| Login |
This one-time registration is for participation in this blog.It
also enables you free access to all newnations.com reports and to receive newsletters.
If you are already registered with newnations all you now need to do is log-in.
Click Here to login/register
|
|
|
|
|
| Mission |
We tell
the world about the world
Our mission is to further the promotion of liberal democracy and the safeguarding
of the environment by the actions of accountable governments. To advance this
cause we report, without fear or favour, the affairs of nations that are in
transition, their politics, economics, business, finance and human rights -
and we tell it how it is, consistently, calmly, and objectively.
 |
|
| Countries: North Korea |
|
Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 11:52 AM |
North Korea: Gearing up
August in North Korea was one of those annoying months – at least for those who produce monthly updates – where the biggest news suddenly happened right at the end. Thus at this writing (August 29) Kim Jong-il is still wandering around in what it is no longer politically correct to call Manchuria, having abruptly headed there less than four months after his last visit to China. This timing was the more surprising since it meant he missed Jimmy Carter. The former US president, now 85, arrived in Pyongyang on August 25 – the day Kim left – to secure the release of a US prisoner. It was Carter’s first trip to North Korea since 1994, when he defused a serious nuclear crisis and arguably prevented a second Korean War. His interlocutor then was Kim’s father Kim Il-sung, who died three weeks later. Carter did not get to meet Kim Jong-il – already long designated as his father’s successor – that time either.
Forgive us our trespasses
So the eternal question – what gives in Pyongyang? – has fresh urgency. Let us dispose of Carter first, almost as curtly as the dear leader did. His main mission, duly accomplished, was to secure the release of Aijalon Mahli Gomes: a 30 year old black Bostonian, who had taught English in South Korea and was arrested in January when he apparently walked into North Korea from China to preach the Gospel. For this act of trespass the DPRK Central Court sentenced him on April 6 to eight years’ hard labour and a fine of 70 million won (about US$490,000 at the official rate). In July Gomes had reportedly attempted suicide.
There is a double déjà vu here. Gomes has yet to tell his tale, but he seemed to be copying his friend and fellow Christian human rights activist Robert Park, a Korean-American who pulled the same stunt a month earlier on Christmas Day 2009; they attended the same church in Seoul. The DPRK unexpectedly released Park after only 43 days; he is now in hospital in Tucson after threatening suicide (his supporters allege he was tortured in his brief captivity). Whether or not Gomes is similarly sadly unhinged, his behaviour was rash in the extreme.
The other precedent, a high-profile release, echoes that of Laura Ling and Euna Lee: the two US journalists also jailed for illegally entering North Korea. Last August it was Bill Clinton who did the honours, in a trip clearly para-diplomatic in intent and outcome: he met Kim Jong-il, and it looked briefly as if US-DPRK relations might thaw. Carter had no such luck. Indeed, Kim Jong-il’s snub – couldn’t he have waited for a day? – sends its own message.
Get Carter
There has to be a back story here. From Washington, the ever-useful Nelson Report offered different versions in successive issues. John Kerry (remember him?), who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was keen to go get Gomes, who is also his constituent; but the State Department vetoed this lest it look too official and governmental. Alternatively, it was Kim Jong-il who on July 30 nixed both Kerry and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico – who has been on mercy missions to Pyongyang before. Kim wanted Jim. But in that case, why did he stand him up? Possibly because the Obama administration, concerned at Carter’s well-known penchant for freelance diplomacy, kept its distance from this trip – in contrast to the close liaison last year over Bill Clinton’s visit, though that too was nominally private.
Checking with China
But America is hardly the main thing on the dear leader’s mind just now. His sudden return to China is almost certainly related to the imminent, and rare, delegates’ meeting of the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK). Announced on June 26 as due in early September, no more has been heard of this; but sources in Seoul suggest it will be held on September 6-8. While all predictions about North Korea risk applying egg to the forecaster’s face, anticipation is strong that Kim’s third son and putative heir Kim Jong-eun will at last be revealed in public and perhaps take on some official post. His full designation as successor is not expected until 2012: Juche 100 in the DPRK calendar as the centenary of its founder Kim Il-sung’s birth.
What has this to do with China? One possible precedent occurred a decade ago. In May 2000 Kim Jong-il made a secret visit to Beijing, just a fortnight before he hosted Kim Dae-jung in Pyongyang for the first ever inter-Korean summit. While so fiercely independent a regime – the core meaning of Juche is unbeholdenness – would bridle at any suggestion of needing to seek anyone’s permission for anything, nonetheless it was prudent to ensure that so radical a foreign policy initiative was acceptable to the DPRK’s main protector and aid donor.
Bread and circuses
The same applies now, only more so. A delicate succession process, a clapped-out economy and a slow-burn nuclear crisis add up to a major headache for all concerned. In better times Kim can ignore China; even in May he may have been cross enough to go home a day early. But this is a tense juncture. The dear leader needs Hu Jintao, whom he probably met on this trip in Changchun, to bless Kim Jong-eun’s succession – and not dally with potential rivals like number one son Kim Jong-nam, living in quasi-exile in Macau, whose unprepossessing appearance belies an openness to much-needed reform. Kim may also be desperate for more Chinese aid, reportedly withheld on his last visit, so that Kim Jong-eun’s anointment can be marked in best Roman emperor style with panem et circenses: bread and circuses.
The question is what Hu will have demanded in return. Above all Beijing fears instability in its wayward neighbour. Its purported scepticism over March’s sinking of the ROK corvette Cheonan reaffirmed a refusal to paint the DPRK into a corner, no matter what. Yet China is fed up with Kim Jong-il, and will hardly miss a chance to bring him into line at a moment of weakness. This time the price of yet more political and financial aid may have been twofold: real economic reform, and showing more willing as regards the long-stalled nuclear issue.
Pak back
There is some evidence on both fronts. For a start, Pak Pong-ju is back after three years in the wilderness. As chemicals minister in 2002 Pak led an economic delegation to South Korea (it also included Kim Jong-il’s brother-in-law Jang Song-taek). Pak’s zeal to learn impressed his hosts; visiting Samsung et al, he yearned for several extra pairs of eyes to take it all in. In 2003 Pak was promoted to prime minister; on his watch the joint venture Kaesong Industrial Zone (KIZ) got up and running. In 2007 he was sacked in a backlash against reform, and had not been seen since. He resurfaced in August as a WPK deputy director, said to be in light industry: long the bailiwick of Kim Kyong-hui, who is the dear leader’s sister and Mrs Jang.
Wu woos
As for the nuclear issue, China’s negotiator Wu Dawei has been shuttling from Pyongyang to Seoul peddling a new three-stage plan to kick-start the stalled, if not dead, Six Party Talks (6PT). A bilateral US-DPRK meeting would lead to an informal six-way gathering, and then the resumed 6PT proper. Wu got no joy in Seoul, whose foreign minister was away. Neither the ROK nor US will budge unless Pyongyang has something serious and substantial to say, both on the nuclear issue and the Cheonan. Such a hardline stance risks keeping them both out of the loop, at a time of ferment in Pyongyang. Yet Obama in particular has little choice at this juncture. Already assailed as he is by outrageous slings and arrows in an ever more toxic domestic political milieu, in the runup to mid-term Congressional elections the last thing he can afford – as he could have done 16 months ago, had the DPRK not fired off a rude rocket and a nuclear test – is the extra charge of being soft on Kim Jong-il.
