February 28, 2016

A Yugoslavian Fantasy: 24th versus 149th Place

journal-neo.org

A Yugoslavian Fantasy: 24th versus 149th Place | New Eastern Outlook

Author: Phil Butler

In an alternative universe, what if Yugoslavia still existed? NATO’s expansion, the Cold War still being waged, the so-called democratic western nations destroying freedoms in the name of democracy, we’re already living World War III. At this crucial juncture in history, it’s absolutely imperative that we examine what has transpired the last 25 years. Yugoslavia and western intervention there, is perhaps the best place to begin. This article calls to question the peace that might have been. More importantly, it calls to question whether or not peace was ever a democratic goal.

Can you imagine Europe today with Yugoslavia as a key player among nations? I can. Yugoslavia was in fact, one of the greatest cultural and human experiments in history. Formed in the crucible that was the conflict in between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia melded together people’s of both cultures, and in ways not seen since the time of Alexander the Great’s assimilation of peoples after immense conquest. The experiment, if I may call it that, lasted a little over half a century. The ideal was, to form a single state for all southern Slavic peoples. While Yugoslavia’s creation was partly a geo-strategic move on the part of Britain and France, in order to restrain or block Germany, the underlying idealism was sound and just. The provisions of the so-called “Corfu Declaration” called for what amounted to a constitutional monarchy not unlike England’s. Rights and suffrage, and core principles of something known as the Illyrian movement, were promising aspects of early Yugoslavia. Even though King Alexander would eventually suspend the constitution and elections, the melding of ethnic groups and cultures still showed promise. War, political machinations, internal and external pressures preyed heavily always on this fledgling world power. As has been the case in many such experiments, ultimately authoritarian rule became the necessity, even desirable.

To end the history lesson, when the national hero turned Dictator and world celebrity, Josip Tito was firmly in control, Yugoslavia played on the world stage. Then when his power waned, opposing forces found their foothold. No scholars or politicians speak of it today, but Tito’s part in establishing the Non-Aligned Movement of nation states was magnanimous and extremely significant, especially for the people who now live in Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, and the other former Yugoslav regions. I’ll get into this further along, but for now it seems important to outline this Non-Aligned Movement’s ideals.

The NAM’s foundations were built in Belgrade in 1961 by the initial ideas of Tito’s Yugoslavia; India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru; Indonesia’s first president, Sukarno; Egypt’s second president, Gamal Abdel Nasser; and Ghana’s first president Kwame Nkrumah. To be concise here, maybe reflecting one of NAM’s greatest proponents, Cuba’s Fidel Castro. In a speech given during the Havana Declaration of 1979, Castro laid out the real purpose behind NAM, saying the movement should strive for:

“The national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries” in their “struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics”

So essentially, the NAM was to be an independent movement of nations in between the great powers, with the idea of negating the Cold War was in novel and interesting one. Of course the major powers engaged in this new political and idealistic warfare had at their core strategy, the inclusion of every one of these fledgling independents. As we see today, the battle goes on to fragment, divide and render powerless, countries and peoples everywhere on the globe. This can be seen most easily in the carving up of the former Yugoslavia, and in the fact the resulting states have shown no inclination to be part of NAM now. Instead, the EU and NATO have been the gravitational pull that moves Croatia and the others. We see the prevalence of “Cold War” strategy in the fact Belarus and Azerbaijan are the only two members of the Movement in Europe, Azerbaijan and Fiji being the most recent entrants, having joined back in 2011. However, the 2012 NAM Summit saw higher attendance than any previous year, a bit of a sign of our crisis time now, I expect. With a declared purpose of “world peace”, and fundamental rights and integrity as its dogma, NAM was and is a valid theoretical mediating framework. But let me return to the fantasy case for Yugoslavia now.

Looking at the breakup of Yugoslavia in retrospect, framing what is Washington geo-strategy everywhere takes solid form. The Clinton administration’s actions at that time have been parlayed and propagandized with the same Orwellian “doublethink” the public is mystified with today. Reading Washington think tank propaganda like that of the Brookings Institute reveals this. In “Decision to Intervene: How the War in Bosnia Ended” from 1998, author Ivo H. Daalder begins:

“While many have written eloquently and passionately to explain Washington’s—and the West’s—failure to stop the ethnic cleansing, the concentration camps, and the massacres of hundreds of thousands of civilians, few have examined why, in the summer of 1995, the United States finally did take on a leadership role to end the war in Bosnia.”

The truth is a much simpler reality. No one needed a think tank to discover why President Bill Clinton hesitated to intercede in Bosnia. Clinton was in fact, continuing the policies of his predecessor, George Bush the senior, to destabilize the Yugoslavian socialist success. We know now that US covertly trained insurgents played a vital role in fragmenting the region via an organization known as the Atlantic Brigade, which fought in the Kosovo war at the side of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), numbering some 400 armed fighters (Also see Christian Science Monitor 1999). There’s not space within this report to reveal the subterfuge and death dealing that came about because of US proxy wars in the former Yugoslavia. I will direct the reader to an expert.

The decorated soldier and award winning journalist, Colonel David Hackworth (November 11, 1930 – May 4, 2005) was a war hero and defender of truth for the thousands and millions blown to pieces by these wars. “Hack”, as he was often called, was one of the most decorated soldiers in history having worn; 2 Distinguished Service Crosses, 10 Silver Stars, 8 Bronze Stars, 8 Purple Hearts, and 34 Air Medals, to name a few. A journalist for Newsweek and others, “Hack” was in the former Yugoslavia at the critical moment. This piece by him shines light on the lies the American people were told about Bush’s and Clinton’s war there.  Comparing US policy in the former Yugoslavia to that of Vietnam, Hackworth uses the case of Sgt. Richard Casini, a recon trooper in Kosovo who stepped on a mine. In this singular incident, we see what we know now as a “ritual” of lying propaganda to mislead Americans and the world. When the boy’s dad was notified of his son’s injuries, “Your boy is being flown to Germany on the general’s jet,” was the news he got. Unfortunately, “Hack” was contacted later by Sgt. Casini, who had lost a foot, and learned how the boy had been flown to the hospital on a cargo plane wedged in between crates.

David Hackworth is gone now, he succumbed to cancer a few years back. The legacy of “soldiers against war” goes on, only with different proponents like those at Veterans Today and elsewhere. As for Bill Clinton’s playing at reluctance in the region once known as Yugoslavia, the sordid history of genocide and graft seems endless now. Another story I found, the tale of a Frenchman who trained with the Atlantic Brigade, it calls to mind Ukraine, Libya, and Syria of late. You see “patterns” lead us to the truth more often than not, ask any criminal profiler. The ghastly killing fields of the legitimate country of Yugoslavia, the investments in carving up the pieces left over, stain the hands of US presidents, British lords, and neo-Nazi German industrialists.

