Die jetzige Entscheidung dürfte als politische Reaktion auf den Wahlsieg Donald Trumps in den USA bewertet werden. Steinmeier hatte Trump kurz vor der Wahl als »Hassprediger« bezeichnet.
der ganze Artikel hier
15. November 2016
24 Stunden: Damaskus startet in Kürze Aleppo-Befreiung – Moskau unterstützt (sputniknews)
„Aleppo ist eine Stadt von großer strategischer Bedeutung. Wir garantieren bewaffneten Kämpfern einen sicheren Abzug aus den östlichen Wohnvierteln. Wir sind auch bereit, Zivilisten unterzubringen und mit allem Notwendigen zu versorgen“, sagte al-Ahkam gegenüber „Iswestija“. Hauptziel sei jedoch die endgültige Befreiung der Stadt von Terroristen.
Mehr: https://de.sputniknews.com/panorama/20161115313358800-damaskus-moskau-aleppo-befreiung/
15. November 2016
Trump’s Talks With Putin ‚Normal‘, NATO Wants Dialogue With Russia – Stoltenberg (sputniknews)
US President-elect Donald Trump interacting with world leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, ahead of his inauguration is normal practice, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Tuesday.
MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Stoltenberg evoked Trump’s campaign stump statements saying he is a „big fan“ of NATO, and called for Europe to „step up“ its spending on defense.
„I think it is a very normal thing that President-elect Donald Trump speaks to world leaders, including of course the leader of Russia,“ Stoltenberg told reporters on arrival for the second day of the EU Foreign Affairs Council. He added that NATO’s message is „we want dialogue with Russia.“ „Russia is our biggest neighbor, Russia is there to stay, and especially when tensions run high, especially when we face many different security challenges, it is important to have chance for political dialogue open with Russia,“ Stoltenberg stressed. „There’s no contradiction between strong defense and political dialogue.“ Late Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin held his first phone conversation with US President-elect Donald Trump.
Read more: https://sputniknews.com/politics/201611151047452224-nato-russia-trump/
15. November 2016
Gewöhnlicher Polizeistaat – Französische Regierung hat das Leben im »Ausnahmezustand« zur Normalität gemacht (junge Welt)
Der nach dem Attentat auf die Pariser Konzerthalle Bataclan vor zwölf Monaten von der sozialdemokratischen Regierung verhängte »Ausnahmezustand« (franz.: État d’urgence) soll, wie Ministerpräsident Manuel Valls am Wochenende in einem Interview mit dem britischen Sender BBC ankündigte, mindestens bis zur Präsidentschaftswahl im Mai 2017 bestehenbleiben.
ganzer Artikel
15. November 2016
Kommunist des Tages: Papst Franziskus (junge Welt)
Am Wochenende sorgte ein Interview im Internet für Furore, das Papst Franziskus einem Journalisten der italienischen Zeitung La Repubblica gegeben hatte und das am Freitag veröffentlicht wurde. Eugenio Scalfari gab gleich zu Beginn seines Artikels zu Protokoll, dass er sich mit dem Chef der katholischen Kirche am 7. November getroffen habe. Ausgerechnet am 99. Jahrestag der Oktoberrevolution?
Der Interviewer sprach den Pontifex auf dessen Losung an, aus dem »Liebe deinen Nächsten wie dich selbst« müsse heute ein »mehr als dich selbst« werden: »Sie erhoffen sich also eine von der Gleichheit beherrschte Gesellschaft? Wie Sie wissen, entspricht das dem Sozialismusprogramm von Marx und dann des Kommunismus«, hakte Scalfari nach. »Denken Sie also an eine Gesellschaft marxistischen Typs?« Gemeint war nicht der Münchner Kardinal Reinhard Marx, das machte die Antwort des argentinischen Comandante aller Katholiken deutlich: »Es sind die Kommunisten, die wie die Christen denken. Christus sprach von einer Gesellschaft, in der die Armen, die Schwachen, die Ausgegrenzten entscheiden. Nicht die Demagogen, nicht die Barrabasse, sondern das Volk, die Armen (…). Ihnen müssen wir helfen, damit sie Gleichheit und Freiheit erreichen.«
Scalfari, überzeugter Atheist und ehemaliger Abgeordneter der Sozialistischen Partei, ist offenkundig geplättet. »Eure Heiligkeit, ich habe immer schon gedacht und geschrieben, dass Sie ein Revolutionär und sogar ein Prophet sind …« Aber keine Sorge, ein neuer Camilo Torres – der in den 60er Jahren in Kolumbien die Priesterkutte gegen die Uniform der Guerilla tauschte – wird Genosse Francesco wohl nicht. Von Kampf und Krieg will er nichts wissen, die Macht der Liebe und des Glaubens soll es richten. Müssen wir die Revolution also doch selber machen. Aber wenn er uns dabei hilft – bienvenido, camarada!
