Posts by thedailyjournalist:

List of all military violations conducted by Russia in the world 2014-15

July 27th, 2015

 

 

 

By Thomas Frear.

 

 



Click bellow

List of all military violations conducted by Russia in the world 2014-15

 

Comments Off on List of all military violations conducted by Russia in the world 2014-15

Plant extracts to replace antibiotics for farm animals

July 21st, 2015

 

By Nutec.

The Mexican company Grupo Nutec manufactured the product Plofora based on plant extracts to replace antibiotics for farm animals, in order to naturally activate specific genes that strengthen their immune system and simultaneously prevent bacteria to develop resistance to drugs.



Credit:  Investigación y Desarrollo

When animals consume antibiotics as growth promoters (metabolites of bacteria or fungi), people who eat their meat also ingest the drugs. This situation, with the passage of time, led the bacteria Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus to be strengthened and show greater resistance at being removed from the host, even with the use of drugs.

Proflora avoids development of resistance to medical antibiotics, replacing them by a mixture of oleoresins (resin and oil) with herbal extracts and phytobiotics, which activate key genes that activate the immune system in animals, said the engineer Rodrigo Garcia Ortega, assistant of research and special product innovation at Nutec group.

The company that participated in the 2015 edition of the Award for Technological Innovation ADIAT, opted for immunity and gut health, through modulation of the intestinal flora to inhibit the proliferation of tumor cells and strengthen the immune system to fight viral and digestive diseases in farm animals such as chickens, hens and pigs.

 



Credit:  Investigación y Desarrollo

The Proflora product is sold in bags of 20 kilos. Their most frequent customers are different farms and food industry throughout Mexico. According to the annual business report, in 2014 the company sold more than 500 tons.

Oleoresins administered with food have an immunomodulatory effect, which increases the ability of the immune system to exercise one or more of its functions, including the production of antibodies, antigen recognition, or the secretion of inflammatory mediators.

With the creation of specific antibodies it is possible to regulate diseases like influenza in birds, which involves an inflammatory process, and can be eliminated by strengthening the immune system.

The engineer explained that “to obtain the natural extracts we use a liquid process by solvent, where they are evaporated and the oleoresin is micro encapsulated in a fat matrix so as to make the final powder”.

By obtaining a powder we can ration the amount of product between 20 and one hundred grams of the product in a ton of food. Natural extracts such as cinnamon, chili, ginger, turmeric, anise and cloves are sensitive to oxygen and pH, so by having it encapsulated the product is better protected”.

Moreover, the short-term plan for the company is to finalize research that aims to detect the effect of the product on gene expression in immune cells and observe the changes at the level of genes. This requires a partnership with the Institute of Biotechnology of the National University of Mexico (UNAM) in Cuernavaca, located south of Mexico City. (Agencia ID)

Comments Off on Plant extracts to replace antibiotics for farm animals

The US and Cuba reestablish full relations

July 21st, 2015

 

 

 

By The Daily Journalist.



 

The Cold War has ended in the Caribbean.  United States and Cuba have restored full diplomatic relations, interrupted on January 4, 1961 after the sharpening of a revolutionary political conflict between the two nations.

This morning, about 500 people participated in a ceremony where the Cuban flag will be hoisted at the embassy in Washington, while in Havana will be a normal day at the US embassy, ​​which only hoisted their flag at the end of August, when John Kerry’s trip to the island, the first visit by a Secretary of State since 1948.

For the occasion, Havana Washington has sent a delegation of 28 people, representing government and society that no member of the internal opposition has been invited. The group is chaired by Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, and includes personalities such as former Cuban Parliament President Ricardo Alarcon, who for decades was in charge of all Cuban diplomacy related to US singer Silvio Rodriguez, historian Eusebio Leal and a couple of state firms entrepreneurs, two scientists and even a featured couple of peasants.

On the US side they have been invited to attend the Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson, who led the talks of restoring relations with Havana, and the current charge d’affaires of the United States in Havana, Jeffrey DeLaurentis.

After the hoisting of the flag, Rodriguez will deliver a short speech and a small snack will continue. Among the 500 American guests appear Congressmen and senators, local politicians, academics, former diplomats and activists who for decades championed the cause of Cuba in soil its northern neighbor.

The preparation of the ceremony began a few weeks ago when the flagpole was erected. On Friday a group of workers ripped wall plaque that identified the property as the ‘Cuba Interests Section’ and replaced it with one that reads, “Embassy of the Republic of Cuba.” The two countries established tenuous diplomatic links in 1977 during the administration of President Jimmy Carter.

By early afternoon after the ceremony, Cuban Foreign Minister, who is visiting Washington for the first time, moved to the headquarters of the State Department for a meeting with Kerry to participate in the placement of the Cuban flag in the main atrium where all the flags of the countries with which the US had full diplomatic relations are.

The Cuban embassy building was built in 1917 and renovated in recent years. It is a magnificent three-story mansion with a huge marble staircase and also the offices of the ambassador and secretaries, houses a small private bar called ‘Hemingway’, in homage to the American writer who lived for decades in Cuba.

Currently there shall be ambassadors appointed. In the American case it will be a difficult task because several congressmen of Cuban origin have said they will torpedo the nomination. In Havana, the process is different but still has not revealed a name. So, for now, the embassies will be chaired by a charge d’affaires, DeLaurentis the US, and Jose Ramon Cabañas by Cuban.

Last week, Cuban President Raul Castro, explained to parliament that the opening of embassies is “the first stage” of a process of “normalization”, but still are many issues to be resolved. Cuba calls for an end to the US embargo, the return of the Guantanamo Naval Base, compensation for the prejudice caused by the embargo, the end of the radio and TV Martí and the repeal of the aid programs to the internal opposition .

“Then it will start a new stage, long and complex, on the way to the normalization of relations, which require will to find solutions to problems that have accumulated over five decades and affect ties between our countries and peoples” Castro emphasized.

Comments Off on The US and Cuba reestablish full relations

Democracy versus dictatorships: What works better?

July 21st, 2015

 

 

 

Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.

 

 



Peter C. Caldwell. 

Professor Caldwell is Professor of History at Rice University. He is a Humboldt Fellow, and has received grants from the DAAD and the Humboldt Foundation, as well as a residential fellowship at the Center for German and European Studies at Georgetown University.

 

 

1) People are afraid of autocratic governments because in many cases it subdues the will of the majority. Can dictatorships be a better solution in some cases than seeking a western democratic solution?

Before anything else, we need to clarify what is meant by “dictatorship.” The ancient model of dictatorship involved assigning extraordinary powers to a leader during a crisis: the powers were derived from, for example, a republic, and were intended to be used to restore order. This was the model familiar to the Founders in the U.S., when they granted George Washington extraordinary powers during the crisis of the Revolutionary War.

A second model is the one that Washington himself resisted: a dictator, usually from the military, who holds on to his powers after a crisis—perhaps invoking a permanent crisis as justification.

To these two kinds of dictatorships should be added a third: a dictatorship that emerges out of a revolution, when existing institutions are not yet in place. Revolutionary dictatorships may also be temporary—or permanent. Europe has known all of these kinds of dictatorship over the past hundred years.

The questions that follow assume that “dictatorship” and “democracy” are clearly distinguished; that is possible only if we ignore the transitional dictatorships.

2)  Do some countries need dictatorships to run more efficiently or should all be run via democratically?

We need to be clear: both democracies and dictatorships can be singularly inefficient—and either can function well over a long period of time (depending on how “well” is defined). The argument of those calling for some form of dictatorship, usually on the right at present, is directed against the inefficiencies of democracy. And indeed, democracies in countries with severe disagreements can be not just inefficient, but dysfunctional. Where was the ground for compromise in Germany before 1933? Where in Spain before 1936? Italy, too, was divided before Mussolini came to power.

But to bemoan division—”pluralism” in the terms of mid-century authoritarian thought—is one thing, to conceive of a dictatorship as the solution to pluralism another. Dictatorship does not solve the real divisions that lead to civil strife, it suppresses them. But the divisions remain—and interests continue to express themselves, but in complicated and opaque ways. Powerful interests seek the back channels to power, without having to fear exposure. The Marxist-Leninist claim that the Party could stand above mere interests and rule in the interest of some general will doesn’t accord with the ferocious infighting for influence, or the willingness to provide subventions for one project over another. Dictatorship does not solve pluralism.

Nor does it necessarily provide for peace. The less opinions can be expressed, the less real experience there is in democracy—and the worse the threat to peace over the long run. This is one important strand of the tragic story of the Arab Spring. In China, one wonders: on the one hand, the Party seems to have handled a transition to a more dynamic economy and a more open society with care and without any explosions: but will the result be a greater explosion down the line?

Now, let’s step back for a moment and think about the transitional forms of dictatorship. 1918-1919 in Germany: the old regime crumbles, the Social Democrats are thrust into power, and they know that they are essentially operating via dictatorship.

Their aims are three:

a) to end the war,

b) to maintain domestic peace,

c) to enact a handful of basic social changes,

d) to hold elections of a new national assembly that can draft a democratic constitution.

There are many historians who would disagree with me on this, but I consider their project a reasonable one—they could have gone farther with their dictatorial powers, but they instead bet on democratic representation. Why? In part on principle, in part to avoid an all out civil war.

Here is a second example, with which I do not agree, coming from the late historian Henry A. Turner: in 1932, Germany was falling apart at the seams, and the Nazis were threatening to come to power. Under these conditions a military dictatorship made sense. Turner is relying in part on hindsight to make his argument: what could have been worse than Nazism? He is also possibly putting too much faith in the military leadership, which was hardly a peace-loving group. Under such extraordinary conditions, when a democracy is self-destructing, of course, his argument has some merit. Even here, though, I wonder whether the solution would be a real solution.

But by “dictatorship” I think that you mean a specific form of government: lasting military rule by an individual or junta. Setting democracy and dictatorship up against each other ignored the fact that 150 years ago, democratic republics were a rarity (and not always so “democratic” in our sense). Other alternatives were possible, from constitutional governments based on unequal representation to monarchies to empires with special representative bodies for different groups. It would be interesting to reexamine these 19th century solutions again, instead of staying trapped within a crude model of dictatorship vs. democracy.

3) Dictatorships are regarded as somehow negative for most people. What is the biggest public misconception regarding dictatorships?

The biggest misconception is that dictatorship as an institution is alien to our own system: see, again, George Washington. There are different kinds of dictatorships over history—and in some cases, e.g. the US South during Jim Crow, local democracy could take on quite dictatorial forms.

4) Democracy allows all voters from different social classes and backgrounds to elect leaders. If the majority of the voters has no idea about national or international policies, and yet have the rights to cast votes, isn’t that equally harmful for a nation than an autocratic run state?

Democracies can work in many ways. Direct democracy, for example, might well be associated with dictatorial actions: the people vote to affirm the extraordinary powers of Napoleon, for example, on the basis of limited information.

Representative democracy is different: voters do not vote with full knowledge of policies and situations, but vote for a person who articulates these for the people—and has to prove his or her ability to understand the policies and situations in practice. Results matter: a disaster in foreign policy may be the kiss of death for a President, a new social policy that has unintended consequences may lead to the decline of a political party.

Once we are clear that at issue is not full knowledge of policies and situations, but a kind of supervisory, control function over those who exercise power in our name, ignorance becomes less of an issue.

And let’s turn back to the model of lasting authoritarian rule: in that case, a single person or group makes major decisions affecting foreign policy, political organization, social policy, culture, environment, etc., etc. Why should we assume that said individual or group has any better insight into policies and situations—especially in the complex world that we live in today? The problem of ignorance is not simply one that pertains to democracies.

Some who support authoritarian rule think that dictators will seek out the best advisers. That is also an odd assumption: a decision on who is the best adviser is a decision that itself requires extensive knowledge of what the adviser is advising about—where does the dictator gain this knowledge? Where does the dictator gain a sense of which issues are more important for the country?

But back to the original question. The voice of the People is not infallible, especially if “It” is given a yes/no vote in a referendum. Neither is the voice of the Leader. Where power originates may not be the most important question. How power originates, how discussion takes place, how interests clash, in other words the form of politics, is much more important than the question of “origins,” of “sovereignty.”

5) Just because a country is run by a pseudo-dictator, or a dictator is that almost always mean its a totalitarian state?

I have already mentioned several examples—George Washington, the Social Democrats in Germany—that show that dictatorships need not aim at total, lasting control.

But if we define dictatorship as a lasting form, then I have a different answer. The clear distinction between dictatorship and totalitarianism is not clear to me, and “totalitarianism” as a term has come under a lot of fire for concealing more than it reveals. In fact, modern dictatorships, with the broad range of techniques for rule at their fingertips, tend to extend their control over society and culture; they tend to be, in this sense, “totalitarian.”

Furthermore, the dictator is at the whim of special interests and personal advisers, who will call for specific kinds of interventions. The tendency of dictatorships in the modern world is toward more “total” in the sense of all-encompassing forms.

6) In your opinion what has been the most catastrophic dictatorship to rule Europe? And what has been the most successful?

German National Socialism clearly had the most awful effect on Europe, with tens of millions killed, economies destroyed, political life wrecked, in some cases for generations. The dictatorship of the four powers occupying Germany in 1945 dismantled that dictatorship and created the foundations for a peaceful central Europe for the next seventy years. That’s clearly a success story, though the means for reaching that success differed in East and West.

7) Dictatorships tend to rely on the military to achieve a successful putsch when its feels threatened by the government. It seems as if the military has a separate agenda than the ruling government and the people. Why do dictatorships depend so heavily on the military? Most democratic forms of government fear giving the military any power relating official verdicts and rely exclusively on parliament (legislature), the executive and judicial branch to make decisions, in your opinion could that backfire at one point in time?

Napoleon Bonaparte represents, in a way, the first modern dictator: operating with a popular base, rejecting a return to the old regime. And most important, he used his connection to the army as a way to claim to represent the nation as a whole. This is exactly what has happened time and time again: the army claims to be a direct representation of the people, united against an external enemy.

That’s an assertion with an  extraordinarily strong symbolic value: the army is not a part of the nation, it is the nation. And it’s armed. There is no question that such an argument can be mustered against a democracy that is divided into parties; there is no question, however, that rule by the military means rule by an institution based on hierarchy rather than democracy, decision-making from above rather than responsibility through representatives and public opinion below. That is also why the U.S. Founders were so concerned about keeping the military under civilian control, as were the great theorists of (inegalitarian) liberalism in Europe like Benjamin Constant.

It is worth noting, however, that neither Hitler nor Mussolini, neither Lenin nor Stalin nor most of their successors in Eastern Europe (Tito excluded), were from the military. In all of these cases, the dictatorship made use of the military, but resolutely kept the military under civilian—albeit dictatorial—control. Among these dictators, as among democrats, there was a well founded fear of the potential political power of the military.

8) Spain represents an interesting political paradox. Spain using democracy voted for the Popular Front party to combat CEDA (Spanish conservative movement), right before the civil war which consisted of an alliance of UGT, )the socialist party) the CNT-FAI Anarcho-Syndicate, the POUM a Marxist Party and the Communist party that swept during elections. The Spanish Generals overseeing the problematic results rebelled against the new system in what turned out to be a brutal civil war. Given the political circumstances, General Francisco Franco won the war and executed all his enemies. The dilemma is that Spain during Franco’s reign made Spain financially one of the most prosperous countries in the world, a growth never to be replicated again in that country. If Franco would have not intervened in the Civil War, would Spain ended like the Soviet Stalin or in total anarchy? Is it safe to conclude, Franco’s dictatorship was justified to oppose democracy by preventing a greater evil?

I take issue with your account of Spanish economic history. Spain was in terrible shape for two decades after the end of the Civil War, and only began to recover in the early 1960s, when Franco’s government began to accept the loss of power associated with joining international economic organizations (OECD, IMF, World Bank), the limits on violence associated with developing international tourism, and the importance of expert advice.

Yes, the growth rates in the decade up to 1974 were high, but that reflects a pretty low starting point, related not only to the damage of the Civil War, but also—maybe primarily—to an autarkic economic policy, a bloated and inefficient government, and monopoly.

After the oil crisis (not the fault of democracy!) and the messy transition to democracy, of course, the economy was hardly strong. Only in the 1980s did a government develop—within a democracy, with broad, open discussion—a concerted plan for economic development.

