The World Reporter: News Opinion and Analysis

South Ossetia; Four years after the Georgia-Russia War

2012-08-12T21:15:00.000+05:30

Written by Mamonov Roman

This week marked 4 years since Georgia invaded South Ossetia on August 8th 2008. Russia and South Ossetia held remembrance ceremonies for those killed during the armed conflict.

This week, President Vladimir Putin for the first time recounted his role in the South Ossetian operation while Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said during his visit to Tskhinval that the decisions taken in 2008 were “correct and timely”. The Voice of Russia’s Roman Mamonov reports.

On August 8th 2008 Georgian troops launched an assault on South Ossetia’s capital Tskhinval shelling residential areas, civilian institutions, and Russian peacekeepers. The assault was followed by the invasion of ground forces, including infantry divisions and tanks. Russia responded by bringing in military units in what it described as “an operation to compel Georgia to peace”. Five days later, the Georgian troops were driven out of the region and Moscow recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

President Vladimir Putin, who was prime minister at the time, says that he phoned the Russian president and defense minister from Beijing on August 7th and 8th . Putin said that Russia’s military command had prepared a plan of action in case of a Georgian aggression well before the attack.

"Devised by the General Staff, the plan also envisaged training of South Ossetian volunteer corps. Even though Russian military experts believed that volunteer units were powerless against a regular army, South Ossetian volunteer divisions and the Russian peacekeepers managed to contain the onrushing enemy for three days until the arrival of the Russian army."

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev paid a “solidarity and commemoration” visit to Tskhinval on the 4th anniversary of the Georgian aggression on August 8th . Four years ago, then-President Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree to begin a military operation in South Ossetia in order to rescue the republic’s residents many of which had Russian citizenship. During his visit, Medvedev held talks with South Ossetian President Leonid Tibilov. Residents of Tskhinval greeted Dmitry Medvedev with applause.

"The Russian leadership had to make a number of difficult decisions and these decisions were correct and fair because in the long run, they helped to restore peace in South Ossetia and the balance of power in the region."

Russia’s Investigative Committee has completed an inquiry into the Georgian aggression against South Ossetia. A spokesman for the Committee, Vladimir Markin, says that the size of the criminal case against Georgia exceeds 400 volumes. Members of the Committee have conducted hundreds of forensic enquiries and collected the testimony of thousands of witnesses. According to the investigation, the Georgian authorities mounted a smearing campaign against Russia. The Georgian leadership released fake photo and video reports about mass civilian casualties. Vladimir Markin of the Russian Investigative Committee, comments.

"The dead bodies of Georgian servicemen were dressed in civilian clothes and were photographed or videotaped to feign considerable victims among civilians. Witnesses also say that Ukrainian mercenaries dressed in Russian army uniforms helped to fabricate pictures of Russian servicemen looting Georgian villages and using violence against Georgian civilians."

More than 1,500 people lost their lives during the aggression, South Ossetian sources say.

67 Russian servicemen, including peacekeepers, were killed during the conflict. Nearly 700 residential buildings and a number of hospitals, schools and daycare centers were destroyed or burned. More than 16,000 people, most of them Russians, were displaced. The European Commission has pointed to Georgia as bearing the main share of responsibility for unleashing of hostilities in South Ossetia.

Mamonov Roman is the author and presenter at the Voice of Russia, Russia's first internationally broadcasted Radio. On air since 1929.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Why the United States is not Supporting its Vassal Government in Romania?

2012-07-12T20:25:00.000+05:30

Traian Basescu

Removing Basescu from office might seem illogical from the point of view of US-Romanian relations, but it is not by chance that the US is repudiating the Romanian president.

At first sight the president seemed to be a perfect vassal of the United States: he sent Romanian troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, allowed deployment of a missile defense site (thus turning Romania into one of the priority targets for Russian nuclear missiles), started verbal attacks against Russia, and advocated American interests at European forums where decisions were made. Under such conditions, many supporters of the Romanian president believe that Basescu’s patronage by the US is stable and will not be subject to any changes. The reality, however, turned out to be different.

General Clark’s visit to Bucharest and the fast replacement of Ambassador Gitenstein prove that Washington has made a decision to support Romania’s USL (Social-Liberal Union) party in the internal political struggle. Despite all of Basescu’s efforts to remain the best vassal of the United States, he ended up in a situation where the decision-makers at the US administration decided to remove him from politics.

The obvious question is: what has he done to upset Americans? There are two possible answers to this question and the answers might not be mutually exclusive.

Traian Basescu failed to become the president who could have won the benevolence of the democratic part of the American elite. The image of “being one of the republicans in Bucharest” turned out to be harmful for his political career. Probably there is another incident which made Washington nervous: Basescu’s visit to the Chinese Embassy earlier this year where, on January 10, the president of Romania decided to participate in the Chinese New Year celebrations. The decision was quite unexpected, since the president had never taken part in such events. Only a couple of Bucharest analysts note the inconsistency between the official version of the visit and the calendar. In 2012, the Chinese New year started on January 23 – two weeks after the official ceremony held in Bucharest. For an outsider the situation was absolutely clear: Basescu needed to discuss something important with Chinese diplomatic representatives and for that reason the New Year was moved two weeks. We can only guess what topics they might have discussed, but one thing is obvious – such discussions can not but cause certain irritation in Washington. Today the situation Basescu has found himself in might be the result of such annoyance.

Another possible explanation which does not exclude the above-mentioned might be Basescu’s behavior abroad. It is well known that superpowers often use their vassals as an exchange coin in their geopolitical operations. At a certain point, Basescu’s behavior abroad started to irritate some geopolitical forces so much that his “getting out of the game” became a topic for discussions at high-level talks. In the context of such operations, global geopolitical forces tend to make mutual concessions on certain regional problems often combining problems which do not have any apparent connection.

It is quite possible that change of regime in Romania – which means removal from the political life not only the president but also the entire team who supported him – is just an exchange coin, a concession in a geopolitical deal which the US made at the international level. Such explanation of the current situation can be proved by the fact that General Clark was sent over there and he actually organized Basescu’s removal in a blitzkrieg and with military accuracy. It looks like Washington needed the urgent resignation of the president, but did not want to leave the process in the hands of local executors.

The steps that USL government will be taking domestically and internationally and the difference between them and what Basescu was doing might be able to somewhat explain the real reasons for his removal. Regardless of that, it is absolutely clear that the policy of Romania will never be the same and Romanian politicians will understand that subservience cannot guarantee security for the future.

Valentin Mândrăşescu is the author and presenter at the Voice of Russia, Russia's first internationally broadcasted Radio. On air since 1929.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Divided Kingdom: Scotland to Leave Great Britain?

2012-06-27T08:28:00.000+05:30

Image by James Stringer

Britain has launched campaign against the independence of Scotland. The campaign was officially launched by former UK chancellor Alistair Darling who compared the referendum on independence to buying “a one-way ticket to send our children to a deeply uncertain destination”. He said that “the truth is Scotland’s future, our future and our families’ future will be economically, politically and socially stronger as a partner in the United Kingdom.” He added that “...if we decide to leave the United Kingdom there is no way back.”

The statement came a month after Scottish National Party leader and First Minister Alex Salmond announced the start of the Yes Scotland campaign to ask Scots to vote for independence from Britain. As for the Better Together campaign, it was most likely initiated by official London which is irked about Edinburgh’s push for holding a national referendum on Scottish independence in the fall of 2014.

London’s concerns are easy to explain, our political commentator says, pointing to a range of tricky tasks the British government will face if Scotland leaves the United Kingdom. On stake will be Britain’s role in the UN Security Council, its EU membership and its NATO clout given that Scottish naval bases are currently an essential part of Britain’s nuclear shield.

In case of independence, Scotland will be able to use some leverages, such as corporation tax or excise duties on alcohol, to contribute to the economic overhaul and the improvement in people’s living standards. Additionally, Scotland could benefit from developing oil fields in the North Sea where an estimated 23 billion barrels of oil are in place.

At the same time, it is worth noting that the London-Edinburg relations continue to thrive. Tens of thousands of Britons go to work to and study at Scotland-based universities which is also the case with Scots. With unemployment rate currently on the increase in Scotland, more Scots head to London and other British cities in an attempt to make both ends meet.

According to the latest poll by YouGov, 57 percent of Scots are up in arms against their country’s leaving the UK, while 33 percent of the respondents nod Scotland’s independence drive. Others are sitting on the fence, in a sign that the problem is unlikely to be resolved till 2014, when the referendum is to be held.

Dwelling on the situation surrounding Scotland’s independence, one cannot but mention the Russians’ attitude to the matter. During his visit to Scotland in 2003, Russian President Vladimir Putin particularly praised what he described as historic ties between the peoples of Russia and Scotland. He said that the “entire Scottish dynasties were true to Russia’s salt, and Russia remembers and knows many of your ancestors who played a huge role in our country’s history. “ As an example, he referred to Tsar Peter I’s mentor Patrick Gordon, Hero of the 1812 War with Napoleon Prince Barclay de Tolly, Russian Army Field Marshal Jacob Bruce, architect Charles Cameron, as well as Russian poet Mikhail Lermontov’ ancestors living in Scotland’s Fife county. Experts, for their part, single out approximately 250,000 Russians of Scottish origin who currently reside in Russia.

Sergie Sayenko is the author and presenter at the Voice of Russia, Russia's first internationally broadcasted Radio. On air since 1929.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Protests Against Militarization of London for the Olympic Games

2012-06-02T16:34:00.000+05:30

London Stadium

Nearly Six sites in east London have been identified for the deployment of supersonic surface to air Rapier and Starstreak missiles, these missiles are capable of shooting down an air borne target within the range of nearly 7 KM (approx. 4 miles).

The unusual thing in this news is the installation of missiles in the residential area on the rooftop of the occupied homes. Ten soldiers will operate the weapons at all times, possibly with armed police protection. The property owners defended their decision of allowing the ministry of defence to place missiles on the rooftop by making it an issue of national security. However, Some residents fear that the super sonic missiles which would be fitted on the water tower could itself become the target of the extremists or terrorists thus risking the lives of many residents.

Residents of Bow Quarter Estate are challenging the deal between the property owner company and the Ministry of Defence to install surface-to-air missiles to guard against potential airborne terrorist attacks. Many lawyers and legal agencies have opened up to help such residents with full support providing them the toll free 0800 numbers uk service.

Normally all the cities prepare themselves to face the worst in the situation of any terrorist attack, however London is all set to get fortified and militarized to an extent which was seen only during second world war. During the Olympics, London will have more soldiers on the streets than at any time since the Second World War and that there will be more armed personnel patrolling the capital than the entire number of British troops serving in Afghanistan. Which is way too large than what was in the Beijing Olympics.

Militarization of London to this extent could be justified since NATO and other western powers which includes Britain have been involved in various military interventions in Middle East since last few years. Resulting into rising threats against London's security. But conducting games, which is a source of entertainment, in such a tight environment doesn't solve the purpose of holding games.

"We have appointed lawyers with a view to make a legal challenge to the management company's decision to allow the MoD to install the rockets here," said Brian Whelan, a resident to the Guardian. "They didn't consult with us and they have neglected their duty to ask the residents' opinions about this."

Further he told another news journal London Evening Standard, “The Ministry of Defence have tried to claim that I am a lone nutter, but I am not alone. There are a lot of people opposed to this. We will protest and if it gets to it we will ring our buildings and take to the streets to stop them.”

Other than Bow Area, sites where missiles hosting is planned are Blackheath Common, the Lea Valley Reservoir, Oxleas Wood, Barn Hill in Epping Forest, and a playground in Waltham Forest.

Founder of the Stop the Olympic Missile campaign Chris Nineham, told Russia Today that there had been no consultation from the Ministry of Defence or the Government with locals.

He said that a meeting of local residents on May 31st voted unanimously that the missile plans were not sensible. Nineham believes that the government should not be able to dictate to local residents and is hoping that their campaign will see a reversal of the proposal. He added that if the government did not back down there were two legal challenges already in place.

According to Nineham, a senior source in the military said there was no credible intelligence of a terrorist attack on the games. Nineham said that in his opinion such a large scale deployment of force does not make London safer but instead encourages a reaction from those elements of world society who have a grievance with UK foreign policy.

Nineham added “it’s surreal, the games are talked about as if they have some strange military dimension to them and we’re losing sight that they are first and foremost a sporting event.”

However, Ministry of Defence maintained that "All legal requirements for the deployment of the equipment will be met."

The idea is to prevent London Olympics from any September 11 style attack. For this, beside having Surface to Air missile installations, ministry of defence is planning to have the Royal Air Force to keep an eagle eye on all aircraft movements over most of southeast England in a major security alert to run from July 16 through August 15. Also, military snipers will be deployed in helicopters to shoot pilots of low-flying aircraft that might be involved in terrorist attacks.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

A New Beginning of Socialist Era in West Europe, France Elected Socialist President

2012-05-07T17:30:00.000+05:30

Francois Hollande

French interior minister, Claude Gean has declared Socialist Francois Hollande the new elected president of France. The declaration came when another big change in the East was taking place as the old icon Vladimir Putin returned to drive Russia for another term, Francois Hollande a socialist leader, will be country's first left-wing president since 1995, winning with 52% votes against the incumbent, Nicolas Sarkozy. After counting 99% of the ballots, Francois Hollande secured 51.7% of the votes, and Nicolas Sarkozy – 48,3%.

This change in France hasn't come as a surprise to many as Sarkozy was facing a decline in his well as he came near to the end of his tenure. Banning Veil in the country and taking a leading role in Libyan mission was some of his attempts to regain the popularity, which did not work as expected. Hollande campaign emphasised on being a "normal" President, as opposed to Sarkozy's sometimes controversial presidential style. The new president has come with some good objectives:

To resorb France's national debt by 2017 (cancel tax cuts for the wealthy and tax exemptions introduced by Sarkozy)
To raise income tax by 75% for incomes beyond one million euros
To bring back the retirement age to 60 years old, for people who have worked 42 years (full pension)
To recreate the 60 000 jobs in public education, which were cut by Sarkozy
To give the legal right to marry and adopt to homesexual couples
To give the right to vote in local election to the residents without European Union passports, but who have atleast 5 years of legal residency
To regulate rises in rent
To use punitive measures in compelling towns and cities to apply the 2000 Law on Solidarity and Urban Renewal
To provide public lands for the building of social housing, provided by the above mentioned Law.

Some of the declaration which he made:

"I will be President for all French people".

"Everyone in the Republic will be treated on equal rights and duties."

"I spoke in recent months about the French dream: it is our history, it is our future. It is simply called progress!"

“I would like to wish Hollande that France cope successfully with all of its trials”, - said Nikolas Sarkozy who is being replaced by Hollande.

Head of the Russian Federal Agency for the CIS Affairs Konstantin Kosachev said in a statement that the winning of the French presidential election by Socialist Francois Hollande will favourably affect Russian-French relations. Kosachev feels that Russia and France share cultural interests and enjoy extensive civil society contacts [Source: Hollande’s victory to favourably affect relations with Russia – official].

Hollande has come at the time when Europe is probably going through one of the worst time. Unemployment is rising and hitting its highest level ever in Europe since the creation of the euro. Hollande's campaign calls to rewrite not so old, long-negotiated EU fiscal pact to have budgetary discipline, causing uneasiness in the markets and which could disturb German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

France and Germany was responsible for handling the Europe's financial problem, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Nikolas Sarkozy shared good relations, it is now to see how they perform as now Spain has cashflow trouble, Italy is struggling to stay afloat and France, whose performance has gone down, is facing increasing unemployment rate, growing disparity with Germany and alarms of possible downgrade of its rating.

However, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has given indication that Germany is willing to work with the new President of France positively. "We will work together on a growth pact".

Now, the question is how will his victory influence the economic future of Europe as a whole. The Economist had earlier labelled him as "the rather dangerous Monsieur Hollande." However, Thomas Klau of European Council of Foreign Relations said, Europe should have no real reason to fear Hollande's victory.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Cyprus, Where Three Powers Aimed for their Influence

2012-05-05T11:21:00.000+05:30

Cyprus

Cyprus is an island in the Mediterranean Sea, south of Turkey. After Sicily and Sardinia, it is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea. Cyprus was granted independence in 1960 from British Administration, but before it could stabilize, in 1974 Greek Cypriot nationalists attempted a coup with the aim of achieving union with Greece, enosis. It took place following the eleven years of inter-communal violence between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. The coup resulted into invasion of Turkey which held over 36% of the island which is now known as Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and is recognized only by Turkey. Although the island is geographically in Asia, it is politically a European country and is a member of the European Union.

Following the disintegration of the island into two republics, Cyprus experienced somewhat similar kind of mass displacement of population as in the case of post Independence India and Pakistan. Republic of Cyprus is an advanced high income economy and has a very high Human Development Index. Cyprus receives high number of tourists and mostly tourists who come to celebrate their holidays to Cyprus also come here to work for short time.

North Cyprus on the other hand is dependent only on Turkey for trade and other activities, since it is not recognized by any other country in the world, resulting into comparatively poor economy and high unemployment rate.

