China's Support Enables North Korea's 'Bad Behavior,' Panelists Say

The East-West Wire is a news, commentary, and analysis service provided by the East-West Center in Honolulu. Any part or all of the Wire content may be used by media with attribution to the East-West Center or the person quoted. To receive Wire articles via email, subscribe here.

China's Support Enables North Korea's 'Bad Behavior,'
Panelists Say

SEOUL (June 26, 2012) — North Korea’s attempted rocket launch in April was just the latest example of a country accustomed to reneging on international agreements, a panel of security experts told the East-West Center International Media conference in Seoul on Sunday.

The panel on Northeast Asian Security Issues touched on a wide range of topics, most of which related to North Korea, but it all boiled down to two words: distrust and misunderstanding.

“Since the first [North Korean] nuclear crisis broke out in the early 1990s, there have been repetitions of breakthroughs and breakdowns in the negotiation process,” said Ambassador Lim Sungnam, head of the South Korean delegation to the stalled Six Party Talks aimed at North Korean denuclearization.

China’s consistent support of North Korea enables the Pyonyang regime to flout international law, the panelists said, adding that Beijing views its support as a way to balance a region that Beijing sees as increasingly hostile.

South Korea’s efforts to increase coordination with the United States and Japan as a concerted effort to counter North Korea “has created a new regional order that China perceives that as a way of returning to the old Cold War structure,” said Moon Chung In, professor of political science at Yonsei University. “That’s bad news.”

“Beijing has shown a pattern of rewarding [North Korea’s] bad behavior,” said Peter Beck, South Korea country representative for the Asia Foundation. “China has shown – year in, year out – that it will steadfastly stand by North Korea, no matter what North Korea does, short of starting a war. If North Korea starts a war, I think China will watch.”

Although the North Korean leadership may often seem irrational to Western eyes, Beck said, self-preservation will always be a guiding force.

“It just makes no sense sometimes, but … the North Korean regime wants to survive, and, in that sense, will behave in a rational manner,” he said. “But if the regime has a death wish, if they think they’re going down, all bets are off.”

However, he said he doesn’t see that as a likely scenario in the immediate future. “What I worry about is not that North Korea has a death wish, but that they could miscalculate,” he said. “Koreans of all stripes are masters of brinksmanship, but the problem with brinksmanship is sometimes you go off the edge.”

Beck appealed to the journalists in attendance not to “get North Korea wrong.”

“Notice I did not say ‘get North Korea right,’ he added. “I don’t know how to get North Korea right.”

Beck said he doesn’t think internal forces will topple the Kim dynasty anytime soon.

“There are many in the media who say North Korea is unstable,” he said. “I don’t think that’s the correct word. I think what we face with North Korea is a lot of uncertainty right now, particularly regarding Kim Jung Un – who he is, what he really thinks, who he listens to and, most importantly, what path he will be choosing in the months and years to come.”

-- Reporting by Adam Aton, Missouri School of Journalism

This leaflet is being mass distributed this morning across Europe and the United States. It should be widely distributed in Asia as well. Mike Billington

---

Geithner and Bernanke Demand New Mega-Bailout of Europe

June 26th, 2012 • 4:29 PM

Download and Distribute the PDF Leaflet of this Statement [1]

-
Capitol Hill sources have confirmed that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke are demanding that Congress prepare emergency legislation for yet another hyperinflationary bailout of the hopelessly bankrupt trans-Atlantic financial system. For the past week, the two men have been meeting secretly with leading Congressional Democrats and Republicans, demanding that they draft new legislation to bailout the banks on an even larger scale than after the 2008 collapse.

According to several congressional sources, Geithner and Bernanke have pledged that they will do everything in their power to flood European banks with bailout funds through the Federal Reserve, but they candidly admit that it may be impossible, and that congressional action may be required. If the crisis hits, they warn, there must be legislation already prepared, because the speed and magnitude of the crisis may require extraordinary intervention to "save the system."

Lyndon LaRouche today denounced the Bernanke-Geithner efforts as "tantamount to treason." "The current Trans-Atlantic system cannot be saved" LaRouche warned. "The only option is the immediate reinstatement of the original Franklin Roosevelt Glass-Steagall Act. It must happen now!" LaRouche warned that, as of Thursday or Friday of this week, the entire European financial system will explode. "Either Germany will hold firm and refuse to surrender the last vestiges of national sovereignty, or Europe will go into a hyperinflationary breakdown. It all hangs on Germany." German Chancellor Angela Merkel is under pressure from a swarm of British and Wall Street agents - from Geithner and Bernanke to George Soros - to agree to a German bailout of the entire euro system. "The reality is that the gambling debts of the European and Wall Street banks can never be paid. The only option is an orderly cancellation of all those trillions of dollars of gambling debts by reinstating Glass-Steagall."

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) has introduced H.R. 1489 to reinstate Glass-Steagall and the bill now has 69 co-sponsors from both parties. Last week, LaRouchePAC exposed the fact that former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker has been mobilized, on behalf of Geithner and Bernanke, to sabotage the passage of Glass-Steagall. Now, Geithner and Bernanke are pushing for another even bigger taxpayers bailout of Wall Street and London's gambling debts. According to Capitol Hill sources, even Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) rejected the Bernanke and Geithner demands!

Lyndon LaRouche reiterated that the only option is Glass-Steagall. "Anyone who is not fighting for Glass-Steagall now is going to be judged a traitor to humanity. The only way to save the viable commercial banks is to end the bailouts and go back to Glass-Steagall. If Glass-Steagall is not passed into law now, we face the danger of total chaos, when the system comes crashing down. It could happen as early as the end of this week, as the European crisis reaches a break point."

CALL YOUR FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVE AND TELL THEM: NO MORE BAILOUTS, RESTORE GLASS-STEAGALL

Links:
[1] http://larouchepac.com/node/23155

WTC Destruction & High Temperature Aftermath: ONLY Nuclear Bombs and the China Syndrome Fit All the Evidence

4 Comments

By The Anonymous Physicist
theintelhub.com
June 25, 2012

Editors Note: It is important to point that micro nukes were most likely used at the base core of the WTC buildings in conjunction with nano-thermite and C-4.

