It's Not All Russia's Fault

The crisis in eastern Ukraine is far from over.

On Monday, the moderate mayor of Kharkiv, the country’s second-largest city, was shot while riding his bicycle. Pro-Russian separatists have seized another government building in the region, and some are holding hostage a group of European military observers. The United States, convinced the chaos is all being driven by Moscow, slapped new sanctions on top Russian officials Monday, and the Europeans will probably go along.

To understand what’s driving this crisis, though, it’s necessary to look at the region the way its residents see it, not just the way it appears to the outside world.

The dominant Western narrative is all too familiar: It’s good guys vs. bad guys. Russian aggression against Ukraine and covert backing for separatist groups are the main sources of conflict, creating a very real danger that southeastern Ukraine may soon erupt into full-scale war or split off and join Russia. Throw in the kidnappings of journalists, targeted killings of local politicians and residents and renewed Ukrainian military operations against the separatists, and the whole region appears to be in flames—and it’s all Moscow’s doing. As U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry put it over the weekend, the Kremlin is behind the “distraction, deception and destabilization” in eastern Ukraine.

Unfortunately, the real story is much more complicated, and it has as much to do with the murky nature of Ukrainian politics as it does with Russia’s blatant meddling. On one level, the clashes in eastern Ukraine are just the latest battle between the country’s powerful and fractious oligarchs, for whom business interests—not the fate of Ukraine—are always priority number one.

By JON RALSTON 

IN THE ARENA

When Piketty Came to America

By ANDREA LEVERE and EZRA LEVIN 

IN THE ARENA

America’s Housing Market Is Broken

By GENE B. SPERLING 

The good news is that the separatists are actually quite isolated, according to recent accounts by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s monitoring mission in eastern Ukraine. Even Kerry, despite his stern rhetoric, has indicated that fewer than 30 buildings have been occupied. And a recent poll conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found that the majority of southeastern Ukraine’s residents do not favor joining Russia; 70 percent want to remain in Ukraine, and only 15 percent support secession; 60 percent do not approve of armed separatists seizing government buildings.

There is no doubt that Russia has been trying to destabilize Ukraine in the wake of the annexation of Crimea and that both sides could yet tumble into full-scale military conflict. But Russia is not the only factor shaping public opinion toward the central government in Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital.

From the outside, the Kyiv government is usually depicted as a band of selfless reformers. In fact, the differences in how it is perceived across the country are vast, with 78 percent of western Ukrainians but only 16 percent of easterners registering their approval in one recent poll.Easterners (and southerners, for that matter) see a cabinet dominated by former prime minister and current presidential candidate Yulia Timoshenko and her Fatherland political party, whose base of support is in the pro-European west of the country. Both the Party of Regions and Vitaly Klitchko’s UDAR party refused to join the government, leaving it dangerously low on eastern support.

Balazs Jarabik is visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/a-tangled-web-in-eastern-ukraine-106110.html#ixzz30eKLm9L2

TIME OF TRANSITIONS

The poll in Afghanistan raises cautious hopes for the future 

KANWAL SIBAL

Source Link

The first round of the presidential election in Afghanistan raises cautious hopes for the country’s future, with impressive voter participation at around 60 per cent, including that of women at around 35 per cent, and the Taliban’s failure to disrupt the elections to the extent feared, given that just a little over 200 out of 6000 polling booths were affected. Many were forewarning that even more dangerous than the Taliban threat would be the dire consequences for internal peace if the elections were not free and fair. Rigged elections also risked alienating external powers whose political and financial support the new Afghan government needed for survival. In the event, such fears have been belied as the election process has been fairly credible.

If, as expected, no candidate obtains 50 per cent of the vote in the first round, the second round is slated for later. The next Afghan president will be either Abdullah Abdullah or Ashraf Ghani, with the odds in favour of the latter. While the peaceful democratic transition in turbulent circumstances from the president, Hamid Karzai, in power since December 2001, to his successor is a considerable achievement in itself, it should also help in improving the political dialogue between Washington and Kabul that has been considerably perturbed by the thorny personal relations between Karzai and Barack Obama. So far so good. The presidential election in Afghanistan is, however, only the first of the three transitions that the country must undergo before it can begin to function on its own.

The second transition — the security one — is being effected for some time already with the steady drawdown of foreign troops in Afghanistan (52,000 at present) and the progressive transfer of security duties to the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces whose number stands today at around 332,000, but is planned to be reduced to 280,000 because of resource constraints. The United States of America and Afghanistan have agreed in November 2013 on the text of a bilateral security and defence agreement, but President Karzai has baulked at signing it, leaving it to his successor to do so. Possibly he does want to to take the historic responsibility for permitting foreign military bases on Afghan soil. His view that this agreement does not protect Afghanistan against Pakistan — the primary source of the threat to its peace and stability — is not without substance. If the US, he well understands, will not fight Pakistan on Afghanistan’s behalf, would US bases then serve US geo-political interests more than those of Afghanistan?

Believing in India again

Vikram S Mehta | May 4, 2014 11:33 pm

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/believing-in-india-again/99/

Whenever a ruling establishment crumbles in India, its official language also loses authority.

It is a matter of confidence, credibility and trust. Whatever be the political hue of the next government and whoever its leader, the challenge will be to reinvigorate investor confidence in the political stewardship of the economy, restore the credibility of the executive and rebuild trust in the sanctity of policy and contracts. Else, the much-needed investment in infrastructure and manufacturing will not be forthcoming and the numbers of un- and underemployed will continue to mount. The social consequences will most likely limit the new government to one term.