Cyprus just after independence had come under severe politics and ethnic violence and conflicts influenced by Turkey, Greece and observed by Britain. The result of the conflict led to the division of Cyprus into two republics. The claims and the facts are too sensitive even now and the tension between the two Cyprus still exists.

History From the Greek Cypriots point of view

In June 1958, the British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan was going to propose a plan to resolve the Cyprus issue. In light of the new development the Turks rioted in Nicosia to promote the idea that Greek and Turk Cypriots could not live together and therefore any plan that did not include partition would not be viable, this is somewhat same to Muslim League's Two Nation Theory that demanded the partition of India into a Muslim state Pakistan and secular state India.

This violence was soon followed by bombing, killing of Greek Cypriots and looting of Greek Cypriot-owned stores and houses by Turk Cypriots. Greek and Turkish Cypriots started to flee to other villages and town where they found majority and safety. On 7 June 1958, a bomb exploded at the entrance of the Turkish Embassy in Cyprus. Which gave Turkish Cypriots a reason to attack Greek Cypriots places and properties.

On June 26, 1984 the Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktaş, admitted on British channel ITV that the bomb was placed by the Turks themselves in order to create tension [Source: Arif Hasan Tahsin. "He Anodos Tou _Denktas Sten Koryphe". January, 2001. ISBN 9963-7738-6-9]. On January 9, 1995 Rauf Denktaş repeated his claim to the famous Turkish newspaper Milliyet in Turkey. On 27 January 1958, riots by Turkish Cypriots forced the British soldiers to open fire against the Turkish crowd, and for the first time intervene against the atrocities.

During the conflict, Arif Tahsin, Turk Cypriot who had joined the colonial police, met Denktaş and asked: "For God sake give the order for the killings to stop". Denktaş replied: "These killings are useful, with these our voices will be heard" [Source: Arif Hasan Tahsin. "He Anodos Tou _Denktas Sten Koryphe". January, 2001. ISBN 9963-7738-6-9 page 51].

History From the Turk Cypriots point of view

In 1959, Britain, Turkey, Greece, and the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders, Makarios and Dr. Fazil Kucuk respectively signed the Zurich agreements. The new constitution was drawn heavily on the ethnic composition of the island. The President would be a Greek Cypriot and the Vice-President a Turkish Cypriot with an equal veto. The contribution to the public services such as Cabinet posts, parliamentary seats and civil service jobs would be set at a ratio of 70:30, and the Supreme Court would consist of an equal number of judges from both communities plus an independent judge who was not Greek, Turkish or British.

The Zurich accords were also consisted of a number of treaties. The Treaty of Guarantee stated that secession or union with any state was forbidden, and that Greece, Turkey and Britain would be given guarantor status to intervene should this be violated. The Treaty of Alliance allowed for two small Greek and Turkish military contingents to be stationed on the island whilst the Treaty of Establishment gave Britain sovereignty over two bases in Akrotiri and Dhekelia.

In 1963, President Makarios proposed unilateral changes to the constitution, via 13 amendments. Which was rejected by Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots as an attempt to settle constitutional disputes in favour of the Greek Cypriots and as a means of demoting Turkish status from co-founders of the state to one of minority status removing their constitutional safeguards in the process. Turkish Cypriots filed a lawsuit against the 13 amendments in the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus (SCCC). President Makarios announced that he would not comply with whatever the decision of the SCCC would be, and defended his amendments as being necessary "to resolve constitutional deadlocks" as opposed to the stance of the SCCC.

On 25 April 1963, the SCCC decided that Makarios' 13 amendments were illegal. On 15 July, Makarios ignored the decision of the SCCC [Source: Republic of Cyprus, SCCC Official Website]. The president of SCCC resigned and the SCCC ceased to exist. Finally, On 30 November, Makarios legalized the 13 proposals.

In 1963, the Greek Cypriot wing of the government came up with the plan of Akritas which crafted a policy that would remove Turkish Cypriots from the government and ultimately lead to union with Greece. The plan stated that if the Turkish Cypriots objected then they should be "violently subjugated before foreign powers could intervene" [Source: US Library of Congress]. Intercommunal violence broke out immediately with a major Greek Cypriot paramilitary assault upon Turkish Cypriots in Nicosia and Larnaca, which saw some retaliation from Turk Cypriots side, but according to the historian of the Cyprus conflict, Keith Kyle "there is no doubt that the main victims of the numerous incidents that took place during the next few months were Turks." [Source: The Main Narrative, continued]. Seven hundred Turkish hostages, including women and children, were taken from the northern suburbs of Nicosia. The conflict did not end here, Nikos Sampson, a nationalist and future coup leader, led a group of Greek Cypriot irregulars into the mixed suburb of Omorphita and attacked the Turkish Cypriot population. By 1964, 193 Turkish Cypriots and 133 Greek Cypriots had been killed, with a further 209 Turks and 41 Greeks missing and presumed dead.

Turkish Cypriot members of the government had by now withdrawn, creating an essentially Greek Cypriot administration in control of all institutions of the state. Widespread looting of Turkish Cypriot villages prompted 20,000 refugees to retreat into armed enclaves, where they remained for the next 11 years, relying on food and medical supplies from Turkey to survive.

British Role in the Conflict

Greek Cypriots frustrated with the British rejection of demands for enosis (Union with Greece) initiated an armed underground campaign known as the National Organization of Cypriot Struggle, or EOKA. Led by the Greek commander George Grivas, EOKA systematically targeted British colonial authorities.

British played the policy of Divide and Rule which it had successfully played in India during its colonial rule over the subcontinent. Right after the EOKA campaign the British government successfully began to turn the Cyprus issue from a British colonial problem into a Greek-Turkish issue. British diplomatic policies were crafted with the aim of making Turkey active in Cyprus. With this British aimed at two objectives. On one hand the EOKA campaign would be silenced as quickly as possible, and on the other hand Turkish Cypriots would not side with Greek Cypriots against the British colonial claims over the island and the island would remain under the British [Source: Anthony Eden, 2005. Memoirs, Full Circle, Cassell, London 1960, p.400].

The Turkish Cypriot leadership at the time, visited Adnan Menderes to discuss the Cyprus issue. When asked how the Turkish Cypriots should respond to the Greek Cypriot claim of enosis (Union with Greece) Menderes replied: "You should go to the British foreign minister and request the status quo be prolonged, Cyprus to remain as a British colony.” Later when the Turkish Cypriots visited the British minister of foreign affairs and requested that Cyprus remain a colony, the Minister replied: "You should not be asking for colonialism at this day and age, you should be asking for Cyprus be returned to Turkey, its former owner" [Source: Arif Hasan Tahsin. "He Anodos Tou _Denktas Sten Koryphe". January, 2001. ISBN 9963-7738-6-9 page 38].

British Government which was slightly inclined towards the favour of Turkey to preserve its colonial rule on the island did not recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and rejected the self declaration of independence.

The article is open for suggestions, inclusion and opinions. Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Democracy and the Discrimination in Moldova

2012-04-30T15:19:00.002+05:30

Picture taken by Andy Stoll
(about the picture:
Pro Democracy Protests on July 2007 in HongKong)

Written by Sabina Strîmbovschi, Geopolitics.ro

For many of us, democracy embodies the political system that brings stability and prosperity to the nation-state and fulfillment to its citizens. It's the form of government which guarantees the separation of powers, national sovereignty, equality of all before the law, as well as the possibility to act as their own volition. Far from being considered an infallible political system, Winston Churchill argued that 'democracy is a bad political system, but the best mankind has yet invented'.

In most cases in history, democracy has been chosen and implemented in the countries in which totalitarian regime has dominated the political life of a state for a long time. This is also true for Moldova which, after a period of almost 100 years under the Soviet Union and after eight years under the 'patronage' of the Communist Party, has seen the democracy implemented successfully in the country.

A first change in this respect took place in April 2009 when the citizens, dissatisfied with the situation in their country, rebelled in the street. This moment was an end for the Moldovan society and was also a new beginning. It was the historical moment when the light at the end of the tunnel appeared in Moldova as well. Thus, after a long period of silence and obedience, the Moldovan people expressed themselves through protests their aversion to the former government, calling out their wish for a democratic government, where freedom, equality before the law, transparency, tolerance, equal rights and opportunities to prevail from now on. Although this was the choice of a majority guided by the conviction that democracy will bring prosperity and absolute freedom, some social and religious activists, as well some policy makers remain reluctant even now when there's any mention of bills to combat discrimination of Roma minorities, Muslims and more importantly, acceptance and integration of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender social groups (LGBT). And to regulate this important aspect of Moldovan civil society, the international community has intervened through various means, communicating to the political leaders the importance and necessity of adopting anti-discrimination laws, if democracy and EU integration is truly the government's long-term priority.

At the same time, the requirements of the international community are legitimized by the fact that Moldova is a member of the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and this status involves not only financial support and assistance from organizations, but also carrying out the obligations set in the treaties they are part of.

Although the bill against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation was filed in the Parliament in February 2011, due to the opposition of members of social and religious movements and some policy makers, the law was not adopted.[1] Therefore, this minority continues to be deprived of the rights which are normally respected and stipulated by the Constitution in a free, democratic country. In addition, recently, in some cities of Moldova, several activists went on the streets to support stereotypes of LGBT groups, Roma and Muslim minorities, [2] to express their position against the adoption of anti-discrimination law. However, these actions have raised warning signs among international organizations, mainly among the United Nations representatives working in Chisinau.

The reason why the UN representatives didn't remain indifferent lies in the fact that the objectives of the organization are based on concepts that, as a priority, promote the fundamental human rights and, where appropriate, seek to resolve issues of discrimination, homophobia, xenophobia..., and this situation is currently present in the Moldovan society. Following the events, on February 10, 2012 a program called 'For unity in action: The UN-Moldova Partnership' has been signed for the period of 2013-2017. Through this program of cooperation worth $ 217 million, are to be supported and developed priority areas for the state's prosperity, where democratic governance, justice, equality and human rights occupy a prominent place. [3]

Important to remember, in this regard, is the remark of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, who said in a meeting of the senior UN Officials that 'no personal opinion or religious belief, no matter how deep or widespread, can justify depriving a person of its rights' [4] And here i'm referring to the aversion of the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, who is outraged by the requests made by the UN to adopt anti-discrimination law. Moreover, Bishop Vladimir believes that the acceptance and integration of these minorities would lead to the ruin and weaken of the Orthodox faith. [5] It is a tough battle but the recommendations of international institutions is pressing more and more on the Government to reaffirm its commitment to the human rights and take proactive measures to ensure diversity and equal dignity to all. This project will be completed and implemented as soon as possible, said the Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of Moldova, Iurie Leancă, [6] taking into account the fact that the anti-discrimination law is an essential criterion for Moldova to be accepted in the European Economic Area and to enjoy other significant benefits worldwide.

The main obstacles in adopting this low come from the dominant position of the Orthodox Church and the misinformed people, who built their defensive attitude towards LGBT groups based on prejudice and not on their own experience. Many argue that sexual orientation is a disease that lies from a mental or emotional disorder and this can be changed even by psychiatric treatment. Furthermore, they support the idea that access to accurate information about homosexuality and living together with such people could also affect our sexual orientation. They're unfounded stereotypes which need to be destroyed by a constructive information campaign of the society, where the misconceptions that lead both homophobic activists and the Orthodox Church of Moldova to gain new dimensions, worthy and true for a democratic state.

I conclude this article with the perfect words of Mahatma Gandhi, who believes that 'through democracy, new opportunities are given both to the weakest and to the strongest' and in a truly democratic state there is no room for discrimination.

____________________________________________________________________________
References:
1. Gonţa, Valeriu Gay în Moldova: Societatea noastră nu este gata să accepte diferite tipuri de dragoste, 16.03.2012, found at http://social.moldova.org/news/gay-in-moldova-societatea-noastra-nu-este-gata-sa-accepte-diferite-tipuri-de-dragoste-229090-rom.html

2. ONU: Guvernul trebuie să-şi asume angajamentul pentru diversitate, 12.03.2012, found at http://discriminare.md/eveniment/onu-guvernul-trebuie-sa-si-asume-angajamentul-pentru-diversitate/

3. Naţiunile Unite şi Guvernul Republicii Moldova au semnat un nou program de cooperare, found at http://www.un.md/news_room/pr/2012/undaf/index_ro.shtml

4. Organizaţia Naţiunilor Unite susţine drepturile persoanelor LGBT, 09.03.2012, found at http://www.darkq.net/stiri/organizatia-natiunilor-unite-sustine-drepturile-persoanelor-lgbt/

5. Biserica ortodoxă simte că pierde teren, 13.03.2012, found at http://discriminare.md/discriminarea-in-moldova/biserica-ortodoxa-simte-ca-pierde-teren/

6. Conferinţă susţinută de Iurie Leancă şi Kaarina Immonen, Coordonatorul Rezident al ONU la Chişinău, 13.03.2012, found at http://www.privesc.eu/Arhiva/9406/Conferinta-sustinuta-de-Iurie-Leanca-si-Kaarina-Immonen--Coordonatorul-Rezident-al-ONU-la-Chisinau

Translated in English from Romanian language, Original Article appeared on our Partner Website Geopolitics.ro

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Eurofighter Typhoon VS Dassault Rafale: Comparison using Latest 2012 Figures; What India Gained and What it Missed.

2012-04-16T01:37:00.001+05:30

French Dassault Rafale, Photo taken by AereiMilitari.org

Dassualt Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon, two state of the art combat aricrafts were competing against each other not in a battle sky, but on papers. India had declared the requirement of 126 MRCA as a replacement for its ageing combat fleet for which Eurofighter Typhoon and Rafale along with other aircrafts ( Swedish Saab Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon, French Dassault Rafale, Russian Mikoyan MiG-35, and the American F-16IN and F/A-18IN) Super Hornet were competing.

Which Aircraft Do you Prefer?

Along with Indian Air Force's technical requirement, another major criteria was also the cost, including the acquirement cost, production cost, operation and maintenance cost. India is already struggling maintaining its fleet due to high operation and maintenance costs. The cost issue is not only in the military, but also in the civilian side. Although Defence aviation industry functions quite differently than Civil aviation industry, today flights to Sydney from India costs nearly the same as the cost of standard Air India flight from New Delhi to Bangalore on a busy day.

Eurofighter Typhoon, photo taken by Contando Estrelas

Out of six competitors, Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon had made up to the final round, Dassualt Rafale being the lowest bidder winning the deal [Read: Dassualt Rafale Wins 126 MMRCA Jet Fighters Deal With India].

According to the agreement, the company who wins the contract will have to provide 18 aircrafts from their manufacturing facilities within 3 years or 36 months. Rest of the aircrafts will be manufactured at home facilities within India by HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited) under license.

Now that a new Aircraft will join the Indian fleet very soon, there is a big curiosity all over the world about how much India gained or missed choosing Rafale over Eurofighter.

Little Bit of History

The Eurofighter Typhoon, designed by a consortium (Eurofighter GmbH, formed in 1986) of three companies: EADS, Alenia Aeronautica and BAE Systems, is a twin-engine, canard-delta wing, multirole fighter.

In 1971, the UK had issued a requirement for a new fighter jet. According to the specifications issued by the Air Force, a new conventional 'tailed' design was formed known as P.96. Although the design was on par with the requirements, UK's air industry felt that it did not appear disparate to McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. By that time F/A-18 was already in the advanced stages of the designing, and the UK industry believed by the time their aircraft will be ready, F/A-18 would have already captured major markets. Meanwhile, West Germany was also in the race to design a fighter jet.

It was in 1979 when Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB - Germany) and British Aerospace (BAe - UK) jointly presented a formal proposal to their respective governments for the ECF (the European Collaborative Fighter) or European Combat Fighter [Source: Buttler 1990, p. 134]. In the very same year, French major manufacturer Dassault joined the ECF team in October 1979, bringing the concept of Eurofighter. The initial idea was that each country would individually present their design of the aircraft and the best one will be selected to go with. France produced the ACX. The UK produced two designs; the P.106 was a single-engined "lightweight" fighter, superficially resembling the JAS 39 Gripen, the P.110 was a twin-engined fighter. The P.106 concept was rejected by the RAF, on the grounds that it had "half the effectiveness of the two-engined aircraft at two thirds of the cost" [Source: Boot 1990, pp. 229–233]. West Germany continued to refine the TFK-90 concept.

However, the project collapsed just after two years in 1981 because of various technical and political reasons. Each country had different requirements. Also, French insistence on leadership in the design phase and UK's stipulation for their RB199 engine to power the aircraft instead of French Snecma M88 kept the project from running [Source: Butler 2000, p. 135].

As the project collapsed, the requirement for a new aircraft was still on high priority; as a result, in April 1982, the Panavia partners (MBB -Germany, BAe - the UK and Aeritalia - Italy) launched the Agile Combat Aircraft (ACA) programme [Source: Buttler 2000, p. 137.]. Although, it was a joint project, the British dominance could be easily seen in the ACA project, as the design was very similar to the BAe P.110, having a cranked delta wing, canards and a twin tail. One major external difference was the replacement of the side mounted engine intakes with a chin intake. The ACA was also to be powered by a modified version of the British RB199. Such a dominance by the UK resulted into the recantation of The German and Italian governments funding.

