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

 

October 04, 2015

Brilliant Explanation of US Foreign Policy and What Went Down at the UN

russia-insider.com

Brilliant Explanation of US Foreign Policy and What Went Down at the UN

Rob Slane (Blogmire)

This article originally appeared at the author's excellent blog


Imagine a kid at school. An intimidating kid he is, packing a lot of muscle, used to getting his own way, and with no scruples about bullying other kids that stand in his way.

His goal is to get everyone to acknowledge his authority and leadership over them, and he's not afraid to use any number of tactics to make this happen.

Sometimes he humiliates them. Sometimes he arm-twists them. Sometimes he threatens to take their money. Sometimes he gets other kids to fight his battles for him, promising them all sorts of perks. Sometimes he even tortures some folks, if need be. And if he sees anyone standing in his way, he has no hesitation in demonising them, making up all sorts of stories up about them, turning some of the other kids against them, before going in with his gang to sort them out.

Cut to another scene and the same kid is standing up in front of the whole school giving a speech. He starts by talking of the need to solve disputes using diplomacy. He speaks about the need to stand up to what he calls "strongmen" in the school. He berates some of the bigger boys for asserting themselves in ways that contravene the rules of the school. He speaks about spreading peace and moving away from what he calls the "old ways of conflict and coercion".

Warming to his theme he says that force alone cannot impose order, but he also mentions that of course he possesses massive force and will use it if necessary. He talks about the history of the school over the past few years, telling his audience about all the bad guys out there and what they've been up to. He's careful not to mention his own part in it though, but he does manage to praise himself for the great job he's been doing of keeping order.

He moves on to talk about the importance of respecting the rules and then singles out one of the other boys in particular for breaking them, and for being a big bad bully. He acknowledges his own part in the case of Libby, who he put on a life support machine, but only to say that it was necessary for something to be done about her. He then admits that we (notice the "we") perhaps could have done more to help her rehabilitation, and that "we" will have to do more to help in the rehabilitation of those who get hospitalized in the future.

He finishes by lamenting the plight of all the poor and weak kids in the class, including some that he has hospitalized in the past, speaking about their dignity and how "we" should all work together for a brighter future. For those who swear unswerving loyalty, his speech is welcomed as putting all the trouble makers in the school in their place. Others sit there scratching their heads, wondering whether they are going mad or did they just hear the school bully paint himself as an angel of light bringing freedom and peace to the school?

A few minutes later, along comes another boy with a speech – the boy he accused of being a big bad bully – and in one sentence – "Do you realise what you have done?" – sticks a pin in the big fat hubris-filled balloon of the school's chief bully and exporter of chaos.

Listening to Barack Hussein Obama's speech at the United Nations was one of the most nauseating experiences I have ever had, and it ought to have been accompanied by a health warning. Rarely have I ever witnessed a more deluded individual manage to turn the world on its head, painting a picture of US foreign policy that is utterly divorced from the tragic reality. 

Yet, sad as that may have been, even more astonishing is the fact that events since then – which have moved at breakneck speed – have shown that the man has learnt not even an ounce of humility from the Emperor's New Clothes treatment he got from Vladimir Putin. On the contrary he seems set on continuing in his ways.

With the agenda exposed like never before, and with their Middle East policy lying in ruins, you might have thought there'd be some sort of contrition and even radio silence from Washington and its global media outlets. Not a bit of it. No sooner had Russian planes got off the ground (perhaps even sooner), at the request of the Government of Syria, we were told that 33 civilians had been killed, including children, and that Russia was not targeting ISIS but the US-trained rebels.

I reserved judgement for a while. In these days of reckless propaganda, unverified claims and trial by social media, it is right to be cautious, especially when the alleged incident is so horrible. Nevertheless, my first thought was that it was mighty quick of the western media to tell us how many civilians and children died literally minutes after an airstrike in a warzone. All the more remarkable since they seem to have been unable to tell us this sort of thing when it has happened because of Saudi Arabia's bombing campaign against Yemen.