Corruption scandals have hogged the headlines, but arguably the most damaging effect on investor sentiment over the past several years has been the activism of the tax authorities and the twists and turns in the interpretation of policies and contracts. A fly on the wall of the board rooms of Vodafone, Nokia, Microsoft, BP, Shell, Posco, Tesco, Walmart and many more would be struck by the paradoxical tenor of conversation. The directors would be in agreement about the potential of the country. All would accept that notwithstanding the slowdown in growth and the lacklustre leadership over the past three years, the fundamentals remain intact and India remains on track to be an economic giant. They would endorse the view that relative to opportunities elsewhere, India is an attractive destination and that it would be imprudent to push it off their agenda. That said, they would collectively hesitate to put their signature on further new investments, other than perhaps for amounts required to sustain existing activities. They would substantiate their hesitation by allusions to the arbitrariness of the tax charges on MNCs, the announcement by the BJP to reverse the UPA government’s policy on multi-brand retail, the unilateral tightening of contractual conditions that assured petroleum companies market-related prices for gas and the right to market it freely, the labyrinthine approval procedures that have bogged down major mining and power sector projects, the reluctance of the bureaucracy to take decisions for fear of attracting a vigilance enquiry and the long lead times in judicial decisions. The thread linking all such conversations would be the loss of confidence and trust in public institutions.

Cornell Professor Eswar Prasad’s wonderfully written book, The Dollar Trap: How the US Dollar Tightened its Grip on Global Finance, brings into sharp relief the positive impact that confidence and trust in public institutions has had on the direction of capital flows in our globalised and connected world. And, by implication, the negative consequences of loss of confidence and trust. Prasad writes that, notwithstanding recurring bouts of financial crisis in America that should have led to an outflow of capital, rising interest rates and a falling dollar, US treasury securities and dollar denominated assets have continued to be a favourite haven for investors. In September 2008, for instance, following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, US financial markets went into a downward spiral, the credit markets froze and Dow Jones was on the skids. Economic fundamentals suggested there would be a run on the dollar. What happened was just the opposite. There was a net inflow of half a trillion dollars into US treasury securities, nearly all of it from private investors and the dollar rose in value against all other currencies. In July 2011, the government came within a day of declaring a technical default on its debt. The credit rating agency Standard and Poors did, in fact, downgrade US government debt from AAA to AA+ on August 2. There should have been a flight of capital away from dollar assets. Instead there was an inflow of nearly $180 billion in August and September, and again mostly from the private sector. In December 2012, the economy once more headed towards a “fiscal cliff”. The US Congress was at an impasse over the government’s borrowing limits. Economists wondered whether this would push the dollar off its perch and deliberated on the extent of the spike in interest rates. The dollar remained steady and the yield on US treasury bills continued to range around 2 per cent.

It didn’t begin with Netanyahu

May 5, 2014

By Ben Dror Yemini
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/it-didnt-begin-with-netanyahu/
US Secretary of State John Kerry stated recently that Yasser Arafat had already recognised a Jewish state. (Reuters)

Israel is a Jewish state, or the nation-state of the Jewish people, because it was established according to the UN’s two-state resolution — Jewish and Arab states — and because it is the self-determination of the majority of Israel’s citizens. Israel does not need Palestinian recognition of its Jewish character, and has never made such a demand of Egypt and Jordan. So why has Israel been insistent on recognition of its Jewish character from the Palestinians?

US Secretary of State John Kerry stated recently that Yasser Arafat had already recognised a Jewish state. He is right. It is important to understand that recognition. In the mid-1970’s, Henry Kissinger formulated the conditions for dialogue between the PLO and the US. These included an explicit and unconditional rejection of terror and recognition of Israel. The issue became relevant only in the late-1980s. The PLO’s status was damaged after its expulsion to Tunisia and the outbreak of the First Intifada. It attempted to return to centrestage through dialogue with the US. Swedish foreign minister Stan Anderson was enlisted to mediate.

In November 1988, the Palestinian National Council convened in Algiers — remembered primarily for its declarations of independence. The same council, for the first time, recognised UN Resolutions 181, 242 and 338. The developments were positive, but the decisions did not satisfy the US. Anderson didn’t give up. He invited five leading Jews to Stockholm to meet Arafat. Arafat denounced terrorism and declared his acceptance of the UN resolutions. Apparently, this was the first time the words “Jewish State” came out of Arafat’s mouth. But the US demanded a more explicit declaration, refusing to grant Arafat a visa to speak before the UN. On December 13, a special session was held in Geneva so that Arafat could speak. Once again, the US was not satisfied. George Shultz, then secretary of state, was not prepared to deviate from the explicit wording the US demanded. After consultations, Arafat convened a press conference denouncing terrorism and recognising UN Resolutions 242 and 338. He once again declared the solution was “two states for two peoples”, and a “Jewish state” in Israel. Arafat gave his statements in English, reading exactly what Shultz had given him. This time, he met US demands. On the same day, December 15, Shultz announced that the US president had decided to open a dialogue with the PLO.

The dialogue was short and futile. At the first outbreak of terror, the PLO refused to denounce it. Iraq invaded Kuwait. Arafat supported Saddam Hussein. The dialogue came to an abrupt end. Only the Oslo Accords brought the PLO back to centrestage. But the Fatah Conference in 2009, at which Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) stood at its head, unanimously decided to refute the idea of a “Jewish State”. It’s worthwhile to note the wording of the announcement: “Complete resistance, with no way back, to the recognition of Israel as a ‘Jewish State’, to protect the rights of refugees and the rights of minorities on the other side of the Green Line”. Arafat himself reneged on his recognition of a Jewish state.

COSTLY LESSON

Source Link

Gwynne Dyer 

With due apologies to God, Voltaire and the Ukrainians, I must point out that if Ukraine did not exist, it would not be necessary to invent it. It is not a great power, it has no resources the world cannot do without, and it is not a “vital strategic interest” to anybody except the Ukrainians themselves. Not even to the Russians, although they are acting at the moment as though it were.

