Monday, June 30, 2014

What Common People of New EU Associate Members Have a Right to Know

Andrei AKULOV | 30.06.2014 | 00:00

On June 27 Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova signed association agreements with the EU. The move was presented as a decisive turn for democracy and human rights. But some issues related to the decision had been purposefully kept under the radar screen. Media assured the grassroots were not adequately provided information about some crucially important aspects of the step to be taken by their respective governments that have chosen the so-called European choice. So one day the people of those states may wake up to find themselves facing raw awakening they have never expected. True, the economic transition period from associated status to membership is not going to be a bed of roses. And there is a specific feature here - if there is any social discontent you’d better conceal it and keep mum …or else!
The European Gendarmerie Force (EGF) is a multinational initiative of six EU Member States - France, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Romania and Spain – established in 2006 by treaty with the aim to strengthen international crisis management capacities and contribute to the development of the Common Security and Defense Policy. 
 EUROGENDFOR can be considered as an integrated police tool designed to carry out police missions in different theatres, including destabilized ones, in support of the EU, the UN, the OSCE and NATO, or possible ad hoc coalitions. The main feature of this armed force is flexibility. It can intervene quickly in any high intensity conflict under any military command (formally under the control of civilians), acting jointly with other divisions or in a totally autonomous. It may also intervene at any time of the conflict in the initial phase to stabilize or restore the order pre-existing alongside or replacing the local police force, during the transition phase will be called to serve a mission purely military in coordination with the local authorities, and finally in the final stage by facilitating the transfer of responsibilities from the military to the civilian chain of command. The methods of intervention are the following: replacement of the local police forces in certain areas where the conduct of the normal civil activity is in crisis (read – it deprives the country of national sovereignty – author’s note) andbuilding military facilities in an environment characterized by high levels of insecurity and crime due to the lack of an adequate rule of law (a pretext easy to invent – author’s note). There is the possible use during events considered to be particularly at risk such as the annual meetings of the G8 or the like.Once G8 has become G7 - the leading Western nations alone will decide the fate of sovereign states and make them do what they are supposed to. 
The unit’s contingent is about 2,500 men able to intervene within thirty days in every corner of the world. Article 29 determined that the staff members of Eurogendfor will not suffer any proceedings concerning the execution of a judgment against them in the host State in the receiving State or in a case connected to the fulfillment of their service. (!) Whatever atrocity the operatives commit – no responsibility entails. So you go to Ukraine, for instance, and indiscriminately shoot around to your heart content, there will be no consequences to face. 
According to the Declaration of Intent and the Treaty, ROGENDFOR is featured as an "Operational, pre-organized, robust and rapidly deployable"force contributing to the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) even when deployed under non-European Union structures. 
Non-European Union – that is not full-fledged members, please take notice. Are the people of Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova well informed about it? Are they aware of these facts? Anybody took the pain to inform and explain to them what it all means in practice? Hardly so! A vitally important aspect ignored on purpose! Tricky politics! 
The international police presence may be mandated to perform the full range (or just some) of the police functions, thus being entitled to executive police powers, and should therefore be armed.
June 24 is the day the Council of the European Union adopted a decision on the rules and procedures for the implementation of the solidarity clause (Article 222 TFEU). (3) The solidarity clause provides for the Union and its member states to act jointly in assisting another member state being the object of a terrorist attack (Donetsk and Luhansk republics in the east of Ukraine?) or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The Union willmobilize all the instruments at its disposal. The Commission and the High Representative, assisted by the European External Action Service, will in particular identify all Union instruments and capabilities that can best contribute to the response to the crisis, and take all the necessary measures under their competence. The June 24 decision also provides for an immediate activation of the Integrated Political Crisis Response arrangements (IPCR), a mechanism approved in June 2013 by the Council. This will allow a rapid involvement of the political authorities across the EU in order for the Council to ensure the strategic direction of the response and to take appropriate action to the benefit of the member state affected. 
“On Tuesday, the representatives of the EU Member States in the Council adopted a decision on the so-called ‘solidarity clause’. Were a disaster or a loosely defined crisis to occur, the organs of the European Union would be obliged to assist using all the instruments at their disposal. This includes military resources”, warned Member of the Bundestag from German Left Party Andrej Hunko. According to him, “The adoption at the General Affairs Council took place in secret: the point was not mentioned on the agenda of the meeting. The press was not informed. Yet this is one of the most controversial clauses contained in the EU treaties. That is precisely the reason why agreement on the details of the solidarity clause was postponed to a later point at the time of the signature of the Lisbon Treaty”.
According to Andrej Hanko, the clause strengthens the course towards militarization of home-affairs policy, since military personnel can be sent to another Member State on request. “I am concerned that this is about the home-affairs version of the Article 5 clause on mutual defence: it would apply in situations which may have an adverse impact on people, the environment or property”. Even politically motivated blockades in the areas of energy and transport and general strikes are covered.”
Remember Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP? Somehow the events make recall his warning. On May 15 he said, “We face the prospect of mass civil unrest, even revolution in Europe
* * *
That’s when the situation Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia comes to mind. It’s an open secret all these states face a threat of mass discontent on the way of implementation the agreement provisions. Will common people be happy with the living standards falling? What if they start thinking and asking questions about where the countries are heading to? Then EGF is there for them.

