Loss Of Political Stature: How the United States and UK Risk Their Global Goodwill - by Shihoko Goto

Isolationists are gaining ground worldwide. From worries about losing jobs to concerns about the erosion of social values and cultural norms, disengagement and retreat from the international stage is seen as a viable solution to the looming challenges ahead.

The most glaring fact is that Britain and the United States are at the forefront of seeing withdrawal as an answer to problems facing a rapidly evolving world.

But far from offering any longer-term solutions to the real worries of losing out to international competition, the isolationists are at a real risk of losing their political, military and social and economic power.

With Brexit, non-EU countries are reassessing how they continue to do business in Europe, as Britain can no longer remain their gateway to Europe.

Never mind that for countries like Japan, Britain had been their base in Europe. Corporations including Toyota and Hitachi created over 140,000 jobs across UK as a result.

But while Brexit supporters have touted that leaving the European Union will enhance British economic competitiveness, such signs have yet to emerge.

In fact, the IMF predicted in October that Britain’s GDP growth will fall to 1.1% in 2017, compared to 2.2% growth in 2015. This is a direct result of Brexit and inspire of the British pound’s depreciation.

With even the staunchest of U.S. and British allies frustrated by their retreat, those supporters are already beginning to take matters into their own hands.

But the real cost of London’s isolationist policy may well be that it has shaken the foundations of relations over the decades that spills out well beyond the economic realm.

The intense national debates within Britain ahead of the referendum underscored the unexpected strength of the anti-trade, anti-globalization and ultimately, anti-foreigner stance of many voters.

With popular sentiment becoming more insular, Britain’s reliability as an ally in diplomacy and in security issues has come into question. the concerns are thus not just limited to trade relations with Europe and beyond.

Moreover, confidence in a Britain that has the will and the wherewithal to be a leader in addressing transnational issues, not least to ensure global economic stability, has faltered as well.

In short, the Brexit referendum that supposedly was to make Britain stronger has actually weakened its position on the global stage, at least in the near term.

Still, Britain is not alone in paying a price for its strategic isolationism. International disillusionment with the United States has also begun, especially as Washington continues to shy away from a global trade deal that it has been instrumental in crafting.

The economic merits of signing on to the Trans-Pacific Partnership aside, the fact that the United States could walk out of a negotiation at the eleventh hour, that it had been an integral part of puts U.S. credibility on the line.

As governments of the 11 other TPP member countries are pushing hard to have the deal ratified by their legislators, the fact that both U.S. presidential candidates are united in rejecting the TPP – at least as it currently stands – has been alarming.

In particular, blaming foreign competition for a growing income divide in the United States can hardly be seen as encouraging for overseas investors. At best, such “reasoning” is a wild stretch of the truth.

The trend to blame outsiders for many U.S. economic woes, when domestic reforms and reinvestment into projects, especially infrastructure, could do much to spur growth, has been alarming.

Like Britain, the United States continues to enjoy much international goodwill as a global leader in promoting democracy and free markets that it can continue to draw upon.

Yet, as public opinion in both countries continue to support greater protectionist measures and scaling back on global commitments, that goodwill may whittle down far more rapidly than expected. 

Read moew: How the United States and UK Risk Their Global Goodwill - The Globalist

Foreign Policy Objectives By US GOP and Dem. Pres Candidates Increase Global War Risks

Vladimir Frokov at the Moscow Times writes: "When Russia entered the war in Syria exactly a year ago, it seemed like a clever political gambit.

Making a virtue out of necessity, Moscow intervened to save its embattled ally, Syrian President Bashar Assad. Back then, Assad's regime was teetering on the brink of defeat by armed opposition and radical islamist forces, including terror groups like Islamic State (IS) and Al-Qaeda affiliate the Al-Nusra Front. A short, but intensive air campaign to support the ground offensive by the Syrian army and Iranian allies was conceived as a way of reversing the military situation on the ground. The calculation was that Assad could then be pushed into a political settlement that would have kept him in power as a bulwark against the chaos and instability of the U.S.-promoted Arab Spring.

Presenting this operation as Russia’s contribution to the war against IS, already waged by the U.S.-led international coalition in Iraq and Syria, would have given Moscow coveted international legitimacy. It would have secured even more important, but unarticulated Russian objectives. The first was to break through diplomatic isolation by the West, which was Russia's reality after its actions in Ukraine in 2014. The second — to reestablish Russia as a great power with a global reach that could challenge the U.S. dominated world order.