Bosnia was nobody’s vital strategic interest either. It isn’t now, and it wasn’t a 100 years ago. But Bismarck warned in 1898 that if there was ever another major war in Europe, it would come out of “some damned silly thing in the Balkans,” and an assassination in Sarajevo in 1914 fulfilled his prophecy to the letter. Some things have changed since then, however. The next world war will not come out of Ukraine no matter what happens in the next few weeks and months. Russia might invade Ukraine, there might even be a new Cold War for a while, but there will be no fighting in Europe beyond Ukraine’s borders.

Indeed, apart from the Balkans there has been no full-scale war in Europe for the past 69 years, and there was never the slightest risk that the fighting in the 1990s would spread beyond the borders of former Yugoslavia. Indeed, there was probably never a single day during the 45 years of the Cold War when either side seriously considered attacking the other. The reason was simple: they knew what would happen next, even if neither side used the thousands of nuclear weapons at its disposal. Twice in 30 years, in 1914-18 and 1939-45, a major war using modern weapons had been fought over almost all of Europe’s territory.

On the first occasion, they lost a generation of young men. The second time, most countries from Germany eastwards lost around ten per cent of their populations. Half of the continent’s great historic cities were reduced to ruins even without the help of nuclear weapons. It was a very expensive education, but the Europeans did finally learn their lesson: don’t do this any more.

No war

That is why, even as Russian tanks drive right up to Ukraine’s eastern borders and the Ukrainian army prepares to die in a fight it knows it would lose, nobody else in Europe is getting ready for war. If the Russians want part or all of Ukraine, they can have it — and pay the long-term price for taking it, which would be very high. But nothing in Europe is worth blowing all of Europe up for. Do not be alarmed by the fact that troops and planes from as far away as the United States of America and Canada are currently being sent to Nato countries that have borders with Russia. The numbers are militarily insignificant. Their purpose is simply to remind the Russians that the alliance will protect its own members should Moscow ever decide that it also has a right to “protect” Russian-speakers in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

US in the world

Thomas L. Friedman | May 5, 2014

Your Honour, I rise in — partial — defense of Mr. Obama.

There has been a festival of commentary of late bemoaning the pusillanimous foreign policy of President Obama. If only we had a president who rode horses shirtless, wrestled a tiger or took a bite out of a neighbouring country, we’d all feel much safer. Your Honour, I rise in — partial — defense of Mr. Obama.

Let me start by asking a question I’ve asked about other countries: Is American foreign policy today the way it is because Obama is the way he is (cerebral, cautious, dispassionate) or is Obama the way Obama is on foreign policy because America is the way America is today (burned by two failed wars and weakened by a great recession) and because the world is the way the world is (increasingly full of failed states and enfeebled US allies)?

The answer is some of both, but I’d put a lot more emphasis on the latter. Foreign policy, our ability and willingness to act in the world, is about three things: interests, values and leverage. Do we have an interest in getting involved in Syria or Crimea, are our values engaged, and — if either is true — do we have the leverage to sustainably tilt things our way at a price we can afford?

I’d argue that a lot of what makes America less active in the world today is a product first of all of our own diminished leverage because of actions taken by previous administrations. The decisions by the Bush I and Clinton teams to expand Nato laid the seeds of resentment that helped to create Putin and Putinism.

Most presidents make their name in foreign policy by taking on strong enemies; but most of what threatens global stability today are crumbling states. Exactly how many can we rescue at one time? I’d love to help Ukrainian reformers build a functioning democracy, but the reason that is so daunting a task is because their own politicians wasted two decades looting their own country, so the leverage required to foster change — $30 billion in bailout funds — is now massive.

Who Is Afraid of Pakistan’s ISI Intelligence Agency?

Source Link

May 1, 2014

Pakistan: Who’s Afraid of the ISI?

Ali Sethi

New York Review of Books

Over the past week, a shocking debate has raged in Pakistan, in full view of the Pakistani people, about the nature and power of the Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI, the country’s elusive, military-operated spy agency. It has emerged in a rare face-off between the ISI and the Jang-Geo group, Pakistan’s largest media house, following the attempted assassination of journalist Hamid Mir, who hosts one of Geo TV’s most popular current affairs programs.

On April 19, as the forty-eight-year-old Mir was being driven out of Karachi’s airport, a man fired nine shots at him with a 9mm pistol, hitting him in the ribs, stomach, hand, and thigh, before fleeing the scene. Mir was rushed to a hospital, where he remains in critical condition. A few hours later, his younger brother went on Geo News and laid the blame for the shooting not on some extremist group, but on the ISI itself. “A few elements in the ISI are against Hamid Mir due to his viewpoint about [former military dictator] Pervez Musharraf and the Balochistan crisis,” said Amir Mir, who also works for Jang-Geo. He added that he held the head of the ISI, Lieutenant General Zaheer-ul-Islam, “personally responsible” for the attack. Still more explicit was the montage of pictures used by Geo News to illustrate this accusation: an unconscious Hamid Mir with a respirator on his mouth; a bullet-riddled car; and a photograph of Zaheer-ul-Islam—a man who shuns television appearances—looking smug and serene as he shook hands with soldiers at a ceremony.

Within minutes there was a furious response to these charges: first on Facebook and Twitter, where mysterious cyber-entities, many of them with sultry female names, unleashed a torrent of hate against the “traitors” at Geo TV; then, a few hours later, on Geo’s rival TV channels, Express and ARY, where assorted analysts and columnists attacked Hamid Mir, tried to portray the allegations against the ISI as an Indian-American conspiracy, and raised questions about the intentions of Mir Shakilur Rahman, Geo’s eccentric, Dubai-based owner. (One of the most interesting revelations to emerge in all the mudslinging last week was Rahman’s dispute with the ISI over the latter’s alleged support for an upcoming TV channel that threatens to cut into Geo’s market share.)