Round the houses
Returning to Kim Jong-il’s Chinese jaunt – as ever nominally secret, though the special train and convoys are hard to hide – this took an unusual route. Rather than going northwest on the main line via Sinuiju and Dandong – both severely flooded since the Yalu river burst its banks a week earlier – Kim’s train headed north to Kanggye city in the mountainous border province of Jagang. Crossing the swollen Yalu from Manpo to Jian around 1 a.m. on August 26, it did not stop but sped on, reaching Jilin by 9 a.m. (‘sped’ is too kind; 400km in 8 hours is not exactly Chollima speed). There Kim visited Yuwen middle school, which his father attended during 1927-30, and other sites associated with Kim Il-sung. If Kim Jong-eun came too, this doubtless served to cement the idea – odd as it sounds – of revolutionary heredity.
On August 27 the Jilin-Changchun expressway was closed to other traffic so Kim’s convoy could make the 120 km journey in safety and solitude. There he probably met Hu Jintao, and introduced his son. Leaving Changchun on August 28, Kim was thought to be headed home; but by nightfall his train had not crossed the border. Instead, it was reported on Sunday that Yanji city, capital of Yanbian prefecture, was expecting a special guest. If true, this will be Kim Jong-il’s first known visit to China’s ethnic Korean community; time was when that would have been deemed politically risky. Looking at the map, Kim may then return home via Tumen and down the DPRK’s northeastern coast via Chongjin and Hamheung. This is the long way round, but perhaps it suits the dear leader and son to be out of town and miss the frantic last-minute preparations and machinations for the Big Day in early September. Yet such an absence does seem surprising. Are they ultra-confident, or running scared?
Note: To read more, click here |
|
| >>>
Read full article: 'North Korea' ( Reads) Comments? |
|
|
|
| Countries: Syria |
|
Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 11:45 AM |
|
|
Caught Between Two Lebanons
Syria has always been the principal external actor in Lebanese politics and it continues to maintain its influence in Beirut, if not through direct proxies, through key allies such as Hezbollah. Until the 2003 US war on Iraq, Syria could count on a cold relationship with Iraq, though at least it did not have to worry about stability and spillovers of Iraqi problems in Syria, as was the case with Lebanon. Now, as the US has accelerated its withdrawal from Iraq, its combat troops having left the country two weeks early, an Iraq that is still sorting out the results of last March’s democratic elections, has created an important void in the region. As Iraq looks increasingly more like Lebanon than the centrally controlled state it once was, dominated by sectarian policies, Syria will become ever more embroiled in Iraqi affairs. Syria has already felt the effects of the Iraq war in the ‘first person’, as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees have chosen to find refuge in Syria.
The influx of Iraqis has been such that the country has had to issue new laws to safeguard its secular nature. While, Syria will continue to feel the effects of the stable ‘instability’ – perhaps that is how best to describe the current situation. In Iraq as more refugees migrate in its territory, it will also spar with its traditional regional ally Iran and concur with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, a scenario that could lead to a new regional proxy war, as the various powers vie in favor of different political factions. As US combat forces depart, they will leave increasingly weak borders, making it far easier for the foreign fighters that the Bush administration had always complained about to enter from Syria. Conversely, the political instability in Iraq, which even if a cabinet is announced in the next few months would have difficulty in managing, would also leave Syria vulnerable to increased risks of terrorism.
Many expect Iran to wield the greatest influence; they are certainly putting the most pressure on Iraq's current Shiite parliamentary majority to join forces with the likes of Muqtada al-Sadr and other Shiite groups to confront the secular coalition led by the ‘Shiite born’ but secular Ayad Allawi who is the leader of the election winning al-Iraqiya bloc coalition. Damascus had made rather clear that it is backing Allawi, as is Saudi Arabia. Turkey, meanwhile, is concerned about the power vacuum, which could affect the ambitions of Kurdish parties that advocate independence. The realistic risk is that its own Kurdish groups would also intensify independence claims, as would the Kurdish population of Syria. Turkey, then, is also supporting the Allawi camp and any remnant of the nationalists (the Ba’ath). Syria has become so committed to promoting Allawi as prime minister in Iraq that it tried to bring the Allawi’s and Muqtada al-Sadr’s coalitions together last July. Indeed, the Chinese Xinhua agency reported that Allawi and Muqtada al-Sadr would be traveling to Damascus to discuss forming a coalition. The two leaders already met in Damascus at the end of July.
Syria, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, is evidently already interfering in Iraqi affairs, even if, for the time being, this influence is ‘constructive’ trying to help form a new government in Baghdad and, clearly, a government that would ensure more stability. Allawi and al-Sadr’s militias were engaged in heavy fighting in 2004 and 2005 when Allawi was prime minister, and Syrian officials are reported as having negotiated in an especially intense manner to persuade Mr. Allawi to come to Damascus to meet al-Sadr, whose fellow party members had also refused to meet Allawi in the past. Iraq is now so important to Syrian affairs that the government has formed a special Iraq group to offer direct political access at the highest level to Iraqi leaders. Using its years of experience in Lebanon, Damascus has also set up links to all major Iraqi power brokers and played sides off each other. In the Ba’athist heyday, many Iraqi dissidents lived in exile in Damascus, including the current prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. Since the fall of Saddam, Syria has hosted former Ba’athists. Syria’s mingling in Iraq has left it vulnerable to various accusations, especially from al-Maliki, who was very critical of Damascus’s role in harboring members of the former Ba’athist administration.
It is interesting to note that Syria is pushing for a strong government, which avoids as much as possible the sectarianism that it has witnessed in Lebanon. This contrasts with Iran’s designs for Iraq, which are far more inclined toward having a weak Iraq, embroiled in sectarianism. Once the pinpoint of the Syro-Iranian relationship (during the Iran-Iraq war), Iraq is emerging as the cause of an impending rift between the two countries over a strategic regional concern. Iran wants to prop up Shiite forces that would make life very difficult for Sunnis, which would put pressure on the Sunni majority in Syria. While, the US will be happy to leave Iraq, as it tries to focus on resolving Afghanistan, Syria’s network of relationships with Iraqi power circles should increase its bargaining value with Washington. Indeed, Damascus is also putting on a show of diplomatic prowess, showing off its connections to all Iraqi sides and its willingness to consider its own best interest rather than simply following on Iran’s coat tails. Iraq, once the source of greatest contrast between Washington and Damascus, could become one of the avenues through which Syria and the USA will develop closer ties.
Syria’s contrasts with Iran over Iraq coincide with an intensification of its ties with Saudi Arabia over Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority. President al-Asad’s visit to Beirut alongside king Abdallah of Saudi Arabia was a clear sign Riyadh approves of Syria’s role in Lebanon; evidently, Saudi assent suggests that Damascus will use its influence to contain Hezbollah. The joint Saudi-Syrian visit to Beirut also puts an effective end to the affair concerning the murder of Rafiq al-Hariri in 2005, after which Saudi Arabia cut ties to Damascus, holding it responsible for the attack that took his life.
