Russia-Ukraine war: missile strikes on Odesa threaten grain deal, says Ukraine; US calls Russian attack ‘outrageous’ – live

The US ambassador to Kyiv said Moscow should be held to account for what she said was an “outrageous” Russian strike on the port city of Odesa on Saturday.

Russian missiles hit infrastructure in Odesa a day after Russia and Ukraine, with mediation by the United Nations and Turkey, signed a deal to reopen Black Sea ports and resume grain exports.

Read more at: Russia-Ukraine war: missile strikes on Odesa threaten grain deal, says Ukraine; US calls Russian attack ‘outrageous’ – live

The Netherlands: Should the Dutch ‘Black Pete’ tradition be abolished?

Many children in the Netherlands have grown up with the image of Black Pete, a helper for St Nicholas, an equivalent of Santa Claus.

The character is highly controversial, as the figure is usually portrayed by a white person wearing blackface makeup with exaggerated lips and an afro wig

Note Almere Digest: Indeed quite controversial. This has been a centuries old tradional Childrens celebration, before it became a racial issue. Amazing that the people promoting this as a racial issue have no qualms with the flagrant human rights violations of Saudi Arabia and many other countries around the world?

Read more at: Should the Dutch ‘Black Pete’ tradition be abolished? | Netherlands | Al Jazeera

EU - US relations: US Nuclear Weapons stockpiled in Europe: The New Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Will Be an Early Trial for Biden - by Miles A. Pomper

With support from nearly half the world’s nations, a new United Nations treaty banning the possession and use of nuclear weapons will take effect early next year. The U.N. confirmed last month that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, or TPNW, had been ratified by the required 50 countries. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called it “a tribute to the survivors of nuclear explosions and tests, many of whom advocated for this treaty.”

Many non-nuclear-armed states, as well as pro-disarmament activists and organizations like the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, have celebrated the agreement, which they see as a milestone in global efforts to prevent nuclear war. However, it has drawn strong opposition from nuclear-armed states, especially the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Trump administration has called on the treaty’s 84 signatories to back out of it. Its entry into force on Jan. 22, 2021, will pose a thorny diplomatic challenge for the incoming Biden administration.

Still, the treaty could pose a political problem in the future for NATO members and other countries that shelter under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, given the TPNW’s call not to support actions inconsistent with the treaty. That challenge is especially acute for the five NATO members that host an estimated 150 forward-deployed U.S nuclear weapons: Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. German, Dutch and Belgian disarmament advocates, in particular, enjoy strong mainstream political support among center-left parties in all three countries. And 56 former world leaders, including many from NATO countries, argued recently in an open letter that the new nuclear ban treaty can “help end decades of paralysis in disarmament.”

Note EU-Digest: Five NATO members, including, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey still shelter large numbers of US Nuclear weapons on their soil. Hopefully the UN TPNW Treaty will force the disarmament of these weapons from these countries, which presently makes them a major target for massive destruction and death in case of war.

Read more at: The New Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Will Be an Early Trial for

United Nations - "US and Israel get a black eye at the UN": In blow to U.S. administration and Israel, UN fails to pass anti-Hamas resolution - by Amir Tibon and Noa Landau

 The resolution condemning Hamas, which was presented by the U.S. before the UN General Assembly on Thursday, fell short of the required two-thirds majority and failed to pass.

The resolution condemning Hamas, which was presented by the U.S. before the UN General Assembly on Thursday, fell short of the required two-thirds majority and failed to pass.

Read more: In blow to U.S. administration and Israel, UN fails to pass anti-Hamas resolution - U.S. News - Haaretz.com

World War III ? Russia vs Ukraine War? Ukrainian President Says Neighbor Is Preparing Ground Attack - by Cristina Maza

During a televised speech on Monday in which he outlined his case for imposing martial law, Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko claimed that his country’s intelligence service had evidence that Russia was preparing a ground attack.

Poroshenko's speech was given after Russia blocked three Ukrainian navy vessels from passing from the Black Sea into the Sea of Azov via the Kerch Strait on Sunday. The incident was a major escalation of the tensions that have existed between the two countries ever since Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine and began backing armed separatists in the country in 2014. Poroshenko is close to imposing martial law in Ukraine, which would allow the military to run the country, saying it was necessary for Ukraine’s security.

Many experts said Russia’s attack on Ukrainian naval ships on Sunday was a game changer.

“The big story here is that Russia’s armed forces, in broad daylight, launched an attack on Ukrainian navy ships. This crosses a new line. Moscow, of course, seized Crimea with its military, but under the guise of unidentified ‘little green men.’