In 1983 Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain launched the Future European Fighter Aircraft (FEFA) programme. The aircraft was to have short take off and landing (STOL) and beyond visual range (BVR) capabilities. In 1984, France reiterated its requirement for a carrier-capable version and again demanded a leading role. The West Germany, UK and Italy opted out and established a new EFA program. In Turin, on 2 August 1985, West Germany, UK and Italy agreed to go ahead with the Eurofighter; and confirmed that France, along with Spain, had chosen not to proceed as a member of the project [Source: Lewis, Paul. "3 European Countries Plan Jet Fighter Project." The New York Times, 3 August 1985, p. 31]. Despite pressure from France, Spain rejoined the Eurofighter project in early September 1985 [Source: Eurofighter: Spain joins the club." The Economist, 17 September 1985, p. 68.] France officially withdrew from the project to pursue its own ACX project, which was to become the Dassault Rafale.

By September 1985, foundation of Eurofighter and Rafale had been laid and France and other European countries went on their ways to prove their technical leadership and making their version as successful. Today, both the aircrafts are reality out of the paper. While Eurofighter has already made its way into Austrian, German, Italian, Saudi Arabian, Spanish and United Kingdom's Airforce, Rafale has shown its capability in Libyan war last year.

But the most high profile battle which they fought was in the files of Indian selectors and at Aero India 2007 Airshow in Bangalore. Shortlisting of both the aircrafts to the final round had toughened the rivalry between France and European nations even more.

The European nations got their biggest blow when the got the news of Dassualt Rafale grabbing the deal with India. France, blamed for being over confident, dominating and demanding, was pushed out of the joint development of Eurofighter. And the same France had defeated the European group with its version of the design, which it was proposing then.

While it was the moment of rejoice for France, leaders of the UK, Germany and Italy were deeply hurt and indicated that they would talk to Indian government to convince them to have a re-look at Eurofighter. So far the Indian government's decision has remained unchanged.

This would be the first sale of Dassualt Rafale outside India, which is considered to be one of the biggest defence deal in the world.

Little bit of Numbers

Figures and Comparison according to official data from Austrian Air force, Eurofighter.com and French Navy.

What India will Gain and Lose

India has had good strategic relations with French Dassault Aviation. Dassault has provided the aircrafts as well as the technology to manufacture at home, in India. India has already tested the capability of Dassault Mirage 2000 in Kargil war. Indian pilots and manufacturing companies are familiar with Dassault products and hence not many efforts will be required for pilot training and setting up of the assembly and manufacturing line when compared to a totally different platform of aircraft.

The place where Typhoon clearly beats the Rafale is the thrust. Dassault has not given any reason why such a less powerful engine is used for a 4+ generation fighter, though the company has maintained that it is working to replace the current engine with the more powerful one. However, Thrust to weight ratio of both the planes are similar and Rafael has more capacity of take off load.

The Rafale is much more fuel efficient, but the EJ200 retains its power in high mach numbers, giving the Typhoon superior acceleration post Mach 1.5. Even though the M88s can function in limited airflow at high altitudes, they loose some of their punch, which limits the Rafale to speeds of Mach 1.8-1.9, while the Typhoon can go well past Mach 2.

If an Air Force is buying MMRCA in this decade, after so much spending and thinking, then it must be AESA ready. In this case Rafale is already AESA ready and will be equipped with the AESA radar this summer [Source: First Rafale To Be Equipped With AESA This Summer], whereas Eurofighter Typhoon might not see AESA radar before 2015 [Source: Eurofighter Typhoon to fly with AESA radar by 2015].

Also India may expect Rafale delivery sooner than Eurofighter Typhoon, since Rafale is not gone for export yet. Typhoon already has lots of pending orders from export and consortium customers. Some unconfirmed sources are also indicating that Rafale has offered India fourty fighters in fast track mode for early delivery.

The former Red Arrows team leader - Peter Collins – stated Rafale as a “war-fighter par excellence”. He added that he deemed the Rafale to be the best and most complete combat aircraft that he had ever flown. He concluded in saying that if he had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, he would, without question, choose the Rafale.

In another aircraft exercise in the UAE, even the F-22 Raptor, a fifth generation fighter, could hardly do anything to “tame” Rafale. According to Jean-Marc Tanguy’s information, defence journalist, the balance sheet lies in the figures hereafter:

Dogfighting (with Rafale weapons system’s performance lowered on purpose):
FAF Rafales vs RAF Typhoons : 4 – 0

Dogfighting with further Rafale weapons system reduction:
FAF Rafales vs RAF Typhoons : 3 – 1

Final balance sheet (in both scenarii the Rafales did not have full weapons systems…):
FAF Rafales vs RAF Typhoons : 7 – 1

However, the final ratings reporter were:

F-35 = 6.97,
RAFALE = 6.95
Eurofighter = 5.83
F-16 Block 60 = 5.80

[Source: RAFALE vs Typhoon/Eurofighter]

Some analyst also believe that these aircrafts may not be compared as they belong to different categories, Typhoon is air superiority fighter with limited multi-role capabilities, whereas Rafale is a true multi-role aircraft.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Turkey: A Rising Power in the Backyard of Europe

2012-04-04T00:18:00.002+05:30

Image from Business Insider

According to Alice Lyman Miller, Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, the definition of a superpower is "a country which has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemony". A superpower is not only militarily strong but also has a strong economy as well as is self sufficient and politically stable [Read: Top 10 Superpowers of the World]

Turkey bridges Asia and Europe, geographically and culturally, and occupies a strategic geopolitical position on the world map. The land, which was once a hub of trade routes, is now a hub of strategic pipelines. It is the 17th largest economy in the world and, according to Goldman Sachs, it would be breaking into the elite club of top 10 economies by 2050. Turkey is the voice of modern Muslim world as well as a member of NATO. Hence, it is believed that the country can play a major role in initiating a peace process between the Middle East and West.

John Feffer, the co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies says, "All roads once led to Rome; today all pipelines seem to lead to Turkey. If superpower status followed the rules of real estate -- location, location, location -- then Turkey would already be near the top of the heap."

Talking about real estate, the period of 2003 to 2005 was seen as a gilded age for the real estate industry of the country, as property purchases were opened for foreign nationals in 2003. Turkey became popular for wealthy Europeans and American property buyers who bought property in Altinkum, Istanbul, and other holiday destinations, bringing in lots of investment.

Looking at the amicable and progressive conditions in and around Turkey, some analysts have even mentioned Turkey as China of Eurasia. There have been many case studies and reports of Turkey possibly chasing China in almost every area. [Read: Stealth Superpower: How Turkey Is Chasing China in Bid to Become the Next Big Thing; Assessing Turkey’s Potential as a Global Superpower]

Like China and India, Turkey also managed to endure the recession wave in recent years. There was not a single Turkish bank which had gone under. That is probably because, unlike many Western banks, they have few toxic assets and limited mortgage exposure, as pointed out by The Economist, so the government did not have to divert public money into rescuing banks. However, its economy budget deficit swelled to 23.2 billion Turkish liras ($15 billion) in the first half of 2009, 13 times higher than last year.

In 2011, Turkey experienced a colossal growth of 9.6% in the first 9 months of the year, making the country one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

Brent E. Sasley, Assistant Professor in Political Science at the University of Texas at Arlington, says Turkey certainly has the ability to be a regional power, especially in the Middle East.

“The shift to a private sector economy, combined with the foreign loans, gave a real boost to the economy,” Sasley said. “It has a large population, a dynamic reserve of human capital, a growing economy, a central location, and a history of being a contiguous great power with a high civilization and leadership role.”

Turkey's strategic position and its growth stories makes it a substantial contender for the EU membership, although its major part lies in Asia. Turkey has been in discussion for years on EU's table for the possible inclusion of the country in the group. If the European Union was not in the picture, Turkey would have caught the attention of BRIC nations. Many analysts believe that the addition of Turkey in the original BRIC nations could have been a better move, rather than the inclusion of South Africa.

Professor Aslı U. Bâli of UCLA School of Law explains that Turkey’s current position is actually an outcome of the “zero problems with neighbors” policy, that prioritized stability and peace in the region. She argued that the foreign policy was not so much an outcome of Turkey’s desire to lead the region, as it was a byproduct of the Arab Spring, requiring Turkey to take a leadership role as a non-Arab state in the midst of regional turmoil. [Read:Turkey: What to Make of the New Superpower in the Middle East]

She further added, "to exert its “zero problems with neighbors” policy, Turkey advocated speaking to all sides. That includes mediating between Israel and Syria, and between Iran and the international community on the nuclear issue."

To appease western nations, Turkey allowed Europe and the United States funding a series of pipelines that uses Turkish territory in a bid to bypass Russia. At the same time, it negotiated with Russia for another project of pipelines—the South Stream, which goes from Russia to Bulgaria through Turkish territorial waters, and the Samsun-Ceyhan pipeline that would transport Russian and Kazakh oil from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean through Turkey. However, with the Arab Spring rolling on, it looks like an arduous task for Turkey to maintain the same policy, since it has already ceased its support to Libya and now to Syria.

Nevertheless, there are strong claims of Turkey following the path of China, but it is more relevant if we look from the European perspective. Europe has recently seen downfall of some of its big economies. At this time, Europe would require a strong nation that can support a collective growth and recovery of the continent.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Hungarian President Pál Schmitt Resigned Over Plagiarized PhD

2012-04-02T23:17:00.000+05:30

Pal Schmitt

G. Nikolett
Correspondent - Budapest

The President of Hungary, Pál Schmitt, elected in 2010 by the Hungarian parliament, offered his resignation today in a speech to parliament amid a national scandal which resulted into revocation of his doctorate for plagiarism.

Last week, Schmitt's 1992 doctorate was annulled after a five-member committee, consisting of four professors and a lawyer, at Semmelweis University reviewed a report published in January by the Internet publication HVG.hu. The committee found that most of his 215-page thesis about the modern Olympic Games had been improperly copied from the work of two other authors without attribution. Schmitt had won two gold medals at the 1968 and 1972 Olympics on his country's fencing teams.

Semmelweis University said that Mr. Schmitt’s paper summa cum laude at the Testnevelési Egyetem (University of Physical Education) in 1995 did not meet the professional and ethical criteria required for a doctoral thesis, after a panel at the university found that the paper contained 16 pages of identical translation from the 1991 work of a German author, Klaus Heinemann. About a further 180 pages contained extracts identical to a 1987 work by Nikolay Gueorguiev, from Bulgaria, as well as tables and charts copied from the same source. (Source: NYTimes)

Monday, in his speech to the parliament, the 69 years old president reaffirmed that he has not done anything wrong and continued to claim his innocence saying the problems with his doctoral dissertation should have been raised at that time when he submitted it. He further said that he will try to turn over University’s decision and expressed his will to write a new PhD if the problem persists. He plans to write a new thesis on sports and environmental sustainability.

At the end if the speech he said, “Based on Hungary’s constitution, which I have signed, the president expresses national unity; in this situation, when my personal issue divides my beloved nation rather than unites it, I feel it is my duty to end my service and resign my mandate as president.”

Meanwhile, The International Olympic Committee (IOC) will also examine the plagiarism case, which led to the resignation of Paul Schmitt, and then decide whether to take any action against the former IOC member.

The IOC said: "We will be prompted with the case reports, will study them and consider whether we need to take any steps."

President of the Assembly László Köver will take over as acting president once Schmitt’s resignation is finalized, after which a new president will be nominated and voted on.

The outgoing president isn't the first European political figure to be embroiled in a scandal over academic integrity. Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg resigned as Germany’s defence minister and gave up his legislature seat in March 2011, after his doctorate in law was revoked for plagiarism. [Read about this on CBC.ca]

Such checks should be thoroughly done by the local agencies on the authenticity of the qualification records of various leaders and politicians of their country. If a good qualification standard is maintained in the government, different problems like corruption and scams can be reduced drastically, though some exception exists. Sometimes not so educated people may deliver better results of developments than educated ones.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Romania Welcomes Spring with Martisor Day. History and Traditions

2012-03-01T21:19:00.000+05:30

Attached to the Red-White string, there are
symbols considered to bring luck
Here - Horse shoe Martisor

As Spring begins, everything comes back to life. To mark the beginning of a new cycle of life, Romanians have a special tradition, called Martisor.

Origin of Martisor

Martisor across the borders -
made by Sanskar Shrivastava in India
for TWR Romania team

The day of March 1, according to the old calendar, was considered the beginning of the New Year, the celebration of Spring's arrival. Martisor is an over 8000 years old tradition, born in the lands where now Romania is. In the time of the Dacians (Romanian ancestors), spring symbols were made during winter and were worn starting with March 1st. Martisor were then white and red pebbles, strung on a string and worn around one's neck. The red color, given by fire, blood and sun, was attributed to life, hence to women. White, on the other hand, conferred by the clarity of water, the white of the clouds, was specific to the wisdom of men. Besides, the cord of the Martisor expresses the inseparable interweaving of the two principle as a permanent movement of matter. It signifies the exchange of vital forces that give rise to life, the continuous cycle of nature.

The significance of Martisor remained the same over time: it's a symbol of spring, of the returning to life. It brings optimism and faith. Back then, Martisor was attached to a rose or a blossoming tree, to bring luck, or was thrown in the direction from which wandering birds came, saying "Ia-mi negretele si da-mi albetele” (Take me the black and bring me the white" - meaning take away the surrow and everything negative and exchange it to happiness and good things).

Hyacinths, one of the traditional flowers
for the month of March

Martisor Story

The legend says that the Sun descended in a village, at the village dance, taking the shape of a lovely girl. A dragon watched her and abducted her from the crowd and trapped her in a dungeon. The world was so sad. Birds stopped singing, rivers stopped flowing and children stopped laughing. Nobody dared to confront the dragon. But one day, a brave young man decided to go save the Sun. Many people led him and gave them from their powers to help him overcome the dragon and release the sun.

Snowdrops - Spring's first flowers

The journey lasted three seasons: summer, autumn and winter. He found the dragon's castle and they began fighting. They fought for days until the dragon was defeated. Feeble and wounded, the young man released the Sun. It rose in the sky, chearing up people. It revived nature, people have rejoiced, but the brave young man never got to see spring again. The hot blood from his wounds drained in the snow. While the snow was melting, white flowers were blooming, Snowdrops, the messengers of spring. Even the last drop of blood dripped in the pristine snow. He died. Since then, young people knit two tassels together: one white and one red. They offer them to the girls they love or to their loved ones. Red means love for all that is beautiful, reminiscent of the color of the brave man's blood. White symbolizes the health and the purity of the snowdrop, the first flower of spring.

Martisor Traditions

Martisor is worn on "the days of Old Dochia" [Zilele Babelor] that are between 1 to 9 March. In present times, the custom is to pick a day from this period and it's said that depending on how that day will be, that's how all your year will be. A sunny day predicts a good year and a gloomy one a bad year.

In some regions, Martisor is worn during the whole month of March, then attached to the branches of a fruit tree. It is believed this will bring wealth into people's homes. They say that if someone makes a wish and hang Martisor on the tree, it will come true soon. In early April, in a large part of Romania and Moldova's villages, trees are decorated with Martisors. In Moldova, the musical festival "Martisor" takes place every year, starting on March 1 until March 10.

Different Martisors

In some counties of Romania, Martisor is worn only in the first two weeks of March. In Transylvanian cities (center Romania), Martisors are hanged on doors, windows, horns of domestic animals, because it is considered that it can frighten evil spirits. In Bihor county it is believed that if people wash their face with rainwater fallen on March 1, they will become more beautiful and healthy. In Banat, girls wash with snow so they will be loved. In Dobrogea, Martisors are worn until the arrival of cranes, then thrown in the air so that their happiness will be great and have wings. In Moldova, on March 1 girls give Martisor to boys and they give them Martisors back on March 8 (this differs slightly from the rest of the country). The Festival of Martisor can be found in the Balkans at the Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians, as well at the Bulgarians who call it Marten/ Martenitsa (Мартеница) and also in Macedonia and Albania.

Wearing Martisor

Martisor can be basically any good-luck token that has attached the red-white martisor string. Most commonly used are the four-leaf-clover, the chimney sweeper, horse shoe and ladybug. Also, traditional models are ones made out of dry flowers casted in amber or small metal broches.

Traditional Martisor

In the last years though, the trend has changed a bit and there are many who prefer wearing the bracelet Martisor (it's like a friendship bracelet) - such as the ones below, as there are more and more people who like and do handmade designs.

Martisor Bracelets

Apart from these rather traditional Martisor, you can gift/receive a martisor in so many other forms, from jewelry or scarfs to flowers that have attached one red-white string. One wears a Martisor either pinned on its tshirt/coat etc or tied around the wrist.