And it paid off. Even after the recent years of turmoil, Spain’s economy is at a qualitatively different level than it was under Franco, with a far more careful and systematic set of economic policies. So I don’t buy the economic argument.

For those who want to pursue it further, a better example might be Fascist Italy or more recently South Korea. In both cases, the arguments about a “developmental dictatorship” are, however, anything but uncontested.

There is no question that Spain was a mess in 1939. But Franco was part of that mess. Any bloody victor in a civil war can point to the relative peace that follows as a success. The National Catholic ideology made a point of playing up anti-Communism, of pointing out all that went wrong in the Soviet Union, but what would have happened had the left won, with all of its different factions, is not clear to me.

– Unlike Franco, Adolf Hitler used democracy as a tool for his sweeping election. Hitler resembled the attributes of a dictator. Germany was recovering from WW1, and the previous government had poorly managed Germany. Unlike the former councilor, Hitler ended unemployment right away. Despite Hitler’s delusional expansionist dogmas, his national policies succeeded with incredible effectiveness. He even made Germany a safer place. Was Germany an example of how democracy and dictatorship type leaders can work together for a greater national good?

Absolutely not. Let’s take the different parts of the questions separately.

First, Hitler did not win the election. His party was the biggest, but it took machinations among the old elite leading the country to bring him in—then he took over in a series of moves. This is an important moment, an example of how a populist politician uninterested in democracy can use democratic forms to destroy the institution, but one should not cast Hitler as a democratically elected leader.

Second, the Weimar era governments actually did a reasonably good job in recovering from the huge losses of the war. What they couldn’t recover from was the impact of the burst bubble in the United States, which broke the flow of capital and the economic connections upon which the Weimar Republic’s economy rested. The crisis after 1930 was a difficult one: not every crisis, however, is the fault of a regime, whether dictatorship or democracy (see the oil crisis in Franco’s last years!!!).

Third, Hitler didn’t end unemployment. His party had little in the way of actual economic policy. He was able to find a bunch of plans already developed and put them in place—and to profit from an upswing that had already begun. The myth that Hitler somehow saved the German economy needs to die. There is much more on this issue in Adam Tooze’s book, The Wages of Destruction.

But most important: how can one say that Hitler made Germany a safer place? For whom? For leftists or other political enemies? For defenders of free speech and basic rights? For Jews or Gypsies? For gays or the mentally disabled? Immediately after he took power, concentration camps developed across the country, camps where prisoners were not protected by the law, where they could be beaten to death with impunity. The story of the Nazi regime is the story of increasing rather than decreasing legal insecurity, and increasing rather than decreasing arbitrary violence against regime enemies. Unless one is willing to agree with Hitler that all the groups he hated were not part of the nation, there is no way to say that his regime contributed to the “greater national good.”

9) The United States is tried to set western standards in Iraq, removed Saddam Hussein who wheeled a tight authoritarian grip over Kurds, Sabians, Shias, Sunnies, Yaziris, Christians, and other ethnic and religious tribes. After the removal of Saddam Hussein, the country emerged into total sectarian and tribal chaos, proving a complete disaster for democracies sake, leading to what is now the Islamic State. Do you believe Saddam’s tyrannical reign proved more effective than western democracy?

The story here is also more complicated. Many of these groups had suffered tremendously under Saddam’s tyranny; it is no surprise that violence broke out afterward Saddam’s fall. Democracy is not at fault in this case; abstract forms like democracy and dictatorship cannot describe well the specific, concrete events that lead to chaos and bloodshed.

Deeper, though: in what sense was Saddam more “effective”? In maintaining order? Maybe. But we should not forget how incredibly destructive his dictatorship was at the same time, during both the Iran-Iraq     War and the First Gulf War. In both cases, he took actions that led directly to horrific consequences. The entire region has been suffering from tyranny and bloodletting for decades now, and no end seems to be in sight—no matter what regime form one would like to see in place.

10) The Arab Spring, originally praised by most western governments became a wider turmoil after the overthrow of most dictatorships. Why did Democracy fail, and should have the dictatorships of Gaddafi, Ben Ali, Mubarak, Assad… and others remained?

I don’t know whether they could have remained. The revolutions of the Arab Spring were indeed revolutions, and revolutions are primarily a reaction to repressive governments. Whatever the EU or US forces did, for example, Gaddafi’s regime was against the wall; the same holds for Assad. It’s furthermore notable in the latter case that Assad’s regime itself is engaged in mass killing. It HAS remained (partially) in power, and is actively contributing to the ongoing turmoil.

Dictatorships are not stable systems over the long run. There is no direct path from dictatorship to democracy, either. But betting that they will provide order and keep chaos at bay—a bet that underlies many of the questions that you have posed—doesn’t seem to me supportable by historical events. Especially the dictatorships founded on sectarian difference, slaughter, and ongoing violence are not stable over the long run.

11) Socialism seems to have worked better under the right dictatorships than with any other political system. Do you agree with this?

Just like democracy, socialism is a term that describes a lot of different phenomena, from calls for workers’ rights and social democracy to experiments with communes to state-socialist dictatorship.

Social Democracy has been very successful in raising the standard of living of the working class and also preserving representative democracy and civil rights in western Europe. Many of their specific policies, from equal educational opportunities to social insurance to union rights, were part and parcel of socialist movements in the 19th century. In terms of long term effect on the actual lives of the lower classes, I’d say that they have been remarkably successful within a democratic framework, even as they have shed policies that could not find a majority, such as nationalization of basic industries.

State socialism in Eastern Europe, meanwhile, presumed from the start a party dictatorship. Their systems of state planning developed as part and parcel of the dictatorships: it would be hard to distinguish economic from political system in these cases. To say, then, that Marxist-Leninist state socialism functioned best under dictatorship is a little bit circular, since it presumed dictatorship as a condition of functioning.

12) Will Europe one day go back to the old days of dictatorial states given the present rising of economic upheavals? What would it take for the US to ever encounter a autocratic run state?

I have no idea. We can only hope not. But if people are given the sense that they have no input into policy decisions, if they are suffering economically, and if populist leaders, left or right, suggest dictatorship as a magic weapon to solve their problems, then dictatorship—as a relatively lasting political form rather than as a transitional form—is always a possibility.

Comments Off on Democracy versus dictatorships: What works better?

What works better? Dictatorships versus democracy

July 18th, 2015

 

 

Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.

 

 



Natasha Ezrow 

She is an Undergraduate Director at Essex University; Division Manager, BA International Development, BA International Relations, BA Politics with Human Rights, MA/MSc Conflict Resolution, MA/MSc International Relations, MA International Relations and the Media, Mres International Relations

1) People are afraid of autocratic governments because in many cases it subdues the will of the majority. Can dictatorships be a better solution in some cases than seeking a western democratic solution?

The variance of performance with dictatorship is higher.  Some dictatorships perform well economically like Singapore and China, while others are dismal like Chad and Cameroon.  Solid democracies will not have as many poor performers.

It’s also important to clarify that dictators vary by who holds power.  If it is a single –party, the performance may not be that terrible.  If power is concentrated in the hands of one individual, known as a personalist dictatorship, the results are disastrous. Personalist dictatorships do not perform well economically, have horrible human rights records, are really corrupt and have more erratic foreign policies.

2)  Do some countries need dictatorships to run more efficiently or should all be run democratically?

Not all countries should be run democratically—as in having fair and competitive elections.  But all countries need political parties that are well institutionalized, along with legislatures.  This enables discussion to focus on policies and not patronage politics, which is about distributing to loyal clients.  Parties are really important to managing dissent, aggregating interests and using technocratic know how in order to come up with the best policies for a country.  The ideal type again, is Singapore.  There are very few Singapores in the world, however.

3) Dictatorship is regarded as something negative for most people. What is the biggest public misconception regarding dictatorships? 

Some people prefer stability over democracy.  Dictatorships are not all the same.  Some are able to implement tough policies that are needed to promote growth.  There is also a lot of democracy within dictatorships.

4) Democracy allows all voters from different social classes and backgrounds to elect leaders. If the majority of the voters has no idea about national or international policies, and yet have the rights to cast votes, isn’t that equally harmful for a nation than an autocratic run state?

Democracies that allow for free media enable the public to provide a check on leadership that authoritarian regimes don’t provide. This is critical to curbing corruption and preventing mass human rights abuses from taking place.

5) Just because a country is run by a pseudo-dictator, or a dictator is that always means it’s a totalitarian state? 

Very few regimes today or historically have ever been totalitarian.  That implies total control over both the state and society. Few dictatorships today (with the exception of North Korea) have the institutional power to control people’s thoughts and have the motivation to want to atomize society and activate them under one ideology.  Most dictatorships are not totalitarian because they prefer to ensure that the public is apathetic.  The basic idea is that as long as the public does not try to challenge the leader’s power, people are relatively free to live their lives.

6) In your opinion what has been the most catastrophic dictatorship to rule Europe? And what has been the most successful?

The most catastrophic was Hitler, for obvious reasons.  The most successful was Tito.  This is not because he was great—but because he managed to keep the former Yugoslavia together, and when he died, not long after the country fell apart.  The communist regimes were not catastrophic, but there is not one that I could say was successful.  I don’t view Spain under Franco and Portugal under Salazar as successful even though economic growth took place.  That would have happened naturally after WWII.

7) Dictatorships tend to rely on the military to achieve a successful putsch when these feel threatened by the government. It seems as if the military has a separate agenda than the ruling government and the people. Why do dictatorships depend so heavily on the military? Most democratic powers fear giving the military any power of official verdicts and rely exclusively on parliament (legislature), the executive and judicial branch to make decisions, in your opinion could that backfire at one point in time? 

The military is critical to the dictator’s success. They must have control over it because the military maintains the regime.  In general it is best to keep the military out of politics.  They have a horrible track record when they get involved in politics.

8) Spain represents an interesting political paradox. Spain using democracy voted for the Popular Front party to combat CEDA (Spanish conservatives), right before the civil war, which consisted of an alliance of UGT, a socialist party and the CNT-FAI Anarcho-Syndicate, POUM a Marxist Party and the Communist party that sweep during elections. The Spanish Generals overseeing the problematic results rebelled against the new system in what turned out to be a brutal war. Given the political circumstances, General Francisco Franco won the war and executed all his enemies. The dilemma is that Spain during Franco’s reign made Spain financially one of the most prosperous countries in the world, a growth never to be replicated again. If Franco would have not intervened in the Civil War, would Spain ended like the Soviet Stalin or in total anarchy? Is it safe to conclude, Franco’s dictatorship was justified to oppose democracy preventing a greater evil?

After WWII economic growth was going to take place in Spain, regardless of whether or not Franco was in charge or not.  The economic success of Spain under Franco was not due to his economic expertise.  I would not give him too much credit.

– Unlike Franco, Adolf Hitler used democracy as a tool for his sweeping election. Hitler resembled the attributes of a dictator. Germany was recovering from WW1, and the previous government had poorly managed Germany. Unlike the former councilor, Hitler ended unemployment right away. Despite Hitler’s delusional expansionist dogmas, his national policies succeeded with incredible effectiveness. He even made Germany a safer place. Was Germany an example of how democracy and dictatorship type leaders can work together for a greater national good? 

As Hitler was responsible for genocide, it’s hard to justify his rule.

9) The United States trying to set western standards in Iraq, removed Saddam Hussein who wheeled a tight authoritarian grip over Kurds, Shias, Sunnies, Yaziris, Christians, and other tribes. After the removal of Saddam Hussein, the country emerged into total sectarian and tribal chaos, proving a complete disaster for democracies sake, leading to what is now the Islamic State. Do you believe Saddam’s tyrannical reign proved more effective than western democracy?

Western imposed democracy rarely works.  Democracy works best when it comes from within, with outside help to assist with electoral assistance and support for judicial institutions.  Currently Iraq is in worse shape than when Saddam Hussein was in power.

10) The Arab Spring, originally praised by most western governments became a wider turmoil after the overthrow of most dictatorships. Why did Democracy fail, and should have the dictatorships of Gaddafi, Ben Ali, Mubarak, Assad… and others remained?

The region has had absolute no experience with institutionalized moderate parties— literally none whatsoever, with the exception of Tunisia.  And Tunisia’s democracy will eventually take hold.  The institutions in the Middle East are incredibly weak and that makes an automatic transition to democracy impossible.  Also, countries that experienced years of personalist rule (like Libya under Qaddafi and Iraq under Hussein) will become failed states after the leader is ousted.  The international community, the West, and especially the US were ill prepared to deal with the black holes that resulted.  This is a situation ripe for violent non-state actors to take over.  The conflict and instability and security void in Iraq enabled the Syrian protests to become a full blown conflict.

11) Will dictatorships disappear if countries that hold a democratic system fail to control the economy giving rise to catastrophic unemployment levels which cause crime to spread at the same time other ideological systems form and provoke civil unrest that might interfere with the country’s stability? In other words can democracy parturition dictatorship?

It’s very easy for dictatorship to return.  The first years of democracy are very unstable and much of the time these countries backslide into dictatorship due to high levels of dissatisfaction and disappointment.

12) Will Europe one day go back to the old days of dictatorial states given the present rising of economic upheavals?  What would it take for the US to ever encounter a autocratic run state?

No for both— the public has no interest in it.

Comments Off on What works better? Dictatorships versus democracy

Kuwaiti kills 4 marines in Chattanooga, Tennessy

July 16th, 2015

 

The Daily Journalist.

 

 



 

The gunman who shot and murdered four Marines Thursday during two different attacks at military facilities in Chattanooga, Tenn., has been identified as Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez by law enforcement.

The identified murdered Abdulazeez, 24, was born in Kuwait, a U.S.  He was reported to be from Hixson, Tenn., just across the river from Chattanooga.

The law enforcement source said preliminary reports indicate Abdulazeez, who also died, was not on the FBI’s radar leading up to Thursday’s attacks. A defense official told Fox he was killed by law enforcement officers and did not commit suicide.

The U.S. National Counterterrorism Center said it has seen nothing so far to connect Abdulazeez to any terrorist organization. But it noted that the Islamic State group has been encouraging extremists to carry out attacks in the U.S.

President Obama, speaking from the Oval Office shortly after returning from a trip to Oklahoma, promised a thorough and prompt investigation, adding it appeared a “lone gunman” was behind the attack.

“It is a heartbreaking circumstance for these individuals who have served our country with great valor to be killed in this fashion,” Obama said.

The gunman first shot up a recruiting center before driving to the Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center and killing four Marines before he was shot, authorities said. witnesses said police chased the gunman from the recruiting center to the Center, where the killings took place.

According to some sources one of the Marines who was killed was a “decorated war hero with two Purple Hearts.” The youngest was 19 years old, the source said.

Defense officials said late Thursday a wounded female sailor was in surgery after being shot.

The local Chattanooga Times Free Press reported that Abdulazeez graduated from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga with a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering in 2012. Before that, he graduated from Red Bank High School with a yearbook photo featuring the quote, “My name causes national security alerts. What does yours do?”

Photos of the yearbook photo were sent to the newspaper, which also reported that he was arrested for driving under the influence last April 20.

The New York Times,citing law enforcement officials, reported  Abdulazeez’s father had been investigated several years ago for possible ties to a foreign terrorist organization and at one point was on – but later removed from – a terror watch list.

In a statement, Travis Brickey of the Tennessee Valley Authority, said  the younger Abdulazeez was a student intern “approximately five years ago.”

The paper also reported that Abdulazeez’s father, Youssuf Abdullazeez, was appointed as a “special policeman” for Chattanooga’s Department of Public Works in March 2005.

Residents and students who knew the suspect said he was a quiet kid, but well-liked.

“He was friendly, funny, kind,” Kagan Wagner told the paper. “I never would have thought it would be him.”

“We are treating this as an act of domestic terrorism,” said Bill Killian, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The names of the Marines who were shot were not immediately released pending notification of their families. The Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center lies along a bend in the Tennessee River, northeast of downtown Chattanooga.

FBI special agent Ed Reinhold said all the dead were killed at the Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center Chattanooga. It sits between Amnicola Highway and a pathway that runs through Tennessee RiverPark, a popular park at a bend in the Tennessee River northeast of downtown Chattanooga. It’s in a light industrial area that includes a Coca-Cola bottling plant and Binswanger Glass.