(scha)
http://www.jungewelt.de/2016/11-15/038.php
15. November 2016
Der schmutzige Krieg gegen Syrien – Christiane Reymann im Gespräch mit Tim Anderson
Die Öffentlichkeit ist entsetzt über den Krieg in Syrien. Die Lage scheint unkontrollierbar geworden zu sein. Kritische Beobachter gehen davon aus, dass die Unfähigkeit der USA, die politische Lage im Nahen und Mittleren Osten richtig einzuschätzen, mit verantwortlich sei für die ungeheure humanitäre Katastrophe und die immensen Flüchtlingsbewegungen.
Dieser Auffassung widerspricht der australische Soziologe Tim Anderson energisch. Seine These: das angerichtete Chaos ist das logische Ergebnis der geostrategischen Konzeption eines „Neuen Mittleren Ostens“ durch die USA. Während die USA in diesem Konflikt als Akteur nur am Rande in Erscheinung treten, haben sie durch Stellvertreterarmeen vor Ort systematisch und absichtsvoll die gewachsenen Strukturen des Nationalstaats Syrien zerschlagen. Das Ziel ist ein Regime Change oder sogar die Erschaffung ganz neuer Mini-Staaten vor Ort.
Wie kam es zum Konflikt in Syrien? Wer sind die sog. „moderaten Rebellen“? Von wem wurden die Chemiewaffen wirklich eingesetzt? Warum unterscheidet sich das Bild in der Mainstream-Presse so erheblich von den Thesen Andersons? Christiane Reymann fragt für Weltnetz.tv nach.
Über Tim Anderson:
Dr. Tim Anderson ist Dozent für politische Ökonomie an der Universität Sydney. Er forscht und schreibt über Entwicklungen, Rechte und Selbstbestimmung in Lateinamerika, der Asien-Pazifik-Region und des Mittleren Ostens. Er hat zahlreiche Kapitel und Artikel in wissenschaftlichen Büchern und Zeitschriften veröffentlicht. Sein aktuelles Buch trägt den Titel: ‚Land und Lebensbedingungen in Papua Neu Guinea‘ (2015).
Anderson hat während des Kriegs zweimal Syrien besucht. Dabei führte er auch Gespräche mit Mitgliedern der syrischen Regierung, einschließlich Präsident Assad.
Schau dir unser Programm an:
https://www.weltnetz.tv
https://twitter.com/weltnetzTV
https://www.facebook.com/WeltnetzTV-1…
15. November 2016
2006 Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East” – announced by Condoleeza Rice
This article first published by GR in November 2006 is of particular relevance to an understanding of the ongoing process of destabilization and political fragmentation of Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Washington’s strategy consists in breaking up Syria and Iraq.
* * *
“Hegemony is as old as Mankind…” -Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor
The term “New Middle East” was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the “Greater Middle East.”
This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. The term and conceptualization of the “New Middle East,” was subsequently heralded by the U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a “New Middle East” was being launched from Lebanon.
This announcement was a confirmation of an Anglo-American-Israeli “military roadmap” in the Middle East. This project, which has been in the planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.
The “New Middle East” project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of “constructive chaos.” This “constructive chaos” –which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region– would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives.