 Moscow has been conducting a not-quite-covert war in Donbass. Yes, there are thousands of Russian officers there and they control the fighting, but Moscow denies it. In this case, there is no denial,” John Herbst, U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2003 to 2006, told Newsweek.

Note EU-Digest :  For those of us remembering our history classes, this is starting to resemble very much how the second world war started, when on October 1, 1938, Adolf Hitler's army marched into the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia.

This accelerating Nazi Germany's aggressive World War II offensive. 

At that time Europe also was divided, as it is now over Brexit, and to make natters even worse, the US, which used to be the West's major defender of Democracy, has now taken an isolationism turn under the leadership of a not too bright, ego-maniac President, who is in charge of a dysfunctional government, and a population, divided in two polarized camps. 

Putin looking at this picture is probably thinking in the same way as Hitler thought back in 1939. "this is a window of opportunity and it appears there is no need to pull down the shades." Bottom-line, we in the West, and specially the EU,  could become involved in a major war pretty soon, if we don't get our act together.

Read more: Russia vs. Ukraine War? Ukrainian President Says Neighbor Is Preparing Ground Attack

The Netherlands UN ICJ: Iran - US Relations- Sanctions US ordered to halt 'humanitarian' Iran sanctions in blow for Trump - by Jan HENNOP, Danny KEMP

The UN's top court ordered the United States Wednesday to suspend sanctions on "humanitarian" goods for Iran in a stunning setback for US President Donald Trump.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down the bombshell judgement after Iran asked it to halt economic measures that Trump reimposed after pulling out of a landmark nuclear deal with Tehran.

Judges in The Hague unanimously ruled that the sanctions on some goods breached a 1955 "friendship treaty" between Iran and the US that predates Iran's Islamic Revolution.

"The court finds unanimously that... the United States of America... shall remove by means of its choosing any impediments arising from the measures announced on 8 May to the free exportation to Iran of medicines and medical devices, food and agricultural commodities" as well as airplane parts, chief judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf said.

The court said sanctions on goods "required for humanitarian needs... may have a serious detrimental impact on the health and lives of individuals on the territory of Iran."

Read more: US ordered to halt 'humanitarian' Iran sanctions in blow for Trump

International Court of Justice: Ratko Mladic sentenced to life in prison for Srebrenica genocide,dragged from court over outburst

Ratko Mladic gets life sentence for genocide against Muslims

A UN court in The Hague, Netherlands, has convicted former Bosnian Serb military chief Ratko Mladic of genocide and crimes against humanity and sentenced him to life in prison for atrocities perpetrated during Bosnia's 1992-1995 war.

The court in The Hague convicted Mladic of 10 of 11 counts in a dramatic climax to a groundbreaking effort to seek justice for the wars in the former Yugoslavia.

Presiding Judge Alphons Orie read out the judgment Wednesday after ordering Mladic, dubbed "The Butcher of Bosnia", out of the courtroom over an angry outburst.

Read more: Ratko Mladic sentenced to life in prison for Srebrenica genocide, after he is dragged from court over outburs

Global Politics: Editorial The world needs more Europe and less Donald Trump - by Max Hofmann.

Can someone please find a distraction for the American president? Dangle a shiny object in front of him? Maybe show him a funny YouTube video, or get him to give a rally speech in some small American town.

Do anything to keep him busy in the US because when it comes to foreign policy and dealing with countries like North Korea or Iran, Donald Trump horrifies his partners, especially those in Europe.

After years of laying down the groundwork, the negotiating partners struggled for yet another 20 months over the Iran nuclear deal. The European Union had a seat at the negotiation table and ended up scoring a success for the bloc. Ultimately, Europeans were able to use their favorite crisis-resolution skill: classic diplomacy.

Ever since the Iran nuclear deal was concluded, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has checked eight times to see whether Iran has met the requirements. Every time, the answer was "Yes!"

The results have been so convincing that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has proposed to use the agreement as a blueprint for further action in North Korea.

Now along comes Donald Trump, who threatens to destroy the greatest international diplomatic feat of recent years. For what? Merely to fulfill a crazy election promise. He mentions North Korea and Iran in the same breath and makes it sound as though both nations must be treated with equal severity. Europeans would never lump these two countries together. Those in Europe know the devastating effects the termination of the Iran deal would have at their own doorstep: the destabilization of the Middle East, Iran's move towards China and Russia, and the strengthening of radical anti-Western forces.