The ambiguity that characterizes Damascus’ emerging strategy of playing both sides should also appease Israeli concerns to some extent. The joint Syro-Saudi visit to Beirut shows Israel that Syria is more than willing to take a very pragmatic approach to secure its own goals (namely the Golan Heights) and that it was willing to weaken ties to regional players such as Hezbollah and Iran when suitable. Observers of the Israeli scene such as professor Alon Ben-Meir, at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU, suggests the Syro-Saudi event gives Israel an opportunity to resume peace talks with Syria. Moreover, Israel, concerned as it must be over the cooling of relations with Turkey since the humanitarian naval convoy “freedom Flotilla’ incident last June, could ask Turkey to mediate such talks in an effort to reduce tensions in the Middle East region. Syria, being Syria, would of course still maintain a close alliance with Iran, which remains an important economic power. In August, it was announced that Iranian gas would be shipped to Syria through an Iraqi pipeline which could lead to exports through the Mediterranean. Syria is not ideological, it is not in hock to any religious sect. It is indeed the most pragmatic power in the Middle East and its main goal is the return of the Golan. Syria probably also see in the new drive by the US administration to push for bilateral direct talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, another opportunity to stake its own claim for ‘regional peace’.
Note: To read more, click here |
|
|
>>>
Read full article: 'Syria' ( Reads) Comments? |
|
|
| Countries: Libya |
|
Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 11:42 AM |
BP’s Continued Fallout from Lockerbie
The release of Abdelmaset al-Megrahi, the sole convicted perpetrator of the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in August of 2009 continues to generate controversy. The case may not have prompted such renewed media interest, were it not for the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which drew negative attention into BP’s activities by US politicians. Having become a symbol of the ‘evil oil company,’ conveniently not a US business, BP’s activity in Libya has become an easy target for eager congressional representatives and senators, who want to show their voters that they care. It was only too convenient that BP secured an exclusive deal with the Libyan government to drill off the Libyan coast and to attribute this special arrangement as part of an exchange for the release of al-Megrahi. Newnations has already discussed the background of the al-Megrahi release, suggesting that the Scottish (and British) governments had little choice in the matter, given the risks that an appeal trial for the Lockerbie case, which was being pursued, could have reversed the entire conviction and case. Nevertheless, whether or not al-Megrahi’s release was released in exchange for BP’s benefit, the British oil giant has re-discovered the meaning of ‘political risk’ because of its involvement in Libya. Even while the US has removed Libya from the list of ‘state sponsors of terror’ (and this was prompted at the behest of the neo-con Bush administration in 2006), its leader’s temperamental eccentricities and history, cast a suspicious shadow not just on him, but over anyone doing business with that country.
Libya may have gotten off the infamous ‘terror list’, but its name can still conjure up the very essence of what and who Americans consider to be a terrorist, such was the anti-Libyan rhetoric of the 1980’s and 90’s, when Qadhafi was portrayed in a manner not unlike Osama bin-Laden of the recent decade. Therefore, it was not surprising that BP has announced in August that it would postpone its drilling project off the Libyan coast. The company did not cite environmental risks; even though there is no doubt that the new management wants to avoid another public relations disaster as it still has to confront the fallout of the Gulf of Mexico incident. Indeed, in late July the ‘Financial Times’ said that BP was ready to start the explorations in August as established in the accord that former CEO Browne signed with the Libyan leadership in 2007, which allotted five wells at over 1.7 km. below sea level – deeper than the wells in Louisiana.
So What Happened?
Some Mediterranean countries, in fact, have complained about environmental concerns; Italy has suggested enforcing a moratorium on potentially dangerous exploration in light of the Deepwater Horizon experience. These concerns are not new and they focus on the fact that the currents in the Mediterranean would take far longer to dissipate any pollution resulting from a mishap during the exploration phase. Nevertheless, the timing of BP’s decision to postpone drilling - which may well be due to technical concerns and additional precautions – is suspect and will fuel further speculation on the Lockerbie bomber release and BP’s alleged role in this episode. Meanwhile, former BP CEO Tony Hayward’s – or that of the Scottish officials concerned- continued reluctance to testify before a Congressional hearing will not help resolve the issue. It is now likely that Mr. Hayward will be subpoenaed seeing as the US government has decided to play the Libya card to rally the public against BP. Riding on the populist environmentalist wave, the US senate has also launched an investigation into US companies’ dealings with Libya and any related lobbying.
Senators are under pressure to investigate US companies’ involvement in the ‘Lockerbie bomber’ case, seeing as the same pressure that enabled Libya to be removed from the list of terror sponsoring states (while Syria is still in it, even if diplomatic relations are at a deeper level) was responsible for Libya having been exempted from legislation enabling American victims of state terrorism to sue Libya or any company operating in Libya. Such companies include Occidental and ConocoPhillips, among the first US companies to return to Libya after the 2004 WMD ‘renunciation’ by the Libyan leader. Oddly, one of the senators, leading the accusations against BP and Libya was one of the lead lobbyists in favour of getting Libya exempt from the above stated legislation.
BP says that it still plans to start drilling off the Libyan coast before the end of the year. However, the US senator who is leading the charge against the British oil company, Robert Menendez (D), is using this offshore deal as the principal evidence of collusion between BP and the British government over the al-Megrahi release. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are also maintaining pressure on BP ‘complaining’ that Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi has not died and that if he is still alive, he should live in prison. The US government is clearly out to punish BP and they are putting pressure on the British government. The new British government has in fact asked Libya to avoid lavish celebrations to mark the first anniversary of al-Megrahi’s release. The US-British argument over al-Megrahi has overshadowed the fact that many – and not just in Libya – have never been convinced of the Libyan’s guilt in the Lockerbie case. Libyans consider him a patriot for having sacrificed his freedom in order for the UN Security Council to withdraw sanctions, not to mention the fact that Libya has also paid almost USD two billion in compensation. The extent of the US reaction has actually prompted more than a few suspicions that Lockerbie is still an unresolved case, which demands a new inquiry, one that could have many embarrassments that are more serious in store. Megrahi continues to claim that he is innocent.
Libya’s Italian Trojan Horse
Libya has not launched any special celebrations to mark the anniversary of the release. This is not necessarily, because the leader, Qadhafi, has decided to be reasonable in the face of British prime minister Cameron’s request to avoid celebrations. It may be that it places great importance on the BP exploration project. The chair of the National Oil Company, Shokry Ghanem, was very adamant for BP to start drilling as soon as possible, while BP itself is looking at Libya to revive its fortunes in a huge offshore area. Shell, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron have already tried offshore drilling off Libya, they have failed to find hydrocarbons, and only the Italian ENI has had success in this area in wells drilled in the 1970’s at 200 meters depth (one fifth of the BP project). However, BP’s plans are the most ambitious to date and if oil is found, it could prove to be very significant for BP’s future and for Libya’s plans to increase oil production; the Libyan leadership is wise enough to know that now is not the time to be staging ‘celebrations’ that could compromise BP even further. Lest he be tempted, the Libyan leader will be in Italy for the last days of August to mark the second anniversary of the Italy-Libya cooperation deal. Italy is all the more important, as Libya is now a major shareholder in one of Italy’s largest banks, Unicredit (it second largest shareholder after Mediobanca), which now gives Libya an additional platform in which to invest abroad. Certainly, they will have access to large share quotas in Italy’s largest corporations including defense major Finmeccanica and even a movie production company co-owned by Italian prime minister and businessman Silvio Berlusconi . There are rumors that Libya could even take over the majority of the shares in Unicredit.