But it didn't take long for the claim to be shown to be false. A Tweet put out by the White Helmets organization, apparently showing a picture of a man carrying a dead child out of rubble after Russian airstrikes, turned out to be a fake, the picture having been taken several days prior to the Russian action.

What about the claim of Russia targeting US-backed "rebels" rather than ISIS targets? The first question that springs to mind is this: Since the US and its allies seem to be so clear about which targets the Russian planes have been hitting, and since they are so clear that they are not hitting the right targets, presumably they must have the military intelligence to know where the "right" targets actually are. In which case, what exactly have they been doing out there for the last year?

A couple of answers to that question spring to mind. Firstly, they've been violating the sovereignty of a nation that never gave them permission to be there. And I must say that the nausea generated by Barack Obama's UN address is matched only by the nausea generated in the last year upon hearing these globalists, these neo-Trotskyite world revolutionaries, who despise the idea of national sovereignty, berating Russia over its alleged violations of sovereignty.

The other answer to the question of what they have been doing for the last year is not very much at all. Target practice in the desert maybe, but that's about all. They certainly haven't been tackling ISIS, for the simple reason that they need ISIS to serve their real purpose, which is the removal of the Syrian Government.

Their claim that Russia has been targeting "moderate" Syrian rebels is especially absurd. Less than a month ago, General Lloyd Austin, Commander of US Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that so far, the US had trained four or five "moderate" Syrian rebels to take on ISIS. You heard that right. Not four or five thousand. Not even four or five hundred. No, just four or five. Less than ten in other words. But apparently the Russians have now been targeting them. All four or five of them!

Or could it be that the "moderate" Syrian rebels that that the Russians have been targeting are the ones that were trained via a covert CIA programme since at least 2012? Very probably, but if so Russia's actions have further exposed the diabolical US policy for what it really is, since most of these "moderates" are known to have ended up either in ISIS, or in groups like the al-Nusra Front (or al-Qaeda in Syria as they are also known).

So when Barack Obama said in his address that "we have demonstrated over more than a decade of relentless pursuit of al-Qaeda, we will not be outlasted by extremists", would he care to explain how it is that days after he said this, we are now meant to be lamenting the fact that the Russians have apparently been targeting not just ISIS, but also groups like the al-Nusra Front, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria? Our allies, huh? 

Back in the days of the Soviet Union, the most potent weapon the West had against the tyranny of communism was simply to tell the truth about it. No need to lie, though of course there was a lot of that going on too. The Soviet Union, by contrast, needed its Pravda to feed people with lies and distortions.

Today the boot is firmly on the other foot. The western complaint about Russian lies and propaganda utterly misses this simple point: the most potent weapon Russia has against the tyranny of US neo-Trotskyist globalism is not to lie about it, but to simply tell the truth about it.

This is why at the UN, Putin's Pin was so successful in bursting Barack's Balloon. He didn't need to lie to make the point. Rather he simply told the truth about what they had done, and the effect was powerful.

Yet far from backing down, the West is now cranking up the lie machine to maximum volume. It won't end well. Their lies are now finding them out, and there is only so much lying to cover up lying to cover up lying you can get away with before your whole narrative collapses in upon itself.

As for the foreign policy pursued by the United States and its allies for the past couple of decades, it has been weighed in the balances, and has been found wanting.

 

October 03, 2015

Sott Exclusive: Full unedited text of Vladimir Putin's interview with Charlie Rose: What CBS left out

Sott Exclusive: Full unedited text of Vladimir Putin's interview with Charlie Rose: What CBS left out

Harrison Koehli
Sott.net
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:14 UTC

 

© Presidential Press and Information Office

 

The day before his much-anticipated address to the UN General Assembly on Monday, CBS broadcast Charlie Rose's interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin for its season premiere of 60 Minutes. Understandably, the interview was cut and edited to fit in the 20-minute slot available in the program. But now that the full transcript has been made available on the Kremlin website, it's fascinating to see just what was cut. We're including the full transcript below, with comments identifying which parts were not included in the final broadcast, or as special online clips.