In attempting to ascertain what caused the destruction of the WTC on 9/11/01, and the great heat and molten metal observed for up to six months afterward, one must account for ALL the phenomena involved in WTC destruction, and the aftermath– and not just one or two factors.

Only nuclear bombs and the resulting China Syndrome can account for ALL phenomena observed. The overview and numerous supporting articles on the nuclear destruction of the WTC are here: wtcdemolition.blogspot.com.

But, at the outset, we should realize that there is an abundance of evidence that the O.C.T. (Official Conspiracy Theory) is quite bogus.

For example, sworn testimony from firemen/responders contains their witnessing of loud explosions from the onset of tower destruction. This alone destroys the OCT of gravity-driven, progressive collapse.

A brief summary of the nuclear aspects now follows:

1. First, low yield nukes (mini-nukes or micro-nukes) are a proven fact that the U.S Govt has admitted to since the 1950’s with their Davey Crocket rifle, and more recently with a physicist’s testimony to Congress. It is also documented fact that since the 1960’s, and Project Plowshare, low radiation nukes– and later neutron bombs– have been available, and were planned for excavation projects and such. My “many small nukes” WTC hypothesis indicates that numerous low yield nukes went off INSIDE (near the center of) the towers. They vaporized anything near them (via million degree temperatures and/or high neutron flux), but the yield of these micro-nukes was deliberately small enough not to vaporize the outer structure. This also ensured that any radiation was contained during detonation. And Plowshare, and neutron bombs, prove low radiation nukes have been available for decades.

2. MASSIVE EVIDENCE of ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSES (EMP) FROM NUKES. This includes the eyewitness, sworn testimony of EMT responder, Patricia Ondrovic (and others). She reported that as WTC1 was beginning to be destroyed, she saw flickering lights in WTC6 lobby where she tried to enter, but was stopped. And just outside at that time, cars caught fire without any visible reason, and one then had its car door explode off of it; and the door hit and injured her as she began to flee the area. Exactly how EMP from nukes did all this is explained here, along with other evidence of EMP during tower destruction from nuclear bombs.

3. DUST PARTICLE SIZE WAS LESS THAN 2.5 MICRONS– & LIED ABOUT by the Gov’t’s main OCT (Official “Collapse” Theory) engineer/author. You can think of a mortar and pestle, and grinding something large into smaller and smaller pieces. It takes more and more energy input to yield smaller and smaller pieces. A nuclear bomb is known to yield particle sizes down to 10 nanometers. (1 nanometer is 1 billionth of a meter). And Govt scientists had equipment to analyze the WTC dust down to 10-nanometer size, if they wanted to, and should have. Unless they did, and have refused to release this. What they (the U.S. Geological Survey scientists) did was lump together all dust sizes less than 2.5 microns and released this data. (A micron is 1 millionth of a meter, and a thousand times larger than 1 nanometer). Nonetheless, the Govt’s main engineer/author, Z.P. Bazant, numerous times wrote papers that claimed that 10 microns was the smallest sized particles created during WTC destruction, and later collected by USGS scientists. For years he did not cite the work that showed, this. Last year he did cite a reference, and it led back to the 2.5 micron study, NOT to the 10 microns he claimed as the smallest dust particle size! So he flat out committed fraud here. He had to do this as his bogus papers claim that the gravitational potential energy (height times weight) of the towers accounted for the energy needed to create the smallest dust particle size. And there isn’t enough energy from his theory to account for 2.5 micron size dust, let alone the much smaller dust sizes that the USGS did not ascertain or release! The bogus physics and math from Bazant and others is here.

4. MELTED, HANGING SKIN WITHOUT FIRE was reported by at least 4 known WTC survivors. This includes WTC worker Felipe David, whose own words state this occurred without fire, but his story when told by another, has “fire” added. There are also two women who reported (on the “Larry King Show”) that a similar thing happened to them, and they don’t know why, because they too were not in any fire. And there is also a security guard with a similar report. The security guard and Felipe David had this happen to them in the lobby and the sub-basement area of WTC1 respectively. Outside the towers, firemen/responders also felt great heat on their skin without being near any fire DURING TOWER DESTRUCTION. Only the thermal rays of a nuclear bomb can account for this. They go out the farthest when a nuke goes off. And hanging skin was a common occurrence in Hiroshima survivors. Note that the outside firemen feeling heat on their skin (without fire near them) also disproves “DEW”, as they are NOT in the towers nor right under them either, and thus if “directed energy beams did it”, and these must be coherent, they would not diverge and cause heat far from their target! So no “DEW” was involved.

5. SUB-BASEMENT LEVEL, 50-TON STEEL PRESS & HEAVY DOOR VAPORIZED. At the same time as Felipe David’s nightmare was unfolding, and also in the sub-basement, WTC engineer Mike Pecoraro reports going up a level and seeing that a sub-basement level was in shambles and was “just gone.” Also he states a 50-ton press has also been apparently vaporized, and a 300 pound steel/concrete door has just been left shriveled up like foil. The only things that could do this are the multi-million degree temperatures, and neutron bombardment, from a nuclear bomb. Coupling this with the four survivors who had melted, hanging skin at this same time, we have evidence of blast, high temperatures, neutron bombardment and thermal rays– all virtual proof of nuclear bomb use.