In an interview with a French mercenary names “Jacques’, Jean-Luc Porte reported back in 1999 how the US backed “Atlantic Brigade” was formed up. The skin head killer of Serbs and Croatians, by his own admission, outlines for us how fascism and Nazis akin to those seen in Ukraine of late, made up a killing brigade effecting the dismemberment of a former great nation. Wounded, rethinking his service to the cause, the Frenchman who joined other multinationals in Albania bore the mark of “HOS for Ustashis,” a proud brand of Croatian Nazis who joined the Germans in World War II. Not unlike the Banderites of the Ukraine crisis, the various proxy wars in the Balkans were manned by lethal killers from abroad. And top American officials knew full well the breed of murderers they pulled the strings on in Kosovo and throughout the Balkans. Yugoslavia, you see, became the template for Afghanistan and Iraq, Arab Spring, and the current anti-Russia onslaught. The names of Madeleine Albright, Javier Solana, General Wesley Clark and others continue to reverberate. In the former Yugoslavia the friends of key players in government planned a literal carving feast of potential creditor nations and investment bonanzas. The tale of this genocide in the name of democracy is almost too awful to speak of. Most of the people of these nations were set back 200 years, into a kind of medieval existence without hope. The only glimmer of possibility for most former Yugoslavians is quite naturally, the EU and its NATO protectors.

As I write this American, Brit and German planners are already carving up Syria. This Rand Corporation plan is not surprisingly clinical, even matter of fact, about partitioning a sovereign state. For those unaware, Rand Corporation is the Big Brother of all hegemonic think tanks. If you see it in print from these guys, the US military industrial complex invested money in it – period. Certainly there was genocide on both sides of the Albania-Kosovo conflict, as well as the other wars in the Balkans. This is not the point really, for the totality of catastrophe is what I am focused on. First of all the people of the united Yugoslavia no longer have any real voice. Secondly, the breakup of that nation has led to the death or dislocation of millions now. This is another story. But my “fantasy” Yugoslavia should be an eye opener. Let me conclude.

Yugoslavia was built on an idea that Southern Slavs would not remain a weak and divided people. A united nation of Yugoslavia was not easy prey for imperialist intentions like we see taking place today. It is a fact, that after World War II, socialist Yugoslavia became something of a European success story. Between 1960 and 1980 the country had one of the most vigorous growth rates in the world: a decent standard of living, free medical care and education, a guaranteed right to a job, one-month vacation with pay, a literacy rate of over 90 percent, and a life expectancy of 72 years. To my knowledge, not one of the Balkans states that were created can claim half this prosperity. It was this prosperity which caused western interests to want to destroy Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia’s multi-ethnic citizenry also had affordable public transportation, housing, and utilities. The not-for-profit economy was mostly publicly owned, not exactly the poster child for western democratic love obviously. The county could not be allowed to compete with Germany, France, and especially Britain, and the London and Luxembourg bankers could not extract their billions in a socialistic system. Yugoslavia had to die, and the Reagans, Bushs, and Clintons helped make it happen. Award winning author, political scientist, and Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., Michael Parenti has outlined the Yugoslavia disaster many times. According to Parenti, the U.S. goal has been to transform the Yugoslav nation into a Third-World region:

  • incapable of charting an independent course of self-development;
  • a shattered economy and natural resources completely accessible to multinational corporate exploitation, including the enormous mineral wealth in Kosovo;
  • an impoverished, but literate and skilled population forced to work at subsistence wages, constituting a cheap labor pool that will help depress wages in western Europe and elsewhere;
  • dismantled petroleum, engineering, mining, fertilizer, and automobile industries, and various light industries, that offer no further competition with existing Western producers.

Does this strategy sound familiar? Remember the Rand Corporation plan for Syria. Were Ukraine, Donbass, and Crimea understood before the Euromaidan? What is the plan for Russia? This is where the metal meets the meat my friends. In the Balkans catastrophe the West demonized the Serbs. In Libya it was Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, in Syria it is Assad, and the pattern goes on with Vladimir Putin as the biggest trophy head to put on some banker’s den wall. If that sounds contrite, I am sorry, this is the world we live in now. By the power of sleeping American citizens drugged stupid with worthless trinkets of super-capitalism – the world is being taken over by tyrants.

But what if Yugoslavia had survived? What if the great ethnic-socialist experiment had worked? It’s safe to say our world would be totally different today. For one thing, the EU with the Non-Aligned Movement of nation states (NAM) operating within its current boarders would be less potent, far less influential geo-politically. All of Europe might have led to Belgrade, and from there into the six republics now fighting for crumbs from Brussels. To galvanize how my fantasy Yugoslavian nation might look, I’ll leave you with the relative economic situations of current Balkans states, and the Yugoslavia GDP in 1991, positioned at 24th among world nations. As former President Ronald Reagan used to say; “Are you better off?”

As of 2015, Bosnia and Herzegovina is 112th economically, and conditions are worsening. Still the poor Bosnians think joining the EU will solve all problems. Croatia is currently 76th in the world economically, but Bloomberg just named the country one of the 10 worst on Earth. Macedonia ranks 130th, with agriculture being the only real industry, unemployment in the country is above 30%. Montenegro, despite the sheer beauty of the tiny country, is 149th among world nations. Like some other former republics, Montenegro believes EU ascension will solve everything. Serbia is ranked 87th in GDP, and seems more stable in many regards than her contemporaries. Slovenia ranks 81st in GDP, and is for some a potential miracle if tourism and other industries continue to grow there.

From a personal perspective, I recall a moment of prosperity in the former Yugoslavia, the 1984 Olympics at Sarajevo. Those were the first Winter Olympics ever held in a Communist nation, as I recall. The torch relay through Dubrovnik, then Split, Ljubljana, Zagreb, and countless other Yugoslavian cities, culminated in a proud moment in Sarajevo. The names of the gold medal athletes there have become blurred in my mind now, but the little wolf mascot Vučko, created by the Slovenian painter Jože Trobec is framed in my mind’s eye for some reason. A cartoon here in Yugoslavia at the time, the little wolf represented the people of these Balkans nations well. Wolves are prominent in Yugoslavian fables, they are the embodiment of courage and strength and the also symbolize winter. And as I type these final letters, I think about what the courageous and strong people of Yugoslavia might have won had their destinies not been interrupted by outsiders? All I know is, 24th place is a far cry from 149th in the Olympics. As for Yugoslavia, that nation is gone forever.

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 45

 

February 24, 2016

Is NATO sprawl aggravating a 'Serbian Spring'?

rt.com

Is NATO sprawl aggravating a ‘Serbian Spring’?