From single sentences to entire exchanges, some of the exclusions are noteworthy. For example, practically the whole of Putin's commentary on the Minsk agreements was not aired. Nor were Putin's pointed comments on Libya and Syria, his observation that the U.S.'s actions in those countries was a blatant violation of international law, and his suggestion that "somebody wants to use either certain units of ISIS or ISIS in general in order to overthrow al-Assad and only then think about how to get rid of ISIS." Other exchanges, such as Putin's views on sanctions and gay rights, were broadcast online, but not in the final program.

You can view what CBS chose to broadcast on their website, and read the relevant transcript of their translation, here.

 

CONTINUED….http://www.sott.net/article/302911-Sott-Exclusive-Full-unedited-text-of-Vladimir-Putins-interview-with-Charlie-Rose-What-CBS-left-out

August 26, 2015

Mass Migration: What Is Driving the Balkan Exodus?

 

Mass Migration: What Is Driving the Balkan Exodus?

By Susanne Koelbl, Katrin Kuntz and Walter Mayr

Armend Nimani/ DER SPIEGEL

More than a third of all asylum-seekers arriving in Germany come from Albania, Kosovo and Serbia. Young, poor and disillusioned with their home countries, they are searching for a better future. But almost none of them will be allowed to stay.

·         

·         

·         

·         

When Visar Krasniqi reached Berlin and saw the famous image on Bernauer Strasse -- the one of the soldier jumping over barbed wire into the West -- he knew he had arrived. He had entered a different world, one that he wanted to become a part of. What he didn't yet know was that his dream would come to an end 11 months later, on Oct. 5, 2015. By then, he has to leave, as stipulated in the temporary residence permit he received.

Krasniqi is not a war refugee, nor was he persecuted back home. In fact, he has nothing to fear in his native Kosovo. He says that he ran away from something he considers to be even worse than rockets and Kalashnikovs: hopelessness. Before he left, he promised his sick mother in Pristina that he would become an architect, and he promised his fiancée that they would have a good life together. "I'm a nobody where I come from, but I want to be somebody."

But it is difficult to be somebody in Kosovo, unless you have influence or are part of the mafia, which is often the same thing. Taken together, the wealth of all parliamentarians in Kosovo is such that each of them could be a millionaire. But Krasniqi works seven days a week as a bartender, and earns just €200 ($220) a month.

But a lack of prospects is not a recognized reason for asylum, which is why Krasniqi's application was initially denied. The 30,000 Kosovars who have applied for asylum in Germany since the beginning of the year are in similar positions. And the Kosovars are not the only ones. This year, the country has seen the arrival of 5,514 Macedonians, 11,642 Serbians, 29,353 Albanians and 2,425 Montenegrins. Of the 196,000 people who had filed an initial application for asylum in Germany by the end of July, 42 percent are from the former Yugoslavia, a region now known as the Western Balkans.

The exodus shows the wounds of the Balkan wars have not yet healed. Slovenia and Croatia are now members of the European Union, but Kosovo, which split from Serbia and became prematurely independent in 2008, carves out a pariah existence. Serbia is heavily burdened with the unresolved Kosovo question. The political system in Bosnia-Hercegovina is on the brink of collapse, 20 years after the end of the war there. And Macedonia, long the post-Yugoslavia model nation, has spent two decades in the waiting rooms of the EU and NATO, thanks to Greek pressure in response to a dispute over the country's name. The consequences are many: a lack of investment, failing social welfare systems, corruption, organized crime, high unemployment, poverty, frustration and rage.

Losing Confidence

A survey by Germany's Friedrich Ebert Foundation found that close to two-thirds of 14-to-29-year-olds want to leave Albania, as do more than half of those in the same age group from Kosovo and Macedonia. They have lost all confidence in their young democracies, and they dream of a better life.

They apply for asylum in Europe because that is the only way to obtain a residence permit. But almost all applications are ultimately denied. In 2014, 0.2 percent of Serbians were recognized, 1.1 percent of Kosovars and 2.2 percent of Albanians. One of the topics of discussion at the next asylum summit in Berlin on Sept. 9 will be whether Albania, Montenegro and Kosovo should be added to the list of "safe countries of origin" along with Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Hercegovina. The hope is that changing the rules will encourage fewer people to migrate to Germany from the Balkans.