6. HEAT GENERATION AT THE WTC FOR UP TO 6 MONTHS AFTER 9/11- -THE CHINA SYNDROME AFTERMATH (CSA) (see http://wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com) No heat “lingers” for weeks and months, not alleged jet fuel, not alleged thermite (which would have been used up either in minutes or hours–or during its use as an explosive). We have the documented, witnessed, and well photographed and videotaped great heat and molten metal for weeks, and indeed for up to six months underground at the WTC– until all radioactive fission fragments were carted away. No heat lingers for that long; this could only have been heat GENERATION. The evidence of great heat throughout much of the rubble pile and even higher temperatures underneath the two towers and WTC7 is massive. It included melted firemen’s boots, even dogs had to wear special boots, a mass of congealed bullets in WTC6 going off weeks later from heat, and many photos of steam emanation from the continual water hosing of the “hotspots” all around the WTC. The China Syndrome HAD TO ARISE because each of the numerous small nukes used up only 1-6% of its fissile material– which is standard for nukes. The remainder was then available as radioactive fragments, releasing great heat for a long time (until removed), as the half-life of Uranium 235 is 700 million years. And it is likely that there were numerous, redundant nukes employed, and the phenomena of “fratricided” and fizzled nukes may also have occurred as these are common with nuclear detonations. These effects likely further exacerbated the China Syndrome. The radioactive fragments were somewhat dispersed throughout the rubble pile, and in greatest concentration underneath the towers and WTC7– where water and sand treatments could not readily be employed. Note that the alleged Tritium finding that the Govt released, may be a red herring to fool people to look for top-secret unknown types of nukes, which couldn’t have led to the CSA, which is what clearly occurred. The ludicrous lying (“there never was any heat during or after WTC destruction”) or the poor attempts to create new laws of chemistry and physics by alleged 9/11truthers (“super nanocomposite thermite burns forever”) only shows how desperate the Govt is to hide the China Syndrome Aftermath.

7. THE MISSING PEOPLE, FURNITURE, steel & other contents of the towers. Destruction of the towers vaporized many of the nearly 3,000 people who died, as well as much furniture, steel and other building contents. The medical examiner was unable to find or utilize any strands of DNA for over 1100 people. The rubble pile from the two towers was only a couple of stories high when it should have been several times higher from a “collapse,” or even a conventional demolition. There is much missing mass from the “extraordinarily high temperatures” as fire engineering Professor Barnett declared after examining vaporized steel, that occurred during tower/WTC7 destruction. Nukes vaporize matter near their hypocenter. Thermite, thermobarics, etc. DO NOT. Contrary to what some claim, neither thermite nor thermobarics could vaporize the missing people, furniture, steel and other contents, as detailed here.

8. CLASSICAL GOV’T DISINFO METHODS ENSUED whereby their agents put out supposedly “alternative theories” involving alleged “secret, new technologies” that are either evidence-free and/or impossible. Space Beams/DEW (Directed Energy Weapons), or ludicrous “super nanocomposite thermite burns forever” theories were created by the intel agencies to cover up the nuking of the WTC, and the China Syndrome Aftermath. (Thermite cools off in minutes or hours.) These “theories” desperately try to claim new phenomena or new laws of physics and chemistry–as does the 9/11 Commission’s ludicrous “findings.”

9. More now on the issue of Radiation: The #1 item above showed that the Govt has had mini-nukes, and micro-nukes for decades, and that low-radiation yielding nukes have also been around for decades as well. On the other hand, the great heat and molten metal at, and under, the WTC for up to six months after 9/11, indicates the existence of the China Syndrome Aftermath at the WTC; whereby many responders and Metro New York residents may have been exposed to some radiation from radioactive fission fragments that resulted from the use of the many micro-nukes. We have much indirect evidence of the effects of radiation poisoning among the 40,000 responders who were at “Ground Zero” in the weeks and months afterwards. There have been hundreds of reported cases of blood, lymph and thyroid cancers among responders. These types of cancers frequently arise from radiation exposure, and are much less likely (unlike lung diseases) to arise from inhalation of toxins. Also,the teeth and hair falling out reported by several responders are also standard illnesses from radiation poisoning. These responders’ doctors and lawyers are not telling these people that radiation may have caused their illnesses, because the China Syndrome Aftermath remains one of the Govt’s most closely guarded secrets. However, we can see that the Govt itself was well aware of what it had caused! Standard radiation-lowering methods were employed beginning the very next morning– 9/12/01! Theseincluded water dilution/hosing down and sand/earth covering (and subsequent removal of this sand/earth) of the rubble pile. These procedures continued for weeks and months precisely because the rubble pile, and undergound areas, were replete with radioactive fission fragments.

There is some general information on radiation sources that needs elucidation. Due to absorption and other factors, radiation levels can go down quickly– unless radioactive fragments (radionuclides) are released to the environment.

Unless one is close (like Felipe David, who appears to have received thermal radiation, and not ionizing radiation)– or the radiation is very intense– enough distance/air or most materials, will stop most forms of radiation.

This assumes one does not inhale or ingest radioactive particles or radionuclides. The underground WTC areas– which likely had the highest radiation yields (and also heat)– were off limits to all but a few responders.

Also, as Hiroshima studies indicated, it took decades for many cancers and other illnesses to manifest. Note that a Gov’t agency, FEMA, was/is in charge of any radiation data for Ground Zero, and could easily have blocked release of any data that found radiation.

The U.S. Gov’t has a long, sordid record of lying about radiation exposure to soldiers and citizens, as noted here when they nuked their own soldiers during “atomic tests”.

Honest people, not in DENIAL, must see the analogy to the Reichstag fire set by the German Nazis, in 1933, in Berlin. This was their seat of almost their entire federal gov’t. And this fire/destruction was used as an excuse to destroy their Constitution, and as an excuse for War on “terrorists,” and then all of Europe.

There was one difference with the Nazis, however. They waited till the middle of the night, when there were no inhabitants in the Reichstag building! Of course, that German Gov’t did not admit they did it themselves, but that came out after they lost WWII.

If U.S. Govt agencies have certain types of proof that they nuked the WTC, and thus its largest city; does any honest person think these Govt agencies would ever release this data–unless a new Gov’t came about?

There is reason to believe that other crucial data such as WTC rubble pile temperature (AVIRIS, 2nd set), and WTC destruction seismic recordings were altered.

