WAR 09-10-2016-to-09-16-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(232) 08-20-2016-to-08-26-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...26-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(233) 08-27-2016-to-09-02-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...02-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(234) 09-03-2016-to-09-09-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...09-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

----------

M5.3 Explosion - 15km ENE of Sungjibaegam, North Korea
Started by Creeperý, 09-08-2016 06:04 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...on-15km-ENE-of-Sungjibaegam-North-Korea/page4

Obama Won’t Promise Not to Launch Nuclear First Strikes
Started by Dozdoatsý, Yesterday 09:10 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...t-Promise-Not-to-Launch-Nuclear-First-Strikes

McKinsey Study Shows 81% of US Worse off Than in 2005, France 63%, Italy 97%
Started by NC Susaný, Yesterday 10:26 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-US-Worse-off-Than-in-2005-France-63-Italy-97

April in Paris...not your grandma's romantic honeymoon city any more.
Started by ainitfunnyý, 09-08-2016 07:47 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ur-grandma-s-romantic-honeymoon-city-any-more.

DHS issues warning of ISIS-inspired extremists targeting sports venues
Started by Hfcommsý, Yesterday 04:53 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...S-inspired-extremists-targeting-sports-venues

France: 3 muzzie women arrested, cop injured, over car loaded with gas cylinders.
Started by mzkittyý, 09-08-2016 01:44 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...op-injured-over-car-loaded-with-gas-cylinders.

MARKET WATCH ADVISORY FOR: Sept. 9&(11th Europe and Asia)....Sept 12 (Monday)
Started by doctor_fungcoolý, Yesterday 05:57 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...amp-(11th-Europe-and-Asia)....Sept-12-(Monday)

Main Russia/Ukraine invasion thread - 8/11/16 Ukraine Military On "Combat" Alert
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ne-Military-On-quot-Combat-quot-Alert/page449

The Terrorism Tax hits Europe
Started by Dozdoatsý, 09-06-2016 01:54 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?499434-The-Terrorism-Tax-hits-Europe

Russia's Caucasus 2016 military exercises begin
Started by northern watchý, 09-05-2016 07:51 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?499303-Russia-s-Caucasus-2016-military-exercises-begin

Should Sweden Join NATO? No
Started by Dozdoatsý, Yesterday 09:44 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?499606-Should-Sweden-Join-NATO-No

ISIS's New Magazine Titled "Rome" Encourages More Lone Jihad
Started by Ragnaroký, 09-08-2016 04:03 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...led-quot-Rome-quot-Encourages-More-Lone-Jihad

U.S. Rescue Attempt in Afghanistan Missed Western Hostages by Hours
Started by Housecarlý, 09-08-2016 03:01 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-Afghanistan-Missed-Western-Hostages-by-Hours

The threat from CHINA: Xi warns Obama against threatening China’s sovereignty
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...against-threatening-China’s-sovereignty/page9

Syria - Turkish troops launch anti-ISIS offensive in northern Syria (8/24/16)
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...S-offensive-in-northern-Syria-(8-24-16)/page4

Obama Crashes G20 by Warning Beijing of ‘Consequences’ in the South China Sea
Started by Possible Impactý, 09-05-2016 12:33 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...f-‘Consequences’-in-the-South-China-Sea/page2

UK To Build A Wall To Keep Out Calais Migrants
Started by thompsoný, 09-07-2016 06:32 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?499467-UK-To-Build-A-Wall-To-Keep-Out-Calais-Migrants

ISIS - Prepare to Fight - Or Die
Started by Dozdoatsý, 09-06-2016 02:57 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?499438-ISIS-Prepare-to-Fight-Or-Die

Europe Reels As A New Wave Of Refugees Begins To Flood The Continent
Started by Plain Janeý, 09-01-2016 03:49 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ave-Of-Refugees-Begins-To-Flood-The-Continent
----------

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/10/w...on&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

Asia Pacific | News Analysis

A Big Blast in North Korea, and Big Questions on U.S. Policy

By DAVID E. SANGER, CHOE SANG-HUN and JANE PERLEZ
SEPT. 9, 2016
Comments 156

GENEVA — North Korea’s latest test of an atomic weapon leaves the United States with an uncomfortable choice: Stick with a policy of incremental sanctions that has clearly failed to stop the country’s nuclear advances, or pick among alternatives that range from the highly risky to the repugnant.

A hard embargo, in which Washington and its allies block all shipping into and out of North Korea and seek to paralyze its finances, risks confrontations that allies in Asia fear could quickly escalate into war. But restarting talks on the North’s terms would reward the defiance of its young leader, Kim Jong-un, with no guarantee that he will dismantle the nuclear program irrevocably.

Speaking in Geneva early Saturday morning after announcing a deal with Russia over the Syrian conflict, Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States was willing to negotiate with North Korea, but only if it agreed that the goal of those talks was for it to give up its weapons. “We have made overture after overture to the dictator of North Korea,” he said, including on normalizing the country’s relationship with the West and a formal peace agreement to replace the 1953 armistice that halted the Korean War but not the state of hostilities.

“All Kim Jong-un needs to do is say, ‘I’m prepared to talk about denuclearization,’” Mr. Kerry said.

Mr. Kim has rejected that, making it clear that whatever his grandfather and father intended, his nuclear program is for deterrence and strength, but not a bargaining chip.

For more than seven years, President Obama has adopted a policy of gradually escalating sanctions that the White House once called “strategic patience.” But the test on Friday — the North’s fifth and most powerful blast yet, perhaps with nearly twice the strength of its last one — eliminates any doubt that that approach has failed and that the North has mastered the basics of detonating a nuclear weapon.

Despite escalating sanctions and the country’s technological backwardness, North Korea appears to have gotten past a rocky beginning with its nuclear tests, and enjoyed a burst of progress in its missile program over the last two years. American experts warn that it is speeding toward a day when it will be able to threaten the West Coast of the United States and perhaps the entire country.

“This is not a cry for negotiations,” said Victor Cha, who served in the administration of President George W. Bush and now is a North Korea expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “This is very clearly a serious effort at amassing real nuclear capabilities that they can use to deter the U.S. and others.”

Mr. Cha said the usual response from Washington, Seoul and Tokyo — for another round of sanctions — was not likely to be any more successful at changing the North’s behavior than previous rounds. That means Mr. Obama’s successor will confront a nuclear and missile program far more advanced than the one Mr. Obama began grappling with in 2009.

In a statement Friday, Mr. Obama condemned the North’s test and said it “follows an unprecedented campaign of ballistic missile launches, which North Korea claims are intended to serve as delivery vehicles intended to target the United States and our allies.”

“To be clear, the United States does not, and never will, accept North Korea as a nuclear state,” he said.

Many experts who have dealt with North Korea say the United States may have no choice but to do so.

“It’s too late on the nuclear weapons program — that is not going to be reversed,” William Perry, the defense secretary under President Bill Clinton during the 1994 nuclear crisis with North Korea, said in August at a presentation in Kent, Conn. The only choice now, he argued, is to focus on limiting the missile program.

Yet the latest effort to do that, an agreement between the United States and South Korea to deploy an advanced missile defense system in the South, has inflamed China, which argues the system is also aimed at its weapons. While American officials deny that, the issue has divided Washington and Beijing so sharply that it will be even more difficult now for them to come up with a joint strategy for dealing with the North.

China has been so vocal with its displeasure over the deployment of the American system that Mr. Kim may have concluded he could afford to upset Beijing by conducting Friday’s test.

Fueling that perception were reports that a North Korean envoy visited Beijing earlier this week.

“North Korea almost certainly sees this as an opportunity to take steps to enhance its nuclear and missile capabilities with little risk that China will do anything in response,” Evans J.R. Revere, a former State Department official and North Korea specialist, said in a speech in Seoul on Friday.

The breach between China and the United States was evident during Mr. Obama’s meeting with President Xi Jinping last week. “I indicated to him that if the Thaad bothered him, particularly since it has no purpose other than defensive and does not change the strategic balance between the United States and China, that they need to work with us more effectively to change Pyongyang’s behavior,” Mr. Obama said, referring to the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, as the advanced missile defense project is known.

But Mr. Obama noted that sanctions had failed at having much effect. That is largely because the Chinese have left open large loopholes that have kept the North Korean economy alive and, by some measures, enjoying more trade than at any time in years.

The United Nations Security Council, meeting in emergency consultations, agreed early Friday evening to work “immediately” on drafting a resolution imposing new sanctions on North Korea, the council’s president for September, Ambassador Gerard van Bohemen of New Zealand, told reporters.

In a recent paper, two researchers concluded that sanctions so far “have had the net effect of actually improving” North Korea’s procurement capabilities for its weapons program. To evade sanctions, the North’s state-run trading companies opened offices in China, hired more capable Chinese middlemen and paid higher fees to employ more sophisticated brokers, according to the scholars Jim Walsh of M.I.T. and John Park of Harvard.

The sanctions, Mr. Cha noted, “are supposed to inflict enough pain so the regime comes back to the negotiation table, and that’s clearly not working; or it’s supposed to collapse the regime until it starves, and that’s not working either.”

“Unless China is willing to cut off everything, which they don’t appear willing to do, the sanctions may be politically the right thing to do and a requisite response, but they are not the answer to the problem,” he said.

That means the choices facing Mr. Obama’s successor will be stark. One option is to choke off all trade, in part by telling banks that conduct transactions with North Korea that they will be shut out of dealing in dollars around the world — an effective tactic against Iran before last year’s nuclear deal. But that would enrage the Chinese, and probably cut into cooperation on other issues.

At the same time, an attempt to intercept all shipping could quickly escalate into a full-blown conflict, something neither Mr. Obama nor the South Koreans and Japanese have been willing to risk.

On the other hand, reopening negotiations, which Donald J. Trump has indicated he is willing to consider, could mean paying North Korea again to freeze nuclear activities that the Bush administration and the Clinton administration had already rewarded it for stopping years ago.

On Friday, the test became fodder for the American presidential campaign. Mr. Trump’s campaign issued a statement that read, in part, “North Korea’s fifth nuclear test, the fourth since Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, is yet one more example of Hillary Clinton’s catastrophic failures as secretary of state.”

A statement from Mrs. Clinton said that she supported Mr. Obama’s approach on sanctions, and that “this is another reminder that America must elect a president who can confront the threats we face with steadiness and strength.”

The nuclear program dates back to Mr. Kim’s grandfather, Kim Il-sung, the country’s founder, who emerged from the Korean War more than 60 years ago mindful that the United States had considered using nuclear weapons in that conflict and determined to get his own arsenal.

The missile program also has a long history, mostly to deliver conventional arms. But now the two are converging, as the North races to develop a weapon small, light and durable enough to be launched into space and survive re-entry into the atmosphere.

The explosive energy unleashed during the test on Friday, estimated at 10 to 12 kilotons of TNT, was nearly twice that of the North’s last test, conducted in January, said Yoo Yong-gyu, a senior seismologist at South Korea’s National Meteorological Administration.

And the fact that North Korea’s fifth test came only eight months after its fourth is another indication that it is making fast progress toward fitting its ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, said Choi Kang, a senior analyst at the Asan Institute. The North had waited about three years between each of its previous tests.

North Korea’s advances have unnerved its neighbors in South Korea and Japan, and Mr. Trump’s suggestion that the two nations should pay more for the United States to defend them has not helped.

In both South Korea and Japan, a small but increasingly vocal minority has begun to advocate developing nuclear weapons to counter the North instead of relying on the United States.

Cheong Seong-chang, a senior analyst at the Sejong Institute in Seongnam, south of Seoul, argued that a South Korean nuclear program might distract the North from its efforts to build a long-range missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to the mainland United States.

“If South Korea arms itself with nuclear weapons, North Korea will regard the South Korean nuclear weapons, not the distant American nukes, as the most direct threat to its security,” Mr. Cheong said.


David E. Sanger reported from Geneva, Choe Sang-hun from Seoul, South Korea, and Jane Perlez from Beijing. Motoko Rich contributed reporting from Tokyo.

A version of this news analysis appears in print on September 10, 2016, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: List of Options on North Korea Shrinks for U.S.

Related Coverage
Opinion Editorial

North Korea’s Nuclear Enabler
SEPT. 9, 2016

Decoding North Korea’s Claim of a Successful Nuclear Test
SEPT. 9, 2016

North Korea’s Nuclear Blasts Keep Getting Stronger
SEPT. 9, 2016

-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/09/why-kim-jong-un-tested-a-nuclear-warhead-now.html

GREEN LIGHT

Why Kim Jong Un Tested a Nuclear Warhead Now

With China upset with South Korea, North Korea’s dictator is feeling free to do what he wants—and that includes carrying out a major nuclear test.

Gordon G. Chang
09.08.16 10:00 PM ET

North Korea is hailing a “successful” fifth nuclear test, which it carried out Friday morning local time.

The device tested, which created a 5.3-magnitude tremor at its Punggye-ri test site, was reportedly in the 20- to 30-kiloton range, much more powerful than the North’s previous detonations. The last test, in January, yielded only about seven to nine kilotons.

The North Koreans had been ready to test this device since May. So why did they wait until now? Some are suggesting the detonation celebrated North Korea’s Foundation Day, marking the 68th anniversary of the establishment of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. But from all indications, the Kim regime tested at this time because it realized China would not impose costs for the detonation.

The test took place three days after Pyongyang’s nuclear envoy traveled to Beijing. Choe Son Hui, deputy director general of the Foreign Ministry’s U.S. affairs bureau, arrived in the Chinese capital on Tuesday.

We don’t know what Choe—who was deputy chief envoy to the six-party denuclearization talks, which have been dormant since 2008—and her interlocutors said this week. Nonetheless, it was evident that the North Koreans were confident of the Chinese reaction.

At the moment, Beijing is far more upset with Seoul than Pyongyang.


play icon Kim Jong-Un Pulls The Trigger On ANOTHER Nuclear Test Kim Jong-Un Pulls The Trigger On ANOTHER Nuclear Test
play icon North Korea Just Launched 3 Missiles Toward Japan North Korea Just Launched 3 Missiles Toward Japan
play icon Military Exercises Don't Have Any Effect On North Korea's Aggression Military Exercises Don't Have Any Effect On North Korea's Aggression


In July, South Korea and the United States announced they would deploy the American-made Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system on South Korean soil. Beijing is worried that THAAD’s high-powered radars will reach into China and could help the U.S. shoot down Chinese missiles. Washington denies that is the case and has been willing to share technical information, but Beijing has not been mollified.

Since the announcement, Beijing has taken a number of steps to snub the South diplomatically and undermine its economy.

With Beijing upset at Seoul, the North Koreans evidently think they can do what they want. On Monday, the North launched three medium-range, nuclear-capable Nodong missiles. The tests, on the second day of the China-hosted G20 summit, were conducted right after Chinese ruler Xi Jinping met on the sidelines of the event with South Korea’s president, Park Geun-hye. Clearly, Kim Jong Un was not worried that China would react unfavorably to the launches.

It’s clear the North Koreans know that as a general matter they have Chinese support. Trade across the Sino-Korea border is booming at the moment, an indication that Beijing is not enforcing Security Council Resolution 2270, the fifth set of UN sanctions on the North’s weapons programs.

Moreover, some of the traded items are clearly destined for Kim’s military. China, according to David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, did not interrupt the flow of materials and components for Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program, such as cylinders of uranium hexafluoride. Also allowed in, worryingly, were vacuum pumps, valves, and computers.

The North Koreans know that Xi sees the U.S. as China’s main adversary, blocking Beijing’s ambitions in almost every direction. That’s probably why President Obama and National Security Adviser Susan Rice got a rough reception on Saturday in Hanghzou as they arrived for the G20. Kim, seeing how Xi treated Obama, thought he could get away with delivering his own radioactive-laced snub.

Kim knows that Xi is not about to further goals, like the denuclearization of North Korea, that Washington promotes, and so Pyongyang thinks it has a big green light in its quest to possess the world’s most destructive weapons.

Pyongyang will make fast progress in developing nukes—until the U.S. and the rest of the international community realize they have a China problem as much as a North Korean one.

____
____

And since the DPRK has been acting as the Iranian R&D subcontractor we have to assume that Iran has full access to all of the North Koreans data, research and manufacturing plans. HC

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/09/10/world/europe/ap-eu-syria-diplomacy.html

Europe

US, Russia Seal Syria Cease-Fire, New Military Partnership

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
SEPT. 10, 2016, 4:09 A.M. E.D.T.

GENEVA — The United States and Russia working in lockstep against the Islamic State group and al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria. A rejuvenated truce that will compel President Bashar Assad's air and ground forces to pull back. New flows of badly needed humanitarian aid.

Those details emerged Saturday as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov capped another marathon meeting in Geneva to present their latest ambitious push to end Syria's devastating and complex war.

The potential breakthrough deal, which launches a nationwide cessation of hostilities by sundown Monday, will hinge on compliance by Assad's Russian-backed forces and U.S.-supported rebel groups, plus key regional powers such as Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia with hands directly or indirectly in Syria's 5-1/2 years of carnage.

"We believe the plan as it is set forth — if implemented, if followed — has the ability to provide a turning point, a moment of change," Kerry said as he and Lavrov laid out the contours, but admittedly not too much fine print, of the hard-won accord.

The ultimate hope is to silence the Syrian guns so that the long-stalled peace process under U.N. mediation can resume between Assad's envoys and representatives of the opposition, while the two world powers focus on battling jihadis.

The deal, at least publicly and for now, appears to overcome months of distrust between Russia and the United States that President Barack Obama had cited less than a week ago.

Now, the two powers are lining up in an unexpected new military partnership targeting IS and al-Qaida-linked militants, while trying to prod Assad and opposition groups to end a civil war that has killed up to 500,000 people and displaced millions.

"This is just the beginning of our new relations," Lavrov said of the U.S.

Washington must persuade Syrian rebels to break ranks with Fath al-Sham, an al-Qaida-linked group previously known as the Nusra Front, which has intermingled with U.S.-backed fighters. Moscow is to pressure Assad's government to halt all offensive operations against the armed opposition in specific areas, which were not detailed.

"The Syrian government has been informed of these arrangements and is ready to fulfill them," Lavrov said at a news conference alongside Kerry after midnight.

Kerry said the arrangement depends on "people's choices. It has the ability to stick, provided the regime and the opposition both meet their obligations, which we — and we expect other supporting countries — will strongly encourage them to do."