A symbolic treaty between NATO and the Serbian government has spurred mass demonstrations and calls for an alliance with Russia. With pending elections offering a choice between bad and worse, the frustrated populace is channeling the spirit of 1941.

Last week, the Serbian parliament voted overwhelmingly to ratify a treaty with NATO’s Support and Procurement Organization (NSPO). President Tomislav Nikolic signed it into law on Friday. On Saturday, thousands of protesters marched through the capital, shouting slogans against NATO and calling on Russia for help.

Some have even compared the treaty with NATO to the old Kingdom of Yugoslavia entering the Tripartite Pact in March 1941; back then, a popular revolt against the Pact triggered a long-planned military coup and enraged Hitler to the point where he delayed the attack on the Soviet Union to “wipe Yugoslavia off the map.”

What gives? According to Serbian military experts, the agreement merely creates “logistical interoperability” between Serbia and the alliance. It is the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), signed by the previous government and ratified by this one last March, that actually allows NATO personnel free passage across Serbia and immunity from taxes, fees and prosecution. Yet the NSPO deal may be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

Read more

Serbian outrage stems from being under NATO’s heel over the past two decades, from the alliance’s intervention in the Yugoslav wars, to the bombing of Serbia in 1999 and the subsequent occupation of its province of Kosovo. NATO powers have been at the forefront of demanding Serbia recognize Kosovo’s “independence,” declared in 2008.

“Our policy is clear,” Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic argued, “Serbia is an independent, sovereign state that wishes to cooperate with both the Russian Federation and NATO.”

The response of most Serbians to this is, frankly, unprintable. First elected on a platform of patriotism, the increasingly unpopular Vucic has spearheaded a policy of capitulating to the endless demands from the EU, US and NATO, while tempering it with symbolic gestures of friendship towards Russia. Opportunities for Serbia to profit from its neutrality by trading with Russia usually get ruined by the government’s sanctioning of fraud and dirty tricks – such as labeling EU apples as Serbian to duck the agricultural sanctions.

Read more

Even if Vucic is some sort of genius statesman, balancing Serbia precariously between Moscow and Washington – as some cautious columnists have argued – after four years of this kind of behavior, the general public simply does not believe it any more.

Vucic himself has a habit of praising the “Protestant work ethic” and telling the Serbs to “be more like Germans.” It does not help that his “reformation” from a Radical to a Progressive – literally, as those were the names of his parties – was midwifed by the US, and that he is widely perceived as but the latest in a long line of stooges at the helm of Serbia, ever since the October 2000 coup that served as the template for all “color revolutions” thereafter.

In the upcoming general election in April, Serbians will have a choice between Vucic and those who think he is not capitulating to NATO fast enough. The few parties that oppose the country’s slow digestion by the NATO-EU Leviathan could not even get into parliament. They have alleged voter fraud, but even if there was none, almost all the media in the country are owned by pro-NATO interests, and blast their messages accordingly.

Read more

 

One of the more cynical arguments in favor of the latest pact is that Serbia “needs NATO to protect the Serbs” in Kosovo. Critics swiftly countered that it was NATO who delivered the province to the terrorist KLA, causing the exodus of a quarter of a million non-Albanians; it was NATO who failed to protect Serb villages, churches, and cemeteries, desecrated or dynamited or torched by the hundreds since 1999; and it was NATO that for three days in March 2004 failed to stop the 50,000-strong mob from rampaging across the province. Were it not for NATO, the residents of Kosovo would not need ’protecting’ from the KLA to begin with.

Allying with Russia would make Serbia a target, NATO partisans argue, adding that the country needs to join NATO to avoid another 1999. “We’re either at the table, or on the menu,” says Vuk Draskovic, once considered a nationalist and now a fervent member of the NATO cult.

Many Serbs point out the same reasoning was used by the government that tried to capitulate to Hitler in 1941. “We were never a Russian client, yet we’ve been in NATO’s sights for over two decades now,” wrote one dissident blogger. “I can’t see how it could get any worse.”

Friday’s killing of two Serbian diplomats – held as hostages by Islamic State terrorists in Libya – by US bombs only underscores this insane logic of insisting that one’s tormentor is really a benefactor, which the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman rightly compared to the “Stockholm syndrome.”

So, Saturday’s protest was not about a minor administrative treaty, but about a decades-long train of lies and abuses. It was a cry for help from a people who believed the seductive lie that the 1990s were their fault and that NATO, EU and “liberal democracy” would fix everything, only to realize that everything they touched turned to ash. These people have watched with horror as the West used Serbia’s surrender to justify the invasions of Iraq and Libya and support fanatics in Syria and Ukraine. But the latter two examples also showed them that resistance is not futile – not anymore.

Nebojsa Malic, for RT

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

 

February 20, 2016

Why Serbia is Strengthening its Alliance with Russia

huffingtonpost.com

Why Serbia is Strengthening its Alliance with Russia

On January 11, 2016, Russia's Deputy Prime Minister, Dmitri Rogozin announced Moscow's intention to arm Serbia with sophisticated weaponry, including S-300 surface-to-air missiles. Belgrade's decision to deepen military cooperation with Russia caused controversy in Brussels, as Serbia in recent months has taken tangible steps towards accession to the European Union.

Serbian president Tomislav Nikolic has insisted that Serbia's strengthened alliance with Russia will not compromise its EU membership aspirations. But difficulties in balancing relations between the increasingly hostile European and Russian blocs, and long-standing tensions over Kosovo's status are significant roadblocks to eventual Serbian EU membership.

Serbia's contradictory foreign policy strategy of simultaneously expanding linkages with Russia and the EU can be explained by two main factors. First, Serbia's views on state sovereignty align more closely with Russian perspectives than the Western consensus. This normative synergy caused Belgrade to implicitly support Russian conduct towards Ukraine and Turkey. Second, Russia, to combat its international isolation and to partially offset the breakdown of relations with Turkey, is offering Serbia the opportunity to bolster its economic and military development, without the conditions typically imposed by Western economic institutions.

Serbia and Russia: Normative Partners on State Sovereignty

Since the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, Serbia has defied the Western consensus on state sovereignty, by arguing that Kosovo is an "integral" part of its territory. This contrasts with the 23/28 EU member states and 24/28 NATO members who have recognized it as an independent country.

Russia has consistently supported Serbia's position on Kosovo. In 2008, Vladimir Putin warned that the legitimization of Kosovo's declaration of independence would destabilize the international system. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described unrest in Tibet, and Albanian autonomy demands in Macedonia as pernicious consequences of Kosovo's de facto secession from Serbia. The Kremlin's view that the EU was violating international law and Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo, and placing ethnic Serbian enclaves at risk of violence, consolidated the long-standing Russia-Serbia partnership.