Note: To read more, click here |
|
| >>>
Comments? |
|
|
|
| Countries: Saudi Arabia |
|
Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 11:19 AM |
|
|
Entering the Nuclear Age
Iran’s inauguration of the Bushehr (on the Persian Gulf) nuclear plant and the arrival of the nuclear fuel rods from Russia has quietly inaugurated a new era of tensions in the Gulf region. Predictably, Israel and the United States have expressed their concerns and the mainstream media has focused on how a nuclear armed Iran would be able to deploy warheads against Israel – also because Iran has developed a drone jet having a range of over 1000 km. However, as concerned as the West and Israel may be over the now de-facto emergence of a ‘nuclear’ Iran, it is of great concern to Saudi Arabia as well. The Saudis do not object to Iran’s legitimate pursuit of nuclear power to generate electricity; it is concerned that Iran is pursuing the program in seeming defiance of the rest of the world and the relevant international authorities, raising suspicions about Iran’s intentions about developing a nuclear weapons capability. The Saudis are also concerned that Bushehr is closer to Arab capitals in the Persian Gulf than it is to Tehran, not to mention the fact that it faces the world’s largest oil route, putting these cities at risk should any regional or international power decide to ‘take out’ the nuclear plant – because Bushehr could also serve as the site for Iran’s potential nuclear weapons program. The Saudis are also worried by the risk of potential nuclear leakage, resulting from an attack or from a malfunction. Saudi Arabia has not yet advocated military retaliation against Iran, but it wants more intense IAEA attention and assurances that Iran’s nuclear effort is for civilian purposes only.
It is not difficult to imagine that Saudi Arabia may at some point also decide to invest in a nuclear program of its own. Several Gulf States have expressed interest in nuclear energy in response to the Iranian program, but the claimed ‘energy’ pursuit, cannot hide the fact that Arab countries are also considering pre-emptive nuclear weapons programs. The population of the Arabian Peninsula relies on desalination plants that are lined throughout the coast on the Gulf, these are easy targets for Iran, should it retaliate against an attack launched against Bushehr. The UAE have also been pursuing nuclear technology for civilian purposes and Egypt has also intensified its development. The arrival of the Russian fuel rods at Bushehr, then, may have launched a new ‘season’ in the Gulf region, which in the absence of any real peace-building efforts, remains as tense as ever. The nuclear shadow merely intensifies the existing tensions; a new (conventional) arms race may be the first direct result of Bushehr.
Saudi Arabia intends to acquire some USD 60 billion worth of weapons and the US Congress is expected to allow it with little objection. Israel has not voiced any particular opposition over the sale, which would include more than 80 F-15 fighter aircraft, Blackhawk helicopters and related armaments. Over the past few months, as noted by Newnations, there have been many rumors of a budding Israeli-Saudi cooperation centered on both countries’ concerns about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology. Both countries consider the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran as untenable. Of course the ‘passive’ Israeli stance on the sale – billed as the largest in US history – is also due to the fact that Tel Aviv would receive all details about the equipment and that by the time the F-15’s are delivered, Israel will have the more advanced F-35 joint strike fighter. From the Israeli perspective, a better armed Saudi Arabia is an asset in the present Middle East regional context.
The growing tensions in the Gulf region were also reflected by the Saudi decision to target ‘smartphone’ and ‘Blackberry’ communication devices in particular. The devices can have access to encrypted data, sent to offshore servers, evading local controls. The concern in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, which have also issued security motivated bans on the ‘Blackberries’, is that authorities are unable to identify spying or nefarious activity by militants. Iran is considered the greatest security risk: A military expert in Dubai suggested that as another phase of sanctions is launched against Iran, there is a lot of ‘electronic chatter’ about Iran that has raised security concerns against a potential ‘fifth-column’. Saudi Arabia has a vociferous and disgruntled Shiite population in its main oil producing region, while the UAE have close commercial ties to Iran and a large Iranian population. Fears of Iranian spying in Kuwait also contributed to the Blackberry ban. The Kuwaitis accused Iranians of identifying targets in case of a retaliatory strike against its nuclear facilities. The security concerns are also prompted by fears of al-Qaida, especially as the situation in Yemen which is dealing with two internal conflicts, has not been resolved.
Yemen
On July 25, ‘al-Qaida’ in Yemen took responsibility for two attacks against various infrastructures in the Shabwa province. The instability in Yemen is a source of great concern to its neighbors, and prevents these same neighbors from investing in the country, in such a way as to try to alleviate the socio-economic problems that fuel the tensions. Yemen’s president Saleh said that while foreign investment stood at over USD two billion in 1990, it was less than USD 10 million over the past five years. In 2009, al-Qaida tried to assassinate a Saudi prince and authorities argue that their control of the airwaves enabled them to monitor brewing terrorist or subversive activity, especially in the 2003-2006 periods, when authorities claimed to have used communications interceptions to avert a plan to topple the monarchy. Yemen has been intensifying its pursuit of militants, advising that it has arrested several militants, and stepped up security at important government facilities, at the end of August.
However, the ‘smartphone’ bans may have been issued to control a less bellicose problem but one that is more insidious in challenging the strict social mores of Gulf society. These communication devices have become ubiquitous among Saudi and Gulf youth and they are used as purely social devices, facilitating contact between the sexes. Smartphones are the most important ‘dating’ catalyst and they threaten to subvert the more conservative family arranged boy and girl meetings that are the norm. The local youth threat may also be seen in light of the growing youth unemployment problem in the Kingdom; it stood at 10.5% in 2009. A group of 200 young university graduates staged a street demonstration – very unusual – in Riyadh demanding the government give them jobs. The public display of dissent only adds to security fears, seeing as militants often recruit among those who are unemployed and university educated. Two-thirds of Saudis are less than 30 years old and they blame an inadequate education system that fails to give them modern job skills, while many companies hire non-Saudis at lower wages in the service economy. The Saudi government announced, in August, a plan to curb unemployment in the 2010-2014 period from 10.5% to 5.5%.
Note: To read more, click here |
|
|
>>>
Comments? |
|
|
| Countries: India |
|
Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 10:48 AM |
Kashmir in Flames
Kashmir is yet again in the eye of the storm but this time the problem stems from unrest within the state’s internal borders. Thousands of Kashmiri Muslims have been engaged in widespread protests against the administration of Jammu and Kashmir as well as the security forces. Frequent skirmishes between mobs and security forces has become quite common, often leading to the loss of innocent lives. The killing of innocent victims at the hands of government forces has caused tremendous outrage amongst many a Kashmir Muslim. Such unrest seems to be growing as part of a larger movement against government forces for the last two months which has claimed the lives of 62 people.