What can the European Union do? It will probably — as already announced by the EU's top diplomat Federica Mogherini – adhere to the agreement, regardless of whether the US pulls out or not. In practice, this could mean that Americans would impose sanctions on Iran again while the Europeans would not, putting the transatlantic entities on a confrontational course with each other. Everyone knows how the US president will react to this. At the same time, the West would lose all credibility as a moral and political entity and would be permanently weakened. If the US and the EU can no longer act together, no one will take them seriously.

The EU has no choice but to continue using whatever influence it still wields over Trump's government. The Europeans must try to keep the US in the agreement. Its success in the past few years should speak for itself, but facts no longer count in the White House. Merkel and company have tried prievously to make Trump come to his senses, as was seen with the Paris climate agreement, but to no avail. In the case of Iran, however, it is a matter of a new cold war — or even a hot war in a highly volatile region. The situation could escalate very quickly.

The prospect for North Korea is even gloomier than for Iran. Europeans have very little influence there. The EU cannot — and does not want to — keep up with Donald Trump's and Kim Jong Un's nuclear swagger. The bloc's demand to focus strictly on politics and diplomacy may seem like it's failing to handle the situation with the seriousness it deserves. However, it is the right way to move ahead and the only way forward for the EU. Here, too, one can see the gapping gulf between Europe and the US in sensitive diplomatic issues.

But Donald Trump will have to follow the European example, at least a little bit, if he really wants to maintain world peace, as he declared to the UN General Assembly. His threats, both to Iran and North Korea, have the potential to lead the world to destruction. Europe's diplomatic approach may at times seem somewhat feeble, but it is the only method that has really worked in recent years. The Americans have tried to use military force in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, sometimes with disastrous results. That is why Trump's saber rattling and his demand to renegotiate the Iran deal strike Europeans as threatening and hollow. Everyone believes that the president is capable of a blind military attack. The angry man in the White House lacks the experts, the patience, and the competence required to conduct well-balanced and complex negotiations. Europe has all this

Read more: Opinion: The world needs more Europe and less Donald Trump | Opinion | DW | 22.09.2017

The Netherlands: Srebrenica - Dutch UN peacekeepers at fault

Via euronews: Dutch peacekeepers ‘acted illegally’ over Srebrenica massacre http://www.euronews.com/2017/06/27/a-hague-court-rules-dutch-soldiers-acted-illegally-ahead-of-1995-srebrenica/

Paris Agreement on Global Warming: Donald Trump Dumps agreement as US Conservatives and Evangelicals applaud move

Noah Could Be Back In Business

Donald Trump has announced the withdrawal of the US from the global Paris agreement on climate change - in a huge blow to efforts to curb the effects of global warming. The president said he wants to "renegotiate" a "more fair" deal for the US with Democrats and other countries.

He added: "if we can get a deal, that's great. If not, that's fine."

Mr Trump, who had made pulling out of the pact - which has been signed by almost 200 nations - a central plank of his run for the presidency, said that in withdrawing he was "keeping his campaign promise to put American workers first".

He said he wants to talk to citizens of "Pittsburgh, not Paris" to cheers in the crowd of the Rose Garden at the White House.

The President had been put under extreme pressure by allies around the world to stay in the agreement, and though administration said his views on the subject were "evolving" - having previously claimed climate change was a "hoax" - Mr Trump refused to be backed into a corner.

He has said that the deal would hit the US coal industry hard and that it would prove "too costly" for US to stick to the Paris accord to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But Mr Trump ignores the fact that new money in renewable energy outpaced new investments in fossil fuels for the first time in 2015 to the tune of $350bn.

Pulling out of the agreement outright would take four years under the standard cooling-off period for new international treaties - the route Mr Trump is likely to take, but he said that the US is out "as of today."

Note EU-Digest: Of the world's countries, the climate change denial industry is most powerful in the United States. 

The Koch brothers, industry advocates and libertarian think tanks, often in the United States. More than 90% of papers sceptical on climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.The total annual income of these climate change counter-movement-organizations is roughly $900 million.

Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (euro 136 million) was anonymously donated via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund to more than 100 organizations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change.. In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.

Since the late 1970s, oil companies have published research broadly in line with the standard views on global warming. Despite this, oil companies organized a climate change denial campaign to disseminate public disinformation for several decades, a strategy that has been compared to the organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking by tobacco companies.

Also for millions of Americans evangelical Christians belief in the science of global warming is well below the national average.