He also alluded to the possibility of backsliding that all but doomed a previous U.S.-Russia cease-fire initiative earlier this year, which briefly halted the fighting and paved the way for new aid convoys before a resurgence of bloodshed.

"No one is building this based on trust," Kerry said. "It is based on a way of providing oversight, and compliance, through mutual interest and other things. If this arrangement holds, then we will see a significant reduction in violence across Syria."

The deal culminates months of frenetic diplomacy that included four meetings between Kerry and Lavrov since Aug. 26, and a lengthy face-to-face in China between Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The military deal would go into effect after both sides abide by the truce for a week and allow unimpeded humanitarian deliveries. Then, the U.S. and Russia would begin intelligence sharing and targeting coordination, while Assad's air and ground forces would no longer be permitted to target Fath al-Sham; they would be restricted to operations against the Islamic State.

The arrangement would ultimately aim to step up and concentrate the firepower of two of the world's most powerful militaries against IS and the group once known as Nusra, listed by the United Nations as terrorist groups.

Both sides have failed to deliver their ends of the bargain over several previous truces.

But the new arrangement goes further by promising a new U.S.-Russian counterterrorism alliance, only a year after Obama chastised Putin for a military intervention that U.S. officials said was mainly designed to keep Assad in power and target more moderate anti-Assad forces.

Russia, in response, has chafed at America's financial and military assistance to groups that have intermingled with the Nusra Front on the battlefield. Kerry said it would be "wise" for opposition forces to separate completely from Nusra, a statement Lavrov hailed.

"Going after Nusra is not a concession to anybody," Kerry said. "It is profoundly in the interests of the United States."

The proposed level of U.S.-Russian interaction has upset several leading national security officials in Washington, including Defense Secretary Ash Carter and National Intelligence Director James Clapper, and Kerry only appeared at the news conference after several hours of internal U.S. discussions.

After the Geneva announcement, Pentagon secretary Peter Cook offered a guarded endorsement of the arrangement and cautioned, "We will be watching closely the implementation of this understanding in the days ahead."

At one point, Lavrov said he was considering "calling it a day" on talks, expressing frustration with what he described as an hours-long wait for a U.S. response. He then presented journalists with several boxes of pizza, saying, "This is from the U.S. delegation," and two bottles of vodka, adding, "This is from the Russian delegation."

The Geneva negotiating session, which lasted more than 13 hours, underscored the complexity of a conflict that includes myriad militant groups, shifting alliances and the rival interests of the U.S. and Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Turkey and the Kurds.

Getting Assad's government and rebel groups to comply with the deal may now be more difficult as fighting rages around Aleppo, Syria's most populous city and the new focus of the war.

Assad's government appeared to tighten its siege of the former Syrian commercial hub in the last several days, seizing several key transit points. Forty days of fighting in Aleppo has killed nearly 700 civilians, including 160 children, according to a Syrian human rights group.

Kerry outlined several steps the government and rebels would have to take. They must now pull back from demilitarized zones, and allow civilian traffic and humanitarian deliveries — notably into Aleppo.

"If Aleppo is at peace, we believe that the prospects for a diplomatic solution will brighten," he said. "If Aleppo continues to be torn apart, the prospects for Syria and its people are grim."

But as with previous blueprints for peace, Saturday's plan appears to lack enforcement mechanisms. Russia could, in theory, threaten to act against rebel groups that break the deal. But if Assad bombs his opponents, the U.S. is unlikely to take any action against him given Obama's longstanding opposition to entering the civil war.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-myanmar-idUSKCN11G02Q

World News | Fri Sep 9, 2016 10:26pm EDT

China eyes closer military ties with Myanmar


China's military wants to strengthen ties with neighboring Myanmar by having more exchanges and greater cooperation, a top officer told Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi during a visit to the Southeast Asian country, state media said on Saturday.

China has been on a diplomatic offensive ever since the Nobel Peace Prize laureate's government came to power in April, aiming to forge good ties with its resource-rich neighbor.

Last month Suu Kyi visited China, where President Xi Jinping told her he wanted to ensure the "correct direction" of relations.

Xu Qiliang, a vice chairman of China's Central Military Commission, which controls the armed forces and is headed by Xi, told Suu Kyi that China "highly values the friendly cooperation between the two countries", state news agency Xinhua said.

"China firmly upholds a friendly policy towards Myanmar and supports Myanmar's national reconciliation process," Xu said during Friday's meeting in Naypyitaw, the capital of Myanmar.

"Xu mentioned Aung San Suu Kyi's recent trip to China, during which she reached consensus with the Chinese leadership on further enhancing the comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership between China and Myanmar," it added.

China will keep playing a constructive role in pushing forward Myanmar's peace process and hopes the two countries can work together to maintain peace and stability on their border, Xu said.

Suu Kyi last month launched a major push to end decades of fighting between the military and myriad rebel groups, which has at times spilled into China and seen refugees pushed across the border, to Beijing’s anger.

Enhancing friendship, mutual understanding and trust is very important for both nations, Suu Kyi said, according to Xinhua, and thanked China for its role in Myanmar's peace process.

China had a close relationship with Myanmar’s former military-run government, and has looked on with some nervousness at its democratization process.

China has been pushing Myanmar to resume work on the Chinese-invested $3.6-billion Myitsone dam project, 90 percent of whose power was originally planned to have gone to China.

In 2011, then President Thein Sein angered China when he suspended work on the dam, at the confluence of two northern rivers in the Ayeyarwady river basin, over environmental protests.


(Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)


Also In World News
U.S., Russia clinch Syria deal, aim for truce from Monday
South Korea says North's nuclear capability 'speeding up', calls for action
Bangladesh factory fire kills 23, injures more than 24
Prominent journalist, academic held in Turkey coup probe: reports

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-idUSKCN11F02N

World News | Sat Sep 10, 2016 6:49am EDT

South Korea says North's nuclear capability 'speeding up', calls for action

By Jack Kim | SEOUL

South Korea's foreign minister said on Saturday that North Korea's nuclear capability is expanding fast, echoing alarm around the world over the isolated state's fifth nuclear test carried out in defiance of U.N. sanctions.

North Korea conducted its biggest nuclear test on Friday and said it had mastered the ability to mount a warhead on a ballistic missile, ratcheting up a threat that rivals and the United Nations have been powerless to contain.

The test proved North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was unwilling to alter course and tougher sanctions and pressure were needed to apply "unbearable pain on the North to leave no choice but to change," South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se said.

"North Korea's nuclear capability is growing and speeding to a considerable level, considering the fifth nuclear test was the strongest in scale and the interval has quickened substantially," Yun told a ministry meeting convened to discuss the test.

The blast, on the 68th anniversary of North Korea's founding, drew global condemnation.

The United States said it would work with partners to impose new sanctions, and called on China to use its influence - as North Korea's main ally - to pressure Pyongyang to end its nuclear programme.

But Russia was sceptical that more sanctions were the answer to resolving the crisis, while China was silent on the prospect of a new United Nations Security Council resolution, although state media did carry commentaries criticising the North.

Under 32-year-old leader Kim, North Korea has sped up development of its nuclear and missile programmes, despite U.N. sanctions that were tightened in March and have further isolated the impoverished country.

The Security Council denounced North Korea's decision to carry out the test and said it would begin work immediately on a resolution. The United States, Britain and France pushed for the 15-member body to impose new sanctions.

U.S. President Barack Obama said after speaking by telephone with South Korean President Park Geun-hye and with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Friday that they had agreed to work with the Security Council and other powers to vigorously enforce existing measures against North Korea and to take "additional significant steps, including new sanctions."


LAVROV SEEKS NEW TALKS

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said it may take more than additional sanctions to resolve the crisis, signalling it may prove a challenge for the Security Council to come to an agreement on new sanctions.

"It is too early to bury the six-party talks. We should look for ways that would allow us to resume them," Lavrov said.

The so-called six-party talks aimed at ending the North's nuclear programme involving the United States, Russia, Japan, South Korea, China, and North Korea have been defunct since 2008.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States had repeatedly offered talks to North Korea, but Pyongyang had to accept de-nuclearization, which it had refused to do.

"We have made overture after overture to the dictator of North Korea," he said, adding that he ultimately hoped for a similar outcome as in the nuclear talks in Iran.

China said it was resolutely opposed to the test but Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying would not be drawn on whether China would support tougher sanctions against its neighbour.

On Saturday, the influential Chinese state-run tabloid the Global Times said North Korea was wrong in thinking building nuclear weapons would provide it more security or prestige in the world.

"Owning nuclear weapons won't ensure North Korea's political security," it said in an editorial. "On the contrary, it is poison that is slowly suffocating the country."


"OUT OF CONTROL"

South Korea's Park said late on Friday Kim was "mentally out of control," blind to all warnings from the world and neighbours as he sought to maintain power. "The patience of the international community has come to the limit," she said.

North Korea, which labels the South and the United States as its main enemies, said its "scientists and technicians carried out a nuclear explosion test for the judgment of the power of a nuclear warhead," according to its official KCNA news agency.

It said the test proved North Korea was capable of mounting a nuclear warhead on a medium-range ballistic missile, which it last tested on Monday when Obama and other world leaders were gathered in China for a G20 summit.

Pyongyang's claims of being able to miniaturize a nuclear warhead have never been independently verified.

Its continued testing in defiance of sanctions presents a challenge to Obama in the final months of his presidency and could become a factor in the U.S. presidential election in November, and a headache to be inherited by whoever wins.

North Korea has been testing different types of missiles at an unprecedented rate this year, and the capability to mount a nuclear warhead on a missile is especially worrisome for its neighbours South Korea and Japan.

The Pentagon did not have evidence that North Korea had been able to miniaturize a nuclear weapon, Pentagon spokesman Gary Ross said. But he added, "given the consequences of getting it wrong, it is prudent for a military planner to plan for the worst."

Jeffrey Lewis of the California-based Middlebury Institute of International Studies said the highest estimates of seismic magnitude suggested this was North Korea's most powerful nuclear test so far.

He said the seismic magnitude and surface level indicated a blast with a 20- to 30-kilotonne yield or its largest to date.

Such a yield would make this test larger than the nuclear bomb dropped by the United States on the Japanese city of Hiroshima in World War Two, which exploded with an energy of about 15 kilotonnes.

South Korea's military put the force of the blast at 10 kilotonnes, which would still be the North's most powerful nuclear blast to date.

"The important thing is, that five tests in, they now have a lot of nuclear test experience. They aren't a backwards state any more," Lewis said.


(Additional reporting by Ju-min Park in Seoul, Ben Blanchard in Beijing, Michelle Nichols at the United Nations, Phil Stewart in Oslo, David Brunnstrom in Geneva; Editing Mike Collett-White)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.csis.org/analysis/syria-and-iraq-what-comes-after-mosul-and-raqqa

COMMENTARY

Syria and Iraq: What Comes After Mosul and Raqqa?
September 6, 2016

It should scarcely have come as a surprise to President Obama that he could not reach an agreement with Vladimir Putin on Syria at the G20 meeting. The President and Secretary Kerry have now been strung along for nearly a year over discussions of some kind of ceasefire, meaningful relief effort, coordinated approach to operations against ISIS, and form of government for Syria.

The first Russian air strikes occurred on October 1, 2015, and Russia has steadily used its military intervention to promote its own interest in Syria and the Middle East, attack the Arab rebels, and support the Assad regime. Russia has also built new ties to Iran, shipped Iran advanced S300 surface-to-air missiles, and managed to reach out Saudi Arabia in spite of this—seriously discussing agreed limits on their petroleum production and exports.

The United States, in contrast, has focused on defeating ISIS as a Caliphate—and its ability to control key population centers in eastern Syria and Western Iraq—without declaring any clear strategy for what happens afterwards. It has never clearly defined its objectives or what such a “victory” would mean.

U.S. military spokesmen have warned that such a “defeat” of ISIS in Mosul and Iraq could leave it with the ability to uses its fighters for months afterwards, and that many fighters might escape and disperse. It also seems clear that “liberating” Iraqi and Syrian cities to date has generally meant nearly destroying them—leaving much of their populations without a source of income, homes, or basic services.

The Administration has never presented any clear strategic objective for either Syria or Iraq. It keeps talking about Arab rebels in Syria as if they had some degree of unity. It talks of “moderates” as if they were both strong enough and experienced enough to govern all or part of Syria, when the vast majority of the actual Syrian’s fighting ISIS are Kurds that have very different goals and objectives from most Arab fighters—who see Assad as the real threat, and large portions of which are Islamist and have some ties to Al Qaida. It has talked about coordinating its Arab efforts with allies like Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, but never really shown such coordination is serious or actually taking place.

The Administration has never clearly defined what kind of Syria it wants to emerge, how such a Syria could handle its sectarian and ethnic divisions, and who would help reconstruct a nation with more than half its population dispersed internally or living as refugees. It has never publically attempted to examine how a Syria could recover whose economy is now something like a fifth of the size it was in 2011—when it already had failed to meet the needs of many of its people. It has never addressed the fact that well over 60% of Syria’s population and economy are in the western part of the country, and have never been occupied by ISIS. In short, it has never addressed the fact that the real fight for Syria is taking place where ISIS isn’t.

The Administration also has never to come to grips with what will happen when ISIS no longer controls any population centers, but the Hezbollah, Iranian forces, Russians, and now Turks will still be present. It has never addressed the high probability of fighting between the Syrian Kurds, Turks, and Syrian Arabs once ISIS is gone; and it still has not set any clear policy for dealing with the fact that some of this fighting has actually begun. It has never advanced proposals to resolve either the Kurdish issue—or find someway to protect other minorities in a post-ISIS Syria where the fate of Christians, Shi’ites, and Alawites may be a critical issue.

It has never openly faced the fact that almost all of these issues have a mirror image in Iraq, and even U.S. military spokespersons often seem to act as if they were totally unaware that Syria shares 599-kilometer border with Iraq, and ISIS has to be defeated in both countries or else it will become an open-ended threat that can operate across a broader with no real physical barriers to irregular warfare operations.

Like Syria, Iraq has critical internal divisions that drive its tensions and perceptions in ways that make ISIS only one security concern among many for most of its population. If the real Syria is in the west, and outside of ISIS occupation and control, the real Iraq is in the East, and much of the area ISIS is shown as occupying—or as having lost—is actually empty desert. There is a reason why many experts see the “blob maps” of ISIS territory—or sectarian and ethnic occupation—as little more than demographic nonsense.

Iraq’s Shi’ites and Sunnis—and its Arabs, Kurds, and other minorities—are also deeply divided. Moreover, Iraq’s Kurds now occupy substantial areas that have never been Kurdish before, and the Kurds have gain de facto control over Kirkuk and its oil and gas fields. Once again, each major faction is also divided internally and sometimes to the point of armed clashes within themselves.

Just as liberating Raqqa may do as much to create new conflicts in Syria as “defeating” ISIS, liberating Mosul may end up dividing Iraq. Once again, the United States has built up the Kurds as a major force against ISIS without laying any clear groundwork for their role and territory once the fighting with ISIS ends. Once again, Turkey and Iran have their own separate objectives, and can be a source of additional violence or division.

Iraq does have something approaching a central government, but only one that cannot really govern. Iraq seems to have a competent prime minister, but its factions will not let its prime minister govern effectively or make necessary reforms. Worse, both Iraq’s central government and the Kurdish Regional Government are too divided, corrupt, and dysfunctional to really work. The government also has no clear regional allies. With the possible exception of Kuwait, other Arab states see the government as Shi’ite and pro-Iranian, rather than Sunni and Arab and have done little to provide support or aid.

This will be critical if ISIS does lose control over Iraqi population centers. The Iraqi government has not yet demonstrated it can rebuild or aid the areas it “liberates”, and war and the crash in oil export revenues have left it nearly bankrupt. Iraq is scarcely as bad off as Syria, but there are millions of refugees and internally displaced persons—mostly Sunni pushed east toward Shi’ite areas.

This is not to argue that there are good options, some magic U.S. military solution, or that some simple change in U.S. policy could cope with the problems in either country—much less both.

But no policy? No options? No efforts to offer a concrete proposal to resolve key differences or martial some collective international effort toward reconstruction? Endless talks with the Russians? Not coming to grips with the issues presented by Iran, Turkey, or any given faction of the Kurds? Focusing on ISIS as if it was the central problem, bragging about liberating thousands of square kilometers of empty desert? Implying victory against ISIS in the cities it controls has strategic meaning?

Quite frankly, the Administration seems to be focused on an exit strategy, but the exit is not an exit from Syria or Iraq. It is rather the Administration’s exit from office. The Obama Administration may be able to use pyrrhic victories in Mosul and Raqqa as a cover, but its legacy will be one of never having shown it faced its problems honestly, found the least bad options available, or really had a strategy that looked beyond ISIS.

Anthony H. Cordesman holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.

Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2016 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/helicopter-downing-in-michoacan-knights-templar-re-emergence

Helicopter Shoot-Down Could Signal Resurgence of Mexico Cartel

Written by Sofia Liemann Wednesday, 07 September 2016

The recent downing of a government helicopter in Michoacán, Mexico could signal the re-emergence of what was once one of the country's most powerful criminal groups.

A helicopter belonging to the state government of Michoacán was shot down on September 6, killing the pilot and three police officers. According to local media reports and social media posts by Michoacán Gov. Silvano Aureoles, the aircraft was participating in an operation aimed at capturing members of the Knights Templar crime group.

The helicopter had reportedly arrived to support soldiers and federal and local police after they were called to the scene of an attempted kidnapping of a well-known agricultural businessman in the town of La Huacana.

When security forces reached the scene, a shootout ensued that ended in the death of Alonso Andrade Rentería, alias "La Papa." According to press reports, "La Papa" is the brother of Ignacio Andrade Rentería, alias "El Cenizo," a Knights Templar leader who was captured in February.

The incident marks the second helicopter shot down recently by a criminal organization in Mexico. In May 2015, the Jalisco Cartel - New Generation (CJNG) used a rocket-propelled grenade to bring down a military helicopter, killing nine people.

InSight Crime Analysis

If the Knights Templar were involved in the recent downing of the helicopter in Michoacán, it would suggest the group retains a significant presence in the area. After splitting off from the Familia Michoacana in 2011, the Knights Templar became a major player in Michoacán's criminal landscape. However, the cartel has been significantly weakened, and in February 2015 Mexican authorities captured its leader Servando Gomez, alias "La Tuta."

