Provocation the name of the game as crisis escalates

A fighter jet flies above as Ukrainian soldiers sit on an armoured personnel carrier in Kramatorsk, in eastern Ukraine

One word unites the opposing forces in eastern Ukraine. Whenever a gun battle breaks out or a mob occupies a public building, pro-Russian separatists and Ukraine’s beleaguered government are both likely to denounce a “provocation”.

That term was duly used to describe yesterday’s bloodshed in Slavyansk, a town of 100,000 people under the total control of separatists.

The fact that “provocation” is the word of the day shows how dangerous this crisis has become. More than anything else, Ukraine’s government fears an unstoppable Russian invasion. Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the Ukrainian prime minister, believes that President Vladimir Putin has a “dream to restore the Soviet Union”.

But Mr Putin would need an excuse – or a “provocation” – before he could order the 40,000 Russian troops massed on Ukraine’s eastern frontier to advance.

Last Sunday, Ukraine’s leaders risked handing him that pretext when they announced a military offensive against the separatists in Donetsk region. As it turned out, this operation swiftly became a fiasco when Ukrainian soldiers surrendered their weapons rather than confront pro-Russian civilians.

Now that a Ukrainian assault seems unlikely to provoke Mr Putin, incidents such as the one in Slavyansk pose the greatest danger. Vyacheslav Ponomaruv, the separatist mayor of the town, duly called on Russia to send “peacekeeping” troops to Donetsk to “protect” the Russian-speaking population.

If Mr Putin wants to invade, he can argue that he was merely answering the pleas of his compatriots, who were dying in mysterious gun attacks that Ukraine’s own government was, at the very least, incapable of preventing.

But the Ukrainian authorities fear that Mr Putin is in the business of manufacturing his own excuses. They see the hand of Russian intelligence behind yesterday’s incident – and indeed all the occupations in Donetsk. Western governments broadly agree: they interpret the sudden birth of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” – and the promise to hold a referendum on the region’s status by May 11 – as evidence of a Russian plan to dismember Ukraine.

source

Polish Minister: If Opposition Does Not Accept Deal in Ukraine, Martial Law Will be Declared and “You All Will Be Dead”

The Polish Foreign Minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, told a Ukrainian protest leader if EuroMaidan activists do not enter into an agreement to end the occupation of Independence Square in Kyiv, martial law will be declared and they will be killed.

“If you don’t support this [deal] you’ll have martial law, you’ll have the army. You will all be dead,” Sikorski said upon leaving a meeting. The exchange was filmed by ITN, a television network based in London, England.

In a Twitter post, Sikorski characterized a deal reached between the demonstrators and the Ukrainian government as a “good compromise for Ukraine. Gives peace a chance. Opens the way for reform and to Europe. Poland and EU support it,” according to Fox News. Sikorski is a mediator on the crisis for the European Union.

The deal includes a pledge by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to hold elections and a promise to include the opposition in a new government. No time frame was set for implementation of the agreement.

According to the German government, leaders of the Maidan movement have agreed to sign the agreement. “We are prepared to do everything to obtain a peaceful solution. I told the German foreign minister I would personally appeal to protesters before signing,” said opposition leader Vitaly Klitschko, a former boxer.

Interfax reported opposition leader and ultra-nationalist Oleh Yaroslavovych Tyahnybok as stating one condition of the agreement is that the present interior minister and prosecutor-general must be excluded from any interim government.

source

Naval Face Off In Mediterranean Sea Off Of Syria

Mounting pressure for a Western strike on Syria has seen naval forces both friendly and hostile to Damascus build up off the embattled country’s coastline.

The potential of a US strike against Syria in response to an August 21 chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb gained steam on Wednesday, when a resolution backing the use of force against President Bashar Assad’s government cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a 10-7 vote.

President Obama has decided to put off military action until at least September 9, when the seemingly recalcitrant US House of Representatives reconvenes to vote on the measure.

Following the August 21 Ghouta Attack, which killed anywhere between 355 to 1,729 people, the diplomatic scramble to launch or stave off a military strike on Syria was mirrored by the movement of naval forces in the Eastern Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria.

The deployment of US and allied naval warships in the region has been matched by the deployment of Russian naval warships in the region.

While the Western vessels have in many cases been deployed in the event a military strike against Syria gets a green light, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Russia’s naval presence is needed to protect national security interests and is not a threat to any nation.

Below is a brief summary of the naval hardware currently amassed off Syria’s shores.

USA

The US Navy has five Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers off the coast of Syria, which its top admiral says is “fully ready” for a wide range of possible actions.

The USS Ramage, USS Mahan, USS Gravely and USS Barry are each armed with dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a range of about 1,000 nautical miles (1,151 miles) and are used for precise targeting.

The ships are also equipped with surface-to-air missiles capable of defending the vessels from air attacks.

On August 29, the USS Stout was sent to relieve the USS Mahan, but a defense official told AFP that both ships might remain in the area for the time being.

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday that the US ships are prepared for what he called a “vast spectrum of operations,”including launching Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets in Syria, as was done in Libya in 2011, and protecting themselves in the event of retaliation, AP reports.