US Aggression in Ukraine and the Eurasian Union

Olga SHEDROVA | 30.06.2014 | 00:00
America’s colonial takeover of Ukraine and Europe’s siding with them was a serious factor in the stepping-up of integration processes on the Eurasian continent.
In particular, the real breakthrough came with the formation of a strategic partnership between Russia and China. In addition to the 51 major agreements that were reached following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to China on 20-21 May 2014, a joint statement was also adopted establishing a new stage of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation. The alliance is a geopolitical one. In the joint statement (1) adopted by the leaders of the two countries, both sides agreed to strengthen a close coordination of activities in their foreign policies that will lead to a strengthening of their positions and influence in the international arena in the interests of establishing a fairer and more rational world order.
Echoes of the Ukrainian crisis are reflected in a number of the document’s provisions… For example, Russia and China will oppose any attempts and methods of intervention in internal affairs, and support strict adherence to the fundamental provisions of international law enshrined in the UN Charter, unconditional respect for the rights of their partner to independently choose their own development path, and the right to preserve and defend their own cultural, historical, ethical and moral values. Far removed from the European fronts of the Second World War, meanwhile, China has expressed its willingness to take part in the 70th anniversary of the defeat of German fascism and continue their “resolute opposition to attempts to falsify history and undermine the postwar world order”. The two countries also emphasised the need “to respect the historical legacy of countries, their cultural traditions and independently-chosen social and political systems, their value systems and development paths; to oppose interference in the internal affairs of other countries, to reject the language of unilateral sanctions, or organising, aiding, financing or encouraging activity aimed at changing the constitutional system of another country or drawing it into any multilateral bloc or union.”
By way of practical measures to counter America’s expansionist policy, both sides resolved “to establish close cooperation in the financial sphere, including an increase in direct payments in the Russian and Chinese national currencies in trade, investments and loan services, and to deepen the dialogue on macroeconomic policy issues.” During the visit, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and the People’s Bank of China signed an agreement to pay each other in domestic currencies for transactions between the two countries. Needless to say, such a decision is a significant blow to the domination of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
The joint statement also contains a response to and condemnation of the activities of the West to develop a global missile defence system, as well as plans to strengthen alternative international structures to Western ones like the G20, BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), the Russia-India-China trilateral and so on.
As Putin declared in an interview summing up the visit, “a new geopolitical centre is emerging in the world, a “G2” if you like, represented by Russia and China. So, whether they like it or not, this is something that every world power is going to have to reckon with” (2).
Worthy of special attention is the package of agreements signed in China on the supply of Russian gas to China, which became the largest contract in the history of the USSR and Russia. A key geopolitical consequence of this contract is the opportunity it opens up for Russia to diversify supplies from west to east and from east to west. And this, in turn, makes gas blackmail by the US and the European Union impossible.
The geopolitical implications of the gas agreements extend much further than just eliminating the possibility of Russia being blackmailed by a united Europe and Washington. The Japanese are once again talking about their desire to import Russian gas, for which the construction of a gas pipeline in Japan along the bottom of the sea has been proposed. It is not the first time that proposals like these are being heard, but this time they could actually get off the ground. Until recently, Russia had treated the initiatives of the ‘Land of the Rising Sun’ with reserve, not just because of the project’s technical complexity, but also because of allied relations between Japan and the US. According to a member of the Expert Council of the State Duma Committee on Economic Policy, Innovative Development and Entrepreneurship R. Teryokhin, “Japan is a profitable customer for Russia, but taking into account that it is not a very easy country and quite a risky partner, especially in terms of its commitment to US policy and its territorial disputes with Russia, a pipeline construction project in Japan in reality seems economically unjustified” (4).
Nevertheless, Japan’s latest steps in its foreign policy give reason to suppose that the country is gradually moving away from the dictate of the US and making timid steps towards its partners in the Asia-Pacific Region. In particular, the free trade agreement imposed by Washington was never signed, Japan and China are extending an agreement on giving up the dollar in mutual trade, and the Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzō Abe, proved to be the only G7 leader to attend the Sochi Olympics. His Sochi meeting with Putin was the sixth such meeting in the last year.
In order to assess the importance of intensifying the dialogue between the Moscow-Beijing-Tokyo triangle, one only needs to remember that until relatively recently, these countries were practically enemies, divided by a number of mutual territorial claims. Now, however, it seems that America’s attempts to play on territorial disputes are giving way to economic feasibility. And that, in turn, could jeopardise the whole system of America’s allied relations in the Asia-Pacific Region.
One can also note a number of other seemingly insignificant events. Recep Erdoğan, the Prime Minister of Turkey, another of America’s strategic allies, declared that if Turkey joined the SCO, then it would withdraw its application to join the EU (5). In addition, Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev said that Turkey could become an associate member of the recently established Eurasian Economic Union.
During a visit to India on 8 June 2014, Chinese Foreign Affairs Minister Wang Yi emphasised China’s willingness “to reach a final solution” on the border issue with India (6). Although there are still no discernible arrangements for resolving the issue, it is a significant statement.
May was marked by one more breakthrough in the sphere of Eurasian integration. On 29 May, an agreement was signed in Astana on the creation of a Eurasian Union, which is highly undesirable for the US. As US State Secretary Hillary Clinton announced at the time, “The US is trying to prevent Russia from recreating a new version of the Soviet Union under the ruse of economic integration. There is a move to re-Sovietise the region. It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that. But let’s make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it” (7). So far, attempts are failing. A number of countries, including US allies such as New Zealand, Turkey and Israel, are willing to sign free trade agreements with the EaEU.
But the most important aspect regarding the creation of the Eurasian Union is the fact that it can incorporate other organisations established in the former USSR. In particular, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko noted that in the future, the CSTO could become the military component of the Eurasian Economic Union: “I think we will soon see the Collective Security Treaty Organisation become part of the union. It will be our military organisation.”
Of course, it would be incorrect to say that these tectonic shifts happened solely as a result of US and EU aggression against Ukraine. Nevertheless, the Ukrainian tragedy accelerated a number of unification processes on the Eurasian continent that in different circumstances could have taken much longer. As noted by Mohammad Marandi, a professor at the University of Tehran, “Following the US’ threats towards Russia, many other world powers are raising the alarm, since they see themselves as potential targets of the American authorities” (8).
There are grounds for such fears, since Washington is already imposing economic sanctions against Russia that are damaging to the EU economy and jeopardising the continent’s energy security. The world also cannot fail to understand that the White House’s foolhardy policy aimed at instigating a full-scale war involving Russia bears a direct threat to every country without exception. Nobody will be left on the sidelines.


