Peace and War: Whatever happened to peace? Arms, oil and war by proxy- by Jonas Ecke

When will the killing stop to finance weapons industry

The end of the Cold War was one of the few historical moments in which people around the world looked forward to a future that promised to be more just and peaceful for everyone. The Berlin Wall was finally torn down, following years of tireless civil society activism in one of the world’s few peaceful revolutions. Liberal democratic systems seemed to be spreading everywhere, compelling Francis Fukuyama to craft the (nowadays often-scorned) argument that “The End of History” – and consequently the cessation of constant conflict – had finally arrived with the falling of the Iron Curtain.

The promising world 'peace dividend', a term initially coined by US president George H.W. Bush and UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher, was on everyone’s lips. Hope was in the air. The Soviet Union and United States vowed to work together to further cut down on a nuclear arsenal that could have blown up the world many times over. And they also seemed to be hard at work getting rid of another major – and often underestimated – impediment to peace: proxy wars, the type of war waged in the developing world for most of the Cold War, from Latin America to Central Asia to the Horn of Africa. 

These were wars in which the Soviet Union and US did not directly fight, but paid and favored local fighters, often through highly classified operations and byzantine financial networks that have inspired generations of spy novelists. Before the Cold War, colonial regimes paid local proxies to advance their agendas and “divide and conquer”.

As the Cold War finally came to a close, it was hoped and anticipated that weapon donations would be replaced by UN Peacekeepers and a new generation of NGO activists. Indeed, the new crop of peacemakers seemed to be more liberated. Free from the stifling imperatives of geopolitics, they could implement deals that had previously died prematurely at the conference tables of diplomats, anxious over the advances of an enemy superpower. The tit-for-tat strategies that would reap destruction seemed to be a thing of yesteryear.  

The “War to End all Wars” is a coinage that stems from the First World War. In the global public imagination: the Cold War would be the real “War to End all Wars.” Following its conclusion, an era of enduring peace was within immediate reach. Or so it seemed.

Fast forward 28 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and few such promised realities seem to have materialized. On the contrary, we have entered a new era of proxy wars.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria,Yemen, Somalia etc.

To bring these complex wars to a halt, we have to be very precise about what keeps them going. Saudi Arabia and Iran, probably the two main players in proxy wars in a destabilizaion of the Middle Eastern region that is steadily increasing, fund proxy forces to bolster their versions of Islam—Sunni and Shiite Islam, respectively. It is safe to assume that from the perspective of Riyadh and Teheran, furthering sectarian interests, inextricably intertwined with access to resources and geopolitical influence, are of more importance than peace in the region.

But it is not only sectarian strife—often highlighted in the western media—but also global unregulated capitalism that pours kerosene on a Middle East that is already in flames. 

Western weapon companies see the newly emerging proxy wars as momentous opportunities for increased revenues. During a 2015 conference of Lockheed Martin in Palm Beach Florida, its executive vice president Bruce Tanner predicted “indirect benefits” from the war in Syria. Similarly, as the Intercept reports, Raytheon chief executive Tom Kennedy spoke of “a significant uptick” for “defense solutions across the board in multiple countries in the Middle East.” Referring to Saudi Arabia, Kennedy elaborates, “It’s all the turmoil they have going on, whether the turmoil is occurring in Yemen, whether it’s with the Houthis, whether it’s occurring in Syria or Iraq, with ISIS.” And sure enough, stocks for arms have soared in recent years.

But it is not only weapons but also oil which disincentivizes policy makers from de-escalating proxy wars. As Christopher Davidson, who the Economist called “one of the most knowledgeable academics” writing about the Middle East, shows in his 688-page long tome “Shadow Wars: The Secret Struggle for the Middle East,” how many covert operations in the Middle East were historically supported to advance the explicit geopolitical or economic interests of the funders. 

According to Davidson, the emergence of the US as a major oil producer has motivated US policy makers (Trump included) to let Saudi forces engage in exhausting proxy wars throughout the region so that a weakened Saudi Arabia is forced to sell its state assets.

Whatever the precise motivations, aside from the publicly touted humanitarian rationales, oil and weapons play a role in the decisions made by states, even when lives are at stake.