One year on, the results are mixed. The objective of shoring up the regime has been met. Assad has regained control over the strategically important parts of Syria and can no longer be overthrown, provided Russia and Iran keep fighting for him. The moderate opposition groups have been weakened and are merging with jihadi terrorists, thus ceasing to be a legitimate alternative to the regime.

At the same time, Russia is still stuck fighting the jihadists in increasingly bloody battles in Aleppo and Idlib. A quick exit from this war is no longer feasible, since it would result in the regime’s collapse. Assad disrupts Russia’s efforts at political settlement as he has no incentive to see Russia exit the war.

The goal of securing a strategic breakthrough with the West and geopolitical parity with the United States remains elusive. Russia has made itself indispensable in Syria, but beyond that, the West has not negotiated with Russia over Ukraine and the post-Cold War security order in Europe.

Washington worked closely with Moscow on securing a durable cessation of hostilities, and moving toward a political settlement in Syria. Russia came close to what U.S. President Barack Obama’s former Middle East hand Phil Gordon described as a “clean win” in Syria with the Geneva deal of Sept. 12. This deal would have prevented regime change in Damascus for the foreseeable future, facilitated direct military and intelligence cooperation with the United States against terrorist groups, and reduced the cost of conflict for Russia.

But this agreement is now unraveling. It has been beset by mutual recriminations over its implementation, highfalutin rhetoric and more war. With the regime offensive in eastern Aleppo underway, Syria is turning into a new area of confrontation and potentially direct military clash between Russia and the United States.

The deal was probably doomed from the start. Both sides knew they could not enforce their end of the bargain — pushing Assad and the rebels into a lasting ceasefire and the resumption of the UN talks on political transition. The Russians knew the United States was not in a position to deliver on separating the moderate rebels from al-Nusra. Nonetheless, they pushed through this demand to secure unfettered bombing rights against the largest islamist opposition groups Ahrar al-Sham and Jaish al-Islam.

The United States hoped Moscow could ground Assad’s air force to stop attacks on civilians. But Assad wanted to defeat the rebels in Aleppo at all costs, since it would have ended the rebellion in large cities. Moscow eventually agreed with Damascus that securing a military victory in Aleppo was more important than a shaky deal with Washington to freeze the stalemate.

Now the pressure is on the Obama administration “to raise the costs for Assad and Moscow” for their indiscriminate bombing in Aleppo. “Non-diplomatic” options are being developed like more weapons deliveries to the moderate rebels with long-range artillery and MANPADS thrown in, or stand-off strikes with cruise missiles against the regime’s air assets and airfields.

If approved, such strikes would plunge Washington into direct military confrontation with Russia. Moscow would try to shoot down U.S. missiles with its advanced air defenses, and escalate bombing raids against rebel supply lines. Staring down Washington would hand Moscow everything it wanted: a recognition by the United States of Russia’s equal status and an invitation to discuss Russia’s geopolitical interests. 

The latest rhetorical overkill employed by Moscow — accusing U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby of instigating terrorist acts in Russian cities — may indicate the Russians are prepared to duke it out.

Obama, who has been masterfully dodging a fight with Putin, would be walking straight into his trap".

Unfortunately there is no major difference between Republican and Democratic parties in deciding US foreign policy, because both major parties are serving the same interests of the political elite which makes the present situation extremely dangerous.

On one issue after another, large numbers of Democrats in Congress have endorsed relatively hawkish policies, because they still assume that this is the politically safe and necessary position that they have to take.

Prominent Republicans who have served in the national security arena – or share the nation-building worldview of George W. Bush — are saying they’d rather have Hillary Clinton as president than Donald Trump.

“I’m supporting Hillary, and the main reason I’m supporting her is that she is for American engagement in the world,” R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state during the George W. Bush administration told the Wall Street Journal.

Other danger signals of a more hawkish Democratic Presidency under Hillary Clinton are that recently the Clinton campaign launched “Together for America,” an initiative to recruit GOP endorsements, and announced support from nearly 50 Republicans, including George W. Bush’s former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. The announcement came two days after Politico reported, citing a person close to Clinton, that the Democratic presidential nominee’s campaign reached out to Kissinger and Bush’s former secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.

