As Amazon burns, good governance can save Mother Earth

Carrying large wounds caused by unprecedented burn injuries, Mother Earth is crying in pain and we, her reckless and heartless children, are digging a grave to bury her, not realsing that when she dies, we all will die.

 So, stop having any ideas about dancing on her grave, thinking that after her death, we can inherit her riches. 

As huge fires destroy the Amazon rainforests in South America, our greed for wealth and lack of concern for Mother Earth’s right to be herself are taking all of us to our collective doom. Yes, we don’t deserve to live on this planet, if we unrepentantly continue to inflict more wounds on her. We have violated the compact to be nature-loving responsible human beings. Except the humans, every other earthling is true to this compact with Mother Earth. 

When the Amazon burns uncontrollably and when the Arctic ice melts at an alarming rate, take it as a warning; Mother Earth, out of her love for us, is giving us one final warning before the apocalyptic event. Be conscience of your mother’s health, for if she dies, you die. The umbilical cord that binds us with Mother Earth is our love for her, don’t cut it. 
Mother Earth is not greedy like us. She does want to share whatever she has -- her riches and resources -- with all of us, but in a sustainable manner, so that her riches will be equitably shared among all her children -- plants, animals, insects and humans, the living and the yet to be born. But of all her children, we the present day humans appear to be the worst. Mahatma Gandhi, one of India’s greatest visionaries, said that there is enough on the Earth for everybody’s need, but not enough for some people’s greed. 

Those who are liberated from greed are the true children of Mother Earth. We need to be like 16-year-old Swedish girl Greta Thunberg, who arrived in a carbon-free sail boat in New York on Wednesday to attend an environment summit and drive home her message that air travel is environmentally harmful.

We are living in dangerous times. When we vote into office populist rightwing demagogues devoid of moral standing, greedy capitalism with a killer instinct will have a field day. Take the case of the United States and Brazil. 

The Amazon is burning not because of any natural cause, the destruction was man-made. Arctic ice is melting – again it was man made. The global climate is changing faster now than it has at any point in the past 2,000 years, scientists say. Yet, United States President Donald Trump wants to buy Greenland to cause as much harm as possible to Mother Earth in a bid to exploit the coal, zinc, copper, iron ore and rare minerals beneath the ice. 

Mother Earth’s rebellious son Trump had the temerity to publicly display his anti-environment stand when he avoided the environment segment of the recently concluded G7 summit in France.  When the environmentalists shiver in fear at the news that a staggering 197 billion metric tonnes of meltwater flowed off of Greenland’s ice sheet into the Atlantic Ocean this July adding to the sea level rise, greedy capitalism’s captain Trump, who once dismissed warnings of climate change as a Chinese hoax, is salivating for a virgin territory to achieve geopolitical and economic gains. 

As Greenland’s and Arctic’s ice melts, the ocean becomes navigable. This has opened up a big power game in the Arctic. The Russians are already there. The Chinese have penetrated the region through large-scale investments and have plans for a ‘Polar Silk Road’. 

The US has been maintaining a military base in Greenland since World War II.  With big powers eyeing Arctic’s resources at a huge environmental cost, the region is a likely battleground of the future. War and industrial invasion will hasten the melting of the polar ice, accelerating the disappearance of small island nations like the Maldives while coastal countries will be plagued by regular floods.

If we need to minimise climate-change induced natural disasters, we need to stand up and not just protest but physically prevent Trump-like callous capitalists from causing destruction to the North Pole.

If one Trump is bad enough, there is Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s rightwing businessman president. Dimwitted, he thinks deforestation means development. 

In recent weeks, climate-change induced heat and government-sponsored deforestation have sparked at least 82,000 wildfires in the Amazon.  For us in Sri Lanka, the Amazon seems to be a remote place, but it is both the lung and the heart of the planet, given its oxygen generation and carbon gas absorption capacity. If it dies, it’s slow death to all of us. Since Bolsonaro’s election to office, the Amazon has seen unprecedented deforestation. Brazilian journalist and activist Eliane Brum in her article to the British Guardian says the deforestation rate was an area the size of Manhattan every day, a Greater London every three weeks. 
And for the first time, since Brazil became a democracy, the country has a minister against the environment, whom Brum describes as a golfer for agribusiness. The real estate lobby has always been part of the Brazilian government, she notes. But today, it has reached another level. The industry is not part of government; it is the government. Bolsonaro’s haphazard development plan with little or no concern for the environment promotes rapid deforestation of the rainforest for Brazil’s agricultural and mining industries to exploit its resources, in keeping with his Trump-like slogan ‘Brazil Above Everything.’

