Joint Cricketism: India and Australia play cricket for sharing 100s and 50s!

Joint Cricketism: India and Australia play cricket for sharing 100s and 50s!

-Abdul Ruff Colachal (Specialist on Sport Fixing)

____________

 

Part-I : Characteristics of joint cricketism

It is a known truth that batboys at the crease with bats get runs not just by running between wickets but mainly by hitting 4s and ^s and this happens mainly because of the weak and hollow bowlers who are trained to act too much with a ball on the field in order to generate a false impression about their intended efforts for wickets while in fact they only help the batboys increase the run rates .

 

If one thinks upon winning the toss, a team opts for bowling the bowlers would be seriously reckless with the ball, disappointment would be the results as bowlers bowl to give as many runs as the batboys want especially the bowling team that comes to “attack” first.

 

Every bowling team needs a couple of wickets to impress the crowds that know noting or care about nothing about match fixing. Once one or two wickets fall, the bowlers offer too many runs as per their mutual agreements- from 3 runs per over to 15 runs per over, depending on the format they choose to fool the public. The team also decide prior about the “estimated score” for the team bating first.

After giving as many runs in 4s and 6s etc, the team that bats second has to chase down the total to win the match if it can while getting back 100s runs, a record, etc as return favors. If the team had given too many runs, it is difficult to chase down the total if the bowlers are reckless.

That is reason why India always want to bat first by somehow”winning” the toss. The bowlers and fielders would keep in mind the target score and work towards that without harming batboys. The score for the first bating team is also decided from 150 to 600 runs, depending on the format they choose.

Generally, bowlers can target w stumps or wickets or reduction in run flow only towards the end of the match when the ”needy batboys” are safely with 100s etc.

One would be surprised to watch how the fiddlers derecognize the site of the stumps when they throw the ball to effect runouts. After so much of “training” by paid coaches, the fielders and bowlers have no idea about the stump attack. The fact remains the cricket boards, captains and corporate mafia discourage all serious bowling and fielding. Once in a while something happens but that is not a rule, only an unintended anomaly.

Interestingly, as top batboys fall cheaply , the commentators say that the tail enders defended the team exemplarily and they just shut their blind eyes and refused to say anything about bowler tricks to promote the batboys and maintain a good score for the opponent team. .

Umpires are agents of mafia that recommends umpires.

The cricket teams fix matches for 100s and they also decide which batboy deserves a quick 100 for which a couple of other batboys would quickly sacrifice their wickets.

Governments, managed by corrupt elements, thriving in dirty money and illegal wealth, also promote fake sports persons for more black/grey money and awards.

Governments do not want any law to contain fake sport operations in the name of entertainment.

Nor is there any effective international legal mechanism to punish all match fixing teams and captains. Governments and their intelligences cannot fool the public with the increasing joint cricket exercises.

President Sirisena should mitigate plight of Sri Lankan plantation workers!

 

-Dr. Abdul Ruff

__________

 

 

Today, every country aspires to be a big regional, if possible capitalist, leader so that world, especially the West, takes notice of the “development”. Development means huge profits  which in turn means  exploitation of  illiterate, poor and working  people, the regime helps the capitalist establishments make huge profits.

In fact, capitalist production relations got a shot with Sept-11 hoax, contributing to the fall of living conditions of working people and poor, globally. The situation is explosive in third world where land lords join the corporate lords to crush the workers and swindle more and more profits at their cost.
Unlike India, declaring a super power status along with UN veto as its goal and for that it continues to occupy Jammu Kashmir to claim to be a partner in global colonial system (GCS) under the leadership of European powers, Sri Lanka a relatively small economy with basket full of problems, does not openly make any such future declarations. But without making any tall futuristic claims, Colombo seems to be still moving toward Indian type crony capitalist mode by promoting big private companies for making huge profits by exploitation of masses and keeping the workers under check.
The government obviously backs exploitation of workers by the company owners and other corporate lords. After all, they invest money in order reap huge profits by all means and they grow richer and richer by using and exploiting workers and poor.
Sri Lankan tea exports and prices have fallen owing to a drop in demand in key markets, especially in the Middle East and Russia. Overall export earnings from tea fell by 700 million rupees in October 2015 to 16.8 billion rupees from the year before. The US-led military intervention in Iraq and Syria has cut exports to the Middle East and Russian demand has fallen because of trade sanctions imposed by the US and its allies.
Facing an export slump, the plantation companies have refused to increase wages, even though the collective agreement expired in March. With the support of President Maithripala Sirisena’s government and the trade unions, the companies are contemplating various schemes to extract greater workloads from workers.

Last month the management of Ingestre Estate at Dickoya in Sri Lanka’s central plantation district sacked seven workers on false charges and has refused to reinstate even today. The victimized workers are: Ganeshan Sivakumar, Ganeshan Puspanathan, Marimuthu Yohendran, Govinthan Lechumanan, Sangilimuthu Sangaran, Sivasamy Mahendran and Perumal Murugan.

The witch-hunt against the Ingestre workers began in July. They participated in a limited go-slow campaign called by the CWC in plantation areas demanding a 1,000-rupee daily wage, including allowances. The Planters’ Association rejected the demand, but the CWC called off the industrial action, using the August parliamentary elections as a pretext, promising to resume the campaign later.