Tragically, accusations against India’s paramilitary forces for the use of brute and unwarranted force have been legitimate. The paramilitary forces have opened fire on angry mobs without exercising maximum restraint. Thousands of troops have been further deployed to maintain a sense of calm and reinstate law and order but the growing disillusionment amongst the Kashmiri youth seems to be far from over. In fact, the situation is dire. On August 15, India’s Independence Day, Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh urged the people of Kashmir to maintain peace and said that the government was willing to hold talks with separatist parties as the violence was not going to benefit anyone. The recent spate of clashes between civilians and Indian security forces in Kashmir strongly resembles the uprising by local people against corrupt government practices and the breakdown of law and order following the 1987 elections. Institutional decay and rampant corruption provided a fertile ground for Kashmiri youth to take up arms against the state who were further aided in their efforts by Pakistani agents. Hence, the current scenario does not only augur well for the internal stability and peace of Kashmir but also raises serious questions about the compromise of peace and security between India and Pakistan in the future. If the Indian Central government and the state government of Kashmir fails to address the growing unrest amongst the local population, they could very well face a situation in the near future where they may be forced to negotiate once again with Pakistan over Kashmir; a prospect that harbors dangerous ramifications for India’s national security.
India-China: Discord and Agreement
India has suspended a defense exchange with China following Beijing’s refusal to allow the Indian Army’s Northern Command Chief, Lt. Gen. B.S. Jaswal, to join a military delegation for a high-level visit. As a counter-response, India has refused to allow two Chinese Army captains to attend a defense course and a colonel to speak at a higher defense course. Indian Foreign Office Spokesperson, Vishnu Prakash said that “while we value our exchanges with China, there must be sensitivity to each others’ concerns and the dialogue with China on these issues is ongoing.” While such tensions have come to the fore on the defense side, in positive news, Human Resource Development Minister, Kapil Sibal will visit China from September 10 to 16 to attend the World Economic Forum in Tianjin between September 13 and 16. As part of this trip, both sides will agree to recognize the higher educational degrees of each country. China has emerged as a major higher education destination for Indians over the past six years. Over 7,000 Indians are pursuing higher education programs in China. Medicine is the most popular field for Indians there but many are also studying engineering and the humanities — especially languages. However, for quite a few years, Chinese courses were not recognized in India. The current initiative will help alleviate this problem.
Privatizing the Nuclear Industry
The Indian Parliament has adopted a controversial piece of legislation that will open up the country’s $150 billion atomic energy market to overseas suppliers. The legislation also known as the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill was passed this week in the Lok Sabha and had the full support of the opposition Hindu nationalist Bhartiya Janata Party. It will then be submitted to the Upper House, the Rajya Sabha where it is expected to pass, after which it will be sent to the president for his signature.
The US-India accord, endorsed by the Vienna-based 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group, permitted India since 2008 to trade in civil nuclear fuel and equipment in return for international inspection of 14 of its 22 atomic reactors. The remaining eight military reactors and related facilities linked will not be subject to IAEA inspections. According to highly complex provisions in the Liability Nuclear Bill, a claims commissioner – a senior bureaucrat or judicial officer appointed by the government – would adjudicate all claims within 90 days for lesser nuclear accidents. Larger claims for more serious incidents would be decided by the respective provincial high courts or the federal supreme court within a decade. The damages for these claims would be limitless.
India and Afghanistan
India and Afghanistan concluded two days of talks during a visit to New Delhi by Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rassoul, saying they would work together to combat terrorism in the region. Rassaoul met Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and held talks with his Indian counterpart S.M. Krishna on issues ranging from trade to fighting terrorism. They also discussed the possibility of transforming Afghanistan into a center for promoting trade between Central and South Asia.
Note: To read more, click here |
|
| >>>
Read full article: 'India' ( Reads) Comments? |
|
|
|
| Countries: Bangladesh |
|
Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 10:39 AM |
|
|
High Court Verdict Declares Seventh Amendment Illegal
In what is being hailed as a landmark verdict, the Bangladesh High Court has denounced the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution as illegal. This very amendment was responsible for legalizing General Ershad’s regime. In February of this year, the appellate division of the Supreme Court had declared the Fifth Amendment to be illegal. That amendment had legalized the regime of General Zia-ur-Rahman. The court noted that during General Ershad’s nine-year rule, the country’s Constitution was made subordinate to martial law; deemed unconstitutional. While the Fifth Amendment ratified all changes made to the Constitution and all government activities between August 15, 1975 and April 9, 1979, giving legitimacy to three regimes including that of General Ziaur Rahman, the Seventh Amendment ratified the proclamation of martial law and other orders by General Ershad between March 24, 1982, and November 10, 1986. General Ershad, the then Chief of Army Staff, declared himself the Chief Martial Law Administrator and imposed martial law on March 24, 1982. The High Court’s decision to declare both amendments as illegal perhaps denotes a changing role for Bangladesh’s courts. Yet it may also be interesting to note whether such changes are a result of a broader, legitimate movement to uphold democratic principles in a country that has been fraught by instability, authoritarian rule and corrupt leaders. Also, in producing such verdicts, scholars of constitutional law should address whether the Court system in Bangladesh is working towards the betterment of its citizens by providing them with larger lessons through such cases.
Bangladesh’s Interest in the IPI Project
A local news agency has reported that Bangladesh is displaying a keen interest in Iran’s offer to join the proposed Iran, Pakistan and India pipeline also known as the Peace Pipeline. A senior official from Bangladesh’s Finance Ministry has noted that since the pipeline will reach Calcutta, it would tremendously benefit Bangladesh’s dwindling gas reserves if the country were to be included in the project. Currently, while Bangladesh’s total demand for gas supplies stands at 2300 million cubic feet, it is falling short of this demand by 300 million cubic feet.
A Thousand Prisoners Released
In what appears to be a rather strange move, approximately one thousand prisoners have been released from Bangladesh’s jails to ease the problem of overcrowding. Most of these prisoners had served almost 20 years without receiving a trial. Bangladesh’s 67 prisons are known for their overcrowded character and appalling living conditions. Some of the female prisoners have also been subject to abuse in the past while others are suffering from serious illnesses like tuberculosis. But even though overcrowding could be an issue, releasing a thousand prisoners to deal with the problem hardly seems to address the larger issues involved. A more appropriate method of dealing with the problem would be to address years of neglect and instead focus on building much-needed infrastructure. Moreover, the problem obviously speaks directly to a faulty and weak trial system. If prisoners are not receiving a trial even after 20 years, then the problem of overcrowded prisons seems to be the least of the country’s worries! It is rather shocking to an observer that the situation has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that releasing prisoners is considered to be the more appropriate method to deal with the problem.