SEE ALSO: Coverage of Knights Templar

A recent report from Borderland Beat suggests the Knights Templar could indeed be making a comeback. The news outlet reports that militia-like groups known as "autodefensas" are organizing to confront the crime group. If this is the case, Michoacán could see a resurgence of the messy conflict between crime groups and autodefensas that shook the state during the heyday of the Knights Templar a few years ago. In fact, some evidence of this dynamic has already begun to emerge, as other recent reports have also sounded the alarm about Michoacán's autodefensas rearming themselves in order to combat organized crime.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d181cc8c-765e-11e6-bf48-b372cdb1043a.html#axzz4Jtlu7hr2

September 9, 2016 4:54 pm

Ranchers fear drug cartels more than immigrants at US-Mexico border

Demetri Sevastopulo in Nogales, Arizona

On a sweltering summer evening in southern Arizona, dozens of carpet-soled moccasins lie along the portico of a ranch 20 miles from Mexico, serving as a reminder of one of the biggest problems on the border: not illegal immigration, but drug trafficking.

Interrupted only by the cicadas, Jim Chilton, a fifth-generation rancher, and his wife Sue explain that Mexican drug mules, who routinely traverse their 50,000 acres of land, cover the soles of the moccasins — which are then worn over shoes — with carpet to avoid leaving tracks that US border agents could follow.

Mr Chilton, whose ranch stretches back to a simple barbed wire fence that separates the US from Mexico, was speaking the day before Donald Trump hardened his stance on illegal immigrants in a speech in Phoenix. The rancher says he backs the mogul and his plan to build a wall on the border because it would reduce the influence of the Mexican cartels.

“We live in an area controlled by the Sinaloa cartel,” says Mr Chilton who has installed motion-sensor cameras on his land to capture video of the drug mules. “We have a mountain back here, Sinaloa cartel scouts resided on it. [On] all of the mountains back here, we’ve seen cartel scouts . . . In fact, they may be watching us now.”

While Mr Trump’s wall has resonated from Iowa to Ohio, as well as with Mr Chilton, many border residents in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California are not concerned about illegal immigrants. A recent poll by Cronkite News, Univision News and The Dallas Morning News found that 72 per cent of Americans in border cities opposed the wall, although there has been no comparable study for rural areas, where the population is less Hispanic and where drug traffickers tend to have an easier time getting into the US than at the official border ports.

Video

Nohe Garcia, a Mexican-born rancher who has lived in the Arizona border city of Nogales for decades, says Mr Trump has created an ugly climate in the US with his deportation plan and rhetoric about Mexicans.

“He’s trying to deport 11m people. Are you going to be stopping me every day? Do I fit the profile and will I be stopped everywhere?” says Mr Garcia, who laments what he describes as “very hurtful” language from Mr Trump.

One reason for the lack of concern in the area about illegal immigration is that it has been in decline, particularly since the 2007 financial crisis, as the US has fewer jobs to offer. According to the US Customs and Border Protection agency, the number of people caught crossing into the country illegally fell from 1.1m in 2006 to 337,000 last year. But the amount of heroin and meth seized along the border has risen threefold during the past five years, helping to fuel an opiate epidemic and contributing to drug overdoses overtaking car accidents as the top cause of injury deaths in the US.

Driving around Nogales, the closest border city to the Chilton ranch, Vincente Paco, a CBP agent, points out two cartel scouts on a hill in Nogales Sonora, a Mexican city on the other side of a three-mile border wall. “We are focused on targeting both [illegal immigrants and drugs] but the biggest threat is drug smuggling,” says Mr Paco, who says the trafficking business has been taken over by the cartels, which see migrants “as dollar signs” because they can serve as drug mules or be used as decoys inside the US.

He says US agents and the cartels are playing a game of chess that involves watching each other closely and trying to ensure that their technology does not fall behind. Mr Chilton says his cowboys have found $2,500 satellite phones, $2,000 binoculars and other sophisticated equipment that scouts have left behind. And Mr Paco says the cartels use everything from tunnels and compressed-air cannons to sewage systems to get drugs into the US.

While Mr Trump focuses on the crime of illegal immigration, Mr Chilton expresses sympathy for the migrants, saying that as many as 40 have died on his ranch. On the Mexican side of the wall in Nogales, images of candles are painted on the barrier as a memorial to the Mexicans who have lost their lives trying to complete the crossing into the US.

Mr Chilton has 22 wells and 29 drinking fountains on his land where migrants can quench their thirst in the harsh desert heat, and these help reduce the number of deaths. And he has even offered water to armed traffickers who showed up outside his door looking for “agua” from the elderly couple.

But he says the cartels are brutal in how they treat migrants, describing cases when women have been repeatedly raped and men have had their fingers cut off. Sue Chilton says the couple are not scared, but that when they notice that drug smugglers are in the area they turn off the lights and lay low in their kitchen until the mules have left.

“How do we protect ourselves? We pack guns,” says Mr Chilton, who owns a .223 calibre ranch rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and a Smith and Wesson pistol. “I have a gun with me everywhere I go.”

Listen to the podcast: US election countdown: A trip to the Mexican border

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-security-idUSKCN11G0L4

WORLD NEWS | Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:20am EDT

Germany warns of threat from more than 500 'potential attackers'

Germany's interior minister has warned that the country is home to more than 500 Islamic militants who could be capable of carrying out assaults on their own or as members of "hit teams."

Speaking in an interview with Bild newspaper, Thomas de Maiziere said there were currently at least 520 "potential attackers" in the country, which has been on edge since two Islamic State-inspired attacks in July.

He said another 360 "relevant" people were known to police because of their close proximity to the potential attackers.

Many Germans fear that fighters belonging to the Islamic State jihadist group could have slipped into Germany with the roughly one million of refugees from Syria, North Africa and Asia who arrived last year.

"The terror threat now stems from foreign hit teams as well as fanatical lone wolves in Germany," de Maiziere said in the interview ahead of the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the United States, which were partly coordinated from Germany.

"The hit teams are secretly smuggled into Europe and prepare their actions without being noticed, as we saw with the attacks in Paris and Brussels," he added. "But it's even more difficult to uncover the fanatical lone wolves. Unfortunately, there is a real and present danger from both threats."

He said security authorities were doing everything possible to monitor "the potential terrorists" and noted that there have been more investigations and arrests this year. Despite their efforts, he said, "the authorities are assuming there are undiscovered lone wolf terrorists out there."

Germany had until July been spared the kind of militant attacks suffered by neighboring France and Belgium. But in late July, Islamic State claimed two attacks -- on a train near Wuerzburg and at a music festival in Ansbach -- in which asylum-seekers wounded 20 people in total.

The anti-immigrant party Alternative for Germany (AfD) has seized on the attacks to criticize Chancellor Angela Merkel's migrant policies.

(Reporting by Erik Kirschbaum; Editing by Helen Popper)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/569700/india-highlight-n-koreas-defence.html

India to highlight N Korea's defence ties with Pakistan

NEW DELHI, Sep 11, 2016, DHNS

As North Korea’s atomic bomb test rattled the world, India is set to remind the international community the reclusive communist country’s clandestine nuclear and missile cooperation with Pakistan.

With the fifth and hitherto most powerful nuclear test by North Korea on Friday triggering global outrage, New Delhi is set to underline its concern over proliferation risk in India’s neighbourhood, particularly over Pyongyang’s secret ties with Islamabad. Officials told DH that New Delhi would remind the international community the proliferation track record of Pakistan, which has of late been demanding that its plea for admission into the Nuclear Suppliers Group should be considered on a par with that of India.

New Delhi, too, joined the world to denounce the nuclear test by North Korea on Friday. A press statement issued by the Ministry of External Affairs noted that New Delhi remained “concerned about the proliferation of nuclear and missile technologies”, which had “adversely impacted” national security of India.

New Delhi tacitly drew attention to Pyongyang’s clandestine nuclear and missile ties with Islamabad at a time when Pakistan re-launched its campaign for membership of the NSG, ostensibly backed by China.

New Delhi, according to sources, suspects that now-revealed Pyongyang-Islamabad secret defence cooperation, which in mid-1990s led to supply of Rodong Missiles and technology to Pakistan, is still continuing. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the founder of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, was in 2003 found to have traded know-how and technology with Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Khan in 2011 made public documents in support of his claim that North Korea had bribed senior officials of the Pakistani army and got them to allow him to share nuclear technology and certain equipment with the pariah nation.

New Delhi of late has received inputs, suggesting that certain nuclear materials supplied to Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission by Suntech Technology Company Limited of China were being diverted to North Korea, sources told DH.

 

[almost ready]

Brzezinski tells it all - Galen Coup Attempt our Error with Grave Consequences

"While the Obama Administration and the CIA officially cling to the fig leaf lie that US intelligence was innocent of any involvement in the failed July 15 coup d’ etat attempt by the CIA-run Fethullah Gülen organization in Turkey, the truth is coming out from senior US intelligence insiders themselves. It reflects a huge internal faction struggle within US leading circles in what by all accounts is shaping to be the most bizarre Presidential election year in American history.

The first admission that US intelligence had their hand in the anti-Erdogan coup, a coup launched just days after Erdogan announced a major strategic shift away from NATO and towards Russia, came from Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski is one of the most senior members of the US intelligence establishment, a former Obama Presidential adviser and former National Security Council architect of the Jimmy Carter 1979 Mujahideen Afghanistan terror operations against the Soviet forces in that country.

In a Twitter tweet from his own blog, Brzezinski wrote a precis of a new article he wrote for The American Interest magazine. He writes, “The US backing of the attempted coup against the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was a grave mistake that could deliver a major blow to the US reputation.” That’s definitely putting it mildly given what’s unfolding in Turkey since July 15.

Brzezinski went on to write, “Turkey was on the verge of reconsidering its foreign policy after failure in the Syria during the last five years, and the US miscalculation in supporting the coup and hosting its leader (Fethullah Gülen, now in CIA-arranged exile in Pennsylvania-w.e.) was so serious that it is no longer possible to put the blame on once-US-ally Turkey if it turns its back on US and rethink (sic) its policies.” He continues, “A potential Russia-Turkey-Iran coalition would create an opportunity to solve the Syrian crisis. If Erdogan had the smallest bit of wisdom, he should have come to the understanding that he could not make an independent credibility with the help of some ‘decayed’ Arab countries,” no doubt referring to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the prime financiers of the Syrian terror war against Assad since 2011.

Brzezinski is right.

The CIA-Gülen coup d’etat attempt to topple Erdogan after his turn towards rapprochement with Moscow was “a grave mistake."

***

Much of the rest of the article is other peoples' writings and history of who Brzezinski is.

THis, to me, confirms the most important event perhaps since Brzezinski started the war on Russia via Afghanistani/Saudi proxies in the 1970's.

Heads will roll, although the events will have to be viewed through a veil in the dark.

http://journal-neo.org/2016/08/31/top-usa-national-security-officials-admit-turkey-coup/

 

[Housecarl]

"While the Obama Administration and the CIA officially cling to the fig leaf lie that US intelligence was innocent of any involvement in the failed July 15 coup d’ etat attempt by the CIA-run Fethullah Gülen organization in Turkey, the truth is coming out from senior US intelligence insiders themselves. It reflects a huge internal faction struggle within US leading circles in what by all accounts is shaping to be the most bizarre Presidential election year in American history.

The first admission that US intelligence had their hand in the anti-Erdogan coup, a coup launched just days after Erdogan announced a major strategic shift away from NATO and towards Russia, came from Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski is one of the most senior members of the US intelligence establishment, a former Obama Presidential adviser and former National Security Council architect of the Jimmy Carter 1979 Mujahideen Afghanistan terror operations against the Soviet forces in that country.

In a Twitter tweet from his own blog, Brzezinski wrote a precis of a new article he wrote for The American Interest magazine. He writes, “The US backing of the attempted coup against the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was a grave mistake that could deliver a major blow to the US reputation.” That’s definitely putting it mildly given what’s unfolding in Turkey since July 15.

Brzezinski went on to write, “Turkey was on the verge of reconsidering its foreign policy after failure in the Syria during the last five years, and the US miscalculation in supporting the coup and hosting its leader (Fethullah Gülen, now in CIA-arranged exile in Pennsylvania-w.e.) was so serious that it is no longer possible to put the blame on once-US-ally Turkey if it turns its back on US and rethink (sic) its policies.” He continues, “A potential Russia-Turkey-Iran coalition would create an opportunity to solve the Syrian crisis. If Erdogan had the smallest bit of wisdom, he should have come to the understanding that he could not make an independent credibility with the help of some ‘decayed’ Arab countries,” no doubt referring to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the prime financiers of the Syrian terror war against Assad since 2011.

Brzezinski is right.

The CIA-Gülen coup d’etat attempt to topple Erdogan after his turn towards rapprochement with Moscow was “a grave mistake."

***

Much of the rest of the article is other peoples' writings and history of who Brzezinski is.

THis, to me, confirms the most important event perhaps since Brzezinski started the war on Russia via Afghanistani/Saudi proxies in the 1970's.

Heads will roll, although the events will have to be viewed through a veil in the dark.

http://journal-neo.org/2016/08/31/top-usa-national-security-officials-admit-turkey-coup/

^^^^^

MERDE!!!

The only thing worse than the US supporting a coup is doing so, blowing it and having a former official in the Administration confirming such action is just the dictionary definition of FUBAR!

 

[almost ready]

^^^^^

MERDE!!!

The only thing worse than the US supporting a coup is doing so, blowing it and having a former official in the Administration confirming such action is just the dictionary definition of FUBAR!

Yes, and Trump has had a tete-a-tete with Kissinger. They are, IMO, generating what they think is a sufficiently large "regime change" that he will be able to step in and make amends, restart diplomacy.

We'll see. Of course, that is the most optimistic roll-out of events I can make up now, so will choose to believe them possible. Robert Anton Wilson, a half- crazy half-genius always tried to create his "reality tunnel" in the most optimistic way that was consistent with observed reality. Sometimes disappoints, but why die a thousand deaths when you need die only once?

 

[almost ready]

Of course, HC, Biden went to Turkey on August 24, and apparently did mend fences somewhat. We started to do some sort of joint effort with Turkey, and kicked the Kurds out of their homes to the eastern side of the Euphrates River.

My interest in the Brzezinski revelations are his putting pressureon the USA to clean house.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-bomber-idUSKCN11I0B2

World News | Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:14am EDT

U.S. to dispatch bomber to South Korea on Tuesday: official

The United States will conduct a bomber flight over South Korea on Tuesday, an official at U.S. Forces in Korea said, a show of force against North Korea after the reclusive state recently carried out its fifth nuclear test.

The official however declined to name the bomber's type or the fleet's size would be.

South Korea's Yonhap News Agency reported that bad weather had delayed a planned U.S. military B-1B bomber flight to the Korean peninsula that had been scheduled for Monday.

(Reporting by Ju-min Park; Editing by Lincoln Feast)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-usa-duterte-idUSKCN11I10J

World News | Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:48am EDT

Duterte says he wants U.S. special forces out of southern Philippines

By Manuel Mogato | MANILA

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on Monday called for the withdrawal of U.S. military from a restive southern island, fearing an American troop presence could complicate offensives against Islamist militants notorious for beheading Westerners.

Duterte, who was in the spotlight last week over his televised tirade against the United States and President Barack Obama, said special forces now training Filipino troops were high-value targets for the Islamic State-linked Abu Sayyaf as counter-insurgency operations intensify.

"These special forces, they have to go," Duterte said in a speech during an oath-taking ceremony for new officials.

"I do not want a rift with America. But they have to go."

He added: "Americans, they will really kill them, they will try to kidnap them to get ransom."

The comment by Duterte, a former southern mayor known for his terse words and volatile temperament, adds to uncertainty about what impact his rise to the presidency will have on one of Washington's best alliances in Asia.

Duterte wants an independent foreign policy and says close ties with the United States are crucial, but he has frequently accused the former colonial power of hypocrisy when criticized for his deadly drugs war. He denied on Friday calling Obama a "son of a bitch".

Some U.S. special forces have been killed in the southern Philippines since 2002, when Washington deployed soldiers to train and advise local units fighting Abu Sayyaf in Operation Enduring Freedom, part of its global anti-terror strategy.

At the height of that, some 1,200 Americans were in Zamboanga City and on Jolo and Basilan islands, both strongholds of Abu Sayyaf, which is known for its brutality and for earning huge sums of money from hostage-taking.

The U.S. program was discontinued in the Philippines in 2015 but a small troop presence has remained for logistics and technical support. Washington has shifted much of its security focus in the Philippines towards the South China Sea.

In his speech to officials on Monday, Duterte repeated comments from last week when he accused the United States of committing atrocities against Muslims over a century ago on Jolo island.


(Editing by Martin Petty)

Also In World News

North Korea ready for another nuclear test any time: South Korea
Syria rebels guardedly agree on truce but battles persist
Gulf states condemn law letting 9/11 families sue Saudi Arabia
Turkey removes two dozen elected mayors in Kurdish militant crackdown

 

[Housecarl]

Well this is poised to get real stupid.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...an-gulf/ar-AAiOVfh?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Iran threatened to shoot down US Navy spy planes in the Persian Gulf

FOX News
Lucas Tomlinson
1 hr ago

Iran threatened to shoot down two US Navy surveillance aircraft flying close to Iranian territory in the Persian Gulf over the weekend, the latest in a series of recent provocations between Iran and the US military in the region, three US defense officials with knowledge of the incident told Fox News.

On Sept. 10, a Navy P-8 Poseidon with a crew of nine and an EP-3 Eries with a crew of roughly 24, were flying a reconnaissance mission 13 miles off the coast of Iran, in the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman, according to officials.

Iran’s territorial waters—like all nations--extend 12 miles into the sea, according to international maritime law.

At some point during the flight, the Iranian military warned the two aircraft to change course or risk getting shot down.

The US military planes ignored the warning and continued flying in international airspace, although close to Iranian territory, the officials told Fox.

“We wanted to test the Iranian reaction,” one US official told Fox News when asked why the US jets were flying close to Iran.

“It’s one thing to tell someone to get off your lawn, but we weren’t on their lawn,” the official continued. “Anytime you threaten to shoot someone down, it’s not considered professional.”

The official said the Iranian behavior was characterized as “unprofessional.” Another official said the incident was not considered “unsafe” because there were no Iranian missile launchers in the area, according to the latest intelligence reports.

The latest incident between the US military and Iran is just the latest in a series of confrontations in region.