But whatever the argument, the evidence in support of proxy wars as an effective means in the interest of peace is scarce. At least this is the case if one follows the analysis coming from the proverbial mouth of the horse, the CIA. The spy agency has funded proxy fighters for most of its history. 

Reportedly president Obama, at least an initial skeptic in the use of proxies, was interested in finding out if funding insurgents generally accomplish the stated strategic goals and commissioned an internal study.

The report concluded that conflicts were not decided in the interest of the US following the funding of proxy actors, unless, according to the report, US personnel were on the ground along with the proxies. The notable exception—according to the study—was the support for the Mujahidin against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. However, although the Mujahidin did ultimately chase the illegally invading Soviet forces out of the country, Afghanistan did not regain stability. One thing to come out of this instability was the merging of the Mujahidin into Al Qaida: the very same enemy the US fights in the current global 'War on Terror'. 

This is not just one war, but multiple new proxy wars that cause immense suffering and which have, according to the Global Terrorism Index, contributed to an almost nine-fold increase in deaths caused by terrorism between 2000 and 2016. If we consider the entire historical context, the Afghanistan example serves, at best, as a very cautionary tale. 

Tthe Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP), demonstrates that 2014 saw an increase in the number of active conflicts and also the casualties from battle. Forty armed conflicts were active in 2014, whereas in 2013 34 conflicts were designated active. The increase in conflicts since 1999 stood at 18 percent. Whatever gains were brought about by the 'peace dividend', they have been reversed, with people all over the world paying the greatest price.

President Donald Trump, by contrast, initially critical of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy, has stepped up military activities since he took office. For example, drone strikes, an important component in the theater of war in Yemen, have gone up by 432 percent and his $ 110 billion weapons sale to Saudi Arabia also won't help in getting hostilities slowed down.

A new type of vigorous and principled peace movement must be formed in this time of crisis. Peace movements in rich countries should join Middle Eastern peace movements that rally for more democratic and less sectarian governance. Social movements can become stronger by integrating divergent points of view, histories and ideologies, which inform interpretations of complex conflicts. It necessarily has to look at the various internal roots of conflict, and also at how foreign governments, from Moscow and Washington to Riyadh and Teheran, fuel conflicts.

Supporting and holding political platforms accountable will be key to demilitarizing political ideologies and stopping the world in its “ruinous race” to global war, to use the words of Gorbachev. More often than not, a call to arm a party to a conflict prolongs said conflict. 

The public’s immediate question with regards to conflicts probably shouldn’t be “Whom should we support militarily?” Instead, we should more seriously consider questions such as “Who keeps a conflict going?” and “How can we de-escalate it?”

Somehow we the people—who, against all odds, want to raise our children in a more peaceful world—have to let our politicians know that arms should be removed from most regions of conflict.

Far from being out of touch with reality, the global peace movement—though worryingly weakened—in fact holds the most realistic solutions to conflict. Given the data, it is clear that negotiation with the actors in a conflict is the best route to peace. De-escalation is the only framework in tune with the realities of the contemporary world as well as the lessons of recent history. 

We the people have to compel and force if necessary regional and global political forces to work towards de-escalating conflicts. Challenging the financial conglomerates that bring weapons into the hand of proxies may be one of the most effective ways to do so.

Please get out of your comfort zone and act- the future of your children and grand-children are at stake. 

EU-Digest

TURKEY - EU In Depth: What is all the EU-Turkey uproar about? - Cengiz Aktar

The euobserver notes that for some time now, Turkey-Europe relations have been reduced to monologues and non-coordinated actions by decision-makers on both sides.

Turkish leaders take every opportunity to disregard European norms, values and principles in order to claim Turkey’s singularity, if not superiority. This trend has accelerated since the 15 July 2016 coup attempt, after which the ruling regime happily took the opportunity to suppress all meaningful dissent.

Centuries-old anti-Western sentiment in Turkish politics is now riding the wave, and Europe-bashing is the favourite topic of endless Turkish electoral consultations.

EU accession negotiations are stuck with no less than 14 chapters blocked in connection with the ongoing disputes over Cyprus. The northern part of the island is under Turkish control.

