Conflict Prevention

All seemed to agree that this time around, a red line had indeed been crossed and, therefore, based on solid evidence, some sort of coordinated effort should be made to make it clear to the Syrian government that this violation of internationally accepted norms would not go unpunished.

That unity has been shattered in the last couple of days. First, the Obama administration had to admit its intelligence does not tie Assad himself directly to the attack. It has strengthened calls on the president to first sit down with leading Democrats and Republicans and try to seek Congressional approval for any action. The absence of a “smoking gun” also put off many doubters wary of being manipulated. Finally, UK Prime Minister David Cameron did not manage to convince a skeptical British parliament, where many remembered how 10 years ago they were dragged into the Iraq War based on what later turned out to be false proof, to act.

The result is that in the public debate on Syria, in Turkey and elsewhere, we are back at square one. On one side, we have those who believe the killing of over 100,000 people is reason enough to intervene in Syria and who considered the chemical attacks to serve as an additional argument that might be the straw to break the camel's back. Again firmly opposed to this view is a mixed bunch of principled pacifists, old-fashioned anti-imperialists and a big group that simply does not believe military operations will be effective and could even be counterproductive. For that reason, they want all attention to be focused on the diplomatic initiative that was undertaken by Washington and Moscow some time ago.

Personally, I am convinced that any eventual progress at the negotiating table will only be accomplished after the military balance on the ground has shifted in favor of the rebels. Only then will Assad and his main backers, Russia and Iran, be willing to sit down and talk about a political solution. This is why I have been in favor for some time of supplying the non-jihadi rebels with sufficient arms and why now I support a military attack that will substantially weaken the Assad regime.

Several analysts have warned against the dangers of the limited bombing campaign US President Barack Obama has in mind. Even if the US would be able to stop Syria from using chemical weapons again, the war, in which most Syrians who died were killed by bullets or artillery and air strikes, will continue unabated. Assad will take his revenge on his opponents at home and abroad.

That is why two things need to happen once it has been established beyond doubt that the Syrian government should be held responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Ghouta. One is the destruction of the regime's military infrastructure and “command-and-control” centers, including the airports that are being used by Russian and Iranian military and commercial planes to offload new weapons for Assad. Secondly, we need a new American and European engagement to build up an armed opposition that can push back government forces on the ground but can also act as a reliable partner during negotiations and in the post-Assad era. As The Economist summarized its advice to Obama, “do it well and follow through.”

I fully realize that hitting Assad hard and supporting moderate rebels will not solve all the problems in Syria. It might create an even bigger mess in the short run. But what I fully reject is the conclusion that therefore doing nothing or staying out is the best option. As celebrated New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof pointedly formulated it this week, “for all the risks of hypocrisy and ineffectiveness, it's better to stand up inconsistently to some atrocities than to acquiesce consistently in them all.”

Joost Lagendijk has been Member of the European Parliament from 1999 to 2009. He is now living and working in Turkey as a columnist for the Turkish dailies Zaman and Today's Zaman.

Originally published on todayszaman.com.

… now, the Republic of Korea wants to give back to the international community even more than what it has ever received. The Republic of Korea stands ready to extend a helping hand to those who are in need, providing them with appropriate support and care.

In 1987, South Korea transitioned to a democracy. That same year, after over two decades of solid economic growth, South Korea became a donor of official development assistance (ODA) providing $25 million in foreign aid. Contributions increased steadily, with annual percentage increases that ranged from 30% to 79% for the next 20 years. By 2009, ROK contributions reached $816 million. It is important to note that these ODA numbers don’t include aid to North Korea, which would make these amounts far larger.

In 2010, South Korea joined the prestigious Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The DAC is a group of 27 OECD member states devoted to promoting economic and social development worldwide. South Korea is the only country to have ever moved from being a recipient of international development assistance to a donor and DAC member. Upon joining the DAC, South Korea vowed to increase its ODA to 0.25% of its GNI by 2015, bringing ROK ODA to approximately $3 billion. By 2012, ODA levels reached $1.551 billion, over half way to the goal.