The 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea gave Serbia an opportunity to reward Russia for its resolute support for Belgrade's position on Kosovo. Initially, however, Serbia's position appeared unclear. Immediately after the annexation, Serbian Prime Minister Alexander Vucic emphasized his country's support for the territorial integrity of Ukraine. This solidarity built on the deep cultural, economic and humanitarian partnership between Serbia and Ukraine, that was highlighted by former Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko's 2009 statement supporting Serbia's WTO membership aspirations. Vucic's statement matched Viktor Yanukovych's 2010 opposition to Kosovo's independence, to uphold international law and avoid an Abkhazia-style frozen conflict in the Balkans.

But Serbia's refusal to impose sanctions on Russia and right-wing political leaders' open support for Crimea's re-incorporation with Russia diluted the credibility of Vucic's commitment. Belgrade has provided informal military assistance to pro-Russian separatists in Donbas, with Serbian paramilitaries fighting openly in Donetsk. Many European policymakers believe that Serbia regards Crimea's union with Ukraine after 1991 to be an illegal action analogous to Kosovo's unilateral secession. As Russia is a vital international partner supporting Serbia's position on state sovereignty, Serbia pledged its unerring loyalty to Moscow to reaffirm its historic alliance, even though this pact could greatly complicate its EU accession.

More recently, Serbia expressed rhetorical solidarity with Russia after Turkey's November 2015 shoot-down of a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 plane that was allegedly flying over Turkish airspace. President Nikolic blamed the incident on Turkey, claiming that the Turkish military had frequently violated the airspace of Greece and Syria with impunity, and questioned the credibility of Turkey's commitment to counter-terrorism.

Serbia subsequently sought to cool tensions with Turkey, by emphasizing the two countries' economic partnership and by offering mediation assistance in the Turkey-Russia dispute. But these diplomatic overtures obscure the shared suspicion of NATO military activities between Belgrade and Moscow, which revealed itself in Nikolic's condemnation of Turkish actions. The distrust engendered by NATO's bombing of Serbian territory during the 1999 Kosovo War partially explains Nikolic's unwillingness to accept NATO's argument that Turkey had a legitimate right to self-defense against Russia, and has caused Serbia to view Russia as a more trustworthy military partner.

The Economic Foundations of Serbia's Partnership with Russia

Since the imposition of Western sanctions against Russia in 2014, the Kremlin has tightened its economic linkages with Serbia. Serbia remains heavily dependent on Russian energy exports, as 80% of its gas imports come from Russia. Russia has exploited this dependency by charging Serbia $340 per thousand cubic meters of natural gas, a rate that is considerably higher than what Moscow charges Hungary and Ukraine. While Serbia has actively courted Western investment to improve its energy infrastructure, its lack of alternative short-term energy partners has forced it to accept Russia's pricier exports.

To offset Serbian qualms over Russia's dominance of the Serbian gas market, Russia has invested considerably in Serbia's economic diversification and development. This assistance became particularly important after February 2012, when the IMF temporarily suspended its loan deals with Serbia as retaliation for Belgrade's refusal to comply with IMF targets. After Serbia's IMF dispute, Russia expanded investment in Serbia's infrastructure. Putin pledged the expansion of the South Stream pipeline in 2012 and offered to lend Serbia $800 million for a railway track between Belgrade and Pancevo.

Russia's provision of credit to Serbia during a period of tension with the Western economic establishment also extended to the heavy industry and defense sectors. Russia established a humanitarian center in Southern Serbia to facilitate Serbia's purchase of Russian military equipment. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) regarded these deals as steps towards making Serbia a Russian corner in Europe, akin to Cyprus.

The Serbian state media's coverage of investment flows has also benefited Russia's image amongst the Serbian people. Substantially more attention given to Russian development aid relative to EU funds in the years after Slobodan Milosevic's demise in 2000, caused 47% of Serbians to regard Russia as its main economic backer compared to 28% for the EU in 2014. This statistic was misrepresentation of reality, as the EU provided substantially more economic assistance to Serbia than Russia after the devastating spring 2014 floods.

The Serbian public's increased recognition of the value of the EU assistance over the course of 2015 could explain Russia's recent expansion of ties with Belgrade. As Moscow finds itself increasingly isolated internationally, Putin wants to entrench the idea of a Russia-Serbia special relationship at a time when an increasing proportion of Serbians believe that European integration is the ideal way forward for their country.

Russia's strained relations with Turkey following the shoot-down crisis could also benefit the Serbian economy. The Russian state media fuelled speculation in January 2016 that Russian automobile exports to Turkey could be re-routed to Serbia. Russia could also expand trade with Serbia's agriculture market to gain access to produce that Turkey has been banned from selling to Russian markets. As Serbia's economy is still undergoing a recovery from a 2013-2015 recession that reduced its productivity by 10% , short-term Russian investment is very appealing for Serbian policymakers.

In light of the economic benefits associated with Serbian trade with Russia and the compatibility of the two countries on sovereignty norms, it is unsurprising that Serbia is tightening its partnership with Russia simultaneously with its pursuit of EU accession. The crises in Ukraine and Turkey have tested the viability of Serbia's foreign policy balancing act, and Belgrade's refusal to commit to one side during a period of hostile EU-Russia relations leaves its economic prospects hanging in the balance.

 

Mass Anti-NATO Protest Held in Serbia (VIDEO)

sputniknews.com

Mass Anti-NATO Protest Held in Serbia (VIDEO)

Sputnik

Europe

19:24 20.02.2016(updated 20:52 20.02.2016) Get short URL

BELGRADE (Sputnik) – Patriotic activists of the Republic of Serbia gathered in front of the Russian Embassy in Belgrade to express peaceful opposition to their country’s cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on Saturday. 

Up to 2,000 people carrying Serbian and Russian flags gathered outside the Russian mission in the Serbian capital, according to unofficial estimates. Many expressed indignation over the death of two Serbian diplomats kidnapped last November who were killed in US airstrikes on Libya on Friday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LRiaXe2yCTE

That day, Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic signed a confirmation of his country’s cooperation plan with the Western alliance. Serbian lawmakers ratified a diplomatic immunity agreement and logistical support for NATO representatives on February 12.

Serbia was among the former Yugoslav republics to be invited to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace program – the alliance’s pre-membership program – in 2006.

© REUTERS/ Sabratha municipality media office

It agreed to deepen cooperation with NATO through the Individual Partnership Action Plan in January 2015, which took effect in March 2015, shaping educational and technical cooperation, joint exercises and efforts to form a positive image of the alliance among Serbian society.

