XI JINPING ON SINO-INDIAN RELATIONS

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy

B.RAMAN

In his first visit abroad as the President of China since assuming office on March 14,2013, Mr.Xi Jinping is scheduled to visit Russia, Tanzania, South Africa and the Republic of Congo from March 22-30 and attend the fifth BRICS( Brazil,Russia,India,China and South Africa) summit on March 26-27 in Durban, South Africa. In the margins of the summit, he is scheduled to have bilateral talks with Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh.

2. The PLA Daily of March 21 has carried a report disseminated by the official Xinhua news agency the previous day on an interaction which Xi had before his visit with representatives of the Chinese media as well as media representatives of the BRICS countries based in Beijing.

3.In addition to Xi’s views on the importance of BRICs as an economic co-operation organization, the Xinhua report as published by the PLA Daily highlights the views expressed by Xi on Sino-Indian relations.

4. To quote from the Xinhua report as published by the PLA Daily:

“On Sino-Indian ties, Xi said, to jointly follow a path of peaceful development and development through cooperation not only meets the common interests of China and India, the two largest developing countries in the world, but also does a great service to Asia and the world at large.

“Speaking highly of the important headway in bilateral ties in recent years thanks to concerted efforts of the two sides, Xi urged both countries that are pursuing development at a faster pace to seize the opportunities and take solid steps to bolster cooperation and exchanges in all fields, accommodate each other’s core concerns and properly handle their problems and differences.

“On the boundary problem, Xi said it is a complex issue left from history, and solving the issue won’t be easy. But he said he believes “as long as we keep up our friendly consultations, we can eventually arrive at a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable settlement.”

“Pending the final settlement of the boundary question, the two sides should work together to maintain peace and tranquility in border areas and prevent the boundary question from affecting the overall development of bilateral relations,” the President added.”

5. Two significant points in his observations need to be underlined. Firstly, he talks of China’s “core concerns” vis-à-vis India and not core interests. Xi and other Chinese leaders talk of “core interests and major concerns” when they talk of China’s relations with the US, Japan and the ASEAN countries. When they talk of core interests and major concerns, they have in mind Taiwan and sovereignty issues relating to the islands in the South and East China Seas.

6. While Xi has not spelt out what are the core concerns of China vis-à-vis India, one could assess that these probably relate to the activities of the Government-in-exile of His Holiness the Dalai Lama from Indian territory, China’s sovereignty claims relating to Arunachal Pradesh and India’s strategic relations with Vietnam and Japan.

7. Of late, the Chinese have been accusing the Dalai Lama’s set-up of orchestrating the self-immolations

English: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,...

English: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, left, and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao shake hands after a signing ceremony held at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing Monday, Jan. 14, 2008. Singh called for expanding business opportunities with China in construction, education, financial services, and tourism in a speech Monday to business executives at the start of a state visit (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

in the Tibetan areas of China. It is likely that the reported revival of the activities of the Tibetan Youth League (TYC) and other pro-independence elements in the Tibetan diaspora in the West could be interpreted by Beijing as adding to its concerns.

8.Even though the Chinese have not openly taken up these issues, the likely impact of the Chinese concerns on this subject on our bilateral relations with China has to be continuously monitored and assessed.

9. As I had pointed out in the past, the Chinese attitude on the border dispute with India has been less confrontational than their territorial sovereignty-related disputes with Japan and the ASEAN countries, particularly Vietnam. In the case of India, they have accepted over the years “mutual accommodation” as one of the principles that should be followed in any border settlement. While they are prepared for mutual accommodation in a border settlement with India, they never talk of mutual accommodation in their disputes with Japan and the ASEAN countries. It is this Chinese acceptance of mutual accommodation with India that should explain the absence of rhetoric when they talk of the border dispute with India as contrasted with the rhetoric in their statements on the South and East China Seas.

10.China’s nuanced policy in matters relating to sovereignty disputes with India is evident from Xi’s recognition of the border issue as a complex problem on which the two countries should keep negotiating while maintaining peace and tranquility across the border and without allowing the dispute to affect the over-all development of the bilateral relations.

11. This is a formulation with` which India need have no quarrel. Neither India nor China has been transparent on the progress in the border talks. As a result, one does not know where the two countries are stuck up. The conventional belief is that the lack of progress is due to India’s opposition to China’s demand for the transfer of Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh to China.

12. In the absence of details regarding the present stage of the talks, there has been no contribution by the non-governmental community of analysts to the search for options to find a compromise solution. There is a need for the two Governments to be more forthcoming on the border talks so that the search for a compromise solution could be intensified. Ultimately, public and political opinion in India has to accept a border settlement .Keeping them in the picture will facilitate this. Since India too has accepted the principle of mutual accommodation, a compromise has to be found which will not seriously affect the national interests of the two countries. Why not the two Governments appoint a small core group of non-Governmental experts from the two countries to come up with alternate ideas that could be mutually acceptable?

13. On the question of China’s core concerns regarding India’s strategic relations with Vietnam and Japan, there is no reason for India to be defensive or apologetic about them. India’s relations with Vietnam and Japan do not pose a threat to China whereas the increasing presence of the Chinese Army in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) and Gilgit-Baltistan and of the Chinese Navy in Gwadar in Balochistan do pose a threat to India’s security. The Chinese have been indifferent to India’s core concerns on this. There is no reason for India to be sensitive to Chinese concerns regarding its relations with Vietnam and Japan. (21-3-13)

( The writer is Additional Secretary ( retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre for China Studies. Twitter: @SORBONNE75)

Copyright © 2013 B. Raman.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the permission of the original author or copyright holder.

Enhanced by Zemanta

U.N. Accused of Opaque Selection Process for Top Officials

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

ban640-629x419

Ban Ki-moon’s UNCTAD pick will be routinely endorsed by the 193-member General Assembly, which has never rejected a nomination from a secretary-general. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 28 (IPS) – - The Geneva-based U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), described as a key forum for developing nations on issues relating to trade, investment and development, will have a new secretary-general come September.As befits a longstanding tradition of geographical rotation, the next head should come from Africa.

At least four Africans, including a former trade minister from Zambia, are feverishly lobbying for the prestigious job.

But Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who is vested with the power to nominate the new UNCTAD chief, heads an opaque selection process where he refuses to even name a short-list of candidates, as with all other senior appointments in the world body.

Ban’s pick will be routinely endorsed by the 193-member General Assembly, which has never rejected a nomination from a secretary-general.

Sir Richard Jolly, a former deputy executive director of the U.N. children’s agency UNICEF, told IPS, "There is a need for some process of open hearing and interview of the best qualified potential candidates, prior to and as a step towards the decision by the secretary-general."

He said possible ways this could be done were set out in a 1996 Dag Hammarskjold publication by two senior U.N. officials, Brian Urquhart and Erskine Childers, titled " A World in Need of Leadership: Tomorrow’s United Nations- a Fresh Appraisal".

"I would add that given the importance of choosing someone with the professional range and awareness of how asymmetries of political and economic power operate in trade and development, the interviewing group should include some distinguished economists with knowledge, experience and reputation in this area," he added.