This physicist hypothesizes that WTC responders AND nearby Metro New York residents and workers, that were exposed either the longest or to certain areas with the “hottest”spots face the risk of getting cancer and other immune disorders from radiation exposure in the years and decades to come.

Sadly this will prove the China Syndrome Aftermath in the worst possible way. Private persons and institutions are urged to get and keep statistics on this, as the Gov’t will likely cover this up.

Originally Posted at wtcdemolition.blogspot.com

This private communication is from one of the beneficiaries of the instruments known as the "Declaration of Independence", and his standing as one of The People, is pursuant to Common Law, the law of the land, of the Republics known as the united States of America, and his law is declared as being the Common Law, and his status that of being one of The People, with supreme authority over himself not others. I am a servant of the One Creator God and His Son Jesus Christ.
I send out e-mail to many different people. I do not necessarily agree with all content. It is up to the individual to discern what is important and to react however you are led...my intent is to give everyone a view that you don't see on the controlled media...Dennis

Myanmar: Learning from the Philippines’ democratic transition

RSIS presents the following commentary Myanmar: Learning from the Philippines’ democratic transition by Julius Cesar I. Trajano. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

---

No. 111/2012 dated 27 June 2012

Myanmar:
Learning from the Philippines’ democratic transition

By Julius Cesar I. Trajano

Synopsis

In pursuing democratic reforms, Myanmar may take a leaf from the experience of the Philippines’ difficult transition from authoritarianism to democracy. But as demonstrated by the Philippine case, democracy alone cannot address all the challenges besetting Myanmar.

Commentary

Philippine President Benigno Aquino III offered his government’s assistance in Myanmar’s democratisation during the visit of Myanmar’s Foreign Minister Wunna Maung Lwin on 14-15 June 2012. Aquino related to him the Philippines’ democratic transition and pledged Filipinos’ readiness to share their experience.

The Philippines was once one of the harshest critics of Myanmar's human rights record. Filipino human rights officials plan to visit Napyidaw to train their counterparts in the recently-established Myanmar human rights commission. Indeed, Myanmar can draw some valuable lessons from the strengths and shortcomings of the Philippines’ democratisation.

Military’s involvement in politics

During the authoritarian rule of Ferdinand Marcos (1972-86), military officers were deeply embedded in politics; they were appointed to many civilian posts in government agencies; and were involved in rigged elections and suppressing anti-dictatorship movements.

The restoration of democracy after the 1986 People Power Revolution did not stop some factions in the military from conspiring to seize political power and/or influence political decisions from outside the democratic institutions. Rebel soldiers launched seven coup attempts during the term of President Corazon Aquino (1986-92). During the presidency of Gloria Arroyo (2001-10), two instances of military mutiny were staged against her by a faction of junior officers denouncing corruption in the military and demanding reforms.

The Philippines’ democratisation process had a hard task putting the military under effective civilian control. Moreover, many self-serving politicians used some factions in the military to cause political destabilisation in democratically-elected presidencies, highlighting the failure to bring political nonpartisanship to the military.

In Myanmar President Thein Sein’s political reforms could still be undermined given the wide political power that the military still has. Immediately before Aung San Suu Kyi and her partymates took their parliamentary oath in May, the military filled its 25% membership quota in the parliament with high-ranking officers in order to bolster its influence in legislation. In order to prevent any military coup like what happened in post-1986 Philippines, Myanmar needs to steadily establish civilian control over the military, take over its businesses and begin professionalising its ranks.

Despite pronouncements about political and economic reforms, President Thein Sein has never talked about military self-financing. Aside from its bloated budget, the military also sources its funds from the revenues of its conglomerates: the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings and the Myanmar Economic Corp. Myanmar’s oil export revenues reached US$2.9 billion last year which were deposited to off-shore bank accounts owned by the military. It will be hard for the civilian government to control the military if the latter has its own sources of funds.

Upholding human rights

Upholding the rights of all ethnic groups is crucial for national reconciliation and political stability. However, there is no guarantee that human rights are protected until an independent and effective judiciary is in place in the country. Myanmar needs to look at the not-so-good human rights record of the Philippines in order to realise the importance of strengthening an impartial judiciary and prosecuting violators.

Despite the introduction of democratic reforms human rights violations continue to be reported in Myanmar. In the first 14 months of the Thein Sein presidency NGOs recorded 85 cases of torture, 59 cases of forced labour and 114 cases of confiscation or destruction of property. Most of the abuses are related to the continuing armed conflicts in some parts of the country, the most recent ones in Kachin and Rakhine states.

In the Philippines, despite President Aquino’s promise of reforms, extrajudicial killings of journalists and political activists, allegedly committed by state security forces, continue to threaten human rights. Upon his assumption of office in 2010, he inherited 150 unresolved cases of politically-motivated killings, while more than 10 cases occurred under his watch. Among the challenges in the prosecution of human rights cases are the reluctance of the Philippine military to cooperate in investigations and weak judiciary and law enforcement agencies.

Expanding the role of civil society

While the Philippines’ democratisation suffered shortcomings in important reform areas, a thriving civil society has been regarded as the country’s biggest democratic achievement which can be emulated by Myanmar. NGOs have been deeply involved in providing public goods such as housing, education, health care, environment protection, and combating corruption, among others. In developing countries like the Philippines, civil society assumes the role of helping the state in providing basic and social services. This can be adopted in Myanmar, given the bureaucratic and financial limitations faced by its government in improving the country’s economic and human development.

Under the Thein Sein administration, Myanmar’s civil society remains vulnerable to government control. Bound by the Law of Founding an Organisation, NGOs face restrictions in the registration process such as the prohibition on them to be involved in politics and advocate for good governance; the steep registration fee of US$600, and regular submissions to the government on their activities and finances. Hence, many local NGOs are not registered with the government. By the end of 2011, around 280 NGOs had registered, out of the estimated total of 20,000 NGOs in the country. The challenge now for the Thein Sein administration is to allow local NGOs to operate independently from the government and constructively participate in political affairs by easing the stringent requirements for NGO registration.