Recent data from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication suggests that while 64 percent of Americans think global warming is real and caused by human beings, only 44 percent of evangelicals do. 

Evangelicals in general, tend to be more politically conservative, and can be quite distrusting of scientists (believing, incorrectly, that they’re all a bunch of atheists). Plus, since some evangelicals really do go in for that whole “the world is ending” thing—not an outlook likely to inspire much care for the environment. 

EU-Digest 

Capitalizing on Capitalism: Unilever's Paul Polman Shares His Plans to Save the World - by Vivienne Walt

Step out of the frigid drizzle into Unilever’s factory outside ­Liverpool in northern England, and the brightly lit, automated assembly line gleams in stark contrast to the gloom outside. Thousands of bottles shoot down a conveyor belt with a click-clack sound, in a streak of bright purple.

Look more closely, and there is an important detail. The new bottle is squatter than the older, taller style on another assembly line, with a smaller dispenser and a label explaining that this version of Comfort brand fabric conditioner is good for 38 washes, rather than the 33 of the last-generation package. The message is clear: Customers need to help save one of earth’s most precious resources—water.

This might appear to be a clever bit of marketing by one of the world’s biggest consumer product companies, and marketing it surely is. But to Unilever (ul, +14.00%), its updated, concentrated liquid is also a crucial innovation. It’s one of countless tweaks underway by the Anglo-Dutch company in its more than 300 factories across the world, which churn out more than 400 brands for 2.5 billion or so customers—an astonishing one in every three people on the planet.

Central to these changes is a message Unilever is determined to convey to its investors, as well as to other companies: Big corporations need to change the way they do business, fast, or they will steadily shrink and die.

Read more: Unilever's Paul Polman Shares His Plans to Save the World | Fortune.com

Israel: Emboldened by Trump, Israel Approves a Wave of West Bank Settlement Expansion - by Isabel Kershner

n a pointed act of defiance against international pressure, Israel on Tuesday approved a huge new wave of settlement construction in the occupied West Bank.

The announcement made clear that just a few days into the Trump presidency, the Israeli government feels emboldened to shake off the constraints imposed by the Obama administration and more willing to disregard international condemnation.

Leaders from 70 countries met in Paris more than a week ago and issued a warning that the two-state peace solution was imperiled by Israel’s expanding of settlements in Palestinian-claimed territory in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as violence against Israelis. But even though Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has endorsed the principle of side-by-side states, in the past few days Israel’s campaign of settlement building has only accelerated.

The first step came on Sunday, when the Jerusalem City Council approved 566 new housing units in East Jerusalem that had been delayed over President Barack Obama’s objections.

Read more: Emboldened by Trump, Israel Approves a Wave of West Bank Settlement Expansion - The New York Times

Weapon dealers: ISIL ramps up fight with weaponised drones-weapns dealers should be arrested not protected

Why aren't the weapon dealers who sell terrorists weapons arrested?

As fighting raged in eastern Mosul on a recent afternoon, a black Humvee arrived at an Iraqi army command post with a collection of plastics, electronics and rotor blades lashed to its back.

Soldiers leaped to unload the cargo, which comprised the remnants of the latest tool in ISIL's armoury: drones.

The haul included a number of small devices of the kind favoured by filmmakers and hobbyists, costing a few hundred dollars apiece. But there were also larger, fixed-wing craft fashioned out of corrugated plastic and duct tape, apparently made by the fighters themselves.

Since mid-2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) group has held Mosul, after sweeping through northern Iraq in a shock offensive.

It is now their last urban stronghold in the country, and for more than two months, the Iraqi army's operation to retake the city has met fierce resistance, including snipers, ambushes and suicide attacks using explosive-laden trucks. Drones have been used for reconnaissance and to relay instructions to suicide bombers, said General Abdul Wahab al-Saadi, a commander with the elite counterterrorism service in eastern Mosul.

"They use them to give directions to suicide car bombs coming towards us, as well as to take pictures of our forces," Saadi told Al Jazeera.

In the past, ISIL has used drones in Iraq and Syria for general intelligence-gathering, as spotters for mortar firing, and even for filming propaganda videos. Soldiers have regularly spotted these drones over army positions on the outskirts of Mosul, prompting bursts of gunfire skywards.

But there is a fresh threat, Saadi said: ISIL has begun to use the drones themselves as weapons. "They also use a new tactic, where the drone itself has a bomb attached to it," he explained.total of 37,910 organs from living and deceased persons were donated in 2015.