He singled out Joseph Stiglitz, professor at Columbia University and the 2001 Nobel Prize winner for Economics, and Jose Antonio Ocampo, former finance minister of Colombia and ex-U.N. under-secretary-general for economic and social affairs, as good examples of potential members of an interview panel.

As Urquhart and Childers explained, such a process of open hearings and interview, need not pre-empt the final decision by the secretary-general but it would help narrow the field to a small number of suitable and outstanding candidates and add transparency and objectivity to the whole process, said Sir Richard, currently honorary professor and research associate at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex in the UK.

Jan Pronk, a former three-term Dutch minister of development cooperation and a former UNCTAD assistant secretary-general, told IPS, "In my view, (and under) the present phase of globalisation and (economic) crisis, the new secretary-general of UNCTAD should be a person who will carry weight in discussions with leaders of other international organisations, which – contrary to the UNCTAD secretary-general – have decision-making powers.

"He/she should in particular be able to voice the concerns of weaker developing countries, rather than emerging economies," said Pronk, currently professor of theory and practice of international development at the International Institute of Social Studies in The Hague, Netherlands.

The latter, much more than one or two decades ago, have already gained influence both in the Bretton Woods institutions – namely, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund – and in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), he said.

Asked for his comments, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq, told IPS, "We don’t comment on appointment processes, so I won’t do that this time, either.

"I haven’t heard about any change in this process from our normal one," he added.

Both Sir Richard and Pronk are part of a group of nearly 150 academics, former senior U.N. officials, ranking diplomats and political decision-makers who are calling for "an intellectually outstanding personality as the new leader of UNCTAD" when the current head, Supachai Panitchpakdi of Thailand, completes his term of office in August.

In an open letter to Ban, the group says the selection is crucial, especially at this time of global economic uncertainty.

"We very strongly urge that the next Secretary-General of UNCTAD, in addition to all the necessary experience, knowledge and management abilities, should have in particular the capacity and courage for independent thought," the letter says.

"It is this characteristic that has been the distinguishing factor among the eminent persons who have held the post over nearly 50 years of UNCTAD’s existence.

"We have an interest in the outcome of this matter," the letter further states, "but no interest in a particular candidate."

"We all fervently believe in the value to the international community, particularly developing countries, of ensuring a strong and credible UNCTAD that serves to focus inter-governmental debates on how the workings of the global economy affect developing countries."

Yilmaz Akyuz, chief economist at the Geneva-based South Centre and former Director and Chief Economist at UNCTAD, regretted there is no transparency in U.N. appointments compared with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) or the WTO, where candidates are known publicly, interviewed and shortlisted.

He said no secretary-general has taken an UNCTAD candidate to the General Assembly without securing the support of 132-member Group of 77 developing countries (G77).

"And never more than one candidate. It is all agreed before it is taken to the General Assembly," he told IPS.

"And if he cannot get agreement, the process is delayed. We were without a secretary-general in UNCTAD for more than a year after Ken Dadzie left in 1994," he added.

A G77 source told IPS that Ban has so far not consulted the Group about a candidate or candidates for the UNCTAD job.

John Burley, a former UNCTAD director and coordinator of the open letter, told IPS there has been no official response to the collective letter.

"The letter has been posted on a number of websites and the reaction is positive," he added.

He found it "incongruous" that the declared candidates for the post of WTO director general are invited to make presentations to an informal meeting of the WTO General Council, and thereafter hold a WTO-sponsored press conference, "whereas the U.N. hides the process."

The last seven UNCTAD heads include: Raul Prebisch (Argentina), Manuel Perez-Guerrero (Venezuela), Gamani Corea (Sri Lanka), Alistair McIntyre (Grenada), Ken Dadzie (Ghana), Carlos Fortin (Chile) and Rubens Ricupero (Brazil).

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2013.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Thailand Holds Peace Talks with Muslim Rebels

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

AJ Correspondents

DOHA, Mar 28 (IPS) – Thai authorities and Muslim rebels leaders have started peace talks aimed at ending almost a decade of unrest in the country’s far south, as fresh violence killed at least five people.The talks on Thursday with representatives from the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN) insurgent group, expected to last one day, will focus on reducing bloodshed, Thai National Security Council chief Paradorn Pattanatabut said, warning the overall peace process would take time.

"Today’s main focus is to reduce violence. Today we will focus on building mutual trust and good relations," Paradorn told reporters in the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur, where the meeting was being held.

Ahmad Zamzamin, a former senior aide of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, is facilitating the talks.

Prior to the talks, a roadside bomb exploded in the Chor Ai-rong district of Narathiwat province, 840 kilometres south of Bangkok, killing three soldiers who were patrolling the area, said the 4th Army Region commander, Lieutenant General Udomchai Thammasarorat.

"The people of southern Thailand have become used to violence with attacks by suspected Muslim separatists happening on an almost daily basis," Al Jazeera’s Wayne Hay said.

Five other soldiers were also wounded in the ambush.

Authorities say the attack took place in a village that is home to a key leader of the Muslim separatist group taking part in the talks with the Thai government.

"We suspect this was the work of local militants who want to discredit the peace talks under way in Kuala Lumpur," Udomchai said.

A separate shooting incident was also reported in Narathiwat killing two Buddhist civilians.

The husband and wife were shot in Tak Bai district, where in 2004 more than 80 Muslim men died in a confrontation with security forces.

"That kind of underscores the difficulty of these talks," said Al Jazeera’s Florence Looi, reporting from Kuala Lumpur.

More than 5,300 people have been killed in the conflict in the majority-Muslim provinces in Thailand, which are under emergency law.

Rebels have carried out shootings and bombings on monks, teachers and village officials as symbols of the majority-Buddhist state.

In the past, Thailand and Malaysia have attempted, but eventually failed, to broker talks with the rebels.

"Analysts predict it will take many years before peace can be achieved in southern Thailand," Looi said. "It will be a long and arduous road. But many agree that Thursday’s dialogue is a crucial first step".

* Published under an agreement with Al Jazeera.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2013.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Will CAR Rebels Respect the Peace Agreements?

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

CARPRes-314x472

Central African Republic President François Bozizé (in suit) was ousted by a rebel coup on Mar. 24. Credit: Kayikwamba/CC by 2.0

Arsene Severin

BRAZZAVILLE, Mar 27 (IPS) – Despite assurances by the leader of the Séléka rebel alliance, self-proclaimed president of the Central African Republic Michel Djotodia, that a “red brigade” would be established to stop the looting and violence that has ensued since Sunday’s coup, citizens do not feel security has been restored.“We are not safe, even though the rebels have imposed a curfew in Bangui. There is shooting everywhere, which scares us and the children,” Bibi Menbgi, a mother living in the capital Bangui, where electricity and water cuts have persisted since Sunday Mar. 24, told IPS.

“There are fewer armed youths firing in the air and looting, but tensions are still high. (Former President François) Bozizé had been distributing arms to groups of young men,” John Mourassen, a Bangui-based journalist, told IPS.

