Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live

Climate Change And Pakistan: A Case Of Forgotten Priorities – OpEd

0
0

Whether the Paris’ Climate Conference delivers or not, the more pressing and immediate task for Pakistan is to set its priorities right.

Survivability and security of a country and its people against all sorts of existential threats, usually features at the top in the security calculus of any state. However looking at these threats only through the lens of “traditional dangers” such as war and invasion, limits the state’s tendency to devise a comprehensive security mechanism.

The ongoing Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris is the one last effort to direct world’s attention to a much graver, imminent yet a non-traditional threat that is looming in the face of whole mankind. It is being termed as the “last chance for humanity” if the responsibility is not equally shared and an honest effort along with timely and effective measures are not taken.

Despite having been hit hard by the adverse affects of climate change, Pakistan is yet to fully wake up to the stark reality that the human life in this country is at a much greater risk because of unexpected spells of heat waves, recurrent floods, droughts and scarcity of rains on everyday basis than it is at the hands of possible threat of war, invasion or bombing. It is evident from the most disastrous floods of 2010 which alone displaced twenty million people which is a single massive climate induced disaster. However the common awareness among people and government’s response towards this issue is still largely ineffective. This claim is easily validated if one looks at the general disposition of present and past governments and their efforts towards the mitigation of this ever growing threat. It has been almost close to naught! Yes there is a National Climate Change Policy which itself took several years to take shape and finally came about in 2012; only to be shelved into the darkest forgotten crevice of government building, partially owing to the regime change. Not only did the present government shamelessly fail to meet the UN deadline for the submission of INDC document on 1st October, the document itself had to face a lot of criticism and is regarded as the most poorly drafted document with several loopholes mainly because it fails to clearly state Pakistan’s financial and technological limitations and its ever growing vulnerabilities caused by climate change.

Similarly the Appointment of Climate minister Mr. Zahid Hamid only a couple of weeks before the Climate Summit reflects upon the hurried and poor planning that went into the preparation of the conference. Furthermore a very brief speech by PM Nawaz Sahirf at COP21 did not help much or made the case any stronger.

There is a need to realize that it is not just about making a speech at some high profile global event but is a continuous process which demands honesty, resolve and dedication. At the home front, the government needs to address this issue with sincerity, dedication and utmost seriousness. Only making National policies and not implementing them will not serve the purpose. A

lso instead of making manifestos centered on vote oriented projects such as motorway and metro and sanctioning coal based power plants, the government should be more eager to switch to alternative energy resources such as solar, wind, hydal and nuclear options. One doesn’t need to be an expert to tell how air pollution from burning of fossil fuel used in automobiles and factory furnaces and kilns is causing huge health risks to one and all. The government should add incentives to the budgetary planning where rebates on custom duty for hybrid cars can be introduced.

Efforts should be made to cut down on carbon gas emission and strict punitive measures should be taken against factory owners who dump their toxic wastes into open air or water bodies. Similarly deforestation should be discouraged, which is the largest cause of floods along with rise in atmospheric temperature, and more finances should be reserved for plantation and forestry. Otherwise one should not complain about rising temperatures and frequent heat waves hitting Karachi and other parts of the country. The recent scientific findings claim that Pakistan’s glaciers in the North are at the higher risk of melting at much greater speed than elsewhere because of global warming. Hence there is a need to take solid and timely measures to prevent floods. Taking the population into confidence, securitizing them towards this threat and building up of dams and reservoirs can provide a climate resilient infrastructure that can help in averting future threat of floods.

Last but not the least, the common people should develop and inculcate sense of civic responsibility among themselves where simple every day habits such as switching off electric appliances when they are not in use, staying watchful of water and gas pipe leakages in streets and homes, regular checkups and maintenance of their automobiles not just for personal safety but also to minimize the emission of pollutants in the air can help to a great deal.

By not taking any concrete steps, the government is only aiding and abetting the threat of Climate change. A country like Pakistan which is most vulnerable to climate change cannot afford to be complacent about it anymore otherwise the stated goal of National Climate Change Policy “to ensure that climate change is mainstreamed in the economically and socially vulnerable sectors of the economy and to steer Pakistan towards climate resilient development”, will only remain a farfetched idea.

* The author, Sadia Kazmi is a Senior Research Associate at the Strategic Vision Institute, Islamabad. She is pursuing a PhD in the Department of Strategic Studies at the National Defence University, Islamabad. She can be reached at sadia.kazmi.svi@gmail.com


Carbon Trading Reborn In New-Generation Mega-Polluters – OpEd

0
0

By Patrick Bond*

Climate change, the biggest threat to the planet, appears to be amplifying, as the “financialization of nature” through carbon markets resumes in earnest. The failure of the Kyoto Protocol’s emissions trading strategy in Europe may soon be forgotten once the emerging markets ramp up their investments, especially if carbon markets remain a central feature of a Paris COP21 agreement. If so, several that have begun the process – China, Brazil, India and South Africa – are likely to open the door to full-fledged markets, now that (since 2012) they no longer qualify for generating credits through UN’s offset scheme, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The Kyoto Protocol had made provision for low-income countries to receive CDM funds for emissions reductions in specific projects, but the system was subject to repeated abuse. China is already far advanced, with seven metropolitan markets covering the major cities’ output, and a national market anticipated there in late 2016.

The world’s carbon markets

In Ufa, Russia, in July 2015, the Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa (BRICS) summit accomplished very little aside from codifying new financial institutions, especially a New Development Bank which is certain to amplify the BRICS’ greenhouse gas emissions. On climate change, according to the final declaration, there were only stock arguments: “We express our readiness to address climate change in a global context and at the national level and to achieve a comprehensive, effective and equitable agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.”

The UNFCCC still strongly believes in carbon trading, and indeed its secretary Christiana Figueres came to the UN from the carbon markets.

Assuming a degree of state subsidization and increasingly stringent caps on greenhouse gas emissions, the Kyoto Protocol posited that market-centric strategies such as emissions trading schemes and offsets can allocate costs and benefits appropriately so as to shift the burden of mitigation and carbon sequestration most efficiently. Current advocates of emissions trading still insist that this strategy will be effective once the largest new emitters in the BRICS bloc are integrated in world carbon markets.

Critics, including the Pope, argue instead that, as the June 2015 Encylical puts it, “The strategy of buying and selling carbon credits can lead to a new form of speculation which would not help reduce the emission of polluting gases worldwide. This system seems to provide a quick and easy solution under the guise of a certain commitment to the environment, but in no way does it allow for the radical change which present circumstances require. Rather it may simply be a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors.”

At the Paris summit of the UNFCCC, the COP21 is anticipated to remove the critical “Common but Differentiated Responsibility” clause that traditionally separated national units of analysis by per capita wealth. The COP21 appears to already have been forestalled in late 2014 by the climate agreement between Xi Jinping and Barack Obama, representing the two largest absolute GHG emitters: China and the US. That deal ensures world catastrophe, for in it China only begins to reduce emissions in 2030 and the US commitment (easily reversed by post-Obama presidents) is merely to reduce emissions by 15% from 1990 levels by 2025. Likewise in June 2015, the G7 leaders agreed to decarbonise their economies but only by 2100, raising the prospects of runaway climate change. The BRICS bloc’s role in forging inadequate global climate policy of this sort dates to the 2009 Copenhagen Accord at the COP15 when a side-deal between Obama and four of the five BRICS’ leaders derailed the much more ambitious UNFCCC.

The failure of the carbon markets to date, especially the 2008-14 price crash, which at one point reached 90% from peak to trough, does not prevent another major effort by states to subsidize the bankers’ solution to climate crisis. The indicators of this strategy’s durability already include commodification of nearly everything that can be seen as a carbon sink, especially forests but also agricultural land and even the ocean’s capacity to sequester carbon dioxide (CO2) for photosynthesis via algae. The financialization of nature is proceeding rapidly, bringing with it all manner of contradictions.

Due to internecine competition-in-laxity between climate negotiators influenced by national fossil fuel industries, the UN summits appear unable to either cap or regulate GHG pollution at its source, or jump-start the emissions trade in which so much hope is placed. European and United Nations turnover plummeted from a peak of US$140 billion in 2008 to US$130 billion in 2011, US$84 billion in 2012, and US$53 billion in 2013 even as new carbon markets began popping up.[1]1 But after dipping to below US$50 billion in 2014, volume on the global market is predicted by industry experts to recover to US$77 billion (worth 8 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalents) in 2015 thanks to higher European prices and increased US coverage of emissions, extending to transport fuels and natural gas.[2]2

However, geographically extreme uneven development characterizes the markets in part because of the different regulatory regimes. Since 2013 there have been new markets introduced in California, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Quebec, Korea and China, while Australia’s 2012 scheme was discontinued in 2014 due to the conservative government’s opposition. The price per tonne of carbon also differs markedly, with early 2015 rates still at best only a third of the 2006 European Union peak: California around US$12, Korea around US$9, Europe around US$7.3, China at US$3-7 in different cities, the US northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative’s voluntary scheme at US$5, New Zealand at US$4 and Kazakhstan at US$2. The market for CDMs collapsed nearly entirely to US$0.20/tonne.

These low prices indicate several problems.

  • First, extremely large system gluts continue: 2 billion tonnes in the EU, for example, in spite of a new “Market Stability Reserve” backstopping plan that aimed to draw out 800 million tonnes.
  • Second, the new markets suffer from such unfamiliarity with trading in such an ethereal product, emissions, that volume has slowed to a tiny fraction of what had been anticipated (such as in China and Korea).
  • Third, fraud continues to be identified in various carbon markets. This is, increasingly, a debilitating problem in the timber and forest-related schemes that were meant to sequester large volumes of carbon.
  • Fourth, resistance continues to rise to carbon trading and offsets in Latin America, Africa and Asia, where movements against reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) are linking up.

An overriding danger has arisen that may cancel the deterrents to carbon trading: the international financial system has overextended itself yet again, perhaps most spectacularly with derivatives and other speculative instruments. It needs new outlets for funds. The rise of non-bank lenders doing “shadow banking,” for example, was by 2013 estimated to account for a quarter of assets in the world financial system, US$71 trillion, a rise of three times from a decade earlier, with China’s shadow assets increasing by 42% in 2012 alone. The Economist last year acknowledged that “potentially explosive” emerging-market shadow banking is huge, fast-growing in certain forms and little understood. As for the straight credit market, the main result of Quantitative Easing policies was renewed bubbling, with US$57 trillion in debt added to the global aggregate from 2007-14, of which US$25 trillion was state debt. By mid-2014 the total world debt of US$200 trillion had reached 286 percent of global GDP, an increase from 269% in late 2007.

Global financial regulation appears impossible given the prevailing balance of forces, witnessed in failures at the 2002 Monterrey and 2015 Addis Ababa Financing for Development initiatives and various G20 summits after 2008. As a result, the BRICS are especially important sites to track ebbs and flows of financial capital in relation to climate-related investments. In reality, in relation to both world financial markets and climate policy, the BRICS are not anti-imperialist but instead subimperialist.

The first-round routing of CDM funding went disproportionately to China, India, Brazil and South Africa from 2005 until 2012, but by then, the price of CDM credits had sunk so low there was little point in any case. Moreover, the other Kyoto offsetting mechanism, Joint Implementation, has over 90% of offsets issued by Russia and Ukraine with very limited transparency.

Similar problems of system integrity plague the carbon markets that have opened in China. At the Chinese Academy of Marxism, for example, Yu Bin’s essay on ‘Two forms of the New Imperialism,’ argues that along with intellectual property, the commodification of emissions is vital to understanding the way capital has emerged under conditions of global crisis. The US$4 trillion lost in the Chinese stock market speculative bubbling in June-July 2015 was one indication that there are no special protections offered by what is termed ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’. The country’s financial opacity and favouritism present profound problems for carbon trading. As Reuters reported on July 1 2015,

‘China said last week it would need to invest 41 trillion yuan ($6.6 trillion) to meet its U.N. pledges. Some of that investment will be raised through the national carbon market, expected to cover around 3 billion tonnes of carbon emissions – about 30 percent of the annual total – by 2020. But liquidity on China’s seven pilots schemes has remained low, with just 28 million permits traded over two years, only about 2 percent of the permits handed out annually. Prices in five of the markets have fallen sharply, with the Shanghai market ending its compliance year on Tuesday at 15.5 yuan (US$2.6), down 38 percent from its launch. Permits in the biggest pilot exchange in Guangdong have dropped 73 percent to 16 yuan.’