Note EU-Digest:The question that must be asked - who sold the drones to ISIS? Why are they not persecuted or are the weapons sold by the same people who say they are "fighting" ISIS  so they can perpetuate the wars against terrorism forever?

Read more: ISIL ramps up fight with weaponised drones | ISIS | Al Jazeera

Middle East: UN Suspends all aid to Syria

UN Suspending Aid to Syria
When will this carnage end? Russia, US, EU, Britain, France, NATO, Turkey are all responsible for not doing anything, instead of blaming each other, while the weapons industry is laughing all the way to the bank. Scandelous and shameless.

http://flip.it/mGzz_2

Israel: EU urges Israel to end demolition of Palestinian housing

EU diplomats with the European External Action Service (EEAS) on Saturday called for Israel to halt the demolition of Palestinian houses in the occupied West Bank after more than 100 Palestinians were left homeless by demolitions on February 2.

"In the past weeks there have been a number of developments in Area C of the West Bank, which risk undermining the viability of a future Palestinian state and driving the parties yet further apart," the EEAS said in a statement.

"This is particularly concerning both because of the extent of the demolitions and also the number of vulnerable individuals affected, including children who need support," the statement noted.

The EEAS reported that "EU-funded structures" were also targeted by demolitions conducted by Israeli forces, saying they were built to provide "humanitarian support to most vulnerable people."

The diplomatic service reiterated the "EU's firm opposition to Israel's settlement policy" and actions taken in this context, including demolitions and confiscation, evictions, forced transfers or restrictions of movement and access, in line with conclusions made by EU foreign ministers on January 18.

"We call on the Israeli authorities to reserve the decision taken and to halt further demolitions," the statement added.

Read more: EU urges Israel to end demolition of Palestinian housing | News | DW.COM | 06.02.2016

Weapons Industry: ISIS weapons sourced from Russia, China, US and EU

The terror group have used these weapons to commit gross war crimes in both Syria and Iraq and also to take control over areas across Syria and Iraq.

The report draws on expert analysis of thousands of verified videos and images and details how IS fighters are using arms, mainly looted from Iraqi military stocks, which were manufactured and designed in more than two dozen countries, including EU states.

Other weapons have been acquired during battle, through illicit trade as well as through defection of fighters across Syria and Iraq.

Patrick Wilcken, Researcher on Arms Control, Security Trade and Human Rights at Amnesty International said the vast and varied weaponry being used by militants was “a textbook case of how reckless arms trading fuels atrocities on a massive scale.”

Note EU-Digest: the solution is simple: but the implementation is nearly impossible. National governments in cooperation with the UN must register all local and international arms dealers and trace their sales and whenever possible prosecute them.The least National Governments can do is to make the life of weapons dealers more difficult. It proves once again, given the actual facts, how hypocritical governments are when it comes to curbing their profitable weapons industry.

Read more: ISIS weapons sourced from Russia, China, US and EU

Syria: NATO rejects Russia explanation on Turkish air space - but what is really behind this?

NATO on Tuesday rejected Moscow's explanation that its warplanes had violated alliance member Turkey's air space by mistake and said Russia was sending more ground troops to Syria and building up its naval presence.

With Russia extending its air strikes to include the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said he was losing patience with Russian violations of his country's air space.

"An attack on Turkey means an attack on NATO," Erdogan warned at a Brussels news conference.

Note EU-Digest: This all is starting to look like a prepared scenario. Act one: Netanyahu goes to Russia and has meetings with Putin : Act two: Putin goes to UN and on the sidelines has a one on one meeting with Obama.. Act three: Russia starts bombing targets in Syria. The only unknown in this scenario is President Erdogan of Turkey - but in reality he is probably being used as a sideline "prop" by the powers in play, who have all come to the conclusion that Erdogan's idea of toppling Assad is destabilizing the Middle East even further, but except for Russia,  can not say so openly.

Given the actual political developments in Turkey it also seems likely the US does not see Turkey as a reliable partner anymore unless Erdogan is toppled in the upcoming election and replaced by a more secure and less autocratic democratic regime.  


Read more: NATO rejects Russia explanation on Turkish air space | Reuters

Europe’s multi-layered hypocrisy on refugees or "Kettle (US) calling the Pot (EU) black" ? - by Anne Applebaum

Picking apart the layers of irony and hypocrisy that surround the European refugee crisis is like peeling an onion without a knife. At a train station in southern Moravia, Czech police pulled 200 refugees off a train and marked numbers on their arms. On its eastern border, Hungary is building a barbed-wire fence to keep out refugees, remarkably like the barbed wire “iron curtain” that once marked its western border. Choose whatever image you want — ships full of Jews being sent back to Nazi Europe, refugees furtively negotiating with smugglers at a bar in Casablanca — and it now has a modern twist.