While Myanmar may take a completely different path in pursuing democratisation, there are still ample opportunities for the Burmese people to learn from the shortcomings and potentials of Philippine democracy. As seen in the case of the Philippines, democracy alone is not a silver bullet that will solve all political, economic and social ills. Democratic reforms must be complemented with transparency, accountability and good governance.


Julius Cesar I. Trajano is a Senior Analyst at S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Putin's Visit and Israeli-Russian Relations

from STRATFOR

Putin's Visit and Israeli-Russian Relations
June 26, 2012 | 0900 GMT


Stratfor

By George Friedman

Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in Israel on June 25 for his first state visit since retaking the presidency. The visit was arranged in mid-May, and so at least part of the agenda was set, given events in Syria and Egypt. The interesting thing about Israel and Russia is that while they seem to be operating in the same areas of interest and their agendas seem disconnected, their interests are not always opposed. It is easy to identify places they both care about but more difficult to identify ways in which they connect. It is therefore difficult to identify the significance of the visit beyond that it happened.

An example is Azerbaijan. Russia is still a major weapons provider for Azerbaijan, but the Israelis are now selling it large amounts of weapons and appear to be using it as a base from which to observe and, according to rumors, possibly attack Iran. Russia, which supports Armenia, a country Azerbaijan fought a war with in the late 1980s and early 1990s and technically still is at war with, ought to oppose Israel's action, particularly since it threatens Iran, which Russia does not want attacked. At the same time, Russia doesn't feel threatened by Israeli involvement in Azerbaijan, and Israel doesn't really care about Armenia. Both are there, both are involved and both think Azerbaijan is important, yet each operates in ways that ought to conflict but don't.

The same is true in the more immediate case of Syria, where its downing of a Turkish plane has created an unexpected dynamic for this visit. To think about this we need to consider Russian and Israeli strategy and its odd lack of intersection in Syria.
Russia's Need for a U.S. Distraction

Russia has complex relationships in the region, particularly focused on Syria and Iran. Russia's interest in both countries is understandable. Putin, who has said he regarded the breakup of the Soviet Union as a geopolitical catastrophe, views the United States as Russia's prime adversary. His view is that the United States not only used the breakup to extend NATO into the former Soviet Union in the Baltics but also has tried to surround and contain Russia by supporting pro-democracy movements in the region and by using these movements to create pro-American governments. Putin sees himself as being in a duel with the United States throughout the former Soviet Union.

The Russians believe they are winning this struggle. Putin is not so much interested in dominating these countries as he is in being certain that the United States doesn't dominate them. That gives Russia room to maneuver and allows it to establish economic and political relations that secure Russian interests. In addition, Russia has tremendously benefited from the U.S. wars in the Islamic world. It is not so much that these wars alienated Muslims, although that was beneficial. Rather, what helped the Russians most was that these wars absorbed American strategic bandwidth.

Obviously, U.S. military and intelligence capabilities that might have been tasked to support movements and regimes in Russia's "near abroad" were absorbed by conflict in the Islamic world. But perhaps even more important, the strategic and intellectual bandwidth of U.S. policymakers was diverted. Russia became a secondary strategic interest after 9/11. While some movements already in place were supported by the United States, this was mostly inertia, and as the Russians parried and movements in various countries splintered, the United States did not have resources to respond.

The Russians also helped keep the United States tied up in Afghanistan by facilitating bases in Central Asia and providing a corridor for resupply. Russia was able to create a new reality in the region in which it was the dominant power, without challenge.

The Russians therefore valued the conflict in the Middle East because it allowed Russia to be a secondary issue for the only global power. With the war in Iraq over and the war in Afghanistan ending, the possibility is growing that the United States would have the resources and bandwidth to resume the duel on the Russian periphery. This is not in the Russian interest. Therefore, the Russians have an interest in encouraging any process that continues to draw the United States into the Islamic world. Chief among these is supporting Iran and Syria. To be more precise, Russia does not so much support these countries as it opposes measures that might either weaken Iran or undermine the Syrian government. From the Russian point of view, the simple existence of these regimes provides a magnet that diverts U.S. power.
Israel's Position on Syria

This brings us back to Putin's visit to Israel. From the Russian point of view, Syria is not a side issue but a significant part of its strategy. Israel has more complex feelings. The regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad, while the Soviets were allied with it, represented a significant danger to Israel. With the fall of the Soviet Union, Syria lost its patron and diminished as a threat. Since then, the Syrians under al Assad had two virtues from the Israeli point of view. The first was that they were predictable. Their interests in Lebanon were built around financial and political goals that could be accommodated by the Israelis in exchange for limitations on the sorts of military activity that Israel could not tolerate. Furthermore, Syria's interests did not include conflict with Israel, and therefore Syria held Hezbollah in check until it was forced out of Lebanon by the United States in 2005.

The second advantage of the al Assad regime in relation to Israel was that it was not Sunni but Alawite, a Shiite sect. During the 2000s, Israel and the West believed the main threat emanated from the Sunni world. Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas were all Sunni. Over the past decade, a corrupt minority Alawite regime has appeared preferable to Israel than a coherent majority radical Islamist regime in the north. It wasn't certain how radical it would be, but at the same time there appeared to be more risk on the Sunni side than on the Shiite side.

Israel's position on the al Assad regime has shifted in the past year from hoping it would survive to accepting that it couldn't and preparing for the next regime. Underlying this calculus was a reconsideration of which regime would be more dangerous. With the withdrawal of the United States from Iraq and with Iran filling the vacuum that was left, Iran became a greater threat to Israel than Hamas and the Sunnis. Therefore, Israel now desires a Sunni regime in Syria that would block Iranian ambitions.