Martisor tied to a fruit tree

Either way you like to wear it and whatever model you prefer, we hope it would work it's 'magic' and bring you a happy prosperous year.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Moscow - A Valuable Strategic Ally for Abkhazia

2012-03-01T07:00:00.000+05:30

Sukhumi, the Government House of Abkhazia,
destroyed in the Abkhaz offensive on September 27, 1993.
Photo taken by John

Written by Ana Maria Ghimis, Geopolitics.ro

If after the elections from Transnistria we can atleast talk about the potential changes to the east and thus to the west, the results of presidential elections in self proclaimed independent region, Abkhazia, are clear: Moscow remains a "valuable strategic ally".

In August 2011, presidential elections were held in the Georgian breakaway region, Abkhazia. According to the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Abkhazia, the election was won by Alexander Ankvab, who received 58,657 votes (54.9% of total votes). He was competing with Sergey Shambala, who received 22,456 votes (21.02%) and Raul Khajimba, who finished third with 21,177 votes (19.82%).Alexander Ankvab is considered to be the elected President of the Republic of Abkhazia, and Mikhail Logue the Vice-President. The title of President of the Republic is not random, because it gives a kind of legitimacy, and the word "chosen" leads us to the notion of democracy, but it is questionable considering the fact that ethnic Georgians in Abkhazia don't have voting rights yet. Comming back to the person representing the President, Alexander Ankvab, is a former Communist official who became a successful businessman after he went to Moscow in the early '90s. He returned to Abkhazia in 2004 and one year later he became Vice-President of the region. Another key issue is that he was considered, even before the elections, to be the "acting president" of the unrecognized Republic of Abkhazia, so the election result was not exactly a surprise, neither for the inhabitants, nor for Moscow.

The context of these elections is uncertain, since most countries haven't recognized these regions (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) as independent. Only Russia and three other non-European countries - Venezuela, Nicaragua and the Pacific island of Nauru have officially recognized the independence of the two. Thus, the EU and U.S. have considered this exercise as illegitimate. However there were no actions to prevent their development, given that the elections were rather ignored by the West, who was supporting the territorial integrity and sovereignty over the territory of the Georgian state. This refusal to recognise the independence comes as a result of: refusing the entry of the international community in the region, the Russian military occupation and the ideology of ethnic supremacy waged by the leaders of Abkhazia (according to reports issued by experts from the International Crisis Group, since 1992 around 200,000 to 250,000 Georgians were forced to leave the region).

The most important supporter of the independence of these regions is the Russian Federation, the state that gives them the most important help, financial and military, as well. August elections did not represent a major step forward towards true independence of Abkhazia. This will only be possible if policies aimed to preventing the return of ethnic Georgians in the region will no longer be pursued, which is highly unlikely, given Moscow's interest in such regions. If in Transnistria's case we can still talk about a kind of uncertainty on the policy that a new president would pursue vis-a-vis Moscow, in Abkhazia the privileged relationship with Russia remains the main point of foreign policy of this region, a fact revealed by the statements of Alexander Ankvab, which stated that Russia is the "most valuable strategic ally", with which his administration will continue to develop positive relationships. This position is more than predictable, given that Russia is among the few states that have recognized the unilateral declaration of independence of Abkhazia from Georgia.

Regarding a possible change in this state, the European community is only one that has the required capabilities. Actions that could be taken by it to bring Abkhazia closer to Europe should primarily be concentrated on insisting on full implementation of the 6-point plan negotiated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy with his counterpart in Russia, in August 2008, after the outbreak of war in Georgia. The most important aspect of it is point five, that refers to the withdrawal of Russian troops to the position occupied before August 7, 2008. Since negotiations between Russia and the EU resumed, although this plan was not implemented by the Russians, it is hard to believe that the withdrawal will take place effectively.

Whatever the future prospects of Abkhazia, independence or regional autonomy, we should not forget that the entire population should decide on that, regardless of its ethnicity. Until then, Abkhazia will continue to be regarded by the international community as a region under the total influence of Moscow.

Translated in English from Romanian language, Original Article appeared on our Partner Website Geopolitics.ro

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Declining Russian Influence: Russia's Attitude Towards New and Future NATO Members

2012-02-27T15:27:00.000+05:30

Image taken by jubarrier

Written by Cristina Avram, Geopolitics.ro

The attitude of the ruling circles of Russia towards Central and Eastern European countries continues to be of primary importance. To the disappointment of most Russians, the Atlantic Alliance has extended eastward by including the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland (1999) and Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Romania (2004), Albania and Croatia (2009). At this we study the attitude of Russia towards these countries and we have to take into consideration Russia's attitude towards future NATO members as well. Among the most frequently mentioned states to become NATO members in the next wave are the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia and Ukraine.

Czech Republic

Russia's concern towards the Czech Republic's accession to NATO wasn't as strong as the one towards Poland, Hungary or Baltic States. Prague took a pragmatic approach towards Moscow, being particularly interested in developing economic relations of production, decrease dependence on Russian energy and recover most of the Russian debt.

Russian authorities have periodically expressed their opposition to foreign and security policy of Prague, especially on NATO's expansion. However, public campaigns have never been so loud as for Poland. Russian leadership has attempted to gain control of certain parts of the Czech press. An important theme of the Russian propaganda was the deteriorating economy and living standards of the new member countries. Russian media has made a campaign targeting the Czech Republic, where public support for NATO integration was obvious, trying to present the image of a poor country that needs to increase all military spending to meet the stringent requirements of the Alliance.

Moscow has not released any specific threat against the Czech Republic, although strongly criticized Prague's preparations for entering NATO. Russian authorities have been very irritated by that Havel's comments who strongly supported the expansion of NATO to the Baltic states and said that Russia "had no right to oppose NATO expansion."

By the NATO summit in Madrid in July 1997, Russians pleaded that the Czech entry into the Alliance can have negative consequences for the delivery of natural gas. But soon after the restoration of its independence, Prague insisted to reorient its economy and markets to the West and to reduce dependence on natural gas deliveries from Russia.

Moscow generally refrained from exploiting ethnic problems in the Czech Republic. However, the position of the Roma minority was sometimes brought to attention by Russian officials and media to represent the Czech Republic as not democratic enough. Moscow has also expressed concern over alleged unfair treatment of ethnic Russians enforced by the Czech authorities.

According to Slovak government reports, Russian information agencies have hired members of the Slovak secret police in order to sabotage the expansion of NATO to the Czech Republic by organizing plots meant to exploit rivalries and to fuel doubts on the ability of the Czech Republic join NATO. According to the Czech counterintelligence service, international organized crime that acts in the country has mostly links with Russia. Czech intelligence noted a growing interest of Russian intelligence services for information on modern military equipment that NATO brings in the Czech Republic. Czech analysts have complained about the refusal of successive governments to reform the four information services of the country, indicating that some senior officials continue to cooperate with Moscow.

Hungary

Moscow's position became even harsher after Hungary has requested NATO membership. Russian propaganda attacks on Hungary were more moderate than those against Poland because the country does not occupy a strategically difficult position, as it is not so close to the CIS region. Moscow has not released any specific threat against Hungary as the country joined NATO. The comments of prime minister, Viktor Orban, in October 1999, regarding the possibility of allowing U.S. to place nuclear weapons in Hungary "in times of crisis" have outraged Russian officials and led to postponement of Prime Minister Kasyanov's visit to Budapest.

Since the election of Putin, Moscow has tried to boost the sale of arms to former signatories of the Warsaw Pact and to regain some of the lost market due to Western intervention. However, Budapest has remained cautious about military dependence on Russia.

Russian companies have been trying to invest more and more in the Hungarian energy sector through privatization. Russian capital has increased its role in Hungary in the last decade. The Hungarian authorities have noted this tendency with some fear and are believed to be imposing restrictions.

Moscow has tried to discredit the Hungarian pro-Western and pro-NATO government, focusing on Roma issues, which they consider a more sensitive issue in Western capitals.

Poland

Although the Russian authorities have resigned to the loss of Poland as a satellite-state, they perceived its integration into NATO as an obstacle to their influence in the region.

In February 1994, Russian authorities claimed that Poland's entry into NATO will undermine its relationship with Moscow. Every Polish government official hinted that he/she is in favour of joining NATO, despite objections from Russia. The main purpose of accusing Poland and its neighbours was to desqualify their candidacy to NATO. Poor relations with Russia had an alleged negative impact on relations between NATO and Russia. An additional purpose was to create doubts and divisions between Polish politicians on security and foreign policy of the country.

Russian propaganda strongly attacked Poland's efforts to establish regional groupings with its post-soviet neighbors and the ones from Central Europe. Moscow feared that structures such as the Visegrad group would exclude Russia and attract CIS countries in the Western orbit. Moscow believes that Poland is its main regional competitors in exercising influence over the CIS countries.

Relations with Russia became even more strained after Poland's accession to NATO in 1999. Kremlin was trying to demonstrate that the new members of NATO will adopt an attitude of opponents of Russia. Officials were complaining about NATO's increased activity at the borders of Russia, including military flights over the Kaliningrad region of Russia.

Although Warsaw has focused much of its foreign trade to the West, it remains heavily dependent on Russia for energy supplies. Moscow thus uses its "energy diplomacy" to achieve political gains.

In a movement to ensure energy diversity and decrease dependence on Russia, in September 2001, Poland signed an agreement with Norway, although Norwegian gas suppliers prices were 30% higher than Russia.

Due to Poland's ethnic homogeneity and the absence of any significant autonomist movements involving Russian-speaking population, there weren't too many opportunities for Moscow to exploit the ethnic issue to its advantage.

Russian services have had too few opportunities to provoke ethnic, social, religious or regional unrest in Poland or to incite anti-government feelings. As one of the most homogeneous countries in Eastern Europe, with a reasonable attitude towards minority rights and a small number of ethnic Russians, Poland has escaped some of the complaints raised by Russia to the neighboring Baltic states. Therefore, there was little chance of manipulation by the Russians on these issues.

Moscow has tried hard to discredit the Polish authorities to disqualify the country's entry into NATO. Russian officials also tried to show that Poland was not a serious partner for Western institutions telling the Polish secret services and other secret services in Central Europe continued to spy on Alliance.

Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania

Russian leaders did not believe that they can realistically integrate the three countries in the CIS or other supra-structure. They tried instead to place Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in a "neutral zone", undefined, between NATO and the CIS and between Central Europe and Russia, in this way, Western influences could be minimized. Russian officials have lanched many warnings in the 90s on the fact that admission of the Baltic countries in NATO would lead to interruption of relations between Moscow and NATO and would lead to a new era of conflict.

Moscow was vehemently opposed to Balkan states's entry in NATO and warned that such a move would bring to power the hard-line politicians in Russia, and this would hasten the appearance of a conflict with the Alliance. Kremlin argued that the admission of the Baltic states would create a strong barrier against Russia and claimed to have a decisive word in the Baltic republics security policies.

Kremlin tried instead to isolate the three countries internationally, generating tensions within and between the Baltic states and other states to block their acceptance into NATO, specially since the good relations with neighbors were an important condition to become a member of the Alliance.Moscow was manipulating the minority issue to demonstrate that all three governments are unable to achieve European standards of minority protection and human rights.

In the first two years of Putin's presidency, the focus has been on preventing the entry into NATO of the Baltic republics. Their acceptance into NATO was condemned as an attempt to isolate Russia from Europe, by creating a "sanitary belt". Officials stated that membership of any of the Baltic countries will permanently damage relations with Moscow and will cause potential countermeasures. It could thus change the "balance of power" in the region and could degrade relations between Russia and NATO. Putin has intensified ethnic tensions in 2001.

Moscow raised even territorial issues on Estonia and Latvia to maintain the pressure created on their governments. Setting border eventually remained not ratified, according to a cunning calculation: unset boundaries meant that the country could not be admitted into NATO.

Russian authorities threatened the Baltic States, supported the economic conflict and claimed that these states represented a springboard for a possible NATO attack against Russia. Some politicians asked to take military measures to force the three republics to comply, and Foreign Minister Primakov called for a revision of certain post-Soviet borders. When direct threats did not have the desired effect, Kremlin resorted to incentives.

At the Easter European leaders' high level meeting in Vilnius in September 1997, Prime Minister Chernomyrdin proposed several confidence building measures, under the name of "the Baltic Programme". This included proposals for unilateral security guarantees offered by Russia if Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania remained outside NATO and bilateral guarantees offered by Russia and NATO.

Moscow continued to work towards the disqualification of the Baltic states as viable candidate for the Alliance. They invented internal and external problems such as NATO leaders to consider that the accession of the Baltic states would be too risky, creating new problems to the organization.

Moscow was disrupting Baltic economies to gain political advantage. Each government has tried to steer the economy to the West and to limit dependence on Russia and its susceptibility to blackmail. Moscow has tried particularly to control power transmission means, this being profitable both financially and politically. There were also attempts to discredit the intelligence and security in the Baltic countries to disqualify them for joining NATO.

Moscow has tried to create differences between Baltic leaders claiming that the Estonian and Latvian businessmen are skeptical about the integration into NATO and would prefer to expand trade and political ties with Russia.

When Putin understood that NATO expansion can not be stopped, he changed his strategy, believing that acceptance of NATO membership for the Baltic States combined with a stronger expression of the views of Moscow in NATO deliberations, could weaken the Alliance and undermine the relevance of extending. Baltic officials that it's important that all three Baltic countries should be included into NATO simultaneously. This was the only way that future conflicts with Moscow could be prevented regarding the NATO membership, the possibility of rivalry could be reduced and could provide a safe environment for economic development. Any delay in joining of any Baltic state would have allowed Russia to develop its international influence by obtaining a firmer control in strategic sectors of local economies.

Russia has had some disappointments in the policy of the Baltic countries. It failed to attract the three independent states into its own orbit of security and proved unable to prevent their political orientation to the West and establishing close relations with the United States.

Slovenia

With the outbreak of Yugoslav wars in the summer of 1991, Russian policy has oscillated between supporting the integrity of Yugoslavia and the cold relations with Milosevic, who had supported the coup attempt in Moscow in August 1991. The central goal of Russian diplomacy was the preservation of Yugoslavia and maintaining domination over Serbia, according to the Soviet Foreign Ministry before the Soviet collapse (position inherited by his successor Russian), an independent Yugoslavia representing "an important element of stability in the Balkans and throughout Europe".

In turn, Belgrade considered Russia as a useful ally because of Moscow's veto in the UN Security Council during Belgrade's attempts to create Greater Serbia. Yeltsin recognized the independence of Slovenia in February 1992 after it became clear that socialist Yugoslavia died.

Yet, in the early stages of the Bosnian war in 1992, Moscow strongly supporter Serbia, which coincided with the affirmation of a more aggressive foreign policy line. During the visit Foreign Minister Ivanov in Ljubljana, several agreements have been finalized and was stressed that the economic cooperation was steadily improving. Slovenian businessmen have made their presence felt in Russia more than ever, as the volume of investments increased. Slovenia and Russia plan to expand trade from the current $ 600 million annually, to at least one billion dollars by 2006. Discussions were held also around Russia's debt to ex-Yugoslav countries. Slovenia should receive 207 million dollars of the total of 1.29 billion that Russia owes the successor states of Yugoslavia.

In Slovenia, Russia had few opportunities to exploit ethnic differences, as the country is predominantly homogeneous and there are no territorial claims from neighbors. Moscow had few opportunities to influence political processes in Slovenia. Moreover, most parties in Slovenia were prominent anti-Yugoslav and pro independence - positions that were contrary to Kremlin policy. It is believed that Moscow was clearly defending Yugoslav and Serbian causes. Still, Moscow is counting on the fact that it could enter in Zagreb on long term by economic cooperation and investment.

Slovakia

Slovakia from Merciar's time became the only Central European state to accept the "Kvitinski doctrine" and signed a fundamental treaty with Russia. The doctrine was named after the Soviet deputy foreign minister, Yulia Kviţinski, who led negotiations in 1991 for bilateral treaties with all countries of the former Warsaw Pact, incorporating security clauses that deny them the right to establish "hostile alliances."

Exclusion of Slovakia from the first round of NATO expansion was considered a diplomatic success of Moscow. As a result of NATO's expansion, Moscow launched a warning on creating a multi-state alliance in the region, which could exclude Russia from any of its traditional "spheres of influence". With the election of a democratic government in Bratislava in September 1998, Moscow's influence began to be closely investigated. Putin administration also had to accept the invitation to join NATO addressed to Slovakia in November 2002 at the Prague summit.

Moscow did not need too many propaganda attacks and disinformation campaigns against Meciar regime, which was perceived as a valuable outpost of Russian interests in the middle of a Western-oriented region. Criticism against the democratic coalition who was ruling the country after the elections in September 1998 had become a common ground and Russian secret services bribed or blackmailed editors and journalists to send materials to the benefit of Moscow. There were suspicions in Bratislava that some negative reports on government security agencies were created and spread by Russian intelligence. Among them were allegations of lack of credibility of the Slovak security services and illegal sales of arms to regimes internationally sanctioned.

NATO leaders had expressed concerns over Slovak Intelligence Service (SIS) being involved in arms trafficking, working with Russian intelligence services, tapping journalist's phones illegally and engaged in campaigns of denigration of some politicians, which could affect the national security of the country and the Alliance in general. NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson said that Bratislava has to convince the Alliance that their security bodies are to be trusted with the custody of classified information and that they have a credible and independent oversight of security.

