Euroasia
Muhammad Ali:
I Am America
I Am The Part
You Won't Recognize
Muhammad Ali shook up the world. And the world is better for it.[1]
Desiree Murphy, ET Online
June 04, 2016
Since news broke that the three-time World Heavyweight Champion died on Friday at age 74 from a 32-year battle with Parkinson's disease, many fans have taken to social media to pay their respects, including current and former presidents. [1]
On Saturday, President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, who considered Ali an inspiration and hero "who fought for what was right," shared the following statement:
"Muhammad Ali was The Greatest. Period. If you just asked him, he'd tell you. He'd tell you he was the double greatest; that he'd 'handcuffed lightning, thrown thunder into jail.' But what made The Champ the greatest -- what truly separated him from everyone else -- is that everyone else would tell you pretty much the same thing. [1]
Like everyone else on the planet, Michelle and I mourn his passing. But we're also grateful to God for how fortunate we are to have known him, if just for a while; for how fortunate we all are that The Greatest chose to grace our time. [1]
In my private study, just off the Oval Office, I keep a pair of his gloves on display, just under that iconic photograph of him -- the young champ, just 22 years old, roaring like a lion over a fallen Sonny Liston. [1]
I was too young when it was taken to understand who he was -- still Cassius Clay, already an Olympic Gold Medal winner, yet to set out on a spiritual journey that would lead him to his Muslim faith, exile him at the peak of his power, and set the stage for his return to greatness with a name as familiar to the downtrodden in the slums of Southeast Asia and the villages of Africa as it was to cheering crowds in Madison Square Garden.[1]
US Arms Sales to Vietnam: A Military Analysis.Will U.S. arms sales to Vietnam alter the military balance in the South China Sea.[2]
With the recent announcement by U.S. President Barack Obama that the United States will lift a decades-old embargo on the sale of military equipment to Vietnam, the question arises—given that the president’s decision is partially seen as a move to counterbalance China’s growing military power in the region—in what way a U.S.-Vietnamese weapons deal could potentially influence the military balance in the region, and in particular, the South China Sea.[2]
Vietnam has expressed interest in a number of used U.S. military platforms including F-16 A/B fighter jets, refurbished P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft armed with torpedoes, and unarmed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to be used for monitoring the country’s territorial waters and the surveilling of the larger South China Sea. There have also been discussions over U.S. radar and surveillance equipment and boosting Vietnam’s electronic warfare capabilities.[2]
Any U.S. sale to Vietnam would be done under the so-called Excess Defense Articles program, which offers used U.S. military hardware to partner nations at a reduced price and is run by the Pentagon.[2]
Vietnam’s Coast Guard is already in the process of purchasing six U.S.-made Metal Shark Defiant 75 patrol vessels for which the United States provided $18 million in loans.[2]
Leaving political issues that could unravel a U.S.-Vietnamese defense deal aside for the moment—including lack of progress on improving civil liberties, human rights, and holding more transparent and open elections in Vietnam—should Hanoi opt to purchase U.S. hardware, the impact on the fighting capabilities of the Vietnam People’s Armed Forces (VPAF) will be gradual rather than abrupt and stretch out over many years for a number of reasons.[2]
Obama Slams Door in Putin’s Face:
Says
If Putin Doesn’t Want
Russia’s Retaliatory Forces Eliminated
He’ll Need To Be
The One To Press The Nuclear Button First
Eric Zuesse
June 06, 2016
On Sunday June 5th, Reuters headlined “Russia Says U.S. Refuses Talks on Missile Defence System”, and reported that, “The United States has refused Russian offers to discuss Washington’s missile defence programme, Russian Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov was quoted as saying on Sunday, calling the initiative ‘very dangerous’.”[3]
Russia’s concern is that, if the “Ballistic Missile Defense” or “Anti Ballistic Missile” system, that the United States is now just starting to install on and near Russia’s borders, works,
then the United States will be able to launch a surprise nuclear attack against Russia, and this system, which has been in development for decades and is technically called the “Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System”,
will annihilate the missiles that Russia launches in retaliation, which will then leave the Russian population with no retaliation at all, except for the nuclear contamination of the entire northern hemisphere,
and global nuclear winter, the blowback from America’s onslaught against Russia, which blowback some strategists in the West say would be manageable probems for the U.S. and might be worth the cost of eliminating Russia.[3]
That theory, of a winnable nuclear war (which in the U.S. seems to be replacing the prior theory, called “M.A.D.” for Mutually Assured Destruction)
was first prominently put forth in 2006 in the prestigious U.S. journal Foreign Affairs, headlining “The Rise of Nuclear Primacy”
and which advocated for a much bolder U.S. strategic policy against Russia, based upon what it argued was America’s technological superiority
against Russia’s weaponry and a possibly limited time-window in which to take advantage of it before Russia catches up and the opportunity to do so is gone.[3]
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has tried many times to raise this issue with President Obama, the most recent such instance being via a public statement of his concern, made on May 27th. [3]