Last month, Iranian fast-boats harassed US Navy warships in the Persian Gulf on at least five occasions. One incident resulting in three warning shots being fired from a US Navy coastal patrol craft, when an Iranian vessel ignored repeated radio calls to change course. On another occasion, an Iranian boat stopped 100 yards in front of a US Navy ship forcing it to take evasive maneuvers.

Over the weekend, a senior Iranian military commander dismissed claims that his vessels had harassed US Navy ships in in the Persian Gulf saying his nation acted in accordance with internationally recognized maritime law.

"Iranian boats continue to act based on defined standards and are well aware of the international laws and regulations, so the claims are not only untrue, but stem from their fear of the power of Iran's soldiers," said Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, according to state news agency IRNA and reported by AFP.

Dangerous interactions at sea between Iran and the US Navy have doubled in the first half of 2016 compared to the same time last year, Fox News first reportedlast month.

On Aug. 30, the head of US forces in the Middle East was asked to explain Iran’s perceived aggressiveness.

“This is principally the regime leadership trying to exert their influence and authority in the region. And they are trying to do it in provocative ways,” said Gen. Joe Votel, commander of US Central Command at a Pentagon press briefing.

In July, days after the one-year anniversary of the nuclear agreement, Iran attempted at least their fourth ballistic missile test in violation of a UN Security Council resolution tied to the nuclear agreement.

In January, Iran took 10 US Navy sailors captive after their two patrol boats traveled into Iranian waters before releasing them 16 hours later.

In December, an Iranian missile boat fired several unguided rockets close to a US Navy aircraft carrier transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...-us-navy/ar-AAiNT1n?li=AA4Zpp&ocid=spartandhp

Close encounters with Iran show need for rules of behavior - U.S. Navy

Reuters
By David Brunnstrom
12 hrs ago

A series of close encounters between the U.S. navy and Iranian combat vessels in the Gulf show the need for Iran and the United States to agree rules of behavior to avoid risky miscalculations, the head of the U.S. Navy said on Monday.

Admiral John Richardson, the U.S. chief of naval operations, said agreements of this type between the United States and Russia and China had helped reduce such risks.

"These are some of these potentially destabilizing things, where a tactical miscalculation, the closer you get to these sorts of things, the margin for error gets smaller and the human error can play a bigger and bigger role," Richardson said

"So it’s very important that we eliminate this kind of activity where we can. There’s nothing good can come from it ... it also advocates the power of a sort of leader-to-leader dialogue."

Years of mutual animosity between Tehran and Washington eased when Washington lifted sanctions on Iran in January after a deal to curb its nuclear ambitions.

But serious differences still remain over Iran's ballistic missile program, and over conflicts in Syria and Iraq and these are reflected in the tense encounters at sea.

Richardson told a seminar at Washington's Center for American Progress think tank it was important for commanders from both sides to have a means through which they can discuss incidents.

"We have the practices to prevent incidents at sea with the Russians ... (and) this Code for Unplanned Encounters with the Chinese ... has been very, very useful," he said.

"Getting some kind of a rule set like that ... with the Iranians, would also be helpful, so that we can have these frameworks for behavior that would guide us more to the useful types of encounters at sea, rather than these 'close aboard' types of demonstrations that really don’t have any positive benefit."

U.S. officials say there have been more than 30 close encounters with Iranian vessels in the Gulf so far this year - more than double the amount from the same period last year.

On Sept. 4, a U.S. Navy coastal patrol ship changed course after a fast-attack craft from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps came within 100 yards (91 meters) in the central Gulf, at least the fourth such incident in less than a month.

The head of U.S. Central Command, General Joseph Votel, said last month that unsafe maneuvers in the Gulf were part of Iranian efforts to exert its influence in the region.

(Reporting by David Brunnstrom)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...tor-says/ar-AAiNs8p?li=AA4Zpp&ocid=spartandhp

Syria truce mostly holds at start of second day, monitor says

Reuters
Tom Perry
13 mins ago

BEIRUT (Reuters) - A nationwide ceasefire was mostly holding across Syria at the start of its second day on Tuesday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

Some air attacks and shelling were reported in the first hours of the truce on Monday evening, in areas including the north Hama countryside, East Ghouta and north of Aleppo, the monitoring body said.

But that appeared to die down and the Observatory said it had not recorded a single civilian death from fighting in the fifteen hours since the ceasefire came into effect at 7 p.m. (12:00 p.m. EDT) on Monday.

The ceasefire, brokered by Russia and the United States, is their second attempt this year by to halt Syria's five-year-old civil war. Russia is a major backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, while the United States supports some of the rebel groups fighting to topple him.

The truce does not cover the jihadist groups Islamic State or Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, a group formerly called the Nusra Front which was al Qaeda's Syria branch until it changed its name in July.

Fighting had raged on several key fronts before the ceasefire, including Aleppo and the southern province of Quneitra on Monday, the first day of the Eid al-Adha Muslim holiday.

The Observatory said at least 31 were killed by air strikes on rebel-held Idlib province and eastern Damascus, and by bombardment of villages in the northern Homs countryside and rocket attacks in the city of Aleppo on Monday, before the truce.

(Reporting by Lisa Barrington; Editing by Andrew Heavens)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://warontherocks.com/2016/09/the-war-doctrine-israel-does-not-talk-about/

The War Doctrine Israel Does Not Talk About

Ron Tira
September 13, 2016

Editor’s Note: This is adapted from the author’s recently published article, “Israel’s Second War Doctrine,” [pdf] from the Institute for National Security Studies (Strategic Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 2, July 2016).

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is renowned for its war doctrine: a succession of rapid decisive operations based on surprising combined arms offensives. In the Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War, Israeli tanks broke world records in tempo in terms of miles penetrated per day (depth of offensive). Yet the IDF operated in a manner inconsistent with its official doctrine over the course of its last six major campaigns: Operation Accountability (1993), Operation Grapes of Wrath (1996), the Second Lebanon War (2006), Operation Cast Lead (2008-2009), Operation Pillar of Defense (2012), and Operation Protective Edge (2014). I call these six campaigns “accountability-rationale campaigns” (see below table).

I take this name from the original Operation Accountability campaign design in 1993, when Israel intervened in Lebanon to fight Hizballah. These six operations all sought to shape the future behavior of the adversary by striking a blow or causing attrition through firepower and by applying indirect levers, all while curtailing the allocation of resources and minimizing risk. In other words, the routine low intensity exchanges between the parties would become acceptable to one side or the other. Hence, that side decided to escalate to kinetically rewrite the rules of the post-conflict environment, where low intensity exchanges are routine. As Israel faced much weaker sub-state opponents with limited competencies, it implemented strategies that emphasized cost- and risk-management.

http://warontherocks.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Op-Accountablity-Table.jpg

If each campaign was viewed as an isolated episode, the IDF’s seemingly aberrant warfighting method could be explained away as cases of individual judgment or a deviation from the doctrine that might require investigation (as occurred in 2006). Yet the IDF adhered to recurring patterns of operation in the course of six campaigns spread over two and a half decades. As such, these are not aberrations but rather the application of a second war doctrine — overt, but not officially written or institutionalized. The result is recurrent tension and dissonance owing to prevailing expectations within the IDF and in the public arena, based on official documents and the divergence from formal doctrinal documents.

The Main Idea: Blow or Attrition versus Decision

In none of the six accountability-rationale campaigns did the IDF aim to overthrow the opponent and reach a military decision. Rather, it sought to deliver a blow or to attrit the opponent. Concurrently, the IDF applied indirect levers (such as air or naval blockade) to put diplomatic mechanisms in motion that would facilitate a termination of the fighting and allow Israel to achieve its strategic objectives. This includes cases in which the official orders spoke of removing the threat. Even when ostensibly far-reaching objectives were officially defined, such as “expulsion of Hizballah from the area [South Lebanon]” or “deployment of the Lebanese army in all of Southern Lebanon,” the IDF did not actually follow a campaign design that could have achieved these objectives. It is therefore doubtful whether they can be regarded as true objectives.

In these campaigns, ground operations were of limited scope and were designed according to a rationale of small raids, special operations, general pressure (on the outskirts of Gaza City during Operation Cast Lead), or a specific need (such as neutralizing Hamas’s offensive cross-border tunnels in Operation Protective Edge). No ground offensives were conducted according to a broader or more ambitious rationale. No bold, large-scale attack took place.

In practice, the IDF’s “true” main objective was to cause the opponent more damage (quantitatively and qualitatively) than the opponent caused Israel in the same timespan. In this way, the IDF hoped to persuade its adversary that the fighting was of no benefit to it, convince it to accept at least some of Israel’s conditions for a post-conflict arrangement, and establish deterrence that would postpone the next round of fighting. As Thomas Rid explains, Israeli deterrence mostly means impressing upon the opponent the fear of conflict to postpone the next conflict as much as possible, elevate the casus belli threshold, and — if a conflict eventually occurred — limit the ways and means the adversary would use.

In effect, the main idea was to conduct a “parallel” campaign: to permit the weaker opponent to carry out its planned campaign against Israel as the IDF carried out a campaign that would cause the opponent worse damage.

Overall, the accountability-rationale campaigns possessed four stages. First, a strike with firepower against pre-selected targets; second, a delay stage until the decision was taken to commit ground forces to the fighting; third, a (usually limited) ground offensive stage; fourth, a maintaining of pressure until both sides were ripe for a ceasefire.

Why has Israel chosen six times to operate according to such a pattern? The answer may be simply because it could. Accountability-rationale campaigns reflect a preference for resource management and risk management, rather than risk-taking and a potential high price. It is possible that Israel could not have afforded to act according to the blow/attrition-through-firepower mode had it faced a high-competence opponent able to defend its airspace with some degree of success, able to disrupt Israeli intelligence’s targeting process or disrupt the functional continuity of Israeli air force bases, or capable of posing a more significant counter-threat that Israel could not afford to sustain.

In practice, these accountability-rationale campaigns reveal that Israeli decision-makers believed that a modest operational result achieved at a modest cost and risk was preferable to potential for an excellent operational result achieved at high cost and risk. Such preferences are possible when Israel faces a relatively weak sub-state enemy. Moreover, the stakes in the six accountability-rationale campaigns were not very high — they were violent negotiations on the precise boundaries of the freedom of violent action to be exercised by the parties in routine times or an incident that spun out of control. Israeli decision-makers apparently believed, consciously or otherwise, that the ways and means did not have to be of great weight.

Entering and Exiting the Campaign

In general, accountability-rationale campaigns were born out of lack of agreement about each side’s boundaries in the ”routine” low-intensity conflict. One of the sides no longer accepted the boundaries of the violence in routine times, and escalated from low intensity (exchanges of violence that are a permitted part of routine times) to medium-to-high intensity in order to conduct violent negotiations over a redefinition of the boundaries of the permitted freedom of action.

In none of these six campaigns did the end state result directly from the military situation. After sufficient time passed, the two sides reached the conclusion that they had exhausted the measures they were willing to use (not necessarily all the means at their disposal) and that time was no longer working to their advantage — and they then chose to exit from the conflict. In most of the accountability-rationale campaigns, Israel’s opponents agreed to a ceasefire first, and it was Israel that insisted on more time for fighting. The insistence on additional time might have resulted from a dissonance in the Israeli decision-making community, as some waited for military decision to result (such as the a decision that may result from a traditional maneuver campaign), even as the IDF conducted a coercive or attritional campaign. Coherence on Israel’s part could have brought most of the campaigns to an immediate end following the initial air strikes.

Most of these campaigns ended with an international diplomatic arrangement, but the principal characteristic of the termination of most accountability-rationale campaigns is the difference between the formal arrangements ending them and the reality-shaping factors that emerge from them. The six accountability-rationale campaigns rendered clear the cost-benefit ratio in conflicts of this type to all the parties involved. The costs of the conflicts shaped the rules of the game and the boundaries of conduct in the follow-on low-intensity conflict.

A Look Ahead to Future Conflicts

In these six campaigns, it is understandable why Israel has chosen to act by prioritizing cost-benefit patterns— achieving a modest result at a modest cost— and to postpone weightier decisions insofar as possible. In each accountability-rationale campaign, Israel faced weak sub-state enemies whose main capabilities lie in inflicting damage, but who do not threaten to defeat the IDF or to capture Israeli territory. In each campaign, the interests defended by the IDF were of secondary importance. In this context, Israel could afford to sustain damage from the opponent, knowing that the opponent at the same time was suffering more substantial damage, without removing the threat or substantially degrading the opponent’s ability to make war.

Yet applying these preferences beyond such contexts is risky. First, it is questionable whether these patterns of operation are relevant to situations in which Israel faces more capable opponents. Furthermore, if a sub-state enemy such as Hizballah acquires new capabilities that can cause more significant damage to the functioning of Israel’s military, civilian, and economic systems, this will require a reassessment of the feasibility of acting according to accountability-rationale


Lt. Col. Ron Tira (res.) is the author of The Nature of War: Conflicting Paradigms and Israeli Military Effectiveness as well as other books and publications on policy, strategy, warfare and the Middle East. Currently a businessman and a reservist at the Israel Air Force’s Campaign Planning Department, Tira is a former fighter pilot with over 30 years of experience in intelligence, special operations and campaign planning. Tira further serves on the Editorial Advisory Panel of Infinity Journal, a peer-reviewed publication concerned with strategy as a consequence of linking policy ends, strategic ways, and military means.

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...s-same-network-as-Paris-attacks-(13-Sept-2016)

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-security-arrests-idUSKCN11J0RQ

World News | Tue Sep 13, 2016 8:54am EDT

Germany arrests 3 Syrians, sees same network as Paris attacks

By Erik Kirschbaum and Madeline Chambers | BERLIN

Three young Syrian men arrested in Germany on Tuesday were Islamic State members brought into the country by the same network that smuggled militants into France to carry out deadly attacks last November, the German government said.

Federal prosecutors said police special forces arrested the three in the northern state of Schleswig-Holstein on suspicion of being sent by Islamic State "either to carry out a mission that they had been informed about or to wait for further instructions" for an attack.

Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said they arrived in late 2015, probably with the help of the same network that funneled IS militants into Paris to carry out shootings and bombings that killed 130 people on Nov. 13 last year.

"Everything points to the fact that the same smuggler organization behind the Paris attacks also brought the three men to Germany who were arrested," de Maiziere told a news conference. "Indications are that their travel documents all came from the same workshop in that region."

European governments are on high security alert after a series of militant strikes in France, Belgium and Germany, where three attacks this summer were carried out by asylum-seekers and two were claimed by Islamic State.

Around a million migrants arrived in Germany last year, and concern about their presence has grown since the attacks, raising pressure on Chancellor Angela Merkel to cap arrivals at 200,000 refugees per year, as her Bavarian allies are demanding. She refuses to set such a limit.

More than 200 police were involved in the operation to arrest the three men, aged 17 to 26. ARD television said they were held after raids at refugee housing in towns north of Hamburg. German authorities searched the flats of the three suspects but did not reveal what they might have found.


BLENDING WITH REFUGEES

De Maiziere noted that two of the Paris attackers last year had registered as refugees. "That suggests that IS was determined to send these kinds of people to blend in with refugees in order to cause uncertainty in Europe and Germany."

He added: "The French connection ... is what makes this case so special. We have to find out if these are individual links or if there is a larger network. It shows IS is not only targeting France or Germany or Italy or Belgium or Britain - but the entire West."

Federal prosecutors said one suspect, Mahir Al-H., joined Islamic State in September 2015. He received weapons and explosives training in Raqqa, the militant group's de facto capital in Syria.

In October, he and the two other suspects, Mohamed A. and Ibrahim M., signed up with an Islamic State official responsible for operations and attacks outside Islamic State territory and traveled to Europe, the prosecutors said.

Islamic State allegedly provide them with passports, more than $1,000 in cash and cell phones with a special communications program. The suspects traveled through Turkey and Greece before arriving in Germany in mid-November 2015, at the height of the migrant crisis.


(Reporting by Madeline Chambers and Erik Kirschbaum; Editing by Michelle Martin and Mark Trevelyan)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.dw.com/en/calls-grow-for-south-korea-to-consider-deploying-nuclear-weapons/a-19547289

Nuclear

Calls grow for South Korea to consider deploying nuclear weapons

North Korea's latest nuclear test and recent missile launches prompt a faction within the South's ruling party to confront the possibility that Seoul also needs the ultimate military deterrent. Julian Ryall reports.

Date 13.09.2016
Author Julian Ryall, Tokyo

With North Korea carrying out its fifth underground nuclear test recently - and reports that the regime of Kim Jong Un is looking to conduct another similar detonation at its Punggye-ri test site - there are growing calls in Seoul for South Korea to develop a comparable nuclear deterrent.

Following an emergency meeting at the National Assembly in Seoul on Monday, September 12, a faction of the ruling Saenuri Party called on the government to consider developing and deploying nuclear weapons to deter Pyongyang from new and increasingly belligerent provocations.

"In order to protect peace, we also need to consider all measures to deter North Korea's provocations, including nuclear armament for the purpose of self-defense," Won Yoo-chul, a senior lawmaker for the party, was quoted by the Korea JoongAng Daily as saying.

'A nuclear crisis is developing'

"With North Korea's fifth nuclear test, its nuclear weapons have taken a stride toward posing an actual threat to the South Korean people," he stated, adding that a "nuclear crisis is developing" as Pyongyang has ignored international condemnation and United Nations sanctions to go ahead with both the development of an arsenal of nuclear warheads and the ballistic missiles to deliver them.

A group of 31 members of the Saenuri Party signed a statement calling for South Korea to take all possible measures - "including nuclear armament" - to protect the safety of the South Korean people.

And there are growing numbers of citizens who agree that historic attempts to communicate and negotiate with the North have come to naught and that Pyongyang has no real interest in reducing tensions on the peninsula.

"This is the fifth time they have carried out a nuclear test and all that successive South Korean governments have done is to show that they are unable to prevent the North developing nuclear weapons," said Kim Bum-soo, executive director of the conservative NGO Save North & Next Korea.

"And I do not think anything will be different this time," he told DW. "And every time the international community fails, it gives North Korea more time to develop nuclear weapons and missiles, the analyst added.

Return of US weapons?

"I believe it is time that the South Korean government gave serious consideration to developing its own nuclear weapons or to arrange with Washington for the strategic nuclear weapons that were removed from South Korea in the 1990s to be returned," Kim Bum-soo stressed. "To me, that would be the most meaningful strategy to stop North Korean aggression."

Calls for Seoul to have an independent nuclear deterrent came just days after politicians suggested that South Korea needs to develop its own nuclear-powered submarines to counter the North's growing submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) capability.