In this sense, Israeli and Russian interests continue to diverge. At the same time, the Israelis are aware that they have very little influence over what happens in Syria. They are bystanders hoping that things work out for them. Whether they favor this or that faction in Syria matters little. Indeed, open Israeli support for any faction can hurt that side. Therefore, Syria is a demonstration of the limits of Israeli power. What happens in Syria matters a great deal, but Israel lacks the power and influence to have an impact.
Coinciding Interests

The Russians do have some power and influence. The weapons they supply to the Syrian government can help the regime survive. Their ability to block or circumvent sanctions helps both Iran and Syria. Russia cannot impose a solution, but it may be able to create the circumstances under which the United States is drawn in and diverted. At the same time, it must be remembered that Russia has its own problem with Islamic in the northern Caucasus. These groups are mostly Sunni, but there are a wide variety of Sunnis. While the Russians want to prevent a radical Sunni group in Syria, they could on this level live with a more moderate Sunni group if they cannot keep al Assad or his regime in power.

Putin's visit is intended to make the United States nervous and to try to lay the groundwork for shifts in Israel's relation to Russia that could pay off in the long run. The Israelis, however, do have things they need from Putin. They cannot control regime change in Syria, but to some extent Russia can. And here Israeli and Russian interests coincide. Israel would tolerate the survival of the al Assad regime as long as Syria does not become an Iranian satellite.

Russia could counterbalance Iran if al Assad's regime survived. If, on the other hand, his regime fell, Israel and Russia both have an interest in a moderate Sunni regime. This is where Russia must make a decision -- assuming it has the power to affect the outcome. In the long run, a moderate Sunni regime is in its interest. In the short run, it wants a regime that creates the greatest unease for the United States -- that is, either the al Assad regime as an Iranian asset or a radical Islamist regime.

There is a point where all this comes together. Turkey has decided, in response to the downing of its aircraft, to call a meeting of NATO. Turkey is not prepared to unilaterally intervene in Syria, but having lost an aircraft it could ask for a NATO intervention of some sort. Turkey has been hostile to al Assad from early on, and this gives it the opportunity to invoke the alliance under its common defense policy.

How NATO will respond is unknown, save that the rhetoric will be intense and the desire for combat restrained. Neither Russia nor Israel would be upset by a NATO intervention. From the Russian point of view, a NATO intervention involving large amounts of U.S. forces would be the best it could hope for, especially if NATO gets bogged down, as tends to happen in such interventions. From the Israeli point of view, having NATO take responsibility for Syria would be the best possible outcome by far.

Of course, this was not on the table when the Israeli-Russian meeting was set up. At that time, the meeting was meant to explore the differences on subjects such as Syria. But with recent events, the benefits of possible NATO involvement, however unlikely, are something that Russia and Israel agree on. Of course, neither is a member of NATO, and getting any NATO country to commit troops to Syria is unlikely. But what was likely to be a pointless discussion now has some point.

Israel would like Russia as a mild counterweight to the United States but without disrupting relations with the United States. Russia would like to have additional options in the Middle East beyond Iran and Syria but without alienating those states. Neither is likely. When we dig into the strange relationship between two countries deeply involved in each other's areas of interest yet never quite intersecting, an answer begins to emerge.

There is little conflict between Russia's and Israel's interests because neither country is nearly as powerful as it would like to be in the region. Russia has some options but nothing like it had during the Cold War. Israel has little influence in the outcome in Syria or in Egypt.

Still, it is in the interest of both countries to make themselves appear to be weightier than they are. A state visit should help serve that purpose.

Read more: Putin's Visit and Israeli-Russian Relations | Stratfor

After Rio+20: What is ‘The Future We Want’?

RSIS presents the following commentary After Rio+20: What is ‘The Future We Want’? by Ong Suan Ee. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

---

No. 110/2012 dated 26 June 2012

After Rio+20:
What is ‘The Future We Want’?

By Ong Suan Ee

Synopsis

The world’s biggest summit on environment and development in 20 years wrapped up last Friday in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Has the outcome of Rio+20 managed to meet its promise?

Commentary

The Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) in Rio de Janeiro on 19-24 June 2012 brought together world leaders, government officials, and civil society and private sector representatives who sought the best ways to work towards achieving a global ‘green economy’, poverty eradication and sustainable development.

Long before the conference even began, however, there was considerable pessimism that Rio+20 would amount to anything more than another elite talk-shop. The outcome of this massive multilateral effort appears to vindicate this gloomy forecast. What did Rio+20 achieve?

One Step Forward

There were several positive outcomes, the most high-profile of which is the decision to set up Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) next year. Unlike the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the SDG topics are broader and will include all three aspects of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. The SDGs also seek to perpetuate momentum in international development work beyond the poverty-eradicating mission of the MDGs, which will lapse in 2015.

Rio+20 also saw other accomplishments, particularly in terms of financial pledges towards sustainable development. Governments, private companies and multilateral agencies committed themselves to voluntary pledges worth US$513 billion towards projects aimed at reducing fossil fuel use, improving renewable energy sources, conserving water, and assuaging poverty.

Eight international development banks, including the Asian Development Bank (ADB), World Bank (WB) and Intra-American Development Bank (IADB) agreed to invest US$175 billion to sustainable public transport systems over the next decade. Private sector companies pledged to contribute US$50 billion to a UN-backed plan to provide energy to the entire global population by 2030.

While these promises should not be taken lightly, it remains to be seen to what degree these pledges will be fulfilled, particularly in a time of persistent global economic uncertainty.

And Two Steps Back?

To its credit, the 238-paragraph ‘The Future We Want’ outcome document attempts to call attention to a cornucopia of the most pressing development issues, ranging from food security and poverty eradication to small island developing states and mining. However, its hope to address all these challenges while upholding states’ ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ and being ‘people-centred and inclusive, providing opportunities and benefits for all citizens and all countries’ seems to err on the side of breadth, while lacking necessary depth and conviction.

The language of the document is also weak and evasive. It repeatedly “reaffirms”, “recognises”, “emphasises”, and “strongly urges”, but “commits” to little. The document is further debilitated by the deletion of several major commitments, including specific targets for cutting carbon emissions and the proposed establishment of a US$30 billion fund for sustainable environmental activities in developing countries. Instead, there was a promise to enhance funding for this cause, but the specifics were left to future discussions.