The Slovak authorities have harshly criticized the reports according to which the SIS situation was raising serious doubts about the country's ability to integrate into NATO and the EU. There were suspicions that the reports were exaggerated and falsified by activists associated with Meciar, which kept active links with Russian intelligence services, in a deliberate campaign of denigration of the government.

Bulgaria

Russia believes that the Black Sea states, Bulgaria and Romania, have strategic importance for several reasons. First, their control can help increase Russian influence in southeastern Europe, while the Black Sea itself is considered a zone of Russian domination, secondly, they form a bond of energy and infrastructure between Europe and Caucasian and Caspian regions. Thirdly, Bulgaria is seen as a historical ally that can help restore Russia's advantage. Traditionally, Russia has sought to keep open the Bosporus straits between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean for its navy and raw materials. This was done in the late nineteenth century at the expense of all countries in the region, including Bulgaria and Serbia, who have become Russian quasi-protectorates. Today, Russia's strategic ambitions are focused primarily on the impending flow of Russian energy supplies to the West, but not necessarily through the Bosphorus. Moscow intends to provide alternative routes through the Balkans, as a shield against potential bottlenecks in Turkey.

Much of the 90s, Bulgarian Socialists remained closely tied to Russia in December 1994, when they returned to power, Russia's influence grew and it considered Sofia as an opponent of NATO's expansion. During a visit to Sofia in March 1996, Yeltsin said that Bulgaria is the only Eastern European country to become a member of the Russian community. In March 1996, Duma's President, Gennady Selezniov said that Russia and Bulgaria share a common strategic objective and supported Bulgaria's neutrality, In contrast, the Union of Democratic Forces (UDF) who was in opposition was perceived as a dangerous element, which could lead the country closer to NATO. UDF's election victory in April 1997 was seen by the Kremlin as a major obstacle, as the new Bulgarian government fully embraced the possibility of entering NATO. Moscow tried to divide the Union, seeking to corrupt officials and lawmakers with business proposals. It invested large sums of money to undermine the government, between 1997 and 2001. Resources were allocated to the media and several political parties to discredit the UDF and to promote the Socialists, who were more reliable. Pro-Russian lobby of the Bulgarian Socialist Party campaigned on behalf of Russian economic interests against Bulgaria's accession to NATO.

Russia was determined to use Bulgaria as a strategic outpost to penetrate the region, based on cultural and historical ties with Russia and the country's geostrategic position. Disintegration of the Soviet bloc questioned the manner in which Sophia could to protect the independence and promote economic development while maintaining balanced relations with Moscow. Russia continued to show a superiority complex towards small Slavic states and expected that Bulgaria would remain part of post-sovietic political, economical and security space. Its expectations were deceived in April 1997, when Bulgaria elected a reformist pro-NATO government and its progress towards entry into NATO generated tensions with Moscow.

When Russia realized that - in terms of not allowing Bulgaria to NATO, the stakes were lost, there was a new facet of the "Slavic-Orthodox" construct, some Russian commentators claiming that the Bulgarians, in fact, were not entirely Slav. The intention was to maintain the illusion that NATO propaganda is essentially a Catholic-Protestant organization, aiming against the East Slavic world.

Moscow consistently opposed the accession of Bulgaria to NATO, but failed to deflect Sofia's application for membership, however, the Russian secret services engaged in a campaign to discredit the Bulgarian government by launching rumors which have circulated widely in Bulgaria, that the new prime minister, Simeon Saxe Coburg Gotha, was a puppet for the Russian mafia. Also, Moscow claimed that the United States forced Bulgaria to join NATO and pressured Sofia to weaken its relations with Russia.

There was no direct military threat from Russia against Bulgaria, but Moscow has regularly expressed dissatisfaction towards Bulgaria's moves closer to NATO and Washington.

At the end of NATO war in Kosovo, Bulgaria refused to grant overflight rights to Russia in order to position troops in the province, until agreement was reached between NATO and Russia for a unified command of the peacekeeping forces. Yeltsin's deputy, Andranik Migranian, described this decision as a hostile act of Sofia that "will enhance anti-Bulgarian feelings in Russia" and which may affect economic relations".

Bulgaria's decision to join NATO sparked Moscow's officials protests. In August 2000, Foreign Minister accused Bulgaria of establishing excessively close relationships with NATO, warning that it is detrimental to the country's traditional ties with Russia. A smoldering conflict between Moscow and Sofia is on planning the opening of U.S. bases and military bases in Bulgaria. Setting up of bases was welcomed by the Bulgarian authorities who saw it as a means to strengthen ties with Washington and bringing economic benefits to the country. Kremlin signaled Sofia about its strong opposition towards this initiative and asked to participate in negotiations on the projected bases.

The ethnic issue occupied a marginal place in Russian policy towards Bulgaria. Otherwise would have been shocking that in the name of "Slavic solidarity", Moscow to instigate a conflict or to accuse Sofia of discrimination against its Muslim communities (Turkish, Roma, pomaka), which forms most of the country's minorities.

Some Bulgarian companies have been involved in scandals involving the export of arms to dubious regimes, including equipment that could already be used by governments in the Middle East. Such a scandal involving spare parts for armored personnel carriers for Syria, was presented in the press on the eve of NATO Summit in Prague in November 2002.

Suspicion arose that the timing of the subject was chosen intentionally to questions inviting Bulgaria in NATO. According to Bulgarian political analysts on security issues, the entire episode was provoked and manipulated by anti-NATO groups, including former members of security forces who had close ties with the Kremlin's secret services and the Russian Mafia.

Romania

Relations between Romania and Russia were distant during Nicolae Ceausescu's regime and partially improved after the fall of the dictator. Only in September 1993, did Romanian leaders traveled to Moscow to sign agreements to restore economic ties. Romania became the only country in the region that Russia has failed to sign a bilateral political treaty. Bucharest has insisted any treaty to include a joint condemnation of the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939, following which Romania lost part of his province, Moldova. Moscow feared that this would legitimize favorable movements to the union of Romania and ex-Soviet Moldova. The Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation Relations was finally signed July 2003, during a visit to Moscow of President Ion Iliescu.

During the 90s, the Russian state propaganda described Romania as an expansionist power, claiming parts of Moldova and Ukraine lost to the USSR after the Second World War. Moscow has encouraged animosity between Bucharest and Chisinau and Kiev, to act as a defender of territorial integrity of neighbors in northern Romania.

Romania initially accepted the "Kviţinski doctrine" proposed by Moscow on the eve of the Soviet collapse. At the negotiations on the bilateral treaty, a clause was inserted by which both parties were denied entry into any military alliance perceived as hostile by any of the signatories. Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the treaty remained in Bucharest unratified and, to the disappointment of Kremlin, Romania started to adopt a more open pro-NATO position. Although there was no direct military threat against the country, it was clear that Russia was strongly opposed to foreign and security policies of Bucharest.

The persistence of the political crisis in the neighboring country of Moldova, was manipulated by Moscow to put in a negative light Romania's foreign policy. The maneuver became clear in February 2002, as the conflict between the government and protesters was getting stronger in Chisinau. There were demonstrations organized by the opposition movement against the forced introduction of Russian as official language by the Moldovan Communist administration. However, Russian officials have presented demonstrations as a Romanian provocationt, aimed at the annexation of Moldova.

Romanian authorities have accused Moscow of maintaining the crisis in a fragile state, in order to break the pro-Romanian block, to have a more subordinate Moldova and in order to discredit the government in Bucharest, in the manner well known Russian officials have launched libel to the foreign policy of Romania and questioned Bucharest 's credibility as a potential ally of NATO. Communist authorities in Chisinau, with close links to Moscow, in turn inflamed speculation that Bucharest would promote a "revenge" against the Republic of Moldova if they were admitted to NATO.

In September 2003, after Romania received the green light for NATO membership, conflict broke out on the need for parliamentary oversight of intelligence. Western agencies have pressured the Romanian commissioners to clean the data network by eliminating former members of the Securitate (Ceausescu's secret police). Western intelligence services continue to be concerned about possible links between the former communist intelligence agents and Russian services. Washington demands a greater civilian control of intelligence from all invitees to join the NATO and transparency of their budgets.

Albania

Diplomatic relations between Albania and the Soviet Union were established in July 1999 after nearly thirty years of its deterioration by the regime of Enver Hoxha in Tirana. Relationship between the two countries remained cold throughout the '90s, primarily because of the Balkan crisis. Russian authorities did not want to sacrifice good relations with Belgrade to improve those with Tirana. The conflict in Kosovo has strained relations, following the letter sent by Prime Minister Primakov to Albanian Prime Minister, in which he accused Tirana of exacerbating the crisis and pressed the government to eliminate "Albanian terrorism" in Kosovo. Albanian authorities have sent a harsh response to Kremlin's allegations.

Russia was desperately seeking to have more legitimacy and a stronger voice in the regional policy. Russian officials claimed that NATO tacitly supports the Albanian "ethno-terrorists" in Kosovo in its war against Belgrade because their goals coincide. NATO's intervention was seen as a way to reduce Russian influence by marginalizing the UN Security Council. Kremlin felt entitled to criticize NATO's expansion, which coincided with NATO's offensive missions that could set a precedent for operations near Russia's borders.

Despite its criticism against U.S. unilateralism, Moscow was the first country to send troops into Kosovo without having UN approval first, in a movement designed to outrun NATO. Russian authorities have urged Tirana to accept a Russian military presence in Kosovo. The belligerent attitude of Kremlin during the NATO campaign was meant to gain a better bargaining position after the war was over.

Moscow's proposals for the post-conflict period, to create a new Balkan "collective security system", were received in Tirana as a renewed attempt to regain regional influence and weaken the U.S. position. Albanian authorities have revealed that Kremlin's proposed security system was designed so as to bypass NATO and to include countries such as Serbia, who did not even participate in the NATO PflP program.

Since NATO's intervention in Kosovo, Russian officials have described the Albanian nation as a major threat to stability in the Balkans.The Russian state propaganda claimed that all conflicts in Southeastern Europe are deliberately provoked to justify the expansion of NATO and its missions "in the outside area", proving to be unable to recognize the Albanian ethnic cleansing of Kosovo by Serbian security forces. However, mass flight of hundreds of thousands of residents was described as the consequence rather than cause of NATO's campaign.

Russian politicians have warned that Albanians are incapable of democratic government and are fundamentally violent. As proof, they emphasized the unstable developments in Albania. They claimed that the Albanian state generates regional instability, undermining the European expansion process , that it plays the role an intermediary for illegal materials and provides an opening for Islamic fundamentalist forces. Albania was denounced as a training base and transit point for terrorists.

Albania avoided to depend on the Russian energy, trade and market. However, Russia intends to include Albania in its increasing energy network across Europe.

Moscow had few opportunities to use social manipulation in Albania or Kosovo, in the middle of an Albanian majority population, where Russia exercises little influence. However, Albanian analysts believed that Serbian secret services, with the involvement of Russia, are active in both countries to generate social tensions and instability. Not having strong ties with major political forces in Tirana or Pristina, and no influence on them, Moscow failed to promote extremist political parties which could have challenged the popularity of pro-Western governments.

Constant presence of organized crime and corruption at high level in the Balkans gave Moscow solid grounds to insist at home on the anti-Albanian and anti-Kosovo message. Albania is regularly described as a regional center of crime, this leading to diplomatic incidents.

Albania's close relationship with NATO and the United States were additional reasons for espionage by Russian agencies in Tirana. Similarly, Kosovo, a region where NATO and U.S. presence was significant, has become fertile ground for information-gathering for the Russian military and civilian intelligence units.

Croatia

After declaring independence in June 1991, Croatia was attacked repeatedly by Moscow's press. The attack included three main elements: Croatia was allegedly the most blatant enemy of Yugoslavia and Serbia, the government was urging NATO's military involvement in the Balkans, and Croatia sought to become a member of the Alliance. All three policies, shared by Slovenia, diminished "objectively" Russia's position in the region.

The increased presence of NATO in peacekeeping operations was negatively perceived by Moscow. The new Strategic Concept of NATO was considered a program of institutional expansion and military action. The Alliance, which became the main force to resolve conflicts in the Balkans, was condemned because it was believed that it was a way to marginalize Russian influence.

Russian companies have established business relations with the Croatian oil pipeline system which carries oil from the Adriatic Sea to central Europe. They were trying to change direction of the oil and transport Russian oil to the Mediterranean.

After the disintegration of Yugoslavia, Croatian-Russian economic relations have developed steadily, although it consisted largely of Russian exports. For Croatia, requests from the Serb minority, numerically important and radical, accounted, during the '90s, as weapons to undermine the independent state adn to defend Belgrade from Western pressure. In the Serbo-Croatian war in the early 90's, Moscow imitated Belgrade in condemning Tudjman as a reincarnation of Ustasi fascists during the Second World War. Moscow had few opportunities to influence political processes in Croatia.

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

In 1992, President Yeltsin recognized the independence of Macedonia. It was a difficult decision because by doing so he risked to alienate the Orthodox nationalist bloc that opposed the disintegration of Yugoslavia and was in favor of Serbia in all regional conflicts. Russia's aim was to build a future alliance with Macedonia and draw the country closer to the pro-Russian Serbia. Several incidents, including Albanian insurgency in 2001 and Western pressure on the government in Skopje to reach an agreement with leaders of the Albanian minority, represented propitious moments for Russian diplomacy to intervene. Moscow posed into champion of the cause of the Macedonian state, arguing that Albanians intend to divide the country.

Russian authorities have described the ethnic tensions in Macedonia as consequences of "Albanian terrorism" and expansionist tendencies coming from Kosovo. Officials warned that as Kosovo region could be dismantled and taken away from Serbia, similarly, parts of Macedonia may also be deployed. In this way, they managed to gain the trust of the government in Skopje.

During his visit to Serbia in June 2001, Putin warned that Macedonia could resume the scenario from Kosovo, if Western pressure forces Skopje to negotiate with albanian rebels. He suggested that Macedonian borders should be closed to prevent guerrilla movements and arms trafficking, suggesting that the rebellion in Macedonia was organized from abroad.

Echoing the propaganda issued by Belgrade, Russian mass media have said that "Albanian terrorists" from Kosovo are acting in Western Macedonia and Northern Greece. Their goal was twofold: to prove Russia's political support of the Macedonian government and to discredit any attempts of establishing a state form for Kosovo, as being destabilizing for the region. Putin accused NATO that threats of violence are possible because Albanian rebels from Kosovo haven't been disarmed. Putin said that the source of conflict in Macedonia is the support that NATO gives to Albanian separatists.

Given that the involvement of NATO in Macedonia has intensified in the 90's, Russia has increased pressure on the government in Skopje to buy Russian weapons and to set an arbitrary date for an agreement on military cooperation. Russia strongly opposed replacing the UN military mission in Macedonia with a NATO force and strongly supported more militant elements in the Macedonian government during the summer of 2001 armed conflict with rebel ethnic Albanian National Liberation Army (KLA). Moscow complained that it was not consulted in NATO's efforts to curb the country's civil war. Despite opposition coming from the White House, the Macedonian authorities have obtained substantial amounts of military equipment from Ukraine, who became a close partner of Russia after Putin came to power.

Russia was not involved in peacekeeping deployments in Macedonia, nor in the UN Preventive Mission in the 90's or post-conflict mission led by NATO in the years 2001 to 2002. Moscow has presented NATO's deployments as a failure and as a way to extend the influence of NATO in the Balkans. Russian sources claimed that the Macedonian government is disappointed with Western efforts to maintain peace and turned to Moscow because of it's experience in the fight against terrorism in Chechnya.

Although it didn't launch campaigns to discredit the authorities in Skopje, Moscow warned Macedonia of the risk to its possible membership in NATO, saying that this would be contrary to Russian interests. The Skopje government was criticized for failing to understand that NATO is a threat to Macedonia's territorial integrity, because of the alleged support for "Albanian extremists" and due to its objective to turn Macedonia into a U.S. protectorate.

Georgia and Ukraine

To Georgia and Ukraine, the opposition is even greater, since it is considered that by obtaining NATO membership, the two countries come out from under the Russian influence and become puppets of the U.S. in the region. Russia sees their acceptance as NATO members as an intrusion of the Alliance in the traditional sphere of influence that stretched up to the year 2000 on these Black Sea riverain countries.

Russia is pressuring Georgia, threatening that if it becomes a NATO member, it may lose the two pro-Russian breakaway territories, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which Russia could recognize as independent states.

Regarding Ukraine, Russia believes that adherence to NATO would destabilize the region and could lead to a division of Europe.

Concluding, even if this process is viewed with skepticism by Russia, which still sees the process of expansion as the main threat to its security, it must understand that for a global security it is required a good relationship with NATO and together to promote and to build this relationship.

Despite criticism that the NATO expansion would lead to divisions between East and West, it will move forward in building peace and freedom throughout Europe.