The two entrances to the fenced facility have unmanned gates and concrete barriers that require approaching cars to slow down to drive around them.

Marilyn Hutcheson, who works at Binswanger Glass just across the street from the center on Amnicola Highway, said she heard a barrage of gunfire around 11 a.m.

“I couldn’t even begin to tell you how many,” she said. “It was rapid fire, like pow pow pow pow pow, so quickly. The next thing I knew, there were police cars coming from every direction.”

President Obama was briefed by his national security team on the shooting involving two military sites, according to White House spokesman Eric Schultz.

“This is a very, very terrible situation,” Andy Berke, the city’s mayor told reporters. “I’m very concerned about what’s going on. We need to figure out how to handle it.”

Comments Off on Kuwaiti kills 4 marines in Chattanooga, Tennessy

Obama says “Iran no nukes”

July 16th, 2015

 

 

By The Daily Journalist.

 



 

US President Barack Obama on Wednesday appeared before the media to explain the nuclear agreement reached with Iran on Wednesday and clarify some issues. “The priority number one was that Iran not have a nuclear weapon,” he recalled, before emphasizing that this goal has been reached. “I can say with confidence,” said relying on scientific experts, “Iran will not be in a position to develop a nuclear bomb.” A goal pursued by the US, its allies and partners during negotiations and Israel, contextualized the president of the criticism coming from the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This agreement, however, does not mean that differences with the regime in Tehran have disappeared; they are still present. So the United States will maintain its sanctions related to support terrorist groups. According to Obama, this new scenario may be a starting point to “continue to have talks with Iran” on other issues.

Debate on facts and not speculation

After a brief description of the “historic” agreement that establishes “severe limits” to the Iranian nuclear program, contrasting to what is good and what would be the alternative, Obama said that the “details matter.” Therefore, he added, the US negotiating team has worked hard to close the borders and it is appropriate that the Congress and the American society discuss the agreement reached by the G5 + 1 group and Iran.

Convinced that the alternative would be worse-since the nuclear roads would open and even could not inspect anything-Obama said most of Congress should approve the deal. “My hope is that all evaluate the agreement based on facts, not politics, not poses” stressed, noting that the key is what is important for US interests. The president insisted that the debate should be “based on facts and not on speculation and misinformation.”

The campaign to convince skeptics of the benefits of the agreement and congressmen-citizens has been given on several fronts. Vice President Joe Biden this afternoon Spanish- -hour on Capitol Hill with the Democrats to try to unravel the suspicions aroused by the pact met. Among the first to express their anger on the same Tuesday, Sen. Bob Menendez for whom the agreement “does not end Iran’s nuclear program; it keeps.” Also the national security team in the White House has begun to hold meetings to account for the details of the agreement reached with Tehran.

Comments Off on Obama says “Iran no nukes”

New wireless device transfers power to batteries

July 13th, 2015

 

 

By The Daily Journalist.

 
Mobile devices, such as smartphones and laptops, have become indispensable portable items in modern life, but one big challenge remains to fully enjoying these devices: keeping their batteries charged.

A group of researchers at KAIST has developed a wireless-power transfer (WPT) technology that allows mobile devices to be charged at any location and in any direction, even if the devices are away from the power source, just as Wi-Fi works for Internet connections. With this technology, so long as mobile users stay in a designated area where the charging is available, e.g., the Wi-Power zone, the device, without being tethered to a charger, will pick up power automatically, as needed.

This is a demonstration of the omnidirectional wireless-charging system (clockwise from top of the left, robust charging despite the presence of metal obstacles, omnidirectional charging, long distance charging, and multiple devices charging).

The research team led by Professor Chun T. Rim of the Nuclear and Quantum Engineering Department at KAIST has made great strides in WPT development. Their WPT system is capable of charging multiple mobile devices concurrently and with unprecedented freedom in any direction, even while holding the devices in midair or a half meter away from the power source, which is a transmitter.

The research result was published in the June 2015 on-line issue of IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, which is entitled “Six Degrees of Freedom Mobile Inductive Power Transfer by Crossed Dipole Tx (Transmitter) and Rx (Receiver) Coils.”

KAIST omnidirectional wireless power transfer for 0.5W/1W simultaneous multiple mobile devices charging. The world’s first and best “Wi-Power” zone, which guarantees free positioning of multiple Rx coils within 1m from a Tx coil.

Professor Rim’s team has successfully showcased the technology on July 7, 2015 at a lab on KAIST’s campus. They used high-frequency magnetic materials in a dipole coil structure to build a thin, flat transmitter (Tx) system shaped in a rectangle with a size of 1m2. Either 30 smartphones with a power capacity of one watt each or 5 laptops with 2.4 watts each can be simultaneously and wirelessly charged at a 50 cm distance from the transmitter with six degrees of freedom, regardless of the devices’ three-axes positions and directions. This means that the device can receive power all around the transmitter in three-dimensional space.

The maximum power transfer efficiency for the laptops was 34%. The researchers said that to fabricate plane Tx and Rx coils with the six-degree-of-freedom characteristic was a bottleneck of WPT for mobile applications.

Dipole Coil Resonance System (DCRS)

The research team used the Dipole Coil Resonance System (DCRS) to induce magnetic fields, which was developed by the team in 2014 for inductive power transfer over an extended distance. The DCRS is composed of two (transmitting and receiving) magnetic dipole coils, placed in parallel, with each coil having a ferrite core and connected with a resonant capacitor. Comparing to a conventional loop coil, the dipole coil is very compact and has a less dimension. Therefore, a crossed dipole structure has 2-dimension rather than 3-dimension of a crossed loop coil structure.

The wide-range omnidirectional wireless-charging system based on DCRS can charge multiple numbers of mobile devices simultaneously in a 1m3 range. The above is a transmitter, and the below is a Samsung Galaxy Note with a receiver embedded inside.



The DCRS has a great advantage to transfer power even when the resonance frequency changes in the range of 1% (Q factor is below 100). The ferrite cores are optimally designed to reduce the core volume by half, and their ability to transfer power is nearly unaffected by human bodies or surrounding metal objects, making DCRS ideal to transmit wireless power in emergency situations. In a test conducted in 2014, Professor Rim succeeded in transferring 209 watts of power wirelessly to the distance of five meters.

Greater Flexibility and Safer Charging

The research team rearranged the two dipole coils from a parallel position to cross them in order to generate rotating magnetic fields, which was embedded in the Tx’s flat platform. This has made it possible for mobile devices to receive power from any direction.

Although wireless-power technology has been applied to smartphones, it could not offer any substantial advantages over traditional wired charging because the devices still require close contact with the transmitter, a charging pad. To use the devices freely and safely, including in public spaces, the WPT technology should provide mobile users with six degrees of freedom at a distance.

Until now, all wireless-charging technologies have had difficulties with the problem of short charging distance, mostly less than 10 cm, as well as charging conditions that the devices should be placed in a fixed position. For example, the Galaxy S6 could only be charged wirelessly in a fixed position, having one degree of freedom. The degree of freedom represents mobile devices’ freedom of movement in three-dimensional space.

In addition, the DCRS works at a low magnetic field environment. Based on the magnetic flux shielding technology developed by the research team, the level of magnetic flux is below the safety level of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guideline (27µT) for general public exposure to electromagnetic field (EMF).

Professor Rim said, “Our transmitter system is safe for humans and compatible with other electronic devices. We have solved three major issues of short charging distance, the dependence on charging directions, and plane coil structures of both Tx and Rx, which have blocked the commercialization of WPT.”

Currently, the research team and KAIST’s spin-off company, TESLAS, Inc., have been conducting pilot projects to apply DCRS in various places such as cafes and offices.

Comments Off on New wireless device transfers power to batteries

Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and the Challenges of Going Dark

July 11th, 2015

 

 

By The Federal Bureau of Investigations.

 



To read report click bellow.

Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and the Challenges of Going Dark

Comments Off on Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and the Challenges of Going Dark

Russia wants to build military ships in the shipyards of Latin America

July 7th, 2015

 

By The Daily Journalist.

 



 

 

The state corporation of Russian Shipyards States (AUR) today showed interest in cooperating with countries in Latin America in the construction of military ships in its territory.

“Given the desire of the majority of Latin American countries to develop their own shipyards, cooperation is a priority in the medium and long term in the joint construction of military vessels” in the territory of those States, told RIA news agency Novosti Alexei Diki, senior manager of AUR.

The executive added that the Latin American market analysis indicates that virtually all countries of the region need to renew their naval forces.

According Diki, experts estimate that the implementation of Brazil’s ambitious plans to provide new Navy ships to require an investment of 10,000 million dollars for the construction of new shipyards.

The AUR, which runs 95 percent of state contracts in this country in building new warships, was included last year in the US list of Russian companies sanctioned by Moscow’s role in the Ukrainian crisis.

The corporation unites 80 percent of all shipyards and naval design firms in the country

Comments Off on Russia wants to build military ships in the shipyards of Latin America

Ghost: Computer screens that change shape

July 4th, 2015

 

By University of Bristol.

 

Exciting new technologies, which allow users to change the shape of displays with their hands, promise to revolutionise the way we interact with smartphones, laptops and computers. Imagine pulling objects and data out of the screen and playing with these in mid-air.

Towards Rapid Prototyping with Shape-Changing Displays for Designers



Credit: © GHOST

Today we live in a world of flat-screen displays we use all day – whether it’s the computer in the office, a smartphone on the train home, the TV or iPad on the couch in the evening. The world we live in is not flat, though; it’s made of hills and valleys, people and objects. Imagine if we could use our fingertips to manipulate the display and drag features out of it into our 3D world.

 


Credit:   Københavns Universitets  

Such a vision led to the launch in January 2013 of GHOST (Generic, Highly-Organic Shape-Changing Interfaces), an EU-supported research project designed to tap humans’ ability to reason about and manipulate physical objects through the interfaces of computers and mobile devices.

‘This will have all sorts of implications for the future, from everyday interaction with mobile phones to learning with computers and design work,’ explained GHOST coordinator Professor Kasper Hornbæk of the University of Copenhagen. ‘It’s not only about deforming the shape of the screen, but also the digital object you want to manipulate, maybe even in mid-air. Through ultrasound levitation technology, for example, we can project the display out of the flat screen. And thanks to deformable screens we can plunge our fingers into it.’

Shape-changing displays you can touch and feel

This breakthrough in user interaction with technology allows us to handle objects, and even data, in a completely new way. A surgeon, for instance, will be able to work on a virtual brain physically, with the full tactile experience, before performing a real-life operation. Designers and artists using physical proxies such as clay can mould and remould objects and store them in the computer as they work. GHOST researchers are also working with deformable interfaces such as pads and sponges for musicians to flex to control timbre, speed and other parameters in electronic music.

Indeed, GHOST has produced an assembly line of prototypes to showcase shape-changing applications. ‘Emerge’ is one which allows data in bar charts to be pulled out of the screen by fingertips. The information, whether it’s election results or rainfall patterns, can then be re-ordered and broken down by column, row or individually, in order to visualise it better.

The researchers have also been working with ‘morphees’, flexible mobile devices with lycra or alloy displays which bend and stretch according to use. These can change shape automatically to form screens to shield your fingers when you type in a pincode, for example, or to move the display to the twists and turns of a game. And such devices can be enlarged in the hand to examine data closer and shrunk again for storing away in a case or pocket.

Tactile technology reaching the market

One of the GHOST partners, the University of Bristol, has spun off a startup, now employing 12 people, called UltraHaptics, to develop technology being studied in GHOST that uses ultrasound to create feeling in mid-air. The company has attracted seed investment in the UK and further funding from the Horizon 2020 programme.

‘GHOST has made a lot of progress simply by bringing the partners together and allowing us to share our discoveries,’ commented Prof Hornbæk. ‘Displays which change shape as you are using them are probably only five years off now. If you want your smartphone to project the landscape of a terrain 20 or 30 cm out of the display, that’s a little further off – but we’re working on it!’

GHOST, which finishes at the end of this year, involves four partners in the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark, and receives EUR 1.93 million from the EU’s Future and Emerging Technologies programme.

Comments Off on Ghost: Computer screens that change shape

Terrorist kills 38 tourist in tourism

June 30th, 2015

 

By The Daily Journalist.

 



 

Tunisia awoke shocked one day after the terrorist attack on two hotels in Susa that left 38 dead in a terrorist attack. The attack was claimed by the Islamic State this morning (IS, its acronym in English) in the Twitter accounts of the jihadist group. “The soldiers of the Caliphate Abu Yahya Al-Qayrawani attacked the Imperial Hotel,” the text that emphasizes that most of the dead were citizens “of the crusade alliance fights of the Caliphate State”.

The organization said the attack has aimed “dens of immorality, vice and apostasy from the city of Susa.” Shortly before midnight, hundreds of Tunisians rallied in central Tunis to show their rejection of terrorism. “Hopefully this horror stops here,” said Nadia shortly after the march. The rally was called by Ennahda, the Islamist party that governs in coalition with the Liberals Nidaa Tunis.

“Our country is threatened, the state is threatened,” said Tunisian Prime Minister Habib Essid, after holding an evening meeting of the National Security Council. “He can win a battle and lose the other, but our goal is to win the war,” he said in a radio message.

Attack in Susa (Tunisia)

The National Security Council agreed to intensify security. Due to Ramadan, the month of fasting, the security forces had decreased. Another measure announced is to proceed to the closure of 80 mosques that spread “propaganda and poison” in supporting terrorism.

Tunisian security sources reported that the victims are Belgian, British, Irish and German. These sources explained that a gunman entered the hotel grounds and the nearby Imperial Marhaba Muradi Palm Marinay opening fire indiscriminately against persons found, including some foreign tourists. One of the dead is Irish, according to the Irish public broadcaster RTE. The deceased, according to the Irish Independent was vacationing with her husband, although he was not at the beach.

The number of terrorists who participated in the attack is unclear. Secretary of the Interior claimed that one of the alleged perpetrators of the attack, who had fled, was arrested later by police one kilometer from the hotel attack. He added that the dead terrorist, who was not known in policing, is a student of the holy city of Qairaouán, in the center of the country and very close to the resort town of Susa. Other sources speak of two detainees.

The Philip Hammond, British Foreign Affairs has confirmed this afternoon that at least five UK citizens died in the attack. Later, Prime Minister of Tunisia, Habib Essid, said that most of the dead were British and there are also French from the dead ..

The ministry spokesman said that “the author of the attack was killed in a shootout with security forces”. As he pointed out, “a terrorist has infiltrated from the rear of the building before opening fire on residents of the hotel, who include foreign and Tunisian tourists.”

The terrorist came to the place aboard a boat in which they had hidden an assault rifle Kalashanikov in an umbrella, as reported by the Tunisian Secretary of State for Interior, Rafik Chelli. Chelli said that the author of the attack, after reaching Susa beach that connects to the hotel, opened fire with his weapon.

One of the hotel employees have reported that he saw an attacker opened fire “with a Kalashnikov against tourists and Tunisians in the hotel’s beach. It was just an attacker. He was a young man in shorts like also a tourist” he explained.

Tunisia is on alert since last March when the Jihadist attack occurred at the Museum of Bardo, where 24 people including 21 foreign tourists were killed in the worst terrorist attacks in the country in the last decade.

The Riu hotel chain reported that these days the hotel is at 77% occupancy and 565 guests at its 366 rooms. According to the chain’s guests are mainly from UK and other central European countries. However, it is not possible at this time to confirm the nationality of the victims, nor the final official figure. So far there is no evidence that Spaniards between staying. What has confirmed the chain is that there are 13 injured people were taken to area hospitals, including 9 guests and 4 hotel employees, and has organized a cabinet of experts on site to give psychological support those customers who need it.

Riu Tunisia operates 10 hotels totaling 3,586 rooms. The other consideration is the neighboring hotel accommodation Palm Marinay Muradi, both in the resort of Port El Kantaoui, near the resort town of Susa.

Comments Off on Terrorist kills 38 tourist in tourism

Poland prepares for war with Russia

June 29th, 2015

 

 

By The Daily Journalist.

 



 

The crisis in Ukraine is creating in Poland a sense of palpable threat and President Bronislaw Komorowski has just appointed as supreme commander of the Armed Forces the Lieutenant General Marek Tomaszycki, a decision it deems necessary “to the growing instability” in the region.