Djotodia suspended the country’s constitution, government and parliament on Sunday. The African Union condemned the coup d’état and suspended CAR from the regional organisation, issuing a travel ban and an asset freeze against the seven Séléka leaders, including Djotodia. The United Nations Security Council also condemned the suspension of CAR institutions and called for the reinstatement of constitutional rule.

In his first official statement, on Mar. 25 in the CAR capital Bangui, Djotodia indicated that he would implement the Libreville Agreement, a peace accord signed in January between Séléka and Bozizé’s government.

Séléka, a coalition of rebel groups, had launched an offensive against Bozizé’s rule last December.

Djotodia undertook to retain Nicolas Tchangaye, the prime minister of the government of national unity, to set up a new cabinet. The new president also said that he would organise elections within the next three years.

Contrary to Djodotia’s assurances, the Libreville Agreement provided for parliamentary elections in 2014, and a presidential election in 2016 at the end of Bozizé’s second term. The agreement also stipulates that the current leaders of the transition — the president and the ministers — would not stand for election. There are questions as to whether the rebels will respect this clause.

According to Jean Kinga, a lawyer in Brazzaville, the self-proclaimed CAR president is likely to resort to extrajudicial action. “He has suspended all the legislative and judicial institutions, so he has the freedom to do as he likes. There might be reprisals against members of the old regime,” he told IPS.

To gain people’s confidence Djotodia needs to bring all parties together, “particularly the Bozizé camp and the political opposition,” said Mourassen.

Over the weekend, the situation in Bangui escalated after Séléka rebels decided to seize the capital as the Central African Multinational Force, known by its French acronym FOMAC, stood by.

The Central African Multinational Force, which is under the command of Congolese General Guy Pierre Garcia, did not engage in any fighting during the capture of Bangui. Indeed, FOMAC forces are said to have been shot at by the CAR army, which is loyal to Bozizé, who fled Bangui on Mar. 24 for Cameroon. It is reported that his family members took refuge in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Since May 2012, relations between Bozizé and the sitting chair of the Economic Community of Central African States, Chadian President Idriss Deby, cooled after Bozizé rejected his advice to engage in dialogue with his opponents. The 500 Chadian soldiers who made up Bozizé’s closest forces left CAR in October 2012 after he accused them of committing atrocities.

Bozizé was left high and dry by other heads of state in the Central African region in retaliation for ignoring their advice and seeking military protection from South Africa instead.

South African army forces deployed in CAR to protect Bozizé lost at least 13 men in the fighting. South African President Jacob Zuma confirmed the deaths.

Djotodia accused Bozizé of becoming increasingly authoritarian, and of reneging on the Libreville Agreements sponsored by the President of Congo-Brazzaville Denis Sassou Nguesso, the mediator in the CAR crisis.

At the time of writing, the government of Congo-Brazzaville had not made any comment on the coup d’état. However, sources close to the presidency in Brazzaville declared that Bozizé “had violated the Libreville Agreements and consequently lost the trust of President Sassou Nguesso. He no longer deserved support.”

Jonas Mokpendiali, a Central African resident in Bangui since 2003, said that he is concerned about the future of his country. “Nothing seems to change. (Jean-Bédel) Bokassa was ousted, Andre Koligba was ousted, (Ange-Félix) Patassé was ousted and now it’s the turn of Bozizé, who thought he was the master of Bangui with his brutal dictatorship,” he told IPS.

Gabriel Mialoundama, a sociologist at the University of Brazzaville, considers the events in Bangui to be the latest in a long-standing crisis. “From the time he came to power, Francois Bozizé has failed to unite the people. His approach was to exclude his opponents, particularly President Ange-Félix Patassé who died (in 2011) because of his ineptitude. He wasn’t a strong leader,” he told IPS.

“If Djotodia works hard to bring in a new constitution and put the CAR’s house in order by organising elections where he is not a candidate, he will have done the CAR a great service,” Mialoundama added with optimism.

But the academic doubts that the new leader will have a free hand.

“CAR is in the grip of Congo (Brazzaville) and Chad, who are believed to have supported rebels with the blessing of Sassou Nguesso. As they did with Bozizé, Deby and Sassou will maintain their hold on Bangui; Djotodia will be their puppet,” he said.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2013.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


As Cyprus Collapses, It’s a Race to the Mediterranean Gas Finish Line

By. Jen Alic of Oilprice.com

Cyprus is preparing for total financial collapse as the European Central Bank turns its back on the island after its parliament rejected a scheme to make Cypriot citizens pay a levy on savings deposits in return for a share in potential gas futures to fund a bailout.

On Wednesday, the Greek-Cypriot government voted against asking its citizens to bank on the future of gas exports by paying a 3-15% levy on bank deposits in return for a stake in potential gas sales. The scheme would have partly funded a $13 billion EU bailout.

It would have been a major gamble that had Cypriots asking how much gas the island actually has and whether it will prove commercially viable any time soon.

In the end, not even the parliament was willing to take the gamble, forcing Cypriots to look elsewhere for cash, hitting up Russia in desperate talks this week, but to no avail.

The bank deposit levy would not have gone down well in Russia, whose citizens use Cypriot banks to store their “offshore” cash. Some of the largest accounts belong to Russians and other foreigners, and the levy scheme would have targeted accounts with over 20,000 euros. So it made sense that Cyprus would then turn to Russia for help, but so far Moscow hasn’t put any concrete offers on the table.

Plan A (the levy scheme) has been rejected. Plan B (Russia) has been ineffective. Plan C has yet to reveal itself. And without a Plan C, the banks can’t reopen. The minute they open their doors there will be a withdrawal rush that will force their collapse.

In the meantime, cashing in on the island’s major gas potential is more urgent than ever—but these are still very early days.

In the end, it’s all about gas and the race to the finish line to develop massive Mediterranean discoveries. Cyprus has found itself right in the middle of this geopolitical game in which its gas potential is a tool in a showdown between Russia and the European Union.

The EU favored the Cypriot bank deposit levy but it would have hit at the massive accounts of Russian oligarchs. Without the promise of Levant Basin gas, the EU wouldn’t have had the bravado for such a move because Russia holds too much power over Europe’s gas supply.

Cypriot Gas Potential

The Greek Cypriot government believes it is sitting on an amazing 60 trillion cubic feet of gas, but these are early days—these aren’t proven reserves and commercial viability could be years away. In the best-case scenario, production could feasibly begin in five years.

Exports are even further afield, with some analysts suggesting 2020 as a start date.

In 2011, the first (and only) gas was discovered offshore Cyprus, in Block 12, which is licensed to Houston-based Noble Energy Inc. (NBL). The block holds an estimated 8 trillion cubic feet of gas.

To date, the Greek Cypriots have awarded licenses for six offshore exploration blocks that could contain up to 40 trillion cubic feet of gas. Aside from Noble, these licenses have gone to Total SA of France and a joint venture between Eni SpA (ENI) of Italy and Korea Gas Corp.

But the process of exploring, developing, extracting, processing and getting gas to market is a long one. Getting the gas extracted offshore and then pumped onshore could take at least five years and some very expensive infrastructure that does not presently exist. The gas would have to be liquefied so it could be transported by seaborne tankers.