If we want to save Mother Earth, it is a matter of urgency that we overthrow populist rightwing regimes which take a shortcut to development, to hell with the environment, and worries about natural disasters such as prolonged droughts and large-scale deluges. 
Our effort to save Mother Earth is innately linked with good governance. Shorn of corruption and secrecy, governments committed to good governance can save Mother Earth, while rightwing populists and even phony democrats pander to the perversity of greedy capitalism.

For instance, in the power and energy sector, corruption has increased. Even in Sri Lanka, instead of green energy, corruption has led to a situation where we burn more coal and diesel to generate electricity at a humongous cost to the country’s economy and environment.  This is why greedy capitalism loves rightwing populists who through their demagoguery can silence opposition to environmentally dangerous projects. Therefore, to save the planet, we need to elect those who uphold moralistic principles in governance.
Also to save the blue planet’s ecosystem, we need to curtail waste, be it the food we eat or the water, electricity, gas and fuel we consume. By switching off the extra bulb, we help save the earth. By eliminating corruption and ousting corrupt politicians, we help save the earth.

Dictatorship Stick on democracy

TEHRAN- Following a request from British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Queen Elizabeth II has prorogued the U.K.’s Parliament—temporarily shutting down the United Kingdom’s deliberative body just weeks before the deadline for a no-deal Brexit hits. 

The move has caused fury, with Speaker of the House John Bercow calling it a “constitutional outrage” and Ruth Davidson, the extremely popular leader of the Scottish Conservative Party, resigning in protest. 

Labor to use Parliament to try to thwart no-deal Brexit

Britain’s opposition Labor Party said it would trigger an emergency debate in Parliament next week to try to stop Prime Minister Boris Johnson taking Britain out of the European Union without a withdrawal deal.

More than three years after the country voted in a referendum to leave the bloc, the United Kingdom is heading toward its gravest constitutional crisis in decades and a showdown with the EU over Brexit, which is due to take place in just over two months’ time.

Johnson enraged opponents of a no-deal Brexit Wednesday by using a parliamentary mechanism to order the suspension of Parliament for almost a month.

The speaker of the lower house of Parliament, John Bercow, called this a constitutional outrage as it limited the time the Parliament has to debate and shape the course of British history.

Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said that as soon as Parliament returned from its summer break Tuesday, his party would initiate a process to legislate against a no-deal Brexit that he said would be damaging for the jobs and the economy.

“What we are going to do is try to politically stop him [Johnson] on Tuesday with a parliamentary process in order to legislate to prevent a no-deal Brexit and also to try and prevent him shutting down Parliament in this utterly crucial period,” Corbyn told reporters.

“This country is in danger of crashing out on the 31st of October with no deal,” he said. “We have got to stop that and that is exactly what we will be doing next Tuesday.”

Five other opposition parties, including the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party, later issued a joint statement with Labor calling on Johnson to let legislators vote on whether Parliament should be suspended.

Economists have widely predicted that a no-deal Brexit would deliver a damaging blow to Britain’s economy.

Three-month sterling implied volatility soared, indicating traders are bracing for more big price swings between now and the expected Oct. 31 Brexit date. JPMorgan raised the probability of a no-deal Brexit to 35 percent from 25 percent.

Johnson’s plan to suspend Parliament used the date of the Queen’s Speech - to be held on Oct. 14 and preceded by a suspension of the House of Commons - to ensure Parliament will not sit between mid-September and mid-October.

In effect, the squeezed timetable forces opponents of a no-deal Brexit in Parliament to show their hand and act in as few as four days sitting next month. Parliament returns from its summer holiday on Sept. 3.

An election is likely, lawmakers said. Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Brexit supporter who is in charge of managing government business in Parliament, said opponents were confecting “the candy-floss of outrage” and dared them to do their worst. There is a small majority against a no-deal Brexit in the 650-seat House of Commons, but it is unclear if opponents of Johnson within the Conservative Party would collapse his government in a vote of no confidence. “It does look like next week is essentially the only opportunity that Parliament will have to maintain some control over this process and ensure that it has a say before we leave without a deal,” Conservative MP David Gauke said.

Will Bibi’s War Become America’s War?