South Korea’s ODA contributions are noteworthy and continue to grow. Yet, when compared to the other DAC countries, Seoul’s contributions are more modest. Among DAC members, Seoul’s 2012 contribution of $1.551 billion ranked 16th in total contributions, behind Belgium and Spain and ahead of Finland and Austria. Excluding Spain, these countries with similar contribution levels have economies smaller than South Korea. To account for the relative size of donor economies, the OECD also measures contributions as a percentage of GNI. On this list for 2011, South Korea ranks last providing an amount equivalent to 0.12% of its GNI. The top donors of ODA as a percent of GNI are Sweden, Norway, and Luxembourg at 1.02, 1.00, and 0.97% respectively. The ROK pledge to reach 0.25% would move it ahead of the 2012 rates for the United States (0.20) and Japan (0.18) but would continue to be in the bottom third of DAC members.

Despite these rankings, ROK ODA has made significant strides over the past few years, with increases that are far more than most DAC members and done in spite of a difficult economy. In 2012, South Korea had the largest increase in ODA among the DAC at 17%, far ahead of Australia’s 9.2%, the next largest increase. Most DAC members decreased their ODA for 2012. In fact, South Korea’s ODA from 2009 to 2012 increased over 90%; only Australia (97%) had a larger percentage increase during that period. The top two recipients of ROK foreign assistance in 2011 were Vietnam ($143.7 million) and Bangladesh ($80.51 million). Other major beneficiaries of ROK ODA were Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Laos, Jordan, Mongolia, Indonesia, Afghanistan, and the Philippines.

South Korea has also contributed to development assistance through its volunteer program ‘World Friends Korea’ (WFK). Every year, South Korea sends more than 3,000 volunteers abroad to over 100 countries, chiefly in Asia but also in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. Aligned to support the UN Millennium Development Goals, ROK volunteers provide a broad array of programs that provide assistance in health, education, sustainable rural development, and information technology among others for many of the world’s poorest countries. WFK began in 2009 with the merger of several programs into one combined entity. Only five other countries —Belgium, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, and the United States— have a similar program.

South Korea’s record of economic development over the past 5 decades has been phenomenal, and Seoul has used some of this wealth to make significant contributions to international development assistance. ROK contributions to foreign aid are impressive and have grown significantly despite the lingering economic slowdown, but there’s more to be done. The ROK government continues to increase its assistance working to reach levels commensurate with its economic and political status. As a rising middle power, South Korea is well positioned to make important contributions to global peace and stability through foreign aid—efforts that are important not only for the world but for South Korea as well.

Originally published by The Strategist.

The draft directive requires EU countries to set their maximum terms of imprisonment at not less than two years for the crimes of illegally accessing or interfering with information systems, illegally interfering with data, illegally intercepting communications or intentionally producing and selling tools used to commit these offences. "Minor" cases are excluded, but it is up to each country to determine what constitutes a "minor" case.

"Botnets"

The text sets up a penalty of at least three years' imprisonment for using "botnets", i.e. establishing remote control over a significant number of computers by infecting them with malicious software.

Attacks on critical infrastructure

Attacks against "critical infrastructure", such as power plants, transport networks and government networks, can lead to a five-year prison sentence. The same applies if an attack is committed by a criminal organisation or if it causes serious damage.

Eight-hour deadline for urgent requests

Member states will be required to respond quickly to urgent requests for help in the event of cyber attacks, so as to render police cooperation more effective. They will have to make better use of the existing 24/7 network of contact points to respond to urgent requests within eight hours.

Liability of legal persons

Legal persons, such as firms, would be liable for offences committed for their benefit (e.g. for hiring a hacker to get access to a competitor's database). Penalties could include exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or closure of establishments.

Next steps

The text, adopted by 541 votes to 91, with 9 abstentions, is expected to be formally adopted by the Council very shortly. The new directive builds on rules that have been in force since 2005. Once adopted, member states will have two years to transpose it into national law.

The UK and Ireland have decided to apply this directive but Denmark will not be bound by it.

Originally published by European Parliament / News.

BRUSSELS – Sometimes history can be too ironic. This week, as Ukraine marked the 80th anniversary of the Holodomor, Stalin’s engineered famine in Ukraine, President Viktor Yanukovich’s government announced that it would not sign a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the European Union at a summit in Vilnius on November 28. Just like that, Ukraine’s chance to transcend its tortured history appears to have been thrown away.

The ostensible issue that forced Yanukovich to balk was the EU’s demand that former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, now serving a seven-year prison sentence, be permitted to travel to Germany for medical treatment. Though the European Court of Human Rights has ruled her imprisonment politically motivated, Yanukovich – whose power to pardon is absolute – has refused to countenance her release, desiring above all to prevent her candidacy in the Ukrainian presidential election due in 2015.