The potential is there: Cyprus’ gas discoveries adjoin Israeli territorial waters where the discovery of the massive Leviathan gasfield (425 billion cubic meters or 16 trillion cubic feet) and smaller Tamar gasfield (250 billion cubic meters or 9 trillion cubic feet) have foreign companies in a rush to cash in on this.

There are myriad problems to extracting Cypriot gas—not the least of which is the fact that some of this offshore exploration territory is disputed by Turkey, which has controlled part of the island since 1974.

Gas exploration has taken this dispute to a new level, with Turkey sending in warships to halt drilling in 2011, and threatening to bar foreign companies exploring in Cyprus from any license opportunities in Turkey. The situation is likely to intensify as Noble prepares to begin exploratory drilling later this year in Block 12.

In the meantime, there is no shortage of competition on this arena. Cyprus will have to vie with Israel, Lebanon and Syria—all of which have made offshore gas discoveries of late in the Mediterranean’s Levant Basin, which has an estimated total of 122 trillion cubic feet of gas and 1.7 billion barrels of oil.

Blackmailing Cyprus?

While Greek Cypriot citizens are not willing to gamble away their savings on gas futures, Russia and the European Union are certainly less hesitant.

This is both a negotiating point for Cyprus and a convenient tool of blackmail for Russia and the EU. Essentially, the bailout is the prop on a stage that will determine who gets control of these assets.

Theoretically, Cyprus could guarantee Russia exploration rights in return for assistance. As much as this is possible, the EU could ease its bailout negotiations if it becomes clear that a Russian bailout of sorts is imminent.

Gas finds in the Mediterranean and particularly across the Levant Basin—home to Israel’s Leviathan and Tamar fields—could be the answer to Russian gas hegemony in Europe. The question is: How much does Cyprus count in this equation? A lot.

Though only half of the estimated resources in the Levant Basin, Cyprus’ potential 60 trillion cubic feet of gas could equal 40% of the EU’s gas supplies and be worth a whopping $400 billion if commercial viability is proven.

Russia is keen to keep Cyprus and Israel from cooperating too much toward the goal of loosening Russia’s grip on Europe before Moscow manages to gain a greater share of the Asian market.

Russia is also not keen on Israel’s plan to lay an undersea natural gas pipeline to Turkey’s south coast to sell its gas from the Leviathan field to Europe. Turkey hasn’t agreed to this deal yet, but it is certainly considering it. This is fraught with all kinds of political problems at home, so for now Ankara is keeping it as low profile as possible.

With all of this in mind, Russia is doing its best to get in on the Levant largesse itself. While it’s also courting Lebanon and Syria, dating Israel is already in full force. Gazprom has signed a deal with Israel that would give it control of Tamar’s gas and access to the Asian market for its liquefied natural gas (LNG). Tamar will probably begin producing already in April at a 1 billion cubic feet/day capacity.

In accordance with this deal, which Israel has yet to approve, Gazprom will provide financial support for the development of the Tamar Floating LNG Project. In return, Gazprom will get exclusive rights to purchase and export Tamar LNG. It is also significant because Tamar is a US-Israeli joint venture—so essentially the plan is to help Russia diversify from the European market.

What does this mean for Cyprus? The chess pieces are still being put on the board, and both fortunately and unfortunately, Cyprus’ gas potential will be intricately linked to its bailout potential.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Cypriot-Bailout-Linked-to-Gas-Potential.html

This article should not be republished or redistributed without the permission of the original author or copyright holder.


Ten Years On: Murder and Mayhem Prevail in Iraq

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IDN

[Photo credit: bestgamewallpapers.com]

By Ernest Corea* | IDN-InDepth News Analysis

iraq-market_smallWASHINGTON DC (IDN) – Anniversaries are usually treated as occasions for celebration. They are given special names as in “golden” for a fiftieth anniversary and “tin” for a tenth. Goodwill is in the air, food and drinks are brought out, and “don’t worry, be happy” is the overarching theme for all concerned. Not so in contemporary Iraq, where the tenth anniversary of the US invasion of that country fell on March 19, 2013. The event was not commemorated with joyous activity. Instead, murder and mayhem prevailed.

International news agencies reported that Baghdad was wracked by death and destruction on the tenth anniversary of the invasion. Over 50 people were reported dead in a wave of bombings that ripped through the capital and its environs.

Sporadic sectarian violence has continued throughout the post-Saddam period. So has corruption, as near-anarchy continues to dominate post-invasion Iraq. The Washington Post comments that “haunted by the ghosts of its brutal past, Iraq is teetering between progress and chaos, a country threatened by local and regional conflicts that could drag it back into the sustained bloodshed its citizens know so well.”

“Mission Accomplished,” President Bush?

Outcome of “Rash War”

In Iraq as elsewhere, recollections during the tenth anniversary of an invasion that was said to be characterized by “shock and awe” evoked sorrow over deaths and suffering, anger at the launching of a war on false grounds, and baffled introspection over how the US as a whole – the people, politicians, and the press – were bamboozled into supporting a “dumb war” and a “rash war” as then State Senator Barack Obama called it.

Looking back at the US invasion and its aftermath, perhaps the most cogent encapsulation has come from Hans Blix, the distinguished Swedish diplomat who was formerly his country’s foreign minister and who headed the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). In an Iraq retrospective published by CNN to mark the 10th anniversary of a deadly misadventure, Blix wrote:

“– The war aimed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, but there weren’t any.

– The war aimed to eliminate al Qaeda in Iraq, but the terrorist group didn’t exist in the country until after the invasion.

– The war aimed to make Iraq a model democracy based on law, but it replaced tyranny with anarchy and led America to practices that violated the laws of war.

– The war aimed to transform Iraq to a friendly base for U.S. troops capable to act, if needed, against Iran — but instead it gave Iran a new ally in Baghdad.”

Blix’s pithy summation provides a salutary warning to all those whose reaction to a conflict taking place beyond America’s shores is a yearning for direct intervention.

WMD were non-existent

Many influential supporters of the US invasion of Iraq remain hawkish, nevertheless. They have not shifted from their original positions and some of them are so committed to their own misadventure that they claim they would “do it all over again” if an opportunity arose.

Moreover, some remain faithful to the dubious proposition that the invasion was justified because at the time it was launched, intelligence agencies all over the world were convinced that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Some national intelligence agencies did, indeed, make this assumption from the safety of distance. UNMOVIC, which had deployed inspectors on the ground in Iraq, was not convinced.

As Blix told the UN Security Council and through it the world on Feb. 14, 2003, well ahead of the invasion:

“How much, if any, is left of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed.”

That was not just a “gut feeling,” or idle speculation. It was an assessment based on actual facts.

Evidence of Absence

Knowing that the Bush Administration was inexorably moving towards war although the justification it claimed did not exist, Blix, as well as others associated with UNMOVIC, sought to avert a disaster. They attempted to persuade Western leaders, among others, that potentially cataclysmic decisions were being approached on the basis of flawed assumptions.

Blix records, for instance, that “during a telephone chat with Tony Blair on February 20, I told the British prime minister that it would be paradoxical and absurd if a quarter of a million troops were to invade Iraq and find very little in the way of weapons. He (i.e. Blair) responded by telling me intelligence was clear that Saddam had reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction program.” (Readers will recall that Blair was as gung ho as President George W. Bush about the invasion.)