Tomaszycki, 57, operational commander of the Armed Forces of Poland since January 1, 2014, would automatically assume operational command of the army in case of an armed conflict with direct subordination to the head of the Polish state. “Behind this decision is the need to prepare, in peacetime, the Armed Forces for a hypothetical war situation,” said the president of Poland.

The creation of this position is the result of the recent reform in the Armed Forces, by the Polish State acquired “a real ability to respond efficiently and quickly to a hazardous manner,” according to Komorowski.

During an official ceremony at the presidential palace, the president stressed the urgent need to “strengthen the capacity of defense of Poland in a troubled region for us and our time”, in line with the justifications of recent NATO exercises and ahead of the meeting of defense ministers of the Alliance held Wednesday in Brussels, where the Russian nuclear threat will be addressed.

In the context of increased tensions between Russia and the West, Russian President Vladimir Putin has surreptitiously raised the threat, a strategy that hides the military backwardness of Russia. Putin has declared its readiness to use nuclear weapons and has announced that it will provide the Russian strategic forces 40 new intercontinental missiles by the end of the year, ensuring that install short-range missiles in Kaliningrad, on the doors of the Union European.

Russian experts argue, however, that there was no novelty in the matter, since Russia launched 15 years ago to modernize its nuclear forces and the measure does not violate in any way the START treaty to reduce strategic weapons. Moscow claims that acquired 38 intercontinental ballistic missiles in 2014, provides another 40 this year and is withdrawing parallel 72, too old, which ultimately will mean reducing its arsenal land (about 300 missiles), according to Igor Sutyagin, a military expert at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London.

But the perception in Poland is very different. Russia is perceived as a potential enemy wanting to fight such outstanding issues as the nuclear threat even in the most seemingly insignificant selling fruit and vegetables. Poland was the leading exporter of apple thanks to the 840 million euros that Russia spent on the purchase of the fruit until the sanctions stopped it causing a wound to national Poland’s pride. The Warsaw government responded with a campaign whose slogan was “eating apples against Putin” and bookstores, with the biography of Wojtyla, display in their windows books of recipes made from apples.

 

Comments Off on Poland prepares for war with Russia

Erdogan comes back to the podium after defeat

June 12th, 2015

 

By The Daily Journalist.

 

 

The president of Turkey has expressed Thursday his first speech after a period of unsettling silence after the legislative elections last Sunday.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan held a hearing dominated by a call to the domestic dialogue and renewed attacks on the West. After the mandatory references to the official ceremony, the closing of substantial national scholarship program, Erdogan focused his words in the last election.

In them, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which he led until 2014, lost its absolute majority flaunted since 2002. “They should be egos set aside and form a government as soon as possible,” he declared, in an unambiguous message that does not have in mind the scenario of early elections but that of a coalition executive.

Erdogan said that despite the parliamentary arithmetic “Turkey can not remain without government.” In the last hours it has been known that Erdogan met with Deniz Baykal, next prime minister and veteran nationalist leader of the social democratic Republican People’s Party (CHP), the second most voted list.

At the end of the meeting, Baykal said that all options are on the table to form the next executive. For his part, Prime Minister Davutoglu launched a poison dart Wednesday in a television interview, saying that talks with Baykal would lead to “not to form coalition, because that is up to the parties.”

Davutoglu also stressed that “people do not want the presidential system” that the president wants to get the executive.

International criticism

The post-election hangover has been accompanied by a sharp fall in the Turkish lira against the dollar and the euro, the Turkish central bank on Monday corrected urgently a skirmish with at least four people in the Kurdish city of Diyarbakir.

That has raised fears of a major crisis. “With God’s help, those who dream of chaos in Turkey will be shocked,” said the President, who took the opportunity to return to viciously attack the international media for their criticism of the head of state.

Erdogan has dismissed as “ugly” these criticisms. “If there are, thank God, is something we do well.”

 In a strange trance speech, Erdogan has continued lashing out against the “global system” -the doctrine embraces liberal AKP for causing the income gap in the countrie which came the scholarship students, most from former Soviet republics of Turkic culture.

Finally, Erdogan has accused the West of “favoring” the Syrian Kurdish party PYD and the armed group PKK Terrorism Working as Turkey, EU and US-to “bombard Arabs and Turkmen in Tel Abyad”, in northern Syria.

Several thousand refugees have arrived in recent days in southern Turkey fleeing the situation in the area of ​​Tel Abyad. Kurdish and Arab forces, supported from the air by the international coalition anti IS, have launched an offensive to wrest Tel Abyad the armed group Islamic Jihad State, considered one of the greatest threats to the world today.

One detail that Erdogan has chosen to ignore this Thursday.

Comments Off on Erdogan comes back to the podium after defeat

Expert answers present questions about Russia

June 6th, 2015

Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.

 

Ekaterina Mishina is a Russian lawyer who graduated from the Moscow State University Law School. Prof. Mishina holds a doctorate in law. She worked for the Constitutional Court of Russia, then headed the Legal Department of Russian cable company Mostelecom. From 2002-2005, she took part in the Law-Making and Club of Regional Journalism projects of the Open Russia Foundation, and from 2007-2010 she worked on two big-scale projects for the INDEM (Information Science for Democracy) Foundation. In the capacity of either general manager or legal expert, she participated in several projects for the World Bank, Ford Foundation, European Union, and USAID. She was a visiting scholar at New York University from 1990-1991, had internships in the U.S. Congress and Washington, D.C., office of Gardner, Curton & Douglas in 1993, and took part in the U.S. Department of State’s U.S.-Russia Experts Forum in 2006. Since 2005 she has worked as an assistant professor for the National Research University, Higher School of Economics in Moscow, where she teaches comparative constitutional law.

 

 

1) Recently Russia just signed a $400 Billion deal with China that will strengthen unilateral (bilateral?) cooperation between the new giants. Will the agreement benefit China more, or Russia in the long run?

I believe, this deal carries a huge symbolic meaning for Russia. There are reasons to believe that it was more important politically than economically. There were serious concerns about possible outcomes of this “contract of the century”. Boris Nemtzov, a former Russian deputy Prime –Minister (1998) and Fuel and Energy Minister (1997) and subsequently an opposition leader — who was killed in February of 2015 in front of the Kremlin — referred to this deal as to the “fraud of the century”. In November of 2014 Nemtzov wrote in his Facebook that Russia’s potential profit from this deal is doubtful: there will be no fiscal revenues from this transaction, the initial construction cost estimates of $55 billion could double or even triple. Natural gas reserves in the region are hard to access, the climate is severe, and production costs are expected to be high. At the same time, the contractual gas price for China is much lower than those for Europe or Ukraine. Given the above, this “contract of the century” looks much more attractive for China than for Russia.

– The deal came close to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and also the current crisis experienced in Ukraine. EU and the US gave Russia, financial sanctions which put a restrain in the friendship, and also in the Russian economy. Will the energy accord with China, help Russia become less dependent with the Euro? And will it be more profitable in the long run with China, than with the downgraded EU economy that is experiencing recession?

One of the weaknesses in the Russia’s economy is that its exports are not diversified: about 80% of Russia’s exports are mineral products (oil, gas, coal) and metals. This puts Russia at the whim of commodity price fluctuations no matter who the trading partner is. The China deal is more of the same: Russia takes out a loan, builds a pipeline, pumps oil to China and uses the proceeds to repay the loan. In 30 years’ time, Russia will be left with a useless asset: a pipeline in the middle of nowhere leading to an empty oil field. I do not see how this makes sense economically.

2) How many countries will form the new Euro-Asian Union, and will it be a successful achievement to create a unified currency with these countries?

Eurasian Union and Euro-Asian Economic Union are two different concepts. The Treaty on Euro -Asian Economic Union came into effect on January 01 of 2015. This Union initially included Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, which are also the founders of the Customs Union. Armenia joined the EAEU on January 02, and Kyrgyzstan became a member of the Union in the end of May of 2015. The question of introducing of the unified supranational currency is still being debated. In April of 2015 the deputy Minister of national Economy of Kazakhstan commented that his country doesn’t support the idea of the unified currency for the EAEU member countries. Before that in March of 2015 President Putin instructed the Central bank of Russia and the Russian Government to make an economic assessment of benefits from the EAEU currency union.

There are also talks about the possibility of setting up a Eurasian Union, i.e. a confederation of a number of post-Soviet states. This project involves a higher level of integration and a unified political, economic, military, humanitarian and cultural space.

3) A lot of criticism is pointed to Vladimir Putin, who some experts claim is trying to re-establish the Russian empire by swallowing ex-Soviet nations. Is this really true, or is this more of western propaganda to downgrade Putin’s role as a president?

Putin is definitely on the “Back to the USSR” track. There are telltale signs of re-establishing of certain typically Soviet attitudes including hostility to the West and xenophobia, aggressive TV propaganda, extended definition of the high treason, the gay propaganda law, restraints of the freedom of assembly etc. The issue of re-establishing of the new version of the Soviet Union has been debated for a number of years. This idea is popular in today’s Russia, but other former Soviet states display different levels of enthusiasm and support at this point. The Baltic States, Georgia, Ukraine and some other former Soviet republics don’t favor the idea of the new USSR. Some Central Asian states and possibly Belarus will more likely consider the option of a confederation.

4) Is Putin losing popularity in Russia, considering the Russian economy has been hit harshly in 2015?

This conflict between the declining economy and aggressive propaganda is usually called “the battle between the refrigerator and the TV set”. Russians are trying to figure out what is more important for them now, and some seem to be ready to sacrifice recent gains in living standards for the sake of the great and mighty Russia. Putin is really popular, but I don’t believe in the notorious 86% , who support him. Even in late 2000s, when I took an active part in sociological studies conducted by the INDEM foundation (one of the oldest and most reputable think-tanks), our respondents repeatedly pointed out that they don’t believe that the surveys are anonymous. This attitude is getting stronger now, plus some respondents are afraid to provide honest answers. On the other hand, Putin’s propaganda is actively exploiting the concept of the great Soviet past, when the USSR was one of the world empires. At that time, the Soviet citizens were repeatedly instructed by the Soviet media and the Communist party officials that shortages of foods and goods were not important compared to the military power of the Soviet Union and its international prestige. Interests of the State always prevailed under the Soviet rule, and now this attitude is back. Propaganda of this sort works on people who failed to adjust to the post-Soviet life and the market economy. These people are overwhelmed with nostalgia for the powerful Soviet Union and former social guarantees of a paternalistic state, and Putin is saying exactly what they want to hear.

– The ghost of the Russian apartment bombings in Buynaksk and Volgodonsk has resurfaced the media the past year or so. Many Russian people now view Putin responsible for the incident with coordination from the FSB  as opposed to the state investigation, claiming he wanted to invade ‘Chechnya’ to gain more popularity and win the elections. What are your thoughts on this?

Before Ramzan Kadyrov proclaimed himself the devoted ally and supporter of President Putin, the Russian law enforcement officials were trying to spot “The Chechen traces” in every terrorist act. But Putin never sent federal troops to the Chechen republic. I do not think he was seriously considering this option. Russia already had a bad experience there in 1990s. As for the bombings, it’s impossible to judge on the level of Putin’s involvement in the absence of sufficient information.

5) Russia has a bipolar capitalist system. What new reforms will help the gap between the Lower middle class to help secure a more stable Russia?

First, it is necessary to increase security of domestic savings and safety of foreign investments. In order to secure a more stable Russia, certain Russian legislative norms regulating the issues of property rights and economic activity shall be changed. One important task will be changing certain provisions of the Russian Criminal Code, which establish criminal liability for “illegal” entrepreneurial activity. In order to set up a new business one has to obtain dozens of permits and no-objections from various administrative agencies. People can spend months getting all necessary documents, and those that were obtained first may already expire at the time when the last one is eventually received. This highly bureaucratic and corrupt system is not business-friendly, and at some point, many businesspersons face a challenging choice. They must either pay bribes in order to speed up the process or to operate in the absence of one or more required documents, which can be easily construed as illegal entrepreneurial activity and result in criminal prosecution. In their current wording, the applicable laws provide weak protection of individuals or their property in practice. On the contrary, such norms constitute a serious threat to individual rights and freedoms: their formulations are vague and ambiguous, so there is a serious risk of arbitrary interpretation and selective application of justice. The existing informal practices of interaction of businesses and governmental agencies also in dire need of change, and changing social norms is much harder and longer than altering the institutional design.

6) Iran and Russia are providing Assad’s regime with weapons, training and logistics, who is fighting against ISIL, and also Jahbat Al-Nusra as the FSA has finally dissolved its militia. Recently ISIL captured Ramadi, and controls now 50% of Syria. If Assad fails to reconquer Syria, and ISIL wins. Is there a strong possibility we might see Russian and Iranian troops fighting back against ISIL to regain territory in Syria?

Selling weapons and providing training is one thing, but sending troops is a completely different action, which requires approval of the Federation Council, the upper house of the Russian federal legislature. Under the Russian Constitution (Art. 102 (d)) deciding on the possibility of using the Armed Forces of the Russia outside the territory of the country lies with the Federation Council. For the time –being, I don’t see any signs that Russia is getting ready for some sort of military involvement in Syria. The Moscow principles (the guidelines that were approved in the course of the Moscow negotiations in January of 2015) suggest peaceful resolution of the conflict. I will be surprised if Russia sends the troops to Syria now.

7) Ecept Erdogan has supported ISIL, and Al-Qaeda and perhaps Pakistan is also involved. What is the relationship between Russia. Turkey and Pakistan? Is their relationship one of trust?

I don’t see any signs of hostility or lack of trust in Russian-Turkish or Russian –Pakistani relations.

– They are rumors that Russia with India is helping the Baluchistan Freedom Army. Is this true to stir turmoil against Pakistan?

Being a lawyer, I cannot comment on rumors. I have no evidence that Russia is supporting the BFA.

8) Was the relationship between the US and Russia better when George W. Bush was the president, or with Barack Obama?

The US-Russian relations were better in 2000s as opposed to 2010s, but it is not about George W.Bush or Barack Obama. Today’s Russia differs tremendously from Russia of 2000, it really looks like a different country. After the turn of the millennium, Russia still kept the attitudes of the times of Boris Yeltsyn, the first President of Russia. Yeltsyn was very open to foreigners, state-sponsored xenophobia was almost non-existent, so nothing reminded about the pre-Gorbachev’s Iron Curtain. Big changes started in mid-2012, when the first disturbing signs of preparation for the Cold War II came up to the agenda. In July of 2012, amendments to the RF legislation on NGOs introduced the concept of a foreign agent, i.e. an NGO, which gets financial support from foreign sources and is engaged in political activity. In April of 2014, The Constitutional Court of Russia ruled that these amendments were constitutional. Legal reasoning of this ruling offers a detailed justification for a notion of a foreign agent (a term that carries a negative connotation for most Russians). Introducing of the concept of a foreign agent was followed by considerable extension of definition of the high treason in November of 2012. The vague and ambiguous new wording creates unlimited possibilities for arbitrary interpretation and selective application of law: a criminal case for high treason can be initiated against any RF citizen who communicates almost any sort of information or undertakes almost any action. The most recent development is the notorious law on “undesirable organizations”, which came into effect in the end of May of 2015. Under the new law, “activity of any foreign or international NGO, which constitutes threat for fundamentals of the constitutional system of Russia, national defense capability of safety of the state, can be recognized as undesirable on the territory of Russia”. Such decisions shall be made by the RF Prosecutor General or his deputies and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

9) Norway joined NATO anti Missile Defense Program. Ambassador Mikhail Vanin, threaten that Russia could launch a nuclear missile to Norway for reaching an agreement with NATO. How serious is this problem?

It’s not serious at all. Mikhail Vanin doesn’t have diplomatic background. He graduated from my alma mater, the Law School of the Moscow State University, and we did not study diplomacy there. In my book, it was an unprofessional statement, but it should not be read as conveying any real danger.

10) What new future Russian leaders could replace Vladimir Putin next?  Where do you see Russia globally in the next decade or so?