Wikileaks Cables Confirm New Ukrainian President Has Been Working For US Gov't Since 2006 

By SCG News
19 June 14
 There's not much point in staging a coup if you don't influence who is placed in power in the aftermath. Of course in order for a puppet government to be effective, they can't be perceived as such. You wouldn't want the natives to get restless would you?
The evidence that the U.S. was behind the toppling of the Ukrainian government early this year is so overwhelming at this point that the subject really isn't up for debate, however initially it was unclear how the election of Petro Poroshenko fit in. The ecstatic response by Washington when he was declared the winner, and their unbending support in spite of his ongoing military assault against civilians in the east, made it clear that he was the chosen one, but the paper trail wasn't immediately obvious.
As it turns out, the evidence that Poroshenko is in the pocket of the U.S. State Department has been available all this time, you just had to know where to find it. In a classified diplomatic cable from 2006 released by, U.S. officials refer to Poroshenko as "Our Ukraine (OU) insider Petro Poroshenko".
A separate cable also released by Wikileaks makes it clear that the U.S. government was considered Poroshenko corrupt.
"Poroshenko was tainted by credible corruption allegations, but wielded significant influence within OU; Poroshenko's price had to be paid."
The U.S. government knew Poroshenko was dirty, but he was influential, and arguably their most dependable mole.
Perhaps the most interesting revelation comes from a 2009 cable where Poroshenko told then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton he supported "the opening of a U.S. diplomatic presence in Crimea" and "He emphasized the importance of Crimea, and said that having U.S. representation there would be useful for Ukraine." Poroshenko's role as an informant for the U.S. government continued in cables in 2010 as well.
Reading through the cables, I have to wonder if Poroshenko was actually breaking Ukrainian law by sharing the kind of strategic information that he did. Considering that this information was certainly used when planning the coup against Yanukovich, one could argue that he committed treason.
Poroshenko, however, isn't the only Ukrainian politician mentioned. For example, the cables mention the scandal surrounding Oleksandr Turchynov's destruction of SBU documents tying Julia Tymoshenko to organized crime, and note that the accusation that Tymoshenko wanted Turchynov get the Interior Minister position so that she could gather damaging information on her enemies. The cable refers to this accusation as "not farfetched". Turchynov went on to be installed as the acting president of Ukraine in the provisional government.
In order to grasp the extent of the U.S. government's tinkering in Ukraine it is worth reading the documents for yourself.
See cables Wikileaks 2006, 2009, 2010