Blix shared his misgivings with others in high positions who might have been able to halt or slow down the drift towards war. He writes: “…suspicions are one thing and reality is quite another. U.N. inspectors were asked to search for, report and destroy real weapons.

“As we found no weapons and no evidence supporting the suspicions, we reported this. But U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed our reports with one of his wittier retorts: ‘The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.’” Verbal dexterity is a helpful trait in a politician but does not supplant the need for realism in the decision-making process. Policy decisions on war and peace require more than comedic talent.

In yet another intervention, Blix writes, “on February 11 — less than five weeks before the invasion — I told U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice I wasn’t terribly impressed by the intelligence we had received from the U.S., and that there had been no weapons of mass destruction at any of the sites we had been recommended (to inspect) by American forces. Her response was that it was Iraq, and not the intelligence, that was on trial.” Oh, wow.

Fake premise, Real problems

A war launched on a cooked-up premise is likely, at best, to have mixed results. On the plus side, Iraq has the benefit of Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical – in some situations, brutal – regime having ended. Few but his closest associates mourned his eviction from power. The end of his regime has not, however, been an unmixed blessing for the people of Iraq.

Over 130,000 Iraqis died as a result of the invasion and its consequences. Families were disrupted as they are in any war, and the hope of a “new tomorrow” remains distant for the nation. Stable, democratic governance is yet to be achieved. Corruption has been woven into the fabric of life.

On the US side, over 4,000 deaths have been reported, with so many more injured. Military personnel have lost their limbs and, thereby, their capacity for employment. They, and many others, have become victims of emotional trauma.

A report on the Costs of War compiled by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University calculates that US war expenditures at over $2 trillion – yes, with a “t.” This upsurge of unfunded expenditure aggravated the recession from which the US has not fully recovered.

The world’s policymakers would be well advised to think deeply on the effects of the Bush Administration’s intervention in Iraq as they consider their responses to other regional and global problems that cry out for resolution.

*The writer has served as Sri Lanka’s ambassador to Canada, Cuba, Mexico, and the USA. He was Chairman of the Commonwealth Select Committee on the media and development, Editor of the Ceylon ‘Daily News’ and the Ceylon ‘Observer’, and was for a time Features Editor and Foreign Affairs columnist of the Singapore ‘Straits Times’. He is Global Editor of and Editorial Adviser to IDN-InDepthNews as well as President of the Media Task Force of Global Cooperation Council. [IDN-InDepthNews – March 21, 2013]

Photo credit: bestgamewallpapers.com

Copyright © 2013 IDN-InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters

This article should not be republished or redistributed without the permission of the original author or copyright holder.


BRICS Vow To Move Ahead on Crucial Issues

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IDN

[BRICS heads of state at previous summit | Credit: www.brics5.co.za]

By Raghu Nathan | IDN-InDepth NewsAnalysis

brics_summiteers_smallDURBAN (IDN) – As South Africa inched towards hosting the fifth BRICS Summit from March 26 to 27 in the historic city of Durban, the German Bertelsmann Foundation threw a spanner in the works by declaring that South Africa is "not a model for sustainable development on the African continent".

The think-tank explained: "The country, in contrast to Brazil for example, has not made convincing social progress in important areas, such as education, health, social inclusion and unemployment, whereas other African countries are catching up and becoming more attractive to the BRICS countries."

BRICS is an acronym for the powerful grouping of the world’s leading emerging economies, namely Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The first BRIC Summit took place in Yekateringburg, Russia, where the elected leaders of the four countries formally declared the membership of the BRIC economic bloc. South Africa joined the bloc in 2010, resulting in BRICS.

These summits are convened to seek common ground on areas of importance for these major economies. Talks represent spheres of political and entrepreneurial coordination, in which member countries have identified several business opportunities, economic complementarities and areas of cooperation.

The BRICS mechanism aims to achieve peace, security, development and cooperation. It also seeks to contribute significantly to the development of humanity and establish a more equitable and fair world.

Bertelsmann Foundation report admits that South Africa has been able to re-establish economic stability and generate notable economic growth after the end of the apartheid regime in 1990. However, the growth of recent years has not been able to effectively eliminate social imbalances in society, it says.

According to the study’s authors, the main reason for the extreme level of social inequality and structural unemployment, especially among young people, is a socially selective and qualitatively inadequate education system. Even though education spending, at 20 percent, accounts for the greatest share of the South African budget, the country has not yet been able to close the gap to other BRICS countries.

With 3 percent economic growth estimated for 2013, economic growth is approaching the level before the crisis. However, this is still based on non-labour-intensive sectors, such as the financial sector, and does not open up sufficient opportunities for the majority of the population. Over 50 percent of South Africans aged 15 to 24 were unemployed in 2010. Country experts attribute the poorest performance in the employment market and education policy to South Africa compared to Brazil, Russia, India and China.

The study makes particular reference to the low average life expectancy in South Africa as an especially striking indicator. In contrast to other BRICS countries and many other African countries, life expectancy fell in recent years and there has only been a slight improvement recently. At 53.4, it still remains behind the average for Sub-Saharan Africa.

The experts state that one of the serious development problems is the political system’s major inability to implement policies effectively. The greatest weaknesses are in the co-ordination between the ministries and state authorities at various administrative levels. Financial resources have not been used effectively enough at a sub-national level.

Meanwhile, the economies of other African countries, for example Botswana, Namibia and Nigeria, are catching up. China and India are not the only countries to have long-standing bilateral links to most African countries; Brazil is also becoming increasingly interested in Portuguese-speaking Angola as a gateway to Africa.

Durban upbeat

South Africa appeared to be upbeat in run-up to the summit. The New Age newspaper reported that the country’s "comparative advantage within BRICS emanates from the country’s considerable mineral wealth".

In a recent report commissioned by the US-based Citigroup bank, the newspaper reported, South Africa was ranked the world’s richest country in terms of its mineral reserves, worth an estimated $2.5-trillion (R22-trillion).

South Africa is the world’s largest producer of platinum, chrome, vanadium and manganese, is the third-largest gold miner and offers highly sophisticated mining-related professional services, contributing significantly to the BRICS resource pool, the news report said.

The country is also seen as the gateway to the rest of Africa and it has sophisticated financial and banking sectors, it added.

What lends an added significance to the forthcoming BRICS meeting is that it promises to bring about ground-breaking initiatives, such as the establishment of a development bank of developing countries that will trim their reliance on the World Bank and IMF.

Experts from the BRICS group of countries have in fact given their backing to the creation of a BRICS development bank, as well as an alternative to Western rating agencies for educational institutions, says the executive director of Russia’s National Committee for BRICS studies, Georgy Toloraya.

According to Summit sources, officials from the five countries met in Durban over a weekend earlier in March for a workshop aimed at mapping out a long-term strategy for a mooted consortium of BRICS think tanks. The experts held three days of sessions in the run-up to the summit, where they agreed to establish a council of think tanks and to “support the idea of a BRICS bank”, Toloraya said.