New Middle East Map
Secretary Condoleezza Rice stated during a press conference that “[w]hat we’re seeing here [in regards to the destruction of Lebanon and the Israeli attacks on Lebanon], in a sense, is the growing—the ‘birth pangs’—of a ‘New Middle East’ and whatever we do we [meaning the United States] have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one.”1 Secretary Rice was immediately criticized for her statements both within Lebanon and internationally for expressing indifference to the suffering of an entire nation, which was being bombed indiscriminately by the Israeli Air Force
more
14. November 2016
„Trump wird die Weltpolitik verändern“ PROGNOSE Sahra Wagenknecht (taz)
Sahra Wagenknecht, Fraktionschefin der Linkspartei, über Donald Trumps Ankündigungen und seine Glaubwürdigkeit
https://www.taz.de/Archiv-Suche/!5355964&s=wagenknecht&SuchRahmen=Print/
14. November 2016
Rückschlag für Berlin (Abkehr Moldaus von der EU nach Präsidentenwahl möglich)
Einen herben Rückschlag für Berlin im Einflusskampf mit Russland hat die Stichwahl um das Amt des moldauischen Staatspräsidenten am Sonntag gebracht. Offizielle deutsche Vertreter hatten bei dem Urnengang in der 3,5-Millionen-Einwohner-Republik Moldau, die zwischen Rumänien und der Ukraine liegt, auf einen Sieg der liberalkonservativen Kandidatin Maia Sandu gesetzt; Sandu wollte die Orientierung des Landes auf die EU beibehalten. Gesiegt hat nun aber der Sozialist Igor Dodon, der nicht nur den Wechsel der Krim in die Russische Föderation anerkennt, sondern darüber hinaus die EU-Assoziierung Moldaus aufheben will. Dodons Sieg bedeutet eine weitere Wegmarke beim Schwinden des deutschen und EU-Einflusses in dem Land. Zuletzt hatten Neutralisten die Regierung übernommen und das Land bereits ein Stück weit von der NATO entfernt. Nun scheint sogar eine engere Anbindung der Republik Moldau an die von Russland geführte Eurasische Union nicht undenkbar.
14. November 2016
Das Trump-Übergangsteam: Das Personal macht die Politik (RTdeutsch)
https://deutsch.rt.com/nordamerika/43168-trump-transition-personal-macht-politik/
Nach jedem Wahlsieg schaut das politische Washington auf das „transition team“ des Wahlsiegers. Donald Trump wird bis zu 4.000 Stellen in der Regierung und der Verwaltung neu besetzen. Wer die Politik der USA in den kommenden vier Jahren bestimmt, lässt sich möglicherweise bereits an der Gruppe ablesen, die nun seine Amtsübernahme vorbereiten soll.
Allerdings sind die alten Unterstützer aus den Zeiten des Wahlkampfes nicht automatisch in der neuen Regierung. Donald Trump wird, wenn überhaupt, am 19. Dezember gewählt. Die politischen USA, die Armee aus Think-Thanks, Lobbygruppen und Politikern, handelt mit dem neuen Machthaber im Weißen Haus konkrete Entscheidungen aus. Bisher erlebt der Immobilien-Zar aus den mächtigsten Sektoren der Gesellschaft radikale Ablehnung: dem Finanzsektor und dem Silicon Valley – mit Ausnahme des schillerndes Internet-Investors Peter Thiel, dessen Unternehmen Palantir Technologies auch der NSA zuarbeitet.
Die verschiedenen Machtgruppen werden vor der Abstimmung der Wahlmänner am 19. Dezember ihre Interessen verbindlich mit dem neuen Präsidenten aushandeln wollen. Wenn das nicht gelingt, ist durchaus ein Szenario vorstellbar, in dem das eintritt, was die Anti-Trump-Aktivisten auf der Straße und in den Redaktionen fordern: Dass nicht alle der 306 Wahlmänner für Trump stimmen.
Die Differenz zu Hillary Clinton, die zumindest nach einer Meldung von AP am Samstag immerhin mehr an absoluten Wählerstimmen aufweisen kann, beträgt 74 Stimmen. Wenn Donald Trump sich nicht bereit zeigt, den traditionellen Machtgruppen ihre Pfründe und die Weiterführung ihrer Projekte zu garantieren, dann ist eine institutioneller Putsch nicht ausgeschlossen. Dafür müssen nur 37 Mahlmänner überzeugt werden, in der geheimen Wahl anders abzustimmen, als es die Mehrheit der Wähler in ihrem Bundesstaat will.