Sun, a British tabloid, has spent a decade railing against immigrants of all kinds. Not long ago, it told the British prime minister to “Draw a Red Line on Immigration — Or Else.” Now, after the publication of photographs of a dead Syrian toddler washed up on a Turkish beach, it wants him to “Deal With the Worst Crisis Facing Europe Since WW2.”

 Having just declared that there was no point in accepting “more and more refugees,” poor David Cameron has now declared that, actually, Britain would accept more and more refugees. His aides hurriedly explained that “he had not seen the photographs” when he made the original statement.

More layers of hypocrisy: Although the photographs are indeed terrible, they aren’t actually telling us anything new. Refugees have been crossing the Mediterranean for months. Hundreds have died. Also, if we are disturbed by a dead child on a beach, why aren’t we disturbed by another dead child in a bombed-out house in Aleppo, Syria? What’s the distinction?

Even now, almost all of the slogans being bandied about as “solutions” are based on false assumptions. Nations should accept real refugees but not economic migrants? For one, it’s rarely easy to tell the difference. More to the point, the number of potentially “legitimate” refugees is staggeringly high.

As of July, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees had registered more than 4 million Syrian refugees, of whom well over a million are in Turkey and 1.5 million are in Lebanon, a country of only 4.8 million people. That’s not counting Iraqis, Libyans, Afghans and others who have equally suffered political or religious persecution, or even the millions of displaced Syrians still in Syria. Exactly how many of them will Europe take.

Note EU-Digest : A typical case of "the kettle calling the pot black". No one writes or talks about the fact that this whole migrant drama is the result of  a totally defunct US Middle East policy, in which they dragged, or better even, forced Europe to follow ". If only Europe had some independent political leaders with the courage to tell the US to "go and take a hike." Unfortunately most of our European politicians are not looking out for Europe where it counts. 

Also click here for additional information on the above issue.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-crisis-on-europes-shores/2015/09/04/2fb38864-5319-11e5-933e-7d06c647a395_story.html

Iran nuclear deal: UN Security Council endorses Iran nuclear deal- by Sarah Joanne Taylor

The United Nations Security Council has endorsed the Iran nuclear deal, although the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander has deemed the agreement “unacceptable.”

Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News Agency quoted Commander Mohammed Ali Jafari:
“Some parts of the draft have clearly crossed the Islamic republic’s red lines, especially in Iran’s military capabilities,” he reportedly said ahead of the resolution being passed in New York. 

The fifteen-member body unanimously agreed to adopt the resolution, which will curb Iran’s nuclear programme for the long term in return for the lifting of sanctions.

As the deal was agreed, the Security Council warned sanctions can be reimposed if Tehran breaches the agreement within the next decade.

Read more: UN Security Council endorses Iran nuclear deal | euronews, world news

Armenia - Turkey: was it "Genocide" or are there two sides to this story ?

Professor Edward Erickson, an authority on the Ottoman army during World War I, claims that there is no substantial evidence to support labeling the counterinsurgency operation against Armenians in 1915 as a genocide, but neither is there enough evidence to support a denial of the label.

Regardless of how we refer to the event, it is now of interest to historians, and the current Armenian endeavor to convince parliaments of different countries to pass genocide recognition bills, to come up with some better factual information, before everyone starts jumping to conclusions

Erickson, whose 2013 book “Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency” was the first account from a military perspective of the forced relocations, or “Tehcir" in Turkish, shared his views on what actually happened a hundred years ago.

A retired US army officer, Erickson delved into the Turkish archives and researched extensively before writing his book. He concluded that the Tehcir was vital, as it allowed the Ottoman government to disaffiliate insurgents from "Entente" (European powers), had posed a threat to the existence of the empire.

Frankly, the Armenian revolutionary committees were unsuccessful in achieving their goals; in the end they were crushed, and the majority of the Ottoman Armenians were either dead or refugees.

One of the major reasons for the failure of the committees was that the Armenian revolutionary committees were never a popularly supported movement among the majority of Ottoman Armenians, who were law abiding Turkish citizens. In order to be successful, a revolutionary movement must have a base of popular support and the Armenian revolutionary committees never had that.