I’ve never met Hamid Mir and don’t watch his show with any regularity. But I panicked when I heard about the attempt on his life. This is because Mir is on the same “hit list” of media executives and journalists, apparently drawn up by the Pakistani Taliban in February, as my father, Najam Sethi, who hosts a similar program on Geo and has come under pressure for criticizing the military and Islamist groups in the past. Adding to my alarm was the timing of the attack, which came just weeks after gunmen ambushed my friend Raza Rumi, who is a columnist and a TV show host for Express News, a Geo rival. Rumi was attacked on a busy road one night in Lahore and fell to the floor of his car when he saw the first flash; his attackers took him for dead and sprayed his car generously with bullets, killing his twenty-five-year old driver instead.

Who Is Afraid of Pakistan’s ISI Intelligence Agency?

Source Link

May 1, 2014

Pakistan: Who’s Afraid of the ISI?

Ali Sethi

New York Review of Books

Over the past week, a shocking debate has raged in Pakistan, in full view of the Pakistani people, about the nature and power of the Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI, the country’s elusive, military-operated spy agency. It has emerged in a rare face-off between the ISI and the Jang-Geo group, Pakistan’s largest media house, following the attempted assassination of journalist Hamid Mir, who hosts one of Geo TV’s most popular current affairs programs.

On April 19, as the forty-eight-year-old Mir was being driven out of Karachi’s airport, a man fired nine shots at him with a 9mm pistol, hitting him in the ribs, stomach, hand, and thigh, before fleeing the scene. Mir was rushed to a hospital, where he remains in critical condition. A few hours later, his younger brother went on Geo News and laid the blame for the shooting not on some extremist group, but on the ISI itself. “A few elements in the ISI are against Hamid Mir due to his viewpoint about [former military dictator] Pervez Musharraf and the Balochistan crisis,” said Amir Mir, who also works for Jang-Geo. He added that he held the head of the ISI, Lieutenant General Zaheer-ul-Islam, “personally responsible” for the attack. Still more explicit was the montage of pictures used by Geo News to illustrate this accusation: an unconscious Hamid Mir with a respirator on his mouth; a bullet-riddled car; and a photograph of Zaheer-ul-Islam—a man who shuns television appearances—looking smug and serene as he shook hands with soldiers at a ceremony.

Within minutes there was a furious response to these charges: first on Facebook and Twitter, where mysterious cyber-entities, many of them with sultry female names, unleashed a torrent of hate against the “traitors” at Geo TV; then, a few hours later, on Geo’s rival TV channels, Express and ARY, where assorted analysts and columnists attacked Hamid Mir, tried to portray the allegations against the ISI as an Indian-American conspiracy, and raised questions about the intentions of Mir Shakilur Rahman, Geo’s eccentric, Dubai-based owner. (One of the most interesting revelations to emerge in all the mudslinging last week was Rahman’s dispute with the ISI over the latter’s alleged support for an upcoming TV channel that threatens to cut into Geo’s market share.)

I’ve never met Hamid Mir and don’t watch his show with any regularity. But I panicked when I heard about the attempt on his life. This is because Mir is on the same “hit list” of media executives and journalists, apparently drawn up by the Pakistani Taliban in February, as my father, Najam Sethi, who hosts a similar program on Geo and has come under pressure for criticizing the military and Islamist groups in the past. Adding to my alarm was the timing of the attack, which came just weeks after gunmen ambushed my friend Raza Rumi, who is a columnist and a TV show host for Express News, a Geo rival. Rumi was attacked on a busy road one night in Lahore and fell to the floor of his car when he saw the first flash; his attackers took him for dead and sprayed his car generously with bullets, killing his twenty-five-year old driver instead.

As might be expected among any group of political journalists and commentators, Mir, Rumi, and my father have taken different positions on various issues of national policy. But their shared occupational hazard—the discussion of “sensitive” subjects in a conflict-riven country—has put them under similarly nebulous threats. Hamid Mir, for example, had angered the Taliban by giving favorable coverage to the anti-Taliban education activist Malala Yusufzai, who herself was nearly assassinated in 2012; and he had angered the Pakistani military for suggesting that other high-ranking military officials be tried in the case against General Musharraf, who is accused of treason.

The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan, 2001-2014 by Carlotta Gall

Book Review: The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan, 2001-2014 by Carlotta Gall

Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (2014) 

Reviewed by Bruce Riedel 

Thursday, May 1, 2014 

In early February 2009, Richard Holbrooke, the newly named Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, took me aside at the State Department to tell me he was getting panicky messages from Pakistan’s generals about President Obama’s decision to appoint me chairman of a special review of American policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan. Richard said the generals in Pakistan were concerned that I would be too tough on them. I told Richard I had every intention of exposing the generals’ connections with the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda during the review, an exposure which seemed essential to any serious policy review of what had gone disastrously wrong for America in the war in Afghanistan.

Now we have a dramatic and in-depth expose of Pakistan’s double-dealing and duplicity in the Afghan war written by a veteran American journalist. Carlotta Gall’s The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan, 2001-2014 lays out in detail how Pakistan’s intelligence service, the army’s Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI, first helped to build the Afghan Taliban in the 1990s and then to rebuild it after the American intervention to destroy the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 2001. The ties between the Taliban and ISI have been known for years—but never in this depth and clarity.