In addition to the destroyers, the United States may well have one of its four guided missile submarines off the coast of Syria. At one time these subs were equipped with nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. Nowadays, they are capable of carrying up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

It was also announced on Monday that the US had deployed the USS San Antonio, an amphibious transport ship, to the Eastern Mediterranean.

The USS San Antonio, with several helicopters and hundreds of Marines on board, is “on station in the Eastern Mediterranean” but “has received no specific tasking,” a defense official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

The deployment of the USS Antonio comes despite promises from President Obama that no amphibious landing is on the agenda, as the US has ostensibly ruled out any “boots on the ground.”

While the wording of the draft resolution set to be put before the House does not permit a ground invasion, the wording of the text could potentially allow troops to carry out non-offensive operations within Syria, including securing chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities.

On Monday, it was also announced the USS Nimitz super carrier had moved into the Red Sea, though it had not been given orders to be part of the planning for a limited US military strike on Syria, US officials told ABC News.

The other ships in the strike group are the cruiser USS Princeton and the destroyers USS William P. Lawrence, USS Stockdale and USS Shoup.

The official said the carrier strike group has not been assigned a mission, but was shifted in the event its resources are needed to “maximize available options.”

The USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier and strike group is also in the northern Arabian Sea.

Russia

Russia, Syria’s longtime ally and primary arms supplier, has its only overseas naval base located in the Syrian port of Tartus, which has reportedly been used to support Russia’s growing number of naval patrols on the Mediterranean. However, Russia insists recent efforts to bolster its naval presence in the region are not in response to Western threats of a military strike.

Reported movements of many Russian ships in the region are coming from anonymous Russian defense ministry sources and have not been confirmed. RT contacted the Russian Navy to ask for confirmation of the reported ship movements, though no comment was forthcoming.

On Friday, for example, the large landing ship, Nikolai Filchenkov, was reportedly dispatched from the Ukrainian port city of Sevastopol for the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk, from where it is eventually expected to reach the Syrian coast, a source told Interfax News Agency.

“The ship will make call in Novorossiisk, where it will take on board special cargo and set off for the designated area of its combat duty in the eastern Mediterranean,” the source said.

RIA news agency quoted an unnamed senior naval source as saying on Friday that the frigate, Smetlivy, would leave for the Mediterranean on September 12-14, and the corvette Shtil and missile boat Ivanovets would approach Syria at the end of the month.

The Russian destroyer Nastoichivy, which is the flagship of the Baltic fleet, is also expected to join the group in the region.

Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov, who was unable to comment on specific reports, said on Thursday the Russian navy currently had a “pretty strong group” there.

“The Russian navy does not intend to take part directly or indirectly in a possible regional conflict,” he told the state Rossiya 24 broadcaster.

“Our navy vessels are a guarantee of stability, guarantee of peace, an attempt to hold back other forces ready to start military action in the region.”

Also reportedly in place in the eastern Mediterranean are the frigate Neustrashimy, as well as the landing ships Alexander Shabalin, the Admiral Nevelsky and the Peresvet.

They are expected to be joined by the guided-missile cruiser Moskva.

The Moskva, set to arrive in a little over a week’s time, will take over operations from a naval unit in the region.

“The plans of the naval unit under the command of Rear Admiral Valery Kulikov had to be changed a little. Instead of visiting a Cape Verde port, the cruiser Moskva is heading to the Strait of Gibraltar. In about ten days, it will enter the eastern Mediterranean, where it will replace the destroyer Admiral Panteleyev as the flagship of the operative junction of the Russian Navy,” a source told Interfax on Wednesday.

Panteleyev incidentally, only arrived in the east Mediterranean Sea on Wednesday after leaving the Far-Eastern port city of Vladivostok on March 19 to join the Russian standing naval force as its flagship.

The SSV-201 reconnaissance ship, Priazovye, is also reportedly on its way to join the group in the Eastern Mediterranean. Accompanied by the two landing ships, Minsk and Novocherkassk, the intelligence ship passed through the ‘Istanbul Strait’ on Thursday, which helps form the boundary between Europe and Asia.

FRANCE

On August 31, French military officials confirmed the frigate Chevalier Paul, which specializes in anti-missile capabilities, and the transport ship, Dixmude, were in the Mediterranean. French officials denied they are in the region to participate in military action against Syria, but were rather taking part in training and operation preparations.

Despite their presence in the region, France currently has no ship-based missiles, so any offensive action would come from the air in the form of long-range Scalp missiles, similar to those the nation used in Kosovo in 1999 and in Libya in 2011, Time reports.

Italy

Two Italian warships set sail for Lebanon on Wednesday in a bid to protect 1,100 Italian soldiers in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, Syria’s southeastern neighbor, Agence France Presse reported.

The Italian ANSA news agency reported that a frigate and a torpedo destroyer boat departed from Italy’s southeastern coast on Wednesday and would provide additional protection to the soldiers in the event the Syrian conflict further deteriorates.