After its most recent SLBM test, on August 24, Pyongyang declared that it had perfected the launch system - a development that has caused concern in many nations that fear a North Korean submarine could evade detection and get close to a target before launching its weapons.

On Sunday, South Korea's presidential office played down suggestions that the government was considering adopting nuclear weapons.

Park opposition

Park Geun-hye, the South Korean president, has so far remained silent on the issue since the most recent test. However, after the previous underground detonation in January, she told reporters that she was firmly against arming the South with nuclear weapons.

"We have made our promise to the international community," she said. "If we [develop our own nuclear weapons] we will break that promise.

"Nuclear weapons should not exist on the Korean peninsula," she noted.

Stephen Nagy, an associate professor of politics at Tokyo's International Christian University, believes that no matter the provocation, it will be difficult to convince the majority of people in South Korea of the need to deploy atomic weapons.

"I just don't think the proposal will be able to gain sufficient traction among the public because they understand the potential consequences of a nuclear war on the peninsula," he told DW.

"South Koreans have been very comfortable in outsourcing their national defense to the US," he said. "And it is also clear that neither Beijing nor Tokyo would be happy to see South Korea expanding its military capabilities by adopting nuclear weapons."

Chinese concern

"Beijing, in particular, would be extremely concerned that Japan would follow suit and that would mean a full-blown arms race in the region," Nagy argued.

But the pace at which North Korea is carrying out nuclear and missile tests means Seoul has good reason to be concerned, the expert pointed out. "It is clear that they have made massive progress with their ballistic missiles and submarine-launched missiles, as well as with their nuclear program," he said. "So the strategy of trying to deny the North the ability to develop these weapons has proven to be ineffective, which is why they are looking for a new approach."

On the other end of the spectrum to those who advocate South Korea developing nuclear weapons are those who want Seoul to engage Pyongyang, to drop sanctions and hope that the regime there moderates its behavior.

Critics of this approach point out that the South's previous "sunshine policy" did precisely that but achieved nothing. "It's true that North Korea has perfected brinkmanship, and that they understand the relationship between a demonstration of their offensive capabilities and their ability to exploit that for concessions from the US, from China and other countries," Nagy said.


Audios and videos on the topic

US bombers fly over South Korea

Reactions to N.Korea nuclear test

North Korea claims nuclear warhead test

Security expert: N. Korean threat is real

 

[vestige]

Untold hours are expended on Hillary's illness/drunken staggering/stroke etc and the world marches on...

more Hell on the Horizon bump

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20160913000840

[EDITORIAL] Real deterrence

Published : 2016-09-13 16:11
Updated : 2016-09-13 16:24

[THE INVESTOR] On many counts, North Korea’s fifth nuclear test last week means that the world now faces the worst-case scenario: North Korea has -- or is very close to having -- the capability to launch a nuclear strike.

The latest blast, which Pyongyang claimed was a “warhead,” was the most powerful yet -- experts estimate it at a force of at least 10 kilotons of TNT -- and it came only eight months after the previous detonation.

Moreover, the test came as the North is in what seems to be the final stage of completing the development of missiles designed to deliver nuclear warheads. The Kim Jong-un regime test-fired a total of 37 ballistic missiles over the past four years, and claimed recently a successful firing of a submarine-launched ballistic missile. It also fired some missiles on overland mobile pads.

This combination of nuclear and missile technologies should convince us that the 32-year-old Kim -- a notoriously unpredictable, ruthless dictator in the world’s most isolated country -- has the elementary capability for a nuclear strike that could cause an unimaginable catastrophe anywhere he wants.

This reality should change the way the world and South Korea deal with security threats posed by the rogue regime.

President Park Geun-hye has termed the situation a sort of “emergency” that could lead to a war. For the first time regarding the North’s nuclear threat, South Korean officials added “military actions” to options the Seoul government could take in case they detect a sign of an imminent nuclear strike.

US President Barack Obama reiterated Washington’s firm commitment to “extended deterrence.” Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said that the US needs “rethinking” on its strategy for North Korea.

The UN Security Council, which is already enforcing the toughest sanctions yet on the North, has vowed to take “further decisive action” that forces North Korea to change its position.

There is no doubt that the new UN actions should close the loopholes in the latest UN resolution against the North -- implemented in March -- and make sure China ceases its role as the provider of a lifeline to its impoverished neighbor and client state.

Nevertheless, North Korea is not like Iran and only more international sanctions -- if not something as effective as a total embargo -- would be limited in pressuring the North to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Here comes the urgent need to secure deterrence against possible nuclear strikes ordered by Kim. One deterrence, according to Seoul officials, is preemptive, South Korea could prepare to make surgical strikes against the North’s nuclear facilities and key sites in Pyongyang, like the office and residence of Kim.

A senior official said that the South Korean military will launch massive strikes that can “remove Pyongyang from map” if there is a sign of an impending nuclear hit from the North.

Given the North’s improved capability -- think about a nuclear-tipped SLBM coming from below the water -- the official’s comments sound like more of a hope than something we can trust blindly.

Hence there is a pressing need to build up deterrence that could bar the North from making a nuclear strike, or decimate it, in case of an attack.

The first viable option could be the deployment here of US strategic assets -- like stealth bombers, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines. South Korea is already under the shield of US extended deterrence, but having some of them on stand-by on or near the peninsula -- instead of places like Guam -- would send an utterly different message to the North.

This is because South Korea would not be able to put up defensive measures, like kill chain or Korean Air and Missile Defense system, until the early 2020s.

A more effective strategy -- also a much more controversial one -- would be the redeployment of US nuclear tactical weapons which were withdrawn from the peninsula in the early 1990s. Some raise concerns about its implications, but it should be noted that there is a growing call for developing nuclear arms on our own.

Needless to say, the nuclear threat from the North is a matter of life and death for us South Koreans. We cannot be bound by taboos or other restrictions if what we are about to do could determine the fate of ourselves and our descendants.

(theinvestor@heraldcorp.com)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-protests-wukan-idUSKCN11K0HF

World News | Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:47am EDT

Chinese villagers describe police beatings in 'wild crackdown' on protest

By James Pomfret | WUKAN, China

Residents of a southern Chinese village once seen as a cradle of grassroots democracy were in shock on Wednesday after a "wild crackdown" by police in clashes with protesters which they said led to about 70 people being detained.

Hong Kong rights activists fear Tuesday's violence marks a last-ditch push to silence Wukan, a fishing village in the province of Guangdong, which received international attention when a 2011 uprising over land grabs forced authorities to back down and grant local direct elections.

"Most people have been scared badly," said a villager named Chen. "...This time it was a wild crackdown. They went after everyone, chasing them up into their houses, beating people."

As she spoke, peeking nervously from behind curtains in her home, scores of riot and security police tightened a cordon around Wukan.

Violence flared in the 10,000-strong hamlet early on Tuesday as police launched pre-dawn raids on homes seeking leaders of protests that had rumbled since June after the arrest of a popular leader.

Village chief Lin Zuluan, one of the last of the 2011 protest leaders to remain in office, was jailed this month for three years on graft and other charges.

Villagers pelted police with bricks as they advanced with shields, batons and helmets, firing rubber bullets and using tear gas. Some residents suffered wounds to their legs, mobile phone footage seen by Reuters showed.

Many said the violence was worse than 2011, when the village was locked down for several months.

While low-level democratic experiments have been tried in villages across China, Wukan's took place in the glare of both domestic and international publicity - and marked a rare moment when Communist Party officials backed down in the face of protest.


WRISTS BOUND WITH NYLON

Beijing leaders are fearful of growing calls for democracy and losing their grip on power. Weeks of "umbrella revolution" pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, to the southwest of Wukan, in late 2014 presented Beijing with one of its biggest political challenges in decades.

According to the mobile phone footage seen by Reuters, elderly villagers and youngsters in school uniforms were among those detained on Tuesday. Three rows of villagers could be seen in the police station, their wrists bound with white nylon zipcords.

Blue tear gas cartridges could still be seen strewn in the narrow alleyways, with black burn marks etched on to the concrete.

"The whole village hasn’t done anything illegal, we just want old Lin (Zuluan) to come out and to get our land back," said a villager surnamed Zhang. "But they don’t care if we’re guilty or not guilty. They just beat us."

An earlier microblog of Lufeng county police, who oversee Wukan, stated in a post that 13 people had been arrested for organizing illegal assemblies and using threats to force villagers to join protests. It has not been updated since Tuesday.

Hong Kong media have reported that the police have also televised photographs of five village protest leaders, offering 100,000 yuan ($15,000) rewards for information on their whereabouts.

Repeated calls to the Guangdong provincial government for comment went unanswered.


(Writing by Greg Torode; Additional reporting by Hong Kong bureau and Ben Blanchard in Beijing; Editing by Nick Macfie)

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...hiism-sufism-muslims-world-saudi-sunnism.html

Anti-Wahhabism spreading in Muslim world

Author: Ali Mamouri
Posted: September 11, 2016
Translator: Pascale Menassa

The religious authority in Saudi Arabia responded aggressively to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s annual message Sept. 5 in which Khamenei attacked the Saudi government against the backdrop of the disputes between both states that culminated in forbidding Iranian pilgrims from the hajj this year. Iran also accused Saudi Arabia of negligence in managing the hajj, which led to the deaths of more than 760 people and injuries to around 1,000 in 2015.

Sheikh Abdulaziz Al Sheikh, the Saudi grand mufti and head of the Council of Senior Scholars, spoke to Makkah newspaper Sept. 6, saying, “We must understand that those are not Muslims. They are Majus [Zoroastrians], and their enmity to Muslims — specifically to the Sunni community — goes way back.”

Although Sheikh was addressing the Iranian political regime, his choice of words and the context of his response gave the impression that he was targeting Iranian Shiites in general. He used the pronoun “they” in his reply to the message of Khamenei, who is only one of many Iranians. He also focused on Zoroastrianism, the historical religion of Iranians before Islam, and his reference to historical enmity with Sunnis is further proof that the international media got the story right — this was an attack on Iranian Shiites in general.

Such a tone is not new in the Salafi-Wahhabi discourse. It dates back to the old history of Wahhabism in the kingdom continuing to the present time. When Abdul-Aziz bin Baz was grand mufti from 1962-1999, he deemed Shiites apostates on several occasions, including in official fatwas and speeches. Ibn Jibreen, the oldest member of the Council of Senior Scholars when he died around age 76 in 2009, issued several fatwas stating that Shiites are polytheists who have deviated from Islam, saying they “deserve to be killed” if they reveal their beliefs. The council is the highest religious authority in the kingdom. Other fatwas from influential and living clerics in the kingdom such as Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Barrak called for considering Shiites apostates, secluding them, treating them with hatred and banning humanitarian aid from reaching them.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif replied to Sheikh on his official Twitter page, writing, “Indeed; no resemblance between Islam of Iranians & most Muslims & bigoted extremism that Wahhabi top cleric & Saudi terror masters preach.”

In a speech before the families of the victims of the hajj stampede on Sept. 7, 2015, Khamenei described the ruling Saudi family as “a cursed malicious tree.” He said that it has deviated from the Muslim world and Islam and has allied with Islam’s enemies who must be deterred and whose aggression on Muslims and Islam must be halted.

The religious divisions were not limited to the political Shiite-Wahhabi conflicts. Internal skirmishes between the different Muslim currents broke out, given the fateful setbacks resulting from the ongoing regional political disputes.

For instance, there are clear sensitivities against Wahhabis from Muslims outside Shiite Islam due to Wahhabis' bad reputation following the rise of radical jihadi currents such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (IS) that have adopted Wahhabism as their principal influence.

An Islamic conference was held Aug. 25-27 in Chechnya’s capital, Grozny, and senior Sunni scholars from various Sunni schools attended. The meeting was sponsored by Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov. The conference aimed at introducing “Sunni identity” and determining its adherents.

The closing statement limited the Sunni community to “Ash’aris, Maturidis by belief, followers of the four jurisprudential schools of Sunnism (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali) and followers of pure Sufism in terms of ethics and chastity. Any other sects are not included in the Sunni community.” This clearly indicates that, in the participants' view, Wahhabism is not considered part of Sunni Islam, but rather an emerging innovation (Bid'ah) in Islam.

The closing statement also restricted the big Islamic schools to deep-rooted religious institutions in “Al-Azhar University (Cairo, Egypt), University of Al-Quaraouiyine (Fez, Morocco), Al-Zaytoonah University (Tunisia) and Hadhramaut University (Yemen).” The statement did not mention Islamic centers and religious institutions in Saudi Arabia.

The conference provoked Wahhabi scholars and Saudi officials who considered it a conspiracy from kuffâr (nonbelievers) against Saudi Arabia, and an attempt to make a coalition between Saudi Arabia's enemies — Shiites and Sufis in particular. The attendance of Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of Al-Azhar in Cairo, at the conference sparked the anger of many Saudis. Prominent writer Muhammad al-Shaikh tweeted, “Tayeb’s participation at the Grozny conference that dismissed Saudi Arabia from Sunnism will force us to change our behavior with Egypt. Our country is more important, and [President Abdel Fattah al-]Sisi’s Egypt shall go to hell.”

The Shiites' increasing effort to undermine Wahhabism’s influence in managing Islamic affairs is now expanding to other Islamic denominations, including sects within Sunnism. This is especially true given the fact that hatred of Wahhabism is not confined to Shiites, but also includes Sufis, most of whom are Sunni. Wahhabis and their political advocates in Saudi Arabia often express equal hatred for Sufism and Shiism.

Western states recently tightened the noose on Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi activities after they noticed the role of the associations sponsoring these activities in producing religious radicalism. The French authorities decided Aug. 20 to close down 20 out of 120 mosques affiliated with Salafi groups in France. In Berlin, King Fahd Academy is shutting down because the academy is thought to have played a role in provoking extremism.

The above developments indicate that the region is undergoing extensive religious changes that might largely reduce the presence of Salafi and Wahhabi movements due to internal protests against them in the Muslim world and abroad. In addition, Saudi Arabia’s role has declined, given the drop in its oil influence on the global economy and dwindling US support for the kingdom.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/7-niger-soldiers-killed-boko-haram-army-071227222.html

World

Seven Niger soldiers killed by Boko Haram: army

AFP 4 hours ago

Niamey (AFP) - Seven Niger soldiers were killed and eight others wounded in two separate attacks by Boko Haram Islamists over the past week, the army has said.

The two attacks took place in the southeastern Diffa region near the border with Nigeria, according to a military statement released late on Tuesday.

Five of them were killed in an ambush on Monday morning carried out by "members of the Boko Haram terrorist group" which also left six others wounded.

In an earlier incident on September 8, two soldiers were killed and another two wounded when their patrol vehicle went over "an improvised explosive device", the statement said.

Earlier this month, five villagers were killed and two others wounded in the same area in another attack by the Nigeria-based jihadist group in the first such incident since early June.

Boko Haram's seven-year insurgency has left at least 20,000 people dead in Nigeria and border areas of neighbouring Niger, Chad and Cameroon, and made more than 2.6 million homeless.

Comments (10)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/libya-unity-rivals-seize-fourth-oil-port-military-171121508.html

Libya unity govt seeks talks after rival seizes oil ports

Mohamad Ali Harissi
September 14, 2016

Tripoli (AFP) - The head of Libya's UN-backed unity government called for urgent talks Wednesday after forces loyal to a rival administration seized the main eastern oil ports in defiance of world powers.

The fighting between the two sides -- the first since the unity government started work in the capital Tripoli in March -- was the latest escalation of the chaos that has gripped Libya since the overthrow of Moamer Kadhafi in 2011.

A bombing campaign by Britain and France was instrumental in the veteran dictator's ouster, and a key British parliamentary committee on Wednesday joined mounting criticism of the two governments for their failure to shape its aftermath.

This week's seizure of all four export terminals in Libya's so-called oil crescent was a major blow to the Government of National Accord (GNA), which is almost entirely dependent on oil revenues for its income.

UN envoy Martin Kobler, who had called repeatedly for a halt to the offensive led by controversial military strongman Khalifa Haftar, was to brief the Security Council on the crisis later on Wednesday.

The unity government is key to UN efforts to restore stability to Libya and it now faces an even tougher battle to assert its authority over the rival administration in the east.

GNA head Fayez al-Sarraj said that Libya was at a "turning point" after the assault on the oil ports with its future as a united nation in serious question.

"I call on all sides to halt provocative actions and sit down urgently at the same table to discuss a mechanism that would enable us to get out of this crisis and put a stop to the conflict," he said.

"I am not prepared to rule one part of Libya nor to lead a war against another part."

The capture of the oil crescent means that the rival administration now controls virtually all of the eastern Cyrenaica region.

Meanwhile, in a sign of how complex divisions in Libya have become, the National Oil Company in Tripoli said in a statement on Tuesday night that it planned to resume oil exports from the ports.

The NOC, which said that it recognised the GNA, did not explain how it could export oil from ports controlled by Haftar's forces.

"Our technical teams already started assessing what needs to be done to... restart exports as soon as possible," NOC chairman Mustafa Sanalla, who visited Zuwaytina port on Wednesday, said in the statement.

He said he hoped for "a new phase of cooperation and coexistence between Libya's factions, as well as an end to the use of the blockade as a political tactic."

- 'Only game in town' -

Haftar, 73, who sees himself as Libya's saviour after driving jihadists out of most of the main eastern city of Benghazi, is the most powerful backer of the eastern administration.

Meanwhile, the writ of Sarraj's government is confined to the western Tripolitania region where its forces have been battling jihadists of the Islamic State group in the coastal city of Sirte for months.

Western governments have voiced serious concern that Libya's deepening divisions play into the hands of the jihadists' efforts to establish a base just across the Mediterranean from Europe.

The United States and its European allies issued a joint statement condemning Haftar's offensive and calling for the return of the oil ports to unity government control.

US President Barack Obama has voiced disappointment that Britain and France did not do more to prevent the collapse of central authority in Libya after their intervention in 2011.

"I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya's proximity, being invested in the follow-up," he said in an interview with Atlantic magazine published in March.

That criticism was echoed in the report published by the British parliament's foreign affairs committee on Wednesday, which found that the NATO-backed intervention championed by London and Paris was "not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Kadhafi Libya."

The committee said it was vital that the international community support Sarraj's unity government.

"The GNA is the only game in town," it said.

"If it fails, the danger is that Libya will descend into a full-scale civil war to control territory and oil resources."