The author uses her years of interviews and visits to remote parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to tell the story of how the ISI helped Mullah Omar and his lieutenants escape from the Americans in 2001, regroup in Quetta and Peshawar, Pakistan in 2002 and then stage a fierce come back in Afghanistan after 2003. In the process, Ms. Gall sketches the most detailed portrait yet written of the elusive Mullah Omar and his relationship with ISI and Pakistan’s generals. Her reporting makes clear the generals can’t fully control their protégé, but Omar cannot survive without their patronage and help.

It is a complex relationship but one in which the ISI has the upper hand and calls the shots. Strategy for the Taliban’s war is made in the ISI’s headquarters in Rawalpindi, not in Quetta or Peshawar. The Wrong Enemy also clearly establishes who is the godfather of the ISI-Taliban resurgence in the last decade. Pakistan’s policy of rebuilding the Taliban after 2001 was the brain child of General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, according to the book, who first as Director General of the ISI and then Chief of Army Staff directly oversaw the resurrection of the Afghan Taliban and its offensives against American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Kayani’s goal was to “tip up” America in Afghanistan to ensure it did not put in place a stable regime dominated by Pakistan’s historic enemies in the country, the non-Pashtun minorities that had fought the Taliban in the 1990s. Kayani advocated a “formal strategic assistance” relationship with Omar and his Quetta Shura governing council. President Pervez Musharraf went along with Kayani’s policy of abetting the Taliban’s come-back. The Wrong Enemy also lays out in frightening detail how close the ISI came to victory in Afghanistan. Ms. Gall’s reporting from Kandahar, southern Afghanistan’s biggest city and the Taliban’s de facto capital before 2001, between 2006 and 2009 shows the rebels were on verge of seizing control of the city more than once. The small Canadian NATO garrison was outnumbered and isolated until President Obama’s surge in 2010 finally curbed the Taliban. Ms. Gall argues the Obama surge inflicted serious and perhaps crippling blows on the Taliban but she acknowledges that it is too early to count them out, especially with American and NATO combat forces ending their mission this year.

Inside China: General hits U.S. in Africa

Source Link

A top Chinese defense official has accused Washington of being the mastermind behind a conspiracy to deprive Africa of peace and prosperity, and lauded anti-West dictators.

Speaking April 27 at a banquet in Zimbabwe’s capital, Harare, Lt Gen. Qi Jianguo, deputy chief of staff for the People’s Liberation Army, launched a tirade against the United States and praised Zimbabwe’s 90-year-old dictator, Robert Mugabe. Gen. Qi was the guest of honor for Gen. Constanine Chiwenga, chief of the Zimbabwe Defense Forces (ZDF).

“General officers and men of China admire ZDF, especially your commander-in-chief, President Mugabe who has managed to stand against Western powers’ machinations to destabilize the African continent,” Gen. Qi was quoted as saying by Zimbabwe’s daily newspaper, The Herald.

“Your president is one of the few leaders of the likes of Fidel Castro, Vladimir Putin and others who have stood against Western powers,” Gen. Qi said. “Few leaders have the courage to stand against the United States of America and its allies.”

Gen. Qi went on to relish Mr. Putin’s aplomb in Crimea and President Obama’s difficulty in dealing with the Russian strongman: “As you are aware on the issue of Crimea in Ukraine, President Putin managed to wrestle with Obama. I once told one USA general that they should not forget history where their attempts at Russia failed.”

Gen. Qi was in Zimbabwe to sign a series of defense projects with the ZDF, including a $4.2 million “donation” handed over to Gen. Chiwenga.

As reported by Inside China on March 6, China is poised to establish military bases and strongholds in Africa, and Zimbabwe has been chosen as one of the first for Chinese outposts in Africa. A Chinese air force and radar base already has been operating in Zimbabwe’s Marange region.

In addition, Beijing has built a National Defense University for Mr. Mugabe in Harare, costing more than $100 million. The military school is partially staffed by Chinese and Pakistani instructors.

ABE’S DIPLOMATIC END RUN

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe last month broke diplomatic protocol by holding an official meeting with the son of a former Chinese Communist Party chief in Tokyo.

Mr. Abe’s April 8 meeting with Hu Deping, who holds no official title in China’s government, took place amid Beijing’s cut-off of high-level diplomatic communications with Tokyo, despite Japan’s requests for resuming talks.

Mr. Hu is the eldest son of Hu Yaobang, the reform-minded former party chief whose death on April 15, 1989, helped trigger the largest protests in Chinese history — which ended with the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Obama's Key Message in Asia: If China Wants a Fight, We've Got Your Back By Ashok Sharma

Source Link

Barack Obama’s weeklong visit to Asia took in Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines. His trip was supposedly focused on economic issues and in particular on enhancing trade links across the Pacific. But in the end strategy, and particularly defence, was most prominent. The visit must be seen in the context of the never ending struggle for regional balance between the great powers.

Obama’s “Asia pivot” over the past two years was two-fold. On the economic front it meant rejuvenating the negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). And on the strategic front it meant counterbalancing Chinese military expansion through defence cooperation with other countries in East Asia.

Progress on TPP has been slow; negotiations are likely to drag on throughout the year. It seems even a presidential visit couldn’t speed things up.

But on the defence front Obama has been more assertive, not missing the chance to clarify US strategic objectives in the region. The best way to identify the strategic motive behind his visit? Look for the glaring hole in the itinerary: China.

It is easy to see why, for America, China represents not just an economic rival but also a military worry. Its defence expenditure has doubled in the last decade: only the US now has a larger defence budget.

This has spurred a regional arms race, withVietnam and the Philippines among the countries increasing their budgets. Even Japan has reversed its declining defence spending, following tension with China last year. Asia-Pacific is the only part of the world where defence expenditure has continued to rise since 2009.