Patrick J. BUCHANAN

President Donald Trump, who canceled a missile strike on Iran, after the shoot-down of a U.S. Predator drone, to avoid killing Iranians, may not want a U.S. war with Iran. But the same cannot be said of Bibi Netanyahu.

Saturday, Israel launched a night attack on a village south of Damascus to abort what Israel claims was a plot by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force to fly “killer drones” into Israel, an act of war.

Sunday, two Israeli drones crashed outside the media offices of Hezbollah in Beirut. Israel then attacked a base camp of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command in north Lebanon.

Monday, Israel admitted to a strike on Iranian-backed militias of the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq. And Israel does not deny responsibility for last month’s attacks on munitions dumps and bases of pro-Iran militias in Iraq.

Israel has also confirmed that, during Syria’s civil war, it conducted hundreds of strikes against pro-Iranian militias and ammunition depots to prevent the transfer of missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Understandably, Israel’s weekend actions have brought threats of retaliation. Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah has warned of vengeance for the death of his people in the Syria strike.

Quds Force General Qassem Soleimani reportedly tweeted from Tehran, “These insane operations will be the last struggles of the Zionist regime.” Lebanese President Michel Aoun called the alleged Israeli drone attack on Beirut a “declaration of war.”

Last Friday, in the 71st week of the “Great March of Return” protests on Gaza’s border, 50 Palestinians were wounded by Israeli live fire. In 16 months, 200 have died from gunshots, with thousands wounded.

America’s reaction to Israel’s weekend attacks? Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Netanyahu to assure him of U.S. support of Israel’s actions. Some Iraqi leaders are now calling for the expulsion of Americans.

Why is Netanyahu now admitting to Israel’s role in the strikes in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq? Why has he begun threatening Iran itself and even the Houthi rebels in Yemen?

Because this longest-serving prime minister in Israeli history, having surpassed David Ben-Gurion, is in the battle of his life, with elections just three weeks off. And if Netanyahu falls short — or fails to put together a coalition after winning, as he failed earlier this year — his career would be over, and he could be facing prosecution for corruption.

Netanyahu has a compelling motive for widening the war against Israel’s main enemy, its allies and its proxies and taking credit for military strikes.

But America has a stake in what Israel is doing as well.

We are not simply observers. For if Hezbollah retaliates against Israel or Iranian-backed militias in Syria retaliate against Israel — or against us for enabling Israel — a new war could erupt, and there would be a clamor for deeper American intervention.

Yet, Americans have no desire for a new war, which could cost Trump the presidency, as the war in Iraq cost the Republican Party the Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008.

The United States has taken pains to avoid a military clash with Iran for compelling reasons. With only 5,000 troops left in Iraq, U.S. forces are massively outmanned by an estimated 150,000 fighters of the pro-Iran Popular Mobilization Forces, which played a critical role in preventing ISIS from reaching Baghdad during the days of the caliphate.

And, for good reason, the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, with its crew of 5,600, which Trump sent to deter Iran, has yet to enter the Strait of Hormuz or the Persian Gulf but remains in the Arabian Sea off the coast of Oman, and, at times, some 600 nautical miles away from Iran.

Why is this mighty warship keeping its distance?

We don’t want a confrontation in the Gulf, and, as ex-Admiral James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, says:

“Anytime a carrier moves close to shore, and especially into confined waters, the danger to the ship goes up significantly. … It becomes vulnerable to diesel submarines, shore-launched cruise missiles and swarming attacks by small boats armed with missiles.”

Which is a pretty good description of the coastal defenses and naval forces of Iran.

Netanyahu’s widening of Israel’s war with Iran and its proxies into Lebanon and Iraq — and perhaps beyond — and his acknowledgement of that wider war raise questions for both of us.

Israel today has on and near her borders hostile populations in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Iraq. Tens of millions of Muslims see her as an enemy to be expelled from the region.

While there is a cold peace with Egypt and Jordan, the Saudis and Gulf Arabs are temporary allies as long as the foe is Iran.

Is this pervasive enmity sustainable?

As for America, have we ceded to Netanyahu something no nation should ever cede to another, even an ally: the right to take our country into a war of their choosing but not of ours?

lewrockwell.com

‘The Trump wall is cracking’: Myles Hoenig

“The Trump wall is cracking” and former Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s “predictions could conceivably come true when the wall comes crumbling down,” according to Myles Hoenig, an American political analyst and activist. 