NATO carried out a 1999 bombing campaign over Serbia in support of the Kosovo Albanian population.

Serbia is also an observer state in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and an associate member in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

In 2007, Serbian lawmakers adopted a resolution upholding the republic’s neutral status toward military alliances.

Russia views NATO’s eastward expansion as a threat to its national security and a breach of the military bloc’s post-Soviet pledge not to encroach on Russian borders.

 

January 31, 2016

Time to heed warnings of Syriza’s ex-finance minister Yanis Varoufakis

rt.com

Time to heed warnings of Syriza's ex-finance minister Yanis Varoufakis

After serving in the Georgia Legislature, in 1992, Cynthia McKinney won a seat in the US House of Representatives. She was the first African-American woman from Georgia in the US Congress. In 2005, McKinney was a vocal critic of the government's response to Hurricane Katrina and was the first member of Congress to file articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. In 2008, Cynthia McKinney won the Green Party nomination for the US presidency.

The former finance minister of Greece says people must work to save democracy from capitalism, otherwise the voracious economic system will completely devour the fragile political philosophy, he warned in a recent talk.

I was in attendance at a conference in Beirut last year when it was reported that Syriza, the left-wing Greek party, originally founded in 2004, had just done the impossible—or at least what we all thought was impossible. There was talk about ending austerity measures and Greece leaving the Eurozone: Grexit. Surely, a people's victory in the US was just around the bend?

At that moment, I felt hope that Athens would lead Europe and finally the United States in a people-focused policy that rejected neoliberalism and the nostrums of banksters. Indeed, after Syriza surged in Greece, Podemos made its appearance in Spain; Jeremy Corbyn won the nod for leader of the UK Labour Party; a leftist governing coalition was voted into power in Portugal. Suddenly, it seemed that the people finally had austerity on the run. The events in Europe gave me hope for a resurgence of progressive politicians in the US.

And then the unthinkable occurred: Syriza dashed my hopes when they sat down at the negotiating table with Germany and the banksters to ease terms on the repayment of Greece's debts to the EU. Yes, after the Greek people had voted Syriza into power, and then voted a resounding "No" to austerity policies in a referendum, Syriza was now at the bargaining table, agreeing to their demands. I couldn't believe what I was witnessing: A real-time betrayal of its own values as well as the people by a political party created to be anti-austerity.

I asked those around me, "What part of 'n-o' don't they understand?" Confused and disappointed, I reached out to my favorite experts on these matters, Michael Hudson and Ellen Brown, and they comforted me with the opinion that my instincts were right on the money: Syriza did not have to take the course of austerity that it had chosen.

The year 2015 started with hope as a result of the Syriza victory; it ended with the betrayed Greeks throwing firebombs to protest EU-imposed pension reform while Syriza privatized fourteen airports and sold them to the Germans as part of the bailout scheme.

Meanwhile, internally, Syriza was coming apart over the deal; the angst that I felt as an outsider was also shared by some inside the party. Eventually some members left the party and the government. One of those who left was Yaris Varoufakas, who is still fighting for a more equitable economic system, which will ultimately destroy capitalism if things continue the way they are, he has warned.

In a December TED Talk in Geneva (Capitalism will eat democracy — unless we speak up), Yaroufakas asked the audience to imagine two very high piles of money, one representative of debt and the other of idle cash stashed away by the wealthy. He said that there is approximately $5 trillion dollars sitting around doing absolutely nothing to invigorate the economies of the US the UK and the Eurozone; stagnant wages, unemployment, low aggregate demand, increased pessimism are the end result. He says that this is his main complaint about capitalism.

Read more

 

According to Varoufakis, all of the idle cash sloshing around should be invested into people and the things people need to make the economy grow and enhance their well-being. Investments in technology today can protect the Earth today and tomorrow.

However, the former finance minister did not limit his talk to discussions about the economy. He also waded into the murky depths of politics, where he issued a wake-up call to democracy.

"Capitalism will eat democracy unless the people speak up," he warned.

He told the audience that today's practice of "democracy" preserves the economic sphere for the few and separates it from the political sphere in which the many can participate. This separation of the economic and political spheres has led to, in his words, "the colonizing of the political sphere" by the economic sphere. This, according to Varoufakis, explains why Western democracies no longer work for the people. He believes that power has now migrated from the political sphere to the economic sphere.

I decided to test that theory on the 2016 US Presidential elections, and something unusual emerged: In large measure, individuals of immense wealth are the private backers of the public political personalities vying to win the Presidential election in November 2016.

For example, Marco Rubio has Norman Braman as his closest and most important backer. Hillary Clinton has Haim Saban as one of her top donors; Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire powerhouse who kept Newt Gingrich's presidential aspirations alive long after they were comatose, is still trying to decide which candidate he will back in the Republican primary.

At the same time, billionaire Donald Trump is self-financing his Presidential bid and intimates of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg leaked that he is willing to spend one billion dollars in his still-to-be-announced independent presidential run. This is the kind of relationship about which Varoufakis is speaking. He says that the economic sphere has been cannibalizing the political sphere to such an extent that it is even now undermining itself.

"Capitalism is like a population of predators that are so successful at decimating the prey that they must feed on, that in the end they starve," Varoufakis said during his TED Global talk. "Similarly, the economic sphere has been colonizing and cannibalizing the political sphere to such an extent that it is undermining itself, causing economic crisis."

He concludes that the more capitalism succeeds in taking the demos out of democracy the more inequality will rise and the economy will collapse.

His solution? Put the demos back into democracy and reunite the economic and political spheres with the political sphere in charge. In this space, I have called for the transformation of our economy to align more with our values. I have asked the people to dream again and imagine a better political system that actually solves the problems that confront us all today. I am working now for the elimination of the right versus left paradigm and for all of us to try to wrap our heads around a right versus wrong, values-based way of assessing public policy positions today.

In other words, ask: "Is it right for US policy to still be the greatest purveyor of violence on the planet today, as Dr. King characterized it in the 1960s?" And if we can agree that the answer is "No," then what can we do together to change that? I am willing to work with anyone who wants to change the violence profile of the United States—to the rest of the world and also at home. And therefore, I'm still hoping that Varoufakis's voice, combined with that of the other leftist parties now governing key countries in Europe, will inspire the people of the US to believe in themselves once again and the better, more peaceful future that we can create—together.

Varoufakis has unleashed a warning; I hope many will heed his call.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

 

January 17, 2016

Obama Changes Tack on Russia, Calls up Putin

Obama Changes Tack on Russia,  Calls up Putin 

 

By M.K. Bhadrakumar on January 14, 2016

http://atimes.com/2016/01/obama-changes-tack-on-russia-calls-up-putin/

 

The US President Barack Obama sprang a New Year surprise on his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin by telephoning him Wednesday night. It was a double surprise since the Russian New Year Holiday Week is ending on Thursday, January 14, and Obama rarely makes such gestures; and, secondly, the call signified a virtual U-turn just a day after the US president had made some unfriendly remarks about the Kremlin's policies and caricatured Russia as undermining the international system.