DER SPIEGEL

Map: Where the asylum seekers come from.

And there are, indeed, hardly any reasons to grant asylum to migrants from the Balkans. Even human rights organizations have few objections ton classifying these countries as "safe," with the exceptions that apply to minorities like the Sinti and Roma, as well as homosexuals. But is this a way to stop the hopeless from coming? What are people like Visar Krasniqi running away from? And what is political security worth to someone who is poor?

The search for answers takes us to Albania and Kosovo, the two poorest Balkan countries and the sources of the largest number of asylum seekers in recent months. And to Serbia, which has been classified as a "safe country of origin" for the last year.

Kosovo: A Country Like a Cage

Vučitrn is a small city north of Pristina that holds a sad record: Almost a tenth of its of 70,000 people have left for -- or have already returned from -- Germany. The city's largest employer, a galvanization plant, shut down last year and the exodus began soon thereafter. Some residents sold their houses or jewelry to pay for the trip; all went into debt. Suddenly no one wanted to stay in Vučitrn anymore.

The migrants took buses to Subotica on the Serbian-Hungarian border. Then a trafficker took groups of 60 to 70 people at a time on an eight-hour trek through the forest into Hungary, circumventing the border post. "It felt like all of Kosovo was there," says Teuta Kelmende, 30, an attractive woman with high cheekbones and blue eyes. Wiping away a tear, she describes how she pulled her daughter along with her in the coldness of February. She scrolls through photos on her smartphone: of the hotel in Serbia, the train ride to Austria, the family sitting on a bus in the southwestern German state of Baden-Württemberg, bound for a migrant reception camp.

Kelmende and her husband live in the house of her husband's parents in a village near Vučitrn. They own one cow. She dreams of learning to become a hairdresser and he dreams of making more than the €15 a day he takes in driving an illegal taxi. In January, they heard the news on television that Germany was seeking foreign workers and accepting refugees. They borrowed €3,000 from relatives and left.

Their dream ended a few weeks ago, and Kelmende and her husband, like so many others, are back in Vučitrn. On this day, she is sitting in the social welfare office. An international aid organization is looking for an assistant, and Kelmende is hoping to get the job. She is wearing lipstick and a chiffon blouse for the interview.

"We deceived ourselves," says Kelmende, referring to their trip to Germany.

But perhaps that is unsurprising in this small country with a population of only 1.8 million, where one in four people lives on less than €1.20 a day. Two-thirds of Kosovars are less than 30 years old, and 70 percent of them are unemployed. Many families could hardly survive without the €600 million that is annually sent back to family members by the Kosovar diaspora. The payments represent half of the country's gross domestic product.

Bloated Administration

Those who are not part of the system in Kosovo hardly stand a chance to rise out of poverty, despite the fact that Kosovo receives more foreign aid per capita than any other country. The EU pays €250 million alone for the EULEX police and justice mission, which has failed to develop constitutional institutions and in fighting corruption.

The same group of corrupt politicians occupies all top government positions. This has led to the development of a bloated administrative apparatus of about 100,000 employees. The jobs typically go to relatives and supporters of those holding political positions. Public property is treated like private property: Recently, for example, the country's electricity plant was sold at a deep discount to a relative of the Turkish president. Profits are funneled into dark channels and court proceedings drag on forever, with 500,000 cases still awaiting processing.

The country has never investigated what happened to 13,000 people who died in the war, and former officers of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) are now in positions of power. It was only at the beginning of August that parliament approved the establishment of a special tribunal to investigate war crimes.

Kosovars have been liberated from their Serbian oppression since the war ended 16 years ago, and yet they still live in a cage. Kosovo is the only country in the Balkans whose citizens are denied access to Europe and require a visa for the EU. Kosovo is not a member of the United Nations nor is it recognized by all EU countries. It is not even permitted to compete in the football World Cup.

Such was the situation in Vučitrn, and no one was particularly interested whether the news about Germany seeking foreign workers was actually true. No one investigated rumors that traffickers might have put out the information to create false hopes.