Toloraya said in the first phase such a financial institution would serve as a centre of analysis.

“We use World Bank and International Monetary Fund statistics and analytical reports all the time, as we have no such instruments of our own. A future BRICS Investment Bank is seen as a mechanism that would help realize where money should go, agree development strategies and coordinate investment,” Toloraya said.

The experts also indicated that the BRICS countries might conclude preferential trade agreements. “It will not be a free trade zone yet, but a first step towards it. Settlements in national currencies are not ruled out,” Toloraya said

The recommendation to create a BRICS rating agency for educational establishments has similar reasons behind it. “None of our universities is high on the Western rating lists. In the meantime, the Silicon Valley in the United States is crowded with Russians,” Toloraya said, adding that Western university ratings relied on publications in Western magazines and on Western awards.

“Such an agency would be rather easy to set up. When we know how we rate ourselves, possibly students will decide to go to study in Russia or elsewhere, and not in the United States,” he said.

Toloraya sees the BRICS grouping as an “intellectual project for formulating new rules of global co-existence”.

An association of countries located on four continents was “an alliance of civilizations which will never develop into a military bloc,” he said. “BRICS is an elite project, an attempt by rising powers to safeguard their interests together. BRICS is a civilized attempt at coming to terms as to what a future world order should be. It is not accidental that the group’s participants are advocates of non-interference in internal affairs and of the rule of international law.” [IDN-InDepthNews – March 19, 2013]

Picture: BRICS heads of state at previous summit | Credit: www.brics5.co.za

2013 IDN-InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters

This article should not be republished or redistributed without the permission of the original author or copyright holder.


Crisis Group Urges Comprehensive Talks to End Sudan Conflicts

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

kutum_IDPs_640-629x419

Residents of the Kassab Camp for Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) in North Darfur wait to be examined by doctors. Credit: UN Photo/Albert González Farran

Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Feb 15 (IPS) – Amidst ongoing violence and continuing humanitarian emergencies in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile states, the International Crisis Group (ICG) called Thursday for a comprehensive solution to Sudan’s many regional conflicts.In the first of a series of reports on the subject, the Brussels-based think tank urged the long-ruling National Congress Party (NCP) to sit down with both its armed and unarmed opposition, as well as civil society groups, to forge a transition to a new governance system designed to resolve conflicts between the central government in Khartoum and its restive regions.

It also urged the international community, including the U.N. Security Council, the African Union, and the Arab League, to join the demand for a single, comprehensive solution to Sudan’s multiple conflicts lest the country fragment further 18 months after South Sudan gained its independence.[pullquote]3[/pullquote]

“Unless the government and the international community engage with both the armed and unarmed opposition and achieve a comprehensive solution to Sudan’s chronic problems, the conflicts will continue and multiply, threatening the stability of the entire country,” according to E.J. Hogendoorn, the ICG’s deputy Africa programme director.

The new 55-page report, which focuses primarily on the war between the government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North in South Kordofan, comes as aid groups are reporting growing humanitarian crises in North Darfur, as well as states bordering South Sudan.

Oxfam warned Thursday that tens of thousands of already-displaced people have fled inter-tribal fighting in several areas of a gold-producing region in North Darfur and now lack access to clean water and adequate shelter and sanitation.

It said at least 90,000 people had been displaced in the Jebel Amir area over the past month – more than the number who were displaced in Darfur during all of 2012. The group called on the government to open a key road into the area and permit relief organisations full access.

“This conflict in Darfur is now 10 years old, and we need to see a renewed effort to bring about stability and peace in this devastated area,” said El Fateh Osman, Oxfam’s Sudan country director. “We are struggling to meet already existing needs even as more are pushed into crisis.”

Oxfam’s statement followed an appeal last Friday by the U.S. State Department for the Sudanese government of President Omar Al-Bashir to halt aerial bombings in the region and to “urgently disarm militias” there.

Some of the Arab tribal militias taking part in the current fighting there were allied with the government 10 years ago as part of a scorched-earth counter-insurgency campaign that resulted in the deaths of at 300,000 people, most of them from black African farm communities.

But the ongoing economic crisis faced by the government resulting from the loss of oil revenue that followed South Sudan’s independence has weakened Khartoum’s influence over the militias, some of which have since turned on their former ally and patron not only in Darfur, but also in other regions, including South Kordofan and Blue Nile states where the Bashir government has used tribal militias to fight rebel movements.

Over the 18 months, more than 200,000 people have fled to South Sudan or Ethiopia from those two states, while another half million or more have been displaced internally in areas controlled either by the government or by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N), a rebel group with close ties to South Sudan’s government.

In its latest report, ICG said the conflict in South Kordofan, in particular, has reached the state of “strategic stalemate", exacting a “horrendous toll” on the civilian population.

The SPLM-N, according to the report, has as many as 30,000 soldiers and a large stockpile of weapons, compared to between 40,000 and 70,000 government troops. While the rebels are deeply entrenched in the Nuba mountains, the government controls much of the lowlands where most of the region’s food is grown.

“Government forces have fallen back on their familiar pattern of striking at communities suspected of supporting the rebels, so as to prevent the SPLM-N from living off the surrounding civilian population. Unable to farm, and with the government preventing humanitarian access to insurgency-controlled areas, many civilians have been forced to flee,” the report noted.

Adding to the SPLM-N’s strength, however, is its alliance with the Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF), a coalition of rebel groups from around the country, and its increasing coordination with the official opposition parties

In its on-again off-again negotiations with the government, according to the report, the SPLM-N has increasingly pressed a national agenda, reflecting the concerns of its SRF partners, while the government has preferred to confine discussions to local issues.

In a major development last month, the SRF signed a “New Dawn Charter” with the National Consensus Forces (NCF), a coalition of all of Sudan’s opposition parties and some civil society groups. The result is a growing national coalition, including both armed and unarmed groups, in favour of a major reform in the way the country is governed.

The international community, according to the report, should engage with the SRF in order both to encourage its evolution “from a purely military alliance to a more representative and articulate political movement” and to facilitate negotiations with Khartoum for a comprehensive solution to Sudan’s regional conflicts.

“Piecemeal power-sharing arrangements, negotiated at different times with divided rebel factions, often encourage further rebellion with the sole aim of obtaining more advantageous concessions from Khartoum,” the report noted.

“If negotiations only partially address the political marginalisation of peripheries, calls for self-determination, still limited in Darfur and Blue Nile but vocal in South Kordofan, will increase.”

*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2013.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Aiming at Global Disarmament by 2030

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IDN

By Ramesh Jaura | IDN-InDepth NewsAnalysis

2013-peace-proposal_small

[SGI President drafting 2013 Peace Proposal | Credit: SGI]

BERLIN (IDN) – An eminent Buddhist leader Daisaku Ikeda is calling for an “expanded nuclear summit” in 2015 to solidify momentum toward a world free from nuclear weapons and become the launching point for a larger effort for global disarmament aiming toward the year 2030.

With this in view, he hopes that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and forward-looking governments will establish an action group to initiate before year’s end the process of drafting a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) outlawing nuclear weapons, which are not only inhumane but also swallow some $105 billion year after year.