There is no progress whatsoever on the 15 chapters under negotiation. Talks have been concluded on only one chapter so far and the Turkish side is, understandably so, not interested in opening the remaining 3 chapters as they pertain to social policy, competition policy and public procurement.

Meanwhile, the European Commission’s yearly Progress Report on Turkey’s advancement towards membership is thrown ostensibly into the wastepaper basket.

Relations with the European Parliament are at their lowest level. The latest recommendation of the parliament to freeze the negotiations with Ankara has been declared null and void by Turkey's EU minister.

The rapporteur for Turkey at the EU parliament is an undeclared persona non grata in the country. Indeed, the last meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Commission between members of the Turkish parliament and the EU parliament dates back to May 2015.

Bilateral relations with EU member states’ politicians are also at their lowest point. We see a situation where any non-complacent declaration or action from European side is countered with accusations of being “Nazis” or “fascists”.

There is no more political dialogue on any issue of common concern except the shameful refugee deal of March 2016, in which Turkish authorities are acting on behalf of the EU to patrol for refugees moving towards the European continent.

Turkish society no longer feels the benefits of the so-called pre-accession phase, during which a candidate country thoroughly prepares for membership.

The harmonisation of national legislation with the acquis communautaire, the body of shared EU laws and principles, already brings with it a sort of preview of what's to come after joining the bloc. Although it could be felt strongly between 2000 and 2005, the EU dynamics began to slowly fade away ever since.

Sub-committees in charge of EU preparations in the Turkish administration are being dismantled and the pre-accession funds (around €4 billion for 2014-2020) are under-used due to a lack of adequate projects.

All in all, there is an obvious backlash in terms of European political and economic and criteria. This was demonstrated spectacularly by the political push for the reinstitution of the death penalty, abolished since the year 2000.

Today, Ankara openly rejects EU membership through its actions and intentions.

On the European front, the EU commission - i.e. the secretariat in charge of preparing any candidate country for membership - is busy with paper pushing, as the negotiations are basically at a total standstill. This is due to the opposition of Austria and the Netherlands, in addition to the above mentioned “old” blockages.

Moreover, there has been a decision to halt any substantive contact with Turkish authorities, at least until the end of German elections in autumn.

The Schengen visa exemption for Turkish citizens, which has been negotiated since 2013, looks impossible to implement under the present regime.

MEPs are now, with a few exceptions, against Turkey’s membership, especially since the 16 April referendum.

In the EU member states, Turkish authorities had been marginalized even before the present strains - now they are avoided even for photo-ops.

Finally, every single European decision-maker knows that Turkey doesn’t comply with the Copenhagen Criteria, a compulsory set of benchmarks for every future candidate country.

To cap it all off, following an unfree and unfair referendum, Turkey has now been forced to adopt a presidential regime without checks or balances - much like the 1930s fascist governments of continental Europe.

So, what is all of this noise about pretending, on both sides, that membership negotiations are on track and relations are going to continue like before?

What is all of this fuss by some European politicians who are suddenly choosing to stand by the Turkish democrats, especially those in jail for months?

What is all of this tragic comedy by Federica Mogherini, the EU's foreign affairs chief, to declare to the same democrats, with a disgraceful disdain for the European values, that Europe “respects” the result of the referendum, i.e. the choice of a fascist regime?

Let’s start with the Turkish obsession of maintaining a relationship by angrily reacting to warnings about human rights violations and other misdoings.

Economic vulnerability is probably the answer.

The administration of the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has accumulated mistakes over years, refrained from in-depth reforms and ended up by becoming dependent of high interest rates to continue to attract speculative capital, to run the economy and fill the deficits.

High unemployment, reduced growth, feeble research and development, a weak education system, poor savings rates, the drying up of foreign direct investment from EU countries - all these structural problems are potentially explosive.

The regime - despite its natural tendency towards Europe-bashing - naively thinks that the present status quo with the EU is sufficient to keep the economy afloat. No more, no less.

As for the Europeans, things are more complicated - as can be seen in the chaotic responses to a clearly lifeless candidacy.

Firstly, the failed candidacy of Turkey since 1973 is a unique case in the history of enlargement. Europe does not have an institutional memory on how to deal with the problems it throws up, exactly like Brexit.