UK

As of August 29, the Royal Navy’s Response Force Task Group was deployed in the Mediterranean as part of long-planned exercise Cougar 13. The force includes helicopter carrier HMS Illustrious, type-23 frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Montrose, amphibious warship HMS Bulwark and six Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships.
The Trafalgar-class nuclear submarine HMS Tireless was also believed to be in the area at the time, after it was detected in Gibraltar.

On the same day that British media started touting Britain’s “arsenal of military might” which would be available in the event of intervention, British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes. In light of the shocking parliamentary defeat, Foreign Secretary William Hague said the UK would only be able to offer the US “diplomatic support.”

The UK’s Conservative Chancellor, George Osborne, confirmed that the UK would not seek a further vote on action in Syria.

Source: RT News

Turkey Warns Europe Of New “Holocaust” If They Don’t Accept Islam

ANKARA — European countries will face new humanitarian tragedies leading to mass killings of people if they continue in their failure to embrace tolerance toward different cultures and religions, President Abdullah Gül has warned.

“Islam and migrants have been a reality in Europe for centuries. As long as the continent of Europe doesn’t approach segments which are different from the majority with tolerance, particularly in regards to religion, an occurrence of new inquisitions and Holocausts, as well as incidents evoking Srebrenica, are probable,” Gül said yesterday.

His strongly worded remarks came as he delivered a keynote speech at the opening of a two-day international symposium on “Migration, Islam and Multiculturality in Europe” arranged by Hacettepe University’s Migration and Politics Research Center.

Racism and a lack of tolerance of Eurodifferent cultures and lifestyles are some of the chronic diseases in Western societies, Gül said, drawing attention to the increase in support for political parties which portray migrants as the main reason for societal problems in European countries such as safety, unemployment, crime and poverty.

“When politics begins ‘otherizing’ a segment, then we see the alienation of migrants and minorities from the country in which they live and from the society in which they live as an inevitable consequence. As seen in countless examples in history, countries which have been able to perpetuate societal and cultural diversity in unity and harmony have stood out in history. Correspondingly, countries which have exerted efforts to either destroy or put pressure on societal and cultural diversity due to different fears have first of all lost their human richness; subsequently, they have experienced a loss of economic and political power,” the president said.

“In this regard, although each country is responsible for producing its own authentic resolutions, showing respect for multiculturalism [is necessary],” he said.

Source: weazilzippers.us

Russian Leader Warns, “Get All Money Out Of Western Banks Now!”

A Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) “urgent bulletin” being sent to Embassies around the world today is advising both Russian citizens and companies to begin divesting their assets from Western banking and financial institutions “immediately” as Kremlin fears grow that both the European Union and United States are preparing for the largest theft of private wealth in modern history.

According to this “urgent bulletin,” this warning is being made at the behest of Prime Minister Medvedev who earlier warned against the Western banking systems actions against EU Member Cyprus by stating:

“All possible mistakes that could be made have been made by them, the measure that was proposed is of a confiscation nature, and unprecedented in its character. I can’t compare it with anything but … decisions made by Soviet authorities … when they didn’t think much about the savings of their population. But we are living in the 21st century, under market economic conditions. Everybody has been insisting that ownership rights should be respected.”

Medvedev’s statements echo those of President Putin who, likewise, warned about the EU’s unprecedented private asset grab in Cyprus calling it “unjust, unprofessional, and dangerous.”

In our 17 March report “Europe Recoils In Shock After Bankster Raid, US Warned Is Next” we noted how Russian entities have €23-31 billion ($30-$40) in cross-border loans to Cypriot companies tied to Moscow, and €9 billion ($12 billion) on deposit with Cypriot banks [as compared to the €127 billion ($166 billion) being kept in similar circumstances by 60 of the United States largest corporations in offshore accounts to avoid paying American taxes] which are in danger of being confiscated by EU banksters.

Unbowed by the misery they have inflicted upon the entire continent, however, and in spite of Russian warnings, European Union officials hardened their stance against Cyprus today by announcing that if the Cypriot government did not allow the raiding of private bank accounts by Monday they would be forced to destroy their banks, which remain closed for the seventh straight day and have no signs of opening soon.

In an editorial agreeing with Russian leaders anger against the EU over Cyprus, Canada’s Globe and Mail News Service further writes:

“The parliament of Cyprus was right this week to reject a proposal to confiscate money from modest-sized bank deposits. The idea was a reductio ad absurdum of the euro zone’s policy on the sovereign debt of some of its member-countries.

It would be better for the government of Cyprus to default outright on some of its obligations rather than to seize part of the savings of the proverbial widows and orphans, as well as retirees or those approaching retirement – while purporting to levy a tax. This is especially true in a country that has deposit insurance for up to €100,000, in order to protect small savers.

Until a few years ago, Cyprus – which is really the ethnically Greek section of Cyprus, the Turkish section being a de facto protectorate of Turkey – had a fiscal surplus, but its close relationship to Greece resulted in a downturn when Greece fell into a severe recession. The government’s debt in itself is still manageable, but Cypriot banks have become shaky because of their loans to Greece.”