Note: To read more, click here |
|
|
>>>
Read full article: 'Bangladesh' ( Reads) Comments? |
|
|
| Countries: Taiwan |
|
Posted on Friday, August 27, 2010 - 10:53 AM |
The Economic Framework Cooperation Agreement (EFCA) with China has now passed into law. Taiwan’s unicameral legislature ratified the accord on 17 August after 10 hours of debate. Not unexpectedly, the KMT dominated house, voted down all amendments proposed by the opposition DPP party. Government legislators naturally praised the accord saying “its implementation will ensure the country’s prosperity for 50 or 60 years”. Those in the Opposition naturally took the reverse view claiming that the ECFA has been “cooked up by the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party” to bring Taiwan under the control of China economically and hastening unification.
It is still too early to tell how the ECFA will alter the course of Taiwan’s future development but given the continued expansion of China’s hegemony over East Asia, analysts are probably right to sound the warnings – they are there for all too see.
Over the past decade and even under the DPP leadership, Taiwan’s economy has become increasingly dependent on the Chinese mainland in what has been termed a triangular pattern of trade whereby orders are booked in Taiwan but manufactured and shipped from China to other markets. One Taiwanese newspaper editorial has pointed out that the percentage of Taiwan’s trade carried out in this manner has grown from 13 percent in year 2000 to 50 percent this year. It is this triangular trade arrangement that has led to a hollowing out of Taiwan’s manufacturing base (with consequent declines in employment levels) despite the continued growth of exports and GDP.
The key question is whether the signing of the ECFA will reverse this pattern by allowing Taiwan to sign trade agreements with other countries and perhaps develop new industries (especially in services) or will it act as a vacuum cleaner sucking up what remains of Taiwan’s industrial base and transplanting it to China. The signs so far do not give much cause for optimism.
But first the good news; the government has once more upgraded Taiwan’s domestic growth prospects for this year based on improving export orders, better than expected private investment as well as robust consumer spending. The 6.14 percent domestic growth forecast for 2010 announced back in May, has now been revised to 8.24 percent.
GDP rose 12.53 percent year-on-year in the second quarter, the third consecutive quarter of growth since Taiwan came out of the 2009 recession. For the two remaining quarters of the year, further quarterly expansion rates of 6.9 percent and 1.37 percent are forecast. Looking ahead, the outlook for 2011 is for a growth rate of 4.64 percent.
The main reason for the slowdown of growth in the latter part of the year has been attributed to the base effect rather than any significant real slowdown. This could be an oversimplification as the most recent economic data from the major economies suggest that the pace of recovery could be slowing with the debt crisis in Europe not yet resolved and unemployment in the United States remaining stubbornly high.
The value of export orders in July, at US$33.8 billion, climbed to their fourth highest level ever and their second highest level since the global financial meltdown. Cumulative orders from January to July totalled $227.9 billion, a year-on-year rise of 35.2 percent (but remember the low base effect). Taiwan is hoping that for the year as a whole, orders will surpass $400 billion.
All of this looks very encouraging, but as the Taipei Times pointed out recently in an editorial, few benefits from this continued economic expansion are trickling down to the person in the street. The wealth disparity in Taiwan is at a record high: “In 2008, those in the top 5 percent of the income pyramid enjoyed, on average, an annual income of NT$4.5 million (US$140,530). The bottom 5 percent only earned an average of NT$68,000. In 1998, the highest incomes were only 32 times more than the lowest.” It appears that the winners in the economy are the exporters and their shareholders who are able to invest their growing wealth in property, pushing home prices ever higher. The same editorial pointed out that the cost of a home in Taipei City now represents more than 11 years of salary for the average wage earner.
It is hard to see how the ECFA can improve matters for the man in the street. Other commentators have drawn attention to the manner in which China is now enticing Taiwan’s high-tech farmers to China under the guise of cross-straits agricultural cooperation. As a result, high-value domestic Taiwan species: animal, fish and plant are now being bred in China on a large-scale sufficient to become a threat to Taiwan’s rural industries. Low cost entry of these products into China from Taiwan is only possible if there is a market for them. If China is replacing Taiwanese exports with domestic local production, then rather than expanding the market for Taiwan produce, it will simply disappear entirely. And once China produces these species in sufficient quantities to export, Taiwan is in further difficulty.
Despite the continued reassurance from President Ma Ying-jeou that the signing of cross-straits economic pacts have no political significance; such claims are sounding increasingly hollow. China’s agenda for Taiwan is clear for those who want to read the signs and is worrisome not only for Taiwan but for much of East Asia.
Back in the 1990s China passed domestic legislation claiming the entire South China Sea as its territorial waters; this was widely considered to be an ambit claim since many other countries bordering the Sea, including Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines were making claims of their own. Recently China upped the ante by proclaiming to visiting US officials in March that the South China Sea was part of its “core national interests” and crucial to its territorial integrity.
Similar to its claim to Taiwan, this puts the matter beyond negotiation as far as China is concerned.
One third of the world’s maritime commerce passes through the South China Sea and the implications of this declaration are only too clear. This is a clear laying down of the gauntlet to the United States and in particular the US Navy.
The US attitude towards China’s strategic expansion has appeared ambivalent and as a consequence, President Barack Obama’s overtures towards China have given Beijing the impression of US weakness. This has tempted China’s leaders to press their advantage believing that the US is unwilling to challenge China directly. While US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was quick to reassure ASEAN nations that the US considers the maintenance of security and stability in the South China Sea as matters of US national interest, China’s foreign minister Yang Jiechi, was equally quick to issue a condemnation of Clinton’s comments.
And while ASEAN is seeking multinational negotiations to resolve issues involving common interest maritime areas, Beijing is equally adamant in insisting that the ASEAN countries negotiate bilaterally.
A multilateral forum would, of course, involve the United States, Japan and possibly Korea and this is the last thing that China would want to happen. Nevertheless, where there is action there is reaction. The interesting aspect in all of this is that such a multilateral form – whether or not Taiwan was given a seat at the table (and the likelihood is that it would not be invited) – would serve to give Taiwan a little more freedom to manoeuvre.
But not only has Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou followed a policy of appeasement towards Beijing, he is on the record as vowing that no matter what, he will never ask the US to defend Taiwan. No wonder that most of Taiwan’s population are bewildered.
With the US economy decidedly shaky, the question for the State Department to ponder is how to deal itself back into the game.
Note: To read more, click here |
|
| >>>
2 Comments |
|
|
|
| Countries: Ukraine |
|
Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 01:58 PM |
|
|
The most important geopolitical relationship for Ukraine by far is that with its giant neighbour, Russia. Its own capital, Kiev, was once the capital of Rus, the origin of Russia. To this day Russians do not really regard Ukraine as a foreign country.
Putin and Yakunovich meet in Crimea
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Vyktor Yanukovych held talks on a wide-range of issues on August 1. The meeting took place at Mr. Yanukovych's vacation home in the town of Foros on Ukraine's Crimea peninsula. Russian media reports say the talks focused on trade issues.
Prior to the meeting, Mr. Putin participated in a motorcycle rally near the port city of Sevastopol on the Black Sea coast of the Crimea peninsula. Mr. Putin roared to the rally on a Harley Davidson motorcycle where he addressed thousands of motorcycle enthusiasts.