 

The Kremlin described the Putin-Obama conversation as frank and constructive.  The White House readout make it clear that the two presidents held a detailed discussion on the situation in Ukraine and the Middle East tensions (Syrian conflict and Saudi-Iran rift) and North Korea's dangerous nuclear brinkmanship. It was indeed a substantial phone conversation, signifying a Russian-American constructive engagement.

 

The Kremlin readout is an unusually detailed one, conveying a high degree of satisfaction, while the White House readout underscored that Obama's intention was to discuss with Putin the "full implementation" of the Minsk agreement on Ukraine "by all parties", to coordinate on the upcoming UN-sponsored roadmap on Syrian transition, and to get Russia on board a unified big-power stance to pressure North Korea.

 

According to the Kremlin's version, Putin stressed the "need for Kiev's full and rigorous observance of the Minsk Agreements", in particular regarding the constitutional amendments that enable local elections to be held in the breakaway regions of Donbass. The White House maintained that on his part, Obama stressed that "the key next step" is about the two sides in Ukraine reaching agreement on the modalities of holding elections in the breakaway regions.

 

The difference over the implementation of the Minsk agreement appears to have narrowed down to a matter of the relative stress the two big powers put on what are indeed two inter-related aspects of the current situation, namely, the constitutional reform and the holding of local elections under the new legislation.

On Syria, Putin brought up "the need to create a broad coalition to fight the Islamic State and other extremist organizations" and on the criticality of avoiding "double standards" in naming the irreconcilable rebel groups that will be kept out of the purview of the peace talks. Interestingly, there was a discussion on military-to-military contacts between the US and Russia "aimed at consolidating efforts" to fight extremist groups in the Middle East.

The two presidents have called for de-escalation of the Saudi-Iran rift. They obviously share the concern that tensions may result in flashpoint at some point. If the Saudi hope was that Washington will be obliged to take sides in the rift, things are moving altogether in a different way. (The ease with which Washington and Tehran defused a potentially ugly stand-off over the detention of 10 American sailors by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards this week suggests a deepening US-Iranian engagement, which cannot be lost on Riyadh.)

 

On North Korea, notwithstanding the cordial ties between Russia and that country, Moscow is backing Washington's tough approach as regards meting out a "harsh international response" (Kremlin's words) to the reported testing of a hydrogen bomb by Pyongyang. Russia, of course, disfavours any precipitate military actions by the US but has reason to feel gratified that the Obama administration has taken the issue to the UN Security Council and is not acting as a lone ranger.

 

What does Obama hope to convey through this rare gesture of phoning up Putin amidst the Russian New Year festivities? Indeed, he felt it prudent on second thoughts not to cause annoyance to Moscow at a juncture when the US badly needs Russia's cooperation to tackle a host of regional issues. In sum, he has hastened to correct the impression he put forth in his 2016 State of the Union Address on Tuesday regarding Russia as a pernicious entity in the international system. Obama signaled the following:

  • The US is no longer playing a behind-the-scenes role of inciting its proxy government in Kiev to drag its feet on the full implementation of the Minsk agreement (which is a precondition for the West to lift sanctions against Russia).
  • The US stance does "see Syria fundamentally very similarly" with Russia – to use Secretary of State John Kerry's words – and the two countries need to work together in resolving the conflict. Kerry was, perhaps, more explicit after his talks in the Kremlin on December 20: "We (US) are not trying to do a regime change. We are not engaged in a colour revolution".
  • The US will not take sides in the Saudi-Iran rift; nor is it seeking to take advantage of a flare-up in sectarian strife in the Muslim Middle East.
  • The US recognizes that Russia's cooperation is necessary and useful to pursue a "strong and united international response" to the North Korean regime.

The Kremlin described the Putin-Obama conversation as "frank and constructive". Indeed, differences exist between the US and Russia, including some serious differences such as on NATO's expansion or the US' missile defense system. The Russian experience so far has been that the US played a spoiler's role in Ukraine and has not really come to terms with the stunning reality of Russian military presence in Syria. Besides, there is no let-up whatsoever discernible in the US official media propaganda against Russia, which is very often highly personalized attacks on Putin.

 

However, if Obama has really embarked upon a "constructive" engagement with Putin, the latter can be expected to respond positively. Putin never tires of pointing out that the New Cold War is a choice that Obama needs to make and that Russia by itself is averse to.

 

The coming weeks will be keenly watched as to how the US-Russia engagement actually works on the ground. Both Ukraine and Syria are immediate testing grounds. The local elections in Donbass cannot wait much longer and the ceasefire and the transition in Syria is also on the cards.

 

But looking ahead, the real touchstone will be any incipient signs of the easing of western sanctions against Russia. Any such signs would go a long way to confirm that Obama has had misgivings about his administration's messianic mission to 'punish' Russia, which Russia will never accept, and which can only create more turbulence in a world that is already in turmoil

January 08, 2016

New Croatian President denies Serb's right to exist

theremustbejustice.wordpress.com

New Croatian President denies Serb's right to exist

Newly elected Croatian president Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic, who was the candidate of the conservative (i.e. neoUstasha Croatian Democratic Union HDZ, who ethnically cleansed majority of Serbs and finally, with the help of US/NATO, managed to occupy Republic of Srpska Krajina) , at the election on Sunday was not only the choice of the Croatian people, but also of NATO, where she had worked as assistant secretary general.

The election results revealed a strong NATO influence in Croatian, rigid anti Serb, Nazi – like policy, and that the citizen option suffered a defeat in Croatia's  society

"I hope that, despite that negative rhetoric from the 1990 she adopted as well as outbreak of national extremism and chouvinism during the election campaign, the Croatian president will respect the rights of the Serbs,"   leader of the Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) Sandra Raskovic Ivic remarked.

During the war in Croatia, which erupted during HDZ's rule and after its secession from the former Yugoslavia, 404,000 Serbs fled the country, leaving an estimated EUR 30 billion in property.

A huge majority of the refugees have not regained their property , pensions and shares in companies that have been privatised, therefore Serbia should insist on the implementation of the Vienna succession agreement covering the former Yugoslavia, which states that all citizens should be given back the rights they had on December 31, 1990..

Another ' verbal'  incident Kolinda made about Serbian northern province, saying that Vojvodina is a state.