Regardless of the reality of carbon trading contradictions, if policy continues to favour corporate strategies, an even greater speculative bubble in carbon finance can be anticipated in the next few years, as more BRICS establish carbon markets and offsets as strategies to deal with their prolific emissions. In South Africa, neither the 2011 National Climate Change Response White Paper nor a 2013 Treasury carbon tax proposal endorsed carbon trading. In part because of the oligopoly purchasing conditions anticipated as a result of two vast emitters far ahead of the others: the state electricity company Eskom and the former parastatal Sasol which squeezes coal and natural gas to make liquid petroleum at the world’s single largest emissions point source, at Secunda near Johannesburg. But by April 2014, carbon trading was back on the official policy agenda, thanks to the British High Commissioner whose consultants colluded with the Johannesburg Stock Exchange to issue celebratory statements about “market readiness.”

With all of South Africa’s carbon-intensive infrastructure under construction, the official Copenhagen voluntary promise by President Jacob Zuma – cutting GHG emissions to a “trajectory that peaks at 34% below a business as usual trajectory in 2020” – appear to be impossible to uphold, just four years after it was made. The state signalled its reluctance to impose limits on pollution in February 2015, when Environment Minister Edna Molewa gave Eskom, Sasol and other major polluters official permission to continue their current trajectories for another five years, ignoring Clean Air Act regulations on emissions of co-pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide.

Other BRICS countries have similar power configurations, and in Russia’s case it led to a formal withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol’s second commitment period (2012-2020) in spite of huge “hot air” benefits the country would have earned in carbon markets – for not emitting at 1990 levels – as a result of the industrial economy’s deindustrialization due to its exposure to world capitalism during the early 1990s. That economic crash cut Russian emissions far below 1990 Soviet Union levels during the first (2005-2012) commitment period. But given the 2008-13 crash of carbon markets, Moscow’s calculation shifted away from the Kyoto Protocol, so as to promote its own oil and gas industries without limitation.

The attraction of carbon trading in the new markets, no matter its failure in the old, is logical when seen within a triple context: a longer-term capitalist crisis which has raised financial sector power within an ever-more frenetic and geographically ambitious system; the financial markets’ sophistication in establishing new routes for capital across space, through time, and into non-market spheres; and the mainstream ideological orientation to solving every market-related problem with a market solution, which even advocates of a Post-Washington Consensus and Keynesian economic policies share. Interestingly, even Paul Krugman had second thoughts, for after reading formerly pro-trading environmental economist William Nordhaus’ Climate Casino, he remarked, “The message I took from this book was that direct action to regulate emissions from electricity generation would be a surprisingly good substitute for carbon pricing.” This U-turn is the hard-nosed realism needed in understanding how financial markets continue to over-extend geographically as investment portfolios diversify into distant, risky areas and sectors. Global and national financial governance prove inadequate, leading to bloated and then busted asset values ranging from subprime housing mortgages to illegitimate emissions credits.

No better examples can be found of the irrationality of capitalism’s spatio-temporal-ecological fix to climate crisis than a remark by Tory climate minister Greg Barker in 2010: “We want the City of London, with its unique expertise in innovative financial products, to lead the world and become the global hub for green growth finance. We need to put the sub-prime disaster behind us.” As BRICS are already demonstrating, though, new disasters await, for both overaccumulated capitalism in general and for what will be, for the next few years at least, under-accumulating carbon markets.

END NOTES
[1] Reuters, 2014, “Value of global CO2 market drops 38 percent in 2013,” 2 January, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/02/co2-market-global-idUKL6N0KC1UY20140102
[2] Ibid.

Nearly 14 Tons Of Cannabis Seized Off Italian Coast

0
0

Europol said it supported the Italian Guardia di Finanza and D.C.S.A. in an operation resulting in the seizure of over 13.5 tons of cannabis resin from a Panama-registered merchant vessel, and the arrest of 11 Ukrainian and Georgian crew members.

The operation was closely supported by the Spanish National Police and Vigilancia Aduanera (D.A.V.A.), M.A.O.C.-N , and the Hellenic Coast Guard.

Tactical teams from Guardia di Finanza intercepted and boarded the vessel ‘Munzur’ approximately 10 miles off the north-eastern shores of the island of Pantelleria on December 2, and escorted it to the Italian Port of Palermo. From there, the Nucleo di Polizia Tributaria – G.I.C.O. – G.O.A. began the investigation into the origin of the drugs and the criminal enterprise involved.

According to Europol, this operation builds on four successful actions against transnational drug trafficking in the Mediterranean Sea since June this year; these have led to a total seizure of nearly 60 tons of cannabis resin and the arrest of 46 individuals.

The actions fall under the complex international police operation Libeccio International. This involves various EU law enforcement agencies from EU Member States working together as a joint operational team (JOT) to tackle large-scale drug trafficking in the Mediterranean Sea. On this occasion, in Palermo the JOT brought together officials from Greece, Spain, and Europol, to ensure immediate follow-up of international investigative leads.

INTERPOL Supports Global Operation Against Dorkbot Botnet

0
0

A coordinated global operation to disrupt the Dorkbot botnet, believed to have infected more than one million computers worldwide in 2015 alone, was supported by INTERPOL.

A series of simultaneous actions involving law enforcement in North and Central America, Europe and Asia, with close collaboration from private industry, resulted in the takedown of the botnet’s main servers and data channels.

Since its discovery in 2011, Microsoft has closely monitored Dorkbot via the Microsoft Malware Protection Center and the Microsoft Digital Crimes Unit. Analysis provided by Microsoft, Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) Polska and technology security company ESET was provided to the private companies and law enforcement agencies involved in the action against the Dorkbot infrastructure.

The INTERPOL Digital Crime Centre (IDCC) supported the operation from the INTERPOL Global Complex for Innovation in Singapore through active coordination with law enforcement in its participating member countries to take down servers and domains.

“This successful operation shows the value and need for close collaboration between law enforcement and the private sector to detect, prevent and mitigate all manner of cyberthreats,” said Sanjay Virmani, Director of the IDCC.

“We encourage private sector companies with expertise in the cyber realm to work with INTERPOL to combat these very real security risks,” he concluded.

The operation involved support from law enforcement agencies and industry partners including CERT Polska, ESET, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, US Department of Homeland Security’s United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team, Europol, US Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Russian Ministry of Interior Department K, the INTERPOL National Central Bureau in Russia, the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation and the Turkish National Police.

Investigators from the affected countries and companies are continuing to identify the criminals behind the Dorkbot malware.

The Dorkbot botnet is used for a variety of illegal activities, most commonly: Stealing account credentials for online payment and other websites;
Distributed denial of service attacks and ; Providing a mechanism through which other types of dangerous malware can be downloaded to and installed onto the victim’s computer.

Dorkbot spreads through USB flash drives, instant messaging programs and social networks. This malware can easily be removed with the appropriate anti-virus tools, therefore computer users are advised to scan their machines regularly.

Security Cooperation: A Key Pillar Of Defense Policy – Analysis

0
0

By Derek S. Reveron*

Foreign policy of the 2010s was supposed to be different: there would be no great power tensions, the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan would be strong enough to confront their own security challengers, and the US could pivot away from Middle East turmoil to do nation building at home. Yet the United States has confronted a very different world. Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed parts of Crimea, and launched military operations in Syria; China violated Vietnam’s sovereignty drilling for hydrocarbons in its Exclusive Economic Zone, established an air defense identification zone conflicting with Japan, and created “islands” in the disputed South China Sea, exacerbating tensions with the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia; Iraq struggled against the group ISIS, ceding a significant portion of its territory; Afghanistan failed to parlay a decade of international investment, leading to a Taliban resurgence; and intrastate conflict caused closure of U.S. embassies in Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Graham Allison and Dmitri Simes summed it up well: “peace seems increasingly out of reach as threats to U.S. security and prosperity multiply both at the systemic level, where dissatisfied major powers are increasingly challenging the international order, and at the state and substate level, where dissatisfied ethnic, tribal, religious and other groups are destabilizing key countries and even entire regions.”[1]

The Benefits of the Indirect Approach

In an effort to reach for peace, the United States responds to foreign policy crises like these not by sending combat forces to confront aggression, but instead by sending weapons, trainers, and advisors to tackle security deficits.[2] The United States aspires to create true partners that can confront their own threats to internal stability (e.g., terrorism) or alleviate security dilemmas (e.g. the rise of China). Thus, strengthening weak states and supporting developed partners through security cooperation remain a national security priority. Not new, this approach continues a long-term tradition of U.S. foreign policy that seeks to empower its partners to confront their own security challenges rather than attempt to solve them through American force alone. To be sure, the U.S. military remains a potent combat force and regularly conducts counterterrorism strikes in the Middle East, leads maritime coalitions in the Indian Ocean, and maintains a capacity to wage major war in Asia. In addition to this warfighting capacity, successive administrations have sought to prevent conflict by helping regimes through security cooperation, which includes all Department of Defense interactions with foreign defense establishments.[3]

Since coalition operations are a norm, security cooperation also ensures partners are interoperable with US forces. For example, in Afghanistan, we operated with 50 partners who often could provide capabilities that the United States could not, such as police training. In Bahrain, a U.S. officer directs three naval task forces composed of 30 partners who collectively protect vital trade routes. And in Key West, Joint Interagency Task Force South serves as a fusion center supporting international efforts to eliminate illicit trafficking in the Caribbean and Latin America. Security cooperation enables these coalitions to work; the programs ensure partners have access to the U.S. defense industrial base; and U.S.-sponsored military exercises promote interoperability.

As the United States looks ahead, the country is sure to follow the tradition in defense strategy that prioritizes enabling partners through training and equipping their forces. Over the last 15 years, the number of status of forces agreements (SOFAs) increased from 40 to 117. This is due, in part, to the fact that while administrations may change, fundamental U.S. interests have not. These include: protecting the US homeland from catastrophic attack, sustaining a global system marked by open lines of communication to facilitate commerce, promoting international security, and preventing powers hostile to the United States from being able to dominate important areas of the world.[4]

The United States aspires to create true partners who can confront their own threats to internal stability, which organized crime, violent actors, and regional rivals exploit. Known as the “indirect approach,” the U.S. helps countries fill security deficits that exist when a country cannot independently protect its own national security. American generosity helps explain this, but U.S. national security benefits too. For example, by providing radars and surveillance technology, Central American countries can control their airspace and can interdict drug-filled planes bound for the US; by providing logistic support, Pakistan can lead a maritime coalition promoting maritime security in the Indian Ocean; and by selling AEGIS destroyers, Japan can counter North Korean missiles and provide early warning of missile threats to the United States.

Through security cooperation programs like these, the United States helps other countries meet their immediate national security needs, but there is also an effort to foster independence so states can contribute to global security. This is most visible in a program such as the Global Peacekeeping Operations Initiative that trains and equips foreign militaries to participate in peacekeeping operations. While the United States does not want to deploy ground forces under the United Nations flag, it does play a key role in peacekeeping by training and equipping over 250,000 peacekeepers since 2005. Programs like GPOI enabled Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda to participate in an African Union peacekeeping mission in Somalia. An officer from Chad seemed to capture the rationale for other countries’ efforts to contribute to global security: “When your neighbor’s house is burning, you have to put it out, because if not, yours is next.”[5] U.S. security cooperation often provides the tools countries need when their national security demands exceed their security capacities.

The preventive and cooperative approach to foreign policy is visible in today’s military, which has undergone dramatic change over the last three decades. Defense strategy embraces the notion that the U.S. military does much more than fight wars. The military trains, equips, and deploys peacekeepers; provides humanitarian assistance and disaster relief; and supports other militaries to reduce security deficits throughout the world. With national security focused on weak states and regional challengers, the U.S. military has been evolving from a force of confrontation to one of cooperation.