Hoenig, a former Green Party candidate for Congress, made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Wednesday while commenting on a statement by Kasich who said that he does not see a path to beat Trump in the 2020 Republican primary.

In an interview on Wednesday with CNN, Kasich said that while he doesn't see a path right now, "that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a path down the road."

"But right now, I don't see it," he stressed.

Kasich has been floated as a potential challenger to Trump's re-election campaign. Two major Republican candidates -- former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld and former Rep. Joe Walsh (Ill.) -- have entered the race so far.

Trump enjoys strong approval ratings within his party and the Republican National Committee has already expressed its “undivided support” for Trump as its 2020 nominee.

“Right now Donald Trump has a stranglehold on the Republican Party, and for it to distance itself from him would cause irreparable harm to the party establishment, especially its finances. Kasich sees a possibility of a future, viable threat to Trump’s candidacy, but not now,” Hoenig said.

“With the two announced challengers, Walsh and Weld, you see a wide spectrum of opposition within the party. Walsh is much like Trump in that his policies are extreme right wing but Weld is a Republican who has won the governorship in the Democratic state of Massachusetts, much like Hogan has won in Maryland, but has announced he won’t challenge Trump. All 3 candidates have something to offer the Republican base,” he added.

“Trump has the strongest hand right now. His support is solid, yet small, but large enough for those who actually vote in primaries. Weld could easily take some of the Republicans with a conscience, or at least those who see a Trump nomination as the death knell of the party for the foreseeable future. Walsh would appeal to the same voters for Trump but would not hurt Weld with his base. But Walsh would only be able to attract a small percent of Trump supporters,” he said.

“Everyone is waiting for the next shoe to drop. Trump’s mental state has always been questioned but now it’s becoming more of a main stream media talking point, and even noted Republicans are voicing similar concerns. The Trump wall is cracking and Kasich’s predictions could conceivably come true when the wall comes crumbling down,” the analyst noted.

India’s Narrative On J&K Is Hyperbolic

by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

Editorials have appeared in two leading Delhi newspapers today (here and here) urging the government to present a credible, appealing diplomatic narrative on the J&K developments.

The Indian narrative so far is largely focused on the domestic audience. It has gone to ridiculous extents by projecting that the situation is actually quite “normal” in J&K. Pictures of National Security Advisor Ajit Doval savouring (mutton) biryani with Kashmiri Muslims on a street corner in Srinagar have been doing the rounds. (Indeed, it was a charade to hoodwink the public.)

Crude propaganda won’t win hearts and minds. A narrative has to be crafted rationally. It’s common knowledge that there is little  acceptance of the government move among Kashmiri Muslims.

When it comes to the external projection of the Indian narrative, given the fact that India’s case is flying in the face of international law and the UN Charter, the government must be capable of sensitivity.

The government would have seized the initiative at the diplomatic level if only soon after Home Minister Amit Shah piloted through both houses of the parliament at breakneck speed the legislation on abrogating Article 370 of the constitution, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar had stood up and made a suo moto statement offering to discuss all differences with Pakistan bilaterally in a comprehensive dialogue in the best interests of regional security, peace and stability.

Of course, such a momentous initiative would have required imagination, far-sightedness and wisdom — and, most important, political courage at the leadership level. The shortfall in statecraft and diplomacy is appalling.

A self-righteous attitude will not do. Take EAM’s demarche with the Chinese counterpart State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing on Monday. The MEA readout spells out the Indian stance on the following lines:

One, constitutional amendment is an “internal matter for India” and the “sole prerogative of the country”.

Two, abrogation of J&K’s special status (including changes in Ladakh’s status) is aimed at “promoting better governance and socio-economic development”.

Three, the government move has “no implication for either the external boundaries of India or the Line of Actual Control” with China.

China’s State Councilor & Foreign Minister Wang Yi in talks with India’s Minister of External Affairs S. Jaishankar, Beijing, Aug. 12, 2019.

And, four, India is “not raising any additional territorial claims.”

Incredibly enough, this was how EAM brushed aside China’s “serious concern over the recent escalation of turmoil in Kashmir” –that any unilateral action that may complicate the situation in Kashmir should not be taken; that Kashmir issue is a dispute born out of the region’s colonial history and should be properly handled in a peaceful way in line with the UN Charter, relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council and bilateral agreements between Pakistan and India”; and, its expectation that “India will play a constructive role in regional peace and stability.” (here, here, here, here and here) 

EAM’s rejoinder may have some resonance domestically within India as a macho attitude, but it will only arouse mirth and derision abroad — even in the diplomatic enclave in Chanakyapuri area.