Secondly, the economic and strategic interests are a cause for concern.

In 2016, Turkey was the EU's 4th biggest export destination with €78 billion worth of trade, and 5th biggest import source at €66 billion.

Many of these companies are European at both ends, yet they display a cautious approach to any radical move.

Strategically speaking, Europe and the West in general are adamant about keeping Turkey in Nato and out of the Russian sphere of influence. As for the refugee deal, although it is important, it is still a temporary issue which will lose steam sooner or later.

Thirdly, speaking gently to Turkish democrats may be a cost-free way of soothing consciences. However, the fact remains that the “support” cannot go beyond words and, without governmental commitment, there is no viable indirect channel to civil society.

Fourthly, and these concerns notwithstanding, Europeans seem rather pleased with the failed candidacy of Turkey. Right from the beginning, the prospect of Turkey joining the EU has never inspired a completely determined and resourceful response from Europe.

in addition to open foes like Nicolas Sarkozy, a former French president, the EU considered Turkey’s candidacy to be no different from any other candidacy.

Today, the historic rendezvous that started in 1959 has lamentably ended at the cost of all. The official end of negotiations is not 'if', but instead 'when'.

Now if one needs to be serious and concentrate on the “achievable” regarding the future of EU-Turkey relations, as well as the containment of the regime, there are not many options left.

The revision of the customs union agreement of 1995 as the second best formula looks bleak, both technically and politically.

A customs union cannot function without the final objective of membership. Politically, those who hope to tie the revision of the agreement into conditions of economic and political good governance are following a pipe dream - in view of the present regime.

One should understand that the Erdogan regime’s codes are structurally anti-European. Likewise, member states that are against the continuation of negotiations are also against the revision of the customs agreement.

The free trade agreement (FTA) option still remains, like with any other non-EU country, but maybe an enhanced one in the case of Turkey, which has already integrated to a certain degree.

As for the containment, with a lack of any concrete leverage, there are no quick fixes.

The only principle, though, should be to avoid the appeasement of that kind of regime, unlike what had happened in Munich in 1938.

EU-Digest

EU Gun Control: The EU is miles ahead of many other countries when it comes to gun control

Firearms are dangerous and can kill you

The European Union has agreed to ban sales of the most dangerous semi-automatic firearms, and to make it much harder to legally buy other weapons in the EU.

People across the EU will now have to go through medical checks before getting a license to buy firearms. Online sales will also be limited. 

Jean-Claude Juncker, the head of the European Commission, called the agreement a "milestone in gun control in the EU."

 "We have strengthened security in Europe without restricting citizens' freedom," said Anna Maria Corazza Bildt MEP, EPP Group negotiator on the Firearms Directive, while attending the LEX signing ceremony of the Firearms Directive in the European Parliament.

In short, the objective of the review of the Firearms Directive is to ensure that legally-owned firearms do not end up in the wrong hands. The revised directive closes dangerous loopholes, notably by improving common standards for deactivation, safe storage, increased traceability and better cooperation between national police forces.

"I want to reassure hunters and sport shooters throughout the union that they can continue to enjoy their activities. We are filling gaps in inadequate systems while preserving existing effective firearms legislation," said Corazza Bildt.

Member States now have 15 months to transpose the revised directive into national law.

"We now call on the Member States to transpose the directive without adding constraints and to keep the good balance found between security and citizens' freedom," the Swedish MEP, First Vice-Chair of the Internal Market Committee, concluded.

EU-Digest

Migrant Crises: Italy and France call for more integrated EU action on migrants

France's new President Emmanuel Macron called on Sunday for deeper European Union integration to tackle the migration crisis, saying bloc members had not paid enough heed to Italy's warnings about the growing burden.

Ahead of a working dinner with visiting Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, he repeated his wish to work quickly within the EU to strengthen rules to protect workers against social dumping and improve regulations on public procurement.

In a nod to Italy, which has received more than 45,000 people arriving by boat from North Africa so far this year alone, he said the EU also had to better share the burden of the high migration flows across the Mediterranean in recent years.