The management’s decision came despite nearly 1,500 workers from six divisions of Ingestre Estate calling a strike on November 13 for two days, and organizing a sit-in-protest against the seven sackings. The management also called the police to the estate from the Norwood and Hatton stations to intimidate workers.

The management told the Ceylon Workers Congress (CWC) trade union leaders on November 19 they could only appeal to the estate owners, the Kelani Valley Plantation Company, in Colombo on November 30.

Interestingly, the union leaders have been bought by the managements to sabotage workers’ strikes. Earlier, the CWC Dickoya area leader Thangarajah Kishore denounced workers for going on strike and compelled them to halt the action, promising that a deal would be reached with the management to reinstate the victimized workers. After sabotaging the struggle to defend the workers, the CWC then asked workers to hope for mercy from the owners – the usual strategy.
Most of the Ingestre Estate workers are members of CWC, while the National Union of Workers (NUW) and Up-country People’s Front (UPF) also operate in the estate.

While the Ingestre workers continued the go-slow campaign, management provocatively refused to accept their plucked tea. When workers dumped the harvest near the manager’s bungalow, the seven workers, who were in the forefront of the go-slow campaign, were arrested on July 20 and remanded for one week. They were finally bailed out, on a 100,000-rupee personal surety each, at the Hatton magistrates court. The next hearing date for their charges was fixed for March 28 next year.
After the bailout, the management suspended the seven workers and started a so-called internal inquiry. More than 60 workers gave evidence, defending their colleagues and exposing the trumped-up charges, but the management arbitrarily sacked the workers on November 6.

The attack on the Ingestre workers is a clear demonstration of how the plantation companies, backed by the Lankan government, are ruthlessly seeking to suppress the resistance of workers in order to impose the burden of a global downturn in tea prices and demand.

These victimizations underscore a new turn by the plantation companies to use repressive methods against workers. There was a similar incident earlier this year. After workers at the Deeside division of the Glenugie estate, owned by Maskeliya Plantations, went on strike in February, against increased workloads management set up a provocation and had eight workers arrested on false charges of physically attacking a field supervisor.
When a magistrate bailed out the eight workers, the management began its own inquiry and sacked three workers and suspended four. The sacked workers were reinstated only after NUW leaders pressured them into offering an apology for offences they did not commit.
While accusing each other of cheating workers, the trade union leaders are working with the companies and the government behind the scenes to facilitate these attacks.
CWC leader Arumugam Thondaman was a minister in the government of previous President Mahinda Rajapakse. His union called the go-slow campaign in order to deflect growing opposition among workers over falling real wages and deteriorating living and social conditions. The other unions are condemning Thondaman for supposedly proposing an unrealistic demand in the first place.
The leaders of the NUW, UPF and another plantation union, the Democratic People’s Front (DPF), P. Digambaram, V. Radhakrishnan and Mano Ganeshan respectively, are ministers in the present government. They promised to seek wage rises after the August parliamentary election, but then casually denounced Thondaman for asking too much.
The unions have taken the side of the plantation companies and are acting as industrial police forces in opposing workers’ attempts to challenge their degrading conditions.
A dangerous situation is developing in the plantations. The companies adamantly refuse to give wage increases to workers. The trade unions are not talking about a wage increase. The company started to attack workers for campaigning for wage increases and no higher workloads.
Last month, the management reduced wages on some pretext. Earlier, if they worked on a Sunday, the company was liable to pay a wage equivalent to one and half days. Now, the management pays just a normal daily wage.
The corporate media are not reporting the victimization of the Estate workers. Marimuthu Yohendran, a victimized worker, commented: “After the company terminated our jobs, we informed Minister P. Digambaram and UPF leader V. Radhakrishnan. They promised to come to the estate to meet us but did not turn up.

Along with the aggravation of the crisis of the Srilankan crony capitalism parasitic capitalists with the backing of the TU leadership has for the moment succeeded in settling accounts at the expense of the estate workers who are most exploited category of the Sri Lankan workers. This is a serious crime and even government seems ot support it.

Sri Lankan government could consider pass a law to make salary/wages payments, perks, increments and promotions etc of private companies at par with government employees with sufficient freedoms. While government employees enjoy all freedoms and privileges, private employees and workers just look for the mercy of the management for pay and post hikes. Private companies and establishments do not have any procedures for regular pay hikes, increments, promotions and as such workers have to strike for their rights to make the management understand their problems and take remedial measures to help them.

President Sirisena, having given hopes for the people of Sri Lanka, including Tamil and other minorities, should mitigate the cruel plight of Sri Lankan plantation workers who cannot be expected to seek help from other countries, including India to make both ends meet.

A pathetic existence of Tamil minority community would not be in the best interest of Srilanka.

 

China strongly protests US arms sales to Taiwan!

China strongly protests US arms sales to Taiwan!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff

___________

 

China and Taiwan

 

Chinese leadership claims Taiwan to be a part of China. Taiwan has been governed separately from the mainland since 1949, when the American-supported Nationalist forces retreated to the island after being defeated in the Chinese civil war by the Communists.