No P5 member country has officially voiced support for India. There is no shred of evidence that the Russian Foreign Ministry voiced support for India on the issue — not on the FO website; neither in a Tass or Novosti report nor even in the irrepressible Russian press. Some fly-by-night operator well-versed with the Indian rope trick, apparently spread fake news on a Friday night and it became “breaking news” in India by next morning. Pathetic.

Simply put, the Indian stance articulated by EAM is fundamentally flawed in logic and can only be counter-productive, as it shuts the door on discussion. The point is, Kashmir is an international dispute and India unilaterally changed J&K’s “status” in violation of the relevant UN resolutions. No one will accept India’s claim that it is an “internal matter”.

The world opinion accepts that Pakistan is party to Kashmir dispute. It is beside the point that India is not redrawing boundaries. And it’s gratuitous to say there is “no implication” for the LOC or the LOAC. If things were that simple, why couldn’t Modi government stomach the CPEC passing through Gilgit-Baltistan? We screamed, “territorial sovereignty” blah, blah.

The world opinion will only believe that Delhi’s real intention is to change the demographic balance so that there shall be no Muslim-majority entity henceforth within the Indian Union.

If such unilateral acts in modern history are as simple as “internal matter”, why is no one recognising Russia’s annexation of Crimea? Why is Beijing so sensitive on intervention in Hong Kong? Why is the US insisting on “freedom of navigation” in South China Sea? Why is the US raising eyebrow over the North Sea Route and the Arctic? What is wrong with Iran’s claim over Persian Gulf as sovereign territory? What prevents Sri Lanka’s Mahinda Rajapaksa from solving the Tamil problem in similar fashion (as he hinted last week)?

The Modi government will be creating a long-term, intractable problem for India for generations to come by adopting such an ostrich approach. Analysts have pointed out (here and here) that the change in Ladakh’s status makes India-China border dispute incredibly complicated and all but unsolvable. India’s international standing can get seriously damaged.   

The only way to address the conundrum is to propose to Pakistan that India is ready to discuss these differences. Fortuitously, Pakistan also faces the unhappy situation that no one in the international community is showing willingness to stand up and be counted as its partner to push back at India.

The bottom line is that India enjoys wide acceptance for its insistence on bilateralism to resolve differences with Pakistan. India should now tactfully exercise this privilege. It is always possible to hold out informal assurances that there’ll be no “colonisation” of Kashmir valley. After all, we have such safeguards for many regions of India.   

Demonstrators shout slogans outside a hospital emergency unit during protest against lockdown, Srinagar, August 9, 2019

The window of opportunity shall not remain open for long. From all accounts, the ground situation in J&K is explosive and the grating roar of human misery is approaching. PM Imran Khan’s prognosis on another Pulwama is not off the mark. For Delhi to build a new architecture in J&K out of the debris all around, a dialogue with Pakistan is critically important.

Offer From Biarritz Not Good Enough For Iran

by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

From all accounts, Tehran is struggling to cope with the startling news in the weekend from the G7 summit at Biarritz that a meeting between the presidents of the US and Iran is to be expected in the “coming weeks”.

The cautiously optimistic tone struck by the French President Emmanuel Macron and the conspicuously positive attitude adopted by President Trump along with the fact that the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif was actually present at Biarritz (with the prior knowledge and tacit concurrence of POTUS) — all these signalled that France’s back-to-back peace initiatives in the recent weeks with Washington and Tehran have come to a defining moment.

From Biarritz, Zarif took off for Tehran ostensibly to change planes for an onward journey to China as part of a previously scheduled Asian tour. Presumably, he briefed Rouhani on what transpired at Biarritz. Zarif is still on the Asian tour — China, Japan, Malaysia, etc., which are, interestingly, major buyers of Iranian oil.

If the Biarritz formula gains traction, these Asian countries have a key role to play in generating income for Iran out of oil sales, which apparently would incentivise Tehran to get into negotiations with the US.

En route to Beijing, Zarif tweeted, “Iran’s active diplomacy in pursuit of constructive engagement continues. Road ahead is difficult. But worth trying.” China’s foreign minister Wang Yi also spoke to Emmanuel Bonne, diplomatic adviser to French President Emmanuel Macron, by telephone on Monday. Bonne said France wanted to coordinate and cooperate with China to ease tensions over Iran and to maintain the 2015 nuclear deal, according to a report by official Chinese news agency Xinhua.