In the face of massive popular outrage, however, Cypriot MPs spectacularly voted earlier this week against the EU plan to steal their bank depositors money, thus leaving the Euro Zone reeling, a situation that was, in fact, created by European banksters who had forced Cyprus banks to lend money to nearly bankrupt Greece in the first place.

Even worse may be what is in store for the Americans, who on 31 January lost an unlimited US government guarantee that was granted on over $1.5 trillion of their bank deposits during the 2008 financial crisis to assure skittish customers that their cash was safe.

According to Kremlin sources, though, President Obama’s sudden visit to Israel this week, the first he has made since being elected in 2008, was to personally warn top Israelis of his regimes “plan” to begin confiscating his citizen’s bank deposits too.

Interesting to note is that the Obama regimes “master plan” to steal their citizen’s wealth that is no longer protected was detailed by the global management consulting giant, and the world’s leading advisor on business strategy, The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) who in their 2011 September report titled Collateral Damage: Back to Mesopotamia? The Threat of Debt Restructuring warned of the US governments plan confiscate up to 30% of not just the Americans people bank accounts, but also of their other wealth.

The highly respected Zero Hedge financial newsletter in commenting on this dire BCG report grimly stated:

“Denial. Denial is safe. Comforting. Religiously and relentlessly abused by politicians who don’t want nor can face reality. A word synonymous with “muddle through.” Ah yes, that “muddle through” which so many C-grade economists and pundits believe is the long-term status quo for the US and the world just because it worked for Japan for the past three decades, or, said otherwise, “just because.”

Well, too bad. As the following absolutely must read report, which comes not from some trader of dubious credibility interviewed by BBC, nor even from an impassioned executive from a doomed Italian bank, but from consultancy powerhouse Boston Consulting Group confirms, the “muddle through” is dead. And now it is time to face the facts.

What facts? The facts which state that between household, corporate and government debt, the developed world has $20 trillion in debt over and above the sustainable threshold by the definition of “stable” debt to GDP of 180%.

The facts according to which all attempts to eliminate the excess debt have failed, and for now even the Fed’s relentless pursuit of inflating our way out this insurmountable debt load have been for nothing.

The facts which state that the only way to resolve the massive debt load is through a global coordinated debt restructuring (which would, among other things, push all global banks into bankruptcy) which, when all is said and done, will have to be funded by the world’s financial asset holders: the middle-and upper-class, which, if BCS is right, have a ~30% one-time tax on all their assets to look forward to as the great mean reversion finally arrives and the world is set back on a viable path.

But not before the biggest episode of “transitory” pain, misery and suffering in the history of mankind. Good luck, politicians and holders of financial assets, you will need it because after Denial comes Anger, and only long after does Acceptance finally arrive.”

To the evidence that the masses of Americans or Europeans average citizens will begin protecting themselves against this apocalyptic outcome their remains little evidence as their so-called “mainstream” media continues to cover-up this coming catastrophe. But, and as Russia has now warned, the time for protecting oneself is fast running out, and the only survivors will be those who listened.

Source

Clashes in Egypt after Morsi grabs absolute power

Does Egypt have a new Pharaoh? Nearly two years after a popular uprising toppled Hosni Mubarak’s authoritarian regime liberals and secular Egyptians accuse the Brotherhood of monopolizing power, dominating the writing of a new constitution and failing to tackle the country’s chronic economic and security problems. Mursi on Thursday issued a decree that puts his decisions beyond any legal challenge until a new parliament is elected. Opponents immediately accused him of turning into a new Mubarak and hijacking the Egyptian revolution.

On Friday supporters and opponents of President Mohammed Morsi clashed in the worst violence since he took office, while he defended a decision to give himself near-absolute power to root out what he called “weevils eating away at the nation of Egypt.”

“I don’t like, want or need to resort to exceptional measures, but I will if I see that my people, nation and the revolution of Egypt are in danger,” Morsi told thousands of his chanting supporters outside the presidential palace in Cairo.

“I am for all Egyptians,” Mursi said on a stage outside the presidential palace, adding that he was working for social and economic stability and remained committed to the revolution.

But even before he spoke, thousands from each camp demonstrated in major cities, and violence broke out in several places, leaving at least 100 wounded, according to security officials. Tens of thousands of activists massed in Tahrir itself, denouncing Morsi. In a throwback to last year’s 18-day anti-Mubarak uprising, they chanted the iconic slogan first heard in Tunisia in late 2010: “The people want to overthrow the regime.” They also yelled “erhal, erhal,” — Arabic for “leave, leave.”

The president’s decree has consolidated his power but looks set to polarize Egypt further, threatening more turmoil in a nation at the heart of the Arab Spring.

“The decree is basically a coup on state institutions and the rule of law that is likely to undermine the revolution and the transition to democracy,” said Mervat Ahmed, an independent activist in Tahrir protesting against the decree.

Leading liberal Mohamed ElBaradei, who joined other politicians on Thursday night to demand the decree was withdrawn, wrote on his Twitter account that Mursi had “usurped all state powers and appointed himself Egypt’s new pharaoh”.

