to Germany, with 31,443 refugees, and France with 24,031.

Besides the plan for national quotas, Juncker said the Western Balkan states should be put on a list of safe countries of origins, which means that people coming from these states will be classified strictly as economic migrants.

Thus, people from Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, along with Turkey, will not be able to seek political asylum in the EU and may be deported if their permits are revoked.

“If a country loses its status as a safe country, it will be denied the right to join the EU,” Juncker added.

The Balkan country set to receive the biggest number of refugees, Romania, has defended its plan to relocate a smaller number of asylum seekers than the EU proposes.

“As we said early this week, Romania has the capacity to take in only 1,786 refugees and out of these places, 200 are already occupied. We want to show solidarity with other EU countries, but we can’t do more,” Prime Minister Victor Ponta said on Wednesday.

The six centres for sheltering refugees in Romania have a total capacity for only 1,200 places, according to data.

As yet, Romania has not been hit by the wave of migrants crossing the Balkans by land and sea towards Germany and northern Europe. Only 913 people applied for asylum this year, 12 per cent more than in 2014.

Croatia says it can accommodate hundreds of refugees in its centres for asylum seekers, while two more centres, with the capacity for a hundred places each, will be built by the end of the year.

Croatia’s central coordinating body, the National Protection and Rescue Directorate, says it has a potential total capacity to hold up to 10,000 people temporarily.

Only 720 people applied for asylum in Croatia this year, and of these 720 requests, only 40 were granted, while 21 were given official state protection.