The EU has seen some 1.6 million refugees and migrants from the Middle East, Africa and beyond reach its shores in 2014-2016. Most first arrived in flimsy boats in Greece but now head mainly to Italy. Many have died at sea.

Read  more: Italy and France call for more integrated EU action on migrants | Reuters

Saudi Arabia - US relations: 110 Billion dollar arms deal

The US Secretary of State proudly stated the huge multi-billion dollar arms sales agreements will help Saudi Arabia deal with 'malign Iranian influence and create thousands of new jobs in the US. 

Unfortunately, it will also mean hundreds of thousands of  people killed by these weapons.

The question, obviously, which should have been asked in this case: "wouldn't a ban on all weapons sales to the war  ravaged Middle East have been  a far better way to go?: "Maybe less profitable for the US Weapons Industry, but certainly a more moral way of action".

Specially for a country which prides itself to be a "champion for peac".  

EU-Digest

Saudi Arabia: Trump's plan to create an Arab NATO with a collection of dictators, tyrants and thugs is bound to fail - by Robert Fisk

"The Savior ? "

Counter Punch reports that Donald Trump set off on Friday to create the fantasy of an Arab Nato. There will be dictators aplenty to greet him in Riyadh, corrupt autocrats and thugs and torturers and head choppers. There will be at least one zombie president – the comatose, undead Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria who neither speaks nor, apparently, hears any more – and, of course, one totally insane president, Donald Trump. The aim, however, is simple: to prepare the Sunni Muslims of the Middle East for war against the Shia Muslims. With help from Israel, of course.

The incubator of terrorism

Even for those used to the insanity of Arab leadership – not to mention those Westerners who have still to grasp that the US President is himself completely off his rocker – the Arab-Muslim (Sunni) summit in Saudi Arabia is almost beyond comprehension. From Pakistan and Jordan and Turkey and Egypt and Morocco and 42 other minareted capitals, they are to come so that the effete and ambitious Saudis can lead their Islamic crusade against “terrorism” and Shiism. The fact that most of the Middle East’s “terrorism” – Isis and al-Qaeda, aka the Nusrah Front – have their fountainhead in the very nation to which Trump is traveling, must and will be ignored. Never before in Middle Eastern history has such a “kumidia alakhta” – quite literally “comedy of errors” in Arabic – been staged.

On top of all this, they have to listen to Trump’s ravings on peace and Islamic “extremism”, surely the most preposterous speech to be uttered by a US president since he is going to have to pretend that Iran is extremist – when it is Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi Isis clones who are destroying Islam’s reputation throughout the world. All this while he is fostering war.

For Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (henceforth MbS) wants to lead his Sunni tribes – plus Iraq if possible, which is why Shia Prime Minister Abadi has been invited from Baghdad – against the serpent of “terrorist” Shia Iran, the dark (Shia) “terrorist” Alawite regime of Bashar al-Assad, the “terrorist” Shia Lebanese Hezbollah and the aggressive “terrorist” Shia Houthis of Yemen. As for the Gulf states’ own Shia minorities and other recalcitrants, well, off with their heads.

Much has been made (rightly) of MbS’s threat to ensure that the battle is “in Iran and not in Saudi Arabia”. But, typically, few bothered to listen to Iran’s ferocious reply to the Saudi threat. It came promptly from the Iranian defence minister, Hossein Dehghan. “We warn them [the Saudis] against doing anything ignorant,” he said, “but if they do something ignorant, we will leave nowhere untouched apart from Mecca and Medina.” In other words, it’s time to start building air raid shelters in Riyadh, Jeddah, Dhahran, Aramco headquarters and all those other locations dear to American hearts.

 Indeed, it’s difficult not to recall an almost identical Sunni hubris – almost four decades ago – to that of MbS today. The latter boasts of his country’s wealth and his intention to diversify, enrich and broaden its economic base. In 1980, Saddam was determined to do the same. He used Iraq’s oil wealth to cover the country in super-highways, modern technology, state-of-the-art healthcare and hospitals and modern communications. Then he kicked off his “lightning war” with Iran.

It impoverished his oil-rich nation, humiliated him in the eyes of his fellow Arabs – who had to cough up the cash for his disastrous eight-year adventure – led to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, sanctions and the ultimate Anglo-US invasion of 2003 and, for Saddam, the hangman’s noose.

