THE INTERNATIONALIST PAGE

Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

The Three Greatest Global Crises - Douglas E. Castle

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

The present-day dynamics of the geo-political economy (and indeed the underpinnings of civilization and basic civility as we have come to know them) are frightfully unstable and are only tenuously held together by diplomatic hyperactivity globally. It is my opinion that these diplomatic efforts will ultimately fail, and that the result will be a world 1) very much at war [in a situation where military might and mobilization will be the ultimate determining factors] and 2) in the throes of another significant global economic recession within the next twelve to twenty four months. The Stratfor international intelligence newsletter had this to say about the interconnection and possible convergence of three primary crises:

Within the past two weeks, a temporary deal to keep Greece in the eurozone was reached in Brussels, a cease-fire roadmap was agreed to in Minsk and Iranian negotiators advanced a potential nuclear deal in Geneva. Squadrons of diplomats have forestalled one geopolitical crisis after another. Yet it would be premature, even reckless, to assume that the fault lines defining these issues are effectively stable. Understanding how these crises are inextricably linked is the first step toward assessing when and where the next flare-up is likely to occur.

Germany and the Eurozone Crisis

Germany has once again become the victim of its own power. As Europe's largest creditor, it has considerable political leverage over debtor nations such as Greece, whose entire livelihood now depends on whether German Chancellor Angela Merkel is willing to sign another bailout check. Lest we forget, Germany is exporting more than half of its GDP, and most of those exports are consumed within Europe. Thus, the institutions Germany relies on to protect its export markets are the very institutions Berlin must battle to protect Germany's national wealth.

Many have characterized the recent Brussels deal as a victory for Berlin over Athens as eurozone finance ministers, including the Portuguese, Spanish and French, stood behind Germany in refusing Greece the right to circumvent its debt obligations. But Merkel is also not about to gamble an unlimited amount of German taxpayer funds on flimsy Greek pledges to cut costs and impose structural reforms on a population that, for now, still views the ruling Syriza party as its savior from austerity. Within four months, Greece and Germany will be at loggerheads again, and Greece will likely still lack the austerity credentials that Berlin needs to convince its own Euroskeptics that it has the institutional heft and credibility to impose Germanic thriftiness on the rest of Europe. The more time Germany buys, the more inflexible the German and Greek negotiating positions become, and the more seriously traders, businessmen and politicians alike will have to take the threat of a so-called Grexit, the first in a chain of events that could shatter the eurozone.

The Role of the Crisis in Ukraine

In order to steer Germany through an escalating eurozone crisis, Merkel needs to calm her eastern front. It is no wonder, then, that she committed herself to multiple sleepless nights and an incessant travel schedule to put another Minsk agreement with Russia on paper. The deal was flawed from the start because it avoided recognizing the ongoing attempts by Russian-backed separatists to smooth out the demarcation line by bringing the pocket of Debaltseve under their zone of control. After several more days of scuffling, the Germans (again leveraging their creditor status — this time, against Ukraine) quietly pushed Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to accept the battlefield reality and move along with the cease-fire agreement. But even if Germany on one side and Russia on the other were able to bring about a relative calm in eastern Ukraine, it would do little in the end to de-escalate the standoff between the United States and Russia.

The Connection Between Ukraine and Iran

Contrary to popular opinion in the West, Russian President Vladimir Putin is not driven by crazed territorial ambitions. He is looking at the map, just as his predecessors have for centuries, and grappling with the task of securing the Russian underbelly from a borderland state coming under the wing of a much more formidable military power in the West. As the United States has reminded Moscow repeatedly over the past several days, the White House retains the option to send lethal aid to Ukraine. With heavier equipment comes trainers, and with trainers come boots on the ground.
From his perspective, Putin can already see the United States stretching beyond NATO bounds to recruit and shore up allies along the Russian periphery. Even as short-term truces are struck in eastern Ukraine, there is nothing precluding a much deeper U.S. probe in the region. That is the assumption that will drive Russian actions in the coming months as Putin reviews his military options, which include establishing a land bridge to Crimea (a move that would still, in effect, leave Russia's border with Ukraine exposed), a more ambitious push westward to anchor at the Dnieper River and probing actions in the Baltic states to test NATO's credibility.