The China Taiwan conflicts find its history since Taiwan wished to gain its independence since 1949. The actual conflict arises from The Taiwan relations Act which was established to combat communism and aid in the spread of globalization and capitalism. The Act declares that if any outside Nation attacks Taiwan the US should come to its defense. The China Government is ready to support the economic and political stability in entire East Asia but do not want to come into any compromise where Taiwan’s Independence is concerned. While Chinese leaders prefer peaceful means for dealing the pro independence course of Taiwan’s pro independence course, the potential for a major conflict remains high. Whenever the Taiwanese moves towards independence they are backed by the USA.

China’s main motive to keep Taiwan under their jurisdiction is that it will strengthen China strategically. The Communist Government in Beijing has sworn to all the international nations that whatever power required shall be applied keep the island conquered under them.

The relations between China and Taiwan have been characterized by limited contact, tensions, and instability. In the early years, military conflicts continued, while diplomatically both governments competed to be the “legitimate government of China”. More recently, questions around the political and legal status of Taiwan have focused on the alternative prospects of political unification with China or full Taiwanese independence.
The People’s Republic remains hostile to any formal declaration of independence and maintains its claim over Taiwan. At the same time, non-governmental and semi-governmental exchanges between the two sides have been increasing. From 2008, negotiations began to restore the “three links” (transportation, commerce, and communications) between the two sides, cut off since 1949.
More than seven years of calm relations between China and Taiwan, leaders in Beijing are beginning to warn that tensions will rise again if the winner of Taiwan’s next presidential election, in January, fails to make a clear commitment to the notion that there is only one China. On March 4th President Xi Jinping said “pro-independence forces” in Taiwan were the biggest threat to peace in the Taiwan Strait. His remarks were clearly intended as a warning to Taiwan’s independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which has a good chance of returning to power.
Like Israel that does not like foreign signatories to visit Palestine (Gaza Strip), China also opposes any country to ignore the Chinese control over Taiwan and asks foreign countries not to sell arms to Taiwan. .

US arms

The US government agreed on December 16 to sell Taiwan $1.83 billion arms, marking the first US arms shipment to the island in four years, and officially notified Congress of the arms deal package for Taiwan, despite resistance from China – Taipei’s rival. The agreement includes two frigates, anti-tank missiles, TOW 2B anti-tank missiles, AAV-7 Amphibious Assault Vehicles and a range of other military equipment.
The sale is significantly smaller than the $5.8 billion package approved by the United States in 2011, and it is not expected to alter the military balance across the Taiwan Strait, which has tilted in Beijing’s favor after years of large increases in military spending by the mainland, whose annual military budget is now more than 13 times greater than Taiwan’s. There’s also support for Taiwan’s capabilities in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and a weapons system to defend against anti-ship missiles.
The US State Department said the package was aimed at supporting Taiwan’s attempts to develop more advanced and asymmetric defensive abilities. The frigates were being offered at a price of $190 million as surplus items. The bundle also contains $416 million of firearms, upgrade kits, support and ammo for Raytheon’s Close-in Weapons System. The arms package is the first offered by the USA to the self-governing island in four years.
The mandate arrived after Congress passed laws approving the deal. The USA has announced more than $12 billion in arms sales to Taiwan since 2010, but none since $5.9 billion in sales in September 2011 that included upgrades for Taiwan’s F-16 fighter jets. That drew a high-level diplomatic protest from Beijing, which suspended some military exchanges with the United States. It did not seriously impair ties.
US lawmakers welcomed the announcement. There were calls from both parties for more frequent arms sales to Taiwan. Eliot Engel, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee said the sale would contribute to peace and stability across the strait. Sen. John McCain, Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the USA should avoid extended periods during which “fear of upsetting the USA-China relationship may harm Taiwan’s defense capabilities.” The USA maintained there’s no need for it to hurt the relationship, which has also been strained by China’s island-building in the South China Sea and alleged cybertheft.
In the meantime, President Barack Obama has sought greater cooperation with China on issues such as climate change, and the two sides have increased military exchanges to reduce the risk of conflict. State Department spokesman John Kirby said the USA was in contact with both Taiwan and China about the sale, which he said was consistent with US support for Taiwan’s ability to defend itself under the Taiwan Relations Act. Kirby added: “We still want to work to establish a better, more transparent, more effective relationship with China in the region and we’re going to continue to work at that.”