This, at any rate, is what the mayor of Vučitrn claims. Bajram Mulaku, 66, a former mathematics professor, is a white-haired giant of a man with a piercing gaze. Sitting at a large conference table in the town hall, he says that drivers, traffickers and hotel owners must have earned more than €10 million from the exodus out of Kosovo. The government in Pristina likewise blames an international trafficking network for the wave of refugees, and police have already arrested 54 suspects.

'We Have a Life'

In spring, Mulaku called upon his citizens to stay home. He spoke of opportunities, of subsidies for potato farmers and of beekeeping. People merely had to be willing to work hard, he said. But no one wanted to hear that. The number of people leaving the city and the number of traffickers kept increasing, and prices declined by the day. In the end, traffickers were charging only €200 to take people to Hungary. Now everyone wanted to try his luck, if only to see Europe once. More than 100,000 Kosovars have left the country in the last 12 months, including 48,000 in the first three months of this year alone. Most went to Germany and France. Only 13,000 have thus far returned.

Perhaps the government is not entirely opposed to the mass exodus, because the typical migrant is 20 to 34, has no training, is unemployed and earns no more than €450 a month. Kosovo also has the highest birth rate in Europe, and 40,000 people come of age every year, creating even more pressure on the labor market.

Visar Krasniqi doesn't want to go back. He is sitting in Café Oase on Alexanderplatz in Berlin, exhaling smoke from a hookah. He shows us his mobile phone, with an endless list of numbers of Kosovars in Berlin, Germany and all of Europe. They talk on the phone and play soccer, but most of all they compete with one another over which of them will stay in Germany the longest. And when they are short of funds, they cheer each other up by saying: "We are poor, but we have a life."

In Sweden migrants are deported after only four days, says Krasniqi, but the Finns are more liberal. In fact, he wants to go to Finland after Oct. 5, the date when his stay in Germany will come to an end.

Albania: Caught Up in the Maelstrom of Emigration

Mali Tafaj is standing in a field, threshing rye, five kilometers from the border with Kosovo. He gathers the dried sheaves, jerks the ears up to the cloudless sky and then slams them against a wooden block to detach the grains. Gathering, jerking and slamming the grain onto the wooden block -- this is the rhythm of Tafaj's days. He has been working in the field since 8 a.m., alongside his sister Baid, his father Bayran and his mother Nadira. They are producing feed for their three cows. The threshing will take eight hours. But there isn't much else to do in Novosej, anyway.

Novosej is a small hamlet in northeastern Albania, with huts made of fieldstone and unpaved streets. Chickens scratch around in the dirt, old men ride by on their donkeys and children tend the sheep. Many years ago, the village had a population of more than 2,000, but now there are only 300 people left. "They are all in Germany," says Tafaj.

A slender 23-year-old man and a fan of AC Milan, he wipes the sweat from his brow. When he enrolled at the university, he listed his top choices of the subjects he wanted to study: 1. Finance, 2. Journalism, 3. Forestry. The government chose forestry for him. Now Tafaj knows the Latin names of all types of local trees, but he doesn't have a job. Albania has a 30 percent unemployment rate.

There are about three million Albanians still living in the country, and about the same number as have already left the country. Albania is ninth in the World Bank's ranking of the ratio of a country's emigrants to its population. In first seven months of this year, 29,353 Albanians applied for asylum in Germany, including 7,500 in July alone. Only about 8,000 applications were filed during all of last year. After Syrians and Kosovars, Albanians have become the third-largest group of asylum seekers in Germany.

The most recent wave of emigration began with a rumor, say the villagers. The rumor, which came from Kosovo, just over a nearby hill, at the beginning of the year, was that the border to Serbia was open and that Germany was looking for workers.

Waiting for a Miracle

Dozens of Tafaj's friends and relatives left the village and drove across the border to Prizren, where they paid €200 to board a bus to Germany. Since the visa requirement was lifted in 2010, Albanians are now permitted to spend three months a year as tourists in the Schengen area. Upon arrival in Germany, they applied for asylum, and now they receive €143 a month in support and are waiting for work. Or a miracle.