View Comments (4)

 

[Possible Impact]

Untold hours are expended on Hillary's illness/drunken staggering/stroke etc and the world marches on...

more Hell on the Horizon bump

Haaretz.com ‏@haaretzcom 1h
Could a nuclear weapons test end all American aid to Israel?
http://htz.li/6vu

Haaretz.com ‏@haaretzcom 1h
Opinion: Is America's silence on Israel's nuclear ambiguity about to end?
http://dlvr.it/MG7TMt

Al-Masdar News ‏@TheArabSource 3h
Iranian naval commander demands US leave Persian Gulf
https://aml.ink/lAr4j #Iran #PersianGulf


Al-Masdar News ‏@TheArabSource 12h
Kurdish PKK leader calls for end of conflict with Turkey


Al-Masdar News ‏@TheArabSource Sep 12
Syrian Army kills over 30 jihadists in the Golan Heights
https://aml.ink/UQdRp #Quneitra #Syria


Al-Masdar News ‏@TheArabSource Sep 12
Syrian Army restores all lost points in Golan Heights
https://aml.ink/SRItK #Syria


Al-Masdar News ‏@TheArabSource Sep 12
[Breaking] Rebels launch new offensive in Golan Heights
as ceasefire begins
https://aml.ink/Iujeg #Syria


Al-Masdar News ‏@TheArabSource Sep 12
Israeli airstrike hits Syrian Army positions near Damascus
https://aml.ink/OxMUl #SAA #Syria



Geopolitics & Wars ‏@GeopoliticsWar Sep 13
Russian FM Lavrov has called to show restraint
and to avoid any provocations in Golan Heights Syria
http://tass.com/politics/899497



Al-Masdar News ‏@TheArabSource Sep 13
Israeli warplane shot down over southwest #Quneitra: Syrian DM
https://aml.ink/aD4cO #Golan #Israel #Syria


Al-Masdar News ‏@TheArabSource Sep 13
Israel denies downed warplane in Syria
https://aml.ink/MYGD5 #Golan #Quneitra


Al-Masdar News ‏@TheArabSource Sep 13
Syrian Army sends large convoy of reinforcements to #Golan Heights ...
https://aml.ink/39mi8 #Damascus #Israel #Quneitra #Syria



Conflict News ‏@Conflicts 19h
SYRIA: Reports of more Israeli airstrikes
targeting Syrian military positions after mortar fire hit the Golan Heights.



Al-Masdar News ‏@TheArabSource 19h
BREAKING: Syrian anti-aircraft units respond
to Israeli drone incursion over Syria


Al-Masdar News ‏@TheArabSource 17h
BREAKING: Israeli jets conduct multiple air raids
on Syrian Arab Army positions


Al-Masdar News ‏@TheArabSource 5h
Israeli Army returns 14 bodies to the jihadist rebels
after Golan Heights offensive
https://aml.ink/86Nax #Israel #Quneitra #Syria

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.todayonline.com/chinaindia/china/us-has-no-right-lecture-china-over-n-korea

US has ‘no right to lecture’ China over N Korea

Published: 4:00 AM, September 15, 2016

BEIJING — The United States is a troublemaker and has no right to lecture China about taking responsibility for reining in North Korea as tensions on the peninsula are a direct result of US actions, the People’s Daily newspaper said yesterday.

In a commentary, the ruling Communist Party’s official newspaper said the US was pretending it had nothing to do with the North Korea issue and was putting the blame on others.

“People have reason to doubt whether Washington is willing to make the effort to push the North Korea issue in the direction of a resolution,” the newspaper said.

“At the start of the year after North Korea carried out its fourth nuclear test, the United States did not hesitate to increase irritations to the peninsula’s security situation, did not hesitate to harm regional countries strategic security interests, strongly pushing Thaad’s deployment in South Korea,” it said, referring to the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (Thaad) anti-missile system the US is deploying in South Korea.

While China has been angered by North Korea’s fifth and largest nuclear test to date last week, it has also blamed the US for taking what Beijing sees as equally provocative behaviour, like the Thaad deployment decision.

China is North Korea’s most important diplomatic and trade partner, and while China has signed up for tough United Nations sanctions on the isolated state, it refuses to cut the country off completely, fearing it may collapse.

The US says it wants China to do more, with US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter last week singling out the role he said China should play.

But in its commentary, the People’s Daily said the US was doing less and less for the public good in international affairs, “but its vigour for troublemaking has not diminished an iota”.

North Korea is an example of this, as are Washington’s “brazen” efforts to provoke problems in the South China Sea by claiming to be a “protector of the rules”, the newspaper added in the commentary, published under the pen name “Zhong Sheng”, meaning “Voice of China”, often used to give views on foreign policy.

China has been infuriated by “freedom of navigation” patrols conducted by the US in the South China Sea, where China is locked in disputes with several South-east Asian nations.

The US is an “enormous obstacle” to a resolution of the North Korea nuclear issue, the newspaper said.

“The United States needs to seriously look back at how things have developed with the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula, and really think about an effective resolution method and assume its responsibilities.” Reuters

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-truce-idUSKCN11K2IF

World News | Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:45pm EDT

Kerry, Lavrov agree Syria truce holding, extend it by 48 hours


The United States and Russia agreed that the Syrian cessation of hostilities that began on Monday had largely held and should be extended for another 48 hours despite sporadic violence, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday.

The cessation of hostilities, brokered by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Friday, went into effect on Monday night.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Kerry and Lavrov had spoken by telephone earlier on Wednesday and agreed it was worth extending the truce.

Under the deal, the United States and Russia are aiming for reduced violence over seven consecutive days before they move to the next stage of coordinating military strikes against Nusra Front and Islamic State militants, which are not party to the truce.

"There was agreement that as a whole, despite sporadic reports of violence, the arrangement is holding, and violence is significantly lower in comparison with previous days and weeks," Toner told a briefing.

"As part of the conversation they agreed to extend the cessation for another 48 hours," he said.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the Syrian conflict through contacts on the ground, said no deaths from fighting had been reported in the first 48 hours of the truce.

"This recommitment will initially be for 48 hours, and, provided it holds, the U.S. and Russia will discuss extensions, with the aim of achieving an indefinite extension to lower the violence," Toner explained later.

He said Russia needed to use its influence over Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to ensure that humanitarian aid was delivered to besieged communities under the agreement.

"We haven't seen the humanitarian access yet so we're still continuing to assess this, talking to the Russians," he said. "We're pressuring them to pressure the Assad regime."

Two aid convoys, each of around 20 trucks carrying mostly food and flour, that were headed for the city of Aleppo have been held up since crossing the Turkish border, according to United Nations and other officials.

The U.N. special envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, said on Tuesday the United Nations was waiting for Damascus to issue letters authorizing the aid deliveries, which are desperately needed in Aleppo, the scene of Syria's fiercest fighting in recent months.

The U.N. has estimated that well over half a million people are living under siege in Syria.

The five-year-long civil war in Syria has left hundreds of thousands of people dead and more than 11 million people have been displaced.


(Reporting by Lesley Wroughton; Editing by Paul Simao, Toni Reinhold)

Also In World News
Aid for Syria waits on Turkish border as warring sides bicker
U.S., Israel sign $38 billion military aid package
U.S. confirms two more freed Guantanamo inmates rejoined militant groups
Obama, meeting with Suu Kyi, says U.S. ready to lift Myanmar sanctions

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/europe-rediscovers-the-military-draft-17700

Europe Rediscovers the Military Draft

France, Italy, Latvia and Lithuania scrapped conscription as they concluded that large-scale defense was no longer necessary. But the draft is back.

Elisabeth Braw
September 13, 2016

In 2010 the Swedish parliament, having decided it no longer needed the large armed forces that had for centuries defended the country, suspended the mandatory draft. The following year, so did Germany. Other European countries including France, Italy, Latvia and Lithuania likewise scrapped or suspended conscription as they concluded that large-scale defense was no longer necessary. But now the draft is making a comeback in Europe.

Johan Wiktorin, a Swedish former army officer who is now a security columnist and consultant explained the difficulties his country faced in transitioning to an all-volunteer force: “Volunteer soldiers are not in our culture, and it has been difficult for the armed forces to compete on the labor market.” As a result, the Swedish Armed Forces are having trouble recruiting soldiers, even at the reduced manpower requirements for a volunteer military. With the country’s healthy economy generating plenty of job opportunities, only the most dedicated young men and women will voluntarily join the armed forces—and there have turned out to be too few such people.

What’s more, with Russia looming larger than it has in decades, Sweden is moving to address its manpower shortage. This month, a government-appointed rapporteur is expected to recommend a return to the draft. According to the daily Svenska Dagbladet, the rapporteur—Annika Nordgren Christensen, a former Green Party MP who served on the parliament’s defense committee—will recommend that starting next year, all seventeen-year-olds will be registered for the draft, with selection taking place when they are eighteen. Unlike the previous draft, the new one will—if passed by parliament, as is likely—also include women. That will bring Sweden in line with Norway, which has already expanded its draft to women, and several other European countries that are considering doing so.

Other European countries face the same dilemma as Sweden: how to recruit soldiers when extremely few young people have had any interaction with the military. Teenagers decide they want to become doctors—or even bankers—based on their experience with medicine or banking, but the military? Past generations’ draft served not only to train reserves but to open young men’s eyes to the military as a career choice. In short, Europe is once again focusing on territorial defense.

Not surprisingly, other countries are rediscovering the draft too. In France, the draft is now being discussed as a response to terrorism, with Socialist Party presidential contender Arnaud Montebourg proposing a six-month general draft. In Germany, politicians such as the Christian Democrats’ parliamentary leader in Lower Saxony, Björn Thümler, argue that Germany should think about a return to the draft. (The Bundestag vote on March 24, 2011, suspended it rather than abolishing it altogether.) Thümler told the daily Die Welt: “It would be a way of preventing potential crises and would also ground the Bundeswehr in society more widely again.” Professor Patrick Sensburg, a CDU member of the Bundestag, argues that reinstating the draft would help Germany create “home defense battalions” to protect critical infrastructure.

A new civil defense white paper introduced by German interior minister Thomas de Maizière last month also brings up the draft, albeit in a circuitous way. Detailing contingency measures, the white paper mentions that Germany’s postal service has to prepare to efficiently deliver post, for example call-up papers from the Bundeswehr in the event of a return of the draft. But most decisionmakers oppose bringing the draft back, with Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen arguing last month that it would bring “no added benefit.”

To what extent did military leaders support or oppose the suspension of the draft? I asked Vice Admiral (ret.) Lutz Feldt, a former chief of the German Navy. Military leaders had an intense discussion at the top level about the best way forward, he explained, adding: “We told the politicians that we wanted to keep the draft, but only if it was for 12 months. Less time than that doesn’t make sense.”

While German conscripts were still serving fifteen months in 1990, by 2010 the draft had been reduced to six months. But in reality few people were actually drafted: many opted for the civilian option known as Zivildienst instead, while others found less legal ways out of military service. “You could get an exception if you knew the tricks,” Feldt said. “The mass contact with the military didn’t exist anymore.”

Feldt remains in close contact with active-duty staff. And today, he told me, officers feel it would be hard to reintroduce the draft. For one, the Bundeswehr lacks the large number of training officers needed to drill large classes of conscripts. But at the same time they realize that with its 176,841 soldiers and officers, the Bundeswehr is relatively small. With its six thousand active-duty soldiers, Estonia has 221 citizens per soldier, while there are 459 Germans per each active-duty soldier. The United Kingdom has 144,120 soldiers and officers. Rather than a return to the full-blown draft, many German officers instead support an expansion of the already existing voluntary draft: initial short training followed by twenty-three months of active duty. That offers voluntary conscripts the opportunity to subsequently move to active duty.

European countries flirting with the draft are not treading uncharted territory. Last year Lithuania, which suspended conscription in 2008, reintroduced it, initially for a period of five years. This year parliament made the draft permanent. At the same time parliament voted to establish a second brigade. In 2015 the armed forces drafted three thousand male conscripts for a nine-month conscription period; the same number was drafted this year, and starting next year 3,500 young Lithuanians will be drafted annually.

Rimas Ališauskas, head of defence policy section at Lithuania‘s Ministry of Defense, told me: “The manning shortages were acute across all land forces even before the establishment of the second brigade, and the second brigade has only increased the demand for personnel.” He continued: “And the draft also serves as a way of training the reserve. The conscripts who don’t opt to stay on as professional soldiers automatically join the reserve.”

Using the draft as a recruitment tool for the armed forces’ professional positions seems to be working in Lithuania. Ališauskas told me that some 20 percent of the conscripts to date have said they want to stay on as professional soldiers. While a brigade usually comprises some four thousand soldiers, Lithuania’s second brigade remains understaffed.

At the moment, the Lithuanian Armed Forces have the luxury of choosing their conscripts: according to Statistics Lithuania, the country’s statistics agency, 37,812 Lithuanians (about half of them boys) were born in 1997 and about the same number the year after. But birth rates are in sharp decline—only 30,459 Lithuanians were born in 2012—and hundreds of thousands of citizens have migrated to other EU countries. Since 1990, Lithuania’s population has dropped from 3.7 million to 2.9 million. In the future, predicts Ališauskas, the country may really have to draft youths rather than just selecting the most willing and capable ones as is currently the case.

Back in Sweden, six years after the draft was suspended there’s now a political consensus that it should be reinstated. “There are two arguments driving the draft debate,” Wiktorin said. “The first argument, pushed by the [ruling] Social Democrats, is an ideological one: ‘We’re a small nation and everyone needs to work together.’ The second one, pushed by the Liberals, focuses on efficiency.”

Even if Sweden returns to the draft next year, as seems likely, it won’t be as easy as just calling up enough eighteen-year-olds. Facilities and shooting ranges have been sold (often for a song); instructors have retired. “But even with the cost of buying new facilities and training more instructors, the draft will be cheaper than professional soldiers,” Wiktorin added. “And we’ll get information about all the young people in the country and get to choose the ones we want.”

Elisabeth Braw is Newsweek's Europe correspondent, currently with a strong focus on security issues. She joined Newsweek following a visiting fellowship at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University. Previously she was a senior reporter at the Metro International newspaper group, focusing on interviews with political and business leaders. Elisabeth has lived in Germany, from where she has an MA in political science and German literature; Italy; Washington, DC; and San Francisco. Based in London, she frequently also reports from Germany, and is currently working on a book about one of the Stasi's most successful operations. Follow her on twitter: @elisabethbraw.

 

[Possible Impact]

Untold hours are expended on Hillary's illness/drunken staggering/stroke etc and the world marches on...

more Hell on the Horizon bump

Islamic World Update ‏@islamicworldupd 2h
Reports of 5 RuAF combat helicopters entered Ein al-Assad airbase
in the Western parts of Heet town in al-Anbar Iraq

^^^ If Russian SpeOps are now landing at USA Special Operations bases in Iraq,
then either the Iraqi government forced the US to allow it,
or the new Ru/US cooperation is much more pervasive than Pentagon & State Dept said.
(The event is still classed as RUMINT by me for now...)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...2a26&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

WORLD NEWS | Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:58pm EDT

U.S. confirms two more freed Guantanamo inmates rejoined militant groups

By Mark Hosenball | WASHINGTON

In the first six months of 2016, two more militants released from the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have returned to fighting, the U.S. government said on Wednesday.

Washington has confirmed that a total of nine people freed from Guantanamo have rejoined militant groups since President Barack Obama took office in 2009, according to a report issued on Tuesday by the Office of Director of National Intelligence, or ODNI.

The report said the number of militants freed by the Obama administration whom U.S. agencies "suspect" of having returned to action dropped to 11 from 12 between January and July.

An official familiar with the latest statistics said this number dropped because a freed detainee previously categorized as "suspected" of returning to the battlefield now has been confirmed to have done so.

The United States opened the Guantanamo detention facility in 2002, the year after the Sept. 11 attacks by Islamist militants on New York and Washington, to hold what it described as foreign terrorism suspects. Most have been held without charge or trial for more than a decade, drawing international condemnation.

Obama had hoped to close the prison during his first year in office. In February, he rolled out a plan aimed at shutting it, but that is opposed by many Republican lawmakers and some of his fellow Democrats.

Overall, the figures released by ODNI still showed that the administration of Obama's predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, released far more detainees from Guantanamo than the Obama administration has.

The figures show that 113 of the 532 detainees released by Bush - 21.2 percent - have returned to fighting, while the nine detainees released since 2009 who have re-engaged are only 5.6 percent of the prisoners freed by Obama.

In all, the Obama administration has released 161 prisoners from Guantanamo since 2009, 17 of them in the first six months of this year, ODNI said.

(Reporting By Mark Hosenball; editing by Grant McCool)


ALSO IN WORLD NEWS

Syria ceasefire deal in balance as Aleppo aid plan stalls
Japan to boost South China Sea role with training patrols with U.S.: minister
EU leaders search for way out of 'existential crisis'
Clinton says success of Syria agreement rests with Russia

 

[Housecarl]

For links and graphics see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/09/15/asean_the_limits_of_consensus_110068.html

ASEAN: The Limits of Consensus
By Stratfor
September 15, 2016

Summary
Editor's Note: This is the fourth installment of a seven-part series examining how the world's regional economic blocs are faring as the largest of them — the European Union — continues to fragment.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), home to some 635 million people and a collective gross domestic product of nearly $2.6 trillion, is one of the largest economic blocs in the developing world. Its importance in the global economy will likely only grow in the coming decades as economic, military and political might shifts from Europe to the Asia-Pacific region.


Much of that power, however, will be concentrated among the bloc's neighbors — namely, China, Japan and India — whose economies dwarf ASEAN states' in both size and scope. They, and external powers such as the United States, will jockey for influence in Southeast Asia, creating a competition that could drive ASEAN members closer together in search of mutual protection. Yet the same contest may also aggravate the differences that have historically prevented the bloc from fully unifying. As the "all or none" mantra upon which ASEAN was founded becomes increasingly difficult to follow, the bloc's path toward deeper integration will remain as slow and incremental as it has been for the past half-century.

Analysis

The political barriers that divide ASEAN today are a consequence of the geographic barriers scattered throughout Southeast Asia. The Malay Archipelago is composed of thousands of tiny islands inhabited by a variety of ethnic groups. Steep mountains and dense forests disrupt transportation among them, isolating the region's ethnically, religiously and linguistically diverse populations from one another. Continental Southeast Asia, meanwhile, is split down the middle by several river systems running north to south, severing the connections between the region's eastern and western halves.