The notable non-attendance of US President Barack Obama, UK Prime Minister David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel despite their having gone to Mexico for the G20 summit the previous week, reflects that some of the world’s most advanced countries remain preoccupied with other more immediate priorities such as the Eurozone crisis rather than environmental and developmental concerns.

The conference has also come under fire for its underpinning ‘green economy’ concept. Much of Rio+20 was focused on making the Third World a part of the ‘green economy’, an effort led by developed Western nations. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) defines a green economy as one that ‘results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities’ – that is to say, a low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive economy.

A green economy aims to create jobs and profits through low-carbon, resource-saving businesses. Part of this involves potentially placing economic value on environmental services provided by nature and to incorporate environmental factors alongside GDP as a measure of national well-being. This approach has drawn significant flak for attempting to ‘commodify and financialise nature’. Critics have also argued that today’s green economy policies only make minor carbon reductions at a very high cost and promise millions of jobs with large subsidies. This in turn raises costs for the rest of the economy and causes an equal or greater number of job losses elsewhere.

Also, the green economy framework has been criticised for not considering the most immediate concerns of the developing world, including malnourishment; the burden of tropical, communicable, and neglected diseases; and access to clean drinking water, sanitation, and electricity. According to Dr Bjorn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, 13% of all deaths in the developing world are still attributable to air and water pollution.

How to Achieve ‘The Future We Want?’

Several experts including Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University’s Earth Institute have argued that the most important outcome of Rio+20 is not a document or treaty, but that it catalyses a global call to action, spearheaded by public awareness of sustainable development and climate change issues and a desire to make these priorities central to global thinking and action.

This is already taking place as a ‘patchwork’ climate change and sustainable development architecture emerges. Green initiatives in individual countries, communities and corporations are prospering. Solar and wind capacity is increasing across Europe. The US is increasingly using natural gas in place of gasoline and coal, and the energy potential of shale gas is being tapped with growing zeal. China is replanting trees in deforested areas and supporting local emissions-trading initiatives. Most importantly, this groundswell of bottom-up effort will continue to mature – with or without the support of international accord.

For Rio+20’s top-down approach to stay relevant within this matrix of disparate yet connected developments, it is imperative that international governing bodies determine precisely what they want the future to look like.

As the global sustainable development landscape changes, the UN needs to definitively decide whether or not it wants to be a key actor and driver of the change that is already taking place on the ground. Should the UN’s vision of the future it wants remain ambiguous and therefore directionless, it stands to lose not just credibility, but also valuable opportunities for collaboration with dynamic and forward-looking interest groups who seek the very same thing - a sustainable future for all.


Ong Suan Ee is Senior Research Analyst at the Centre for Multilateralism Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Economic Collapse Is Imminent