Damage

Even before its announcement, Beijing, which regards Taiwan as part of its territory, demanded it be scrapped to avoid harming relations across the Taiwan Strait and between China and the USA. China said such sales “damaged the peaceful growth of ties to the other side of the Taiwan Strait and Sino-US ties and said Beijing advocated Washington “to earnestly understand the high susceptibility and serious damage of weapons sales to Taiwan.”
China, which views Taiwan as part of its indivisible territory, has consistently opposed US-Taiwan weapons sales and reiterated that stance, summoning Deputy Mission Chief Kaye Lee of the US Embassy in Beijing. The statement from Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Zheng Zeguang called the deal “a serious violation of international laws as well as China’s territory and security interest.” That was followed by a formal diplomatic protest, although at a lower level than in previous such instances.
American and European Union companies are banned from selling military technology to China and Chinese companies have extensive links with major overseas firms that often have weapon-making divisions.
China resolutely opposes the sale of weapons to Taiwan by the USA. “In order to safeguard the nation’s interests, the Chinese side has decided to take necessary measures, including the imposition of sanctions against companies participating in the arms sale to Taiwan,” Zheng said. Such sanctions have been threatened in the past, although there’s no evidence they’ve had any meaningful effect.
China routinely protests about arms sales to Taiwan, which Beijing considers as its renegade province. This is the first time China announced plans to impose sanctions on American firms. The White House said there clearly was no change in the longstanding US “one China” policy. Previous US weapons sales to Taiwan have brought powerful disapprobation in China, which considers Taiwan a renegade province.
China urges the USA to abide by the clear commitment it has made in the three joint communiques, revoke the arms sale plan, and stop military contact with Taiwan, so as to avoid bringing further damage to China-US relations and bilateral cooperation in major areas.
The brand new sales come at a period of heightened tensions between America and China over the South China Sea -made islands to maintain territorial claims that were grand. Although Washington will not recognize Taiwan as a state that was separate from China, it’s given under the Taiwan Relations Act to ensuring a credible defense can be maintained by Taipei.
US arms sales to Taiwan are guided by the Taiwan Relations Act and based on an assessment of Taiwan’s defense needs,” McKeeby said. “Our longstanding policy on arms sales to Taiwan has been consistent across six different US administrations,” he added. “We believe our consistent policy has contributed to the security of Taiwan, and has also supported the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.” Consisting almost exclusively of defensive weapons, the military package includes anti-aircraft and anti-ship systems.
Reed Foster, a military capabilities expert from consultancy IHS Aerospace, Defense & Security, said that the US defense industry does little business with China so any action taken by Beijing was unlikely to have a big impact. “There’s nothing revelatory, it mostly 1970s technology that’s been around for decades. It’s nothing that would be used to invade,” he told CNN. The military hardware being sold is not cutting edge and is in line with Taiwan’s existing capabilities. The deal had been expected.
The arms sale, according to China, severely goes against international law and the basic norms of international relations, severely goes against the principles in the three China-US joint communiques and severely harms China’s sovereignty and security interests, he said. “No one can shake the firm will of the Chinese government and people to defend their national sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to oppose foreign interference,” Zheng told the US envoy.

Bilateral law
The United States is required to provide weapons for Taiwan’s defense under a law dating to 1979, when Washington was shifting diplomatic recognition to Beijing and away from Taipei. In many ways, China’s reaction to the latest arms sale followed a familiar pattern. The last American arms sale to Taiwan, four years ago and bigger than the sale just announced, also resulted in a United States diplomat being summoned at night to the Foreign Ministry in Beijing to receive stern rebukes, as the Chinese view arms sale to Taiwan as an affront to their sovereignty. Earlier arms sales resulted in the suspension of meetings between the two militaries, which was not part of China’s initial response to the sale this time.

Medeiros, who now leads the Asia practice for the Eurasia Group in Washington, said that the timing of the sale, coming before next month’s presidential elections in Taiwan, helped to reduce diplomatic fallout from the sale.

Poll outcome

Taiwan’s president, Ma Ying-jeou, has sought to improve ties with mainland China and met last month in Singapore with President Xi Jinping of China, the first time the leaders of Taiwan and China have ever held a summit meeting. But Ma’s party, the Kuomintang, is expected to lose the presidency to the Democratic Progressive Party, which favors a more distant relationship with the mainland and the assertion of Taiwan’s own identity. The timing clearly was calibrated to avoid having to do it after the election. That would have been particularly provocative.
The weapons sale to Taiwan is subject to congressional approval. Members of both the Republican and Democratic parties have expressed support for the sale. Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory. China strongly opposes the US arms sale to Taiwan.
Absent from the arms package is any assistance from the USA to help build diesel-electric submarines, a top priority for Taiwan, which wants to replace its aging fleet. The proposed sale includes two Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates, ships first commissioned by the United States Navy in the 1970s; data link systems; surface-to-air missiles; antitank missiles; amphibious assault vehicles; and shipborne rapid-fire guns intended to counter missiles.
The companies that manufacture the weapons systems the United States government announced now include Raytheon, which makes antitank missiles, a shipborne close-in weapons system and the shoulder-launched Stinger antiaircraft missile. Lockheed Martin makes the Javelin anti tank missile with Raytheon, which was also part of the proposed sale.
USA and the European Union imposed arms embargoes on China after the deadly crackdown on student protests in and around Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989. Still, some military contractors, such as Boeing and United Technologies, have extensive nonmilitary businesses in China.
It also comes after just one-month before elections in Taiwan, where the ruling pro-Beijing party looks unlikely to win, and a historic meeting between the leader of Taiwan and China in November. “It gives hope to the incumbent party. They’ve kept relations with both China and the US warm. That’s a positive message,” said Foster. One year ago, Congress passed the Naval Transfer Act authorizing the sale of up to four Perry-class frigates to Taiwan in December 2014.