Translated in English from Romanian language, Original Article appeared on our Partner website Geopolitics.ro

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Dassualt Rafale Wins 126 MMRCA Jet Fighters Deal With India

2012-01-31T22:48:00.000+05:30

French Dassualt Rafale

Long wait has come to an end for the Indian Air Force and combat aircraft lovers. Neither the American way, nor the Russian way, Indian government has gone the European way. French company Dassault Rafale has almost bagged the 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft multi billion dollar largest-ever deal with India.

The Indian Air Force projected a requirement for about 126 aircraft in 2001 considering the aging MiGs, when the strength was at 39.5 squadrons (down from 45). Also recently the expected delay in the development of LCA got the government kick started.

Analysis: Eurofighter Typhoon VS Dassault Rafale: Comparison using Latest 2012 Figures; What India Gained and What it Missed.

The process was started with the issuing of a global tender in 2007 after which all the six contenders were subjected to extensive field evaluation trails by the Indian Air Force at several locations across the globe. They were the Swedish Saab Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon, French Dassault Rafale, Russian Mikoyan MiG-35, and the American F-16IN and F/A-18IN Super Hornet.

India has had good strategic relations with Russian Mikoyan and French Dassault Aviation. Both the companies have provided the aircrafts as well as the technology to manufacture at home. Indian pilots and manufacturing companies are familiar with French and Russian products. These criterias would have been put under consideration while making the deal.

Although having an upper hand and the status of all weather friend, unfortunately Russian MiG 35 couldn't make up to the finals. It is believed that the officials in the government and Air force are displeased with the delays in delivery as well as supply of parts by the Russians.

It was Dassualt Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon which made it up to the finals. Dassualt Rafale being the lowest bidder won the deal.

It would be the first sale of Rafale outside France once the deal is finalized. Officials here said that the representatives of Dassualt Aviation have been informed of the results and development and soon (within the next 10 to 15 days) talks could be held for further negotiation on the price of the aircraft.

According to the agreement, the company who wins the contract will have to provide 18 aircrafts from their manufacturing facilities within 3 years or 36 months. Rest of the aircrafts will be manufactured at home facilities within India by HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited) under license.

Dassault Aviation said in a statement the decision was "an extraordinary success" for the company, singling out the backing of French President Nicolas Sarkozy for the company's bid, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.

"We have won this contract," French Trade Minister Pierre Lellouche said Tuesday.

"But a number of things are yet to be finalized. At this stage I will remain cautious," he told French radio station BFM Business.

"It's a big win for the Dassault and the Rafale - its first overseas order - after a couple of big disappointments in Brazil and UAE, and a big loss for Eurofighter," said James Hardy, Asia-Pacific analyst at IHS Jane's Defence Weekly.

"This is a major win for France, and a major loss for the U.K.," said Endre Lunde, a consultant at IHS Jane's. "This leaves Oman and the UAE as the largest potential markets for the Eurofighter, both of which are significantly smaller than India and are less certain to move forward," Mr. Lunde said.

WSJ reports that the shares in Dassualt Aviation rose up to €735 (a 20% increase) after this news.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Russia and Latin America: Geopolitical Considerations

2012-01-26T22:02:00.003+05:30

Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev waves

as he walks with Cuba's President

Posted by Cristina Avram, Geopolitics.ro

Although geographically distant from Russia, Latin America is one of the main priorities of the Russian government's foreign policy. Russian authorities have come very close, in fact, to some Latin American regimes. Actually Russia's spectacular return to this region is part of its overall strategy to strengthen Russia's interests and position in the world scene.

Russia's recent tendency to influence Latin America started in 1997. The collapse of the Soviet Union has precipitated the collapse of the Russian Federation's influence in South America, as succesor of the Soviet Union. This has determined the Prime Minister Evgheni Primakov to start reviving Russia's position in Latin America as a global power in 1997. Since then, Russia's objectives have remained remarkably consistent, as policy instruments: trade, arms sales political support for those governments who were trying to escape USA's influence.

In Latin America, Moscow takes full advantage of the open anti-american climate and the diplomatic tensions with Washington (anti-missile shield, NATO's expansion, the Georgian crisis, the presence of the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Black Sea) to implant itself in the American sphere of influence. Thus, Russians reply to U.S. intrusion in the Caucasian and Central Asian region. Actually, Russia wants to gain the loyalty of new economic partners by making bilateral agreements in the aeronautics, energy and military sphere.

Brazil

In Brazil, Russian diplomacy favors, above all, increasing trade and expanding energy, aerospacial and military cooperation. Only in 2008 trade of the two BRIC countries exceeded $ 7.3 billion. The dynamics of the Russian-Brazilian partnership is explained mainly by converging interests in several strategic areas. In the energy sector, Moscow is determined to associate itself with Brazil to exploit Brazilian oil and gas deposits. On the other hand, Brazil wants to purchase Russian equipment for their hydroelectric plants which are under construction, as well for developing their booming rail network. In aerospace, the Russian Federal Space Agency (Rocosmos) signed an agreement with the Brazilian Space Agency (AEB) to implement a cooperation and development mechanism for 'Glonass', the Russian system for satellite global navigation, competitor of the American 'GPS' and future European 'Galileo'. Russian military-industrial complex hopes actually to sell to Brazilians military equipment (weapons, helicopters, bombs, planes, submarines) that the country needs to strengthen its military power. In addition, relanching the Brazilian nuclear program also opens the path for stronger cooperation between Moscow and Brazil in civil and military nuclear.

Cuba

With Cuba, relationships were initially damaged after the fall of Soviet Union in 1991. In the world after the Cold War, Havana didn't hope to matter anymore to Moscow. The comming to power of Vladimir Putin has changed this geopolitical situation. Since Cuba was still suffering because of U.S. embargo established in 1962, the Russian President was personally involved in the Cuban affairs, supporting the lifting of economic sanctions by the UN, on one hand, and by providing financial credit for many areas, on the other hand. In November 2008, Moscow offered Havana a loan of $ 335 million for the purchase of Russian equipment for the oil, mining and transport sectors. In early 2009, the two countries have signed new agreements. These agreements mainly concern the food and fishing industries, cooperation in education, scientific research, sports and tourism. This Russian-Cuban dialogue allows Moscow to have guaranteed new markets for its products, to expand its influence on the castrist regime and to maintain its presence here, at less than 300 km from the U.S. coastline.

Venezuela

Venezuela is the key element in the Russian-Latin-American game. The parallel anti-american positions of Russia and Venezuela are already known: Russia out of interest and willingness to become a respected power like USSR used to be, Venezuela by Chavez's ideology and willingness to impose himself as a lider in his country as well throughout the South-American continent. For the anti-imperialist sentiment is growing rapidly in an over-exploited Latin-America by the 'yankee' 's interests for so long.

Caracas is a reliable ally for Moscow in the new energy cold war that is foreshadowing. First producer of gas from South America and fifth worldwide producer of oil, Venezuela incites the Russian gas and oil appetite. In November of 2008, Russian companies Lukoil and Gazprom signed an agreement with the PDVSA oil group which was targeting the exploitation of oil in Orinoco, a river located in the East of the country, hoping to produce more than 1 million barrels per day. If this project materializes, we'll be talking about the most powerfull alliance in the world of oil. Far from being limited to hydrocarbons, Russian strategy in Venezuela is making profit from Venezuela's chavist government military ambitions. Between 2005 and 2007 Caracas signed with Moscow 12 contracts for arms worth 4.4 billion dollars, buying 24 Sukhoi fighter jets, 50 fighter helicopters and 100,000 Kalachnicov rifles. In 2010 Caracas obtained from Moscow a loan of $ 2.2 million to buy T-72 tanks and an undisclosed number of S-300 air-defense bombs, in 2011 negociating a new agreement with Russia to get a $ 4 billion loan, half of which is destined to equip and modernize the armed forces. Also, with Chavez's visit to Moscow in 2010, relations with Russia have been strengthened, Russian President saying that Russia may sell equipment and machinery to Venezuela, and Venezuela might sell agricultural products to Russia. Medvedev claimed that Russia is ready to take part in various regional organizations and Latin American forums which requires a joint task approach such as terrorism, transnational crime, drug trafficking, environmental issues, sustainable development and economic aid. Furthermore, Medvedev considers that Venezuela 'has acted like a true friend' when it followed Russia and recognized former Georgian republics South Ossetia and Abkhazia at the last visit Chavez had made to Moscow in 2009.

In the civil nuclear area, Russians and Venezuelans have signed a bilateral agreement on controlled thermonuclear synthesis and safety of nuclear installations and radiation sources. The nuclear cooperation is also accompanied by a military cooperation. On September 10, 2008, two Russian bombers capable of carrying nuclear bombs landed at Palo Negro in Venezuela to participate in joint manuevers with Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian armed forces. In December 2008, a similar training of naval forces of the two countries, called "VenRus", took place in the Caribbean. These military exercises employed 2,300 people of the Russian and Venezuelan fleet, 3 frigates, an amphibious vehicle and 8 patrol vessels. This strategic cooperation serves Moscow's interests who wants to propose an alternative to the American presence in the region.

In fact, the geopolitical situation between these two countries illustrates how the relationship between Russia and Latin America becomes more important day by day, not only because of the weapons sold in the region, but also because of the diplomatic resources that Moscow had used in South America. The continously cold relationship between Venezuela and the U.S. in addition to Washington's controversial relationship with Moscow will contribute further to the substantial strengthening of military and diplomatic ties between Russia and Venezuela. This possibility can't make U.S. happy. The new situation facing Washington is that Russia will be a growing factor when it comes to leftist governments in the region, who want autonomy from U.S. policy makers, and which Washington considers dangerous, but that Moscow considers to be very good.

In conclusion, we can say that the policy led by Moscow in Latin America is the product of old aspirations: to establish Russia the status of a great power and of a country which promotes a multipolar world; in fact, it's more of a closing towards USA than an economic policy with strategic objectives.

Translated in English from Romanian language, Original Article appeared on our Partner website.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Croatia to Join Debt Stricken European Union: Poll Results

2012-01-24T23:27:00.001+05:30

Courtesy: Allvoices.com

In a poll conducted by the Croatians whether to join the European Union or not, Croatians have shown interest in joining the union, despite the high profile protests in the country against joining the European Union. (Read: Protests in Croatia Against Joining European Union)

Thus, Croatia will become second country after Slovenia from the former Yugoslavia to join the European Union.

Reports says that the turn out for the poll was mere 43.58 percent, which was even lesser than the turnout for the general election in the country last year in the month of December. Nevertheless, the voting results are valid regardless of turnout as only a simple majority was required. Among the people who voted, 66% voted in favor of joining the European Union.

Anti EU groups, which were also involved in anti European Union protests, claimed that the results of the vote cannot be considered as valid because of the poor turnout which was less than 50%

Although nearly 40% of the people voted against the idea of joining the European Union, all major political parties are in favor of joining the union, as it is believed it will help in the recovery of the economy of this former Yugoslavia republic which got independence in 1995 after four years of war with Serb rebels.

"The Croatian government can now complete the remaining preparations for membership... so that Croatia can become the Union's 28th member on July 1 2013," the two EU leaders, president Herman Van Rompuy and Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso said in a joint statement.

Croatia, whose economy is largely dependent on Adriatic tourism, has been facing some struggle to maintain its economy. Experts believe that the economy might shrink by 0.2 percent this year. At this point, people believe joining the European Union might help in the recovery of economy of the country, though the time of joining might not be a golden time for both, as the European Union is itself asking countries like China, India and gulf countries to bail out their crippling economy.

Membership in the world’s largest trading bloc may provide the Adriatic nation with hundreds of millions of euros in regional development and infrastructure subsidies. Companies such as Germany’s Siemens AG, Deutsche Telekom AG and Sweden’s Ericsson AB expect to expand into the Balkans as western Europe’s growth stalls over the debt crisis, reports Bloomberg Businessweek.

“The European Union gives us a ticket to the world in which we can be successful,” Davor Majetic, head of the Croatian Association of Entrepreneurs, said by phone. “We want to work and have an opportunity to turn our ideas into profitable products that can reach that market of 500 million people.”

Meanwhile, Anti Union groups were stressing on low turnout, "This is a defeat of Croatia's freedom (and) independence... We are entering an association that is falling apart," Zeljko Sacic, of the 'Council for Croatia - No to EU' umbrella group, told national television as reported by AFP.

Those opposed to entering the European Union have also expressed fears about a loss of sovereignty and national identity in this country of 4.2 million, says AFP.

It was in the year of 2000, when the pro European government came in this former Yugoslavia republic which transformed the government system in the country into genuine parliamentary democracy.

With this success of Croatia, other former Yugoslavia republics are also showing their interest in the union. Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Bosnia, all have aspirations to join.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Hungarian Protests Against European Union, Backing Government in the Row

2012-01-22T19:17:00.001+05:30

Demonstrators burning EU flag

In an another important development in Eastern Europe, hundreds of thousands of Hungarians came out on the streets to protest against the European Union's attitude towards their government and head of the state, Prime Minister Victor Orban.

The protest labelled as "Peace parade for Hungary" is the largest rally since the government assumed the power in May 2010, indicating that the majority of the countrymen are with their government in the row with European Union.

The European Commission - the EU's executive arm - has opened legal proceedings against Hungary over reforms like the independence of the national central bank, the retirement age of judges, and the independence of the country's data protection authority aiming to prop up its battered forint currency and keep access to financial markets. The commission is also seeking more information in regard to the independence of the judiciary, said the president of The European Commission, Barroso.

The Commission launched an infringement procedure against Hungary on Tuesday, the first stage of which is a warning calling for changes to the controversial laws. Infringement proceedings are a step preceding legal action, intended to enable a state to make changes to conform with EU law rather than be taken to court.

Barroso had written to Orban in December requesting him the withdrawal of two recent bills related to the country's financial stability and the central bank. The prime minister of Hungary, Orban, had then rejected the requests.

The Commission can go as far as imposing fines and taking Hungary to the European Court of Justice. Both the European Union and International Monetary Fund have said they will refuse to extend aid to Hungary, which is struggling financially, unless the government in Budapest guarantees the independence of the central bank. The process could lead to Hungary losing voting rights in Brussels, not to mention bankruptcy if the EU torpedoes Hungary’s bid for an urgently needed financial bailout.

Hungarian Prime Minister, Orban, is travelling to Brussels, Belgium on Tuesday to try to come out with a political agreement with EU Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso, in order to be able to start formal talks with the EU and International Monetary Fund about a loan deal worth $25 billion (20bn euros) to service its debts which Hungary wanted to secure from a while back. Hungary's total debt has risen to 82% of its output, while its currency, the forint, has fallen to record lows against the euro.

Orban has faced domestic protests against him demanding his resignation for passing anti democratic bills. Tens of thousands of people protested in Budapest against the new constitution earlier this month. The demonstration lasted only mere five hours and was organized by opposition parties and civil society groups.

But the current protests in Hungary are pro government, demonstrating anger against the European Union.

Deputy PM Zsolt Semjén told hard-right station Lánchíd Rádió that he knows the government has made “millions and millions of mistakes but I believe that there were no strategic errors committed”, and attacks against Hungary have no factual basis whatsoever.

Semjén said Hungary should respond much more strongly to criticism because it is unacceptable for certain politicians in the European Union to attack the country on issues that are more strictly regulated in their own countries.

According to Gábor Vona, the leader of the radical right Jobbik, Hungary should secede from the European Union. Responding to it, Semjén said it is rational for Hungary to exercise its rights within the 27-member bloc. But the real question is what would happen the day after Hungary leaves the EU? “There are two wrong ideas about this issue,” Semjén said. “One belongs to the liberal side, which looks at the EU as a goal of Hungary. The other error is being hostile towards international organisations due to certain emotional reasons. I can understand the latter to a certain extent but if we are not with the EU, where are we? Are we to be a part of Russian interests or do we hover in the no man’s land between the EU and Russia?”

Protesters on the streets of Budapest, (c) AFP

The protesters told Reuters in a single voice that they won't bow down to West. "We won't be a dominion, we don't want to be a colony," news magazine editor Andras Bencsik told the crowd. "This is our message to those abroad. "The other is we fully support Viktor Orban, and we are proud of what we achieved at the 2010 elections."

"They have shown the political left that the street does not belong to them," Politics analyst Zoltan Kiszelly told Reuters. "And they have sent a message to the government's partners abroad to stop trying to tell us what to do, the government is doing fine."

"The way the Italian or the Greek governments were removed will not work in Hungary, and early elections are out of the question with this kind of public support."

The common people of Hungary are enraged with the behaviour of leaders of EU against their prime minister. "This is no way to negotiate, this is no attitude to any country."

Also Read: Anti government protests in Romania against Health Reforms and EU
Protests in Croatia against joining EU

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Protests in Croatia Against Joining European Union

2012-01-22T13:31:00.000+05:30

Banner saying "Not in the EU"

A large number of Croatian protesters gathered on the street to raise slogan against the European Union. Croatia has hence become another East European country, after Ukraine, Romania and Hungary, to protest against the EU. Unlike Romania and Hungary, Croatia is not a part of European Union yet, but is expected to join in 2013.

The protest's main focus is to warn government against joining the European Union which they feel is an organization to serve the West's need with East's resources.

The protests came just a day before the country's referendum on whether it will join the European Union or not.