[Siehe hierzu auch:“NGO mit Verbindungen zu Clinton und Soros wiegelt zu Anti-Trump-Protesten auf“: https://deutsch.rt.com/international/43180-ngo-mit-verbindungen-zu-clinton/]
Angesichts der teilweise widersprüchlichen Programmatik des US-Unternehmers bleibt genug Platz für pragmatische Entscheidungen. So bleibt es ein Rätsel, wie Trump einerseits in Infrastrukturen und Industriearbeitsplätze investieren will, andererseits aber die Steuern senken. Ein großer Teil seiner Wähler und der demokratischen Basis wird den ersten Teil unterstützen, nicht aber den zweiten Ansatz.
Daher versicherte der Linksaußen der Demokraten, Bernie Sanders, bereits kurz nach der Wahl, er könne sich vorstellen, Donald Trump zu unterstützen. Allerdings müsse der auf seine rassistische Rhetorik verzichten und die Finger vom Sozialsystem lassen. Ähnlich dürfte das auch die gesamte Riege der neokeynesianischen Ökonomen sehen. Die aktuelle Frage lautet also, welche Abstriche Donald Trump vornimmt und zu wessen Gunsten.
Ein prominenter Teil der angelsächsischen Wirtschaftswissenschaftler wie Joseph Stiglitz und Carl Shapiro fordert etwa seit Jahren eine Abkehr vom Neoliberalismus. Während die Wall Street und auch die High-Tech-Monopolisten von Apple bis Facebook vor allem Freihandel und billiges Geld verlangen, braucht die Main-Street, die einfachen Beschäftigten und die mittleren Unternehmen, genau das Gegenteil: Protektionismus und verzinste Sparmöglichkeiten.
Wenn der neoliberale Mainstream bei Republikaner und Demokraten den neuen Präsidenten weiterhin derartig angreift wie bisher, und ihm etwa mit einem institutionellen Putsch durch die Wahlmänner das Leben schwer macht, dann wird sich Donald sein Team an anderer Stelle zusammensuchen. Dies gilt umso mehr, als dass Donald Trump vor allem ein Geschäftsmann ist. Das Regieren überlässt er ohnehin dem Personal.
Einzelheiten zum vorgesehenen oder möglichen Personal weiter im Artikel hier :
https://deutsch.rt.com/nordamerika/43168-trump-transition-personal-macht-politik/
14. November 2016
German Defense Minister calls on Donald Trump to stay away from Russia and commit full to NATO
Appearing on the ZDF Thursday show ‘Maybrit Illner’, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen emotionally argued that the US president-elect needs to understand NATO is more about values than business-like behavior.
She also went on to address some unfounded speculation circulating in Western capitals, namely that Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are in a ‘bromance’ – a kind of relationship between the two leaders that would benefit bilateral ties between Moscow and Washington.
Therefore, the Defense Minister continued, the issues of the Ukrainian conflict and the ongoing anti-terrorist efforts in the Syrian city of Aleppo are not to be taken off the table during discussions with Moscow.
Here are some of von der Leyen remarks to Trump with regard to NATO…
“What his advisers will hopefully tell him and what he needs to learn is that NATO isn’t just a business. It’s not a company.”
“I don’t know how he values NATO.”
“You can’t say ‘the past doesn’t matter, the values we share don’t matter’ but instead try to get as much money out of [NATO] as possible and whether I can have a nice deal out of it,”
“Donald Trump has to say clearly on which side he is. Whether he is on the side of the law, peaceful order and democracy or whether he does not care about this and is looking instead for a best buddy.”
For his part, Trump has been lukewarm on the whole NATO charade…and rightly so. RT reminds us of what Trump has said about NATO…
During his election campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly voiced skepticism towards the bloc, calling it “obsolete” in the era of fighting terrorism worldwide.
“Maybe NATO will dissolve and that’s OK, not the worst thing in the world,” he said earlier.
Trump, however, earlier dismissed claims he favors Putin both personally and as a political leader, saying on NBC in September:
“I don’t know him, I know nothing about him really. I just think if we got along with Russia that’s not a bad thing.”
Trump has also suggested that the US should not engage too much in defending European allies.
“Hey, NATO allies,” Trump wrote in a Facebook post in July, “If we are not reimbursed for the tremendous cost of protecting you, I will tell you – congratulations, you will be defending yourself.”