The United States does not have the luxury of precluding any one of these possibilities, so it must prepare accordingly. But focusing on the Eurasian theater entails first tying up loose ends in the Middle East, starting with Iran. And so we come to Geneva, where U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif met again Feb. 22 to work out the remaining points of a nuclear deal before March 31, the date by which U.S. President Barack Obama is supposed to demonstrate enough progress in negotiations to hold Congress back from imposing additional sanctions on Iran. If the United States is to realistically game out scenarios in which U.S. military forces confront Russia in Europe, it needs to be able to rapidly redeploy forces that have spent the past dozen years putting out fires ignited by sprouting jihadist emirates and preparing for a potential conflict in the Persian Gulf. To lighten its load in the Middle East, the United States will look to regional powers with vested and often competing interests to shoulder more of the burden.

A U.S.-Iranian understanding goes well beyond agreeing on how much uranium Iran is allowed to enrich and stockpile and how much sanctions relief Iran gets for limiting its nuclear program. It will draw the regional contours of an Iranian sphere of influence and allow room for Washington and Tehran to cooperate in areas where their interests align. We can already see this in effect in Iraq and Syria, where the threat of the Islamic State has compelled the United States and Iran to coordinate efforts to contain jihadist ambitions. Though the United States will understandably be more cautious in its public statements while it tries to limit Israeli anxiety, U.S. officials have allegedly made positive remarks about Hezbollah's role in fighting terrorism when speaking privately with their Lebanese interlocutors in recent meetings. This may seem like a minor detail on the surface, but Iran sees a rapprochement with the United States as an opportunity to seek recognition for Hezbollah as a legitimate political actor.

A U.S.-Iranian rapprochement will not be complete by March, June or any other deadline Washington sets for this year. Framework agreements on the nuclear issue and sanctions relief will necessarily be implemented in phases to effectively extend the negotiations into 2016, when Congress could allow the core sanctions act against Iran to expire after several months of testing Iranian compliance and after Iran gets past its parliamentary elections. Arrestors could arise along the way, such as the death of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but they will not deter the White House from setting a course toward normalizing relations with Iran. The United States, regardless of which party is controlling the White House, will rank the threat of a growing Eurasian conflict well ahead of de-escalating the conflict with Iran. Even as a nuclear agreement establishes the foundation for a U.S.-Iranian understanding, Washington will rely on regional powers like Turkey and Saudi Arabia to eat away at the edges of Iran's sphere of influence, encouraging the natural rivalries in the region to mold a relative balance of power over time.

Circling Back

Germany needs a deal with Russia to be able to manage an existential crisis for the eurozone; Russia needs a deal with the United States to limit U.S. encroachment on its sphere of influence; and the United States needs a deal with Iran to refocus its attention on Russia. No conflict is divorced from the other, though each may be of a different scale. Germany and Russia can find ways to settle their differences, as can Iran and the United States. But a prolonged eurozone crisis cannot be avoided, nor can a deep Russian mistrust of U.S. intentions for its periphery.

Both issues bring the United States back to Eurasia. A distracted Germany will compel the United States to go beyond NATO boundaries to encircle Russia. Rest assured, Russia — even under severe economic stress — will find the means to respond.

The Intersection of Three Crises is republished with permission of Stratfor.

---------------

While the U.S. populace is busily listening to news about either the mounting ISIL crisis or about the partisan power play and tug-of-war between Congress and an increasingly isolated presidential administration under Mr. Barack Obama, they are not focused upon what the effects of world events will be on the US economy. These effects will likely be disastrous, as indicated in the first paragraph of this article.

As a side note, the relationship between the US administration and the State of Israel is becoming increasingly strained - This may hurt both nations in the war on terrorism in general, and more specifically, on the effort to stop the advancement of ISIL.

As always, thank you for reading me.

Douglas E. Castle For The Internationalist Page Blog

Labels, Tags, Categories, Keywords And Search Terms For This Article: eurozone, ISIL, Islamic State, international, economy, Barack Obama, Ukraine, Iran, crisis, Douglas E. Castle

THE INTERNATIONALIST PAGE - Douglas E Castle

http://theinternationalistpage.blogspot.com

A discussion of international business, events, markets, joint ventures, currencies, outsourcing, offshoring and financing, importing and exporting, as well as global sources of goods, services, labor, capital, trade guarantees, credit insurance and emerging markets.

Key Terms: international, global, business, trends, prediction, foreign exchange, outsourcing, supply chain, offshoring, import and export, emerging markets, the world economy, trade balance, trade finance, foreign direct investment, joint ventures, sovereignty, cultural sensitivity, diversity, emerging markets, INCOTERMS, tariffs, International Business Companies, asset protection trusts

Wednesday, August 07, 2013

Charges In Beghazi Attack: Whitewash Politics - Intelligence Failure

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

The charges in the attack at the US Embassy in Benghazi which cost American lives are really just an initial toss of some obvious "usual suspect" types under the bus to palliate angry Americans. This is an example of a combination of Whitewashing politics (i.e., cleaning up a story to eliminate certain important and influential persons who might have been intimately involved), an intelligence failure in the United States at home and abroad (in Libya), and a case of a heartless state of priorities in the US Government; a situation where an informed political agency or two decided that this just wasn't "important enough" to react to.