The Ottoman government forced about 400,000 Ottoman Armenians to relocate. These Armenians mostly lived in six eastern provinces and in key cities along the army's lines of communication.

Since the Ottoman government and army were unable to determine which Armenians were actively supporting the committees and which Armenians were not. They erred on the side of what they believed to be national security, and relocated all of them from selected locations.

In 1917, there were still over 350,000 Ottoman Armenians living in their own homes in what is western Turkey today.

The successful inclusion of any minority in the political process is problematic at best. Simply having a few representatives in parliament cannot change the fundamental mismatch of political power.

The successful inclusion of any minority in the political process is problematic at best. Simply having a few representatives in parliament cannot change the fundamental mismatch of political power.

The Ottomans felt obliged to adopt a brand-new method to quell the Armenian insurrection, a method that was expressed in a decree by the government on May 31,1915. In what ways was this new method different from the counterinsurgency methods the Ottomans had resorted to throughout their history?

This was the first time the Ottoman government did not have sufficient military forces available to deal with rebellion. Traditionally, the Ottomans dealt with rebellion by sending in the army. In the spring of 1915, without the army in its normal garrisons, the Ministry of War had to find an alternative to the use of force.

The relocation of the Armenians from the rear areas of the eastern war zones was the solution of choice. While relocation was a new approach for the Ottoman Empire, in fact, it had been widely practiced by the Great Powers.

Confronting the past has nothing to do with it. It is important to consider that the Ottoman government in 1915 did not “invent” population removal as a way to deal with rebellion. It was widely used in practice by many of the Great Powers before World War I. We must also not forget that the government did not deport the Ottoman Armenians (deportation is permanent) and that the government intended to allow them to return to their homes after the war.

The relocations would not have happened if well-known leaders of the revolutionary committees (Andranik [Ozanian], Dro [Drastamat Kanayan] and Boghos Nubar, for example had not aligned themselves (and the committees) with the Russians, British, and French.

 Keep in mind that most Ottoman Armenians, and even many of the committee members, wanted the Ottoman Armenian population to remain law abiding and support the Ottoman government in 1914. They understood that rebellion would likely result in the destruction of Armenian lives and property. However, the actions of a few influential individuals brought great suffering to the majority of Ottoman Armenians, who were innocent bystanders.

Tens of thousands of Armenians died during the relocation  Were the Ottomans taking some kind of revenge?

There are number of explanations of why this happened. Many historians believe that hatred and jealousy against the Ottoman Armenians had built up over several generations. This made it easier for the numerous atrocities to happen.

There is absolutely no question that the Ottoman government did not fully consider what might happen to the hundreds of thousands of relocated Armenians. There is no doubt that the government did not have the resources to protect, feed and care for the huge numbers of Armenians under its care.

The relocations were badly managed and under resourced. The relocation convoys became easy targets for both criminal gangs and poorly supervised provincial officials. Let us also say that the Hamidiye cavalry regiments had long since been disestablished by the Ministry of War, but it is very likely that many of the renegades and criminals who preyed on the convoys were ex-Hamidiye cavalrymen.

Some historians argue that the Special Organization (Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa) opted to let things worsen and even facilitated the mass killings of civilian Armenians en route to the camps. Are these claims substantiated by historical facts?

The Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa  played no part in the relocations or the massacres of Armenians that accompanied the relocations and convoys.

Recent scholarly work by Dr. Ahmet Tetik and Ph.D. candidate Polat Safi establish that the SO had no part of this. The case against the SO was constructed by Vahakn Dadrian from a textual analysis of the 1919 newspaper accounts of the 1919 İstanbul show trials of individuals accused of war crimes. Dadrian's thesis is incorrect.

The CUP was a secret revolutionary group that did not oppose the use of terror to achieve its goals. The inner circle of the CUP had overthrown the Ottoman government and there is no question that Enver and the other CUP leaders knew exactly how dangerous secret revolutionary committees could be.

Enver and the leadership of the SO were also knowledgeable about guerrilla and irregular warfare, which also caused them to worry about the Armenian revolutionary committees' activities in 1915.

Whether it was a genocide or not. It might have been a genocide or it might not have been a genocide. To be honest, there is no authentic evidence (a paper trail of documents) today proving that this was a top-down, state-sponsored campaign of annihilation. However, neither can the reverse -- that it was not a genocide -- has been totally proven either.

What I assert is that the Armenian population of six provinces, as well as selected individuals elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire who were considered dangerous, were relocated for military reasons related to the perception that a large-scale Armenian insurgency , coordinated with and supported by the Russians, was about to erupt.