Obama signed the transfer act into law but until Wednesday, the administration had yet to notify Congress of its plans to move forward with the sale. Congressional sources and analysts consider the delay in the proper acceptance of the sales was because of the Obama administration’s desire to keep steady working relationships with China, an increasingly strong competitor that is tactical but in addition a critical economic partner as the planet‘s second-biggest market.
Washington said the deal does not indicate a change in US policy toward China that would alter normalized relations between the two countries. But the timing of the sale comes amidst heightened tensions between the USA and China due to recent Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea.
Congress has 30 days to review the sale, but it’s unlikely to raise objections. There’s been mounting bipartisan concern that Taiwan is inadequately armed to defend itself against an increasingly powerful mainland China.

US President Obama gains 41 Senate votes in favor of nuclear deal with Iran!

US President Obama gains 41 Senate votes in favor of nuclear deal with Iran! 

-Dr. Abdul Ruff

_________

Republican-backed

US President Barack Obama has secured 41 US Senate votes, enough support in the US Senate, enough to block the Senate from passing a Republican-backed resolution to disapprove the deal and to ensure that the Iran nuclear deal will go into effect even as the US Congress returns on 09 September to begin a frenzied fall legislative session to debate the nuclear deal, which will include votes on the Iran deal before a Sept. 17 deadline. from

As Obama’s support reached 41 in the Senate in favor of the Iran nuclear agreement, enough to block the Senate from passing a Republican-backed resolution to disapprove the deal, opponents of the deal began criticizing Democrats for, as they say, preventing an up-or-down vote on the deal by blocking its forward motion.

Republicans are trying to turn the vote for nuclear deal into anti-Iran vote. But Democrats gave President Barack Obama the votes he needs to prevent the Senate from passing a measure disapproving of the Iran nuclear deal. Reaching the threshold to filibuster means the President likely won’t need to veto the measure, even though opposition to the Iran deal enjoys majority support in the House and Senate. Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Michigan Sen. Gary Peters and Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden all announced in rapid fire succession they would support the deal, putting Obama at 41 votes of support in the Senate.

That would leave Republicans short of the 60 votes needed to force a Senate vote, unless some members who support the Iran deal argue that the chamber should have a chance to vote on it. The legislation permitting an up-or-down vote was agreed to by Obama after weeks of bipartisan pressure for Congress to have a say. The Senate would need 60 votes to advance a measure rejecting the deal for a floor vote. If all 41 Democrats who support the deal vote to filibuster, it would not reach a final vote in the Senate. Not all have pledged to do so, though they have pledged to vote with the President on the deal otherwise.

Senators Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Gary Peters of Michigan and Ron Wyden of Oregon said they will support the deal. The three new Democrats’ support came as another member of the party announced his opposition to the Iran deal. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin made a total of four Democrats who have come out against the deal. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia said he opposes the agreement. The other Senate Democrats opposing the deal are Chuck Schumer of New York, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Bob Menendez of New Jersey. Only one, Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, remains undecided.

A few senators said they would “reluctantly” vote against a motion of disapproval because I believe that doing so will protect the credibility of the United States to hold Iran accountable to adhere to every single obligation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Many pro-deal senators  believe that many overlapping provisions will make it exceedingly difficult for the Iranians to build a nuclear weapon in the short term and will lengthen the time required should they choose to break their commitments and try to build one in the future. “While this is not the agreement I would have accepted at the negotiating table, it is better than no deal at all,” Blumenthal said.

Both camps have been increasing their lobbying efforts on the deal. Republican presidential candidates including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and real estate mogul Donald Trump will headline an anti-Iran deal rally on Capitol Hill. And former Vice President Dick Cheney delivered a fiery speech against the deal, calling it “madness”. Opponents also circulated a letter from 15 governors voicing their opposition to the deal and pledging to keep state-level sanctions on Iran in place. All four of the current governors running for president signed, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

It seems there is no precedent in recent history for an issue of this magnitude getting consideration in the Senate without having to secure 60 votes. The deal would ease economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on the country’s nuclear program. Obama has lobbied hard for Democratic support and has made pitches to US Jewish leaders to counter opposition to the deal by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said he will insist that 60 Senate votes are required to pass a resolution of disapproval.

Obama’s 41 votes will ultimately protect the Iran deal, seven more than needed to uphold his veto of any measure of disapproval passed by Congress. The 435-seat House has more than the 218 votes needed to pass a resolution of disapproval in that chamber. At least 230 Republicans and 15 Democrats are opposed to the deal. At least 105 of the chamber’s Democrats support the agreement, while the rest have yet to announce their position.

Democratic front-runner and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will deliver her own speech on the Iran deal, where she’s expected to unequivocally supporting it. US Congress could still oppose the deal, but Obama has now enough votes to override any resolution of disapproval. He has said the deal cuts off every pathway to a nuclear weapon for Iran. Republicans like Israelis have been unified in their opposition to the Iran accord, saying the deal would only “embolden” Iran.

Like Israel, the republicans are annoyed and disappointed that their dream of a war with Iran has been short lived.

However,  it was not just USA or Iran that won the deal but  active and pro-active  diplomacy did the magic for humanity which is seeking peace in West Asia baldy.