Serbian Flag is "Banned Insignia" In Croatia

Three young Serbs were arrested in Vukovar  for taking photos of themselves in battle fatigues with the flag of Serbia at the entrance to Vukovar and posted the pictures  on social networks on Orthodox Christmas, January 7. 

The Vukovar police filed criminal charges against them on Saturday. Their Crime was: taking picture of themselves with Serbian flag! Meanwhile   Croats en mase shout: 'Za dom spremni'  that is Croatian version of Seig Heil!'

 

Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as usually when NATO and EU member states don't respect basic human rights os Serbs, simply overlooked,  instead of addressing to the EU and UN institutions with request to exert influence on Croatia and force that state to act in civilized manned and respect basic human rights of local Serbs.

The innocent youths were arrested as a bargaining chip in the election campaign and continuation of the political campaign in which anti-Serb attitude constitutes a very important category.

NATO granny enjoys the beach  –  Grabar Kitarovic 

It is scandalous that the Serb youths were arrested just because they took photos with the flag of the Republic of Serbia on Christmas Eve and that the police released that they were arrested because they took photos with banned insignia.

Unfortunately, all this represents continuation of the policy of forceful assimilation of Serbs in Croatia and this needs to be pointed out, Raskovic – Ivic and her party ' The Third Serbia' says, adding that Serbs in Croatia are deprived of their basic human rights, including even the right to property, alphabet and language.

What is obvious is that this former NATO assistant sec. general is elected to continue NATO policy in Balkans, i.e. further blooming of extremism, further fascisation of Croatia, and at the same time,  further humiliation of Serbs and Serbia.

Grey Carter

sources: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/who_is_who_76170.htm

http://www.telegraf.rs/vesti/1385156-skandal-u-hrvatskoj-srbi-uhapseni-jer-su-se-fotografisali-sa-srpskom-zastavom

http://www.independent.mk/articles/13270/Croatias+New+President+Should+Respect+Serbs+Rights

 

December 10, 2015

Combatting ISIS

 

COMBATTING ISIS

 

 

Is the U.S. losing a rare opportunity to foster a broad coalition of nations in this common cause?

 

by William Hessell

 

Hessell, a PhD Psychologist from UCLA with International Relations nndergrad degree, has had long years of looking at the psychological aspects of political decisions as they affect the world at large.

 

December 4, 2015

 

ISIS has emerged in the last few years as the most dangerous enemy facing major Western powers, as well as being a threat to Muslim nations and others not interested and willing to create an extremist, radical Islamist caliphate in the Middle East.  

 

Its rapid rise has astounded the West.  ISIS' military leadership has been constructed from elements of Saddam Hussein's Baathist Sunni army, which was disbanded by US occupying forces when they took over Iraq in 2003.  These military careerists were turned loose without employment, and were increasingly joined by other disaffected Sunnis in Iraq who were alienated by the Shiite government that the US had installed. They merged with radical Sunni rebel forces in Syria fighting Basher Assad's Alawite Shia government. They were also joined by other anti-western, extremist Islamic youth who otherwise might have been attracted to the now deflated al Qaeda movement. Soon the ISIS became a major military and financial force. They were able to capture large supplies of US military weaponry, as well as oil producing areas that the US-trained Iraqi army was unable to defend. 

 

ISIS's hatred of the West seems to know no bounds, and similarly shows no mercy on other Muslims who resist its overtures. It has declared war on Western nations, especially those with any history of involvement in the Middle East––and on Muslim nations and peoples that dare stand in its way.  Its prime strategies are to advance and conquer  areas of the Middle East, and now even Africa, where its reach extends by vicious attacks, and by spreading terror and fear within Western nations beyond its immediate reach.  The nations of the West, the Middle East, and much of the world, have no alternative but to respond in force.

 

Facing such a sworn enemy, a rare opportunity exists for all nations to join together in a broad, cooperative coalition––this includes even those who have various issues that tend to keep them apart.  If the major forces with reason to oppose ISIS (namely Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Kurds, other Middle Eastern Muslim nations and sects) were providing troops on the ground; with combined US, French, Russia, the UK, and Germany providing air support, ground advisors and military coordination––their power working together would be overwhelming.  Unfortunately, to date the dynamics of current multi-power politics are preventing this from happening.  

 

A major obstacle is the U.S. insistence that the removal of Assad in Syria continues as a priority of its policy.  Meanwhile the U.S. continues to support rebel terrorists groups fighting Assad, while at the same time launching attacks on ISIS in Syria. This puts the U.S. in opposition to the position of Russia, which is supporting Assad staying in power at least for the present until elections can be held.  Russia has had a long partnership with Syria and a legal military base in Syria for years which adds to Assad's military strength––Syria is the major ground force fighting ISIS in Syria today.  Turkey's motivation to fight ISIS is diminished by its ongoing conflict with Kurdish populations and other revelations coming out.  Iran is desirous of fighting ISIS and has forces on the ground in Iraq, but its diplomatic challenges with the US make any real coordination in their mutual efforts problematic.  Although Iraqi forces are weak, they are appropriately reluctant to accept US boots on the ground. The majority of local Iraqi populations are aware that the presence of Western ground forces is a major recruiting attraction for ISIS.  And on and on it goes, with a region so racked by its long history of western interference, in addition to their deep sectarian and political divisions. They have difficulty uniting even temporarily to defeat a common enemy.

 

Much of this immediate crisis, like the rise of ISIS, was created through misdirected Western involvement. Therefore, Western nations should be a major factor in its resolution, but without using ground forces to engage ISIS in land combat. Middle Eastern nations have the most at stake with the rise of ISIS.  It's necessary that they provide the ground troops to regain and hold the land that ISIS has overtaken in Syria.  Over time, only local populations can hold and maintain peace on that land. The West cannot successfully do that, and if it tries, it diminishes the motivation of regional nations and peoples from fully engaging in their own battle. The West must, however, provide the coordination, facilitation and air support necessary to ensure success. 

 

This is where current US policy is failing to demonstrate responsible leadership.  As the major instigator of the ISIS crisis––and the nation with the most military power in the region, the primary coordination role should reside with the US.  It has resisted this role against ISIS––with its priority being to replace Assad in Syria, and secondly with its strong antipathy towards Russia.  The French government, after the ISIS attack on Paris, has made it very clear, the immediate priority is on defeating ISIS, other considerations are secondary. They are in consultation with Russia to push for a broader coalition. 

 

Russia also is clear that it has been attacked by terrorists repeatedly, and that it has large Muslim populations and restive adjacent peoples which are being ignited by the terrorists. As far as Russia is concerned, extremist elements in Syria must be defeated in Syria before they come en masse to nearby Russia––and secondly, that established governments like Syria must be maintained, not take out, when threatened by extremists. Taking Assad practically guarantees that Syria will become a Caliphate.