Perhaps Yanukovich’s retreat from Europe should have been foreseen, given behavior – like locking up his political opponents – that has been difficult to reconcile with European values and democratic norms. But it was his recent series of secret meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin that sealed the fate of the agreement with the EU.

Former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski once observed that in Russian eyes, Russia without Ukraine was a normal nation-state, but Russia with Ukraine was an empire. But Russians who believe that Yanukovich’s retreat from Europe represents a great victory should think again. Just as Putin’s gross mismanagement of the economy has led even the economics minister to predict stagnation for the rest of this decade, his geopolitical nostalgia is poised to saddle Russians with the same dysfunctional empire that impoverished them under the Soviets. Worse still, it seems that only the same system – in which siloviki (secret policemen) are in charge – appears capable of holding together such a ramshackle economic empire.

Putin can preen, but the fact remains that Ukraine’s economy is in far worse shape than Russia’s. A demographically declining empire of crony capitalists, from which the most talented and educated flee – some 300,000 left Russia last year alone – is hardly likely to be a serious strategic challenger to either the United States or China. On the contrary, China covets much of eastern Russia, lands taken from it during its years of “humiliation” in the nineteenth century.

Having recently traveled to Armenia, Georgia, and Ukraine, I saw firsthand the splits in the political class and in public opinion concerning whether these countries should hitch their economies and security to Europe and the US, or submit to Russia through membership in its Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC). The Russian system vaguely resembles Imperial Japan’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere in both its rhetoric and its aim of subordinating neighbors.

Armenia was the first ex-Soviet state to succumb to Putin’s pressure and shun the EU Eastern Partnership. After four years of negotiations, Putin warned President Serzh Sargsyan that the price of Russian gas would be doubled, Russian security guarantees would be withdrawn (Armenia is locked in a bitter dispute with oil-rich Azerbaijan), and the large Armenian diaspora in Russia would no longer be as welcome to work and live in the country as before.

Similar attempts to bully Georgia were made, and former Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili talked about joining Putin’s customs union. But, following the overwhelming defeat of the overtly pro-Russia candidate Nino Burjanadze in the recent presidential election, the ruling Georgian Dream party decided to stay the Euro-Atlantic course, particularly as Georgia’s Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions remain under Russian occupation. (Russia has also tried heavy-handed tactics on Moldova by threatening to ban the country’s wine exports to Russia and to recognize the independence of the breakaway territory of Transnistria.)

The West can diminish the force of Russian bullying by assuring ex-Soviet countries that the Eastern Partnership is not dead, and that something short of the envisioned free-trade areas will emerge. The EU can also continue to work for greater access to visas and, eventually, full visa-free travel. It can remain engaged on cooperation agreements affecting aviation, trade, academic exchanges, transport, infrastructure, tourism, and agriculture and rural development.

Moreover, it can provide renewed help for democratic institution-building: assisting judicial reform, raising anti-corruption awareness, and encouraging prosecution of even high-ranking offenders, as well as supporting engagement by civil-society groups. Perhaps most critically, countries such as Austria, where members of the Yanukovich clique have created obscure companies to hide their ill-gotten assets, can stop turning a blind eye to the plundering of countries like Ukraine.

Unfortunately, in an era of budgetary austerity and lingering eurozone fragility, EU member states were unable to neutralize Russia’s economic threats against Ukraine, particularly the loss of the Russian market. Perhaps a more radical solution to Russian bullying might have been to match Russia’s recent arbitrary ban on Ukrainian chocolate exports with a ban on Russian vodka exports to the EU.

In the end, it may be the oligarchs who have bankrolled Yanukovich’s career – particularly Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine’s richest man – who will make the ultimate decision about Ukraine’s fate. As Ukraine’s European prospects diminish, the economy – and thus the oligarchs’ fortunes – will be exposed to the Russian siloviki’s untender mercies. Perhaps once Akhmetov and his ilk comprehend the long-term risks to their businesses and wealth, they will induce MPs that are beholden to them to switch sides and unite with pro-EU forces to restore Ukraine’s European future.

Originally published by the Prague Post.

Virginia State Senator, PN Member Barbara Favola said, "The U.S. government must not support a regime that violates internationally accepted human rights for its citizens.  Economic progress becomes a reality only when everyone is treated with dignity and respect." For more comments from PN members and full story click here:

http://pncp.net/opinions/us-lawmakers-call-conditions-afghan-aid-face-stoning-laws