____________

-Dr. Abdul Ruff

US President Obama gains 41 Senate votes in favor of nuclear deal with Iran! –

US President Obama gains 41 Senate votes in favor of nuclear deal with Iran! –

-Dr. Abdul Ruff

_________

Republican-backed

US President Barack Obama has secured 41 US Senate votes, enough support in the US Senate, enough to block the Senate from passing a Republican-backed resolution to disapprove the deal and to ensure that the Iran nuclear deal will go into effect even as the US Congress returns on 09 September to begin a frenzied fall legislative session to debate the nuclear deal, which will include votes on the Iran deal before a Sept. 17 deadline. from

As Obama’s support reached 41 in the Senate in favor of the Iran nuclear agreement, enough to block the Senate from passing a Republican-backed resolution to disapprove the deal, opponents of the deal began criticizing Democrats for, as they say, preventing an up-or-down vote on the deal by blocking its forward motion.

Republicans are trying to turn the vote for nuclear deal into anti-Iran vote. But Democrats gave President Barack Obama the votes he needs to prevent the Senate from passing a measure disapproving of the Iran nuclear deal. Reaching the threshold to filibuster means the President likely won’t need to veto the measure, even though opposition to the Iran deal enjoys majority support in the House and Senate. Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Michigan Sen. Gary Peters and Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden all announced in rapid fire succession they would support the deal, putting Obama at 41 votes of support in the Senate.

That would leave Republicans short of the 60 votes needed to force a Senate vote, unless some members who support the Iran deal argue that the chamber should have a chance to vote on it. The legislation permitting an up-or-down vote was agreed to by Obama after weeks of bipartisan pressure for Congress to have a say. The Senate would need 60 votes to advance a measure rejecting the deal for a floor vote. If all 41 Democrats who support the deal vote to filibuster, it would not reach a final vote in the Senate. Not all have pledged to do so, though they have pledged to vote with the President on the deal otherwise.

Senators Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Gary Peters of Michigan and Ron Wyden of Oregon said they will support the deal. The three new Democrats’ support came as another member of the party announced his opposition to the Iran deal. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin made a total of four Democrats who have come out against the deal. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia said he opposes the agreement. The other Senate Democrats opposing the deal are Chuck Schumer of New York, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Bob Menendez of New Jersey. Only one, Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, remains undecided.

A few senators said they would “reluctantly” vote against a motion of disapproval because I believe that doing so will protect the credibility of the United States to hold Iran accountable to adhere to every single obligation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Many pro-deal senators  believe that many overlapping provisions will make it exceedingly difficult for the Iranians to build a nuclear weapon in the short term and will lengthen the time required should they choose to break their commitments and try to build one in the future. “While this is not the agreement I would have accepted at the negotiating table, it is better than no deal at all,” Blumenthal said.

Both camps have been increasing their lobbying efforts on the deal. Republican presidential candidates including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and real estate mogul Donald Trump will headline an anti-Iran deal rally on Capitol Hill. And former Vice President Dick Cheney delivered a fiery speech against the deal, calling it “madness”. Opponents also circulated a letter from 15 governors voicing their opposition to the deal and pledging to keep state-level sanctions on Iran in place. All four of the current governors running for president signed, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

It seems there is no precedent in recent history for an issue of this magnitude getting consideration in the Senate without having to secure 60 votes. The deal would ease economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on the country’s nuclear program. Obama has lobbied hard for Democratic support and has made pitches to US Jewish leaders to counter opposition to the deal by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said he will insist that 60 Senate votes are required to pass a resolution of disapproval.

Obama’s 41 votes will ultimately protect the Iran deal, seven more than needed to uphold his veto of any measure of disapproval passed by Congress. The 435-seat House has more than the 218 votes needed to pass a resolution of disapproval in that chamber. At least 230 Republicans and 15 Democrats are opposed to the deal. At least 105 of the chamber’s Democrats support the agreement, while the rest have yet to announce their position.

Democratic front-runner and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will deliver her own speech on the Iran deal, where she’s expected to unequivocally supporting it. US Congress could still oppose the deal, but Obama has now enough votes to override any resolution of disapproval. He has said the deal cuts off every pathway to a nuclear weapon for Iran. Republicans like Israelis have been unified in their opposition to the Iran accord, saying the deal would only “embolden” Iran.

Like Israel, the republicans are annoyed and disappointed that their dream of a war with Iran has been short lived.

However,  it was not just USA or Iran that won the deal but  active and pro-active  diplomacy did the magic for humanity which is seeking peace in West Asia baldy.

____________

-Dr. Abdul Ruff

China’s unilateral action on South China Sea drives Pacific nations to seek US protection!

China’s unilateral action on South China Sea drives Pacific nations to seek US protection!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff

__________

Part-I

Asia-pacific region remains a flashpoint as China is gradually trying to expand its control over the common sea territories in South East Asia. China’s aggressive project to build small islands in the South China Sea region, ignoring territorial claims of fellow nations in the region, is hitting Pacific nations at a more visceral level, bringing anxiety over security. China’s creation of small military installations, including a 10,000- ft. landing strip, on various tiny atolls in the Western Spratly Islands seems to have ratted Washington to pay more attention on the issue rattling the region for quite some time.