 

Regime change and nation building by the West has failed elsewhere, why would Syria be any different?  We have only to look back at Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and others to understand this reality.  US policy remains, unfortunately, highly conflicted, and tragically is inviting conflict among the nations that should be working together against ISIS. 

 

When Russia made the decisive move to enter the fray in Syria, it seemingly out-maneuvered the months of equivocation and hesitancy of the US policy. The US response was far from welcoming to Russia's initiative.  Instead, they made a reference suggesting that our coalition was much better than that of Russia and Syria. This was hardly helpful to laying the ground work needed between the two nations, who have many reasons to learn, through experience, how to work together for a beneficial common purpose.

 

Is it too late to reverse the process?  Is it too late to model a more cooperative efforts that is desperately needed ––and in a region that has long suffered from its absence?  

 

One certainly hopes not, but the prospects are not encouraging.  The US would need to alter its stance toward Syria and Russia and provide more creative leadership. The most vocal voices in the US Congress are currently reactive, conservative and fear-dominated.  When threat and fear are paramount in the  political thinking of leadership, it produces a constrictive effect on the vision needed for sound policies.  

 

A call for change needs to arise from American citizens and it needs to be loud and clear––that is, to push for more enlightened policies. It is utterly tragic when chances for cooperation as vital as the defeat of ISIS (and the avoidance of a potential major war between the U.S. and Russia), are not acted upon and carried out to the fullest.

 

(bolding by ST to assist rapid reading)

 

 

 

 http://fortheleft.blogspot.ca/2015/12/combattling-isis-is-us-losing-rare.html

 

December 05, 2015

End the Gun Epidemic in America

nytimes.com

End the Gun Epidemic in America

The Editorial Board

 

Doug Mills/The New York Times

 

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America's elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let's be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

A Selection of Related Editorials

 

October 19, 2015

Europe is becoming an undemocratic continent where force matters more than law

theguardian.com

Europe is becoming an undemocratic continent where force matters more than law

 

Paul Mason

 

We've had the rival launches, in which cheesy celebs and tawdry men in suits swapped platitudes about Europe. Now we're going to get the letter: David Cameron is being forced to write down his demands before the other EU governments will begin negotiations. All this in preparation for a referendum whose date has not yet been set.

Writing stuff down is good – and too rarely done in international diplomacy. What you think is wrong with the EU, and what you want done about it, will vary widely depending where in Britain you live, your class, age and ideals. My hunch is that, if we all did this, and loaded the results into some vast database, the real problem with Europe would emerge. It is power – and the lack of democratic control over it.

I have no prior hostility to the EU. But the first time you have to lug TV production kit around the stairs and tunnels at Rond-Point Schuman in Brussels, beneath the unfriendly gaze of armed Belgian cops, you begin to realise how unequal power is in this semi-superstate. The architecture of power in Brussels is faceless: it seems to embody the determination to dissolve political traditions into a monolith.

The sheer size of the EU directorates makes them susceptible only to two kinds of influence: global corporations and pan-national industry lobby groups. That means, for businesses, it is almost impossible to deal with Europe unless you have mega size, or are prepared to dissolve your specific interest into a sector agenda, which will itself be mediated through layer upon layer of protocol. For individual citizens, it's worse. The only real power to influence Europe's vast bureaucratic structures has to be expressed through one of two channels: the British government and the European Court. The commission is not accountable to the parliament, and the central bank seems accountable only to Angela Merkel.

 

In the past year, on two occasions when tested, European solidarity fell apart. Critics say Greece was smashed by the European central bank that was supposed to keep it solvent. There was no democratic redress. The many millions of people who saw the protest hashtag #ThisIsACoup had no way – even indirect – to influence the actions of the commission and the European Central Bank. Then, as refugees from Syria and beyond flowed through the Balkans, two key parts of the legal architecture fell apart: the Schengen agreement, which assures free movement between some central states, was suspended. And the Dublin III treaty, which forces the deportation of migrants to their first country of entry, likewise ignored.

 

It's hard to avoid the conclusion: Europe is becoming a continent where force matters more than law. Germany forced Greece to accept a programme that will destroy its economy and strip its state of assets for the next 50 years. Half a million people forced their way across borders in a way that all forms of rhetoric against migration could not stop.That's great for them: but not for the thousands of sub-Saharan migrants trapped in violent slums across north Africa. They must rot there, simply because they do not have the power to do what the Syrians did. Businesses and politicians have also begun to understand that, in Europe, might is right. Uber, which has faced bans in Spain and had its offices raided three times in the Netherlands, has just been declared legal in the UK.

Staking a claim to a new business model then seeing if it's actually legal seems to be the new normal. In Europe, the outcome seems hit and miss. Both the action and reactions demonstated something that all Chinese city governments know: when the executive power is far away and the law lethargic, arbitrary pursuit of self-interest is the most effective course of action.

For the "stay" lobby, in the run-up to the referendum, the strongest argument will be the lack of real alternatives to EU membership. Sure, let's do 50 bilateral trade deals and sell our infrastructure to China – but don't think this comes with a return to Great Power status for the UK. It will mean the opposite – as we bargain away our diplomatic positions and our human rights agenda for the sake of investment deals and energy security.But the "everything's fine and the critics are just nationalists" argument does not wash either. Just as the euro is destroying the economies of southern Europe, the EU's institutions might destroy European solidarity.

My own written demands would focus on the imbalance of power and the tendency to use it arbitrarily. For the EU to be a legitimate state, even a weak one, its legislature must control its executive. The rule of law means swift redress and advance compliance: but European law is neither swift nor enforcable without expensive retrospective justice.The ECB's tendency to take politicised and arbitrary action is not just a problem for euro countries, but the whole project. Finally, the power to admit new states has to lie with existing populations. The EU's logo is on my passport: before the borders of that institution are extended to Iraq (via Turkey) or the Donetsk warzone (via Ukraine), I would like not just a vote but a veto.

 

This problem of power is so big that both sides in the referendum have a vested interest in ignoring it. Even if we leave, it will still be a problem for Britain if there's a power imbalance between people and institutions inside the EU. The pro-EU faction seem happy to tolerate glacial change, leaving generations of Europeans to live under a semi-democracy. The real power, meanwhile, sits with large corporations, banks and elites.

And here's the strangest thing: for all the power concentrated at the top, the EU lacks the will to operate purposefully in the multipolar global power system. We know, roughly, what the US wants. Ditto for China and Russia. Ask what Europe wants – in Ukraine, Syria or the Arctic circle – and you'll draw a blank. In a multipolar world, whose chaos zones are expanding, effective states with clear diplomatic aims and red lines matter.

Paul Mason is economics editor of Channel 4 News. @paulmasonnews