The core of Southeast Asia stretches from peninsular Malaysia, through Singapore, to the island of Java. It includes the metropolises of Greater Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Batam, Johor and Jakarta, as well as the rest of Java, which alone accounts for roughly a quarter of ASEAN's collective GDP. Sizable cities exist beyond this region — Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi, Manila and Yangon, to name a few — but each is largely secluded from the others, creating a natural gulf between Southeast Asia's continental and maritime countries.

Uniting Core and Periphery

These were the circumstances that shaped the course of Southeast Asia's newly independent states in the decades after World War II as they entered a world sorted into U.S. and Soviet alliances. Throughout this formative period, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore repeatedly tried to create a regional organization, and after several failed attempts, they established ASEAN in 1967. The group eventually aligned militarily and economically with the United States, forming a wall that blocked communism from spreading deeper into Southeast Asia.

For the first two decades of its existence, ASEAN did not try to cooperate on economic, political or security matters. Instead, it rested on the tenet of noninterference in states' sovereign affairs and championed causes common throughout the developing world, such as the Non-Aligned Movement. It was not until the 1990s that ASEAN shifted its attention to integration, and even then it remained primarily focused on economics. In 1991, for example, the bloc's members signed the agreement that formed the basis of the ASEAN Free Trade Area. Seven years later, they reached a deal that created an investment area meant to encourage foreign investment in every sector. When the Asian financial crisis struck in 1997, shaking Southeast Asian economies to their foundations and breaking the region's currencies, ASEAN members erected a currency swap mechanism known as the Chiang Mai Initiative with China, Japan and South Korea.

Membership in the bloc, meanwhile, began to balloon. The fall of communism and the stabilization of several Southeast Asian states drew neighboring countries to the organization. From 1995 to 1999, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam joined ASEAN's ranks. This was a transformative moment for the bloc, for its original members were maritime states with similar agendas. The addition of new members, many of which were less developed and were strangers to capitalism, set the bloc on two separate paths: one for core members, and another for the newcomers.

Even so, ASEAN members began to push for greater unity in the early 2000s, leading to the bloc's defining achievement: the ASEAN Charter. Signed in 2007 and ratified in 2008, the accord formalized and established an institutional framework for the association, a far more definitive deal than any the bloc had previously reached. The organization also signed free trade agreements with India, SouthKorea and China, marking another step toward greater cooperation among its members.

A Marriage of Convenience

Of course, ASEAN's leaders hope that this will be just the beginning. With the simplest measures of economic integration complete — the ASEAN Economic Community, free trade agreement and free investment zone — they could pave the way for the bloc to become a true economic union. ASEAN's members might then be able to match China's rapid pace of industrialization and development, attracting investment into many different supply chain sectors.

But this plan is rather optimistic, considering how far ASEAN has left to go in forming a cohesive economic front. One of the ASEAN Economic Community's primary goals, for example, was to establish a common market. Though one nominally came into force at the end of 2015, encouraging freer movement of goods, services, capital and skilled labor, it still has not been fully implemented in practice. Moreover, the ASEAN free trade agreement, which took nearly 20 years to put in place, has reduced tariffs among the bloc's members to less than 1 percent. And yet in spite of this success, only 25 percent of ASEAN exports go to its members. Likewise, only 25 percent of the bloc's total trade activity remains within its borders. (By comparison, those figures are closer to 33 percent and 60 percent, respectively, in more developed free trade areas such as NAFTA and the European Union.) This highlights one of ASEAN's biggest issues: Because its members export similar goods, such as raw materials and finished manufactured products, there are limits to how much a free trade agreement can encourage higher levels of trade among them. Though it is possible that outside investment could give regional trade a boost, differences in ASEAN states' economic development and policies make it more likely that foreign funds would simply increase the amount of finished goods being sent to consumer markets in China, South Korea, Japan and the West.

Physical integration via connective infrastructure has lagged as well, especially beyond continental Southeast Asia. Many proposals exist to change that, including ideas for ASEAN natural gas and power grids, but few moves have been made to act on them. Perhaps more important to the bloc, though, are efforts to align members' broader economic policies, regulations and structures. Yet these, too, have failed to progress beyond declarations of intent. Features that are incompatible with common economic markets, including state planning and price controls, still exist in places such as Vietnam, and until they are removed, they will stand in the way of a closely knit union.

But a closely knit union — at least of the kind that shares a currency, external tariffs and a political bureaucracy — may not be what ASEAN is looking for. The bloc is unlikely to ever seriously consider becoming more like Mercosur or the European Union. In fact, ASEAN members regularly negotiate their own trade deals with non-ASEAN states, suggesting that the bloc's coordination efforts are less about forming a binding policy and more about working together as it suits individual members' interests. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a case in point. Of ASEAN's 10 members, the deal includes only Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei. Furthermore, Indonesia — which, lying at the heart of ASEAN, is by far the bloc's most important member — has taken clear steps to move away from cooperation within the organization in recent years. Under President Joko Widodo, Indonesia has routinely sent lower-level officials tobloc meetings or, in some cases, missed them entirely. On July 18, it also opened its own trade negotiations with the European Union, independently of ASEAN.

To Each Its Own

The bloc's deference to its members' individual agendas has made cooperation on political and security matters similarly difficult. Because Southeast Asia rests at the intersection of the Indian and Pacific oceans, countries outside the region with designs for those basins — and the strategic advantage they bestow — tend to take a keen interest in Southeast Asian straits and the states that control them. Historically, this manifested in the region's colonization by Europe, China, the United States and Japan. But now it has taken the form of China's steady expansion into the South China Sea — something that has elicited different responses from ASEAN's maritime and continental members. While Vietnam and the Philippines have fixed their gaze firmly to the east, for example, Myanmar is more concerned with events in South and Southeast Asia. At the same time, the dizzying array of peoples, ethnic groups, conflicts and threats that characterize ASEAN's member states have made all of them more susceptible to the meddling of outside actors seeking a foothold in the region. It comes as little surprise, then, that there has been little discussion of trying to coordinate the foreign policies of ASEAN states or form a joint legislative body within the bloc. (The organization's reliance on unanimous agreement has also prevented it from adopting a coherent stance on territorial claims in the South China Sea, precisely because of its members' competing objectives and varying relationships with Beijing.)

Of course, ASEAN was not built to provide a joint defense framework or regional security. Members may, however, stand united on particular military issues or form their own multilateral units outside the bloc's domain. Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have formed the Malacca Strait Patrol, which includes air, naval and intelligence-sharing components. Similarly, the Philippines and Indonesia have agreed to a joint naval patrol, and Malaysia recently joined them in a counterterrorism program centered on the Celebes Sea. Because these initiatives, like so many others, were undertaken in pursuit of each member's unique imperatives, it is unlikely that their future will be much affected by the bloc, regardless of the course it takes.

Staying the Course
As competition within the Asia-Pacific region heats up in the coming decades, the fissures within ASEAN will likely become more pronounced. The bloc's maritime members — the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei — will all seek to strengthen their relationships with countries that can help them counter China's naval encroachment in the region, including the United States, Japan and India. By comparison, continental Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar will continue to move closer to China. Moreover, because these states receive more direct investment in areas such as infrastructure, the gap between them and their maritime peers will probably widen.

As it does, the bloc's "all or none" approach to policymaking will become increasingly unsustainable. This is not to say that ASEAN will abandon its integration efforts entirely. But as long as its members continue act in accordance with their own interests, the chances of a more united and cohesive ASEAN emerging from the version than exists today will be slim. For now, ASEAN will stay the course it has followed for the past 50 years, slowly inching toward integration but delayed indefinitely by the constraints of geography.

This article originally appeared at Stratfor.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....IMHO the author is only partly correct....the political legitimacy and will of the government and its relationship with the population being attacked for the political goals of the enemy is just as key as what he's citing. If that bond exists, knocking a wedge into it is all the harder and the acceptance of escalating measures against the foe is more likely up to and including "total war" and the "black flag". The conflicts in the majority right now, besides the peer v peer nation-state/alliance neo-cold war brewing are OOTW/LIC which none of the PTB in CONUS/EU have the stomach to tell the population the truth regardng the foe and what's required to end the threat. Instead they'd rather take the easier course of "managing the threat" and "kick the can down the road" ... HC

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/09/15/military_victory_is_dead_110066.html

Military Victory is Dead

By ML Cavanaugh
September 15, 2016

A few weeks back, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and Harvard Professor Steven Pinker triumphantly announced the peace deal between the government of Columbia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC). While positive, this declaration rings hollow as the exception that proves the rule – a tentative treaty, however, at the end, roughly 7,000 guerrillas held a country of 50 million hostage over 50 years at a cost of some 220,000 lives. Churchill would be aghast: Never in the history of human conflict were so many so threatened by so few.

One reason this occasion merited a more somber statement: military victory is dead. And it was killed by a bunch of cheap stuff.

The term “victory” is loaded, so let’s stipulate it means unambiguous, unchallenged, and unquestioned strategic success – something more than a “win,” because, while one might “eke out a win,” no one “ekes out a victory.” Wins are represented by a mere letter (“w”); victory is a tickertape with tanks.

Which is something I’ll never see in my military career; I should explain. When a government has a political goal that cannot be obtained other than by force, the military gets involved and selects some objective designed to obtain said goal. Those military objectives can be classified broadly, as Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz did, into either a limited aim (i.e. “occupy some…frontier-districts” to use “for bargaining”), or a larger aim to completely disarm the enemy, “render[ing] him politically helpless or military impotent.” Lo, we’ve arrived at the problem: War has become so inexpensive that anyone can afford the traditional military means of strategic significance – so we can never fully disarm the enemy. And a perpetually armed enemy means no more parades (particularly in Nice).

It’s a buyer’s market in war, and the baseline capabilities (shoot, move, and communicate) are at snake-belly prices. Tactical weaponry, like AK-47s are plentiful,rented, and shipped from battlefield to battlefield, and the most lethal weapon U.S. forces encountered at the height of the Iraq War, the improvised explosive device, could be had for as little as $265. Moving is cost-effective too in the “pickup truck era of warfare,” and reports on foreign fighters in Syria remind us that cheap, global travel makes it possible for nearly anyone on the planet to rapidly arrive in an active war zone with money to spare. Also, while the terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba shut down the megacity Mumbai in 2008 for less than what many traveling youth soccer teams spend in a season, using unprotected social media networks, communication has gotten even easier for the emerging warrior with today’s widely available unhackable phones and apps. These low and no-cost commo systems are the glue that binds single wolves into coordinated wolf-packs with guns, exponentially greater than the sum of their parts. The good news: Ukraine can crowdfund aerial surveillance against Russian incursions. The less-good news: strikes, like 9/11, cost less than three seconds of a single Super Bowl ad. With prices so low, why would anyone ever give up their fire, maneuver, and control platforms?

All of which explains why military victory has gone away. Consider the Middle East, and the recent comment by a Hezbollah leader, “This can go on for a hundred years,” and his comrade’s complementary analysis, that “as long as we are there, nobody will win.” With such a modestly priced war stock on offer, it’s no wonder Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies agrees with the insurgents, recently concluding, of the four wars currently burning across the region, the U.S. has “no prospect” of strategic victory in any. Or that Modern War Institutescholar Andrew Bacevich assesses bluntly, “If winning implies achieving stated political objectives, U.S. forces don’t win.” This is what happens when David’s slingshot is always full.

The guerrillas know what many don’t: It’s the era, stupid. This is the nature of the age, as Joshua Cooper Ramos describes, “a nightmare reality in which we must fight adaptive microthreats and ideas, both of which appear to be impossible to destroy even with the most expensive weapons.” Largely correct, one point merits minor amendment – it’s meaningless to destroy when it’s so cheap to get back in the game, a hallmark of a time in which Wolverine-like regeneration is regular.

This theme even extends to more civilized conflicts. Take the Gawker case: begrudged hedge fund giant Peter Thiel funded former wrestler Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against the journalistic insurrectionists at Gawker Media, which forced the website’s writers to lay down their keyboards. However, as author Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out – Gawker’s leader, Nick Denton, can literally walk across the street, with a few dollars, and start right over. Another journalist opined, “Mr. Thiel’s victory was a hollow one – you might even say he lost. While he may have killed Gawker, its sensibility and influence on the rest of the news business survive.” Perhaps Thiel should have waited 50 more years, as Columbia had to, to write his “victory” op-ed? He may come to regret the essay as his own “Mission Accomplished” moment.

True with websites, so it goes with warfare. We live in the cheap war era, where the attacker has the advantage and the violent veto is always possible. Political leaders can speak and say tough stuff, promise ruthless revenge – it doesn’t matter, ultimately, because if you can’t disarm the enemy, you can’t parade the tanks. We’ve reached the end of victory’s road, and at this juncture it’s time to embrace other terms, a less-loaded lexicon, like “strategic advantage,” “relative gain,” and “sustainable marginalization.” Victory’s been defeated; it’s time we recognized that and moved on to what we actually can accomplish.


ML Cavanaugh is a US Army Strategist, a Non Resident Fellow with the Modern War Institute at West Point, and has served in assignments from Iraq to the Pentagon, and Korea to New Zealand. A Contributor at War on the Rocks, he looks forward to connecting via Twitter @MLCavanaugh. This essay is an unofficial expression of opinion; the views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of West Point, the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or any agency of the US government.

This article originally appeared at Modern War Institute.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/erdogans-tragic-choice/

Erdogan’s tragic choice

15 Sep 2016|Dani Rodrik

Ever since Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan won his first general election in late 2002, he’s been obsessed with the idea that power would be wrested from him through a coup. He had good reason to worry even then. Turkey’s ultra-secularist establishment, ensconced in the upper echelons of the judiciary and the military at the time, made no secret of its antipathy toward Erdogan and his political allies.

Erdogan himself had been jailed for reciting religion-laced poetry, which prevented him from taking office immediately when his Justice and Development Party (AKP) assumed office in November 2002. In 2007, the military issued a statement opposing the AKP’s candidate for president—then largely a figurehead. And in 2008, the party narrowly escaped being shut down by the country’s top court for ‘anti-secular activities’.

The old guard’s efforts largely backfired and served only to augment Erdogan’s popularity. His strengthening grip on power might have mollified him and led to a less confrontational political style. Instead, in the ensuing years, his then-allies the Gülenists—followers of the cleric-in-exile Fethullah Gülen—managed to whip Erdogan’s obsession into paranoia.

From 2008 to 2013, Gülenists in the police, judiciary, and media concocted a series of fictitious conspiracies and plots against Erdogan, each more gory than the last. They ran sensational show trials targeting military officers, journalists, NGOs, professors, and Kurdish politicians. Erdogan may not have believed all of the charges—a military chief with whom he had worked closely was among those jailed—but the prosecutions served their purpose. They fed Erdogan’s fear of being toppled, and eliminated the remaining vestiges of the secularist regime from the military and civilian bureaucracy.

The Gülenists had another motive as well. They were able to place their own sympathisers in the senior ranks vacated by the military officers targeted by their sham trials. The Gülenists had spent decades infiltrating the military; but the commanding heights had remained out of reach. This was their opportunity. The ultimate irony of July’s failed coup is that it was engineered not by Turkey’s secularists, but by the Gülenist officers Erdogan had allowed to be promoted in their stead.

By the end of 2013, Erdogan’s alliance with the Gülenists had turned into open warfare. With the common enemy—the secularist old guard—defeated, there was little to hold the alliance together. Erdogan had begun closing Gülenist schools and businesses and purging them from the state bureaucracy. A major purge of the military was on the way, which apparently prompted Gülenist officers to move pre-emptively.

In any case, the coup attempt has fully validated Erdogan’s paranoia, which helps explain why the crackdown on Gülenists and other government opponents has been so ruthless and extensive. In addition to the discharge of nearly 4,000 officers, 85,000 public officials have been dismissed from their jobs since 15 July, and 17,000 have been jailed. Scores of journalists have been detained, including many with no links to the Gülen movement. Any semblance of the rule of law and due process has disappeared.

A great leader would‘ve responded differently. The failed putsch created a rare opportunity for national unity. All political parties, including the Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP), condemned the coup attempt, as did the vast majority of ordinary people, regardless of their political orientation. Erdogan could have used the opportunity to rise beyond Islamist, liberal, secularist, and Kurdish identities to establish a new political consensus around democratic norms. He had a chance to become a democratic unifier.

Instead, he has chosen to deepen Turkey’s divisions and erode the rule of law even more. The dismissal and jailing of opponents has gone far beyond those who may have had a role in the putsch. Marxist academics, Kurdish journalists, and liberal commentators have been swept up alongside Gülenists. Erdogan continues to treat the HDP as a pariah. And, far from contemplating peace with the Kurdish rebels, he seems to relish the resumption of war with them.

Unfortunately, this is a winning strategy. Keeping the country on high alert against perceived enemies and inflaming nationalist-religious passions serves to keep Erdogan’s base mobilised. And it neutralises the two main opposition parties; both are highly nationalistic and therefore constitute reliable allies in the war against the Kurdish rebels.

Similarly, Erdogan’s offensive against Gülen and his movement seems driven more by political opportunism than by a desire to bring the coup’s organisers to justice. Erdogan and his ministers have endlessly griped about the United States’ reluctance to extradite Gülen to Turkey. Yet, nearly two months after the coup, Turkey hasn’t formally submitted to the US any evidence of Gülen’s culpability. Anti-American rhetoric plays well in Turkey, and Erdogan isn’t beneath exploiting it.

In his testimony to the prosecutors investigating the coup, the army’s top general has said that the putschists who took him hostage offered to put him in contact that night with Gülen. This remains the strongest evidence that Gülen himself was directly involved. A leader intent on convincing the world of Gülen’s culpability would’ve paraded his military chief in front of the media to elaborate on what happened that night. Yet the general hasn’t been asked—or allowed—to speak in public, fueling speculation about his own role in the attempted coup.

And so Turkey’s never-ending cycle of victimisation—of Islamists, communists, secularists, Kurds perennially, and now the Gülenists—has gained velocity. Erdogan’s making the same tragic mistake he made in 2009–2010: using his vast popularity to undermine democracy and the rule of law rather than restoring them—and thus rendering moderation and political reconciliation all the more difficult in the future.

Erdogan’s twice had the chance to be a great leader. At considerable cost to his legacy—and even greater cost to Turkey—he spurned it both times.