Meanwhile the reports are coming of clashes between the police and protesters which began at the end of the protest rally when a group of angry demonstrators attempted to take down the EU flag. A recent survey results show that about 40% of the public in Croatia feels joining EU is not a good decision.

Protesters raised Anti EU slogans and demonstrated their anger with banners reading "No to the EU" and "I love Croatia".

The protests, which were initially peaceful, resulted into clashes with police that caused arrest of at least three protesters and several were injured.

Today (22 Jan 2012) citizens of Croatia will be asked to answer the question, "Do you support the membership of the Republic of Croatia in the European Union?"

Protesters are encouraged seeing the condition in Romania and Hungary, as more and more people are raising their voice against EU in the other two East European countries which are already member of EU. Croatians are warned and have a thought that EU in no way has helped Romania and Hungary and don't want the same to happen with their country.

Patrick Young, Executive Director of the investment advisory firm DV Advisors also believes that the people that would say "no" to this question will be due to what they are seeing in neighboring countries that have joined the EU. (Anti Government Protests in Romania against Healthcare Reforms Continues)

People are "protesting because they see the European Union not delivering its side of the deal – and the deal is free trade and jobs,” he explained as quoted by Russia Today.

He also points to the EU's vast economic problems as one a reason why so many Croatians are against joining.

“Ultimately, there is economic chaos within the European Union at the moment, driven from the Eurozone – and that is not to the advantage of Croatian citizens.”

“The problem is that the European Union really cannot solve its internal problems at the moment. Rather, it is in total denial about a problem – about the Euro,” he concluded.

The question now is whether Croatia should join the EU at a moment when the union is deep in crisis, international consultant and former Belgian MP Lode Vanoost told RT.

“If now they say, ‘No, we’d rather wait’, they might be waiting forever, and that’s the risk they – at least the political class in Croatia – does not mean to take. What strikes me is that all the political parties represented in parliament are for EU accession – all the manifestations that we see are done by organizations that are not present in it.”

Regarding the fact that protesters defend an opinion held by some 40 per cent of the population – that is, opposition to EU membership – that’s a bad sign for the Croatian political class, Vanoost told Russia Today.

Romania and Hungary are blaming EU and IMF (International Monetary Fund) that they are dictating terms on their government and stealing their resources. While Hungarians are shocked how can EU warn their democratic government and Prime Minister, who is the head of the state with a two-third majority, Romanians are protesting against their government and head of the state for accepting selling resources to EU for the benefit of himself and western countries at the cost of his own citizen. Protests in Hungary are pro government and anti EU, while protests in Romania are anti government, anti EU.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Anti Government Protests in Romania against Healthcare Reforms Continues

2012-01-21T14:27:00.001+05:30

A Romanian man holding the national flag with a hole,
Earlier there used to be a symbol on that place,

which was later dropped.

Translate article in Romanian

Thousands of Romanians protesters marched through the streets and University Square in the capital, Bucharest. The protest against the government has now spread to over 40 cities in the country, demanding the resignation of the president for imposing harsh austerity measures in order to receive international loans for the nation's slow economy.

Romania is seeing one of the largest protests in recent time. Last big revolution was in 1989 which brought down the communist regime in the country. The same University Square was the place where anti communist revolution took place, hence it keeps a great historical significant for the citizens of Romania.

Protesters hanged the dummies of President Basescu and other ministers (such as the Tourism and Regional Development Minister Elena Udrea) to demonstrate their anger towards his corrupt government and laws. So far most of the protesters and protest demonstrations have been really peaceful, except few incidences.

A Romanian reporter giving Rose to the policemen

The editor of Cadran Politic Review and a close friend of ours, Gabriela Ionita went through the depth of the event and analyzed the situation with her experience in journalism.

In her recent article Romania – a revolution for evolution? on her blog, she explains that the protests in the country are for various reason. The anger against the government was stacking up for years and was only sparked by the resignation of Deputy Health Minister, Raed Arafat. It all started with President Basescu calling him enemy of health reform on national TV.

Arafat, a Syrian who became Romanian citizen, is the founder of advanced state of the art emergency rescue system (SMURD). The system is so sound that even some West European countries like France want to implement it.

The protests don't focus only on the health reforms but has now has widened against the corruption and the bad governance of Basescu's government.

The Government, in a failed attempt, tried to appease the protesters and the situation in the country with some excuses that didn't convince the people of Romania. The heads of the government, Prime Minister and President, are maintaining a low profile and in between have mimic the protests by calling it a political game by opposition, similar to what we have been observing in India, which is in the state of peaceful protest and demonstration of public demands since early 2011 (as the country saw protest against Black Money and Corruption).

A Romanian kid giving a heart shaped balloon to the police

A large number of Romanian protesters are demanding for early election and change in the government, a possibility which has been rooted out by the government saying it would create dangerous precedent and economic instability. The people of Romania seem unconvinced with this, as in 2011 the amount of foreign investments in Romania fell down by 36%, 18% of Romanians have fallen below the poverty line, a poor Romanian employee now earns 159 euros achieving the lowest minimum wage in EU countries, as compared to UK ~ 967 Euros, Bulgaria ~ 233 Euros, Poland ~ 326 Euros, says Gabriela.

As Romania became ally of western bloc joining NATO and EU, the country was supposed to be benefited but didn't experience much change. Many Romanian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq unnecessarily in the name of NATO army, though the actual war was in America's interest.

Romanian Protesters claim that the President and his close allies have sold their country resources for the benefit of himself and richer west European countries.

A similar blame was slapped on former government of Ukraine which was considered a puppet to US and West Europe, but Ukrainians were quick to realize the destiny of their country in the hands of Pro western government. The government changed in the next election, the process to join NATO was stopped and ties with Russia were fixed. (Read More: Europe or Russia? Whom will Ukraine Choose?).

Looking at the scenario in Romania, the theory of East Europe loosing confidence in Democracy, capitalism and western powers looks even stronger. In an article posted few weeks ago (Democracy, Capitalism Loosening in Former Soviet Union, Union is Being Missed) we took example of three East European countries, Lithuania, Ukraine and Russia to show that the public confidence in their economy, democracy in their country and western powers is declining. Now Romania is joining the same league, showing that governance and economy culture enforced by western countries is not working out in this region as the current ruling politicians are not much enlightened on how to lead a democratic society.

US, which claims to support the voice of the people in the name of democracy, is currently quiet and is just following the protest incidents happening in the country. As the deal of Anti Ballistic missile with Romania is on the way, US wouldn't like the government to fall down.

It is very much similar to what happened in Egypt. Mubarak was a dictator, but at the same time an ally of US. When people marched and organized rally in protest against their Egyptian leader, US was mere a spectator. But when people came out to protest against Libyan leader Gaddaffi, NATO and European force came up with full military, monetary and medical support.

Just like conventional media, this protest event in Romania has taken over the social media as well. While Romanians are posting the updates of the events, people living in different countries are getting the real picture which is sometimes purposely not covered by mainstream media.

Protesters on the streets being monitored by the Police

Facebook is full of pictures and videos from the University Square.

A commentator on our Facebook page (Join Now) says, "The generation of protest is the favorite and catchy scenario all over the world .No body is satisfied with anybody. Once the protestors are satisfied with their victory, next they start fighting amongst themselves to establish his/her (group) hegemony. This continues till a powerful group with support of Arms and Ammunition s from neighboring / interested greedy country, takes over through a massacre of human lives. This is NOT THE END. Vultures are available to exploit with slight provocation. The century of protest is on."

Davis Wendy on RT says, "It's a coincidence I guess that the entire globe's developed nations are simply coming unglued. It's funny how the collapse of economies simultaneously occurred just as a handful of "savvy businessmen" got richer than stink. Credits ruined, homes lost, jobs outsourced, medical care unattainable, currency crashes, the banks becoming consolidated into a mega corporation. All just a fluke, right? Do you think we are stupid? The party is OVER. It was devised, designed to end with them with everything and us with NOTHING. Pawn shops have never done so well. How dare men without regard for human suffering are now equipped with their very well-trained personal armies!"

Another commentator on Facebook says, "Americanism...Romanians you caught that one ...part of the American bankster extortion or harvesting program...you too can now have mind numbing psychotropic drugs with little effort. Don't stress about it and no need to protest about it....there is always Prozac. hahaha. (made in Taiwan)"

Aleahim said, "None of you know the truth about how hard is to live nowadays for the people in Romania. We have no industry, no doctors, the education system was crushed... everything is being sold to other countries for 50 cents... people can't stand this anymore! First get informed and then comment! The protests will go on until some changes will be made, for better living conditions hopefully!"

An intellectual gentleman Dan Veliscu told RT, "In Romania - a country were almost nothing works as it should or as it's claimed, we have one working emergency service - the SMURD. And now a good-for-nothing president tries to close it. People have sided with the SMURD, against the president who, on his second term, can't show anything that he's done for the country - not like he did anything tangible before being elected president when he held positions such as transports minister or mayor of Bucharest.

Now the intended closure of the SMURD is just the tip of the iceberg - the spark that ignited the masses - as there are countless reasons to protest and overthrow the regime.

WE ROMANIANS DON'T NEED THE IMF! We don't want any money from the IMF, we don't need to borrow and we don't want any debts for us or for our children to pay. Previous money the IMF gave to Romania were ALL stolen, most of it by banks which sent billions outside the country just as soon as they got their bailouts, and the rest was stolen by politicians. We don't need foreign money and foreign debt, we can make it on our own. Politicians which demand IMF money are all thieves and traitors, since they want that money for their own pockets, not for the country. Let them pay the debts, not us!"

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.
All images are copyright of their respected owners, TWR doesn't own the material unless notified.

Russia, America and Canada after the Control of the Arctic Sea

2011-12-14T19:32:00.023+05:30

Arctic Shore line, Image by savillent

Posted by Ana Maria Ghimis, Geopolitics.ro

The energetic map of the world is far from being complete and the Arctic is playing a fundamental role in marking it. However disputes present here are far from being over, especially when the strategic interests of five powers collide and create a feeling of insecurity felt worldwide. Arctic has the ability to change the international status-quo ,that is why states to engage in a race that will, in the end, be zero-sum. / lead nowhere

The bipolar distribution of power during the Cold War led to do the emergence and persistence of a well-defined international order, which was recognized and accepted by most states. The defining element for keeping order was military power, but after the end of the war, the dismantling of USSR and the birth of emerging powers, the international system started across a transitional period in which the concept of security could not be defined as referring exclusively military capabilities held by a state. Adjustment was necessary. The reason is obvious, the nature of the current security threats has changed so that states cannot react using the same traditional means used in the past. As proposed by Barry Buzan, we could talk about different types of security: political, military, economic, societal, environmental.

Developing and maintaining a high level of economic performance has become a primary need for states, but to achieve this performance (at least in the industry) states need energetic resources. They have a limited nature so the whole bilateral or multilateral relationship is a game of zero-sum, where there can be only one winner and ones winning is others' loss. Energy resources are becoming increasingly more important specially coupled with the growing energy dependency of the most developed countries in the world. Until recently the map of energy-producing states was clearly defined (Middle East, Eurasia etc), but the emergence of an area that is expected to accommodate 30% of the natural gas resources and 13% of the petrol ones, has the potential to permanently change the geopolitical energy map of the world.

Although internationally there is a preference for currents such as functionalism, constructivism, idealism, precisely because they promote cooperation between states in one way or another, when international law fails to give a verdict, we are witnessing what realists would call 'a race for power'. If until now the center of interest has been mainly on some areas within the continents, today we are seeing a change of interest towards the geographical periphery. Arctic has become a hot spot in which the interests of five national powers (USA, Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark via Greenland) directly collide.

Global warming has led to the withdrawal of ice, allowing the exploitation of the resources that are under Arctic's waters using the current available technologies. At first sight this should be an aspect that would strengthen global energy security, because more resources mean more producing states and more producing states generate a multi-polar energy system, thus an increased global stability. Yet the occurrence of these resources has led to an unstable system in which the directly involved states are engaged into a race for power under the auspices of a zero-sum game. The reason is the international character of the Arctic. Being a frozen desert, which until recently had no available exploitation perspectives, the Extreme North was considered everyone's and yet no one's land, on which there were no legal demands from any state. However, as we mentioned before, global warming and the technological progress led to a change of perspective, so that Russia, USA, Canada, Norway and Denmark are trying to prove through scientific research that the Arctic territory is actually an extension of their continental shelf. This is the only way these countries could exercise sovereignty over the existing oil and gas resources.

This argument is amplified by the fact that the international law is rather vague in this situation. The only available source is the Sea Law, which was adopted in 1982 and took effect in 1994. Following its provisions, 'a state can claim exclusive economic rights over a distance of maximum 200 miles'. Of course there are exceptions, in which a state can ask for sovereign rights over a territory larger than 200 miles. But this is possible only 'if a state can prove its continental shelf extends beyond the 200 mile economic zone, then it can claim similar rights over a larger area'. Instead of resolving current disputes, these provisions have intensified the race for the Arctic, both in elaborating more maps proving the extension of the continental shelf and also in developing unilateral destabilizing actions.

We can say that the country that kicked-start this race is the Russian Federation, which has used submarines to plant in August 2007 two national flags in the Arctic waters, thus making their claims known. This action had no legal support, that is why it drew much criticism from other states, Canada being the most vehement through the statements of its Foreign Minister: 'We are not in the XVth century. You can not go through the world and just plant your country's flag and say - We claim this territory'. Russia's action wasn't meant to have a legal effect so such reactions were expected. Russia's objective was achieved: it demonstrated that it can act unilateral in a system that wants to be interdependent. From then until now, disputes have increased in intensity and even in number. Although we call it the race for the Arctic, this is rather a generic name, no state actually claiming the whole Arctic, this being impossible. The territories on which states claim sovereign rights aren't the same for all five states, rather they are divided into groups of dispute. We can identify disputes between: USA and Canada on the waters near Alaska's border and the status of the Northern Passage; Canada and Russia on the underwater mountain, Lomonosov Ridge; Russia and Norway on Barents Sea; Denmark and Canada on Hans Island. Also Russia has not ratified the treaty on the delimitation of its border with the U.S. near the coast of Alaska.

So Arctic has become in recent years a clash of strategic interests space of five states, of which three can be considered as major powers. The battle for gas and oil has just started and prospects for settlement are still unclear, mainly due to the failure of UN in finding a solution.

Translated in English from Romanian language, Original Article appeared on our Partner website.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below. Article as appeared on our partner site Geopolitics.ro

Russia's Reaction on Gaddaffi's Death, Remarks from US

2011-10-23T13:13:00.002+05:30

Vladimir Putin and Medvedev
Image from ipresscentre.com

Russia’s NATO envoy and the leader of the Congress of Russian Communities, Dmitry Rogozin has written in his microblog that the Western celebration over the death of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi might have sadistic grounds as Reporter by English Russian News Channel, Russia Today.

“The faces of the leaders of ‘world democracies’ are so happy, as if they remembered how they hanged stray cats in basements in their childhoods,” Dmitry Rogozin wrote in his twitter status on Friday.

The twitter status update was the statement in a reply to the worldwide reaction to the death of the Libyan Leader Gaddaffi, who was killed by the forces of rebels backed by the NATO.

Recently three days back on Thursday evening Rogozin in a talkshow on Russian radio Echo of Moscow said that the NATO could have been directly involved in the operation to kill the former Libyan leader. “Apparently there were orders that oriented the military servicemen who are in Libya and that directed them to ensure the physical elimination of Gaddafi,” Rogozin said.

He also added, “We must bear in mind who we are dealing with in the face of Western democracies,” Rogozin said.

On the other hand, remarks from US senator has created a turmoil among the Russians. Putin's press secretary, Dmitry Peskov said US Senator, John McCain's statements are making less and less common sense.

US Senator had said that Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin may be nervous after Gaddaffi's death.

“We consider it is below our dignity to react to these words in any way,” Peskov told Interfax agency as reported by Russia Today on Friday. The prime minister's press-secretary assumed that the American senator has apparently been “very tired.”

Earlier, John McCain who was also the former Republican presidential candidate had said in an interview with BBC that according to him the events in Libya may make leaders of some other countries, including Putin, worried.

"It is the Spring, not just the Arab Spring," McCain said.

First Deputy Chairman of Russia's Communist Party's Central Committee and Deputy Speaker of the State Duma Ivan Melnikov believes Gaddafi's murder is a clear sample of American and their NATO allies' policy in the North-African country.

“I think that the entire world should watch today the published photographs and video records of Gaddafi's murder. It is not just a dead former leader of Libya. It's the symbol of sovereignty of an independent country that was torn to pieces by Americans,” he told journalist on Friday, as cited by Interfax. He added that the US only interest was to put their hands on vast resources of the rich country and they do not care about Libya's future fate.

A similar thing was done in Iraq and its President Saddam Hussein, Melnikov noted.

“Back then some still had illusions about NATO and Americans' intentions. Now it is clear to everyone: it's a colonial barbarism performed on the 21st century scene,” the legislator stated.