Mr. Putin's visit to the Crimea coincided with Russia's Navy Day, which is observed on August 2 every year. Sevastopol is home to Ukrainian naval forces and to Russia's Black Sea fleet. Speaking on August 1 Mr. Putin said it was symbolic of the friendship between Russia and Ukraine that both Russian and Ukrainian seamen will celebrate the Russian holiday.
The Russian base at Sevastopol was a major issue of contention between Russia and Ukraine after the break up of the Soviet Union. Ukraine's previous government wanted the Russian fleet to leave after its lease expired in 2017. However after Mr. Yanukovych came to power in February, Moscow and Kiev signed an agreement to extend the Russian lease by another 25 years to the year 2042.
Russia ready to demarcate border with Ukraine
Russia has officially confirmed its readiness to demarcate its border with Ukraine. Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Oleh Voloshyn told journalists on August 3 that the ministry received the official confirmation from Moscow on that day. Voloshyn said a special commission will be created in the near future to work on the demarcation of the border.
The agreement on the border demarcation is considered important for the possible introduction of visa-free travel for Ukrainians to European Union countries. A demarcation agreement was signed by the presidents of Russia and Ukraine, Dmitry Medvedev and Viktor Yanukovych, respectively, in Kiev on May 17.
Moscow and Kiev have been at odds regarding the Russian-Ukrainian border in the strait connecting the Sea of Azov with the Black Sea since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
In 2003 Ukraine officially accused Russia of trespassing upon Ukrainian territory, when Russia began building a dam on Tuzla Island in the Kerch Strait. The conflict was resolved after the then-presidents of Ukraine and Russia, Leonid Kuchma and Vladimir Putin, respectively, signed an agreement on the joint use of the Azov Sea and Kerch Strait in December 2003.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has been reluctant to demarcate its borders with several former Soviet neighbours, namely the Baltic states, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and the countries in the Caucasus.
Nationalists protest visit by Russian patriarch
Nationalist groups have always been wary of Russia in Ukraine. They gathered near the "Ukrainian House" in Kiev to protest Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill's visit to Ukraine in late July.
The some 80 protesters gathered representing the nationalist Svoboda (Liberty) party, the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists, Ukrainian National Assembly-Ukrainian National Self Defence, and the Ukrainian People's Party. They staged a performance called "Glamorous Tour of a Moscow KGB Agent" that was officially banned by the Kiev authorities on July 26.
The protesters also displayed Ukrainian flags, their party banners, and placards saying "Reverend Kirill muddies the waters for the Ukrainian nation" and "No to the Moscow priest-colonizer!" About 30 policemen watched the protest but did not intervene. No violence was reported.
Other protests during Kirill's eight-day trip had been disrupted or otherwise disallowed.
Kirill, who started his visit to Ukraine on July 20, attended a religious service on Kiev's Volodymyr Hill on July 27 to celebrate the day of Russia's conversion to Christianity.
Anti-corruption drive top priority
Ukraine has slid to place 146 (out of 180) in Transparency International's corruption index for 2009.
Since the election of President Yanukovych, the new Ukrainian government has announced several anti-corruption measures, including welcome steps to deregulate business. That in turn could help cut the number of opportunities for corruption.
But many Ukrainian and foreign business people continue to report that corruption is a major problem in Ukraine - even at the simplest level of the reputation of the traffic police for demanding bribes.
Note: To read more, click here |
|
|
>>>
Read full article: 'Ukraine' ( Reads) Comments? |
|
|
| Countries: Uzbekistan |
|
Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 01:56 PM |
Who really rules in Tashkent?
Rumours abound that President Islam Karimov is on his last legs and about to expire. But these have abounded for years. Yet he is still upright, at least physically, and there are plenty of signs he is firmly in charge.
There is a power game going on in Tashkent for all that. Three months after the assets of Uzbekistan's largest foreign investor, Zeromax, were seized by the State Security Service, mystery still surrounds the motive behind the move.
Zeromax is widely understood to have links with Gulnara Karimova, President Karimov's daughter and Uzbekistan's richest woman with an estimated fortune of $570m. One theory is that the asset grab was part of a power struggle between Karimova and Prime Minister Shavkat Mirziyaev, who has been the driving force for a series of attacks on successful local entrepreneurs this year. Karimova's earlier appointment as Uzbekistan's ambassador to Spain indicates she is most likely planning a future outside the country.
More prosaically, Zeromax had become increasingly loaded with an estimated $500m of debt as it was forced, like other successful Uzbek businesses, to act as a banker to failing state enterprises. Signs the company was struggling financially came earlier this year when plans to build a $150m stadium for its football club Bunyodkor were abandoned. Bunyodkor also let go Luiz Felipe Scolari, the former Chelsea manager it had hired at vast expense less than a year earlier. The government found that Zeromax wasn't paying a lot of taxes, speculates one local entrepreneur. "The background of the company was really strong, but the state decided to punish them in the struggle against all strong local businessmen."
Yet there is another explanation - that Tashkent moved against Zeromax under pressure from Russia. While relations have warmed between Russia and Uzbekistan recently, Russian oil majors are understood to have resented Zeromax's dominance within the Uzbek economy, where its tentacles stretch across sectors from oil and gas to agriculture to textiles. There are rumours that after the asset seizure, 51% of Zeromax's shares were transferred to Uzbekistan's state energy company Uzbekneftegaz - the remaining 49% to an unnamed Russian.
Tashkent hosts Central Asian summit with Japan
Meanwhile, foreign relations in other directions must be kept up. Uzbekistan chaired a meeting of five of the former Soviet Central Asian nations with Japan, which opened on July 31. This was the first such meeting of Central Asian foreign ministers with Japan's foreign minister since 2004. The meeting's agenda included discussions on regional security and advancement of various economic programmes.
Japan has made considerable investment in the Central Asian countries. According to the European Union, Uzbekistan exported 66.8 million euros' worth of goods to Japan in 2009. In May, Uzbekistan signed a $300 million loan agreement with the Japan International Cooperation Agency.
President Karimov took part in an informal summit of the heads of state of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) on July 31 in Issyk-Kul, Kyrgyzstan. This rather indicates that he is still the boss.
Karimov firmly articulated Uzbekistan's position against deploying a CSTO base in southern Kyrgyzstan, saying it was not in the interests of regional security. Yet it was Tashkent that proposed deployment of the Police Advisory Group of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
The 52-person unarmed police presence is still not fully deployed and faces opposition from local officials in southern Kyrgyzstan, who have even ominously claimed they cannot guarantee its security. While the CSTO declined to send peace-keepers to quell riots in southern Kyrgyzstan in June, the security body promised equipment to assist the Kyrgyz police, but it has not yet been delivered.
Kyrgyzstan's Interim President Roza Otunbayeva has acknowledged that Kyrgyz security forces abused the rights of minority Uzbeks during the June conflict, including in a police sweep of the village of Nariman. The admission comes following allegations from rights groups and the United Nations that Kyrgyz security forces targeted Uzbeks after the riots.