14. November 2016
Die Schlacht um Mossul (II) German Foreign Policy
Gewalttätige Expansionsbestrebungen der von Berlin unterstützten Peschmerga im Irak belasten das Land mitten im Kampf gegen den IS. Wie die Menschenrechtsorganisation Human Rights Watch berichtet, nutzen die Peschmerga den Krieg gegen Daesh, um in Orten, die sie dem IS entreißen konnten, gezielt Häuser arabischsprachiger Bewohner zu zerstören. Das begünstigt die Vertreibung der arabischsprachigen Bevölkerung und geschieht in Gebieten, auf die die Kurdische Regionalregierung unter Masud Barzani historische Ansprüche erhebt. Die illegalen Maßnahmen sind das jüngste Beispiel für eskalierende politische Spannungen im Irak, dem Experten nach der Schlacht um Mossul eine vielleicht noch blutigere Zukunft vorhersagen. Demnach bestehen die tiefen gesellschaftlichen Brüche, die durch die westliche Kriegs- und Besatzungspolitik verursacht wurden und den Vormarsch des IS möglich machten, weiterhin; man müsse selbst im Falle einer erfolgreichen Befreiung Mossuls annehmen, „dass der IS oder eine andere radikale Einheit wiederkehrt“, warnt ein US-Experte. Den Rat, die Schlacht um Mossul zugunsten einer Konsolidierung des Irak zurückzustellen, um dem Land den Absturz in weitere Bürgerkriege zu ersparen, hat der Westen abgewiesen. Beobachter warnen vor einem blutig erkämpften Pyrrhussieg.
14. November 2016
»Rüstungsfirmen verdienen sich goldene Nasen« Bundesregierung investiert Milliarden in die Bundeswehr und kürzt beim Sozialetat. Ein Gespräch mit Gesine Lötzsch (junge Welt)
Gesine Lötzsch (Die Linke) ist direkt gewählte Bundestagsabgeordnete für Berlin-Lichtenberg und Vorsitzende des Haushaltsauschusses im Bundestag
zum Interview
13. November 2016
Stationing American troops in Japan will lead to bloody tragedy – Yukio Hatoyama, ex-PM of Japan
https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/365311-russia-japan-american-troops/
Russia and Japan haven’t been able to settle the issue of the Kuril Islands and sign a peace treaty since the end of World War II, resulting in a territorial dispute that’s been around for seven decades. But warm ties between the countries’ current leaders could lead to a breakthrough. Many are expecting progress to be made when Russian President Putin is in Japan for a state visit in December. Can the issue of the disputed islands be settled for good? And will Japan’s special relationship with America stand in the way of closer cooperation with Russia? Former Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama is on SophieCo to discuss.
Follow @SophieCo_RT
Sophie Shevardnadze: 60 years ago Moscow has offered to give two of the four Kuril islands to Tokyo – Shikotan and Habomai. But Japan demanded all four islands, and its position hasn’t changed since. For Japanese politicians to give up the claims on all four islands – will that be political suicide?
Yukio Hatoyama: Now, looking at the situation 60 years later we have to admit that we need to give up claims on all four islands. We need to resume talks about the two islands – Habomai and Shikotan – if we want to have any chance of coming to an agreement.
If the Japanese government keeps insisting on discussing all four islands this will not result in any positive outcome whatsoever. So it would make sense to start with talking about Habomai and Shikotan and leave the other two islands up for further discussions.
SS: What is Japan ready to do to get those islands? You have to understand that something really serious has to be done so that Russia agrees to reassess the results of World War 2 in this case…
YH: I think it is very important not to lose momentum – it is obvious that President Putin and Prime Minister Abe have the utmost respect for each other and have the resolve to settle the territorial issue. The two administrations should capitalize on that and put all their efforts into reaching a compromise.
The Russian president talks about finding a solution that would benefit both sides, so he basically wants the game to end in a tie. It is very important for both Japan and Russia to continue working in this format in order to settle the territorial issue.
SS: Well, look, I’m going to give you an example. The Nikkei newspaper writes that Tokyo may, for instance, invest in modernisation of Russian hospitals or postal services. Will those steps from the Japanese sides be enough to secure the transfer of the islands?
YH: I don’t think this will be the extent of it. I guess after Russia returns Habomai and Shikotan we will have to figure out how we can work together and get back the other two islands – Iturup and Kunashir. Both Russia and Japan should continue to put effort into solving the territorial dispute. We need to make sure that people from both countries feel comfortable living on the islands.