“A key factor . . . will be the stance taken by those countries which have relied on the extended deterrence of nuclear-weapon states, the so-called nuclear umbrella,” writes Ikeda, who heads Soka Gakkai International (SGI), a Tokyo-based lay Buddhist organization spanning the globe.

SGI President Ikeda notes with great satisfaction that signatories to the statements so far, urging putting a halt to proliferation and calling for abolition of atomic weapons of mass destruction, “include not only countries belonging to Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs) and neutral countries, but also Norway and Denmark, which are members of NATO and thus come under that organization’s nuclear umbrella. And yet these two countries have not only signed these statements but have played a key role in their drafting.”

On the other hand, Japan, which also relies on the U.S. nuclear umbrella, has refrained from signing some of the important statements, he adds and implores Tokyo to “join with other countries seeking the prohibition of nuclear weapons as inhumane and work for the earliest realization of a world free from the threat of these weapons”.

In his 2013 Peace Proposal ‘Compassion, Wisdom and Courage: Building a Global Society of Peace and Creative,’ Ikeda explores “the prospects for constructing a global society of peace and creative coexistence looking toward the year 2030″.

Originally inspired by second Soka Gakkai President Josei Toda’s 1957 anti-nuclear weapons declaration, Ikeda publishes a peace proposal every year which casts a close look at the interrelation between core Buddhist concepts and the diverse challenges global society faces in the effort to realize peace and human security. He has also made proposals touching on issues such as education reform, the environment, the United Nations and nuclear abolition.

The 2013 Peace Proposal comes in run-up to two significant events this year: The Conference on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons organized by the Norwegian Foreign Ministry on March4-5 in Oslo – to be preceded by a civil society forum for a global ban on nukes, and a high level meeting in September of the UN General Assembly on nuclear disarmament.

Ikeda’s 2013 Peace Proposal states that the huge annual aggregate expenditure on nuclear weapons globally underlines “the enormity of the burden placed on societies simply by the continued possession of these weapons”. It adds: “If these financial resources were redirected domestically to health, social welfare and education programs or to development aid for other countries, the positive impact on people’s lives and dignity would be incalculable.”

Backdrop

The backdrop to the latest peace proposal is that since the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), there has been a growing, if still nascent, movement to outlaw nuclear weapons based on the premise that they are inhumane.

The Final Document of the Review Conference notes a “deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons” and reaffirms “the need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law.”

This ground breaking statement was followed by a resolution by the Council of Delegates of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in November 2011, strongly appealing to all states “to pursue in good faith and conclude with urgency and determination negotiations to prohibit the use of and completely eliminate nuclear weapons through a legally binding international agreement.”

Subsequently, at the first session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 NPT Review Conference held in May 2012, sixteen countries led by Norway and Switzerland issued a joint statement on the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament, stating that “it is of great concern that, even after the end of the Cold War, the threat of nuclear annihilation remains part of the 21st century international security environment.”

They stressed: “it is of utmost importance that these weapons never be used again, under any circumstances. . . . All States must intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons and achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.” In October 2012, this statement, with minor revisions, was presented to the First Committee of the UN General Assembly by thirty-five member and observer states.

Ikeda refers to important new research on the effects of nuclear war on the environment announced in April2012 in the report ‘Nuclear Famine’. Issued by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), the study predicts that even a relatively small-scale nuclear exchange could cause major climate change and that the impact on countries far-distant from the combatant nations would result in famine affecting more than a billion people.

According to Ikeda, the SGI’s efforts to grapple with the nuclear weapons issue are based on the recognition that the very existence of these weapons represents the ultimate negation of the dignity of life.

“It is necessary to challenge the underlying inhumanity of the idea that the needs of states can justify the sacrifice of untold numbers of human lives and disruption of the global ecology. At the same time, we feel that nuclear weapons serve as a prism through which to bring into sharper focus ecological integrity, economic development and human rights – issues that our contemporary world cannot afford to ignore. This in turn helps us identify the elements that will shape the contours of a new, sustainable society, one in which all people can live in dignity.”

Three proposals

With this in view, the SGI President has tabled three concrete proposals:

First, to make disarmament a key theme of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Specifically, he proposes that halving world military expenditures relative to 2010 levels and abolishing nuclear weapons and all other weapons judged inhumane under international law be included as targets for achievement by the year 2030. In the proposal I issued on the occasion of the Rio+20 Conference in June 2012, Ikeda urged that targets related to the green economy, renewable energy and disaster prevention and mitigation be included in the SDGs, and I believe that disarmament targets should also be taken into consideration.

The International Peace Bureau (IPB), the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and other civil society organizations are currently advocating the global reduction of military spending, and the SGI supports this out of the awareness that disarmament is humanitarian action.

Second, to initiate the negotiation process for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, with the goal of agreement on an initial draft by 2015: “To this end, we must engage in active and multifaceted debate – cantered on the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons – to broadly shape international public opinion,” says Ikeda.

Third, to hold an expanded summit for a nuclear-weapon-free world: The G8 Summit in 2015, the seventieth anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would be an appropriate opportunity for such a summit, which should include the additional participation of representatives of the United Nations and non-G8 states in possession of nuclear weapons, as well as members of the five existing NWFZs – Antarctic Treaty, Latin American NWFZ (Tlatelolco Treaty), South Pacific NWFZ (Rarotonga Treaty), Southeast Asia NWFZ (Bangkok treaty), and African NWFZ (Pelindaba Treaty) – and those states which have taken a lead in calling for nuclear abolition, explains the SGI President.

“If possible, Germany and Japan, which are the scheduled G8 host countries for 2015 and 2016 respectively, should agree to reverse that order, enabling the convening of this meeting in Hiroshima or Nagasaki,” adds Ikeda.

In past peace proposals, he urged that the 2015 NPT Review Conference be held in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a vehicle for realizing a nuclear abolition summit. He still hopes that such a meeting can be held.

“Nevertheless, the logistical issues involved in bringing together the representatives of almost 190 countries may dictate that the meeting be held at the UN Headquarters in New York as is customary. In that event, the G8 Summit scheduled to be held several months after the NPT Review Conference would provide an excellent opportunity for an expanded group of world leaders to grapple with this critical issue.” argues Ikeda.

In this regard, he feels encouraged by President Barack Obama’s speech at Hankuk University in Seoul on March 26, 2012: “My administration’s nuclear posture recognizes that the massive nuclear arsenal we inherited from the Cold War is poorly suited to today’s threats, including nuclear terrorism. . . .But I believe the United States has a unique responsibility to act– indeed, we have a moral obligation. I say this as President of the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons.”

This, of course, restates the conviction he first expressed in his April 2009 Prague speech. President Obama then went on to say: “Most of all, I say it as a father, who wants my two young daughters to grow up in a world where everything they know and love can’t be instantly wiped out.”

Ikeda says: “These words express a yearning for the world as it should be, a yearning that cannot be subsumed even after all political elements and security requirements have been taken fully into consideration. It is the statement of a single human being rising above the differences of national interest or ideological stance. Such a way of thinking can help us ‘untie’ the Gordian Knot that has too long bound together the ideas of national security and nuclear weapons possession.”