For the US, the stakes are high. Japan and South Korea, its two major allies, are both under the US security umbrella and yet both face nuclear armed rivals: China and North Korea.

Island standoff

Japan’s uneasy relationship with China has been aggravated by a standoff over a group of small islands claimed by both countries. Prime minister Shinzo Abe has boosted the defence budget and ensured his military is more prepared for a possible war. He has also attempted to force defence partnerships with China-wary countries in the region such as the closer military ties with India.

During his visit Obama encouraged Abe to look for a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the island dispute. But on the other hand he clearly stated the disputed territory falls within the area covered by the US-Japan Security Alliance and that the US would protect it. Apparently America is no mood to retreat.

Obama’s New Ukraine – OpEd

http://www.eurasiareview.com/03052014-obamas-new-ukraine-oped/ 

By Mike Whitney

May 3rd, 2014

“While Russia has been making efforts to de-escalate and resolve the crisis, the Kiev regime has chosen to launch airstrikes on peaceful residential areas, literally destroying the last hope for preserving the Geneva accords.” Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesman

“The crisis in Ukraine is not the result of ‘Russian aggression,’ but of a criminal strategy by the US and its European allies to install a hostile regime on Russia’s borders in Ukraine and, ultimately, dismember Russia itself.” Johannes Stern, NATO boosts military build-up against Russia as protests spread in east Ukraine, World Socialist Web Site

Fighting broke out on Friday in the eastern Ukrainian city of Slavyansk when Kiev’s coup government deployed military helicopters to fire on the city while troops and armored vehicles stormed checkpoints. At the time this article went to press, two helicopters had been shot down killing at least two pilots while one was captured. In an impassioned statement on Russian TV, Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, appealed to allies in the EU to do whatever they could to persuade Ukrainian authorities to call off the operation and stop the violence.

“We are calling on the European capitals, the United States of America to give an assessment of the current events and are of course calling on those carrying out airstrikes on residential areas to…immediately end the punitive operation and any violence against its own people…”

So far, there has been no response from Washington although it’s clear that the Obama administration had a hand in organizing the crackdown. Not only were the State Department and CIA directly involved in the putsch that removed democratically-elected president Viktor Yanukovych from office, but Washington has also been implicated in punitive operations directed against ethnic Russian protestors in east Ukraine. Both CIA Director John Brennan and Vice President Joe Biden visited Kiev just hours before two previous crackdowns were ordered by imposter-Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. As Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov blandly noted, It’s clear that Washington is “calling the shots”.

On Thursday, it looked like violence might be avoided when coup-President Oleksandr Turchynov said that he had lost control of the situation. In an exasperated message to the media, Turchnov said, “It is hard to accept but it’s the truth, but the majority of law enforcers in the east are incapable of performing their duties.”

Turchynov was referring to the fact that Ukrainian troops have refused to attack their own countrymen. The mutiny has reportedly spread from elite airborne units to local police who sympathize with the protestors. The only group that’s willing to carry out Washington’s proxy war is the Right Sector neo-Nazis who helped topple the Yanukovych government. Just last week, members of this openly fascist party, commemorated “the perpetrators of the massacre of Yanova Dolina,” where “600 Poles were murdered by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) in what is now Bazaltovoye. The massacre marked the beginning of ethnic cleansing in what is now western Ukraine, where tens of thousands of Poles were killed within a few months.” (World Socialist Web Site)

Israeli Air Force Reveals Some New Details of How Its Monitors Events in Syria

April 3, 2014

Israel’s fighter jets spying on enemy targets without having to leave country

Yaakov Lappin

Jerusalem Post

IAF F15 fighter jet Photo: IDF SPOKESMAN’S OFFICE

The Israel Air Force shed some light on its fighter jet reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities, revealing on Tuesday that one of its F-15 squadrons frequently uses advanced, long-range cameras to photograph enemy targets without leaving Israeli air space.

The Double Tail Knights Squadron, which flies out of Tel Nof Air Base, south of Rehovot, dedicates a significant amount of its operations to aerial intelligence gathering, senior members of the squadron said.

The targets under observation could be attacked at any time after being photographed and analyzed. “At times, the jets’ mission ends with the powerful noise of bombs, as the ground beneath them burns, and at other times, their mission is accomplished with the sound of a lone click, and the planes disappear as quickly as they appeared,” a report on the IAF’s official website said.

There are two types of aerial photography: Vertical and horizontal, Capt. M., a former photography officer who served in the squadron, said.

Vertical images are taken when the plane is flying directly over the area that is under observation, while horizontal photos, which have become far more common, can be taken from a distance.

“Today, because of threats [to aircraft], and [new] technologies that have entered the air force, we mainly use horizontal photography,” Capt. M said.

On most reconnaissance flights, fighter jets remain in Israeli air space, and take pictures of targets well beyond Israeli borders, such as a Hezbollah arms warehouse in southern Lebanon, or the location of hostile terrorist forces in Syria.

Lt. Omer, the squadron’s current photography officer, said: “Our sensors provide a very good picture, so that it’s possible to refrain from entering enemy territory, and still gather quality intelligence.”

During active combat, the squadron divides its time between attacking enemy targets and monitoring a variety of security sectors.

These include observing the combat arena and additional areas that air force intelligence believes might soon join the theater of war.

The air force has been investing increasing resources into aerial surveillance and reconnaissance. These efforts are led by the 100th Squadron, based at Sde Dov Air Base, which flies Bonanza and Beechcraft King Air aircraft in order to provide a continuous surveillance and reconnaissance service.