Morsi and the Brotherhood contend that supporters of the old regime are holding up progress toward democracy. They have focused on the judiciary, which many Egyptians see as too much under the sway of Mubarak-era judges and prosecutors and which has shaken up the political process several times with its rulings, including by dissolving the lower house of parliament, which the Brotherhood led.

His edicts effectively shut down the judiciary’s ability to do so again. At the same time, the courts were the only civilian branch of government with a degree of independence: Morsi already holds not only executive power but also legislative authority, since there is no parliament.

His move came at a time when he was enjoying lavish praise from U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for brokering a cease-fire between Israel and Gaza’s Hamas rulers on Wednesday. Clinton had been in Cairo for extensive talks with Morsi before the truce was announced.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, said in a statement that the edicts raise “concerns” for many Egyptians and for the international community, adding that the country’s revolution had aimed in part to prevent too much power from being concentrated in one person’s hands.

The U.S. urged “all Egyptians to resolve their differences over these important issues peacefully and through democratic dialogue,” she said. The European Union urged Mursi to respect the democratic process, while the United Nations expressed fears about human rights.

Morsi’s declaration of his power to take any steps necessary to prevent “threats to the revolution,” public safety or the workings of state institutions. Rights activists warned that the vague — and unexplained — wording could give him even greater authority than Mubarak had under emergency laws throughout his rule.

“God will humiliate those who are attacking our president, Mohammed Morsi,” said ultraconservative cleric Mohammed Abdel-Maksoud.

“Whoever insults the sultan, God humiliates him,” he added.

The state media described Morsi’s decrees as a “corrective revolution,” and supporters cast them as the only way to break through the political deadlock over drafting the constitution. Almost two years after Mubarak was toppled and about five months since Mursi took office, Egypt has no permanent constitution, which must be in place before new parliamentary elections are held. An assembly drawing up the constitution has yet to complete its work. Many liberals, Christians and others have walked out accusing the Islamists who dominate it of ignoring their voices over the extent that Islam should be enshrined in the new state.

Sources: ABC news, Reuters.

EU countries urge Israel not to invade Gaza

BRUSSELS – Two leading EU countries have urged Israel not to launch ground operations in Gaza.

Speaking ahead of a foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels on Monday (19 November), the UK’s Wiliam Hague told Sky news on Sunday that “a ground invasion of Gaza would lose Israel a lot of the international support and sympathy that they have in this situation.”

France’s Laurent Fabius while on a visit to Tel Aviv also on Sunday told press: “War is not an option. It’s never the solution.”

The EU in a joint statement last week blamed Hamas, the militant group which controls Gaza, for starting the fighting.

“The rocket attacks by Hamas and other factions in Gaza which began this current crisis are totally unacceptable,” its communique said.

But Hague and Fabius took different lines in their public remarks.

“It is Hamas that bears … the principle responsibility for starting all of this,” Hague said. “Responsibility is shared. There are rockets fired from Gaza and there are extremely deadly attacks against the people of Gaza,” Fabius noted.

For its part, the UN’s office in East Jerusalem says the escalation began when Israel assassinated a senior Hamas commander on 14 November.

The US-based NGO Human Rights Watch says it began when Israeli fire killed a 13-year-old Palestinian boy on 8 November.

With 95 Palestinian and three Israeli deaths so far, the crisis is to dominate the EU ministers’ talks, pushing other Middle East issues into the background.

Ministers had planned to discuss Palestine’s plan to call a UN vote on 29 November on upgrading its status to “observer state.”

But Hague said the UN bid is a bad idea in the current context. “I think it would be a mistake for the Palestinians to try at this moment … because it would be so divisive among all the people whose help they need to get the peace process going,” he told Sky.

Palestine’s draft UN resolution has some sympathy in Brussels, however.

One senior EU contact told EUobserver the text is “mild” because it does not call for countries which do not recognize Palestinian sovereignty to do so and does not call on Israel to take back the millions of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. At the same time, it gives a nod to UN resolution 181, which describes Israel as a “Jewish state.”

Ministers had also planned to take note of an EU report on Jewish settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.

Giving a broader context to the decades-old enmity between the two sides, the report says the Israeli army does little to protect Palestinian victims.

It urges individual EU countries to consider travel bans on settler extremists, an EU source noted.

Foreign ministers will also look at developments in Mali, Syria and Ukraine. But decisions on the three dossiers are to be left for later.

There is no EU consensus on recognizing the newly-formed National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the legitimate government of Syria despite the fact France took the step last week.

Detailed plans on how many troops and what kind of financial or intelligence support to give to Mali to reconquer its northern provinces from Toureg and Islamist warlords are due in December.

Ministers will also wait until next month to decide what to do with an EU-Ukraine political and trade agreement following flawed elections in the EU neighbor.

Source

Romania: U.S. Escalates Missile Brinkmanship Against Russia

On June 29 U.S. European Command announced the signing of new accords with the government of Romania for the stationing of American interceptor missiles in the country, a senior Russian diplomat stated that further talks with the U.S. on cuts in conventional and nuclear arms will not occur until Washington changes its stance on the U.S.-NATO missile shield project in Europe, and a top Russian official pledged to develop the means of circumventing the interceptor system on earth and in space.