Bottom-line seems to be that this group of Armenians was not relocated to be killed; they were relocated as a precautionary military measure. In the absence of full evidence, it is premature to attach a label such as genocide to what happened in 1915.

Ottoman Armenians from all provinces and cities were relocated, mostly from the six eastern provinces.

However, many Armenians in the western provinces were excluded from relocation, such as Protestant and Catholic Armenians, also Armenians who worked on the railroad system, and also Armenian government officials and Armenian officers and soldiers (and their families). When the Ottoman government, however, thought, that Ottoman Armenian had links to, or was sympathetic toward, the committees, they were relocated.

Most Ottoman Armenians were law-abiding Ottoman empire citizens who had no interest in rebellion.

The mobilization and war plans, which were aimed at external threats, did not consider the Ottoman Armenians as an internal threat. It was only after an escalating series of incidents, including small rebellions and small landings on the Mediterranean coast by the British navy in early 1915, that the committees came to be seen as dangerous.

It is beyond doubt that the Armenian revolutionary committees in eastern Anatolia possessed the capability and the capacity to interdict the Ottoman army's lines of communications. What does this mean? Simply, there were small numbers of Armenians in key locations who had the ability to block and obstruct the flow of supplies (food, fodder and ammunition) to the Third Army, which was fighting the Russians.

If this had been allowed to happened, the Third Army would grow progressively weaker and would be unable to stop the Russians. The Ottoman military staffs believed that this was happening in March and April 1915 and they had plenty of reports as evidence.

Consequently the Ottoman government took action (relocations) to prevent this from happening. The relocations and elimination of the committees can be compared to cutting out a cancer before it metastasizes.

In American history, George Washington is a hero, but he was also a traitor to the British King George III. Washington's side won the war. Robert E. Lee, a famous confederate general, was also seen as a  traitor. His side lost the war.

So, whether one calls rebels, insurgents and guerrillas “traitors” depends on who wins or loses the war.

There is no question that the small numbers of Ottoman Armenians who engaged in rebellion, terrorism or who fought alongside the Russians were seen as traitors to the political entity known as the Ottoman Empire of which they were citizens.

The Ottoman army commanders and staffs saw the hostile activities of the Ottoman Armenians as evidence of military operations that were coordinated with and supported by the Russians. The Ottomans viewed the external operations of the Russian army and Armenian Druzhiny [legions] as complementary to the internal hostile

Opening up all of the archives on both sides of the argument will be good but probably won't accomplish much. Historians will never be able to agree conclusively about what actually happened. There will always be those who believe there was a genocide and those who think that it was something else.“

Open” archives is also an ambiguous and relative term. The Turkish archives are open, but it is very hard to gain access to because of the paperwork involved. For example, research in any Turkish archives by a foreigner requires a special visa from the Foreign Ministry.

US and EU archives do not require a special visa and anyone can walk in and get a research card.

Moreover, the Turkish military archives are located inside the military compounds in Ankara and one cannot just “walk in” like at the US archives in College Park, Maryland or in to EU archives in Bruxelles.  in Kew.

That said, however, the Turkish archives are “more open” than the Armenian archives or the records of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, which are not open to International scholars.

Some historians say that the Armenian archives are not open to researchers because  they contain information confirming that the Armenian revolutionary committees were engaged in an actual conspiracy with the Russians and the committees intended to conduct a coordinated joint offensive against the Ottoman Empire.

This is obviously only a guess on the part of some historians but it does make sense.

The official Turkish government position today is that more research is needed to fully understand what happened.

President Erdoğan has called for a joint historical commission to investigate the events of 1915.

Essentially, this also means the Turkish government has moved away from a position of total denial  (“it never happened”) to a more realistic position of “we don't really know what happened and we are willing to support historical research to discover the truth.” This is a good position.

Regarding the diplomacy surrounding the  issue. Today's Republic of Turkey was not in existence in 1915 and probably ought to totally ignore accusations on the subject until their has been an international and neutral, possibly UN study  done on the subject.

Parliaments cannot legislate history by voting on resolutions re: the Armenian genocide, which are not based on accurate facts and figures.

Parliamentary recognition, or the Pope's statements about the so-called Armenian genocide really don't mean too much or carry a lot of weight in the modern world of today, unless it supported by massive evidence - which so far it has not 

Turkey and Armenia will need to request the UN to do an in-depth study on the issue resulting in a binding conclusion to finally end this drama of mutual accusations.

EU-Digest