The rationale for security cooperation has been based on the assumption that instability breeds chaos, which would make it more likely that the US or the international community would face pressure to intervene in the future. Given America’s global foreign policy, many countries have large expectations for assistance from the United States, but the US also derives benefits from security cooperation. Among these are:

  • Obtaining base access as a quid pro quo
  • Augmenting U.S. force structure by providing logistics and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support to coalition partners in the Middle East
  • Promoting a favorable balance of power by selling weapon systems and training programs to Gulf Cooperation Council countries to balance Iran
  • Harmonizing areas of cooperation by working with Japan and Israel on missile defense
  • Promoting self-defense through the Georgia Train and Equip program
  • Reinforcing sovereignty through programs like Plan Colombia and the Merida Initiative with Mexico
  • Supporting the US industrial base and creating interoperable air forces through the F-35 program

As these reasons suggest, security cooperation is much bigger than train and equip forces in combat zones. Given the scope of these programs and diversity of the partners, one can develop measurable objectives. These include: the strength of regional security agreements, the types of regional cooperation (e.g., participation in U.S.-led air, maritime, or land operations), willingness of foreign governments to counter threats the U.S. identifies (e.g. terrorism), and the relative receptivity of U.S. forces within the partner country. Internal to countries, one can measure how well partners combat security challenges, the strength of civil–military relations, and the levels of respect for human rights. Measurement can include the extent to which international commerce flows freely, levels of cooperation between military and international relief organizations, and support for international initiatives to combat disease, illicit activity, and weapons proliferation.

Challenges for Security Cooperation

At times security cooperation can be limitless, dissatisfying, and futile. At times partners misinterpret the assistance and do not appreciate the transitory nature of the assistance. To convince partners that Cold War logic no longer governs security cooperation, U.S. military officers promote human rights, encourage military professionalization, and serve as mentors to military officers in developing countries throughout the world. At the Naval War College, for example, over 65 countries send their best and brightest to learn alongside their American peers.

Over the last three decades, the U.S. military has embraced security cooperation, but there are important risks to highlight. First, the non-exclusive nature of these activities will produce more failures than successes, which negatively impacts confidence in security cooperation as a tool. Second, the personnel system is not producing sufficient talent to support these missions. American forces no longer operate in isolation and need an appreciation of the historical, cultural, and political dimensions of its partners. Third, there is a tendency to over-rely on partners thinking they can accomplish U.S. objectives when they either lack the political motivation or the skills to do so. Fourth, US weapons given to partners can be lost or used against U.S. forces. Finally, other countries will rely on the U.S. to subsidize their own defense budgets, creating a “free-rider” problem.

Underlying these risks are fundamental limits of what an external actor can accomplish through security cooperation; without indigenous political support, programs can only have marginal impact on a country’s security and stability. All of these programs clearly indicate that change in weak states must come primarily from within; external actors are limited in what they can accomplish.[6] Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter captured this while frustrated with U.S. efforts to enable Iraq to confront its security challenges. “We can give them training, we can give them equipment — we obviously can’t give them the will to fight. But if we give them training, we give them equipment, and give them support, and give them some time, I hope they will develop the will to fight, because only if they fight can ISIL remain defeated.”[7]

Given the disappointments in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, there is a potential for the value of security cooperation to be ignored, but these programs are not confined to combat zones alone. When thinking about security cooperation, we should look at how international partners contribute to coalition operations and global security. U.S. budgetary declines will likely reinforce the importance of security cooperation, as the U.S. will need more partners and allies to augment its own defense capacities. Security cooperation has become a panacea, but those inside and outside of government must understand the importance of security deficits, how militaries are changing from forces of confrontation to forces of cooperation, the challenges of the “by, with, and through partners” approach, and why security cooperation is an important pillar of defense strategy.

About the author:
*Derek S. Reveron
is Professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. The views expressed here are the author’s alone and do not represent the official position of the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense or the U.S. government. They are based on testimony given before the House Armed Services Committee on October 21, 2015.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

Notes:
[1] Graham T. Allison and Dmitri K. Simes, “Russia and America Stumbling to War,” National Interest, April 20, 2015. http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/russia-america-stumbling-war-12662

[2] Presidential Policy Directive 23 (Security Sector Assistance) noted the US must “help partner nations build sustainable capacity to address common security challenges.”  Presidential Policy

Directive/PPD-23: Security Sector Assistance (Washington, DC: The White House, 2013).

[3] Security cooperation is defined in military doctrine as “All Department of Defense interactions with foreign defense establishments to build defense relationships that promote specific US security interests, develop allied and friendly military capabilities for self-defense and multinational operations, and provide US forces with peacetime and contingency access to a host nation.” Chairman, US Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Joint Publication 1-02, DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, March 2015. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary

[4] Derek S. Reveron, Nikolas K. Gvosdev, and Mackubin T. Owens, US Foreign Policy and Defense Strategy: The Evolution of an Incidental Superpower (Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press, 2015).

[5] Quoted in “African Training Exercise Turns Urgent as Threats Grow,” New York Times, March 8, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/world/africa/african-training-exercise…

[6] Paul Collier, The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done about It (New York, Oxford University Press, 2007).

[7] Quoted in Vanessa Williams, “Defense Secretary Carter: Iraq’s forces showed ‘no will to fight’ Islamic State,” Washington Post, May 24, 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/24/defense-secretary-carter-iraqs-forces-showed-no-will-to-fight-islamic-state/

Social Injustice Breeds Terrorism And Radicalization – OpEd

0
0

When it comes to crime in general – and homicidal crime in particular – America seems intent in proving to the world that we are a nation apart. And if the crime sub-specialty is one of mass shootings, such as the event which recently transpired in San Bernardino (California), we purposely shrug off a topic we prefer to keep hushed; a topic which brings out the inglorious fact that the rate of mass shootings in the United States is six times that in the rest of the planet based on population. Not double, not triple, but six times as high!

And that makes our American society unique, truly unique on three counts: in the sky high rate itself; in our continual stubbornness, failing to acknowledge it as a societal problem; and in our unwillingness to discuss it with a solution-centered mentality.

Each time there is a mass shooting event, we quickly seek, and find, an appropriate label for it: be it domestic terrorism (often associated with ultra -right militias); or foreign-inspired terrorism (currently of Middle East origin); or simply heinous acts perpetrated by mentally deranged individuals – or very small cohesive groups. The commonality always present at the aftermath of these events is an upsurge of strident political rhetoric by both proponents and opponents of firearms’ availability… the need, or not, for greater control of firearms keeps replaying as our sempiternal “gun debate.”

Americans’ love of firearms, although mostly the purview of impassioned white male Caucasians, is literally (and sacredly) considered a right empowered in the Second Amendment of the Constitution… inanely interpreted by a Supreme Court lacking vision to see the inapplicability of the intended militias’ support past the nineteenth century; a legal aberration that invites a modern day replay of the lawless Wild West.

As it often happens, we seem to be carried away by our experiences and prejudices, giving intervening variables status of causality, even by social scientists amongst us we would expect to know better. And so, half the country appears to blame the mass shootings on the lack of gun control legislation, while the other half, led by the second most powerful lobby in the land, the National Rifle Association (NRA), prefers to point the finger of blame on our inability as a society to identify and control an already large, and growing, mentally unstable population; proclaiming validity for their dictum that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

But, could it be that both sides of the controversy are only partially correct, that the causal variable must be sought at a greater depth, the fundamental level of basic human rights and social justice? That neither more, nor better, gun laws, nor an improvement in mental health identification and treatment are going to prevent, only mildly decrease, the horrific number of suicidal mass shootings?

In the past we have made it an unwritten rule, inspired perhaps by our bipartite politics, that issues relating to mass shoot ings not be discussed for a period of time… sort of a “cool off” period; and that has only proven to be a welcome breather for lazy career politicians, and an absurd significant waste of time and emotional criticality to get things done. Perhaps tackling any and all issues at the aftermath of the mass shootings might have cleared our vision and allowed us to recognize that the lion’s share of the problem may rest in how society, all of us, react to the cries of perceived social injustice, whether the injustice is real or mistakenly perceived as real.

In his address to the nation last evening (12/6), Barack Obama, as one would expect from a politician concerned with placating a fearful nation from the reach of “jihadist terrorism,” delivered the type of rallying speech one might expect from any American politician i n his shoes… a believable collection of patriotic placebos mixed with half-truths; for, unfortunately, Americans are unprepared, and would prove skeptical, if told the unsweetened version of the truth.

Radicalization has been added to terrorism as a term-du-jour, another bead to be added to our growing rosary of fears. And regardless of its meaning and application, it will be rubber-stamped by the general population on a specific group of people who might look, dress, pray or behave in a way that arouses suspicions and intensifies fears. Obama’s efforts in his speech to include Muslim-Americans in the nation’s fight against ISIS/ISOL will not carry much weight in a nation where 29 percent of its people (43 percent among Republicans) believe Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Suicidal mass shootings in the US, particularly those of foreign-inspired terrorism and revenge, are likely to increase in the short term with little or nothing Homeland Security can do to prevent them. We can be sure that soon the physiognomy of the gun debate will have a new look, and that there will be millions of people in much of the Middle East who will claim that, finally, Americans will be getting their just deserts.

Terror In The Name Of Religion – Analysis

0
0

By Deepak Sinha*

Paris has been in the eye of the hurricane this past year, what with the attack on the Charlie Hebdo office last January that resulted in killed 12, followed by an even more horrific attack 11 months later that has left 129 dead and hundreds more injured. While Paris may be in a shock, others in Lebanon and Russia too have reason to grieve. On October 31, terrorists planted an explosive device and destroyed an airliner over the Sinai killing all 224 on board, while a fortnight later two suicide bombers attacked a Shia neighbourhood in Beirut killing 40 and maiming many more.

While there is some truth in the statement that terror has no religion, sadly all these attacks were perpetrated by militants owing allegiance to the terrorist group known as the Islamic State, or more appropriately, Daesh.Why Daesh? As journalist Zeba Khan suggested in the Boston Globe, “Daesh is a better choice because it is accurate in that it spells out the acronym of the group’s full Arabic name, al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham. Yet, at the same time, Daesh can also be understood as a play on words — and an insult. Depending on how it is conjugated in Arabic, it can mean anything from ‘to trample down and crush’ to ‘a bigot who imposes his view on others’.

We do, however, need to keep things in perspective by reminding ourselves that if we were to go by statistics alone from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, then in all probability, approximately 260 fatalities occurred due to gun violence in the United States in the past month. That being said, one cannot avoid facing the fact that Daesh and its affiliates do pose an ever-increasing threat to global peace and communal harmony that needs to be neutralised at the earliest to avoid a conflagration that they are keen to initiate. Therefore, it would be beneficial to understand the nature of the beast before we can conclude that the campaign in progress to neutralise it is on the right lines or if it needs changes.

We need to accept the fact that Daesh represents an insurgency that afflicts the whole of West Asia and parts of Africa. Like all other insurgencies it has clear ideological underpinnings and a clear political aim: To wrest power from the governing classes in the region. In Iraq and Syria, it enjoys extensive support and sympathy among the marginalised Sunni community. That has enabled it to engage the Iraqi and Syrian Armies in a conventional conflict, for control of territory larger than the United Kingdom, in what can be considered to be the final offensive phase of any insurgency. While insurgents do normally resort to acts of terror against the population at large, especially in the early phases of their campaign, Daesh continues to simultaneously behave like a terrorist group in those regions it has little or no traction.

While insurgencies are restricted to countries or regions within them, the fundamental difference between Daesh and past and on-going insurgencies is that they see themselves as trans-national with the world as their target. Their literal interpretation of Islamic precepts that were embedded by Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers, requires them to act against non-believers and apostates alike. Despite vehement and universal opposition to its ideology from Islamic scholars and others, its brand of Islam has found resonance among young Muslims around the world, especially second and third generation immigrants in the West, among others, who face problems of racial discrimination, socio-economic deprivation and unemployment. They have no stake in the future of the countries their forefathers immigrated to, and are now looking for revenge against society at large, which they consider to be corrupt and discriminatory.

It stands to reason that the Daesh, its advocates and affiliates, must be tackled at several levels simultaneously. The civil war must be quickly brought under control by the use of conventional forces with greater combat capability and effectiveness than what the Daesh can muster. However, to expect militias and semi-trained, poorly led and motivated Syrian and Iraqi Government forces, even if supported by an effective air campaign, to pay dividends and inflict strategic defeat on Daesh is just wishful thinking. The complexity of the situation cannot be understated as the United States and its coalition partners have not exactly distinguished themselves with the locals with their earlier interventions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. Add to this the ongoing fracas between Russia and Turkey and the likelihood of tackling Daesh in a coordinated manner appears remote.