Iran’s FM Zarif (L) was warmly received by Chinese Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi (R) in Beijing on Aug 26, 2019

The initial reaction from Tehran at the level of Rouhani also suggested that he may be open to the idea of meeting Trump. Notably, Rouhani said on Monday, “I believe we should use any tool to protect our country’s national interests. If I think that meeting someone helps solve the people’s problems, I will not hesitate. The principle is our national interests.”

Two days later, however, Rouhani’s Chief of Staff and key aide Mahmoud Vaezi, who is an influential figure in the foreign policy establishment, conspicuously moderated what the president had said. Speaking to reporters in Tehran on Wednesday, Vaezi said any meeting with the US officials will solve no problem and the US must come back to P5+1 negotiation table and respect its commitments to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Vaezi didn’t altogether reject the idea of a Rouhani-Trump meeting, but added a template that the negotiations must also involve other guarantor states — E3, Russia and China. On the other hand, an Iranian economic delegation is proceeding to France next week. It could be that Tehran is strengthening its bargaining chip as well as insulating itself from the risk of engaging an interlocutor such as Trump who is fickle-minded, lacks consistency and has no coherent policies — and, above all, is surrounded by a team that includes notorious anti-Iran hawks, especially the National Security Advisor John Bolton.

Meanwhile, we see a significant hardening of Tehran’s stance in an interview with the state TV given by the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Seyed Abbas Araqchi. Araqchi simply ruled out any negotiations with Washington so long as the sanctions remained in place.

In his words, “We are only talking with the European countries over our specific 11 demands (based on the JCPOA) and we will not negotiate with the US.” Vaezi’s remarks must be taken seriously, as was one of the key negotiators of the 2015 nuclear deal and is an authoritative voice. Vaezi underlined that that no country would accept to enter negotiations while being under “maximum pressure” because doing so would mean “surrender”.

The offer held out in Biarritz appears to be simply not good enough for Tehran. Why should Tehran “surrender” after successfully countering the US’ regime change agenda and “maximum pressure” strategy and has failed to reach the objectives behind its unilateral move to abandon the 2015 nuclear deal?

On Wednesday, Iran’s top military commander Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Mohammad Hossein Baqeri pointedly reminded everyone that it has been the country’s deterrence power that effectively stopped the US from going ahead with its plans to wage a war against Iran.

Quite obviously, a lot of churning has been going on within the top echelons of the Iranian establishment, which involve multiple agencies at an institutional level and even factions that would have congruent political interests or different priorities at any given time. The influential Majlis has not voiced an opinion. The bottom line is that all power centres would be waiting for the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to speak publicly.

M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

 

Career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, who served as India's Ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and Turkey (1998-2001).

Trump at the point below zero

By Hanif Ghaffari

U.S. President Donald Trump is having a hard time. He lost the trade war with Beijing after three years of trying! Failure to align US businesses, farmers and citizens with Trump policies, along with warnings from US analysts and economists, have led the US president to defeat his main economic competitor. If the trend continues until next year's presidential election, Trump will surely lose the election. Polls in the states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan and Ohio show that the US president has little chance of winning in those states. Even in some US states, like Texas, Trump has little chance of winning.

Undoubtedly, one of the main factors that has reduced Trump's power is his economic defeat against Beijing. The President of the United States of America is now back below zero, even before Year 2016. America's trade deficit with China has grown from $ 346 billion(2016)  to $ 419 billion(2019). On the other hand, by the end of the 2018, we saw a 7 percent increase in Chinese imports to the United States.

The Chinese have undoubtedly suffered the worst blow to Washington with the clever devaluation of the yuan and its important decision not to buy American agricultural products. However, Beijing has not yet entered US assets in China (worth over a trillion dollars)!

At present, the United States is trying to use all its means  to fight China: from insuring Taiwan to interfering with Hong Kong protests and consulting with Tibet! Even the United States is trying to pressure China in the face of the crisis in North Korea. Essentially one of the main reasons for the US's negative and deterrent intervention in the Korean Peninsula, as well as Washington's blocking of direct talks with Pyongyang and Seoul, is confrontation with Chinese power in East Asia.

Finally, the United States will definitely lose the game to Beijing! The cost of a defeat for Donald Trump will be very heavy, and even that could be one of the major reasons for the failure of the US president in next year's presidential election.