Predicting the future is not exactly my area. I certainly hope that next Russian President will be an open-minded person who appreciates such internationally recognized values as rule of law, separation of powers and supremacy of human rights and freedoms. I hope it will be someone not infected with the nostalgia for the Soviet Union. It’s a tragedy that Boris Nemtzov was killed. He would make a perfect president.

 

 

Comments Off on Expert answers present questions about Russia

Iran, ready to attack Saudi Arabia

May 30th, 2015

 

 

By The Daily Journalist.

 

 

 



 

Iran and Saudi Arabia have experienced a number of challenges in Yemen, that might tare their already frail relationship.  With the emancipation of Iran regarding nuclear energy, Saudi Arabia who opposed the treaty has recently tried to realign their military superiority over the region.

In recent weeks, several leading members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard have stepped up their threats about the fatal consequences of Saudi Arabia for their participation in the war in Yemen. Recently, Ali Akbar Velayati, adviser and person of the utmost confidence of the supreme leader, confirmed the warning: “Saudi Arabia has fanned the flames of a fire that can not turn off”.

But the recent words of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rejecting outright the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect military facilities in Iran, which has confirmed the shift that is giving the regime in its foreign policy toward Riyadh.

This refusal means the announcement of a new red line that complicates the work of Iran’s nuclear negotiations team and responds to the Islamic Republic will not allow any foreign interference that may reveal its military capabilities. 

“A tactical move which shows the new defense strategy that Iran is preparing to the possibility that Saudi Arabia extend its policy of annihilation of the Shiite factions in other Arab countries,” explains Hossein Gheleji, professor of Islamic studies at three universities Revolution Tehran.

“The Saudi kingdom, after government reshuffle carried out by King Salman Bin Abdelaziz, especially with the appointment of Prince Mohamed Bin Salman as defense minister, has radicalized its foreign policy toward belligerence that Iran will not allow “.

The stem of King Salman said in early April to a delegation from the US Congress that “you can not trust Iran.” There is no doubt that nuclear negotiations have intensified fears Riyadh to lose influence in the region, but Tehran believes that the new Saudi government is going too far. 

“If Saudi Arabia radicalizes its foreign policy in the region attacking a Muslim country, then Iran has to react to what they are doing,” says the professor. For now, this reaction is only tactical, but if Riyadh does not stop its policy of aggression, then “Iran will change its strategy and show how the relationship with the Arab country will change from enmity to confrontation. Today you can not rule out that in the future a war will break out between Iran and Saudi Arabia, “he predicts.

This escalation of tension between the two countries is at the same time, undermining the government of Hasan Rohani, who is under “enormous pressure” due to the radicalization of the discourse of those inside Iran who do not want the nuclear deal to take place furthering these hostilities to whip up the flames.“If Rohani fails and there is no agreement, the revolutionary Sepah -Guard will be reaffirmed in their view that Iran can never trust America.”

That Rohani lost the upcoming elections it would be a great failure for the country,” said an expert in foreign policy of the reformist newspaper Shargh ‘journalist asking anonymity. “Khamenei has settled not to allow nuclear scientists speak with the IAEA or tolerate inspections in the arsenals of missiles. With this barrier, the leader is aligning with the Revolutionary Guards and putting Rohani in an extremely complicated situation,” he says.

This journalist also believes that today it can not be ruled out, war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, “a stage a few months ago seem impossible to predict.” Iran’s support to huthies factions in Yemen, along with the outstanding performance of the Shiite forces in Iraq against the Islamic State, “is causing the reaction of a new Saudi political elite that Iran wants to show who’s boss in the Middle East” Professor Gheleji accurate, for whom this elite strengthen its ties with Israel to jointly combat fronts to the rest of the region in which Iran is involved: Lebanon, Syria and, to a lesser extent Gaza.

Comments Off on Iran, ready to attack Saudi Arabia

Should lobbying congressmen be considered illegal?

May 30th, 2015

 

 

 

The Daily Journalist community opinion.

 



 

In my experience walking the lobbies of Capitol Hill, and watching men with briefcases giving politicians cordial handshakes in exchange for gifts is something that till this day I find contradictory. I could be wrong, but to me lobbying is somewhat a form of legal bribery. 

Citizens vote for politicians to represent their towns and states, but the biggest threat I see in the system is that powerful institutions have the financial ability to frustrate the will of the people by seducing politicians with a nice gift to get their way. 

In 2011, on the USA Today headlines, an ex-Lobbyist called Jack Abramoff said that, “most congressmen accept bribes.” He also claimed that the system was very corrupt and it sadden him. 

In your opinion. 

– Is the US the only western country where Lobbying is legal? 

– Do you believe Lobbying should be legal? Is a legal form of bribery right for democracy? 

– Do these bribes in congress also come from foreign countries also? (China, Saudi Arabia…)

–  Are politicians accepting ‘briefcases’ the reason why international and national policies have turned the economy, social reforms, foreign policy, besides other programs from experiencing crucial reforms for peoples benefits? 

– What would it take to eliminate Lobbying? And would US Citizens see positive results from such reform?  

 



Sebastian Sarbu.

(He is a military analyst and vicepresident of National Academy of Security and Defence Planning. Member of American Diplomatic Mission for International Relations.)

“Lobbying and other kinds of activities that affect the democratic will of societies should to be out of the law.

It’s also needed of an adequate legislation to enforcement the law in the way of the prevention in corruption to protect society entirely. Another  possible legal solution would be the ban of special interests of influence groups.

Not only in the US illegal lobbies try to control the decision in the state. That is the temptation of all democratic systems with economic power. Even for the states which have old democratic tradition it is a big new challenge to be riddled with corruption, but the “illegal” lobbies tear, somehow and sometimes, the mask of legality.

Democracy must be defended by rules and mechanisms. In this sense it doesn’t matter what kind of constitutional order rule any country has, because history proves that each country has been “forced” to establish the rule of law.

Furthermore, the economic development, strategic interests, human rights, education, who are subject of the democratic reform must be protected by law.

Corruption, and the absence of integrity that created any prejudice of the general interest should be a question of national security matters.

Also it is necessary to understand that in an open society, the democratic control exercised over the governance is the chance of change. The solidarity between elites and free society could provide the best solutions into the peoples benefit.”

 



Peter D. Rosenstein.

(He is a non-profit executive, journalist and Democratic and community activist. His background includes teaching; serving as Coordinator of Local Government for the City of New York; working in the Carter Administration; and Vice-chair of the Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia)

“In my experience walking the lobbies of Capitol Hill, and watching men with briefcases giving politicians cordial handshakes in exchange for gifts is something that till this day I find contradictory. I could be wrong, but to me lobbying is somewhat a form of legal bribery.

You are wrong. There is nothing wrong with ‘lobbying’ and it is done not only by those on ‘K Street’ but by individuals who can call their members of Congress and visit them at any time both in Washington D.C.and when they are home. The bad name that lobbying has gotten is because of all the money in politics today and that should be curtailed. But letting citizens and their representatives have the opportunity to talk to members and let them know what they want them to do and vote for is fine.

Citizens vote for politicians to represent their towns and states, but the biggest threat I see in the system is that powerful institutions have the financial ability to frustrate the will of the people by seducing politicians with a nice gift to get their way.

One has to question what you mean when you say ‘gift’. Generally today because the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people in ‘Citizens United’ there is much too much money in politics. Yes corporations and large entities use donations of money to campaigns to get access to politicians. I am against their ability to do that, but as long as it is legal it will continue. But I have found over the years even without much money and without a political action committee (PAC) citizens can still be heard if they are persistent.

in 2011, on the USA Today, an ex-Lobbyist called Jack Abramoff said that, “most congressmen accept bribes.” He also claimed that the system was very corrupt and it sadden him.

– Is the US the only western country where Lobbying is legal?

Clearly bribery of public officials is not limited to the United States. The problem is with our elections that they are so long and so expensive that more money is needed to run and win. That leads to members of Congress spending inordinate amounts of time raising funds and at this time there is no limit on what they can raise which is the problem.

– Do you believe Lobbying should be legal? Is a legal form of bribery right for democracy?

Lobbying is not a legal form of bribery. That premise is wrong. Yes lobbying should be legal but the amount of money that can be contributed to campaigns should be curtailed. Today there is a limit on what members of Congress and their staffs can take as gifts etc. That should be even more stringent.

– Do these bribes in congress also come from foreign countries also? (China, Saudi Arabia…)

Member of Congress may not take money from foreign entities or raise money for campaigns from anyone other than citizens of the United States.

–  Are politicians accepting ‘briefcases’ the reason why international and national policies have turned the economy, social reforms, foreign policy, besides other programs from experiencing crucial reforms for peoples benefits?

I am not sure where this concept of accepting ‘briefcases’ really comes from. There have been politicians and lobbyists like Abramoff who have gone to jail for doing illegal things. It is not the rule in any way that I have seen. It has little to do with not passing crucial reforms that will benefit people.

– What would it take to eliminate Lobbying? And would US Citizens see positive results from such reform?

We won’t eliminate lobbying and I want our citizens to be able to lobby their members of Congress on issues they care about. Again what needs to be eliminated is the obscene amounts of money in US Congressional campaigns.”

 



Peter Eyre.

(Engaged in conflicts in the Middle East (Aden – Lebanon – Suez – Trucial Oman, far East (Borneo-Indonesia-Malaysia) and the “Cold War”. He is now an advocate of human rights)

“- Is the US the only western country where Lobbying is legal? 

No lobbying takes place in almost all countries and it would be impossible to find any international politician who has not had is palmed brushed

– Do you believe Lobbying should be legal? Is a legal form of bribery right for democracy? 

Lobbying should not be legal and certainly is not democratic ….its promotes fraudulent activity, bribes and allows the political elite to accept funding for their campaigns in return for policy changes etc which favour the donors…….Zionist are the backbone behind this activity in almost every country!!

 – Do these bribes in congress also come from foreign countries also? (China, Saudi Arabia…)

Absolutely from all sectors both from international governments and the international corporate sector……especially from the oil, gas and mining sectors who drain billions if not trillions from each countries coffers, not to mention their tax avoidance!

 –  Are politicians accepting ‘briefcases’ the reason why international and national policies have turned the economy, social reforms, foreign policy, besides other programs from experiencing crucial reforms for peoples benefits? 

Yes absolutely…….one example is the UK’s Prime Minister David Cameron who managed to acquire a suitcase from South Africa containing 17.8 million pounds during the reign of Maggie Thatcher……..it is rife in all countries and all of the above leads to a governments artificial defecit which is then followed by severe austerity measure…..all of which is totally unjustified……..if we all followed the international fraud and recovered those proceeds of crime our respective countries would all be in the blue!!

 – What would it take to eliminate Lobbying? And would US Citizens see positive results from such reform?  

The simply stroke of a pen would start the process and if the US Citizens really knew the truth behind government corruption/fraud we would certainly see good results immediately……..in the true sense of the word there is no national deficit at all……its all stolen government gold, money that as been siphoned off into offshore accounts with the full knowledge of politicians and with the full backing of the Reserve Bank system…..that is illegal and against the law!!”

 



Jon Kofas.

(Retired Indiana University university professor. Academic Writing. International Political Economy – Fiction)

“According to public opinion polls, about two thirds of Americans believe that lobbyists have too much power and lobbying is at the core of the policy making decision process. This means that powerful interest groups, namely, US and foreign corporations as well as foreign governments such as Israel and China prevail in policy that does not advance the interests of the American people, but often harms them. Of course, there are also advocacy lobbies dealing with the welfare of the elderly, education, science and culture, the environment, and other issues such as gay marriage that reflect the trends of the particular period. However, when we compare the preeminent influence of the defense industry lobby with all of the small and weak groups advocating diplomatic solutions to crises and arms – from nuclear to conventional – reduction, the defense industry prevails every time as it has from the late 19^th century until the present.

One could argue that right-wing propagandists like Charles Krauthammer and Robert Samuelson advance valid arguments in favor of lobbying and believe that indeed it is “democracy in action”. This means that “democracy” is limited to those that can afford lobbyists while the rest must suffer the results of public policy often to their detriment. The larger question is how lobbies pose a threat to a modern democracy and alienate the majority of the people outside the services of lobbyists who have become a fixture in politics. This issue goes beyond ideological and political convictions to the practical matter of how one defines national interest. If the few large banks, insurance companies, and multinational corporations are the “national interest”, then by all means what is good for corporate America is good for all Americans, regardless of statistics showing massive capital concentration and steady decline of the middle class in the last three decades.

“What is good for corporate America is good for all Americans” is exactly the notion that the media, businesses, most academics and think tanks project to the public. This is what politicians practice, no matter their hypocritical populist rhetoric about “serving all of the people”. Considering that two-thirds of the people are convinced that lobbyists, not the voters, exercise influence over policymakers, then there is a widespread belief that democracy is indeed for sale and always well paid for. One could argue that American democracy was always for sale to business interests because it was founded by men committed to private property rather than social justice, individuals interested in protecting and promoting propertied class rather than the welfare of the entire population. Lobbying is simply a reflection of how the values and structure of the political economy.

Although lobbying as we know it today had its start during the last quarter of the 19^th century, the history of lobbying in the US goes back to the Founding Fathers. Most of them were concerned about narrow or special interests prevailing over the “general will” as French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau defined in a book by the same title where he outlines a version of social democracy that differs substantially from the Liberal model of John Locke whose goal was to promote propertied interests through a strong legislative branch. Although Locke was interested in preventing tyranny by Absolutist monarchs, he did not have a notion of the collective or general will as did Rousseau and was only interested in preventing tyranny at the expense of the propertied classes. This mindset prevailed among the Founding Fathers. Clearly, there were no advocates with any sort of political power for African slaves, Native Americans, women, non-Western European immigrants, and for workers and peasants. These people were either completely outside of political life or barely on the margins.

The framers of the US Constitution were white males representing the propertied classes of the late 18^th century, but envisioned an open society where bourgeois opportunity rooted in merit would take hold in America as opposed to a system rooted in special privileges because of birth-right as was the case with the European aristocracy and/or links to the government that would favor one interest group over the other. At least this was the ideal, though in reality the First Amendment of the Constitution provided the window special interests needed to exert inordinate influence and prevail over the general will. While there was some lobbying at the central government level in the 19^th century by banking, industrial, mining and railroad groups, most of the lobbying took place at the state and local levels, accounting for enormous political corruption as evidenced by cronyism in larger cities from Boston to Chicago where “machine politics” took hold.

During the Gild Age (1870-1900), which coincided with the American industrial revolution and the Westward Movement and Reconstruction, there was indeed enormous corruption, partly owing to lobbying. Politics became increasingly a business of catering to business of those politically connected at the expense of the rest of society from consumers to labor organizers demanding safe working conditions and fair wages so they could live above the poverty level.

The deterioration of politics as a mechanism promoting big business was something that middle class critics pointed out during the Progressive Era when many viewed lobbying as a detriment to democracy. The response by Republican and Democrat Progressives was to rationalize government, that is to say, expand it through more and larger bureaucracies and make it more merit-based so it could better serve capitalism as a whole, including balancing the interests of disparate sectors. A major goal of the Progressives was the overall growth of the capitalist economy with the state as the pillar of support while at the same time protecting the consumer to a small degree and addressing some needs of the middle class that viewed big business as predatory. This was at least the theory. In practice, it did not work because Gilded Age monopolies and oligopolies, which many Progressive critics decried, continued to prevail in formulating public policy, while government remained their protector.

From the outbreak of WWI until FDR took office, capitalism reverted to Gilded Age practices that helped bring about the Great Depression. Throughout the 1920s, lobbying became more organized and intensive. Operating in a pro-business climate, lobbyists used more high-pressure tactics to secure passage of legislation by targeting committees and regulatory commissions. With capitalism collapsing in 1929, the New Deal and WWII entailed greater regulatory measures and centralization of government. However, the trend to restore the preeminent role of business in public policy returned with the Truman administration. The Cold War followed by the “war on terror” became the pretext to permit as much laissez-faire latitude as possible so that capitalism becomes stronger.

Lobbyists and influence peddlers on behalf of capital became the new saints of the system from the Reagan-Thatcher decade in the 1980s until the present, despite mini-recessions in the 1980s and 1990s, and a major one in 2008. The Reagan myth of “big government is the enemy”, implying big business is “our friend”, was a signal to corporate lobbying that government was on their side ready to privatize public services, offer contracts, subsidies, and reduce taxes for the upper income groups. This was music to the ears of lobbyists, Democrat and Republican alike whose task Reagan made easier. The downfall of the Soviet bloc was an even greater boost to corporate lobbyists because they could argue that capitalism has endured the test of time and it is the only option in the world.