At a joint committee meeting in the Bucharest, Major General Mark Schissler, Director of Plans and Policy at Headquarters U.S. European Command, and the Romanian Defense Ministry’s State Secretary for Defense Policy and Planning Sebastian Hulaban signed two implementing arrangements and three amendments to existing implementing arrangements related to the construction and operation of an American interceptor missile facility at a former air base in Deveselu. The new implementing arrangements pertain to the use of land surrounding the base and the use of air space over it for Phase II of the European Phased Adaptive Approach, the first phase of which was announced to be operational at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Chicago in May.

Also present for the signing were Rear Admiral Randall Hendrickson, Deputy Director of the Missile Defense Agency, and Brigadier General Thomas Sharpy, Director of Plans, Programs and Analyses for U.S. Air Forces in Europe.

The new codicils follow the Ballistic Missile Defense Agreement between the two nations which was signed in September of last year and entered into force in December. That pact in turn succeeded Romania’s announcement in February 2010 that it would host U.S. missiles as part of the Barack Obama administration’ s Phased Adaptive Approach system to deploy scores of interceptors on land and sea in Eastern Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea along Russia’s western flank.

Construction on the Romanian site will begin next year and in 2014 24 Standard Missile-3 interceptors will be deployed to the country, to be followed by as many, of a more advanced model, in Poland three years later.

Earlier in June U.S. representatives participated in an industry day in Romania, announcing that ground would be broken for the missile facility within months and dangling the prospect of contracts before local businesses, although Missile Defense Agency facilities require an American prime contractor for the military components.

The American representatives said they expected two contracts to be approved, one for developing the facilities of the Missile Defense Agency and one for the U.S. Navy component that is included in the Deveselu site. The involvement of the Navy, which will gain an access control center and facilities for 250 personnel, could indicate that the U.S. and NATO will not limit themselves to the placing of land-based Standard Missile-3s but may add the deployment of the sea-based version on American guided missile cruisers and destroyers in the Black Sea.

Commenting on the above, the press officer at the American embassy in Romania, Kenneth Wetzel, said, “This project reaffirms Romania’s commitments to NATO and reflects the very strong relations between our two countries.”

The missile shield facility will initially be a bilateral U.S.-Romanian undertaking until it is transferred to NATO control. Bogdan Aurescu of the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that Romanian companies have gained considerable experience in NATO and NATO-interoperable projects since joining the U.S.-led military bloc in 2004 that permits the country to be the first to host longer-range, higher-velocity interceptors in Europe. (Two years ago the Pentagon moved a Patriot Advanced Capability-3 battery and approximately 100 military personnel to Poland.)

The 2011 agreement on basing U.S. interceptor missiles in Romania begins with these words:

“Having in mind the United States–Romanian Strategic Partnership and the further development thereof, and recognizing that a very important pillar of the United States–Romanian relationship is the solidarity embodied in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, the United States and Romania recognize the importance of enhancing their individual and collective national security by working within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. ..

“Reaffirming their strong will to work together towards contributing to, in accordance with the principle of the indivisibility of the security of NATO and with the principle of NATO solidarity, the NATO missile defense capability, as a key mission of the Alliance, with the aim of providing full coverage and protection for all NATO European populations, territory and forces, as well as to shaping NATO’s central role in missile defense in Europe…”

In 2005, the year after Romania joined NATO, the U.S. signed a comprehensive defense cooperation agreement with the country that provided the Pentagon its first military bases in a former Warsaw Pact country, including the Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base which had been used for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and subsequent to that has been employed for the wars in that nation, Afghanistan and Libya.

On June 18 the above-cited Romanian official Aurescu met with Poland’s presidential adviser on security matters Stanislaw Koziej to share Romania’s experience in regard to hosting American Standard Missile-3 interceptors. The U.S. will deploy the new Standard Missile-3 Block 1B, to go into production this fall, to Romania in 2015 and the more advanced Block 11A to Poland in 2018.

The missile system will be controlled by NATO from the U.S. air base in Ramstein, Germany and connected with the Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance X-band missile radar put into operation in Turkey in January, which an Obama administration official last autumn described as “probably the biggest strategic decision between the United States and Turkey in the past 15 or 20 years.”

On June 29 Grigory Berdennikov, the Russian envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, stated that Russia will not continue talks with the U.S. on conventional and nuclear arms reductions until, as cited by Russian Information Agency Novosti, “Washington changes its stance on the global deployment of U.S. missile defenses.”

The news agency quoted Berdennikov as warning:

“[H]ow are we supposed to move forward if the United States refuses to curb its missile defenses?

“We are certainly hoping that they will change their stance on missile defense, because at this point there is no progress (in missile defense talks) whatsoever. We cannot do anything else while there is no clarity on missile defense issues.”

On the same day Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told a Russian radio station that Russia will develop a response to the U.S.-NATO missile interception system that will allow for it being confronted and overcome. He said, “Our task is to create a real guarantee of security for the Russian Federation by arming Russian forces with equipment capable of countering any attempts to offset the strategic balance.”