SS: The Yomiuri newspaper reports that Japan is ready to create a special economic zone under the Russian administration on Iturup and Kunashir – it’ll be a visa-free, common economic space. Is that the breakthrough that the Japanese Prime Minister is talking about?
YH: I can’t speak for Prime Minister Abe because I am not a member of his government at this point. But I would welcome this step – creating common economic space on the islands as a way of settling the issue, which is what Yomiuri was talking about. But I don’t know for sure what Prime Minister Abe brings to the negotiations table.
SS: Well, I’m interested in your personal opinion. I understand that you do not represent the government at this point, but you’re someone who’s in the know about this. What do you think, can the prime minister achieve a breakthrough in negotiations with this position?
YH: I think that the prime minister should strive to achieve this breakthrough. But the Russian public would not support the idea of returning even some of the Kuril Islands, because the patriotic spirit is on the rise in Russia after bringing Crimea back.
But I sense that despite this situation President Putin still wants to settle the Kuril issue and I think his decisions will be supported by the people.
In my opinion, we need to create a situation that would allow us to move forward – we need to be walking towards each other. It is possible to reach a compromise on the Kunashir and Iturup issue. Common economic space and joint Russia-Japan governance come to mind as possible solutions. That is my personal opinion. I would really like to see this breakthrough.
SS: As one of the options, is it possible that Japan recognises Russia’s acquisition of Crimea – in exchange to the transfer of Kuril islands to Japan? Can Japan go against the G7’s stance on Crimea for the sake of the return of the Kuril islands?
YH: I doubt that the Abe administration would be brave enough to take that step at this point. If you ask me I think that historically Crimea has been Russian territory. Under Khrushchev it was given to Ukraine – with total disregard of international law. That’s how the Crimea issue began. Now the international community should recognize the peninsula as part of Russia. If Japan did that and recognized Crimea as Russian territory it could encourage European countries to follow suit.
And that in turn could make President Putin more inclined to meet some of Tokyo’s demands and move forward on the Kuril Islands issue. Russia might even satisfy Japan’s claims on all four islands. Of course this is just conjecture, and unfortunately at this point the Abe government is not ready to recognize Crimea as part of Russia. However such step would boost the Russia-Japan relations tremendously.
SS: You went to Crimea last year. You said then that Crimea becoming part of Russia is the expression of the actual will of the Crimean people. You’ve been eaten alive by the Japanese press for that – why was your point of view met with such hostility, is it only because it’s different from the G7’s point of view?
YH: The Japanese media and government cannot navigate away from the Cold War attitudes, and whenever there is a disagreement between Russia and the US they always take America’ side. Tokyo remains dependent on the US’s views. This means that when it comes to Crimea Japan will continue to side with America and the G7 countries and claim that it was Russian annexation of the peninsula in violation of international law.
Naturally my decision to visit Crimea took a lot of heat in Japan. However it is no secret that the legitimate president of Ukraine was basically overthrown because of American involvement in the process, and replaced by a pro-American leader – all that under the pretense of fighting for democracy. Those events encouraged the people of Crimea to start thinking about breaking away from Ukraine, and through a referendum it was decided to join Russia. I visited Crimea a year after the referendum. What I saw was a peaceful and free region. Most people in Japan don’t even realize that there is peace in Crimea. The Japanese media and government refuse to recognize the peninsula as Russian territory, that’s why they criticized what I had to say about the situation. But we need to pay more attention to historical truth.
SS: Look. Japan has joined sanctions against Russia after the Crimean affair, but the Japanese sanctions are more or less symbolic. Did the Japanese government enact sanctions under pressure, just so that its G7 partners wouldn’t be irritated?
YH: Of course Japan is trying to solve the territorial dispute, and when the Crimea situation happened things became very complicated for Tokyo. When the West imposed sanctions on Russia Japan had no choice but follow America.
However Japanese economic sanctions are more of a formal gesture – they are not too serious. I think that President Putin sees that. But sanctions are still sanctions. In my opinion, Japan could take the initiative and lift those economic limitations.