One option available is to put in place a coalition force under a United Nations command, mandated by the Security Council, as was done in the Korean War. This force could be given the limited task of destroying Daesh’s ability to wage war and also to recapture territory that is presently occupied by it. In tandem with the military counter-offensive against Daesh, political and socio-economic measures must be implemented in a time-bound manner to win over the disaffected populations of the region, which will, in all likelihood, require political boundary re-alignments and leadership changes.

As for us, the possible spread of Daesh within the subcontinent is a contingency that our intelligence and security agencies will need to take a close look at, so that we are not caught off-guard in the future. There is room for optimism in the fact that, unlike in the West, out of a Muslim population of nearly 180 million, only 23 youths are reported to have joined Daesh. Despite the ongoing raucous debate on intolerance within the media and intellectual community, India continues to remain an island of religious tolerance and communal harmony.

*The author, a military veteran, is a consultant with Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

Courtesy: The Pioneer, December 4, 2015

Syria Tells NATO: Keep Jets Out Or Get Shot Down – OpEd

0
0

By Finian Cunningham*

Syria is ready to deploy the fearsome S-300 air-defence system supplied by its Russian ally. The anti-aircraft surface-to-air missiles will give Syria control over its territory and the capability to shoot down any intrusive warplane or missile. NATO warplanes beware!

The fatal shoot-down of a Russian fighter jet by a Turkish F-16 two weeks ago has given urgency to installing the air-defence system. It is as much in Russia’s interest as it is in Syria’s to have air cover – and the S-300, and its newer generation, the S-400, are reckoned to be the best technology in the world for that job.

“It’s a top-of-the range weapon”, says the British defence publication, IHS Jane’s, probably surpassing the American Patriot missile system. The Russian-made S-300 can take out any modern fighter plane or missile, including Cruise missiles, at a range of up 150 kilometres and an altitude of 27 kilometres.

According to a senior officer at the Syria-Russia joint military operations room in Damascus, the mobile S-300 is ready for deployment at various locations across the country.

Translated from Arabic language Alrai Media (thanks to the reliable Fort Russ Russian news site), the senior Syrian officer at the operations room is quoted as saying: “Soon Syria will announce that any country using the airspace without coordinating with Damascus will be viewed as hostile and [we] will shoot the jet down without warning. Those willing to fight terrorism and coordinate with the military leadership will be granted safe corridors.”

This may seem like a dangerous escalation. American fighter jets have been bombing Syrian territory since September 2014, having carried out thousands of air strikes allegedly against the Islamic State (IS) terror group (also known by its Arabic name Daesh).

Since the Paris terror attacks last month, France has stepped up its air strikes in Syria too. In the past week, Britain and Germany parliaments have voted for their air forces to join the other NATO members in aerial operations. The US-led bombing coalition in Syria also includes Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Russia is the only country whose military aircraft are legally deployed in Syria because Moscow has the full consent of the Syrian government. All the others do not have consent from Damascus and simply invited themselves.

So we have at least seven foreign powers deploying their warplanes to bomb Syrian territory – all in violation of international law.

It is irrelevant whether the US-led alliance claims to be fighting terrorists, or whether they claim it is in “self-defence” as France, Britain and Germany are. The Germany justice minister Heiko Maas, speaking after the Bundestag voted for military action this week, claimed that the United Nations Security Council resolution passed last month in the wake of the Paris attacks makes the German intervention legal. That UNSC resolution does not specifically sanction military action.

In any case, the ultimate legal criterion is the position of the Syrian state authorities. Western governments and their media have done everything to discredit, demonise and delegitimise the Syrian government. That’s part of the US-led criminal enterprise for regime change in Syria. But the fact remains, Syria is a sovereign state fully entitled the legal rights of all other UN members.

If the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad – which is the internationally recognised governing authority of Syria and retains its seat at the UN – does not consent to foreign military intervention, then that intervention is illegal, as Moscow and Damascus have repeatedly pointed out.

Syria, with the S-300 missile system supplied by its Russian ally, now has the technical means to defend its borders and airspace from all intruders. It also has the legal right to defend the inviolability of its territory. After all, US President Barack Obama invoked this right with regard to Turkey after the shoot-down of the Russian Su-24. Obama said Turkey had “every right to protect its skies” (even though the evidence shows that the Russian fighter jet did not breach Turkish territory).

In other words: what’s good for Turkey is good for Syria, as for any other nation.

Now, some might say it is a reckless move for Syria to train its skies with the powerful S-300. If a US, French, British or German warplane is shot down then that may ignite a full-on war with the American NATO military alliance. Russia would inevitably be dragged into the fight, which could slide into a world war between nuclear powers.

But hold on a minute. That logic amounts to the US and its allies using such fear as a weapon to disarm others and to prevent sovereign states from exercising their rights.

Such a dynamic is a blank cheque for powers to bully and oppress others which the U.S. has been doing for decades.

As Russian President Vladimir Putin has said time and again, the issue is one abiding by international law. Without respect for international law then the world resorts to the law of the jungle and barbarism, as Putin said in his recent state of the nation speech.

What we have seen in recent years since the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001-2003 is the wholesale erosion of sovereignty. This has involved the overt deployment of military force and the covert use of “asymmetric war”, says American political analyst Randy Martin (who writes at crookedbough.com).

“The use of proxy military force by the US and its NATO allies has been seen in regime-change operations in Libya, Syria and Ukraine, combined with media propaganda campaigns and economic sanctions,” says Martin. “A key strategy here by the Washington-led powers is to erode sovereign rights of designated enemy states.”

The deployment of so-called Islamist terror groups to destabilise Syria as with neo-Nazi paramilitaries in Ukraine is all part of the West’s asymmetric warfare.

For whatever reason, the US bombing coalition is claiming that it is combating the IS jihadists in Syria. However, the evidence shows that Western “combat” efforts in Syria are very late in coming and not very effective, indicating a lack of commitment to genuinely defeat the terror network.

There is also reason to believe that the NATO rush to bomb IS oil smuggling routes in Syria is really motivated by a need to cover up the tracks of Western collusion with the terror groups. The American CIA and British MI6, along with Turk military intelligence, have been implicated in running the terror “rat lines”. Russian intelligence is lifting the lid on this sordid racket.

Western air strikes without the approval of the Syrian government are not only illegal, they lack credibility in their stated aim.

But either way, the imperative here is that Syria re-establishes its sovereignty and the principles of international law. If Syria is lost, then Western state sponsored banditry and terrorism will only escalate. Russia is already being targeted by the West’s asymmetric warfare, as is Iran and China.

Therefore, a line has to be drawn. And with Russia’s military support, Syria has the power to do just that. From now on, NATO warplanes violating Syrian territory should be put on notice. Keep out or get shot down.

*The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of MINA


Switzerland Edges Toward Possible ‘Swexit’ From EU Bilateral Pacts

0
0

(EurActiv) — Switzerland threatened Friday to impose unilateral curbs on immigration should it fail to agree with the European Union on limiting the influx into a country where nearly a quarter of the population is foreign.

After months of tough negotiations, Berne and Brussels are still gridlocked over how to implement a 2014 Swiss referendum for immigration quotas that would violate a bilateral pact guaranteeing freedom of movement for EU workers.

The bid to seal an agreement has been stalled by EU member Britain’s similar demand to limit immigration from within the EU, making it hard for the EU to offer a preferential deal for Switzerland before it has settled matters with Britain.

With just over a year left before the quotas must come into effect, Swiss leaders have now taken the most dramatic move yet in the negotiations.

“If there is really no solution … we would be ready for a suspension of a part or all of the bilateral agreements,” Foreign Minister Didier Burkhalter told a news conference.

The government has asked its justice department to draft unilateral curbs on immigration by March 2016 in the event there is no breakthrough.

Swiss President Simonetta Sommaruga said this was not the preferred path and the country would continue EU talks in the hope of finding an agreement.

A European Commission spokeswoman said discussions were “difficult” but continuing and Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker would meet Sommaruga again before the end of 2015.

Immigration frustration

The February 2014 referendum, spearheaded by the anti-immigration Swiss People’s Party (SVP), has jeopardised a host of other Swiss-EU treaties that govern bilateral economic ties with the country’s largest trading partner and stand or fall together.

A study commissioned by the government found exiting key bilateral pacts could cut output by up to 630 billion Swiss francs (580 billion euro) by 2035, or as much as 7% of GDP.

Around 1.3 million EU citizens already live in the wealthy Alpine confederation and 300,000 cross the border daily to work. In 2014 nearly 111,000 nationals from the EU plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein immigrated to Switzerland.

If Switzerland does act unilaterally by introducing immigration quotas, the EU could decide to scrap the bilateral accords to send a message to other countries, the chief economist for Switzerland at Swiss bank UBS said.

“The reaction could be harsh,” said Daniel Kalt, “to prevent others from following Switzerland’s example.”

China’s Maritime Assertiveness And Repercussions – Analysis

0
0

By Sandip Kumar Mishra*

With Chinese President Xi Jinping’s aggressive posturing in regional politics, Beijing appears to have moved beyond its old doctrine of‘hide-your-strength-bide-your-time’ and gradually trying to dominate the region. China has a comprehensive plan that encompasses economic,strategic and cultural strategies, to raise its stature in the globaland regional politics. Along with other strategies, Beijing’s maritime plans and behaviour in the recent past have been an issue ofdiscomfort in the Asia-Pacific.

Similarly, its increasingly non-compromising posture in the South China Sea (SCS) is also cited asits plan to dominate the regional waters. China has been trying to thwart any attempt by the regional countries or the US to have a code of conduct for the SCS; in fact it has created over eight new artificial islands in the region over in the past one-and-a-half years. It is said to be a clear violation of the Declaration of Conduct (DoC), which was agreed to by China in November 2002. Apart from aggressiveness on security and strategic issues, Beijing has also been trying to inculcate its maritime charm by talking about the Maritime Silk Route (MSR) initiative. In a way, it part of Beijing’s efforts to neutralise the perception of its assertiveness in the regional waters by coating it with economic opportunities.

Chinese assertiveness is apparently meant to be part of its contest with the US for the regional and global dominance. Hardliner Xi received a setback when his proposal of a new model of ‘Great-Power Relations’ between the US and China in 2013 was not given enough credence or hearing in Washington. Xi wants to demonstrate its growing all-round prowess to Washington, and many observers feel that China’s growing maritime assertiveness might be part of this strategy. China feels that a relatively weak Washington is entangled in West Asia, and its ‘pivot to Asia’ strategy has been largely assigned to its allies in the Asia Pacific. Beijing therefore thinks it an opportune time to extend the limits of its influence and extents of its dominance in regional politics. This would put pressure on the US to accept the Chinese proposal.

However, it is quite evident that the US is not willing to concede its primacy in the region. In October 2015, a US warship challenged the territorial limits around China’s man-made islands in the Spratly archipelago; and in November 2015, two US B-52 bombers flew over the new Chinese-built artificial islands in the SCS. The US claims that it is part of right to freedom of navigation and over-flight in the region.

Beijing might have its own justification for its contestation with the US but its behaviour is inconsistent with its stated neighbourhood policy that seeks peace and stability in the region and promotes agradual acceptance of China’s place in regional politics. Recent Chinese maritime moves have made neighbouring countries across the broad restless; and most of them have been looking to devise their counter-strategies. These countries, with the interesting exception of South Korea, have not been attracted to the MSR or other Chinese economic opportunities. They have been looking for alternate optionsand equations. Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines have expressed their concerns more emphatically over the recent Chinese behaviour. It is interesting to note that rather than being scared of an increasingly nationalist and aggressive Japan under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the Southeast Asian countries and even India and Australia are rather ready to work with Tokyo.

Bilaterally and multilaterally these countries have been trying to contest China. During Xi’s November 2015 visit to Vietnam, Hanoi raised the issue of peace and stability in the region; and in late-November 2015, top military officials of Australia and China had “direct and blunt” encounters over the SCS issue. During the 22 November 2015 East Asian Summit in Kuala Lumpur, despite China’s open stand that delegates should not deliberate about the SCS,the issue was centre stage and five of thirty-one paragraphs in the chairman’s statement were devoted to it. Furthermore, it was underlined that a binding code of conduct must be evolved and implemented for the SCS. At the 17 November 2015 APEC Forum – a general platform to talk about trade and commerce – in Manila, the issue was quite central in the discussions, and US President Barak Obama assured regional countries that Washington would be doing more for the turbulent waters of the SCS.