We can be too blind to see signs! VERY INTERESTING READING... MOZ Lindsey Williams ~FOUR SIGN POSTS I hand copied the notes from Lindsey William’s new CD “Four Sign Post’s”[on the Collapsing World Economy] as quickly as I could write it down. Here is what Lindsey said. The USA debt is currently $15.1 trillion. The combined debt for ALL of the Euro Zone is $12.7 trillion. Our debt is unsustainable. There is a 100% chance of financial collapse. If you know WHAT is going to happen and WHEN it is going to happen (by the signs described below), you can prepare. You do not need to suffer needlessly along with everyone else. *Do NOT pay attention to the New York Stock Exchange. It is CONTROLLED. *Do NOT pay attention to the Euro. It is CONTROLLED. *Do NOT pay attention to oil prices. The elite are adjusting oil prices as people begin to wake up. THERE ARE FOUR SIGNS THAT WILL SIGNAL OR LET YOU KNOW WHEN ECONOMIC COLLAPSE IS IMMINENT. They will happen in order. Three of these four have already started to occur. THE FOUR SIGNS The four signs are: *Derivatives start to crack *Currency wars *Trade wars *An increase in interest rates SIGN ONE: DERIVATIVES Tom Fowler was a broker on Wall Street 35 years ago when the elite introduced derivatives. He was told at that time they were going to use derivatives to bring worldwide economic collapse. They were going to use this phony “paper” in world financial markets to cause worldwide economic collapse. There are currently over ONE QUADRILLION DOLLARS IN DERIVATIVES ALTOGETHER WORLDWIDE. #1. Right now the tax payers in the USA are exposed to $292 TRILLIONin worthless derivatives (which they will be expected to pay for) when the stock market and banks collapse. Currently the whole USA gross national product is only $15 trillion annually. The purpose of creating derivatives was to be able to collapse the US dollar when the elite want to collapse it. The first part of their master plan was to begin to crack the derivative market. How will you know that this is happening? [i.e. - the derivative market is cracking and collapsing?] By currency wars. SIGN TWO: CURRENCY WARS The currency wars have already started. As this happens the value of the US dollar as the worlds' reserve currency will drop to zero. Here is what has happened in the past 2 or 3 months. Before this it was “talk” and threats, but now it is happening. THESE ARESIGNS OF CURRENCY WARS. #1. April 14, 2012 ~ China, for the first time, will allow its currency to float. The exchange rate [my words] will be from 0.5% to 1.0% to the dollar. A 1.0% change would cause a 100% change in value of China’s currency against the US dollar. This would cause any goods imported from China to DOUBLE IN PRICE OVERNIGHT. #2. April 11, 2012 ~ Brazil’s president visited the USA and had a very stern talk with President Obama. She attacked the USA for potentially causing a worldwide “economic tsunami”. By what means? By the Federal Reserve’s “Quantitative Easing”. [QE]… What is that? It is The Federal Reserve printing money out of thin air with absolutely nothing what-so-ever to back it up….that is, just printing worthless words on paper (“dollar bills”) with green ink. The first QE [QE1] happened under George W. Bush. The second QE [QE2] happened under Obama. The worthless money printed was over $1 trillion. Now the Fed is considering QE3. This is what Brazil was the most concerned about. The Brazilian president said, “If you have a QE3, we will have a trade war with you- a dirty currency war.” THERE WILL BE RETALIATION FROM BRAZIL, CHINA AND MANY OTHER COUNTRIES. Lindsey’s comment: If we do QE3 this will happen. Foreign nations will have a currency war with the USA to destroy the dollar because a QE3 will destroy their economies. SIGN THREE: TRADE WARS This is the third sign. The TRADE WARS have begun in earnest in the past 90 days. #1. Feb. 1, 2012 ~ China and Japan made the largest trade agreement in history. They are going to trade their products among themselves using their currencies. They will NOT use US dollars. This has never happened before. #2. April 2012 ~ Iran is the #4 oil producer in the world. Every barrel of oil has been traded in US dollars since the inception of the world oil trade. As a result of the economic blockade against Iran, India has now agreed to buy a million barrels of oil from Iran every day AND PAY WITH GOLD BULLION. This is a trade war. #3. Saudi Arabia has been the #1 oil exporter to the USA. Saudi Arabia has just made a deal with China to build, (within China’s borders), “the biggest oil refinery in the world”. They will ship the crude oil to China for processing. They will use only their two currencies. This is a trade war. #4. BRICS ~ Brazil + Russia + India + China + South Africa These 5 countries have 43% of the world’s population. They have 18% of the world’s GDP. They control 50% (?) of the world’s capital. These 5 countries are going to form their own bank. They will not use US dollars. #5. SWIFT ~ An anachronism …as best as I can: “Society of worldwide interbank tele-communications” SWIFT is the banking system used worldwide to wire transfers of money. In 10 days (already passed) India, China and many other countries will no longer use SWIFT to transfer money. They will also use their own currencies, not the USA dollar. (See #4 above.) #6. April 27, 2012 ~ China has started using gold to buy oil from Iran. This has never happened before. ALL OF THESE HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PAST 90 DAYS. They are signs of imminent collapse. YOU MUST KNOW THE SIGNS SO YOU CAN GET OUT OF PAPER.QE1 happened the last year of George Bush's administration. QE2 happened under Obama. Billionsof dollars [which tax payers are responsible for] have been given to banks both in the USA and in the Euro Zone. Why haven’t things collapsed yet? Why aren’t the elite ready? #1. Who is buying Greek bonds, (which they know can never be repaid)? The elite are buying them, so that when the world economy collapsed, (starting with Greece) you MUST accept the New World Order AND the New World Order currency. #2. Through planning going back many years, the elite [through the Federal Reserve] is creating such massive debt for the USA that Americans WILL be forced to do two things: ***#1. Give up the US Constitution ***#2. Accept the New World Order. #3. It was President Richard Nixon who took the USA off the gold standard. In 1966 it took one USA paper dollar to buy a $1 USA one oz. silver coin. Now it takes $30-40 paper dollars to buy one USA one oz. silver dollar. The Federal Reserve note is practically worthless. It will soon get to the point where it will take a wheelbarrow of paper dollars to buy one loaf of bread. The elite say “Nobody needs your dollars [anymore]” #4. The elite have planned and set things up very carefully so that the USA will have no choice but to*** join the New World Order, ***get a new currency and ***obliterate the Constitution. They can allow this to happen at any time. It could be in a few months – or any time. BACK TO TRADE WARS So the world no longer needs the US dollar. This is going to show up big time in 6-9 months in USA grocery stores, hardware stores…etc… Foreign countries will start cashing in their US dollars. In fact they have already started. These foreigners and foreign governments want tangibles– not dollars. They are already buying gold mines, houses, farm land---whatever they can get their hands on. SIGN FOUR: INTEREST RATES RISE The trade wars bring on SIGN #4. This is the last sign and the VISUAL straw that “breaks the camel’s back”. Interest rates in Japan and the USA are currently virtually at zero. IT IS ALMOST TOO LATE NOW. We are right on the verge of collapse. A single 1% point rise in Federal Reserve interests will raise the national debt by $140 billion. Also, when the Federal Reserve starts purchasing their [the USA’s] own debt you know it’s over. In 2011, 61% of all T-Bills issued by the Federal Reserve [USA debt] WERE PURCHASED RIGHT BACK BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE ITSELF. That is, they bought their/our own debt. That means IT’S OVER…and according to Lindsey Williams, "It’s not even the debt that’s important, it’s the interest!..." The elite are just waiting, checking their timing, adjusting for the QE3 announcement and for Federal Interest rates to start rising. [They are behind all of these]. SO WHAT’S A PERSON SHOULD DO? The whole purpose of creating derivatives and the bank conundrum etc., internationally was to create such massive debt worldwide that every nation, city, state, county, etc. will HAVE to bow to the New World Order. The one concern they have is that there are only “a few elite” but millions of people who are starting to “wake up”. Here is what Lindsey said to do: #1. You should have secured your assets before QE3 or an announcement of an interest rate rise. Then things will unravel very very fast. #2. All “paper” will be worthless. Get out of ALL paper. This included 401K’s plans and IRAs. By the way, there is currently a bill in Congress to TAX 401K’s and IRAs at 18%. #3. If you wait till interest rates rise, it may be too late and you will lose everything. #4. GET INTO TANGIBLES. Try, try try to get a “paid for roof”…) even if it means you buy a used travel trailer.) #5. Pay all debts – including credit card debt. GET OUT OF PAPER. #6. The currency of the elite is gold and silver. On April 26, 2012 Neil Curry [sp] an official with the Bank of America, said he expected gold to reach $7000 an ounce. #7. Reminder - get out of all paper into tangibles. The dollar is still fairly strong, but NOT for much longer. #8. WHEN THE FEDERAL RESERVE ANNOUNCES AN INCREASE IN THE INTEREST RATE, YOU COULD LOOSE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE LEFT IN PAPER ALMOST IMMEDIATELY.