He adds: “There is no place more conducive to considering the full significance of life in the nuclear age than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was seen when the G8 Summit of Lower House Speakers was convened in Hiroshima in 2008. The kind of expanded summit I am calling for would inherit that spirit and solidify momentum toward a world free from nuclear weapons. It would become the launching point for a larger effort for global disarmament aiming toward the year 2030.” [IDN-InDepthNews – February 12, 2013]

2013 IDN-InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters

This article should not be republished or redistributed without the permission of the original author or copyright holder.


Syrian Civil War Grounded To A Stalemate

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IDN

FSA_Fighter

[An FSA fighter in engaged in a firefight in Aleppo | Credit: Wikimedia Commons]

 

By Zachary Fillingham* | Geopoliticalmonitor.com

IDN-InDepth NewsAnalysis

TORONTO (IDN) – Opposition troops in Syria have largely come to be referred to as the Free Syria Army (FSA), but this title belies the fact that the anti-Assad side of the civil war equation is composed of several disparate groups, all with conflicting visions for a post-Assad Syria. In reality, the FSA was born out of a group of largely Sunni Syrian Army deserters led by Riyad al-Assad, and that is likely more or less the composition that remains to this day.

The FSA claims to have now assembled a force of 40,000 men, but analysts have pegged the number at closer to 10,000. The more generous estimate that the FSA touts might include Islamist foreign fighters that are active in the Syrian theatre, a group that shares the FSA’s short-term goals without falling under its immediate command structures. This disconcerting mix of ‘wholesome’ army deserters and ‘unwholesome’ Islamists has kept Western aid taps firmly shut so far.

The West’s apparent unease over supplying the FSA does not mean that weapon shipments are not flooding into Syria. Quite the contrary, the rebels are said to receive ‘daily’ shipments via Lebanon and Turkey, which are likely financed and organized by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

The FSA has carved out a territorial stronghold for itself in the north of Syria in the area adjacent to the Turkish border, primarily in the regions surrounding Idlib and to the north of Aleppo. There are other large pockets of FSA resistance to the north and south of Homs. However, given the guerrilla tactics being favoured by the FSA, the map is in a constant state of flux. The FSA is at a material disadvantage against government forces, so FSA commanders will often choose to melt into the countryside rather than stand and fight.

In the past, the FSA has had success encircling large government deployments in Idlib and Aleppo, and although reports from the north are as unreliable as they are sparse, the FSA is said to be fielding increasingly sophisticated weaponry in the past six months.

Damascus has also reported heavy fighting recently, and some sources have attributed it to a rebel push out of strongholds in Ghouta, a region to the east of the capital. Although it’s possible that the FSA has expanded its operational capacity from its base in the north, the more likely explanation is that these attacks, some of which have included suicide bombings, are actually the work of the ‘unwholesome’ branch of the Syrian insurgency.

Poised to push rebel forces out

On the other side of the military equation, the Syrian Army shows no signs of being beaten into submission. Quite the contrary, if anything it seems poised to push rebel forces out of a few strategic cities. While real news is sparse and government information must be taken with a grain of salt, several facts can still be gleaned in regards to the Syrian Army.

First off, the wave of desertions that originally swelled the ranks of the FSA seems to have receded, and the troops that remain are likely committed to seeing the conflict through to the end. Second, the Syrian Army has the manpower and material means to hold on to the major cities in Syria. Currently, there is no major urban center that has totally fallen to rebel forces ala Benghazi during the Libyan conflict. And finally, the Syrian Army will maintain its lifeline of foreign assistance, at least in some form, via arms shipments from Russia, a government that claims to have taken no sides in the conflict while simultaneously filling out ‘previously agreed-upon’ arms contracts for the Assad regime.

The sum of these parts is a civil war with a government side that is committed, well-supplied, and convinced all the way down to the individual foot soldier that its very existence is at stake. On the other side, there is a guerilla force that is decentralized, multifaceted, trans-border, and increasingly materially and logistically competent. Both sides enjoy a long bench of foreign backers ready to fight for their cause.

This all points to the indisputable fact that the Syrian civil war has ground to a stalemate and there is no end in sight.

There are a few scenarios that can arise moving forward, the first of which being a military stalemate much like the one we are currently witnessing. The Syrian Army will continue to hold on to cities, maintaining a firm grip on Damascus and a more tenuous one on the northern cities of Aleppo and Idlib, and the FSA will continue to recruit, resupply, and regroup in the countryside. Civilian casualties will continue to mount and refugee camps will grow in the neighbouring countries of Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, and the north of Iraq. As more and more time passes, a de facto territorial division may begin to appear in Syria. Under this scenario, the war’s victor will be determined by attrition and exhaustion.

Barriers to a negotiated solution

The second possibility is a compromise, which would be ideal in terms of mitigating the loss of life. However, several barriers to a negotiated solution currently exist, the biggest of which being that both sides still believe they can win. Fruitful negotiations are also frustrated by the fact that the Syrian opposition doesn’t speak with one voice, which is forgivable on the battlefield because everyone knows who the enemy is.

The same can’t be said for politics: The National Coalition for Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, the Syrian National Council, the National Co-ordination Committee, seculars and Islamists, locals and the diaspora – all of these actors give rise to a cacophony of disparate interests that defy direct talks. For proof, one needs look no further than Moaz al-Khatib’s call for government negotiations on Februray 6.

Al-Khatib, the leader of the National Coalition, called for the talks in light of the worsening humanitarian situation across the country. His comments drew immediate criticism from the Syrian National Council, who accused him of betraying the cause of Assad’s removal. And this is merely scraping the surface of the byzantine web of Syrian opposition groups.

The third scenario is a game-changing foreign intervention. This is the hardest to predict because of the huge number of variables involved. It is also potentially the most dangerous. Much has been written about the possibility of the Syrian civil war spilling its borders and triggering a regional sectarian conflict, and that it has yet to do so is a testament to the restraint of foreign backers on both sides. But this won’t necessarily be the case for the entire duration of the conflict.

Israel’s recent airstrike on Syria is a good example of a potential catalyst. Should the Assad government want to start beating the war drum against Tel Aviv, Iran could get involved and the result would be a regional war. Similarly, Iran may choose to vent its recent economic frustrations by increasing its involvement in the Syrian conflict, which could draw Western countries into the conflict, and once more, the result is a regional war.

In addition to these state-initiated political scenarios, there is also the sectarian element to be considered. Syria is surrounded by Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish populations that could conceivably be drawn into the conflict under certain macro circumstances.

Only time will tell how the civil war is resolved; likely a whole lot of it.

*Zachary Fillingham holds a BA in International Relations from York University in Toronto, Canada and an MA in Chinese Studies from the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, England. This article is being re-published by arrangement with Geopoliticalmonitor.com which carried it on February 11, 2013.

Original: http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/syrian-civil-war-the-view-from-the-ground-4780/

2013 IDN-InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters

This article should not be republished or redistributed without the permission of the original author or copyright holder.

Photo: An FSA fighter in engaged in a firefight in Aleppo | Credit: Wikimedia Commons