 

The Pacific countries Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam and Brunei have long had their own competing territorial disputes in the South China Sea. To complicate the issue further, now China claims over hundreds of mostly uninhabited small islands, reefs, and rocks in the 1.4-million square mile South China Sea. Using traditional symbols to describe  one’s position in a given situation, China says it controls the territory within a U-shaped maritime boundary, known as the 9-dash line and also referred to as “the cow’s tongue,” since the line appears in a large curvature far below the mainland.

China claims a whopping 90 percent chunk of the South China Sea. Its maps draw a “nine dash line” to mark its claims, some of which are nearly 1,500 kms from China but close to the coastlines of nations that ring the line, like the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam.  However, China’s claim does not stand up under existing international law, as laid down in the United Nations Law of the Sea. China enjoys such rights because its fishermen have cast their nets in those distant waters for centuries. Those claims give China “indisputable sovereignty” over the land features and waters inside the line, Beijing insisted in a document presented to the UN in 2009. That sovereignty is, in fact, disputed. The Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Brunei all claim some or all of the rocks, atolls, reefs, islands, and water that China says belong to it. The Philippines has taken China to an international court at The Hague to challenge the legitimacy of the “nine dash line,” though Beijing has said it does not recognize the tribunal’s right to rule on the matter. Beijing evidently hopes that its recent land reclamation drive has changed the facts on the ground – or in the sea.

In order to showcase its prowess to  neighbors, Chinese naval forces have already denied the Philippines access to explore oil and gas deposits and have harassed Philippine fishing fleets from places like the Scarborough Shoals, which sit about 100 miles off Philippine shores.  The Chinese Coast Guard occasionally blasts Filipino fishermen with water cannons after they sail too close to the tiny island outposts. Such unilateral action by China could spiral out of control, or a misunderstanding” could result with a military clash, killing people.

Chinese engineers using dredgers have turned seven reefs and atolls in the Spratlys into artificial islands. Some are large enough to support garrisons, land fighter jets or to dock large naval vessels.  Satellite images show cement factories and multi-story buildings being constructed and identifiable state- owned enterprises racing to make the new islands habitable. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC says these outposts would also help China “better safeguard national territorial sovereignty” and serve “military defense” purposes. Uses include helicopter bases for anti-submarine operations, aircraft refueling facilities, naval harbors and radar and missile installations that could one day help China’s air force impose an Air Defense Identification Zone over the South China Sea, as it has tried to do over the East China Sea in its dispute over island ownership with Japan. Those prospects worry both the USA and regional powers.

In addition to boosting defense funding, Manila is preparing to reopen a former American naval base in Subic Bay where it will station new fighter jets purchased from South Korea. Repairs are also being made to a rusting World War II-era cargo ship now beached in the Spratlys that serves as the country’s most western military outpost.

China’s expansion and reclamation of islands in the South China Sea has escalated tension among Southeast Asian countries, and coordination between Japan and the Philippines may be perceived in Beijing as tacit support from Japan that the Philippines have rights to contested ocean territory. Japan, Asia’s second-biggest economy after China, receives a cut of the $5 trillion in cargo that passes through the shipping routes of the South China Sea each year.

The increase in activity in the region comes at a time when Southeast Asian leaders are jockeying for control over a swath of ocean that provides a tenth of the fish caught by global companies, Japan does not have any direct territorial interests in the South China Sea, but Japan’s own national security will be greatly affected by any instability and conflict there, making it a legitimate stakeholder.

Meanwhile, a Japanese surveillance plane with crew from the Philippines flew over areas of the South China Sea that the Philippines are in dispute with China over.  The flight path taken by the Japanese plane was close to the Spratly Islands, which the Philippines claim, and where China is constructing man-made islands.

Japan and China also face a direct standoff over disputed sea territories.

The monopoly strategy of China, equipped with military prowess and a UN veto seat, has prompted an everlasting increase in military spending by the regional nations. The Philippines announced a 25 percent increase in military spending over 13 years aimed at bolstering naval defenses and effectively countering China’s claims.

As Asia’s super power China is pushing its agenda in the region, the Pacific nations are exploring diplomacy with the global super power USA, new defense options, and even international legal recourse to stop China from extending its sphere of influence just off their shores.

The Hague tribunal admittedly has no enforcement mechanism and Beijing has signaled it has no plans to uphold an international ruling. But the hearings may provide the Philippines additional arguments in future negotiations. A decision on whether the UN-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration has jurisdiction to rule comes this fall.

Part-II

Obviously, UNSC‘s veto members have certain prerogatives, rights and advantages and China is taking full advantages of being a permanent member on the discredited UNSC.    USA and other veto members or NATO have not taken the military steps on fellow veto members Russia and China.

Even as Russia, China’s senior strategic partner, annexed Crimea and reportedly moved into Ukraine its military to defend the ethnic Russian there, China also built seven artificial islands in the strategically sensitive and economically critical South China Sea, alarming its neighbors and risking confrontation with the USA, because it believes it can get away with the nervy move and bolster an old desire for regional dominance.