The absolute triumph of the market under globalization and neoliberal policies was so prevalent that not even after major scandals involving lobbyists from the 1990s until the present and even the global recession that lasted four years (2007-2011) made any difference to governments and politicians that more regulation was needed to address structural problems owing to laws and regulatory loopholes intended to permit banks, insurance companies and finance capital to amass capital at the risk of undermining capitalism. Because the state (taxpayer money and income transfer from the lower and middle class to the wealthy) was always available to bail out the clients of the lobbyists, why implement a rigid regulatory system, and even after some regulatory measures, why enforce them?

Ideology and Lobbying

The ideological orientation of the individual determines where they stand on lobbying as a detriment to democracy or simply a right of freedom of expression. What are the determinants of such ideological orientation is another topic for analysis, but the “dominant culture”, as projected through the media and educational institutions, plays a major role. Academic works rooted in classical Liberal or neoliberal thought about lobbying try to justify it in the same manner as the Supreme Court, using the First Amendment issue as the pretext for influence peddling by corporate interests. While the Supreme Court provides the legitimacy of lobbying and apologists of the system justify it using various ideological and political arguments, in the last analysis it is the power of capital that makes lobbying the force that it is in society.

Politicians, academics, the media and lobbyists argue that lobbying is simply another dimension of public affairs and a reflection of “democracy in action”. After all, environmental, gay rights, universities, the elderly via AARP, and all sorts of groups are just as free to lobby as are big banks and defense companies. Of course, the issue is one of scale and resources when comparing Wall Street to educational, social and environmental groups. Moreover, it is also one of institutional and ideological commitment to preserve the status quo and faithfully serve capital because politicians view capitalist lobbies as contributing to the economy, while the AARP, educational, social, and environmental lobbies are generally deemed as “costing” the economy. In essence, however, the real costs result from lobbying that seeks direct and indirect monetary privileges from the state so it does not contribute its share to the fiscal system.

Lobbyists have such power that it is difficult for a political candidate to win office going against powerful capitalists who have the means to finance campaigns and buy influence at all branches and all levels of government. Similarly, it is difficult for journalists, academics, think tanks and consultants to speak out against corporate lobbying because they know corporate interests enjoy wide influence in everything from and arts and universities seeking grants and foundation funds to the media interested in promoting the neoliberal ideology that results in capital accumulation. Individual self interest dictates that one remain silent at the very least, or join the lobbying crusade at most because behind it is big capital.

It is not the case that apologists of lobbying are ignorant of how money buys influence and leaves out the rest of society, any more than it is much of any issue that the vast majority of apologists are acting out of ideological convictions instead of simple self interest. While most of them have something to say about improving the lobbying landscape so that no single lobby becomes too powerful and limits are set so that the business of lobbying is well managed, all of them believe this is the way to conduct business and they view lobbying as another business investment for which society will have to pay the cost.

Operating within the framework of the liberal democratic system, reformers argue that there must be regulatory mechanisms of lobbying to prevent corruption, fraud, absence of disclosure, and conspiracy, all things people in a modern open society associate with authoritarian regimes. This has been the position of reformers from the late 19^th century until the present. Meanwhile, all efforts from the Progressive Era until the present to “reform” the lobbying networks have failed if we judge by the fact that lobbyists often set the perimeters of legislation and Congress simply votes to affirm the choice of the lobbies.

Reformers advocating “fixing the broken system” are actually much more dangerous than right wingers or neoliberal apologists of lobbying who blatantly defend it and believe democracy is nothing more than a vehicle for capital accumulation and concentration, and anything against this is simply “un-American”.  Reformers are dangerous because they deceive the public into believing there is hope under the existing system despite 150 years of experience that lobbying is an integral part of the political institutional structure and at its core.

Critics that want to abolish lobbying altogether include not just those on the left of the ideological and political spectrum, but some on the right who feel that politicians should be catering to capital without the need for lobbies that add to the cost of business. Entitled “Corruption, American Style”, aFORBES article (1/22/2009) argues that lobbying is not much different than “Third World corruption” where narcotics and other illegal activities are an integral part of the economy. “Con men, swindlers and cheaters pay bribes. Sophisticates hire lobbyists because lobbyists get better, more lasting results while only rarely landing in the slammer. We know intuitively that bribery and lobbying are related, and there are reams of academic papers that try to draw the line between legitimate issue advocacy and corruption.”

Beyond the liberal-reformist argument regarding transparency, the issue that some conservative critics are raising is that lobbying in itself constitutes a form of corruption because select companies make payments to select politicians in exchange for specific favors granted. Again, it is not that critics from the right want capitalism weakened, but that they want no cost of passing legislation accrued to capitalists for such work must be carried out by politicians without a quid pro quo. There is also the issue of inter-sector competition involved here. For example, if the pharmaceutical lobby prevails it means that this sector takes a larger share of the economic pie because the rest of the business sectors must pay more in insurance costs to cover health care. If the Israeli lobby prevails, as it does over all other foreign lobbies, then it has a distinct and unfair advantage.

Without a doubt, there is a great deal of hypocrisy in the US where the image the media, politicians and opinion makers project is that official and private sector corruption is something that takes place in Africa, Latin America and Asia, but rarely in the advanced countries. While in many countries “baksheesh capitalism” is a way of life, the US decries such practice while it has legalized and institutionalized a system far worse in the form of lobbying. Whether an Egyptian businessman offers bribes to finance ministry officials to avoid paying taxes or the US corporate lobbies and exchange favors in order to strike a deal with congress and the White House to have a much lower tax rate for repatriation of their overseas profits the net result is exactly the same. In fact, I would argue that lobbying in the US, as well as Europe where it is just as widespread, is as a far more dangerous form of legalized bribery because it presents itself as an integral part of “democracy”.

Arguing that it is not possible reform a system that at its core has corruption as its mode of operation, leftists see lobbying as another dimension of capitalism. Leftist critics who want to abolish lobbying maintain that it is a reflection of the political economy and itself an industry that has a corrosive effect on representative democracy because its operations are intended to have the entire political system catering to the financial elites in society. The issue for these critics is not that the environmental lobby spent $5 million on congressmen while oil and gas lobbyists spent $25 million, so one buys less influence than the other. The issue is lobbying as a reflection of class interests must be abolished because the only ones served are the rich and those whose interested are undermined the poor who have no one representing them.

If people wish to defend “Constitutionally-protected” bribery legalized within the lobbying system that is their choice, but they can hardly argue that there is much difference between this system and the one they criticize in Russia or Turkey, for example, where a millionaire bribes public officials. It is true that in the US lobbying is more subtle than the crude bribery methods of other countries. Former officials from the State Department, Defense, Commerce and other agencies become consultants who in turn lobby on behalf of foreign governments and multinational corporations.

Realistically, there is no chance of abolishing lobbying, so reform is about the only option. Campaign finance reform is an issue that comes up every time there is an election as is the role of lobbyists. Unfortunately, nothing has ever been done about this for decades to eliminate the aura of suspicion surrounding lobbying. Yet, there are countless academic and media journals, and books hammering the same old argument about campaign finance reform as though “reforming” corruption, decadence, and deals between lobbyists and politicians will somehow transform it into the panacea of the political system. The “reform” measures that have been passed from George Washington until have done absolutely nothing. After the Supreme Court lifted limits on campaign contributions in the case ofMcCutcheon v. FEC in April 2014, The Washington Post ran a story about campaign reform in the last two centuries, essentially detailing the futility of reform that in the public mind means improving that which is decadent and corrupt by nature.

Identifying the Lobbyists.

In 2014, there were 11,800 “registered” lobbying groups and they collectively spent $3.4 billion on behalf of their clients. The “official registered” number of US lobbyists is about one-third of their counterparts in Brussels lobbying the EU for favors on behalf of banks and tech companies to energy and commercial fishing. Although lobbying is a brokerage service industry operating under the guise of “informing” Congress and government agencies, it represents the symbiotic relationship between the state and the private sector. To have a better view of how lobbying is actually dominant in the political arena, we need to examine some American lobbyists well known for providing “symbiosis” between government and the private sector.

John Podesta, famous for his connection with both the Clinton and Obama administrations, describes from an overview perspective his company’s services as follows:  “Our clients range from small, cutting-edge companies to global corporations, sovereign nations to local municipalities, trade associations to non-profits, and our solutions and strategies for achieving all of their policy goals are innovative and smart. Bloomberg Businessweek calls the Podesta Group a “Beltway Blackbelt,” we call ourselves an unmatched team of policy experts that brings decades of experience in all corners of the federal government, and on the campaign trail to bear. We work with Capitol Hill policymakers, recruit third-party allies, connect with the media and build coalitions to champion our clients’ agendas – in short, we know how to get things done.”

Besides serving as chief of staff for Bill Clinton and Counselor to Obama, Podesta head of one of the largest lobbying companies, chairs the Hilary Clinton campaign for 2016. He is one of the key people in the Democrat think tank Center for American Progressand a visiting scholar at Georgetown University where other lobbyists have and still are working, just to add a bit of academic legitimacy to a profession that in essence acts as a broker for big business and foreign governments.  Although Podesta is a Democrat and used the party to advance his lobbying business, he will lobby for any corporation no matter its political affiliation.

There are of course many Republican lobbying firms that are even more blatant in their ties with government than Democrats. In January 2011, Utah Senator Mike Lee hired an energy lobbyist to be his chief of staff, raising questions about such a direct link between politicians and lobbyists.  According to the Salt Lake Tribune: “They have also both (the senator and his chief of staff Spencer Stokes) worked for Energy Solutions and Stokes is still registered to lobby for the nuclear services company, which operates a radioactive waste landfill in Utah. Stokes is currently registered to lobby for 18 organizations in the state, including the Utah League of Credit Unions; Management & Training Corp., a private prison company; and a number of energy interests, including utilities and the Utah Association of Energy Users.” Huffington Post, January 3, 2011)

Senator Lee was honest enough to acknowledge through his actions that his office belonged to corporate interests, even while he was in office, no matter what critics thought of him. Other politicians wait until they actually leave office to go to work as lobbyists. This was the case with former Senators Trent Lott (Republican) and John Breaux (Democrat). In 2008, their lobbying firm made one million dollars, which was a mere 13% of their income for the year, serving such a diverse group of clients as AT&T, Northrop Grumman, Nissan North America, Tyson Foods and Shell Oil.  According to published reports, the Lott-Breaux lobbying firm actually delivered no service to these companies, and this was by no means the only lobbying firm doing nothing but receiving money from corporate clients who simply wanted these firms on their side. Despite their rather conservative leanings on foreign policy, one of their clients was Russian-owned Gazprombank, Russia’s third largest bank controlled by the Russian state-owned Gazprom energy company against which U.S. imposed sanctions in July 2014. (“Empty Disclosure” by Lindsay Renick Mayer, March 19, 2009; OpenSecrets.org)

For decades, the tobacco lobby enjoyed such massive influence over politicians that it was difficult to secure label warnings, curbs on advertising and marketing campaign through various means from paying motion picture producers to have actors smoke like chimneys to other stealthy means of projecting an image that smoking was great for stress relief and did not cause cancer. When it became too costly for government (taxpayers) and insurance companies as well as employers paying part of the cost for their employees to subsidize cigarette smokers owing to health care costs, then the government began to regulate.

Of course, the massive lawsuits against tobacco companies also helped in this regard. The tobacco lobby represents but one aspect of how very narrow interests intended to maximize profit work against the welfare of the entire society, and how money buys political influence until other capitalist interests converge to oppose the lobby promoting its own cause. The tobacco lobby spent at least $22 million in lobbying in 2014 compared with $73 million in 1998. This does not include money spent by individuals companies on individual political campaigns.

The history of the tobacco lobby may reveal a lot about the “junk food and beverage” industry lobby because of healthcare costs as the common factor. The only political counterweight to powerful lobbying within the context of the market system is the convergence of other capitalist interests against a specific sector that cuts into the profits of several others. It is very revealing that it is not the welfare of the people that government takes into account but inter-sector competition.

Who Benefits from Lobbies?

In 2012, billionaire Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney revealed that he was taxed at the rate of 14percent. Romney’s tax rate was considerably lower than 47% of Americans who pay higher taxes but do not have the income and assets of billionaires like Romney. This absurdity in poorer people paying tax rates than the rich is the result of lobbying. In 2010, the Sunlight Foundation conducted a study to determine how lobbying yields benefits to corporations. The result is that America’s largest companies enjoyed a tax reduction amounting to $11 billion in 2010 when compared with 2007. The study concludes that return on the lobbying investment on behalf of the companies involved was a staggering 2000%. (“Lobby More, Pay Less” by Lee Drutman. 16 April 2012 Sunlight Foundation.)

Besides the direct tax savings as a result from lobbying activities, corporations also benefit indirectly through subsidies that the government provides for some of the largest companies, including General Electric, Boeing and others of similar magnitude. Such subsidies are not only at the federal level, but also at the state and local levels amounting to billions of dollars annually, all of it in the name of neoliberalism but in essence corporate welfare.

To maintain a plant in Seattle Washington where the model Boeing 777X is made the Boeing Corporation received a staggering $8.7 billion in tax subsidy from the state as a result of lobbying. In addition to lower taxes and corporate subsidies that account for the phenomenon of corporate welfare, corporations also enjoy reduced regulation as a result of lobbying. For example, the food and beverage industry valued at more than one trillion dollars has been lobbying against regulatory measures that would reduce the rate of obesity and the ensuing costs to the health care system. With one-third of the population suffering from obesity and 17% of children, currently the US is number one among advanced nations. Because it is very profitable to make derivative food products from soy and corn used in junk foods, the food/beverage industry has spent enormous amounts on lobbying and campaign contributions to make certain there is no regulatory regime that obstructs this trend.

For large corporations in the domain of energy – coal, natural gas and oil – as well as chemical and pharmaceutical industries, lobbying is important to maximize profit by lowering costs owing to environmental regulation. The banking industry is just as active in lobbying government to permit greater freedom of its activities. (Mathew Sherman, “A Short History of Financial Deregulation in the United States”. Center for Economic Policy Research, 2009). As a result of lobbying efforts, Republicans and Democrats proceeded with banking deregulation in 1994. The result was the banking crisis of 2008 when the banks brought down not just the US economy but the world economy. All the risk rested with the taxpayers while the profits went to the bank executives and wealthy investors.

Deregulation meant massive bank profits at the cost of destabilizing the economy, but it does not stop there. Banks have been used as conduits to transfer billions in black market money emanating from narcotics to massive and chronic bribing involving FIFA international soccer games. The Justice Department’s FIFA investigation is looking into how Wall Street, including CITI and J.P. Morgan, were involved in the multi-million dollar money laundering operations of FIFA. Despite the hundreds of billions that banks have paid in fines and despite the crash of 2008, which started with Lehman Brothers in late 2007, they continue to lobby for less regulation and prevailing because of the money they spend to buy political influence.

Besides corporations deriving benefits as a result of lobbying, one of the most controversial lobbies in modern history is that representing Israel. One reason for its preeminent influence has been the combination of media, political and business support as well as voting power that make it very difficult for any politician to resist its pressures. Although the Israeli lobby acts on behalf of a foreign government, its success is that it presents its agenda as “the national interest of the US”, as though the US is an appendage of Israel and not a sovereign nation. Through its alliances with right-wing and Christian fundamentalist influence peddlers, and especially with defense industry and its lobbyists, the Israeli lobby has been able to create what many critics and supporters believe is the most powerful lobby organization in American history. One reason is the reluctance of most people to criticize because of fear they may be labeled anti-Semites. The question is whether this has helped to further the broader interests of the US or harmed them by helping to drag the country into regional Middle East conflicts and costing American taxpayers trillions of dollars from the 1940s to the present.

In September 2004, a number of media outlets dealt with the Israeli lobby and its links to Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. Fellow neo-conservatives well-connected with the Jewish lobby, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz made sure Feith secured the Pentagon job, though it is not known the degree to which they were involved with the Israeli lobby and handing over official confidential documents to Israelis. Feith and his office were involved in an intelligence breach compromising US foreign and defense policy, but a pro-Israel administration refused to move forward with the case.