Copters, Marines and Secret Missiles—Saudi Arabia Just Pulled Off Its Biggest War Game Ever

Massive military exercise directed at troublesome neighbors 

Jassem Al Salami in War is Boring

The Royal Saudi Arabian Armed Forces concluded the biggest military drill in their history on April 29. The “Sword of Abdullah” war game involved a staggering 130,000 soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and missileers in three regions.

That’s more than half of the kingdom’s total military personnel. If the United States were to conduct an equivalent exercise, it would include more than a million people.

Make no mistake—the giant war game was a message for Iran. Although notonly Iran.

The northern theater simulated a skirmish with Iraq. The southern sector played out battles with Shi’a militants from Yemen. It was in the east that Saudi forces conducted the kinds of maneuvers they might use in a war with Iran.

That part of the exercise included massive amphibious assaults. Blackhawk helicopters inserted Royal Saudi Special Forces while AH-64 and OH-58 gunships and scouts flew top cover.

In the next stage, commandeered civilian landing craft delivered amphibious armored vehicles and marine units to link up with the Special Operations Forces.

Blackhawk and OH-58 helicopters during the war game. Al Riyadh photo

The air and sea assault training had a clear purpose. Iran uses three strategic islands in the Strait of Hormuz as bases for artillery, cruise missiles and fast boats—in order to be able block the strategic strait, in the event of open conflict.

In wartime, Arab Gulf states would need to seize these islands. Or blast them into chunks.

During the parade marking the war game’s completion, the Royal Saudi Strategic Forces displayed, for the first time, their DF-3 medium-range ballistic missile. Saudi Arabia reportedly acquired the missiles and their conventional warheads from China in 1987.

The DF-3 boasts a maximum range of 3,350 kilometers and can target Tehran from underground missile silos in central Saudi Arabia. Riyadh’s strategic forces are believe to have begun replacing the DF-3s with more advanced DF-11s or DF-15s starting in 2003.

Tensions in the Saudi-American Relationship

The Foreign Policy Essay: 

By F. Gregory Gause III

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/04/the-foreign-policy-essay-tensions-in-the-saudi-american-relationship/

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Editor’s Note: Since the outbreak of the Arab Spring in December 2010, commentators have regularly described relations between Washington and Riyadh as strained at best and near collapse at worst. The potential for regional democratization, disagreements over how to topple Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, and—most importantly—the question of Iran seem to have divided the once-close allies. F. Gregory Gause, III, a professor of political science at the University of Vermont and a non-resident scholar at the Brookings Doha Center, argues that concerns of a split are overblown and that the U.S.-Saudi relationship still rests on firm foundations.

President Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia in March 2014 seems to have alleviated, at least for the time being, the sense that the relationship was “in crisis.” And that sense of crisis, fostered more by theSaudis than the Americans, was always overblown. Riyadh and Washington have survived far worse periods of friction in their relationship, such as during the 1973-74 oil embargo and in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. All sorts of interests continue to tie the two unlikely allies together, from counterterrorism cooperation to containing Iranian regional influence. Most importantly, there is a strong sense on both sides that, no matter how uncomfortable each is with the other, neither has a better alternative partner.

Episodic feelings from the Saudi side that the relationship is in crisis are not accidental; they are structural. They are inherent in the very nature of an asymmetric alliance between a stronger power and a weaker power. Glenn Snyder, the late international relations scholar, encapsulated this dynamic in hisreflection that the weaker power in such alliances is always caught between the opposing fears of “entrapment and abandonment.” In the past, when Washington was more bellicose toward Iran, the Saudis worried that they would pay the price of Iranian retaliation for any U.S. attack on Iran. Now, with Americans and Iranians sitting at negotiating tables with each other, Saudi elites worry that their interests will be neglected, if not actively sold out, by their U.S. ally. In October 2013, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Saudi Consultative Council, the appointed and non-binding Saudi version of a parliament, said “I am afraid there is something hidden…If America and Iran reach an understanding, it may be at the cost of the Arab world and the Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia.”

The president’s visit to Riyadh was aimed at putting to rest those more extreme worries about American intentions and the trajectory of the new Iranian-American relationship. Given the exaggerations involved in imagining an imminent Tehran-Washington “grand bargain,” that was not difficult. But the visit did little to bridge the gaps between the United States and Saudi Arabia on two important issues, each of which will represent an ongoing challenge in the bilateral relationship.

Israel Accepting Iran Deal As Fait Accompli – OpEd

http://www.eurasiareview.com/02052014-israel-accepting-iran-deal-fait-accompli-oped/ 

By Richard Silverstein

May 2nd, 2014

There is increasing evidence to suggest that Israel’s far-right leaders have tacitly accepted the eventuality of an Iran-P5+1 nuclear deal. Until now, Israel has conceded no Iranian right to enrich uranium. It has always demanded any nuclear deal include an Iranian concession to stop enrichment, which in effect stops any nuclear program.

But writing in Al Monitor, Laura Rozen interviewed Israel’s ambassador Ron Dermer, who said:

“Our policy is simple,” Dermer said. “Let Iran have only a peaceful nuclear program and nothing more.”

I’m not sure Dermer realizes what he’s said, though doubtless he’s smart enough to understand it and presumably meant it. He’s an extremely close Bibi confidant and would not wander off the reservation in making such an important statement and concession. Of course, any agreement will offer Iran much more than this since it will cover other issues as well including the fate of the Arak reactor and other subjects. It may be that Dermer is conceding this point because he wants to preserve some leverage over other thorny matters that may come up. But at any rate, Israel here has made a major concession.

It’s also possible that Israel is only conceding Iran’s right to have a nuclear program essentially imported from foreign nations and facilities (enriched uranium, etc.). Though this would be far-fetched on Israel’s part, if true.