On August 2, a Kyrgyz national commission set up by presidential decree began investigating the violence in the south. Kyrgyz Ombudsman Tursunbek Akun told RFE/RL that he is performing his own investigation with another commission made up of 13 people from different ethnic groups, including Uzbeks. Akun said he will make the results of his inquiry know by September 30, i.e. before the October parliamentary elections. Finnish MP Kimmo Kiljunen, who is heading up an international investigation at the request of Otunbayeva, visited Moscow and Geneva in a quest for more support for his inquiry, which reportedly would not be completed before the elections.
The UN has not formally responded to Otunbayeva's request on July 21 for participation in the international inquiry. A Security Council meeting August 5 with a briefing by Ambassador Miroslav Jenca of the UN Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia produced only a weak compromise statement indicating general support for the diplomatic efforts of the Centre.
Faced with lack of justice at home, tens of thousands of ethnic Uzbeks are departing from Kyrgyzstan for Russia, Kazakhstan, and other neighbouring countries, EurasiaNet reports. Their desperation has proven fertile ground for rampant bribe-taking from various officials who demand extensive paperwork before authorizing departure.
Tashkent is expanding its de-facto trade embargo against Dushanbe, levying new tariffs for trucks crossing the border, and continuing to delay train freight bound for Tajikistan. With freight delayed for seven months, Tajik businesses have suffered losses, and the government is worried about its long-term economic impact. Freight destined for Afghanistan for U.S. and NATO operations is also delayed.
In response to increasing international coverage of the problem of forced sterilizations in Uzbekistan, the state-sponsored media is fighting back with a series of propagandistic pieces portraying generous maternal policies in Uzbekistan, claiming the government is promoting maternal health care and is reducing the number of abortions. The government boasted of a $5 million program to supply vitamins to pregnant women, and also said that the number of abortions has been reduced by a factor of five since 1990, with more than 60 percent of women of fertile age using intrauterine devices (IUDs).
Yet in reporting on its progress, the government failed to indicate just how many women had undergone "surgical contraception" as sterilization is known. And in describing a policy of only offering the procedure voluntarily with the consent of a woman and her spouse, the government only further revealed that women are not free to make their own reproductive decisions. NGOs report that doctors in fact have received verbal orders to increase the number of sterilizations, and urge women to find ways to avoid telling their spouses, who have been known to abandon women who have opted for sterilization. The Expert Working Group and other local NGOs in Uzbekistan have also reported that women have been forced to undergo the procedure, or have had their reproductive organs removed without their knowledge when undergoing surgery.
Some activists fear that under cover of his newly-burnished reputation -- even if deserved for his temporary housing of those fleeing pogroms in Kyrgyzstan -- President Karimov has sanctioned a concerted crackdown on his domestic critics. It is too early to tell whether there are more court cases than usual in violation of basic international standards for freedom of speech and association, but they have continued steadily in recent months.
Note: To read more, click here |
|
| >>>
Read full article: 'Uzbekistan' ( Reads) Comments? |
|
|
|
| Countries: Turkmenistan |
|
Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 01:54 PM |
|
|
The Turkmen hotspot
Turkmenistan is one of the biggest energy giants of all time. Its portion of the Caspian Sea holds an estimated 11 billion tonnes of oil and 5.5 tcm of gas; 32 licensed blocks are up for tender.
It was in Soviet times totally under the wing of Moscow. It naturally wishes to diversify from the Muscovite embrace.
It has a new ruler, President Kurbanguly Berdymukhmedov, who was the dentist of former president Saparmurat Niyazov, who died in December 2007. He bears a striking resemblance to him, except of course with more glossy black hair. A chip off the old block?
Well, he clearly wants to be his own man. This means courting the West - but also the East.
U.S. majors win first offshore oil concessionsM
Turkmenistan on August 13 offered U.S. energy majors their first concessions in the Central Asian state and said it was pursuing a $4.1 billion loan from China to develop one of the world's five largest natural gas fields and ship the gas east.
State television named Chevron Corp, ConocoPhillips, Houston-based TXOil Ltd and Abu Dhabi-based Mubadala Oil and Gas as the preferred bidders for two offshore oil blocks within Turkmenistan's portion of the Caspian Sea.
It also reported that Turkmenistan expected to secure a loan from China to develop the lucrative South Iolotan gas deposit, the second round of financing for a project contracted out to Chinese state oil and gas firm CNPC and other Asian companies.
Ex-Soviet Turkmenistan is looking to diversify energy sales from its traditional market, Russia, and is courting investors from the West, China and other Asian countries keen for a share of gas to be pumped from the world's fourth-largest reserves.
"President Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov gave the order to the relevant sector leaders to hold productive negotiations with the State Development Bank of China for the receipt of a favourable loan of $4.1 billion," state television reported.
A source in the government, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters the credit was required for the second phase of South Iolotan, a deposit that Turkmenistan estimates could contain up to 16 trillion cubic metres (tcm) of gas.
British firm Gaffney, Cline and Associates audited the field in 2008 and said at the time it contained between 4 and 14 tcm.
The first pipeline between gas-rich central Asia and energy-hungry China opened in 2009 and the expanded link should be able to carry up to 40 bcm of gas a year to China by 2012-13, if enough gas is pumped out of the ground to fill the multi-billion dollar pipelines.
"There's obviously a supply risk involved in that and one way that they can mitigate the supply risk for this pipeline is by ensuring that the investment goes into the upstream project," Ian Thom, head of Caspian energy research at Wood Mackenzie in Edinburgh said.
"They can't build the pipeline and then not have the gas. This to me just looks like another step in China's penetration into the Central Asia energy sphere."
Chevron had earlier held talks about its possible participation in developing the South Iolotan field, a company official said in November.
Its selection among the four companies to drill blocks 9 and 20 in the Caspian Sea marks a step forward for U.S. companies in the country, which had to date been unable to secure licences. Richard Morningstar, Washington's energy envoy for the Eurasian region, said during a visit to Ashgabat on Aug. 3 that U.S. companies had made "a lot of progress" with offshore projects in Turkmenistan.
The same government source told Reuters that ConocoPhillips and Mubadala had bid together for access to the Caspian. The two companies are already working on an offshore oil joint venture in Kazakhstan's portion of the sea.
State television, while naming the companies, revealed neither the size of the blocks nor the investment involved.
Trans-Afghan link
The same television report also cited an order from President Berdymukhamedov to conclude a preliminary gas supply contract with Pakistan and India by the end of this year.
The government source said India and Pakistan had expressed interest in buying up to 70 billion cubic metres of Turkmen gas annually via an ambitious trans-Afghan pipeline, known as TAPI after the four countries through which it would pass.
"This pipeline, at a cost of $3.3 billion, could bring peace and stability to Afghanistan, as well as jobs and hard currency," the Turkmen government source said.
He said gas could be drawn both from South Iolotan and the existing Dovletabad field. The planned pipeline would run for nearly 2,000 km (1,250 miles), including 735 km across Afghanistan and another 800 km through Pakistan.
Note: To read more, click here |
|
|
>>>
Comments? |
|
|
|
|
|