Albania is a country of constant transformation: from a communist regime to unrest bordering on civil war to a parliamentary democracy. Albania became a candidate for EU accession a year ago, but it is also a country where human trafficking and organized crime are rampant.

Some 72 bombs tied to criminal, private or political feuds have exploded there since 2014. Entire families are trapped in their homes because of threats of blood revenge. Albania is in 110th place in the Transparency International corruption ranking.

Albania is also the poorest of the 37 European countries for which Eurostat collects statistics. After 1990, agricultural cooperatives were closed and the country's industry was in shambles. About half of all scientists and academics left the country and roughly one in two Albanians still work in agriculture today. Annual per capita GDP is €3,486, one-eighth of the EU average. The average hourly wage is a little over €2.

But no one is persecuted for criticizing the government. There is no war, the Sinti and the Roma are not hunted down, and even gays and lesbians are tolerated. If Albania is soon classified as a "safe country of origin," it will become easier to deport its citizens. But would that solve the problem?

In the afternoon, we are invited into the home of Mali Tafaj and his family. They live in a simple stone hut, with the parents sharing a room with the little brother, and Tafaj sleeping next to his sister. At night, they talk a lot about emigrating. His sister Badi says: "As a woman, I have to stay. But I want my brother to leave soon."

'For My Parents' Sake'

The Tafajs have an annual income of €3,500. They earn 20 cents from a kilogram of potatoes and €2.50 from a kilogram of veal. "It troubles us that we cannot offer the children a future," says the mother. On the day before, Tafaj spoke with a few emigrants who live in London and are home on vacation. They are well dressed and have brought money from England. Transfers from abroad make up one-tenth of the country's GDP. "I will have to support my parents when they get old," says Tafaj. "But how?"

In a video posted by the German police that he saw on Facebook, a voice says that there are no prospects for asylum in Germany. Tafaj would actually like to stay in Albania. "But I will probably go," he says. "For my parents' sake."

What would Edi Rama say to a young man like Tafaj?

"I know that Germany is tempting," says Rama. "The €11 a day. The temporary work permit. The ability to save a little money in those three months. All of that is worthwhile for many people." Rama is a tall, jovial man who was once an art professor and used to be the mayor of the Albanian capital city of Tirana. He is now the country's prime minister. His office in Tirana, which doubles as his studio, is a three-hour drive from Tafaj's village. There are wax crayons on the tables. Rama wants to be the one to bring Albania into the EU.

For decades, the country's economy was based on a construction boom and transfers from emigrants. Now it has been diversified to include a textile industry, mining, telecommunications, energy and tourism. "But palpable results take a long time," says Rama. The reform process has come to a standstill. Tens of thousands protested when the government raised taxes on cigarettes and gasoline, and announced plans to introduce a higher income tax. People are leaving Albania because change is taking too long for their taste. To prevent more and more people from emigrating, the prime minister is urging the EU to classify his country as "safe" as quickly as possible. He knows that EU accession negotiations will not begin as long as large numbers of Albanians continue to seek asylum in countries to the north.

Rama also has a dream, one that he discussed with German Chancellor Angela Merkel when she visited Tirana in July. He wants Germany to enter into cooperative programs with Albanian trade schools. The schools would deliberately prepare Albanians for the kind of work that no one in Germany wants to do. He calls the idea "a game changer," and adds: "Fifty trade schools, and in three years everything here would be different."

Serbia: Escaping the Winter

Most Balkans immigrants originate from Albania and Kosovo, but one in five is from Serbia or Macedonia, two countries that have been considered "safe countries of origin" since 2014. Despite this, the number of asylum applications for Serbian citizens has increased by 45 percent compared to the first seven months of 2014. Only 0.1 percent of Serbians have so far been permitted to stay in 2015. So why do they keep coming?

During the first three months of this year, 91 percent of the Serbian asylum-seekers in Germany were Roma, despite the fact that there is less discrimination against Roma in Serbia than in Hungary, the Czech Republic or Slovakia. What drives them is need. "We also want to get a piece of German prosperity -- that's why many are going," says Vitomir Mihajlovic, who is sitting in his office with a view of Belgrade's St. Mark's Church. He's president of the Roma National Council, which, he says represents 600,000 Roma.