Yossi Melman, a bellwhether among Israeli national security journalists, has written a very strong piece for The Post (Jerusalem Post’s Hebrew edition), Netanyahu, Take Heart: Agreement between Iran and P5+1 is No Tragedy, which urges Netanyahu to accept the likelihood of a deal. The Israeli reporter argues that Bibi has articulated Israel’s relationship with Iran as a “zero sum game” in which the outcome (for Israel) is all or nothing. But in actuality, as long as Iran never crosses the nuclear threshhold and creates a bomb, the security situation isn’t bad at all.

Melman points out that after meeting in several world capitals (and one location far less so, Kazakhstan), the coming round of nuclear talks will be on U.S. soil. This would indicate extensive progress being made in the talks. If this were not so, Obama would not allow the talks to come to our shores for fear of embarrassment over a possible failure or stalemate. Not to mention that he recognizes that bringing the talks here will focus a huge amount of international and domestic attention on the subject. He wouldn’t be willing to brook such exposure unless he felt confident of a positive outcome.

Africa is on the rise, and we need to help make sure it continues

Source Link

By John F. Kerry, Saturday, May 3

John F. Kerry is secretary of state. 

The best untold story of the last decade may be the story of Africa. Real income hasincreased more than 30 percent , reversing two decades of decline. Seven of the world’s 10 fastest-growing economies are in Africa, and GDP is expected to rise 6 percent per year in the next decade. HIV infections are down nearly 40 percent in sub-Saharan Africa andmalaria deaths among children have declined 50 percent . Child mortality rates are falling, and life expectancy is increasing. 

This is a moment of great opportunity for Africans. It is also a moment of decision. 

The choices that Africans and their leaders make will determine whether a decade of progress leads to an era of African prosperity and stability — or whether Africa falls back into the cycle of violence and weak governance that held back the promise of the continent for far too long. 

The challenges are real. Bitter and bloody conflicts are embroiling South Sudan, the Central African Republic and Congo. Corruption remains rampant; the African Union reports that $148 billion is wasted through corrupt practices each year. Africa needs strong leaders and strong institutions to stand up for human rights, address discrimination against women and minorities, and remove restrictions on freedom of expression. 

The United States and African nations have deep historic and economic ties. The U.S. government has invested billions of dollars in health care, leading to real progress in combating AIDS and malaria. Our security forces work with their African counterparts to fight extremism. U.S. companies are investing in Africa through trade preferences under the African Growth and Opportunity Act. As a friend, the United States has a role to play in helping Africans build a better future. 

Many of the choices are crystal clear. African leaders need to set aside sectarian and religious differences in favor of inclusiveness, acknowledge and advocate for the rights of women and minorities, and they must accept that sexual orientation is a private matter. They must also build on their economic progress by eliminating graft and opening markets to free trade. 

The conflict and crises that have held Africa back for too long were evident Friday when I flew into Juba, the capital of South Sudan. I remember arriving in Juba in January 2011 when the people of South Sudan voted overwhelmingly for independence. Even in that moment of jubilation, the threat of ethnic violence loomed just over the horizon. 

The violence turned tragically real in December when fighting broke out between forces loyal to the government and militias aligned with a rebel leader. Today we see the echoes of too many earlier conflicts: thousands of innocent people killed, both sides recruiting child soldiers and a country on the cusp of famine. 

Led by the U.S. special envoy to South Sudan, Donald Booth, the United States and our partners in Africa have been trying to mediate the conflict. On Friday, when I met with President Salva Kiir, I reminded him of our conversations about his nation’s promise. I urged him to set aside old grudges and reach a settlement with the opposition before that promise is soaked in more blood. 

*** Our manifesto for Europe

European Union institutions no longer work. A radical financial and democratic settlement is needed 

Thomas Piketty 

The Guardian, Friday 2 May 2014

'A single currency with 18 different public debts on which the markets can freely speculate, and 18 tax and benefit systems in unbridled rivalry with each other, is not working, and will never work.' Photograph: Toby Melville/PA

The European Union is experiencing an existential crisis, as the European elections will soon brutally remind us. This mainly involves the eurozone countries, which are mired in a climate of distrust and a debt crisis that is very far from over: unemployment persists and deflation threatens. Nothing could be further from the truth than imagining that the worst is behind us.

This is why we welcome with great interest the proposals made at the end of 2013 by our German friends from the Glienicke group for strengthening the political and fiscal union of the eurozone countries. Alone, our two countries will soon not weigh much in the world economy. If we do not unite in time to bring our model of society into the process of globalisation, then the temptation to retreat into our national borders will eventually prevail and give rise to tensions that will make the difficulties of union pale in comparison. In some ways, the European debate is much more advanced in Germany than in France. As economists, political scientists, journalists and, above all, citizens of France and Europe, we do not accept the sense of resignation that is paralysing our country. Through this manifesto, we would like to contribute to the debate on the democratic future of Europe and take the proposals of the Glienicke group still further.

It is time to recognise that Europe's existing institutions are dysfunctional and need to be rebuilt. The central issue is simple: democracy and the public authorities must be enabled to regain control of and effectively regulate 21st century globalised financial capitalism. A single currency with 18 different public debts on which the markets can freely speculate, and 18 tax and benefit systems in unbridled rivalry with each other, is not working, and will never work. The eurozone countries have chosen to share their monetary sovereignty, and hence to give up the weapon of unilateral devaluation, but without developing new common economic, fiscal and budgetary instruments. This no man's land is the worst of all worlds.

The point is not to pool all our taxes and government spending. All too often today's Europe has proved to be stupidly intrusive on secondary issues (such as the VAT rate on hairdressers and equestrian clubs) and pathetically impotent on important ones (such as tax havens and financial regulation). We must reverse the order of priorities, with less Europe on issues on which member countries do very well on their own, and more Europe when union is essential.