According to a Xinhua News Agency account of his statement, Russia will “create defensive systems capable of intercepting incoming missiles or upgrade its own first-strike nuclear forces so as to overcome any anti-missile umbrella.”

Rogozin added: “We, of course, will create a system of overcoming and suppressing any anti-missile defense. If somebody thinks it is possible to surround us with an anti-missile fence, we will break down everything, the entire wall, if someone would attempt to isolate us or make us kneel down.”

In anticipating the next step in U.S. and NATO missile interception plans – the inevitable expansion into space – the Russian official said that his nation will also “give an adequate response” to the threat of military attacks from that domain.

He explained Russia’s concerns regarding the militarization of space: “Obviously, long-term space stations will be created not only for civilian but, perhaps, for military purposes. Today it is impossible to draw the line between civilian and military space (programs).”

The deployment of interceptor missiles in Romania and Poland will mark the beginning and not the end of U.S. and NATO plans for an international – and beyond, to space – missile system for potential first-strike use against Russia and other nations, a system that can prove the greatest threat to humanity since the end of the Cold War.

Source

Globalists Blame Financial Crisis of 2008 to Usher in One World Currency

The efforts of the Global Elite are to enable an environmentally-based economy within a one world government. This includes replacing the currency and economic structures in place.

The Royal Canadian Mint (RCM) has announced that they will stop printing pennies. The RCM have unveiled a digital RFID-chip based currency that can be loaded up, stored and spent in-store and online.

The RCM calls this currency MintChip; which will be a virtual payment method accessible through microchips, microSD cards and USB sticks.

This RFID-chip currency is collaboration with the US corporations and research and development outfits. Ian Bennett, president and CEO of the Mint explains: “As part of its research and development efforts, the Mint has developed MintChip, which could be characterized as an evolution of physical money, with the added benefits of being electronic.”

The MintChip is still under development, with patents pending and prototypes being studied. The creation and perfection of the technology must be useable with American markets.

Paul Solman , correspondent for the PBS NewsHour purveys the positive propaganda of one world currency by asserting that: “Ah, the dream: one world, one economy, one currency — and, of course, one global political system . . . a common currency means a common economic policy . . .”

The United Future World Currency is a foundation nearly 2 decades old that seeks to “bring to life the project for a common currency” once defined as the Euro. They are committed to bringing awareness to the necessity of global currency.

Organizations like this serve to make the idea of a global currency more palatable to the general public. Simultaneously, nations like China are pushing against the US dollar being the global reserve currency as the Federal Reserve continues to inflate the US dollar which debases its worth.

The Institute of International Finance (IIF), a group of technocrats that represent 420 banking cartels and financing houses have joined the cry for a one world currency.

Charles Dallara, managing director of the IIF, said: “A core group of the world’s leading economies need to come together and hammer out an understanding. The narrowly focused unilateral and bilateral policy actions seen in recent months – including many proposed and actual measures on trade, currency intervention and monetary policy – have contributed to worsening underlying macroeconomic imbalances. They have also led to growing protectionist pressures as countries scramble for export markets as a source of growth.”

The UN’s call for one world currency is contained in their report entitled, United Nations: Economic and Social Survey 2010. The UN asserted that the US dollar must be replaced by a new one-world currency issued by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The IMF’s suggestion is the Bancor, which was the supranational currency invention of John Maynard Keynes. When Keynes headed the World Banking Commission, he was integral in the creation of the IMF. However, its rise to power was halted at the Bretton Woods Conference where the US prevailed in establishing the US dollar as the global reserve currency.

In response to the Global Market Crash of 2008, Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the People’s Bank of China, revived the ideal of the Bancor by demanding that the IMF have special drawing rights (SDRs). Xiaochuan contented that national currencies were counter-productive to the global markets and that domestic monetary policy must not override international necessities.

The UN published a report following the financial crisis in 2008 entitled, The Commission of Experts of the President of the UN General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System wherein they created a commission to “restore global economic stability”.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon affirmed that a one-world currency would “bridge the old North-South divide” and that the UN’s “monetary vision” if properly implemented would be a “path out of our current predicament.”

In a report published in 2010, the IMF stated that the Bancor should be established and administered as the one-world currency. To go along with the one-world currency, the IMF advises the establishment of a one-world bank; who would also have issuance rights as the Federal Reserve Bank does within the US.

The IMF report states: “The global central bank could serve as a lender of last resort, providing needed systemic liquidity in the event of adverse shocks and more automatically than at present. Such liquidity was provided in the most recent crisis mainly by the U.S. Federal Reserve, which however may not always provide such liquidity.”

The advent of a global currency, if allowed to happen will be controlled by the UN, as the IMF is an arm of the globalist Elite front.

Simply put, this demand is a call for economic control by the international community for the express purpose of ensuring that the future of all sovereign nations eventually fall victim to the coming global governance.

Source

UN Unveils Agreement Detailing Global Governance Strategy for “Sustainable Green Path”

At the UN Earth Summit Rio+20, negotiators for the globalist leaders have agreed to a document that lays out their plan for putting the nations of the world on a “ more sustainable path ”.