Apparently, the public statement by Antonov on June 5th is following up on that latest Putin effort, by Antonov’s announcement there that Obama now explicitly refuses to discuss Putin’s concerns about the matter.[3]
The fact that these efforts on the part of the Russian government are via public media instead of via private conversations (such as had been the means used during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962,
when the shoe was on the other foot and the U.S. President was concerned about the Soviet President’s installation of nuclear missiles 90 miles from the U.S. border) suggests that Mr. Obama, unlike U.S. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in 1962, refuses to communicate with Russia, now that the U.S. is potentially in the position of the aggressor.[3]
Discovery
of
The New Method Used
In the Occupied territory of Azerbaijan
by
Armenia
In the South Caucasus
Armenian Foreign Minister Nalbandian met with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. [5]
In a 2008 research paper published by the Defense Academy of the United Kingdom, C.W. Blandy stated that "several battalions" of the Armenian Army were "deployed directly in the Karabakh zone on occupied Azerbaijani territory."[6]
Former US ambassador, Matthew Bryza: Putin controls the situation in Karabakh. Putin controls the situation with the help of active diplomacy and Obama does not show any interest to the issue.[7]
Alexander Petersen|, 30 December 2013:Nagorno-Karabakh,Russia's Proxy War in the Caucasus. Russian assistance is the main reason for Armenian control over Karabkh and its surrounding regions. [8]
President Hassan Rouhani reaffirmed Iran’s desire to deepen relations with Armenia “in all areas” on Sunday as he oversaw the signing of an Armenian-Iranian agreement on visa-free travel between the two neighboring nations.[10]
Orhan Gafarli, June 1, 2016 : The South Caucasus becomes an important piece for the US on the world chessboard.[11]
News Az
Mon 06 June 2016
Local separatists have resorted to a new method to conceal illegal visits to the Armenian-occupied Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan.[4]
An article by Pavel Andreevski, a Belarusian traveler who has returned from a visit to Nagorno-Karabakh, published on Telegraf.by website makes it clear that Armenian separatists do not stamp the passports of foreigner nationals when entering Nagorno-Karabakh, APA reports.[4]
Andreevski writes that without such a method which separatists have begun to apply, Azerbaijan was able to easily recognize those who had been to Nagorno-Karabakh based on the stamp and ban the passport holder from entering the country. [4]
“It stands to legal reasons since Nagorno-Karabakh is officially Azerbaijani territory under occupation. So, by visiting that territory without Azerbaijani stamp, you will have entered the country’s territory illegally. Of course, if disclosed, you’re going to be deported from Azerbaijan for this crime,” he writes. [4]
In his article, the traveler largely covers Karabakh’s places of interest, particularly Shusha town.[4]
Note that Belarusian young traveler Andreevski is on a tour around the globe. For more than a year, he has been traveling around the world in auto stops, staying in the homes of locals. His name is blacklisted by Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry for illegally visiting Nagorno-Karabakh in June 2015. [4]
The UN General Assembly concluded in its’ resolutions (No. 822, 853, 874 and 884) that the current status, which violates international law, has to end. The current situation does not comply with international law and has to be condemned categorically. The All-Party-Parliamentary-Group supports the implementation of these resolutions in order to end the violence in the South Caucasian region. [9]
The Role of Global
&
Regional Actors
In the South Caucasus
Orhan Gafarli
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the EU largely stays out of the official process rhetorically supporting the work of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs and periodically mentioning that the status quo is not sustainable and the situation over the line of contact raises concerns (Council of the European Union 2016).[11]
The EU, leaving the official track to the US and Russia, has assumed the role of the international actor that supports civil society efforts.[11]
The EU continuously commits substantial amounts of funding to the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process through a mechanism called the European Partnership for the Peaceful Settlement of the Conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh (EPNK). [11]
The funding is transferred to a number of European non-governmental organizations and only a negligible part of it reaches the conflict zone.[11]
Between 2012 and 2015, out of a total of €6 million allocated to confidence building in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through the EPNK, only €100,000 were distributed to organizations on the ground through EPNK’s Regional Grant Initiative. [11]
The bulk of money is spent on coordinating meetings among the European non-governmental organizations and other Europe-based discussions about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with little impact on the ground (The European Partnership for the Peaceful Settlement of the Conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh 2013).[11]
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia, mindful of its own ethno-territorial conflicts, had a limited yet important influence on the conflicts in the South Caucasus throughout the 1990s.[11]
However, starting from 2000, when Vladimir Putin came to power, Russia’s role in the South Caucasus grew. Arguably, the conflicts served as an efficient tool for augmenting Russian influence in the region.[11]
The two questions addressed in this section are:
•What were the main objectives of Russia’s policy in the South Caucasus since 2000 and what role did the CIS, CSTO, and Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC) play in this policy?