AUTHOR
Dani Rodrik, Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, is the author of Economic Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science. This article is presented in partnership with Project Syndicate © 2016. Image courtesy of Flickr user Patrick Müller.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.politico.eu/article/euro...intering-continent-populism-brexit-migration/

Europe reaches for reset

With leaders gripped by fear of losing elections, Donald Tusk’s hopes of a ‘pivotal’ summit risk being disappointed.

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN 9/15/16, 5:35 AM CET
Illustration by Mitch Blunt for POLITICO

As EU leaders survey the state of Europe from a hilltop castle in Bratislava on Friday, they won’t like what they see: a splintering Continent, beset by populism.

Brussels hopes this summit will change the narrative, but merely gathering 27 presidents and prime ministers under one roof may turn out to be its biggest achievement — and even then, Britain’s absence will illustrate the depth of discord.

The Brexit vote in June created an urgent need for solidarity against a Euroskeptic barrage, but the political imperatives of individual leaders facing reelection fights seem increasingly at odds with the “ever closer union” envisioned in the Treaty of Rome.

Donald Tusk, the European Council president, hopes to restore confidence by rallying leaders behind a tightly focused agenda: to manage the migration crisis by strengthening border controls, enhancing cooperation on internal and external security, and to take steps — somewhat less clear — to prop up the sluggish economy.

In his State of the Union speech on Wednesday, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said he had never seen Europe’s leaders so fractured, or so inwardly focused, which underscores how difficult it will be to achieve even limited goals in coming weeks and months.

“Never before have I seen such little common ground between our member states, so few areas where they agree to work together,” he said. “Never before have I seen national governments so weakened by the forces of populism and paralyzed by the risk of defeat in the next elections.”

The absence of the U.K. and its new prime minister, Theresa May, imposes limitations on the summit: nothing that is said or done will be legally binding, making it little more than a high-level public relations exercise.

In Brussels, officials worked aggressively to set modest expectations, portraying it as the start of a post-Brexit reassessment and noting that more concrete steps will be taken at regular summits in Brussels in October and December, including a review of relations with Russia, and culminating next year in Italy at a celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome.

“We just had one of our member states who decided to leave, we cannot just pretend that this was nothing and get on with it,” said one EU official involved in the summit planning.

Possible collapse

“For the first time in decades, senior European leaders have actually envisioned publicly the possibility of the disintegration and collapse of the European Union,” said Michael Leigh, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund and a former director-general for enlargement at the European Commission.

“People are asking the question: Will the European Union survive for the next decade?” added Leigh. “The fact that the 27 should get together following the Brexit referendum and express a common determination to reinforce the European Union is in itself positive.”

If the bar is set that low, Tusk seems certain to succeed, though he has higher aspirations, laid out in a “Dear colleague” letter this week that amounts to a four-and-a-half-page call to action.

The Council’s Polish president exhorted national leaders to recognize Brexit as evidence of broader doubts among citizens, and he urged them to make Bratislava a pivot point.

“People in Europe want to know if the political elites are capable of restoring control over events and processes which overwhelm, disorientate, and sometimes terrify them,” Tusk wrote.

The two most important messages, according to the EU official involved in the planning, are that the remaining 27 members “intend to stay in the EU and make it a success,” and that they need to address people’s feeling of insecurity. However, officials said they were bracing for inevitable disagreement and that Friday’s meeting was unlikely to produce a blueprint for addressing these challenges.

Don’t rock the boat

Preventing open squabbling among the leaders in Slovakia is another challenge, against the backdrop of old tensions within Europe — between West and East, North and South, Right and Left — repeatedly erupting on a broad spectrum of issues, including migrants, fiscal policy and military cooperation.

On some issues, clear factions have emerged. Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras convened the so-called Club-Med group of Southern tier nations in Athens, where some leaders lashed out at the austerity policies championed by Germany and other Central and Northern countries.

On other issues, the disagreements have been more emotional: Luxembourg’s foreign affairs minister, Jean Asselborn, said in an interview published Tuesday that Hungary should be expelled from the EU for treating migrants almost like “wild animals.”

Even Tusk, criss-crossing Europe to meet leaders ahead of Friday’s meeting, gave in to the temptation to vent on a stopover in his native Poland, where he rebuked critics of the EU during a meeting with Prime Minister Beata Szydło.

Szydło, clearly aiming her remarks at a domestic audience, said she had conveyed pointed demands for sweeping reforms of the EU, echoing recent talk in Poland and Hungary about a heavy rewrite of the Treaty of Rome as it celebrates its 60th anniversary next year.

Tusk hit back with remarks that underscored his fears about lack of cohesion among EU leaders, saying he had encouraged the Polish government “to treat Europe as something that’s worth being taken care of, not attack and question.”

“It’s important that Poland doesn’t join those who want to rock the EU boat. We need an EU that is stable, strong and as united as possible,” he said.

Playing for time

“In Tusk’s eyes, the purpose of the meeting is to bring back stability and hope to the Union shaken by many crises,” a senior EU official said.

His biggest challenge, however, is the political context: some of Europe’s most prominent figures risk losing their jobs in coming elections, including in France and Germany. Those in the strongest position, like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, are often sharply critically of the EU.

Through one lens, the precariousness of the European Union could be viewed as synonymous with the predicament of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has struggled to balance her instinct to lead with an emphasis on Western values, against a backlash from voters at home, where her conservative party just took a drubbing in regional elections.

According to one veteran EU diplomat, leaders are just “looking at the next electoral deadline, whether it is elections in Germany or France or Italy and the rest. Everybody sits at the table and the only thing he or she has in mind is ‘What can I get from here to prove to my public opinion that I am the best, that I am doing what they are asking me to do.’”

“In a way,” the diplomat added, “it is the general problem of the European Union these last few years. The problem is how to reconcile your own views and the general interest.”

The gains by the far-right Alternative for Germany party are just one example of the challenges traditional parties are facing from insurgent political factions on the Right and Left. Propelled by anti-establishment fervor, they have the luxury of campaigning against politics-as-usual without having ever borne the responsibility of governing.

“I don’t think you have today in any of the member states any serious politician who believes he or she could win an election by saying what we need is more Europe,” said Michael Leigh.

Outside Brussels, there was a similar sense that the main purpose of the Bratislava gathering would be to lift morale and begin a longer process of reflection and collaboration, according to senior European diplomats in Berlin and other capitals, even as some leaders viewed Tusk’s letter as excessively bleak.

Germany in particular has been working in recent days to open new lines of communication including between states where there had been little previous engagement outside formal settings.

And some German officials viewed the effort to prepare for Bratislava, including meetings with the French to develop a joint proposal on enhanced European military cooperation, as perhaps even more useful than Friday’s heavily stage-crafted meeting, the diplomats said.

Tusk, reflecting a view shared by Merkel, has said the short-term answer should be modest but concrete deliverables to show voters the EU adds value, such as stepping up security along Bulgaria’s border with Turkey, and imposing new, coordinated traveler screening programs to identify and intercept potential terrorists.

But it is far from clear those steps will be sufficient to change public opinion. And many of the forces battering Europe seem largely beyond the control of political leaders and institutions.

And some officials said there was a risk that the Bratislava summit would meet the low expectations set by Brussels, and ultimately not prove a turning point.

“I am not expecting that Bratislava will be a sort of dividing line,” the veteran EU diplomat said. “For the moment, Germany has decided not to rush into anything. So essentially it will be a sort of standstill. In a way we are all playing for time, which is not very good under the present circumstances.”

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.investors.com/politics/c...ly-proliferation-may-beat-a-nuclear-umbrella/

Commentary

North Korea: Friendly Proliferation May Beat A Nuclear Umbrella

DOUG BANDOW
2:42 PM ET

The Obama administration is debating a declaration of no first use of nuclear weapons. Some Asia specialists fear the resulting impact on North Korea. But dealing with Pyongyang is a reason for Washington to encourage its ally South Korea to go nuclear.

Washington has possessed nuclear weapons for more than 70 years. No one doubts that the U.S. would use nukes in its own defense.

However, since then Washington has extended a so-called "nuclear umbrella" over many of its non-nuclear allies. For instance, the U.S. long has threatened to use nuclear weapons in its NATO allies' defense, though the precise circumstances under which the U.S. would act were not clear. The U.S. also holds, probably, a nuclear umbrella over at least some of its Mideast allies.

Northeast Asia is the region where nuclear threats seem greatest. Japan and South Korea are thought to be snuggled beneath America's nuclear umbrella, which has discouraged both from acquiring their own weapons. Other possible claimants include Taiwan and Australia, though, again, no one quite knows what Washington would do when.

The "umbrella" obviously is defensive, that is, to protect American allies against the first use of nukes. However, Washington also could -- and, it appears, would, if necessary, whatever that might mean -- use nuclear weapons first to stop a conventional attack. While Russia and China might not be particularly friendly with America these days, they aren't likely to attack the Republic of Korea or Japan. More plausible is a North Korean invasion of the ROK.

Extended nuclear deterrence always has been risky for the U.S. It means being willing to fight a nuclear war on behalf of others, that is, Americans would risk Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles to, say, defend Berlin and Tokyo.

At least bilateral deterrence among great powers tends to be reasonably stable. Dealing with North Korea is potentially more dangerous. Kim Jong Un's judgment and stability are problematic. He might start a war inadvertently.

Yet the DPRK eventually may gain the ability to strike the U.S. by developing long-range missiles as well as nuclear weapons. The North isn't likely to attack first, but it still could lay waste to a major U.S. city.

Which would be a bad deal indeed. Yet advocates of extended deterrence are criticizing proposals for an American pledge of no first use of nuclear weapons. Writing for NK News, analyst Robert E. McCoy argued: "It is imperative that Kim Jong Un is made to understand that he faces the destructive power of our entire weapons arsenal at all times when it comes to threatening the U.S. or its allies."

Yet that is precisely the problem. It is one thing for Washington to use nuclear weapons, including pre-emptively, to protect America. It is quite different to do so for allies.

Alliances are a means, not an end -- that is, a mechanism to help defend the U.S. A North Korean attack on South Korea would be awful, a humanitarian tragedy. But American security would not be directly threatened. Certainly there is no threat warranting the risk of nuclear retaliation on the U.S.

Of course, those being defended have configured their security policy and force structure in response. But future policy should not be held captive to the past.

Washington's chief responsibility should be America's security. Backers of the status quo act like there is no alternative to leaving South Korea (and Japan, which faces a real, though less direct, threat from the DPRK) vulnerable to attack.

However, Seoul is well able to deter and defeat the North. The ROK possesses around 40 times the GDP and twice the population of North Korea, as well as a vast technological lead and an extensive international support network. Japan, which long possessed the world's second-largest economy, also could do far more.

The South is capable of developing nuclear weapons. Indeed, polls show public support for such an option today. Opposition to nuclear weapons is stronger in Japan, but an ROK weapon would put enormous pressure on Tokyo to conform.

Obviously, there are plenty of good reasons to oppose proliferation, even among friends. However, the current system is entangling Washington in the middle of other nations' potential conflicts. The result is to make America less secure.

Dealing with nuclear weapons is never easy. Washington's best alternative may be to withdraw from Northeast Asia's nuclear imbroglio. Then America's allies could engage in containment and deterrence, just as America did for them for so many years.


Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author, co-author and editor of several books, including "The Korean Conundrum: America's Troubled Relations with North and South Korea."

 

[OldArcher]

Jeeeeeze Louise... What Obama doesn't know, staggers the imagination... He's beyond words, or in polite society, description... Treason is too nice, for the queer mu-slime ****** in chief, who's highest aspiration, is to be Queen for a Day...

May God Help Us...

GBY&Y's

Maranatha

OA

 

[vestige]

Washington's chief responsibility should be America's security.

....and it is the last thing on Washington's mind.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nst.com.my/news/2016/09/173241/collapse-38th-parallel-needed

A collapse of the 38th Parallel is needed

BY MUSHTAK PARKER - 15 SEPTEMBER 2016 @ 11:01 AM

The radioactive dust of North Korea’s fifth and largest nuclear test a week ago had hardly settled over the Punggye-ri testing site and over the border in China and already reports suggest that President Kim Jong-un is preparing to up the ante by conducting an imminent sixth test, which if it does go ahead would be the third in 2016.

Most of the world reacted predictably with outrage and calls for more sanctions, while Pyongyang’s apologists, primarily China, paid lip service through their usual rhetoric of muted rebuke — more a slap on the wrist for a naughty boy with the threat of confiscating his ice cream if he did not stop his bad behaviour.

Global gatekeepers, such as the United Nations (UN) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), are exasperated by the bad-boy antics of Jong-un. If the world’s most powerful nation, the United States, remains powerless to put a stop to what its staunch ally, South Korea, called the “maniacal recklessness” of Pyongyang, what hope is there for the international bodies?

The one non-state actor that outcompetes Jong-un for the bad boy mantle is Daesh (or the so-called Islamic State), whose very calling card is destruction, devastation and damnation.

Predictably, too, the US and Seoul, added to the tension, indicated that they would imminently carry out a series of joint war exercises this week over the Korean peninsula. An advanced US B-1B bomber was due to fly to Korea on Tuesday from the US base in Guam in an apparent show of strength and solidarity with Seoul. More disconcerting is the lobbying of more than 30 right-wing South Korean members of parliament for the country to develop its own nuclear weapons programme or the redeployment of US tactical nuclear weapons that were withdrawn from the South under a 1991 pact.

The two sides and their allies are effectively also fighting a parallel war of brinkmanship.

The problem is that the international community, primarily the US and its Western allies, have treated the North Korean shenanigans as a narrow nuclear weapons and disarmament issue, when in reality it is far more entrenched in global geopolitics, foreign policy, trade and the environment.

Moreover, it remains a living legacy of the continuing consequences of the Korean War of 1950-53, which was effectively an ideological proxy war between the communist North and the democratic South, and therefore between their main protagonists, China and the US.

China, North Korea’s main ally during the Korean War and still today, lost more than 180,000 soldiers who perished in the bitter internecine fighting, which claimed an estimated three million lives on both sides — military and civilian — including 150,000 Allied troops.

The Korean War had one positive unintended consequence — the reconstruction of defeated Japan as a vital supply base for the Allied campaign in the Korean Peninsula by General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Allied commander of Korea, resulting in the post-war Japanese economic miracle.

The IAEA may have its “Atoms for Peace” initiative, which supports the use of nuclear energy for peaceful activities, such as power generation and nuclear medicine, but we have also seen the development of a Silk Road for Atoms linking China, North Korea and unwittingly Pakistan. Had Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi still been in power today, this Silk Road of nuclear weapons could easily have extended to Benghazi and beyond.

The reality is that the solution does not lie with Pyongyang, but with Beijing, whose response to successive nuclear weapons tests by its southern ally has been revealing. After the latest test, Beijing warned that the solution to the crisis does not lie with unilateral action or with sanctions. It insisted that the solution lies with the US.

This is an oblique criticism of Washington’s unwavering support for South Korea and the continued demarcation of the Korean Peninsula along the 38th Parallel into two artificial states — the communist North and the democratic South.

The presence of permanent US bases and troops on the Korean Peninsula is rightly or wrongly perceived as a real or existential threat to their sovereignty by both Beijing and Pyongyang. The decision last January by Seoul in response to Pyongyang’s fourth nuclear test to allow the US to deploy its Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD), which essentially detects and shoots down missiles, over South Korea, further stoked up the war of words.

China regards this as an extraterritorial extension of US hegemony in a region that is not its usual sphere of influence — just as Washington considered Cuba as not a natural sphere of influence of the Soviet Union but as a threat in its backyard during the Cuban Missile Crisis. US strategy in Korea, Beijing suspects, is that of containment of China. Beijing’s oft-quoted Korean Peninsula mantra of “‘no war, no instability, no nukes” in that order of importance reveals that nuclear disarmament is not a priority.

This feeds into the vexed question of Korean reunification. There are currently two countries that remain divided, namely Korea and Cyprus. The difference between the two is that the former involves two diametrically opposed nuclear world powers supporting their respective allies.

The latter has its roots in an historical dispute between two North Atlantic Treaty Organisation members, Turkey and Greece, in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the ensuing scramble for territory by the Axis Powers and their proxies, Greece and Armenia. The 1919-22 War of Independence saw a rump Turkish army led by Mustafa Kemal defeat both Greek and Armenian troops, resulting in the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 and the advent of the Turkish Republic.

A third country, Yemen, used to be divided, then got reunited, and has since degenerated into a civil war with a danger yet again of splitting up into North and South, propped up by their political paymasters Saudi Arabia and Iran.

The most successful reunification of a country in the 20th century to date is that of Germany. It took a unique series of events to create the conditions for wiedervereinigung (reunification) — the post-war German economic miracle thanks to the Marshall Plan; post-war German leadership of exceptional quality, including chancellors Konrad Adenauer, Ludwig Wilhelm Erhard, Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt; entrenched Allied Occupation of Berlin split between the Western allies in West Berlin and the Soviets in East Berlin; the changes in the Soviet Union with the onset of perestroika and glasnost under Mikhail Gorbachev; and the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall.

The Korean Peninsula needs a similar collapse of the 38th Parallel; a transformation of China hopefully into a pluralist democracy; the emergence of a Chinese Gorbachev; Korean leaders of exceptional quality on both sides; the demilitarisation and denuclearisation of the peninsula, including the closure of US bases; and a Korean Marshall Plan which would facilitate an orderly coming together and mitigate the ravages wreaked upon its population by the communist dynasty created by Kim Il-sung since 1948.

If the underlying causes are removed, then the very raison de’tre and the necessity for nuclear weapons may be eliminated.

The debate about whether Pyongyang has nuclear weapons; whether it has successfully miniaturised these into a nuclear warhead payload mounted on ballistic missiles; whether it does possess such missiles; whether it has created a more devastating hydrogen bomb; whether the explosive load of the latest test is 10 or 20 kilotonnes — all of which have never been independently verified — becomes immaterial. After all, the country has violated five UN Security Council resolutions since 2006 when the first test occurred. A sixth resolution is being drafted.

But could the Iranian nuclear deal serve as a model for North Korea? Firstly, Pyongyang’s programme is more advanced. It possesses its own reserves of uranium ore. Iran has no superpower ally and even Russia, which brokered the deal, is not a natural ally.

Step up the Asean states perhaps as a potential honest broker. They would be foolhardy to think that the Korean crisis does not affect them. A 20-kilotonne nuclear bomb detonation (whether intentional or by accident) in the Korean Peninsula would wreak enormous havoc over a wide range of area on all sides of the 38th Parallel, including well into the heart of Asean depending on the prevailing winds!

Mushtak Parker is an independent London-based economist and writer