The purpose of this year’s conference is to outline global governance under the cover of environmentalism and protecting the planet.

The strengthening of the UN Environmental Program through “secure, adequate and increased financial resources” was one of the biggest issues brought to the forefront at the conference. The UN is kicking into high gear, planning on creating a clear path toward global governance. Their strength will become evident in the international mandates they plan to impose onto the governments of the world.

China, India, Indonesia and South Africa will be represented by their presidents and prime ministers.

President Obama, UK Prime Minister David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel will send representatives in their stead.

However, extended arms of the UN such as eco-fascist groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and “charities” believe that the agreement is not strict enough .

A panel of alarmist scientists, ministers and Nobel laureates are decrying that society is “on the edge of a threshold of a future with unprecedented environmental risks.”

Their declaration, delivered to the attendees of the Summit called for immediate and significant changes. They wrote: “The combined effects of climate change, resource scarcity, loss of biodiversity and ecosystem resilience at a time of increased demand, poses a real threat to humanity’s welfare. There is an unacceptable risk that human pressures on the planet, should they continue on a business as usual trajectory, will trigger abrupt and irreversible changes with catastrophic outcomes for human societies and life as we know it.”

Professor Will Steffen, of the Australian National University, believed that the declaration would send a clear message to the world leaders of their desire to set “intrinsic limits” on consumption so that humanity would not exceed “the planet’s capacity”.

Issues of discussion include:

• The green economy
• Fossil fuel subsidies
• Sustainable development goals

They complain that it only reiterates the governmental commitments as made in previous documents; which have not been upheld in the opponent’s opinion.
Following suit, the European Union (EU) was most unsatisfied with the document, however, Ida Auken, the Danish Environment Minister explained: “The EU would have liked to see a much more concrete and ambitious outcome, so in that respect I’m not happy with it. However, we managed to get the green economy on the agenda, and so I think we have a strong foundation for this vision that can drive civil society and the private sector to work in the same direction, to understand that environment and [that] the social side must be integrated into the heart of the economy.”

Auken still believes that the agreement will be signed by attendees without any further alterations.

Janez Potocnik, EU Environment Commissioner, asserted that the EU “”remains committed, for as long as it takes, to achieving concrete and ambitious outcomes from the Rio+20 negotiations . . . to bring the world towards a sustainable future.”

Radical environmentalists launched a Twitter call to action, campaigning for as much pressure as possible against governments to systematically end fossil fuel consumption immediately.

The agreement asserts that these programs will be “phased out” without setting specific dates and affirming that only if these modes of energy consumption are “harmful and inefficient”.

The UN will be deploying their Environment Program Corporations to report on environmental and social impact in a yet-to-be determined process of sustainable development goals (SDGs) to be mandated by 2015; as well as extensions on the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

The agreement mandates “urgent action” against what they classify as unsustainable production and consumption; yet definitions are broad and could be widely reinterpreted. Per usual with UN agreements, there is a lack of dead-line, explanation of how these mandates can be achieved, and no succinct suggestion as to how the world’ economy could afford the programs the UN demands all the world’s governments implement.

Craig Bennett, director of policy and campaigns for Friends of the Earth , asserts that the UN must be more authoritative to “solve the global emergency we’re facing” and explained that: “Developed countries have repeatedly failed to live safely within our planet’s limits. Now they must wake up to the fact that until we fix our broken economic system we’re just papering over the ever-widening cracks.”

According to the agreement, governments will refrain from making water and energy more accessible to their citizens unless directed by the UN. Predatory talks concerning the securitization of resources by the UN within developing nations became outlines for demands and affirmation of pledges of financial and technological assistance from Western countries. The document reads: “We emphasize the need to make progress in implementing previous commitments… it is critical that we honor all previous commitments, without regression.”

Asad Rehman, head of international climate of the Friends of the Earth said: “Faced with the determined efforts by some developed countries, in particular the US, to rip up the Earth Summit agreement of 1992, the text seems to have stopped us moving backwards. But it certainly doesn’t get close to addressing the concerns of the people or our planet. Faced with a triple planetary crisis – climate catastrophe, deepening global inequity and unsustainable consumption driven by a broken economic system – the text is neither ambitious enough nor delivers the required political will needed.”

The UN itself will implement sustainable development programs under UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Sustainable Energy For All initiative, in developing countries to create “greening” economies. This scheme will mandate UN sanctioned renewable energy efficiency by 2030.

The UN also wants to directly affect control over “measures of progress to complement GDP in order to better inform policy decisions.”

The right to food and water, a subject of broad governance as written in the document is certainly an aspect of the UN’s sustainable development agenda.

Ocean conservation, another topic of interest, explicitly demanded that they govern those assets allocated from this expansive resource. The UN will oversee the international governance over the end of illegal and exploitative fishing, support local small-scale fishers, and set up a process that would eventually regulate fishing and protect life on the high seas. Those definitions, though broad in the document, would left to specific interpretation as needed in individual situations.

The UN will govern the right to:

• Gender equality in the workplace
• Corporate requirements for sustainability
• Youth employment
• Empower the UNEP to extend over-reaching control

Source