Russia has been opposing the war since the beginning and maintained that the war is not the solution. Russia respected the rebels, but not their way of dealing with the leader of their country. If Russia wanted it could have stopped the international forces entering Libya to help the rebellions by vetoing out in the UN, but very controversially Russia didn't use its veto power for Libya. We have tried to solve the question Why Russia didn't use Veto to prevent war in Libya previously

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Europe or Russia? Whom will Ukraine Choose?

2011-10-21T22:24:00.004+05:30

Orange Revolution

Ukraine has seen a drastic shift in its foreign policies two times in the past seven years. Just after the Orange revolution in the year 2005, a pro western government was setup in the country. Ukraine, a former soviet republic began to see its future with the western countries. Russian military bases and submarines were pushed back to Russia.

Ukraine's pro western stance always irked the big giant. Russia started to see Ukraine's will to join EU and NATO as a threat and a plan of America to place NATO on its western border. Vladimir Putin once said that if America plans to setup its missile shield in Ukraine, then it would consider placing missiles in Kalingrad (Russian territory in west Europe).

While the west was more than willing to bring Ukraine in EU and NATO, US kept the membership of NATO for Ukraine on hold. Just after the Orange revolution, Victor Yushchenko's government was seen as a new big change in the region. Democracy was successful.

As on 2004, 40% of Ukrainians were against joining NATO and 30% were in favour, the rest were uncertain. But the change didn's want to stay for long, the new Ukrainian government came under various scanners for corruption and bad politics. Due to this and bad foreign policy Yushchenko had lost his popularity, leading to the victory of Victor Yanukovuch in the 2010 elections.

According to the FOM-Ukraine pollster, in April 2009, 57% of Ukrainians were against joining the alliance, while 21% were in favor. A Gallup poll conducted in October 2008 showed that 45% of Ukrainians associated NATO as a threat to their country, while only 15% associated it with protection. A November 2009 poll by Ukrainian Project System relieved 40.1% of Ukrainians polled said the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) with Russia was the best global security group for Ukraine to be apart of, more than 36% of the respondents of the poll said that Ukraine should remain neutral and only 12.5% supported Ukraine's accession to NATO. A 2009 Gallup poll showed that 40% of Ukrainian adults associate NATO with "Threat" and 17% with "Protection".

Yanukovych's pro Russian stance worried west to an extent. As soon as he came to power, relations with Russia were repaired. He withdrew the application of Ukraine to join NATO, saying the relations between Ukraine and NATO are really cooperating and supporting and so there is no urgency to join the group.

The plan of NATO to reach the western border of Russia failed, Russian submarines re-entered Ukrainian waters and in turn Russia started providing gas in subsidized rates.

Now it is time for Ukraine to think which way to choose, "One side is pulling us toward imperial, Asiatic politics, the other toward democratic values," former President Viktor Yushchenko told TIME on Wednesday, 19th Oct 2011. Terming it as Ukraine's internal affair, Russia believes it can pull Ukraine into its trade sphere.

Some events which took place recently communicates Ukraine is tilting its policies towards Russia. As the seven years long jail term was handed over to former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, Russia announced cheap gas to Ukraine. Just after this incident, the European Union cancelled Yanukovych's visit to Brussels, raising doubts on the planned deal on free trade and political cooperation.

Time will tell Ukraine's destination. But having an old giant friend in the backyard and cheap gas, Ukraine might like to go with Russia, but it is very difficult to say. What do you think?

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Vladimir Putin Back as Russian President Most Probably; The Good and The Bad

2011-09-27T20:59:00.001+05:30

Putin sings and plays Piano for the Charity

Russians as well as the rest of the world is not much surprised with the decision of Vladimir Putin to stand once again in the presidential elections. There are people in Russia who are celebrating as well as confused. Confused, because they are probably left with no other great option for a leader to lead their country.

If Russian political history is followed, then after the collapse of Soviet Union, Putin took the command of the country in the second term of election. One must not forget that he is one great hand in stabilizing the Russian economy after the collapse. It is Putin who brought the lost glory, power and the position to Russia, where Soviet Union used to stand once.

The world has lots to thank as Russia, China and India are moving towards a multi-polar world. Vladimir Putin is a multi talented, energetic man who keeps interest in various activities. But certainly today the environment in Russia is different. A common Russian man is looking for some change. Some believe if there was no restriction on continuous terms of president, then Vladimir Putin would have never go.

In Russia, a President who has already served for two terms in a row cannot stand in for the election for the next turn. During last election Putin had much confidence that his party would win, he was ready with the swap plan. Medvedev (Prime Minister during Putin's time) took the command of Russia as President and Vladimir Putin became the Prime Minister.

Putin in action

As a great leader of Russia, Putin also has his weak side. He has stabilized the economy, controlled the situation after the fall of USSR. He is good in working with staff, the place where he is not so good is bringing the change. Putin follow strict procedures instead of following something with open freedom. He has so far not brought any revolutionary change in the political system and in the way of ruling, which people of Russia would love.

No doubt his principles and his ideology brought Russia to one of the top economies and super power in the world. But the situation and the environment is now little different than what they used to be when he was the President. Today the world economy is not so good. Under this condition with further improving the nation's relations with west Russia has to redefine its policies. Russia now has a great opportunity to explore relations in South. It has to prepare a strategy or a plan to understand its role in Asia.

Putin driving formula 1 car

While rest of the world is looking towards Russia to create a multi polar world. Russia is confused with its own foreign policies. To say, Russia didn't use its veto power to prevent west from using force against Gaddafi in Libya. TWR reported in its previous post Why Russia Didn't Use Veto for Libya? that Russia had already believed that west cannot be stopped and Gaddaffi will have to go down. And in such situation Russia cannot afford to deter its relations with the new forming government.

The good thing which every Russian is looking forward is how Putin converts his words into work for the country. He started with the economy in his speech. It is sure that he has much in his mind to make Russia a super power. Plans of economic expansion to rebuilding of military, Putin has is probably prepared for the new scenario the world is going through.

It is true that during Medvedev's time, production house of Russian policy was combined in the hands of Medvedev and Putin. While Medvedev is calm and smiling, Putin is emotional. Medvedev was considered as pro western, Putin is anti. Medvedev was Diplomat, but Putin is Straight forward. Lets see how Putin serves his great nation in this new term of the modern era, if selected.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

The Alarmingly Uneven Deal of the India-EU FTA

2011-08-26T00:12:00.001+05:30

By Javier Delgado Rivera

For over four years now, India has been negotiating a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the European Union (EU) - the largest trade and investment deal the country has ever embarked on. As much as New Delhi expects to lure the European market and investments closer to India, the actual consequences for the country’s economy could be dire: the open up of public procurement, the deregulation of the banking, automobile, retail and mining industries plus the adverse impact the deal will have in small-scale farmers make of this FTA a counter-productive undertaking.

Europe is India’s major trading partner and biggest –real- source of foreign direct investment (FDI), what gives a flavour of the weight that Brussels carries in the Indian economy. In addition, the EU’s gross domestic product is about ten times larger than India’s. In paper, this asymmetry should present equal opportunities as challenges: a remarkable increase in Indian exports to the enormous European market combined with bigger FDI inflows from the continent, whereas European corporations step up or expand their businesses in India. However, a closer look at the course of the India-EU FTA negotiations reveals a different picture.

Recognizing the significance of exports to keep up with the country’s economic growth, the EU grants India with a preferential import rate, bringing down average EU tariffs on Indian imports to a mere two per cent. With India’s average duties on European products at a much higher 17 per cent, the FTA large removal of trade tariffs will have a greater negative impact on the Indian side. “Preference erosion is a key factor in determining the real economic value -and cost- of a deal with the EU,” points out Shefali Sharma, from the American Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

The upcoming India-EU FTA will also deal with non-tariff barriers (NTB) to trade - a complex set of regulations on imports and investments that in the case of India, protects the country’s market from the might of global corporations. For instance, this FTA is expected to remove a number of limitations on European investments and liberalise the room for manoeuvre of EU firms if national rules are regarded as unfair or discriminatory. An illustrative case is the capacity that European tobacco companies may acquire to sue Indian states if measures to protect public health, such as overbearing tobacco warnings, are perceived as interfering with the multinationals’ investment.

Another long-held fear is the effect that opening up India’s public procurement to European firms may have. Given the size, bargaining power and expertise of EU business when it comes to working in emerging markets, it is plausible that several national players lose their bids in favour of newly-arrived European contesters. As a result, policies initially designed to boost domestic production and consumption as well as to foster Indian small and medium enterprises may well end up weakened. In developing countries, FTAs are infamous for the repercussions they frequently have in public services. Hence, the access of EU firms into the Indian health sector, energy and water supply industries should be carefully monitored.

Nevertheless, Indian officials should be applauded for having negotiated their way to limit the liberalisation of the country’s public procurement to a state level, leaving federal-planned development and infrastructure schemes out of the scope of European firms.

This FTA is likely to bring out a banking deregulation bound to strike large numbers of Indians that, in the last years, have become increasingly dependent on cheap loans to find their way out of poverty. If the Indian financial system is liberalised so that European financial institutions are removed from current restrictions to operate in the country, they will take a greater portion of the Indian banking pie. This will not make good news for poor Indians, given that “unlike their domestic counterparts, foreign banks are not required to open offices in rural areas, provide agricultural loans or to lend to people below the poverty line.” Certainly, it would add up to the pressures faced by domestic banks in more profitable urban operations, displacing resources to better compete in those threatened areas.

If New Delhi proves unable to keep the automobile sector away from the FTA, it may easily turn out to be the worse damaged industry of the whole agreement. Because of the high duties that fully-assembled cars have to pay if directly imported into the Indian market, today most EU carmakers partially manufacture their cars in India. If this trade deal removes those levies altogether along with other existing NTBs, EU automakers will have no incentive to put together their vehicles in India, and would rather ship them in from somewhere else. The price of these automobiles will then go down, undermining the competitiveness of local carmakers. Most European cars sold in India are luxury vehicles, so in order to prevent a major blow to the Indian automobile industry, it is hoped that “the abolition of tariffs [will presumably only apply] on high-end, luxury cars, while small and medium car makers retain a degree of protection,” said Pallavi Aiyar, Brussels correspondent for the Business Standard.

Along with the car industry, duties for European alcoholic beverages are proving to be one of the FTA’s trickiest items to work out. India’s flourishing, vast middle class makes a very attractive market for European spirits and wine multinationals. With a current tariff of more than 70 per cent, lowering duties for EU alcoholic beverages will considerably toughen competition on the business. In fact, neither the automobile industry nor the spirits and wine markets form part of any of India’s FTAs.

Distressing the Indian countryside

The possible FTA-triggered influx of cheap, heavily subsidised European agricultural products right into the Indian market should worry Indian farmers. Brussels allocates near 40 per cent of its entire budget to endow EU farmers, creating a large surplus of low-priced fruits and vegetables ready to export. It seems inevitable that, if tariffs are reduced or completely lifted, dumping will displace large chunks of Indian agricultural products from the country’s markets, hardening the lives of many small scale and subsistence farmers.

On the top of this, if the India-EU FTA ends up fully protecting the intellectual property rights of European agribusiness, these very farmers may see the price of seeds, the bloodstream of their livelihood, substantially going up. As Shefali Sharm says, “the EU advocates for a system of plant variety protection that favours plant breeder’s over farmers rights to seeds.”

Indian negotiators should prevent this trade pact from distressing the living conditions of millions of rural dwellers in India- just like members of the European Parliament (EP) have been doing to protect EU farmers. In a resolution issued in May, the EP called to shield European farming businesses by taking into account “any negative impact on European agriculture, particularly in opening up of markets, GMOs, milk, beef, intellectual property protection and origin labelling.”

Moreover, the powerful European agricultural lobby is pressing EU negotiators to not include certain products in the liberalisation bill, fearing that Indian exports will distort the EU market of certain commodities. A good example is the claim made by Cope-Cogeca - the main farmer lobby in Europe- that the EU should not incorporate rice in the FTA “due to the extreme market volatility for this product and erratic behaviour of India in imposing export bans.”

The mining industry is another sector prompting European investors to rub their hands. As the FTA liberalises the investment regime, European multinationals will be allowed to ship larger quantities of minerals out of India. A profitable business that will multiply mining concessions and therefore, revenue collecting in mineral-rich but poverty-stricken Indian states. That will augment these Indian states’ coffers, though adivasis and other marginalised communities may not welcome with such enthusiasm those European companies. “Deregulating investments in natural resources could displace people from their habitat and sources of livelihood. Furthermore, the misuse of raw materials would exacerbate ongoing struggles against land grabbing,” told Dharmendra Kumar, director of India FDI Watch, to this author.

Grey clouds over the retail sector

In order to contain foreign corporations from dominating large sections of India’s retail, investments of global multinationals in the country’s multi-brand retail are today partially restrained. If, as it has been discussed, the prospective India-EU FTA eliminates such constraints, European giant retailers such a Carrefour, Tesco or Metro Group will size a rather larger part of the Indian retail market, severely hurting the massive, unorganized sector of the Indian economy.

The unattainable standards -not necessarily in quality, but in appearance- of products sold in those supermarket chains may impede local suppliers to work with European outlets. Even if farmers are able to meet the newly-introduced requirements, it is not unusual that, once small-scale producers rely on big buyers to sell their products, wholesale retailers cut down prices, engulfing farmers in a trap that leads to “massive job and livelihood losses,” as a letter of leftist members of the EP put it recently.

In the cases where large outlets do not engage in such practice, farmers, small shop owners and street vendors are anyways likely to get hit by the increase of more competitive products on offer at the supermarkets’ shelves.

The exposure that this FTA will cause to India’s informal sector and small farmers is even recognised in a study carried out by the European Economic and Social Committee, an EU’s advisory body. The report claims that the current course of negotiations fails to “assess the likely economic and social risks of the FTA on Indian society.” In a country where, according to the United Nations Development Programme, “more than 90 per cent of the working population is in the informal sector,” such type of findings should be taken seriously.

Not all about bad news

One of the main bones of contention to conclude this FTA is the negative of Brussels to relax working and residence permits for skilled Indians. If New Delhi’s negotiators are eventually capable to persuade their European counterparts, the agreement will not only loosen up existing requirements for Indians professionals to work in the EU, but could also ease the EU criteria to recognise qualifications. Coupled with the liberalisation of legal services that this pact will bring about, banking, accounting and IT experts may want to keep an eye on the opportunities that this FTA might deliver.

Even if the EU is under fire for its unrestrained defence of corporative interests, Brussels should be credited for trying to safeguard Indians from the worse effects of the European multinationals expansion in the country. The India-EU FTA should "ensure that investors respect core International Labour Organization standards [with an emphasis on child labour], social and environmental governance, and international agreements so as to ensure a balance between economic growth and higher social and environmental standards," stated the EP in a resolution in 2009.

A tough one to swallow

It is far from certain that the great lost of tariff revenues that this FTA will cause to the Government of India –being the EU India’s larger trade partner- will be compensated by a theoretical surge of FDI from and exports to the European market. “Undoubtedly, this [trade agreement] will have serious implications for government spending in social sectors,” asserted to this author Dharmendra Kumar.

Even though the India-EU FTA is expected to more than double the bilateral trade to EUR 160 bn by 2015, two leading European think tanks estimate that EU exports to India will increase by 56.8 per cent, while India’s to the EU will do a mere 18.7 per cent.

Since the outset of these FTA talks, business interests have been driving the negotiations, while areas like sustainable development and poverty reduction have been neglected. It does not imply though that New Delhi cannot strike vital conquests in some of these social areas, as the data exclusivity exclusion in medicines research proves - allowing generics to be produced when it is in the benefit of the public health.

This FTA runs the risk of hurting millions of Indian families who rely on vulnerable jobs to barely make ends meet. The agreement is widely assumed to be concluded at the end of the year, so there is still some room to better protect these livelihoods. Time is running out to make of the India-EU FTA signing something to celebrate instead of something to bemoan.

Javier Delgado Rivera is a Brussels-based freelance research-journalist with a focus on the European Union (EU) ties with Asia. You can check out his stories at www.euasiaintelligence.com & follow him on twitter at @EUAsiaIntel
Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Norway Rocked; Blast in Prime Minister's Office

2011-07-22T20:03:00.006+05:30

A huge explosion rocked Norway which could be another Terrorist strike in the country. The explosion took place near the government buildings and im[arted much damage to them including the Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg's office.

A Reuters correspondent Walter Gibbs who was present at the site said that he could count atleast eight injured people. An official figure of deaths and injured people has not yet been published.

Most of the windows were shattered on the 17 storey building which housed Stoltenberg's office, as well as offices of other ministries including the oil ministry.

The cause of the blast is not known yet and many are suspecting it as a planned attack by international terrorists. Till now nobody from the Fire, Police or ministry has come forward to comment on this shocking incident.

Among the various terrorist organizations several analyst believes it could be the strike by Al Qaeda. The involvement of Islamic terrorism behind this can also be not ruled out. The reason is the involvement of Norway in Afghanistan. Another reason why these groups may hate Norway is because a Norwegian Newspaper reprinted Danish cartoon depicting Prophet Muhammad causing anger in the Islamic world.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below and stay updated with this story.