SS: Fumio Kishida, the Japanese foreign minister, said that Tokyo keeps Washington in the loop on talks with Russia and “informs them about the actions of Russia”. So Japan is getting American input on how it’s supposed to improve ties with Moscow? I understand that the U.S. is Japan’s ally, but Japan doesn’t report to its other allies like Canada, or France, Germany…
YH: America is a special ally for Japan, it is respected by the Japanese more than other partners. Other countries, even though they are also are allies, have a different place. And I think it presents a big problem. When making foreign policy decisions Tokyo is always guided by the US’s approach. Japan depends on America. When Russia and Japan discussed the Kuril Islands 60 years ago Prime Minister Ichirō Hatoyama was determined to resolve to territorial dispute and was ready to accept just the two islands.
But America strongly disagreed with his position. Washington threatened to take Okinawa if Tokyo agreed to the two islands compromise. As a result Japan failed to return the two Kuril islands, things stayed the same and have not been resolved since. Essentially this territorial issue should be settled between the two countries – Japan and Russia – but it is very possible that the outcome of the negotiations will depend on the US’s opinion.
SS: Why is it that the diplomatic progress, the peace accord between Russia and Japan is perceived as harmful?
YH: This notion was dictated by the Cold War – it was not good for Japan to find a solution to the territorial problem during negotiations with Russia, the Soviet Union. The Cold War has been over for some time now, but Japanese authorities still have that mentality.
The reality is that many politicians in the Japanese government still think in Cold War categories. This doesn’t help the Russia-Japan relations and doesn’t advance the territorial negotiations.
SS: Mr. Hatoyama. You had to resign as Prime Minister after you promised voters to evict the American military base from Okinawa and failed to do so because of the harsh stance of the U.S. You said then: “I know that we have to keep a relationship of trust with the U.S. at any cost”. This trusting relationship is so important that it determines who gets to lead your country?
YH: Of course relations between Japan and America are very important. And the main reason for my resignation from office was the failure to do the will of the people – relocate the US military base, Futenma, from the prefecture or, ideally, the country. But the base is still in Henoko, Okinawa. America was not willing to make any concessions, and high standing officials in Japan, the foreign ministry refused to support me on this mission against the US military base, even though they all know what America’s true intentions are.
The government did not go against the US’s demands. I think that I was too weak to stand against the Japanese officials.
SS: The construction of new military facilities on Okinawa has been halted for some time because of the resistance of local authorities – do you think they will manage to change the situation to their advantage?
YH: The Futenma relocation issue has not been resolved. The problem of the US base in Henoko is now deadlocked because of serious protests from local residents. There might even be some legal action, the case might go to court. I think that it is very important to remove the Futemna base from the island, but the current government doesn’t want to do it. Tokyo insists that the base should remain in Okinawa Prefecture.
But it is a mistake. The Japanese people must be presented with other options. I think that a time will come when the concept of American soldiers stationed in Japan will be revised. There is no need to build a new base in Okinawa, there are other options – rotating US soldiers throughout different locations in Japan, for example. But as of now there has been no solution, and it is obvious that stationing the US military base in Henoko is a big mistake that will lead to a bloody tragedy in the country.
SS: Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government has recently expanded the mandate of Japanese Self-Defence Forces, allowing them to take part in military operations abroad with its allies. Does this mean Japan’s getting ready for some kind of confrontation? Is this a reaction to China’s territorial claims?
YH: Last year Prime Minister Abe facilitated a law that allows some involvement of the Japan Self-Defense Forces in operations abroad. This obviously contradicts the Constitution of our country, but Prime Minister Abe just ignored the Constitution allowing the use our Self-Defense Forces internationally. As a result Japan can now be involved in wars that America has a stake in.
The fact that Japan is now allowed to participate in joint military operations with the US sets a dangerous precedent. Japan has not been involved in such activities for 71 years – after World War 2. The Abe government is trying to stress the “Chinese threat”, but right now China does not really pose a serious threat to our country. Even though there is a territorial dispute about the Senkaku Islands I don’t think the Chinese government is ready to take any military action in order to take the islands.
I strongly disagree with the Abe administration’s attempts to draw our armed forces into international conflicts at a time when we need to focus on building peace.
SS: Is the Japanese Self-Defence Force going to turn into a real, fully functional army?