China’s growing maritime assertiveness in recent years appears to be becoming counter-productive for Beijing, as it has led to an evolution of a broader network to deal with China. Beijing needs to review its maritime strategy in the region as it has strengthened the US position in the region, and the regional countries, despite several discordant links amongst themselves, seem to have no option but to come together. The more China tries to be assertive, the more realistic it would be for other countries to put aside their differences and oppose such moves. Beijing also needs to rethink its strategy, as there are speculations that the recent slump in its rate of economic growth is also going to continue and that it may weaken Chinese economic attractiveness for these countries. The next Chinese moves would be critical in the coming months and it would decide the course and contours of the Asia-Pacific in a very fundamental way.

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

EU And Armenia Launch Talks For New Agreement

0
0

The EU and Armenia opened negotiations on Monday on a new overarching framework for the deepening of their bilateral relations. Negotiations were launched by High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission, Federica Mogherini, and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, Edward Nalbandian.

“We aim for a comprehensive framework agreement covering political, economic and sectoral cooperation and taking into account Armenia’s more recent commitments,” said High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini.

“Our shared common values and strong commitment to democracy, human rights, rule of law will be at the basis of the new agreement. These will create favorable conditions for stronger cooperation in sectors such as energy, transport, and environment; for new opportunities for both sides’ trade and investment; and also for increased mobility to the benefit of our citizens, both in the EU and in Armenia,” she added.

The future Agreement will replace the current Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (1999) and reset EU-Armenia relations within the wider framework of the recently-reviewed European Neighbourhood Policy and of the Eastern Partnership. It also serves as an opportunity to definitively turn the page following uncertainties created in 2013 when the negotiated EU-Armenia AA/DCFTA could not be completed following Armenia’s decision to join the Eurasian Economic Union.

According to the EU, the launch of negotiations follows a successfully completed joint scoping exercise for a comprehensive agreement covering political, economic and sectoral cooperation, and taking into account Armenia’s international obligations. Negotiations between the two sides will now commence in earnest.

Venezuela: Opposition Wins Legislative Elections, Maduro Admits Defeat

0
0

Venezuela’s opposition coalition, the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD), won the legislative vote, obtaining a majority in parliament for the first time in 16 years, announced the electoral commission chairwoman Tibisay Lucena. President Nicolas Maduro recognized defeat.

MUD won 99 seats in the national assembly, to 46 for Maduro’s socialist party. With the count almost complete, 22 seats still need to be attributed.

If the trend is confirmed with the remaining seats, the opposition could reach two thirds of parliament. A result that will mark changes, allowing the opposition to define the judges of the electoral tribunal, impose reforms and amend the Constitution.

A declared objective will be to hold a recall referendum for the revocation of Maduro’s mandate.

Battleground USA: The San Bernardino Shootings And Militia Mentalities – OpEd

0
0

Spectacular violence has again made its reaping appearance, a brutal but sure sign that the distinction between militia and civilian has ceased having any value in the US context. The militarisation of the society has become the most vigorous of diseases, whose greatest symptom is not so much gun ownership as the culture behind access and use.

Even as the blood of Paris seemed to be making its gruesome presence across US television screens, the fear that an ISIS-like attack might eventuate on local soil did circulated through the networks last month. Such violence did manifest itself, and, like so many ideological appropriations, it seemed inane. It was yet another addition to this annus horribilis of mass shootings – 353 in all.[1]

Fourteen people were massacred in San Bernardino’s Inland Regional Centre on December 2 by another military-styled operation that seemed chillingly reminiscent to the attacks that took place in Paris in January on Charlie Hebdo’s headquarters. There were also 21 injured. The scale was roughly equivalent; the individuals had worn masks and body armour. It was the deadliest since the Sandy Hook bloodbath of 2012.

As information trickles through, suggestions are that the couple suspected as being involved in the shootings, Tashfeen Malik and husband Syed Rizwan Farook, were “ISIS supporters,” which is hardly the same as a direct, solid link. (Not even ISIS has claimed membership for the two.) As the assailants were killed in the subsequent police chase, much of this is academic.

US investigators have tentatively suggested that one of the suspects had professed loyalty to the organisation, a morsel that terrorist experts are bound to digest with ravenous enthusiasm. Facebook, as ever, has provided the lead, with Malik posting his public declaration to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi prior to the rampage.

There is little doubt that the organisation and its various affiliates were having a gloat at the home-soil misery inflicted at San Bernardino, a point made from its Iraq-based station, al-Bayan Radio, which prayed “to God to accept them as martyrs”. At this point, ISIS is pleased to vicariously reap any reward it can get. But suggestions that radical Islam is about to unleash itself in the suburbs are, at best, fanciful.

Even retired Air Force Lt. Colonel Rick Francona, who was being happily milked for all he was worth on CNN, suggested that, “What they’re calling these two are supporters, which is kind of a lesser level.”[2] The White House has also suggested that there was “no indication that the killers were part of an organized group or broader terrorist cell.”

The violence of guns has become its own pious affirmation of a lifestyle. It is the ultimate expression of grievance and affirmation. Forget the social worker – the gun will vocalise grievance. In the San Bernardino killings, Farook’s co-workers for the environmental health department in the town were the victims.

Even as the US leads the remote bombing charge on the forces of Islamic State, it is waging a failing battle at home on the containment of a contagion that is proving antediluvian in nature. The militia mentality presumes that someone is going to nick your land, your spouse, and your belongings at any given moment. Any breach of security must therefore be countered by an exaggerated display of force, or at the very least the means to use it.

Pro-gun advocates have decided to excoriate the White House for stealing a march on the National Rifle Association. A feverishly indignant Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, observed that, “President Obama used it not as a moment to inform or calm the American people; rather, he exploited it to push his gun control agenda.” His point: California had already embraced the gun control list he had demanded: universal background checks, weapon registration, waiting periods, gun and magazine bans and broader gun categories.[3]

What then, to do? Cox sounds sensible on pointing out that Obama’s foreign policy might well have made the US less safe, but the angle taken here is more slanted. “Unlike the president, regular citizens are not surrounded by armed secret service agents wherever they go.”

Cox’s own suggestion is typical of the self-contained logic of gun ownership in the US. Gun ecology is an ecosystem: If you perish because of it, it is probably because you were not adequately armed. If a school gets shot up, arm it. If a centre holding a function gets riddled with bullets, then maybe those in attendance should have had their guns handy. “The responsibility is ours and ours alone.” Battleground USA has its own supreme, if impenetrable reasoning.

Such a train of thought is encouraged by the extravagant availability of high grade military weapons, including the legally acquired .223 calibre assault rifles, with the near 1,400 rounds of ammunition, along with semiautomatic handguns found on the two assailants. In the true nature of gun ownership ideology, even those on terrorist watch lists can purchase guns. From 2004 to 2014, the Government Accountability Office noted that over 2,000 suspects on the FBI’s own terrorism watch list were successful in their gun purchases, a success rate hovering around 90 percent.[4]

The culprit behind limiting such access? The NRA, who was also instrumental in making sure Congress got clay feet in renewing the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. In the sobering words of the GAO, “membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms under current federal law.”

In the pseudo-pioneer rhetoric of the NRA, sanctity of person is not assured by any central government but by private, and sometimes murderous, enterprise. The Indians are still circulating the wagon trains. People must be ready.

The problem with this assumption is that it also takes away from the state another sacred monopoly – that of using violence. Fittingly, Obama may direct the US armed forces to target positions in a distant country in an adventurist enterprise he falsely claims he is winning; he is incapable of directing his own citizens to restrain themselves in resolving disputes in a mass murderous fashion at home.

Notes:
[1] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/2015-the-year-in-mass-shootings-20151203

[2] http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/05/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

[3] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/03/no-mr-president-nra-not-blame-san-bernardino-column/76748608/

[4] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-guns-from-the-san-bernardino-shooting-were-legal-thanks-to-the-nra-20151203

Banning Christmas In The Schools – OpEd

0
0

For the last three decades, students at an Indiana high school have included a live Nativity scene in the annual Christmas show. This year the scene was censored by a federal judge. He acted on a complaint from two anti-Christian organizations, the ACLU and Freedom From Religion Foundation, and they, in turn, responded to the beckoned call of a bigot. The judge’s decision, like those who made the complaints, flies in the face of directives announced 20 years ago on the subject of religious expression in the schoo ls.

When Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, he asked his Secretary of Education, Richard W. Riley, to work with the Attorney General to “provide every public school district in America with a statement of principles addressing the extent to which religious expression and activity are permitted in our public schools.” The memo by Secretary Riley, which was sent to all public school superintendents in 1995, is a clear and fair statement on the subject. Regrettably, it has been ignored.

Here is the paragraph that is particularly operative at Christmastime:

Official neutrality regarding religious activity: Teachers and school administrators, when acting in those capacities, are representatives of the state and are prohibited by the establishment clause from soliciting or encouraging religious activity, and from participating in such activity with students. Teachers and administrators are also prohibited from discouraging activity because of its religious content, and from soliciting or encouraging anti-religious activity.” (My italics.)

This last sentence is being ignored in many schools throughout the nation. Indeed, it was ignored by the federal judge in the aforementioned case. The principle of neutrality cuts both ways—it does not give officials the right to discourage activity because of its religious content!

DoD Acknowledges Guantanamo’s ‘Forever Prisoner’ Is Case Of Mistaken Identity – OpEd

0
0

The Periodic Review Boards at Guantánamo began two years ago, to review the cases of all the prisoners not already approved for release (48 of the 107 men still held) or put forward for trials (just ten men), and last week I put together the first full annotated list, to assist anyone interested in the reviews to work out who has already has had their cases looked at and who is still awaiting a review.

The PRBs were set up in response to the conclusions reached by the high-level, inter-agency Guantánamo Review Task Force, which President Obama established shortly after taking office in 2009. The task force suggested that 46 men were “too dangerous to release,” even though they acknowledged that insufficient evidence existed to put them on trial, and President Obama promised periodic reviews of their cases when he approved their ongoing imprisonment without charge or trial in an executive order in March 2011. 25 others — initially recommended for prosecution, were later added to the list, after the basis for trial largely collapsed following a handful of devastating appeals court rulings. The mainstream media have helpfully labelled these men “forever prisoners,” but in reality assessing men as “too dangerous to release” is irresponsible, and not justified by a close examination of the facts.

Shamefully, although President Obama declared, in his March 2011 executive order, that, “For each detainee, an initial review shall commence as soon as possible but no later than 1 year from the date of this order,” we are now nearing the five-year mark, and yet just 20 prisoners have had their cases reviewed, and another 44 are waiting. Of those 20, 18 cases have been decided, and 15 men have been recommended for release, which is a success rate of 83%. This quite solidly demonstrates that the “too dangerous to release” tag was the hyperbolic result of an over-cautious approach to what purported to be the evidence against the men held at Guantánamo by the Guantánamo Review Task Force.

As I noted in the introduction to my list, however, “At the current rate … the PRBs will not be completed until 2020, ten years after the Guantánamo Review Task Force first made its recommendations. This is an unforgivable delay, under any circumstances, but even more so given that, through the PRBs, so many men are having their status revised from ‘forever prisoners’ to men approved for release.”

Much of the basis for the PRBs’ decisions — taken by panels consisting of representatives of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice and Homeland Security, as well as the office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — has involved risk mitigation, as it has become apparent that, in many cases, being regarded as “too dangerous to release” has actually meant being someone who is not regarded as sufficiently compliant or is perceived to have threatened or borne a grudge against their captors. Demonstrating a willingness to move on, and to make serious plans for life after Guantánamo has, as a result, helped many of the men to be approved for release.

However, it should not be forgotten that there are also huge problems with what purports to be the evidence against the men facing PRBs. In general the prisoners’ files, released by WikiLeaks in 2011, reveal all manner of untrustworthy allegations made by unreliable witnesses — men subjected to torture or other forms of abuse, or well-known liars who, in some cases, were rewarded with better living conditions, or, eventually, release from the prison. However, these lies and distortions are not generally acknowledged openly by the authorities.