•What was or was not achieved and why?[11]
Russia’s major goals since President Putin assumed office have been the reestablishment and maintenance of the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union, including the South Caucasus(see Source *), and the impediment the EU’s, and more so NATO’s expansion into the South Caucasus to prevent “the Western encirclement of Russia” (Friedman 2008).[11]
*Source:On the other hand, some public and academic voices often interpret such attempts of Russia’s leadership as endeavors to restore the Soviet Union, sometimes referring to the statement made by Vladimir Putin in 2005 calling the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century” (NBC News 2005). This interpretation makes a significant difference in making solid geopolitical prognoses of further dynamics as well as for domestic developments in the former Soviet republics
The Armenian National Committee of America and the Armenian Assembly of America are the two Armenian lobbying organizations. They closely work with certain congressmen and other politicians to further Armenian interests. It is noteworthy that these organizations might often disagree on a range of issues, and the interests they pursue might even vary from (but not contradict) those of the Republic of Armenia.[11]
The benefits of the Iran-Armenia cooperation are not so much economic as political, giving Iran a regional political influence (Giragosian 2015). Russia aims to keep Armenia firmly in its sphere of influence and away from the West, and thwart Armenia’s development into an oil transit country and capacity to devise an independent policy.[11]
In spite of certain disagreements with Moscow over the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement and energy policy, Azerbaijan’s political elite has strong ties to Moscow dating back to the Soviet period, while the details of these personal relationships remain invisible to the public eye.[11
The Azerbaijani elites also maintain close relations with wealthy Azerbaijanis who live in Moscow. Russian Ambassador to Baku Vasily Istratov stated that he mentored many of Azerbaijan’s elites during his days as a professor at Moscow State University, including Presidential Advisor Ali Hasanov (Global Security 2013).[11]
Emil Sanamyan
February 06, 2016
The Caucasus, hemmed in by Russia, Turkey, and Iran, is particularly rife with conflicts. Armenia and Azerbaijan are engaged in low-intensity attrition warfare with non-existent bilateral relations. [12]
Turkey has largely sided with Azerbaijan and kept its economic ties with Armenia to a minimum. [12]
This leaves Armenia reliant on Georgia, itself in conflict with Russia, and Iran, which until recently faced international sanctions. While Azerbaijan is in much less restricted geopolitical position, its relations with Iran, as well as Russia, have also been quite testy.[12]
In 2015, the Caucasus states continued active courting of Chinese interest with leaders of all three countries visiting Beijing, while a delegation led by Chen Changzhi of the National People’s Congress went to Tbilisi and Yerevan.[12]
In Armenia, the Chinese government supported the Armenian Genocide centenary commemorations by gifting 40 tons of equipment to ensure their live international broadcast.[12]
China had previously extended other forms of aid to Armenia, most prominently public buses and ambulances. Chinese aid has been extended to Georgia and Azerbaijan as well.[12]
GPD
February 28, 2016
Agreement on the creation of a joint anti-aircraft defence system with Armenia, reinforcement of the Russian troops in this region can threaten countries of the Alliance and their Western allies, Adam Ereli, former deputy spokesman of the State Department, believes.[13]
The growing Russian military presence in Armenia is but the latest indicator of a worrisome trend: Putin’s threat to NATO and America’s interests in Europe,” former diplomat believes.[13]
“The Russian military presence in Armenia represents a dagger pointed at the heart of NATO as the Armenia-Russian alliance strengthens. But while Moscow is rattling its sabers, Washington remains silent,” Adam Ereli concluded.[13]
Svante E. Cornell (born 1975) is a Swedish scholar specializing on politics and security issues in Eurasia, especially the South Caucasus, Turkey, and Central Asia. He is a director and co-founder of the Stockholm-based Institute for Security and Development Policy, and Research Director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program (CACI), a Joint Center affiliated with the ISDP and Johns Hopkins University-School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).[14]
SVANTE E. CORNELL: Armenia, in its present geopolitical situation, sees no other option but to ally with Russia for its security.Only Azerbaijan managed to avoid the return of Russian troops on its territory, but was forced to become a member of the CIS.[15]
Opening Keynote:
The South Caucasus Today, Svante Cornell; CERES
The South Caucasus Today, Svante Cornell; CERES
Conference S. Caucasus and Iran
SVANTE E. CORNELL: Having won the war, Armenia has not managed to win the peace. Negotiations are deadlocked, and
Azerbaijan’s standing in world politics is on the rise. At present, there is no urgent desire on either side to reach a political solution to the conflict.[16]
SVANTE E. CORNELL: Both parties, in a sense, believe that time is in their favour: the Armenian side trusts its military superiority and believes that Azerbaijan can never gain the military capability to reconquer Nagorno-Karabakh. To meet the eventuality of an Azerbaijani attempt at settling the conflict by force, Armenia has forged strong military links with Russia.[17]
SVANTE E. CORNELL: Azerbaijan, on the other hand, believes that “Armenia has bitten off more than it can chew”; that it “cannot sustain its position in the longer term” and that, with increasing oil revenues, Azerbaijan can build a strong army, and either impose a political solution on Armenia or “obtain a military one”.[17]
- Never forget the Caucasus
No comments:
Post a Comment