Prospect for INSTEX is not good: Paul Pillar

By Javad Heirannia

TEHRAN – Professor Paul Pillar, who was CIA intelligence analyst for 28 years, tells that the Europeans still want to save the JCPOA. 

Pillar says “Doing so will require the Europeans to facilitate enough commerce with Iran for Iranian leaders to conclude that their country is receiving enough economic benefit to make continued observance of the nuclear limits justifiable.”  
He also adds that “The prospects for this happening are not good.”

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: Iran has announced that it will implement a third step to reduce its obligations under the JCPOA. Will Europe takes effective and convincing action to prevent this?

A: The challenge for Europe has not changed since the Trump administration reneged on U.S. obligations under the JCPOA and, a year later, Iran began exceeding some of the limits of the agreement.  The Europeans still want to save the JCPOA. Doing so will require the Europeans to facilitate enough commerce with Iran for Iranian leaders to conclude that their country is receiving enough economic benefit to make continued observance of the nuclear limits justifiable.  The prospects for this happening are not good.  The European governments mostly have the will but not the ability to make it happen.  The governments do not control the private sector, and most European businesses that are big enough to matter fear being shut out of the U.S. market if they do business with Iran.    

Q: What would be the possible reaction of Russia and China to reducing Iran's commitments under JCPOA?

A: Russia and China also want to preserve the JCPOA.  If Iran continues to exceed more of the nuclear limits, Russia and China will not impose additional sanctions of their own.  They regard the Trump administration's imposition of new U.S. sanctions as the obvious cause of the agreement breaking down.  Russia and China will seek to exploit the absence of Iranian dealings with the United States and any new conflict in Iranian-European relations by developing their own relations with Iran, which they see in their own economic interests.  Russian President Putin also has a strategic interest in maintaining reasonably good relations with all countries in the Middle East, including Iran.  China possibly could be deterred from making major new commercial deals with Iran by not wanting to complicate its trade negotiations with the United States.  But right now those negotiations do not seem to being going anywhere, and so Beijing probably believes it has nothing to lose by doing business with Iran.   

Q: In your opinion, will the third phase of reducing Iran's commitments in the JCPOA be dangerous? Will Iran's case go to the United Nations Security Council after third step of reducing its commitments?

A: There is nothing distinctive about the third step that is different from the first couple of steps.  Iran still is limiting itself to steps that are easily reversible, and keep it a long way from any capability to build a nuclear weapon.  The JCPOA specifies procedures for any referral to the UN Security Council.  The Trump administration would favor such a referral, but it no longer is a participant in the JCPOA and thus does not have the standing to initiate such action.  A relevant question is whether the new British government of Boris Johnson, weakened by the Brexit mess and more dependent than ever on the United States, will start adopting the Trump administration's policy line on Iran.   

Q: Can the United States impose new sanctions on Iran after the third step in reducing Iran's commitments under JCPOA?

A: The Trump administration already has imposed nearly every sanction it has the power to impose on Iran.  It can always find something else that it can describe as a further step in its "maximum pressure" campaign, but the practical difference from what exists right now will be minimal.

The costs of European integration to the White House

By Mohammad Ghaderi

In one of his most recent statements, French President Emmanuel Macron has announced the end of US and Western hegemony in the international system. The remarks come as the EU and eurozone are also facing a severe crisis of leadership.

Macron has warned Western nations against the “strategic mistake” of alienating Russia – but in doing so, he seeks a bigger role for himself in international politics.

“We are living the end of Western hegemony,” Macron told diplomats , after hosting the G7 meeting in the city of Biarritz on France’s Atlantic coast over the weekend. He named the rise of Beijing and Moscow as signs of a shift on the world scene.

The reality is that the European Union and the eurozone, on the one hand, acknowledge the end of Western hegemony, and in particular the United States, and on the other hand, continue to be dominated by Washington. The EU's inactivity towards Europe has led to anger and frustration among citizens.

The EU and the eurozone have a very uncertain future. In other words, America and Europe can no longer speak of international domination.

In such a situation, people like the French President and German Chancellor are worried about the future of the eurozone and the European Union. This concern increases over time. The occurrence of a variety of security, political, economic and social crises has created many challenges in the European Union and the eurozone.

The emergence of these challenges has led to a sharp decline in the popularity of traditional parties in Europe. In such a way, nationalist parties have been able to increase their popularity with the public. Which side are the European Union and the eurozone really heading to?

ill the future of Europe finally be clear these are the questions that concern the mentally ill, such as Merkel and Macron?