Last week, however, a serious problem with the evidence became clear when the 20th prisoner, Mustafa al-Shamiri (aka al-Shamyri), had his case reviewed — and, I’m glad to note, media outlets that have generally ignored the PRBs ran stories focused on how he was a case of mistaken identity (see

Mustafa al-Shamiri, the 20th prisoner to make his case before a Periodic Review Board

A 37-year old Yemeni, Mustafa al-Shamiri appears to have been nothing more than a simple foot solder, recruited via a fatwa in Yemen to go to Afghanistan to support the Taliban. However, in his “Detainee Profile,” made publicly available on the eve of his hearing last week, the Pentagon conceded that he was “previously assessed” as “an al-Qa’ida facilitator or courier, as well as a trainer, but we now judge that these activities were carried out by other known extremists with names or aliases similar to [his].” The profile added, “Further analysis of the reporting that supported past judgments that [al-Shamiri] was an al-Qa’ida facilitator, courier, or trainer has revealed inconsistent biographical, descriptive, or locational data that now leads us to assess that [he] did not hold any of these roles.”

This is not unusual, as the primary purpose of intelligence at Guantánamo appears to have been to try to ramp up the importance of those held, to justify their imprisonment, and to distract anyone from realizing the terrible truth — that the overwhelming majority of the men taken to Guantánamo were either innocent civilians or lowly foot soldiers.

As I explained when profiling al-Shamiri back in 2010, he “survived the Qala-i-Janghi massacre in November 2001, which followed the surrender of the northern city of Kunduz, when several hundred Taliban foot soldiers — and, it seems, a number of civilians — all of whom had been told that they would be allowed to return home if they surrendered, were taken to a fortress run by General Rashid Dostum of the Northern Alliance. Fearing that they were about to be killed, a number of the men started an uprising, which was suppressed by the Northern Alliance, acting with support from US and British Special Forces, and US bombers. Hundreds of the prisoners died, but around 80 survived being bombed and flooded in the basement of the fort, and around 50 of these men ended up at Guantánamo.” Most of those men have already been released.

As I also stated in 2010, identifying untrustworthy allegations at the time:

[Al-Shamiri] reportedly fought with the Taliban for ten months after answering a fatwa. One unidentified source claimed that he was “a trainer at al-Farouq,” and another allegation stated, implausibly, “Indications are that the detainee was a commander of troops at Tora Bora” (this was impossible, as he was captured before the battle of Tora Bora). One other allegation in particular — that “A detained al Qaida official identified [him] as a Yemeni national who participated in the Bosnian Jihad” — is unlikely, as he would have been only 15 or 16 years old at the time.

Al-Shamiri’s latest profile also reiterated another old claim, that “he may have been collocated at a safehouse in Yemen with operatives who plotted the USS Cole bombing [in 2000, when 17 US sailors were killed], although there are no other indications that he played a role in that operation.” However, this whole claim is deeply suspicious, as the man who made it, Humoud (or Humud) al-Jadani (ISN 230, released in 2007) is someone I have previously noted as a unreliable witness (see here for a another prisoner’s description of him as an “admitted liar,” see here for another prisoner, Hussein Almerfedi, refuting his claims, and see here for the D.C. Circuit Court explaining how it “did not rely on ISN-230’s statements because it found him incredible and wholly unreliable,” in an appeal in which Almerfedi also contended that “exculpatory evidence produced by the government to petitioner after [his habeas] hearing concluded,” relating to al-Jadani, “thoroughly undermine the credibility and reliability of ISN-230 because he was severely abused and mistreated at Guantánamo”).

In the rest of the “Detainee Profile,” the Pentagon noted that past reporting suggested that he “was supportive of fighting to protect other Muslims, but not of global jihad, and there are no indications that his views have changed.” He is also described as having been “largely compliant with the guard force,”  although he has “mostly been uncooperative with interrogators, suggesting that he sees little value in either acting out or cooperating.”

Rather disturbingly, I thought, the fact that he has apparently “corresponded with former Guantánamo detainees,” is taken to indicate they they “would be well-placed to facilitate his reengagement in terrorism should he chose [sic] to return to jihad,” which indicates to me that the authorities consider the mere fact of corresponding with a former prisoner to have a sinister intent, although the profile’s authors at least added, “We have no reason to believe [al-Shamiri] has discussed terrorism, regional conflicts, or violence in general.” In addition, with a ban in place on returning any Yemenis to their home country, there is no chance that al-Shamiri could have his “his reengagement in terrorism” facilitated, even if it was not a far-fetched presumption.

In the Miami Herald, Carol Rosenberg noted that, at his hearing, al-Shamiri, who “appeared groomed and remarkably similar to a 2008 photo of him” in the file released by WikIleaks in 2011, was “seen seated silently in a chair with an oversized white T-shirt,”and “followed a script as an Army lieutenant colonel assigned to help him make his case said his family in Yemen’s capital Sana’a have lined up a wife for him, but did not specify where she lives. The Army officer also said that while Shamiri realizes he can’t go back to his tumultuous homeland, his family will provide ’emotional, spiritual or financial’ support wherever he is sent.”

Rosenberg was watching what she described as “a carefully scripted pre-approved ceremonial opening of the hearing,” which is all that the media are allowed to see. His military representatives — assigned to help him prepare for his hearing — spoke to the review board panel, who meet in a secure location in Virginia, by video link, and I’m posting their opening statement below. They noted that he was “earnestly preparing for his life after” Guantánamo, where he has studied English and art, and has also learned “carpentry and cooking,” which Carol Rosenberg described as “skills the prison has never acknowledged offering in its briefings on special classes taught by Pentagon paid contractors.” His representative also “said he had helped guards settle disputes as a block leader, and ‘does have remorse for choosing the wrong path early in life.’”

Periodic Review Board Initial Hearing, 01 Dec 2015
Mustafa Abd Al-Qawi Abd Al-Aziz Al-Shamiri, ISN 434
Personal Representative Opening Statement

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, we are the Personal Representatives for ISN 434. Thank you for the opportunity to present Mustafa Abd al-Qawi Abd al-Aziz al-Shamiri’s case.

From our initial encounter and all subsequent meetings, Mustafa has been very cooperative, enthusiastic, and supportive in the preparation for his Periodic Review Board. From the onset, he has demonstrated a consistent positive attitude towards life after GTMO. He has a strong desire to obtain an education in order to provide for a future spouse that his family has already located for him. In his approximate thirteen years at GTMO, Mustafa has been compliant receiving few disciplinary infractions. During his recent time as a block leader, he was regularly commended by the Officer in Charge for solving routine daily detainee issues.

Mustafa will show you today that he is not a continuing significant threat to the United States of America. He is earnestly preparing for his life after GTMO. During his time in detention, he has attended English and Art classes, in addition to acquiring carpentry and cooking skills. During the last feast, Mustafa generously took the time to prepare over thirty plates of pastries for his fellow detainees. When I asked him why he would make pastries for his fellow detainees, he said it’s because it makes him feel like he can give back and share with people.

Mustafa does have remorse for choosing the wrong path early in life. He has vocalized to us that while he cannot change the past, he would definitely have chosen a different path. He wants to make a life for himself. He is aware that Yemen is not an option and he is willing to go to any country that will accept him. As he has a large family that has been waiting for his release since his arrival in GTMO, where even the women work outside of the home, he will have family support wherever he is located whether it is emotional, spiritual, or financial. He is prepared to begin life outside of GTMO.

We are here to answer any questions you may have throughout this proceeding.


Serbian Defence Minister Sacked For Sexist Insult

0
0

By Sasa Dragojlo

Serbian Defence Minister Bratislav Gasic was fired by the country’s premier after sparking anger by saying he likes female journalists who “get down on their knees easily”.

Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic said on Monday that Gasic can no longer remain in the government after his “reckless” comment about female journalists.

“We need to protect women in Serbia. It was a bad message for all women. A minister cannot afford to say that,” Vucic told reporters, adding that Gasic is his personal friend and one of his most devoted ministers.

Gasic made the comment to Zlatija Labovic, a journalist from TV B92, during his visit to the Prva Petoletka Namenska factory in Trstenik on Sunday.

After Labovic crouched down to get out of her camera operator’s shot, Gasic said: “I love female journalists who get down on their knees easily”.

After being admonished by Vucic, Gasic made an apology for the offence he had caused.

“I want to publicly apologise to the journalist Zlatija Labovic and the Serbian public because of my disgraceful and scandalous behaviour. There is no justification for my actions,” Gasic said.

Before his sacking on Monday, the Independent Association of Journalists of Serbia (NUNS) called for his immediate dismissal of Gasic and urged all media and journalists to “freeze any communication with the defence minister and boycott all events in which he participates”.

“We believe that after such vulgarity which represents the pinnacle of disrespect to the journalistic profession, but also due to some past mistakes… Gasic must be dismissed from his ministerial duties,” NUNS said in a statement.

Jovana Gligorijevic, a journalist from the magazine Vreme and creator of Twitter hashtag #novinarkeneklece (‘female journalists do not kneel’), told BIRN that Gasic’s sexism was a common phenomenon which shows how the authorities see journalists.

“First of all, it is a sexist assault on a woman, but it is also an attack on journalists in general. If we understand Gasic’s act symbolically, we can see that ‘kneeling’ shows the attitude of the authorities towards the whole journalistic profession,” Gligorijevic said.

Gasic was called upon to quit on several previous occasions this year, in connection with other alleged wrongdoings.

In September, Serbian’s Anti-Corruption Agency alleged that he had a conflict of interest when he awarded contracts to companies linked to his family while he was mayor of the city of Krusevac. Gasic denied this.

Also in September, Serbian Ombudsman Sasa Jankovic advised the authorities to dismiss him in connection with incidents during last year’s Gay Pride parade in Belgrade.

Opposition parties called on Gasic to resign over an army helicopter crash in March this year in which seven people died, including a five-day-old baby. He denied that he was responsible.

Britain Back Where It Is Not Wanted – OpEd

0
0

By Jeremy Salt*

The parliamentary vote sending warplanes into action over Syria showed the British at their hyperbolic worst. Government lies – the 70,000 ‘moderate’ fighters – on one side were matched by the posturing of Hilary Benn on the other. Cheering and applause echoed around the chamber after every deluded statement, with the planes taking off from Cyprus almost the moment the vote was taken.  Russia is already doing the heavy lifting against the Islamic State so the British contribution will be incidental. A few Tornados dropping a few bombs on a few oil fields is not going to make much difference but it will certainly play out well in the media at home.

Behind the rhetoric of taking on the Islamic State, there is a choice of more complex scenarios.  One is that the warmongers in Washington have got what they want and Syria is where they are going to get it.  Another is that the US will use its air power to maintain the stalemate on the ground, damaging rather than destroying the Islamic State and re-balancing whenever necessary in favor of the officially-supported takfiris, with the intention of bogging Russia down in another Afghanistan.

Especially after Ukraine, what the US cannot allow is another Russian victory in Syria.  It would change the geopolitical balance in the Middle East and affect it around the world.  Russia would be seen as strong and the US as weak: Putin as a man of his word and Obama as someone who vacillates, an impression already held in Washington. Perceptions are all important. For a power to remain powerful it must be seen as powerful and prepared to use its power:  how far either Russia or the US would go in Syria to prove the point remains the unknown.

The US certainly wants to continue its double game.  The Islamic State has to go but so does Assad – that is more or less the rubric of this logic-denying course of action.  Clearly the surest way of dealing with the Islamic State is to build a common strategy with Russia, Syria, Iraq and Iran but of course the US is not going to do that.