Neo-cons, some of whom are Jewish, were well connected to vice president Dick Cheney’s office and to ultra-right wing Christian fundamentalists, all defenders of the Israeli lobby. Although the Justice Department investigated Feith and his office staff, it never found him guilty of anything. However, the issue is much larger than the specific perimeters of this case involving Feith who went on to work for pro-Israel causes including lobbying against the US-Iran nuclear deal. At the core of the controversial Israeli lobby is not the lobbyists working on behalf of the government in Tel Aviv under the cover of American conservatism, but U.S. foreign policy.

Politicians, the media, and pundits analyzing/propagating in the media have no problem with the Israeli lobby, focusing instead on China and its rising influence through lobbying efforts. There are many books and articles on the controversial Israeli lobby that many regard as sacrosanct and others decry as a situation where a tiny country largely determines US foreign policy from Truman to the present. The Israeli lobby is not the only one influencing US policy, and it must not be used as a pretext for the structural problems of lobbying. There are many other foreign lobbies pushing for everything from improved trade to arms deals and economic aid. One reason that the governments of Taiwan and Kuwait funded most of the Memorial Day activities in Washington in 2015 is because they want continued preferential treatment from US in trade, investment, foreign and defense policy.

The foreign lobbying process involving millions of dollars exchanging hands means that policy is not made based on the merits of the case, but on who pays and who does not. As the case of Senators Trent Lott and John Breaux illustrate, these people are hired guns for just about anyone that the US government would permit as “legitimate”. The issue of money is at heart of the Israeli lobby as well as less influential ones that know the way to buy policy is to pay for it and use other lobbies, especially the defense industry

In 2007 the Justice Department reported there were approximately 1,700 lobbyists representing more than 100 countries before Congress, the White House and the federal government all required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).  The Department of Justice has never enforced FARA evenly, and only used it when targeting countries it does not favor. Such selective enforcement of FARA is a reflection of the overall policy toward lobbying. The bottom line here is that the absence of political will results in the absence of enforcement of the law because the goal is to perpetuate a lobbying system that perpetuates the political regime serving the existing political economy and social structure.

Conclusions

All efforts at reform have come after the failure of some well-known lobbyists were involved in scandals or failing to register as such, or disclosing their firm represents foreign governments and they did not register as foreign agents. In 2006, Jack Abramoff, one of the most powerful lobbyists pleaded guilty to charges of fraud, corruption and conspiracy. This was a very big case that revealed the depth of corruption in the business. U.S. Government Accountability Office research of lobbying acknowledges that regardless of laws and enforcement, the system is flawed. During the Clinton administration, for example, of the 13,500 people lobbying Congress, 10,000 were not even registered as such! This does not include individuals working for corporations that lobby politicians individually.

Although this is hardly intended as an excuse, lobbying is not something that takes place only in the US. The European Union has its own set of problems with various forms of lobbying ranging from cronyism to money directly from companies and wealthy individuals to politicians in all countries from France to Greece. In some respects, the EU is as bad if not worse than the US, which simply confirms that lobbying is a universal phenomenon under capitalism and hardly a unique political or cultural trait in America. According to Transparency International only 7 out 19 EU countries even have laws and regulations on lobbying, and most of that is not working.

This explains everything from tax breaks for the rich to massive capital transfers and illegal activities involving money changing hands from businesses to politicians and public officials. This is not a problem confined to the periphery southern and Eastern European countries, but actually found at the northwest core countries where capitalism thrives and where most of the corruption takes place because of the headquarters for some of the world’s largest banks and multinational corporations with a history of corruption. When we trace the money trail that finds its way to politicians, government ministers and public officials, we realize that legislation and regulatory measures pass because “greased wheels” are behind it.

Nevertheless, EU politicians like their US counterparts try their very best to argue that everything they do, including tax reductions and tax loopholes for the wealthy “is best for society” and there is no other way. There are an estimated 30,000 lobbyists in EU headquarters Brussels, Belgium spending more than one billion euros to buy political influence. Their influence over policy impacting everything from trade and monetary policy to energy and shipping is estimated at 75%.  (UK The Guardian, May 8, 2014) The interesting thing about all of this is that the EU taxpayers are actually subsidizing the lobbyists who secure subsidies for their clients.

The issues before critics of lobbying include transparency, consumer protection, degradation of the environment, health and safety, equal access to politicians, and a regulatory regime that is intended to result in enforceable and ethical conduct on the part of both lobbyists and those in government. This is the reformist camp of critics that has its ideological roots in the late 19^thcentury when the Industrial Revolution and finance capitalism needed to enjoy greater control of public policy so they could realize greater profits. Reformers believe in rationalizing capitalism so it can work best in a pluralistic society where the middle class needs protection, especially in the 21^st century when communications means are so readily available and it is difficult to conceal the role of lobbies.

Businesses and foreign governments create coffers and slush funds to elect or reelect politicians, or at least influence their voting on specific issues or to prevent measures from passing because they would cut into their profits. Through political action committees and through loopholes and favors from politicians, lobbyists provide the financing and media influence politicians need to win or stay in office. Most of this is legal, some of it is not and we do not know to what degree, but the lobbying system as a whole is a reflection of how the political economy operates. Lobbying is built into the capitalist system to further strengthen and concentrate capital and maintain the social order. Efforts of reformers to rationalize the economy and balance interests of various sectors of production along with the interests of social classes in order to maintain a pluralistic society that politicians can still call “democracy” are a distraction for the benefit of the public that needs to believe we live in a democracy.”

 



Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khan

(He is a retired Brig Gen from Pakistan Army, served 32 years. A veteran of ‘1971 Indo-Pak War,’ has been instructor in officers’ Pakistan Military Academy, commanded Divisional as well as Corps Artillery. He writes frequently and traveled to Europe, America, Middle East and Far East.)

““The Supreme Court doctrine of lobbying for the last several years is a history of dicta, footnotes, and Constitutional avoidance.” …Zephyr Teachout

I would briefly comment, not necessarily in given sequence of the questionnaire as dealing with one would mean having rubbed with another as well. The topic is certainly challenging that provokes lively debate about the narrative, particularly when Jaime Ortega has given very powerful introductory remarks to project the degree of anguish some US citizens approach ‘lobbying’ with, labeling it, the worst kind of corruption.

The lobbying legality haunts moralists as well as idealists alike to raise these questions whether other Western countries have such vice or virtue, called lobbying. (Un) fortunately the query can be set at rest when we come across an anomaly that survives between US and rest of the Western democracies about its scale and spirit where peoples’ ‘rights’ have precedence over all aspects of the governance.

The constitutional significance and centrality that the ‘rights’ aspect has achieved through US history is unprecedented, even though lobbying had been an illegal pursuit until recently in the US history in several of its states. Now the game has gone full blown. Nestled on DC’s K Street, the lobbyist earn $ 3.5 billion, marking 7/8 percent growth each year that does not include the money which corporate giants pump into politicians’ campaign chest.

US Corruption Score of 74, an honorable one, still leads Sam Becker to comment, “The fact is, the U.S. does have a great deal of corruption in many forms, like lobbying, bribery, gerrymandering, and bought elections. But according to the corruption index, the U.S. pales in comparison to countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.”

Some credible scholars like Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have dwelt on a particular lobby which leaves no space to disagree that the US politicians are stained by the practice like any other corrupt one. The two did draw huge flak but then they were equally praised by vast group of scholars. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to US President Jimmy Carter, observed: “Mearsheimer and Walt adduce a great deal of factual evidence…”

I have limited journalistic prerogative when distrust among us is rampant but I would say that the lobbying would flourish even more as does the debate and skepticism among the Americans about its legality because those who need to knock it out are the main beneficiaries themselves. Interestingly its legitimacy hinges on a very delicate clause that requires one to be a law ‘guru’.

To quote the paradigm complication, Supreme Court observation of 1950 and Alex Mayyasi’s comment would suffice as a concluding remark, “The Supreme Court heard two cases regarding the law in the 1950s. In its decision on Congress’s ability to mandate lobbyist disclosures, the justices, Teachout wrote, “do not directly address the constitutionality of lobbying, [but] they strongly hint at a constitutionally protected right.” Although Teachout argues that the court did not address why such a right existed, nor its scope, she concludes that after the cases, “lobbying [was] presumptively protected in the American legal imagination.””

 



Claude Nougat. 

(Passionate traveller (80 countries+) 25 years experience in United Nations: project evaluation specialist; FAO Director for Europe/Central Asia)

– Is the US the only western country where Lobbying is legal?

 No, it is routinely done in Europe – everywhere from London to Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Athens, Ankara and Moscow. You name it. Everywhere there is lobbying and it often degenerates into outright corruption. In Italy (where I live), the political class is universally despised, it’s called “the caste”…

 – Do you believe Lobbying should be legal? Is a legal form of bribery right for democracy?

 No. Legalizing lobbying does not help. Lobbying is just the “soft” form of corruption that can go all the way to Mafia-style threats to people’s property and lives.

 – Do these bribes in congress also come from foreign countries also? (China, Saudi Arabia…) 

Yes, and how!

 –  Are politicians accepting ‘briefcases’ the reason why international and national policies have turned the economy, social reforms, foreign policy, besides other programs from experiencing crucial reforms for peoples benefits? 

Exactly right. Our governments are in the hands of the ultra rich and respond to their needs and desires – their beck and call.

 – What would it take to eliminate Lobbying? And would US Citizens see positive results from such reform? 

Make it illegal and pursue it with determination through the justice system. It would also require a determined campaign to educate citizens to their civic rights and duties.

PS: It’s not likely to happen. The system everywhere is already corrupted beyond any possibility of saving it. (That’s just my humble opinion)

 



Steven Hansen.

(Publisher and Co-founder of Econintersect, is an international business and industrial consultant specializing in turning around troubled business units; consults to governments to optimize process flows; and provides economic indicator analysis based on unadjusted data and process limitations)

“There are two sides of lobbying – one side is to inform while the other side is to manipulate. Informing (or educating) is a good thing whilst the manipulation (aka bribe) is a bad thing.

Politicians in almost all countries are above the law having special rights not bestowed on the masses. Please read Animal Farm. And the costs for a politician to get elected is so high that to get elected – they must sell themselves or realistically they will not get elected. Politics therefore is about the money.

Lobbying is not the cause of the corruption – but an effect of the corruption. There must be a constitutional amendment for election laws which should address:

• that all campaign contributions and political messages must be divided equally between the candidates (or have all political campaigns funded by the government).
• that no politician can enjoy a benefit not give to all citizens.
• term limits (the longer one remains in office, the more corrupt one becomes)

Because of interpretations of existing laws, the only way to minimize corruption is through a constitutional amendment – and good luck with that.

 



Adil F. Raja. 

(He is an independent Political and Security analyst from Pakistan with a diverse background in Governance, International Relations, Special Ops and International Security/Political Consultancy)

“- Is the US the only western country where Lobbying is legal? 

There seem to be many forms of lobbying and one such example ofearlier this year is of a former Member of the European Parliament (MEP), Ernst Strasser who was given a four year jail sentence for accepting a bribe from a pair of lobbyists in return for making amendments to EU law. The stricter laws in Europe especially  seem to be making lobbying less accepted and delved in. Lobbying was also illegal at one stage in the USA and most studies of lobbying are confined to the United States hence it is difficult to know how lobbying is conducted outside of the country.  

A reason for the difference in lobbying between America and other Western countries is the difference in centralization of decision making in the government. In the United States decision making is divided between the executive and the legislature, and sometimes between the state and national governments. In the majority of Western governments, decision making is highly concentrated in the cabinet executive. What is known is that there is an obvious lack of power balance where in the present system only the financially strong groups delve in lobbying.

– Do you believe Lobbying should be legal? Is a legal form of bribery right for democracy?

Lobbying is nothing but a civilized form of corruption and making it illegal would protect us from a legislation geared towards benefiting corporations and banks. A capitalist society propelled by money and with this form of lobbying in place can never truly be considered a democratic society.

Being a non American from an a country in the subcontinent, the first question that springs to mind is why would anyone not based in the USA care about the present system there?  The reason for this interest is based on the fact that the economy in this whole world is deeply connected to the superpower in this uni-polar world. The same interests makes lobbying a necessity not only at Washington DC, but also around the other capitals of the world.  

– Do these bribes in congress also come from foreign countries also? (China, Saudi Arabia…)

Off course, they do. I mean there are lobbying firms setup legally doing businesses at Washington DC, which are all up for hire. Big interests with big money like Jewish backed, Israel specific AIPAC is the biggest example of said unethical lobbying practices. Likewise, other countries also pay up big bucks to these lobbying firms for their own vested interests. These firms in turn lobby through the established practice of legal bribes to the political machinery at US.     

– Are politicians accepting ‘briefcases’ the reason why international and national policies have turned the economy, social reforms, foreign policy, besides other programs from experiencing crucial reforms for peoples benefits?

Not wholly, but a large onus lays upon these “brief cases” you talk about. Political pressures also do matter, but then public opinions are shaped through global corporate media lobbying, which again brings the whole scenario down to the “brief cases”.

– What would it take to eliminate Lobbying? And would US Citizens see positive results from such reforms? 

I can’t say anything would beat this lucrative business involving billions of dollars in bribes generating trillions of dollars of revenues for the clients. If anything does change this system of nepotism and organized bribery, not only the US population, but majority of global population would surely benefit with the realization of such a fantasy.”


 



    Ami Vider.

( He is a social networking and blogging professionals. Since 2006 he has been advising, writing, editing and publishing blogs for technology companies. In addition, he trains and advises top executives in the use of social media for marketing and image promotion)

“1. The US is not the only “western” country where lobbying is legal. As mentioned before, Israel accept the same type of advice from outside people who often influence the way laws are written and the parliamentary committee discussions are conducted.

2. Lobbying should be legal. I believe the basic drive in making lobbying legal is based on knowing who lobbies and how they are informing government in their specialty domain. Without approved lobbyists, we are going back to the days when rich aristocracy influenced royalty. The fear of the rich getting what they want goes back to the earliest days of government. Even in biblical times descriptions of relatives and influential citizens close to the king are worrisome. This assumes we want a true democratic (i.e. representative) decision making process in government.

3. Bribes in the Israeli government certainly originate from outside sources. The recent Olmert case (a former prime minister) was based on bribes coming from foreign sources as a form of help and personal reward to Olmert and people around him. There are countless allegations of international bribes in many governments, not limited to western countries. In the middle east many citizens assume some foreign influence, when it becomes too obvious there is concern. Former Israeli representatives and government officials (especially mayors and non-elected officials) are always suspect. Especially when they leave government positions and “suddenly” jump into a lucrative corporate position or non-profit organization which affords them a luxurious lifestyle.

4. Bribes and other form of elitists influence are always suspect in guiding politicians away from what seems to be “democratically” driven agendas. In Israel not only social reforms, but also other government changes are strangely “guided” by invisible hands. There is a strange case of ports of entry unionized workers. For decades holding up reforms in shipping procedures and even blamed on the high cost of imported goods. The holding back of privatizing sea and air ports is essentially driven not by true changes to unionized workers’ conditions as much as by large private corporations benefiting from aging infrastructure and management systems. In Israel protests over many social inequity issues have not changed materially either government policies or true government spending.

5. Lobbying could turn into a “open source” (as in computer software) process. Where people and organization of influence are required to publish their “inputs” to government when they are submitted to elected government officials. Also, lobbying should be completely forbidden to non-elected officials. This idea of making non-elected officials a “protected class” is not new. Government in the past, and even today, have a class of workers who are essentially trained and qualified in specific area of expertise. It may be lawyers and accountants who are professionally qualified by their organization (pass a qualification process with testing and training requirements).

This issue is neither simple nor easily changed. Yet citizens can and should insist on changes. Otherwise, as in past civilizations, a tear in trust and hope between the classes (or interest groups) will slowly erode social structure and will lead to destruction. I am sure, the Romans, Chinese and Egyptians, with a thousand year long civilization history did not worry about their future a century before their demise. Are we at the same point in time? Only time will tell.”

 



Jaime Ortega-Simo. 