Yet this leaves out the Syrian dimension. Sharmine Narwani, a former senior associate of St Antony’s College – and an antidote for all those sickened by the mountebank think-tank “experts” of Washington – pointed out this week that US support for Kurdish forces fighting under the dishonest label of “Syrian Democratic Forces” are, by advancing on Raqqa, helping to cut Syria off from Iraq. And that Kurdish forces are now reported as “retaking” Christian or Muslim Arab towns in the Nineveh province of Iraq, which were never Kurdish in the first place.

Kurds now regard Qamishleh, and Hassakeh province in Syria as part of “Kurdistan”, although they represent a minority in many of these areas. Thus US support for these Kurdish groups – to the fury of Sultan Erdogan and the few Turkish generals still loyal to him – is helping to both divide Syria and divide Iraq.

This cannot and will not last. Not just because the Kurds are born to be betrayed – and will be betrayed by the Americans even if the present maniac-in-charge is impeached, just as they were betrayed to Saddam in the days of Kissinger – but because Turkey’s importance (with or without its own demented leader) will always outweigh Kurdish claims to statehood. Both are Sunnis, and therefore “safe” allies until one of them – inevitably the Kurds – must be abandoned.

Meanwhile, you can forget justice, civil rights, sickness and death. Cholera has quite a grip on Yemen now, courtesy of the criminal bombing attacks of the Saudis – ably assisted by their American allies long before Trump took over – and scarcely any of the Muslim leaders whom Trump meets in Riyadh do not have torturers at work back home to ensure that some of their citizens wish they had never been born. It will be a relief for the fruitcake president to leave Israel for the Vatican, albeit given only a brief visitation to – and short shrift by what the Catholics believe – is a real peacemaker.

That only leaves one nation out of the loop of this glorious charivari: Russia. But be sure Vladimir Putin comprehends all too well what is going on in Riyadh. He will watch the Arab Nato fall apart. His foreign minister Lavrov understands Syria and Iran better than the feckless Tillerson. And his security officers are deep inside Syria. Besides, if he needs any more intelligence information, he has only to ask Trump.

The BBC reports that In stark contrast to the upbeat statements of Saudi officials concerning US President Donald Trump's visit to the kingdom on 20 May, many Arab Twitter users have taken a more sceptical view of the trip.

At one point on Saturday, though, the term "Trump's daughter" in Arabic was the top-trending topic worldwide on Twitter.

Many have taken to satire, posting images referencing negative comments by Mr Trump about Islam and Muslims. Their reaction comes ahead of his much-anticipated speech at the Arab Islamic American Summit in Riyadh on Sunday.

EU-Digest

The Netherlands: The King of the Netherlands Reveals He Has Been Living a Secret Life for 20 Years - by Jamie Bland

King Willem Alexander could be flying your plane

King Willem-Alexander—aka King of the Netherlands—recently revealed his secret life as a KLM Airlines co-pilot to the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf.

"I find flying simply fantastic," he told the newspaper. "You can't take your problems with you off the ground.

You can completely switch off for a while and focus on something else. That, for me, is the most relaxing part of flying."

For the past 21 years the King has secretly taken flight on the commercial planes and while very few have recognized him, he's had no trouble strolling through the airport in his pilot uniform going mostly unnoticed. In fact, unless passengers recognized the royal's voice via telecom, Willem-Alexander managed to keep his hobby and second profession completely under wraps...until now.

 

"The advantage is that I can always say I am speaking on behalf of the captain and crew to welcome them on board, so I don't have to say my name," Willem-Alexander further explained to the paper. "But then, most people don't listen anyway."

So what prompted the sudden reveal? Willem-Alexander is heading to training to fly Boeing 737s—the model of plane that is replacing the current aircrafts used by the airline company.

 

While it has been awhile since the king has been taking orders, he is excited to fly the new planes.

"It also seemed nice to fly to other destinations one day, with more passengers and bigger distances. That was the real motive for training on the 737," said Willem-Alexander.

Even with the new changes and public exposure, the king plans to keep up his hobby of co-piloting twice a month.

EU-Digest