Ultimately, the more Europe delays  in moving away from the United States, the more it will pay. It is as if European officials have not yet understood it. There is a long gap between the recent remarks of the French President and the EU's practical approach.

A new black mark in the history of the UAE and Bahrain

UAE Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed (L) and India's Prime Minister in Abu Dhabi, UAE [Narendra Modi/Twitter]

Despite the fact that India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently revoked the special status that granted rights to Kashmir and its people to make their own constitution, the government of the UAE has awarded him the country’s highest civilian honour. This is a new low, even by the UAE’s standards, and a black mark in its history.

It is unbelievable that Modi has moved against Muslims who live in the Indian-administrated Kashmir, and yet a Muslim country like the UAE has granted him such an honour. Reversing the autonomous status in place for decades certainly seemed to mean nothing to Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed, who is the de facto ruler of the Gulf state.

Instead of condemning Modi’s recent actions — which is arguably an obligation for every single Muslim country — Bin Zayed held a ceremony where he personally placed the medal around Modi’s neck. This is what happens when economic ties are the priority; human rights and morality become minor issues.

A few days before Modi’s visit to Abu Dhabi, Khalifa Industrial Zone Abu Dhabi (Kizad), announcedan agreement with All India Plastic Manufacturers’ Association (AIPMA) in Delhi. This suggests that commercial deals are the main focus. At a time when there are many conflicts around the globe, this may also have appeared to be a good time for both leaders to strengthen relations, not least due to regional tensions.

Modi may have thought that he could simply do what liked to the Kashmiris without anyone taking him to task. At a time when there are other issues taking priority over Kashmir internationally, attention is not focused on the suffering of its people in the way that it once was. Similarly, Bin Zayed took advantage of the same indifference about Kashmir as well as tension elsewhere and went ahead with the award ceremony regardless. He has apparently ignored the voices urging him to reconsider.

Perhaps the UAE Crown Prince hoped that there would not be too many voices critical of his decision. He was probably right, because despite its significance, the award given to Modi did not attract much attention in the international media.

Kashmiri villagers walk past the debris of a house which was damaged by Indian forces in Kashmir on 5 March 2019 [Faisal Khan/Anadolu Agency]

The UAE’s recent actions suggest a leadership and policies that are foundering. Not only does it not want to be a victim of a US-Iran war and so is trying to get closer to Tehran, but it is also aiming to maintain a good relationship with Israel.

Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that the US “is participating in secret talks between the United Arab Emirates and Israel to confront threats posed by Iran, a shared adversary among the three countries.” How does the UAE expect to balance its relations between Tehran and Tel Aviv? Has Abu Dhabi been deceiving Tehran just to play safe? After the revelation about the UAE-Israel talks, how will Iran respond?

Furthermore, while the UAE has been saying that it will adopt a “peace first strategy” after announcing its drawdown from the war in Yemen that has led to what is now the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, it is now backing the Southern Transitional Council (STC), which has fought in Aden and Shabwah against forces loyal to the Saudi-backed Yemeni government. This is another example of where the UAE has failed to have a clear policy, and raises the question of whether training the STC and, reportedly, helping in its fight against the government really is a “peace-first” strategy. Unfortunately, the UAE is only complicating the situation in Yemen even further.

Now, when the UAE is trying to portray itself as a country that helps its fellow Muslims, it has rolled out the red carpet for Modi, despite his crackdown on Kashmiri Muslims. That looks like yet another contradiction in UAE policy.

Moreover, the UAE is not alone in its approach to the Indian leader. Bahrain has also hosted Modi, thereby making him become the first Indian Prime Minister to visit the tiny Kingdom. The Bahraini government has apparently pardoned 250 Indians held in its jails even as it imprisons thousands of its own citizens as part of a crackdown on political dissent. Bahrain’s King Hamad awarded Modi the “King Hamad Order of the Renaissance during his visit.

The only explanation for all of this is that the UAE and Bahrain only really care about what is in their own interests. The Muslims in Kashmir only want to live like other, with a modicum of dignity. They are not looking for influence or power, but respect. The UAE and Bahrain did not show them any respect at all in their hospitality and awards presented to India’s Narendra Modi. History will never be kind to regimes which have betrayed their fellow Muslims and basically thrown them under the proverbial bus.