YH:. I don’t think the Self-Defense Forces will turn into a real army. The purpose of these forces is internal defense. But in this new reality it will be possible to send the Self-Defense Forces to fight in other parts of the world. I think it is illegal. The Constitution of Japan doesn’t allow participation in bloodshed. Our Constitution clearly states that military force cannot be used to resolve international conflicts. If we comply with the Constitution the Self-Defense Forces will not become an army, but the Abe government is pushing us towards involvement in international wars, different conflicts abroad.
And even though right now the Self-Defense Forces have not become a real army, I think we are moving in that direction.
SS: Japan’s defence minister, Tomomi Inada, said that the country is ready to join American Navy patrols in South China Sea. The Chinese military officers have warned that Japan is “playing with fire” when it agrees to do that. Is Japan going to give up on those plans under Chinese pressure?
YH: China really is trying to send a message to Japan. Conducting the Japan-US exercises doesn’t’ make any sense.
They will provoke both China and North Korea – and nobody wants conflict. This enhanced military cooperation between America and Japan does not promote peace in the region. I don’t think joint military exercises should be a basis for cooperation. Cooperation should be built on dialogue and diplomacy. Strengthening the military component does not benefit our country in any way.
SS: Admiral Takei, chief of staff of the Japanese navy, said that there should be tighter interaction with the Chinese military. Does the Japanese attempt to normalise the relationship with China irritate Washington?
YH: I think the advances in the military cooperation between China and Japan does irritate the Americans.
But any cooperation with other countries contributes to peace and stability in the region. If we want peace and stability then we should not view China as a threat but rather work with Beijing, because military partnership would benefit both of our countries.
SS: The Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal, which aims to unite the majority of the countries in the region into one giant economic bloc, is stalling during the presidential campaign in the U.S. Both candidates are sceptical about the deal – do you think it still has a chance?
YH: I think that the chances for the success of the TPP deal are very slim. As you said President Obama was a strong supporter of the agreement, but both presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Trump claims that Clinton only says that she is against the deal in order to get votes but will actually promote it if she becomes president. Clinton of course denies it. So it will not be easy to move forward with the TPP after the US election. And if Japan zealously ratifies it in this situation it will become a laughing stock. Also I don’t think that the TPP deal benefits Japan in any way.
SS: Yes, I also wanted to mention – the TPP may seriously harm Japanese farmers, who might not be able to compete when tariffs are down and a free trade zone is established. Are those damages worth the potential advantages of the treaty?
YH: I see no benefits in this agreement. It will hit our farmers really hard, right now there is no estimate of how devastating it will be. Rice farmers will suffer the most, as rice is the most popular grain in Japan.
Those who produce meat and dairy will also experience difficulties. I think that Japan should get the best deal on rice production, since rice is basically a cultural symbol for us, and other countries need to be flexible in this respect. We need to protect our national interests.
But the TPP will create problems not just for farmers – all our people will feel the effect. The Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system under the TPP will become a serious issue for many industries. If the deal goes through, US companies and multinational corporations will get the right to sue the Japanese government. In a sense it will be a new institution that will have power over our Constitution. I think it is very dangerous.
SS: Of course, those supra-national courts – for me, it’s the strangest part of the whole deal. Transnational corporations influencing public policy – is Japan ready for that?
YH: The current government says that these courts don’t pose any threat because their objective is to regulate dealings with developing countries with inefficient legal systems, but it’s not true. When such institution is established Japan will become its target. Feels like the Japanese government doesn’t realize that yet, but I see the danger.
13. November 2016
Gute Islamisten, schlechte Islamisten (junge Welt)
Im syrischen Aleppo Freiheitskämpfer, im irakischen Mossul finstere Barbaren. Der jeweilige Umgang mit den religiösen Milizen in den beiden Städten sagt einiges über die Doppelmoral in der Begründung westlicher Politik aus
Von Joachim Guilliard
»Ein Vergleich der Berichte über Mossul und Ostaleppo sagt uns viel über die Propaganda, die wir konsumieren«, schrieb Patrick Cockburn, der renommierte Nahostkorrespondent des britischen Independent am 21. Oktober. Die beide großen, mehrheitlich von Sunniten bewohnten Städte – Aleppo (dessen Ostteil) im Norden Syriens und Mossul im Nordirak – werden aktuell von den jeweiligen Regierungskräften belagert und angegriffen, massiv unterstützt von ausländischen Luftwaffen.
Zum Artikel: https://www.jungewelt.de/2016/11-14/054.php
CO-OP NEWS 