For the past ten weeks Russian planes have been systematically destroying the Islamic State’s infrastructure. They have launched thousands of attacks, bombing command centers, arms depots and the hundreds of tankers used to transport contraband oil into Turkey.  On the ground, ignored by the mainstream media, the Syrian army is taking more territory back from the Islamic State and other takfiri groups every day.  It is now only a question of time before ground offensives are mounted against Idlib and Aleppo.  This will still leave Raqqa but when these cities  – Aleppo in particular – have been liberated the end will be in sight of the war launched against Syria five years ago.  Russia will be seen across the region and around the world to have won, and the ‘west’ and its regional allies to have lost and this is what has to be prevented at almost cost, particularly by the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

The dangers multiply day by day.  Russian, American and French warships are standing off the Syrian coast. The air is filled with their warplanes and now British as well, complicating Russia’s successful air war. Turkey has stationed 50,000 troops on its border.  A Russian plane has been shot down and its pilot murdered by armed Turkmen supported by the Turkish government. Russia has responded by stopping the import of Turkish agricultural produce and putting restrictions in the way of Turkish businesses. Turkey has retaliated by slowing the movement of Russian ships, commercial and military, through the Bosporus.  Any attempt to stop them altogether would be a violation of the Treaty of Montreux, triggering off a global crisis, but who is to say that this might not happen.

In the latest bizarre twist Turkey has just sent troops into Iraq, ostensibly to train Iraqi troops near Mosul, the Islamic State’s capital in Iraq.  It says it intends to establish a permanent base there. The given reason is to train peshmerga forces.  No doubt there are other reasons but in international law, sending soldiers across the borders of another country without the consent of the government of that country is an act of war and the casus belli for a military response should they not be withdrawn. US, British and French aerial action over Syria falls into the same category. These countries are behaving as if other countries only have borders when they want to recognize them.  It will take only one more rash move, one slip, one accidental bombing, one angry response and one incautious action to tip a very precarious situation over the edge.  Cuba 1962 or the Balkans before the outbreak of the First World War might be useful parallels.

Britain is not wanted or needed in Syria.  The arrogance and disrespect for international law and the sovereign rights of other governments are not untypical of British behavior in the past.  Of course, Britain would not dare do this on its own.  It is going into Syria on the coattails of the Americans, just as it did in Iraq and Libya, and it is American motives that count here and not British bluster.

What the record indicates is that while denouncing the Islamic State, the US has been using it, driving it away from its interests in Iraq and using it as a weapon against the Syrian government. Behind the propaganda and revulsion at the beheading even of its own citizens, the US seems to have seen the Islamic State as a vicious but useful tool.

Everything adds up to this conclusion:

  1. a) the failure of the US to do any serious damage to the Islamic State in a year of bombing
  2. b) its refusal to pull out the Islamic State’s financial roots by bombing the hundreds of oil tankers used to transport oil from Iraq and Syria to Turkey. It only started bombing when Russia did.
  3. c) its refusal to bomb the Islamic State convoys of armed pickup trucks as they streamed across the desert from Raqqa to Mosul last year. It is not even arguable that the US could not see them coming or could not see them later moving against Ramadi and then Palmyra across the same desert terrain. It can see everything happening on the ground in this region.   Once in Mosul the takfiris simply helped themselves to everything the US had in its arsenal.  This was an especially bizarre episode. The commanders of the Iraqi guardians of these weapons just ran away, we are told.   Was this simply the US government’s chosen method of arming the Islamic State, by allowing it to help itself, behind the expressions of consternation and surprise?
  4. e) the document released by the US Defence Intelligence Agency showing that already in 2012 the US was looking forward to the establishment of a salafist principality in eastern Syria to maintain pressure on the government in Damascus.
  5. f) the refusal of the US to stop US-made weapons flowing into Syria from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in violation of US arms export end-user regulations. Even if, doubtfully, these arms were not intended for the Islamic State, there was no way of preventing them ending up in its hands.
  6. g) the refusal of the US over a period of years to compel the Turkish government to close its borders to the movement of takfiris across its territory into Syria and to stop the flow of contraband oil back into Turkey. Only now is it demanding that Turkey seal its border.
  7. i) the central role in the takfiri alliance of Jabhat al Nusra, an organization which has been classified as terrorist by both the UN and the US government but is backed by its allies and thus covertly by the US itself.

More elements can be added to this short list, which has to be read in the general context of the arms and takfiris flowing into Syria from all directions at the behest of outside governments, setting the scene for the destruction of the authority of the Syrian government over large parts of the country and ultimately the rise of the Islamic State.  The governments now dropping bombs on the Islamic State were its midwives.

Of all countries the people of the Middle East would never want to see in their back yard again, Britain, closely followed by France, would have to top the list. Look at the record over the past 150 years of just the major wars, invasions and occupations:

  1. Aden 1839 – seized and maintained as a British base until the 1960s, when Colin ‘Mad Mitch’ Mitchell and the kilted killers of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders slaughtered Arab nationalist resistance fighters in the streets of Crater during the last phase of the occupation.
  2. Egypt 1882 – Alexandria, pulverized by the most modern naval weaponry of the day before the landing of the British army to restore the order it had just destroyed. The Egyptian army was smashed and the country occupied, its independence nominal until the revolution of 1952.
  3. Omdurman 1898 – 12,000 Sudanese warriors butchered by Maxim guns on the battlefield before lunchtime, thousands more left to die of their wounds, to crawl away or be dragged off by wild animals. The grand finale was the artillery shelling and destruction of Khartoum.
  4. Palestine 1917 – the Balfour Declaration and then the occupation of Palestine. The crushing of the rebellion of 1936-39, the first intifada, with thousands of Palestinians being killed by occupation forces, others being executed and the general population subjected to collective punishment and whatever cruelties the British thought necessary to crush them.  Without British protection the Zionists never would have got a foot through the door in Palestine.
  5. Iraq 1918 and onwards – the occupation, ground and air attacks against the Kurds in the north and all Muslims further south.  All the tools of the imperial killing trade were used to shut down the Iraqi national movement and even when the country was given its ‘independence’ Britain dominated from behind the scenes through a puppet regent and pliable politicians just as it did in Egypt.
  6. Turkey 1919 – The British government sets up a Greek invasion of the western Aegean coast which develops into what Arnold Toynbee describes as a ‘war of extermination’ of the Turks. The principal architect of this new round of blood-letting is the British Prime Minister, David Lloyd-George, the Tony Blair of his day.  When the Greeks are finally driven back to the sea Lloyd George seeks commonwealth support for a war against the Turks.  Failing to get it he retires and goes home to write his memoirs. Hundreds of thousands die before the war ends in the ‘population exchange’ of 1923, one of the early great tragedies of the 20th
  7. Iran 1953 – the overthrow of the Iranian government instigated by British and US intelligence services.
  8. Egypt 1956 – the ‘tripartite aggression’ of Britain, France and the Zionist colony in Palestine.
  9. Iraq 1991 and 2003 – Britain is back again, following the US into war in 1991 after the invasion of Kuwait and playing the leading role with the US in compelling the UN to maintain a decade of genocidal sanctions before following the US into war again in 2003. Hundreds of thousands of children alone die as a result.   The second war creates the greatest wave of refugees since Palestine (the numbers now surpassed by Syria).  Iraq is destroyed as a unitary country.
  10. Libya 2011 – thousands of civilians killed during seven months of bombing by American, French and British warplanes. Qadhafi murdered and his country turned into a base for Al Qaida and the Islamic State, which now controls Qadhafi’s model city, Sirte, facing Italy across the water.
  11. Syria 2011-2015 – British collusion in an attack orchestrated through armed gangs, following the failure to secure UNSC backing for an air war through the establishment of a ‘no fly’ zone. Now Britain has its air war, based on the same formula of lies and deceit (Cameron’s ‘anti Assad’ army of ’70,000 moderates) that Bush and Blair used to take Britain into Iraq.

These are only the high points of a shocking record and remember, we are only talking about the Middle East and not other regions which have experienced British mayhem.

Sixty members of the Labor Party ratted on Corbyn.  After listening to Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary, the Scottish nationalist leader, Alex Salmond, said Benn’s socialist father Tony would be turning in his grave.  Benn’s speech moved the Tories and their Blairite lookalikes on the opposition benches to tears and applause.  It was a great speech, said the Tory Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond.

In fact it was indeed a great speech, a fine example of hypocrisy, self-righteousness, ignorance and self-delusion.  Said Mr Benn: ‘We never have and we never should walk by on the other side of the road. We are faced by fascists and what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated.’ True, Mr Benn, but your country has a poor record when it comes to standing up to fascists.

In the 1930s, the British government only stood up to Hitler and Mussolini when there was no other option.  The ruling class, the aristocrats, the elites in business and the press, rather liked Hitler because he hated communism as much as they did.  The dictators were going to smash bolshevism in western Europe and that was fine by them.   This was the ‘devil’s decade’.  There was no question of the democracies standing up to the fascists and ‘walking on the right side’ until they had no other option.  They looked on when the Nazis murdered the Austrian Chancellor, Engelbert Dolfuss, and they looked on when Germany sent troops into the Rhineland.   When Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, poison-gassing its people, Britain and France responded with the Hoare-Laval pact, which would have given half Ethiopia to Mussolini.  Britain made empty calls for collective security in Africa while ignoring the desperate need for it in Europe. Knowing that the fascists were pouring arms into Spain, in violation of a non-intervention agreement they had signed, Britain maintained an embargo on the sale of arms to both sides. When the republican government finally collapsed, Britain recognized Franco immediately.

The internationalism to which Mr Benn refers was not of the British government but of the individual socialists who went off to fight the fascists.  The government tried to stop them and then conspired with the French right to bring down the French socialist government of Leon Blum because he wanted to end the farce of non-intervention. In the far east, after Japan invaded China in 1937, Britain recognized its conquest of Chinese territory: at home, arms factories made weapons for both sides. When Hitler annexed Austria in 1938 the British government protested but did nothing more. It was so anxious to stay on Hitler’s right side that it finally sold out Czechoslovakia, and only when it was totally unavoidable did it declare war.

So please, Mr Benn, spare us the talk of standing up to the fascists and always walking on the right side.  Fascism is a specific ideology, belonging to Italy in the 1930s but, never mind, we get your meaning. You are talking about brutal, repressive governments that should never be supported and indeed opposed as a matter of moral principle. Was supporting the Shah’s Iran and selling anything he was prepared to buy ‘walking on the right side’?  Is selling multiple billions of pounds worth of weapons to the government of Saudi Arabia ‘walking on the right side’? Was selling war material to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq  ‘walking on the right side’? Was imposing a decade of sanctions on the Iraqi people ‘walking on the right side’?  Was supporting General Pinochet and other dictators ‘walking on the right side’? Is standing alongside some of the most reactionary governments in the world in their campaign against the Syrian government ‘walking on the right side?’

Those who have opposed the attack on Syria from the start don’t need lectures now from those who have supported it. Mr Benn talks about the killing of the Yazidis and the atrocities of the Islamic state but not the industrial-scale killing by armed gangs supported directly or indirectly by the US, Britain, France and their Middle Eastern partners in war.  The murder of Shaikh Buti in his mosque and the massacre of Damascus students in their university cafeteria, only two of the thousands of atrocities committed by these groups, attracted not one word of condemnation from the government now going to war in Syria in the name of protecting civilians.  Only when the politicians thought they could blame the Syrian government did they have anything to say.

Syria itself is now a pawn in a much greater global game which involves the attempt by the US to encircle China and Russia.  We are back to containment and a cold war that could suddenly turn hot.  In recent moves of this greater game the US was outfoxed by Putin in Ukraine and now is being outsmarted in Syria. Another Russian triumph cannot be allowed, perhaps even at the risk of triggering off a global war.  As the US does not necessarily control all the actions of some of its allies it could find itself being sucked into one whether it likes it or not.

The British people yet again are being led into a military conflict which could go in any direction and even on the government’s reckoning will involve an air campaign lasting three years.  It is to be hoped they will spit this lot out at the earliest opportunity. When the underlying realities emerge from behind the fog of war and the miasma of parliamentary excitement and chicanery, Mr Benn might regret the day he made this speech.

*Jeremy Salt taught at the University of Melbourne, at Bosporus University in Istanbul and Bilkent University in Ankara for many years, specializing in the modern history of the Middle East. Among his recent publications is his 2008 book, The Unmaking of the Middle East. A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands(University of California Press). He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

Men Have Better Sense Of Direction Than Women

0
0

It’s been well established that men perform better than women when it comes to specific spatial tasks. But how much of that is linked to sex hormones versus cultural conditioning and other factors?

Researchers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) decided to explore this idea by administering testosterone to women and testing how they performed in wayfinding tasks in a virtual environment.

Using fMRI, the researchers saw that men in the study took several shortcuts, oriented themselves more using cardinal directions and used a different part of the brain than the women in the study.