Obviously when Clinton wins it will be "payback time"

For Republicans, international concerns now dominate. When asked about what they feel is the nation’s most important problem, 42% of Republicans cite an international concern – terrorism, the Islamic militant group ISIS or another national security issue – while just half as many (21%) mention an economic issue.

Fully 72% of Republicans say that using overwhelming force is the best way to defeat global terrorism. Among Democrats, just 27% favor the use of overwhelming military force, while 66% say relying too much on military force creates hatred that leads to more terrorism.

Fully 68% of Republicans view Islam as more likely than other religions to encourage violence, compared with just 30% of Democrats. When this question was first asked, in March 2002, just 33% of Republicans (and 22% of Democrats) said Islam was more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers.

All by all a very scary scenario when we look at the upcoming US elections and the future. Hillary Clinton is probably the safer bet of the two candidates, only if she can be held in check by Democratic party moderates like Bernie Sanders  and Elizabeth Warren.

As to Donald Trump, apart from all the negatives that the "establishment" has cast upon him, did say about President Putin of Russia that "He is really very much of a leader". He also has repeatedly said that if he wins the presidency in November, he'd like to strengthen ties with Russia and work with Putin to defeat the terrorist group ISIS.

The world certainly is in eminent danger if "cool heads don't prevail". 

EU-Digest

The Netherlands: Almere, Tvesha Chauhan from India, becomes it's 200.000 inhabitant

Almere, the Netherlands newest and Europe's most modern city, celebrated the arrival of it's 200.000 new inhabitant, Tvesha Chauhan from India, who was registered this past Monday, November the third.

She was officially welcomed to the city by Franc Weerwin, the Mayor of Almere, who is a Dutch Citizen from Suriname descent.

Almere's first citizens arrived in the city only back in 1976, after the area was reclaimed from the Zuider-Sea and became part of a new Dutch Province, completely reclaimed from the sea on June 27, 1985 , "baptized" Flevoland, the 12th Dutch Province.

On January 1, 1986. Dutch Parliament passed an act whereby the Province of Flevoland was created, and the rest is history.

Almere heeft 200.000 inwoners|Binnenland| Telegraaf.nl

Almere, de jongste stad van Nederland, heeft nu 200.000 inwoners. De grens werd symbolisch gepasseerd door de tienjarige Tvesha Chauhan uit India, die met haar…

telegraaf.nl

Refugee Crises: Ten countries host half of world's refugees

Ten countries - which account for just 2.5 percent of the global economy - are hosting more than half the world's refugees, a rights group has said, accusing wealthy countries of leaving poorer nations to bear the brunt of a worsening crisis.

In a report published on Tuesday, Amnesty International said the unequal share was exacerbating the global refugee problem, as inadequate conditions in the main countries of shelter pushed many to embark on dangerous journeys to Europe and Australia.

The London-based group said 56 percent of the world's 21 million refugees are being hosted by just 10 countries - all in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia.

Jordan, which has taken in more than 2.7 million people, was named as the top refugee hosting country,  followed by Turkey, over 2.5 million; Pakistan, 1.6 million; and Lebanon, more than 1.5 million.

The other top six nations were Iran, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo and Chad.

Note EU-Digest: hope the EU Eastern European states, Austria and other countries are reading this report and realizing their complaints pale in comparison to the above mentioned countries. 

They should be ashamed and instead take a close look what the cause is for these large numbers  of refugees?   Isn't it also high time for the EU to revise its foreign policy and step back from alliances which have caused all this human horror. 

Read more: Ten countries host half of world's refugees: report - News from Al Jazeera

Dutch Legal Services: Choosing a lawyer in The Netherlands - free choice of lawyer - by Eva Jongepier

In case you have a legal expenses insurance in the Netherlands, you can from now on choose you own lawyer in legal or administrative proceedings.

Following a request from the Supreme Court in the Netherlands to give a preliminary ruling, the European Court of Justice ruled on November 7, 2013 that legal expenses insurers (such as DAS, ARAG, SRK, ACHMEA etc.) can no longer deny their insured persons to choose their own lawyer.