The incident, if looked at from a telescopic view, smacks of intelligence failure, a poor sense of priorities in terms of handling the inevitable to save Human lives, and the triumph of political parading over an "unimportant little station" in Libya. This cannot either solve a problem in terms of future occurrences, nor can it be something to be proud of. We had better be more vigilant and response to future terrorist threats -- especially in parts of the world where the West, and in particular, the US, are hated and are constantly being targeted by extremists. As a US resident, ardent Constitutionalist and an active Internationalist, this speaks of an unwieldy political machine desperately in need of repair. The value of intelligence is negligible if we fail to respond to the information provided to it about an inevitable threat.

Hillary Clinton, a brilliant political strategist, resigned from her hot seat position as the U.S. Secretary of State as part of her damage control tactic relating to the incident, and the intensive questioning by Congress and the American Public about her role in all of this, and what appears to be her failure to act in the interest of saving American lives.

Because of another "credible threat", the US has already closed embassies in the predominantly Islamist parts of the world, and some other regions possibly accessible to a major terrorist threat. The reason for this is (aside from the threat, which US intelligence agencies believe is highly credible) that nobody in government at the federal level wants another Benghazi embarrassment. An article follows from the Associated Press, in care of Yahoo! News that illustrates, mainstream media being told to do what it is supposed to do. There is very little investigative, independent journalism -- major publications are briefed by those in power in the White House, either directly or indirectly. This makes mainstream media horribly biased in all too many politically sensitive cases.
---------------

DONNA CASSATA 12 hours ago - (Courtesy Of YAHOO! News)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has filed the first criminal charges in the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, two U.S. officials said Tuesday.

The officials confirmed that a sealed complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington against an unspecified number of individuals in the September 2012 attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. One official said those charged included Ahmed Abu Khattala, the head of a Libyan militia. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss a sealed filing.

The New York Times reported late Tuesday that Khattala had been charged with murder and that he has said in an interview that he is innocent. At least two other foreigners have been charged in the attacks, the newspaper said.

Earlier, CNN, NBC News and The Wall Street Journal reported that unspecified counts had been filed and sealed in the Benghazi attack.

"The department's investigation is ongoing. It has been, and remains, a top priority," said Justice Department spokesman Andrew C. Ames, who declined to comment further.
A key Republican urged the administration to do more than file charges.

"Osama bin Laden had been criminally charged long before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks but was not apprehended," Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a statement. U.S. Navy SEALS killed bin Laden in Pakistan on May 2, 2011. "Delays in apprehending the suspected Benghazi killers," Issa added, "will only put American lives at further and needless risk."

The Associated Press reported in May that American officials had identified five men who might be responsible for the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi that occurred just weeks before President Barack Obama's re-election. The suspects were not named publicly, but the FBI released photos of three of the five suspects, asking the public to provide more information on the men pictured. The images were captured by security cameras at the U.S. diplomatic post during the attack, but it took weeks for the FBI to see and study them. The FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies identified the men through contacts in Libya and by monitoring their communications. They are thought to be members of Ansar al-Shariah, the Libyan militia group whose fighters were seen near the U.S. diplomatic facility prior to the violence.

Waiting to prosecute the suspects instead of grabbing them now could add to the political burden the Benghazi case already has placed on Obama and Democrats who want to succeed him in 2016.

Since Obama's re-election, Republicans in Congress have condemned the administration's handling of the matter, criticizing the level of embassy security and questioning the talking points provided to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for her public explanation of the attack. Conservatives have suggested that the White House tried to play down the incident to minimize its effect on the president's campaign.

Republicans also have taken political aim at Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time of the attack and is a possible Democratic presidential contender in 2016.

In an interview with the Times in October, Khattala said he had arrived at the American compound in Benghazi as gunfire broke out but that he had played no role in the attack. He told the newspaper that he entered the compound at the end of the siege in an attempt to rescue Libyan guards who worked for the Americans and were trapped.

Khattala accused American leaders of using the Benghazi attack to play "with the emotions of the American people" in an effort to "gather votes for their elections," according to the Times.

###