(The Daily Journalist president and founder) 

“I think, the biggest problem with lobbying comes with the level of transparency legalized bribes package when privately spoken to members of congress. Does it truly benefit people, the congressman or the industry? What exactly are the conditions? And more importantly, do the people who voted for these political supervisors to campaign their trust approve what is spoken secretly in the congressmen’s dispatch?

Tyson and Monsanto’s food Inc’s, lobbied hard in Washington DC to take individual farmers growing organic foods out the market by pressuring the FDA, to use a certain chemical to grow poultry faster and transforming it into a law that would severely affect farmers growing cows and chickens without hormones. Was that really fair? It was fair to Tyson, and Monsanto’s but not if you advocate for organic food rights.

As Salmonella Heidelberg cases grow faster than ever before in the US, Foster Farms was caught in the middle of the breakout several times in the past without the CDC imposing restrictions in production adding higher precautionary methods to control the disease from spreading. The soft FFSS laws with its poor inspection standards, with addition to heavy lobbying have to a great degree allowed Foster Farm factories to retain their production without eliminating entire chains of chicken infected that cause Salmonella Heidelberg. Is that fair for the consumer? I mean, the answer is not physics!

I remember a few years back when Obama campaigned against the NRA, who then witnessed how powerful their influence remains in congress, who not long after lighty apologized for his words not mentioning the issue of gun control ever again. The US has a crime issue that is considerably high for a western democracy. Would the US murder rate considerably drop if guns were more restrictive for public use? I think so, the majority of US citizens think so too…but the Tea Party, the NRA, and a few gun owners disagree. Is that fair?

I can go on and on…with several different cases related with other important issues, but there is much to discuss.

The point is that lobbying possesses the power to change public demand from reforming the law. With that said, lobbying is legal and I am certain, that not ‘all’ lobbying is conducted illegally. But just like communism and democracy have a hard time dating, capitalism and democracy have polar opposite agendas. People’s right to choose and vote should not be altered by anyone opposing it with ‘financial means’— if that is the case, well! let’s also make stealing legal because that is what plenty of lobbies do with people’s public demands as these lobbyist hi-jack the public requests to supply their own interest thanks to a few greedy congressmen.

Not an advocate for lobbying, but truth be told, not all lobbying is bad…just 70%. It should be more transparent, and the fact that is not, already tells me it hides something from people.”

Comments Off on Should lobbying congressmen be considered illegal?

Turkey gets caught smuggling weapons to Syria

May 29th, 2015

 

 

By The Daily Journalist.

 

• 

Turkish newspaper Cumhuriyet published today (Friday) images that suggest Turkey tried to introduce on Syrian trucks weapons hidden among boxes of medicines. The Turkish court of justice will conduct an investigation regarding the claims of the Turkish newspaper.

On January 19, 2014, prosecutors in the southern province of Adana ordered  a heavy truck owned by the secret services (MIT) to stop. In previous weeks, similar trucks also were arrested.

In the towing of Adana, according to the video and photographs transcended, there were several metal containers. Inside, under boxes of medicines, agents discovered all kinds of light and heavy weapons factories coming from Russia.

According to ‘Cumhuriyet’, the police found a thousand artillery shells, 80,000 units of light and heavy ammunition and hundreds of grenade launchers. The newspaper says that this material was intended to oppose the Syrian government of Bashar Assad fighters and help ISIS.

News of the alleged discovery of weapons in trucks involving MIT in January 2014, prompted the judge to impose censorship order of any information related to the event. The government said that there were no weapons, but humanitarian aid to the Turkmen population in Syria.

Today President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, then Prime Minister described as “treason” the inspection of these vehicles. The Turkish government considered this an affront raid of the sect of the influential theologian former ally and now bitter enemy, Fethullah Gulen.

‘Treason against Turkey’

This year four prosecutors were jailed who ordered the registration of the trucks. They are accused of “attempting to overthrow the Turkish government by force or coercion and exposing information about policing and security”.

More than thirty gendarmes who participated in the inspection of vehicles also face charges related to the attempted coup and military espionage. For the government, they all belong to the “parallel state” next to Gülen.

Between 2012 and 2013, during some inroad travels into areas of Syria very close to Turkey, opponents of Assad militiamen had spoken to the world of receiving weapons from Turkey. A rebel command reported receiving Kalashnnikov type rifles.

International media described in the past, routes of introduction of weapons to Syria by Turkish soil. The recipients were not Islamist groups, although it has been shown that the Islamic state has finished taking control of them.

Turkey has always denied having delivered weapons to the Syrian rebels. In previous years Turkey was accused of giving logistical cover to various militias, including the Al Nusra Front, an arm of Al Qaeda in Syria, in their fight against troops loyal to Assad.

The controversy broke out just over a week before the general election, the third to the polls in two years. The days before the above processes are also lived amidst protests related to corruption or the Turkish action in Syria.

The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), in slight decline according to surveys after more than a decade in power, is holding its absolute majority. The elections are held in a climate of high tension, the following publication on Friday.

Turkey stands accused from within and outside harass from the press. In this context, the Istanbul prosecutor has opened an investigation into the ‘Cumhuriyet’, directed by noted journalist Can Dundar, for having published the controversial images of the truck.

Comments Off on Turkey gets caught smuggling weapons to Syria

Expert answers ISIL, Al-Qaeda, and others race for power in the Middle East

May 26th, 2015

 

Interview by Jaime Ortega.

 



Ian Bach is a counterinsurgency, counter terrorism and intelligence expert.  

 

1) Abu Sayyaf was killed a few days ago, how will that affect ISI operations in IRAQ and Syria?

Leadership kills have little effect on overall effectiveness of ISIS as a fighting unit. But if we get lucky then we may get some power struggles, and we need to try to instigate and promote any in cohesion in their units.

2)  ISIL just captured Ramadi, and are trying to expel Syrian Armed Forces from Palmyra what message does that send to the those countries that support logistically and militarily govern by Haider Al-Abadi and Al-Assad?

Ramadi was a bit of a surprise to me. I expect many in the MIl and Intel communities fell the same. For sure there was insufficient preparations to thwart the advances.

Palmyra is a sticky one. Syria wants this and if this was occupied by coalition forces Assad would need to fight or bargain with those forces who take Palmyra whether they are ISIS or Coalition forces.  ATM I have heard ISIS say because no Icons they are not planing to destroy Palmyra. This maybe a stall as they do not have the man power ATM to destroy the city and hold it militarily also. I except to see Syrian Gov Forces re-take Palmyra. If coalition forces took Palmyra it would be a game changer as this is the route for Syrian Gov forces to the East. For now ISIS will likely Tax Syrian Gov for the use of the Roads to the East.

3) If ISIL theoretically defeated Assad’s Syrian Armed Forces, and controlled mayor cities in Syria, will Jabat-Al-Nusra oppose an Islamic Caliphate governed by Al-Baghdadi? Would they fight each other, despite greeting their rhetorical alliance combating western forces?

Yes They will be fighting each other and I would expect they will fight each other before any ‘real’ assaults on Syrian Gov held areas. While advances against Syrian Gov areas are great for public relations it has been al Nusra who has made most of the gains on Assad. ISIS controls some electrical, oil, and water commodities they sell to Syria’s regime. So yes ISIS will be fighting al Nusra more and more. Their mentalities and also recent bad blood between the two is most likely the thing that will keep them from working together.

The Wahhabi mentality is found in both ISIS and al Qaeda (al Nusra) however al Qaeda views the world much different, and their future goals are also opposed to each others. There is some similarities but  the differences are what keeps them apart.

4) The US, and NATO, have financially supported Kurdish Pashmerga Troops, to help fight against ISIL in Iraq and Syria, but without ground troops are western forces doing enough?

The support US, NATO, Germany, Italy have helped the Kurds with small arms. but very little medium arms, and no heavy arms. The support is so slim and lacking that ammunition is used very sparsely. Also the West has not given enough support to the Sunni militias and they are not getting what they are suppose to get from the Iraqi Gov. US gives weapons/money to Iraqi Gov but can not give it directly to militias, Sunnis, Shia, or even the Kurds. Most of the weapons Kurds have are from Germany and Italy.

I am not sure the world, US, or EU Gov’s want US troops to go in boots on the ground. But the citizens of the west are a majority opposed. I think we all know this must be done with local forces. Foreign forces would most likely fuel the ISIS fire. I know ISIS and al Qaeda would love to see the west set boots on the ground. ISIS and AQI recruitment would skyrocket. Many in the West are blind to that fact.

I think the best thing the West can do is support the forces fighting against ISIS (including Kurds, Sunni, Christian, and Shia with heavy weapons. Personally I am against any support for anti Assad military missions. The approval rating for Assad in Gov Held areas is 90% and 50% in rebel held areas. 500,000 Syrian Gov military and another 250.000 National Defense Forces. The west of Syria has spoken loud and clear. The problem is the Western Nations are not listening.

The west’s mission for 2015 is train more ‘moderate rebels’. However these are not fresh soldiers. This is to give a current rebel an Ak-47, some camouflaged uniform, boots and a couple months training in Qatar and Jordan. Vetting is done in Jordan and Turkey. Then call the FSA? The FSA is not an effective movement, it is a makeshift, a ragtag team of loosely connected groups many of whom hate each other.

Their was over 12 main groups in the FSA, now it is maybe 5? only a year later? Many went to fight for the Syrian Gov, many went to Nusra’s Front, and some went to ISIS. This helped ISIS a Lot, it gave them access to US and EU advanced weapons including the famous TOW anti tank missiles.

5) There is intelligence suggesting Recep Erdogan is supporting ISIL, with the help of Intra-Secret/Service-Intelligence in Pakistan because of their former ties with Saddam’s Bathist party who is entwined with ISIL fighting Kurds. Is this possible?

I think Erdogan is playing and working with many nefarious characters. It is well documented that ISIS has been getting free medical services in Turkey, ISIS smuggles oil out via Turkey, so there must be some appeasement on Turkeys behalf to allow this, but it clearly is more orchestrated than what we are allowed to know and realize. Erdogan’s actions jailing,  Kurdish Journalists, bans on wearing PKK uniforms, or Kurdish Flags makes it clear how Erdogan feels about the Kurds. I am worried that Erdogan will at a minimum take over Rojava in Northern Syria.

I have not seen any actual evidence yet of Paki -ISI working with ISIS. It is possible elements within ISI is working with ISIS. But it maybe for a variety of reasons. There is for Sure Wahhabi followers within ISI. So it is just as likely that there is some at least sympathetic towards ISIS since both have Wahhabi roots and a Large Saudi backing. This is one reason ISI maybe have faction working with ISIS secret agencies love money they can make off the books for their most black programs. So for money, beliefs, and/or politics, and a variety of other factors may lure ISI to assist ISIS.


6) Is their a race between Al-Qaeda and ISIL to regain more regional power in the Middle East? The control of Libya is not only ISIL’s target, but also Al-Qaeda’s?

Libya is a GIANT nation with a lot of oil and minerals. So yes anyone would love to own Libya. As far as a race, sure we see the race. But al Qaeda is more patent and calculated. They will look for end result, delivery message. However one could argue that if ISIS gets Libya first al Qaeda will still have a win. The Top leadership of ISIS still have their al Qaeda ties.

7) Is there any other group outside of ISIL and Al-Qaeda who can present a serious hazard to western targets like the US or Europe?

The Chechen are a serious threat and this past year working with Anonymous a little in the online fight vs ISIS & AQ I have learned their online capabilities are based in Chechnya and some say the Saudi’s have told Putin flat out the Chechen’s work for them and if Putin didn’t stop helping Syria they would let the Chechen’s lose. Some say that is who killed the reporter that Putin got blame for the reporters death. So you can see they obviously have very smart IT people and strategists.

Also Muslim Jihad movements in SE Asia are still leery of AQ and ISIS. So the big 3 is ISIS, the various AQ, and the Chechen. Groups like those in SE Asia and even the Taliban are only concerned with local attacks not global wars. The Muslim Brotherhood is also dangerous but mostly in North Africa to Turkey
.
8) Democracy does not to suit well the Middle East, is it perhaps because politics will never take over religion? Is western democracy an illusion to reach in the Middle East?

Sure, western style democracy does not fit well in the ME. However even the US is having growing pains in the democracy department also. They need electoral finance reform desperately, and an end to a bi-party system. It would also effect their global standing in a positive way. But separation of state and religion is the best path forward for the Middle East. But it will likely be a long road.

9) A lot of children seem to adopt religious radicalism with danger. Will the hate towards the west ever change the minds of these Middle Eastern children, of is frantic radicalization a process that cannot be achieved by democracy?

Democracy will not end radicalization of youth. The number one thing that spreads radicalization of youth is disenfranchisement. With no job and no prospects for any real normal future many turn to radical views. ISIS and AQ and others like Muslim Brotherhood have very savvy Media Wings. We need to counter the media blitz, and change the conversation, before we can change the outcome. Perhaps winning the Media War vs Jihadist is the first step !!!

10) History has shown that in 1258 the brutal seizure of Mongols in Baghdad, gave lasting peaceful effects in the region up to 200 years. We have adopted democracy, but an Iron fist seems to be a better alternative to the sectarian violence shown in the Middle East. Has the issue of extermination, historically seen in 12th century by mongol troops ever been presented in congress as an alternative to defeat global Yihadist to secure national and international interest worldwide?    

You have a good point there.  The dictators seem to be much better at creating secular nations that are safe for any religion, or ethnic group. I was disappointed that the West did not view the actions of Sisi in a better light. Morsi the Muslim Brotherhood and his call for Sharia law in Egypt was nuts. I cheered for Sisi and the military and still do.

– Will the issue of extermination be seriously examined only after another 9-11 strikes the United States?  

There has been many exterminations of ethnic groups, the Mongols, Assyrian, the Great, Romans, Crusaders, Muslim, Christian, and on and on.

I do expect there will be another 9-11 style attack on USA but I do not think that will cause them to think about past exterminations. Their first thought will be who did it and how can we attack them back?

11) What is the best solution to resolve the Yihadist problem, considering history shows brutal retaliation tames radicals, whereas democracy flaws to give the same results?

I do think the Jihadist movement will be with us for at least another 20-40 years. It will die a slow death. The names of the groups will change with time. Their leaders will come and go. But in the end it will become passe. Perhaps the best way forward is to fight ISIS and AQ mentality in the Media. We need to win the Media War before we can win the fight against ISIS and AQ.

Comments Off on Expert answers ISIL, Al-Qaeda, and others race for power in the Middle East

ISIS now controls 50% Syrian territory

May 22nd, 2015

 

 

By The Daily Journalist.

 

After ISIS took the ancient City of Palmyra, March 19, it controls half the provinces in Syria.  

The terrorist group Islamic State (ISIS, its acronym in English) is present in over 50% of Syrian territory, after taking most of the country’s central desert where the monumental city of Palmyra is located, it was taken yesterday as jihadists and activists reported this Thursday.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that the radicals are spread over 95,000 square kilometers of Syria and are strong in nine provinces: Homs, Al Raqa, Deir al-Zur, Al Hasaka, Hama, Aleppo, Damascus, Rif Damascus and Sueida .

Thus, the extremists expand from east to west by an area stretching from the south of Mount Abdelaziz and the village of Al Hul, in Al Hasaka (northeast) to the periphery of Marea in Aleppo (north), passing for most of Deir al Zur and Al Raqa (northeast) and the Syrian central desert.

To the south, the jihadists controlled areas east of Damascus, as well as parts of the Palestinian refugee camp of Yarmouk and Al Hajar al Aswad district, south of the capital, and points north of Sueida (south).

Furthermore, in the southern province of Deraa, there are groups that are suspected ISIS loyalists. Radicals are holding most of the country’s gas fields, minus the site of Al Shaer, in the east of Homs and in the hands of the regime, and the Ramilan in the hands of the People’s Protection Units -milicias Kurdish sirias- in Al Hasaka.

Caliphate in Syria and Iraq

ISIS proclaimed in the end of June 2014 a caliphate in Syria and Iraq. The extremists have managed to expand in the Syrian territory despite the bombing of the international coalition, beginning on September 23.

Analysts polled by different agencies stressed yesterday that these air strikes are “ineffective” and that what is needed to stop the ISIS are “boots on the ground”.

Comments Off on ISIS now controls 50% Syrian territory