In this case an insured person (insured by DAS), requested DAS to compensate him for the legal costs of his lawyer in legal proceedings against his employer.

DAS refused to pay the costs based on their insurance policy. Large scale legal expenses insurers such as DAS have their own legal advisers. The largest part of these advisors are not lawyers (not connected to the Bar Association). Based on the policy of DAS, the insured person did not have the right to choose his own attorney, since DAS offered him one of their own legal advisers. The insured person could only choose his own lawyer if the insurer would have decided that the handling of the case should be subcontracted to an external lawyer.

Read more: Choosing a lawyer in The Netherlands - free choice of lawyer

Hungary PM claims EU migrant quota referendum victory - but is it a victory ?

Hungarian PM Viktor Orban has declared victory in a referendum on mandatory EU migrant quotas, despite a low turnout that appeared to render it invalid.

Nearly 98% of those who took part supported the government's call to reject the EU plan.

But only 43% of the electorate voted, short of the 50% required to be valid.

Note EU-Digest: The Hungarian referendum was declared void and illegal because voter participation was 43 %, well below the allowed 50 % threshold and in reality a vote of no- confidence for the PM because the opposition had told their supporters to abstain from voting.

Read more: Hungary PM claims EU migrant quota referendum victory - BBC News

Christianity: China on Track to Have World's Largest Christian Population by 2030 - by Brandon Showalter

Despite the increasing persecution of Christians in China, the Communist country is on track to have the largest Christian population in the world by 2030, according to Rodney Pennington who studies religious trends for OMF International.

"We are overjoyed with what the Lord has already done in China," said Pennington, vice president for mobilization of OMF, a missions organization, in an interview with The Christian Post on Tuesday. "But that doesn't mean the task is finished."

By 2030 "China will almost certainly have the most evangelical Christians," he said, "and that will greatly shape the global evangelical Church in the coming years.

That said, Pennington emphasized that there are still many needs in China, especially in areas like discipleship, cross-cultural outreach and ministering to children and youth."

"While 200 million Chinese believers by the year 2030 may seem ambitious, it certainly gives us a strong goal to pray toward," he added.

Yu Jie, a Chinese Christian and democracy activist, said in an essay published in the August edition of First Things that Chinese Christians are known to say "the greater the persecution, the greater the revival." If recent reports are correct, the persecution has indeed been great but the revival has been, in Yu's words, a "gushing well or geyser."

The exponential growth of the Christian faith in China can be traced back to two moments in modern Chinese history, according to Yu.

Those two moments were the launch of Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution in 1966 and the Tienanmen Square massacre in 1989. Millions of innocent people lost their lives in those events, and as a result many people have stopped believing in Marxism-Leninism and Maoist ideology, Yu said.

The director of the Center of Religion and Chinese Society at Purdue University, Fenggyang Yang, noted in an essay published in Slate magazine that Protestantism has been growing in China by more than 10 percent every year. In 1980 there were approximately 3 million Christians in China. By 2010 that number had risen to 58 million. He suggests that by 2025, there could be 255 million Christians.

Even with the impressive growth of Christianity, China is still officially an atheist country.

In April, CP reported that Chinese President Xi Jinping told his Communist Party members that they must be "unyielding Marxist atheists" who will command Christians and other religious groups in the country.

Since 2014, the Communist regime has been targeting Christians and demolishing churches, deeming the buildings "illegal." The government has demolished more than 200 churches and removed over 2,000 crosses in China's Zhejiang province in an effort to limit Christianity's influence in the region.

Human rights attorneys who provide legal support to churches in China have also been subjected to gruesome torture and forced to confess on television that they have disturbed the peace, and jeopardized national security.

While some churches have been allowed to operate under strict state surveillance, many others, especially house churches and ministry organizations not registered with the government, are heavily oppressed.

Yu noted that there are three times as many illegal house churches as state-sponsored ones, and that repression is particularly bad in Wenzhou, "China's Jerusalem" in Zhejiang province, where an estimated 15 percent of the population is Christian.

Despite the crackdown on Christianity in his native country, Yu said he is not unsettled.

"Neither the dead hand of Communism, nor the cynical imitation of Confucianism, nor capitalism, nor democracy, nor any earthly thing will determine the fate of my land," he said.

Read more: China on Track to Have World's Largest Christian Population by 2030