But when women got a drop of testosterone under their tongue, several of them were able to orient themselves better in the four cardinal directions.

“Men’s sense of direction was more effective. They quite simply got to their destination faster,” said Carl Pintzka, a medical doctor and PhD candidate at NTNU’s Department of Neuroscience.

The directional sense findings are part of his doctoral thesis on how the brain functions differently in men and women.

Puzzle solving in a 3D maze

Pintzka used an MRI scanner to see whether there are any differences in brain activity when men and women orient themselves. Using 3D goggles and a joystick, the participants had to orient themselves in a very large virtual maze while functional images of their brains were continuously recorded.

Eighteen men and 18 women first took an hour to learn the layout of the maze before the scanning session. In the MRI scanner, they were given 30 seconds for each of the 45 navigation tasks. One of the tasks, for example, was to “find the yellow car” from different starting points.

Women often use a route

The men solved 50 percent more of the tasks than the women.

According to Pintzka, women and men have different navigational strategies. Men use cardinal directions during navigation to a greater degree.

“If they’re going to the Student Society building in Trondheim, for example, men usually go in the general direction where it’s located. Women usually orient themselves along a route to get there, for example, ‘go past the hairdresser and then up the street and turn right after the store’,” he said.

The study shows that using the cardinal directions is more efficient because it is a more flexible strategy. The destination can be reached faster because the strategy depends less on where you start.

Women have better local memory

fMRI images of the brain showed that both men and women use large areas of the brain when they navigate, but some areas were different. The men used the hippocampus more, whereas women used their frontal areas to a greater extent.

“That’s in sync with the fact that the hippocampus is necessary to make use of cardinal directions,” said Pintzka.

He explained the findings in evolutionary terms.

“In ancient times, men were hunters and women were gatherers. Therefore, our brains probably evolved differently. For instance, other researchers have documented that women are better at finding objects locally than men. In simple terms, women are faster at finding things in the house, and men are faster at finding the house,” Pintzka said.

A little testosterone under the tongue

Step two was to give some women testosterone just before they were going to solve the maze puzzles.

This was a different group of women than the group that was compared to men. In this step, 42 women were divided into two groups. Twenty-one of them received a drop of placebo, and 21 got a drop of testosterone under the tongue. The study was double-blinded so that neither Pintzka nor the women knew who got what.

“We hoped that they would be able to solve more tasks, but they didn’t. But they had improved knowledge of the layout of the maze. And they used the hippocampus to a greater extent, which tends to be used more by men for navigating,” said Pintzka.

Losing one’s sense of direction is one of the first symptoms in Alzheimer’s disease.

“Almost all brain-related diseases are different in men and women, either in the number of affected individuals or in severity. Therefore, something is likely protecting or harming people of one sex. Since we know that twice as many women as men are diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, there might be something related to sex hormones that is harmful,” said Pintzka.

He hopes that by understanding how men and women use different brain areas and strategies to navigate, researchers will be able to enhance the understanding of the disease’s development, and develop coping strategies for those already affected.

Global CO2 Emissions Projected To Stall In 2015

0
0

Global carbon emissions are projected to stall in 2015, according to researchers at the University of East Anglia and the Global Carbon Project.

Last year global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry grew by just 0.6 percent — marking a year-on-year slow down. The projection for 2015 reveals a second year of slow growth or even a small decrease in global emissions.

The study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change, with detailed data made available simultaneously in the journal Earth System Science Data.

The research reveals that emissions could decline by 0.6 per cent this year. While declines in emissions have previously occurred during periods of economic crisis, this would be the first decline during a period of strong global economic growth.

Prof Corinne Le Quéré, Director of the Tyndall Centre at UEA who led the data analysis, said, “These figures are certainly not typical of the growth trajectory seen since 2000 — where the annual growth in emissions was between 2 and 3 percent.”

“What we are now seeing is that emissions appear to have stalled, and they could even decline slightly in 2015,” Le Quéré said.

That said, Le Quéré added, “But it is important to remember that our projection for 2015 is an estimate and there will always be a range of uncertainty. In this case, the 2015 projection ranges from a global decline in emissions of up to 1.5 per cent — or at the other end of the spectrum, a small rise of 0.5 percent.”

The projection for 2015 is based on available energy consumption data in China and the US, and on forecast economic growth for the rest of the world.

Prof Le Quéré said, “The projected decline is largely down to China’s decreased coal use, driven by its economic adjustment.”

“Whether a slower growth in global emissions will be sustained depends on the use of coal in China and elsewhere, and where new energy will come from. In 2014, more than half of new energy needs in China were met from renewable sources such as hydro, nuclear, wind, and solar power,” Le Quéré said.

The research shows the biggest contributors to global emissions in 2014 were China (27 percent), the United States (15 percent), the European Union (10 percent), and India (7 percent).

Prof Robert Jackson of Stanford University who led the Nature Climate Change Commentary, said, “We saw slower global growth in petroleum in 2014 and faster growth in renewables. Wind and solar capacities saw record increases in capacity last year and are on track to be even higher in 2015.”

Prof Le Quéré added, “With two years of untypical emissions growth, it looks like the trajectory of global emissions might have changed temporarily. It is unlikely that emissions have peaked for good. This is because energy needs for growing economies still rely primarily on coal, and emissions decreases in some industrial countries are still modest at best.”

“Global emissions need to decrease to near zero to achieve climate stabilzation. We are still emitting massive amounts of CO2 annually – around 36 billion tonnes from fossil fuels and industry alone. There is a long way to near zero emissions,” Le Quéré said.

“Today’s news is encouraging, but world leaders at COP21 need to agree on the substantial emission reductions needed to keep warming below two degrees Celsius,” said Le Quéré, adding, “And despite the slowing of CO2 emissions globally, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has now reached 400 parts per million, its highest level in at least 800,000 years.”

Domestic Resiliency Is A Key Source Of Baltic Security – Analysis

0
0

By Matthew Crandall*

Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and intervention in Eastern Ukraine has changed the security environment for all of Eastern and Northern Europe.  For the United States, this has meant moderate financial and limited defense assistance to Ukraine, coupled with policies aimed at reassuring Eastern European allies and deterring Russia from future aggression.  NATO has revamped its rapid reaction forces and implemented persistent troop rotations as well as military training exercises on a scale not seen since the Cold War.  In addition to NATO policies, the US has also undertaken bilateral steps to meet these same goals.  This has been especially evident in Estonia where President Obama visited in 2014 before his trip to the Wales NATO summit. The United States has also given Estonia tens of millions of dollars to invest in military bases.  As the US devotes new resources to the Baltics, defense analysts are asking whether America’s small eastern European allies are a liability or an asset.

Answering this question depends on one’s assumptions.  Those who believe small Eastern European allies are a liability point to the high cost of deterring Russia, of reassuring allies, and of the nightmare situation where the US would be obligated to enter a military conflict with Russia on behalf of a country most Americans could not locate on a map.[1]  Those who argue that small Eastern European allies are an asset highlight their role in burden-sharing, adding political legitimacy to US policies, and their impact in solidifying the liberal world order by way of membership in NATO.  Yet this debate often misses one important fact: small European states have never been in better positions to defend themselves and to deter military aggression.

Russia’s military escapades in the post-Soviet space have caused Russia’s neighbors and their allies to ask whether the Baltic states could be the next target and, if so, how such an attack could be prevented.  Discussion has centered on NATO’s Article 5, which states that an attack on one is an attack on all.  President Obama mentioned this principle in his speech in Tallinn, Estonia last year. It is the reason why the Baltic states want permanent NATO bases in their countries, which would literally cement NATO’s commitment.  While permanent bases have not been built or announced, there is little doubt about NATO’s resolve or its willingness to defend its member states from a military attack.

Yet NATO’s Article 3, which states that all member states should possess the means to resist an armed attack, is also relevant.  Russia’s new generation warfare merges soft and hard security threats.  Propaganda and destabilizing policies create the environment that makes military incursions viable. Russia’s last two invasions in Georgia and Ukraine confirm these tendencies.  Classic military invasion and occupation of a resisting population is a costly move, even in states like Georgia and Ukraine that lacked NATO’s collective defense promises. Instead of a direct invasion, Russia pursued policies to create an environment where breakaway regions and local populations would support Russian military invasions.  Without this fig-leaf of legitimacy and without having destabilized the environment in advance, Russia would not have invaded.  In short, soft security threats enable and lead to hard security problems.

For small states, and for allies committed to protecting them, this is a significant lesson. The ability to resist soft security aggression is much easier than resisting classic military aggression.  The nature of soft security threats empowers small states.  The size and power of an aggressor is not the key attribute in gauging the chance for a successful defense. Instead, the resiliency of domestic systems is key. The process of maintaining and defending domestic systems depends on domestic dynamics, not on the size of the threatening state.  When looking in Russia’s tool kit of soft security aggressive measures, the Russian-speaking diaspora is not the only one.  Energy and cyber security are two soft security threats that Russia has used to pressure and punish governments.  Estonia again is worth noting.

The crisis in 2007, when Estonia’s relocation of a Soviet war memorial sparked riots and cyber-attacks, highlight the importance of social, energy, and cyber factors and demonstrate Russia’s ability to exert pressure using each tactic. In response to Estonia’s relocation of the memorial, Russia halted oil shipments through Estonian ports.  Estonia was also hit by cyber-attacks believed to come from Russia.  This was ground zero for Russia’s new-generation warfare.  NATO’s Article 5 was certainly one factor that prevented Russia from more extensive meddling but it was not the only one. Estonia was a well-functioning state without many of the problems that were found in Georgia and Ukraine.  Despite the riots, the ethnic Russian speakers were not motivated to the point where they would back military intervention as was the case in the breakaway regions in Georgia and in Ukraine.

Since 2007 Estonia has made significant improvements that limit Russia’s threat in these areas.  Estonia has diversified its economy away from energy transit. Domestic energy production provides most of energy consumption.  Electric grids have been connected to Scandinavia via the Estlink 1 and Estlink 2 electrical cables. Natural gas will soon follow when a new LNG gas terminal is finished in a few years.  Lithuania launched its first LNG terminal last year.

No less important is the transformation in cyber security.  Estonia has led the way in cyber security, both in pushing the agenda in NATO and in bolstering its own cyber security defenses.  This is evident in Estonia’s military, which has created a cyber defense league. It is also visible across society with cyber security being taught at many educational levels.

On top of these steps to shore up Estonia’s energy, cyber, and economic resilience, Russia’s ability to use the Russian-speaking minority as a threat has also been reduced significantly.  This year, an Estonian-funded Russian-language TV channel was finally launched. The channel will provide a balance to Russian-funded TV channels.  Estonian wages, pensions, and employment levels have been rising, and they are noticeably better than in Russia.  Lastly, representation of Russian speakers in Estonia has increased significantly.  Noteworthy examples include a Russian-speaking representative in the European parliament, as the head of one of the major political parties, and as Estonia’s 2014 representative to the Eurovision song contest.  This highlights that ethnic Russian speakers see Estonia as their homeland and consider the Estonian government legitimate.

International institutions such as the EU and NATO have played a key role in enhancing the security measures noted above.  The EU has funded several high-profile energy infrastructure projects. It also passed the third energy package legislation, which will open up energy infrastructure to multiple energy sources, helping small countries diversify away from dependence on Russia. NATO has established the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE) in Tallinn and has placed cyber security at the top of the agenda.  Perhaps the most noteworthy development is not material but in the sphere of ideas.  The “Tallinn manual” has clarified norms and rules of engagement regarding cyber warfare.  While not an official NATO publication, the manual was produced with backing and support of the CCDCOE.

The clash with Russia in 2007, and the measures Estonia has taken since, highlight the limitations of Russia’s new generation ‘hybrid’ warfare.  In countries such as Georgia, with its breakaway regions, or Ukraine, after the Maiden protest, hybrid tactics can snowball into military conflict and territorial annexation.  In the case of Estonia and other stable states the utility of such tactics is limited.  Small Eastern European states are more secure now than ever. Despite Russia’s aggression, domestic resilience means that the cost of providing collective defense to small European Allies is just as small as ever.

About the author:
*Matthew Crandall
is a Lecturer of International Relations at Tallinn University in Estonia.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Notes:
[1] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/estonia-worth-war

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images