He says all the talk in Europe of "asylum cheats" is misleading and what his people are actually looking for is "economic asylum. That means that we aren't fleeing for political reasons, but that we are nonetheless threatened." Mihajlovic says that 80 percent of Serbian Roma haven't even completed primary school and that discrimination creates a vicious cycle of suffering. The marginalization of the people who live in Mahala, a Roma settlement, starts as soon as school for most, and it doesn't take long for a sense of resignation to set in.

Conditions are at their worst during the cold winter months. To prevent people here from heading for Western Europe, Mihajlovic suggests that Germans send wood for heating, food and toiletries and undertake other short-term measures. The clock is already ticking, he warns. "Things will pick up again in September. Then the next wave will begin making its way north."

Eight People in 12 Square Meters

Halkilk Hasani is among those planning to make that journey soon. The 42-year-old spent nine years working for the garbage collection company, but he's been out of work for a long time now. He lives together with his wife and six children in a 12 square meter (130 square foot) space in Makis 1, an impoverished container settlement at the edge of Belgrade that is surrounded by trash, stray dogs and children who play on the bare earth. At least he lives here for the time being. The city wants to evict the family because they left for Germany in 2011 and, by doing so, forfeited their right to live here.

Their 2011 trip took them by bus from Belgrade to Essen, where they applied for asylum. Around a year later, officials rejected their applications, but they stayed anyway, for another 15 months. "It was like living in America," says Hasani. "We got an allowance of €900 a month as well as food and toiletries." But then, they were cut off. The police showed up one morning at 3 a.m. and drove them to the airport. They were flown back home on an Adria Airways flight from Frankfurt on Feb. 25, 2014. Hasani dug out his ID, which the German federal police stamped with the word "deported". It didn't scare him. "I was told that it is only valid for two years," he explains. He will be permitted to enter Germany again in February and he says his family plans to go again.

Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic has some advice for the Germans. "Send our people home again and, more importantly, don't give them any money." There's nothing Vucic could use less right now than trouble with the Germans. The EU lifted the visa requirement for Serbians traveling into the Schengen area in 2009 and it would be a major setback for the prime minister and his policies of opening Serbia, which include cautious overtures to Kosovo and painful economic reforms.

But it's not just Serbian Roma who are heading to Germany. Belgrade has become a transit hub for tens of thousands of Syrians, Afghans and Iranians who are flowing into northern Europe via Turkey and Greece. The EU, their dream destination, is located just 200 kilometers from the Serbian capital and around 2,500 refugees arrive in Serbia every day. Andso many refugees are arriving in neighboring Macedonia that the government declared a state of emergency last Friday.

To send a message, Serbia's prime minister appeared on Aug. 19 in the park behind Belgrade's central station, where thousands of refugees gather prior to the last stage in the trip to Hungary. Just one day earlier, the refugees had been camped out here between mountains of trash, shreds of clothing and excrement. On the morning of the 19th, though, in expectation of the visit, the city's sanitation department cleaned up the park up so that Vucic, surrounded by cameras, could extend his "hospitality and cordiality" to the refugees. Most of those present, though, didn't even know who was speaking, so the prime minister patted a boy on the head and disappeared again.

On Thursday, the Western Balkan Conference is set to begin. Ironically, the meeting will be held inside Vienna's Hofburg Palace, the heart of the former Habsburg Empire. The countries touching the empire's former external borders still haven't found lasting peace even 100 years after it unraveled. For this year's conference, organizers have come up with something special. In the stadium where the football team Wiener Austria usually plays, heads of current EU member states are to match up against the team "FC Future EU."

That team includes Serbian Prime Minister Vucic, Kosovo Foreign Minister Hashim Thaci and Prime Minister Rama of Albania, men who wouldn't even have shaken hands not too long ago. It would be a good opportunity for these men to bury old hostilities. And to try to find a way to stop the exodus.