The Chinese mainland lies nearly 1,000 miles away from its most distant claims.  Beijing’s full claim over the sea would give it control of shipping routes touching half of all global trade through the region. Earlier this summer China said authoritatively that it would stop expanding the number of islands it is reclaiming but would continue to build in places where it has started work. China’s land reclamation efforts have taken place in an area that constitutes nearly 80 percent of its exclusive economic zone, a 200-mile radius that extends from national territory under the UN Law of the Sea.

China seems to have laid the groundwork to move its land power south … expanding the area of competition with the United States. In fact, China has wanted to do this for a long time. Now it has the dredging vessels, the money and the people. China tentatively turned in that direction in June, announcing that it had nearly finished its land reclamation drive.

China counts the South China Sea land reclamation project a success and it has strengthened its position in sovereignty disputes with its neighbors in Southeast Asia and it has projected its power into the heart of a waterway that sees five trillion dollars worth of trade each year.

The regional powers say China is causing a big and imminent threat to security” in Southeast Asia.  The rise of China’s economic power has given rise to its military power and the regional rivals cannot in any way stop or weaken the economic muscle of Beijing.

The Philippines is also fighting back in court. A case at The Hague argued on July 13 sought to have an international court rule on the legality of China’s territorial claim. That case is causing a stir here and in Vietnam, off whose shores China parked an oil rig last year, bringing clashes at sea and at home between ethnic Chinese and Vietnamese.

The Philippine military is limited compared with China’s. But under a decades-old mutual defense pact, the US is obliged to aid its former colony if it is attacked. Yet how far Washington will take action in the sea is unclear.  However, there are lingering doubt and unwarranted expectations in Manila. Filipinos have a tendency to place excessive or misplaced expectations in America’s commitment to protect the Philippines.

Vietnam is also looking for similar assistance to confront China on the high seas. Earlier this month, Hanoi’s Communist Party Chairman Nguyen Phu Trong, who met with President Obama in the Oval Office, told a forum in Washington that his country plans to expand military partnerships with the USA. The Pentagon said it will provide Vietnam with $18 million to purchase coast guard vessels.

Australia is considering sailing the sort of Freedom of Navigation patrols that the US navy runs regularly through the South China Sea to challenge any Chinese sovereignty claims it considers excessive. Even India has voiced concerns over possible threats to free navigation on major trade routes, including in the Indian Ocean.

The Chinese are acting as if they are stronger than they are. Caught in the middle of this big power maneuvering are a clutch of Southeast Asian nations that nurse territorial claims to rival China’s. Vietnam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei sell most of their exports to China, and China is a growing source of investment for them. Beijing’s recent moves have frightened their governments who are looking to Washington for regional balance.

As China’s interests and horizons expand, so will its impulse to exert physical control. China is moving beyond being a great power.  The secretive and determined methods Beijing is using to turn rocks and atolls into potential military bases, and its bland dismissal of other nations’ claims to those specks of island turf, is causing worry beyond just the Pacific Rim.

China’s activities in the South China Sea have sparked doubts about its intentions. China now appears to have altered a long-professed policy of “peaceful rise” and shown another face in the Pacific, and in so doing has driven a number of Pacific nations towards an American embrace.

Regional powers expect China to make good on its promises that all the civilian facilities it builds will be open to all. It seems that increased international attention on China’s activities has slowed down its military buildup. When under strong international pressure, China tends to adjust its strategy.  In recent days China has adopted a more conciliatory tone, saying it will build fishing havens, weather stations, and light houses on the islands, though the Philippines and its Southeast Asian neighbors are dubious.

World’s perceptions on China being a sensible nation with its ‘peaceful rise’ policy” have changed.  As China focused on building its economy and infrastructure it talked to neighbors about peace. But now China is trying to make peace effort as the subject of other countries to consider.

President Xi Jinping of China has emphasized closer trade and investment ties with Southeast Asia. The emphasis, called “One Belt, One Road,” is a centerpiece of his foreign policy, but China’s strategies on the South China Sea and on “One Belt, One Road” are in conflict.

Clearly, China’s unilateral action on South China Sea drives Pacific nations to seek US protection and Washington, still struggling with its Asia pivot agenda, might, as speculated by analysts, showcase an assertive stance on their behalf.

But will USA, fighting many battles around simultaneously, show any real inclinations for spending extra energy in the region?

Landmark UNSC-Iran nuclear deal!

Landmark UNSC-Iran nuclear deal!

-Dr. Abdul ruff

______________

World peace proces could be accelerated only by concerted efforts by internaional community led by UN in resloving all outstanding conflcitual issues as satisfactorly as possible. The USA-Iran standoff over Iran’s  legitimate strive for nuclear facility at par other  powers has caused tensions between them and the crisis has been worsened by the interference of Israel, seeikng to be the  lone nuclear power of West Asia.

The deal

Led by the US super power, the so-called UNSC-5+1 countries — the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — reached the landmark agreement with Iran after more than 20 months of intense negotiations, mostly held in Vienna or Geneva. Under a historic deal between Iran and major world powers in Vienna on July 14, Iran agreed to long-term curbs on a nuclear program that the West suspected was aimed at creating an atomic bomb. Iran has repeatedly said its work is purely peaceful but Israel objects.

In return, the USA, EU and UN would lift sanctions on Iran. Under the agreement, any UN sanctions relief would be simultaneous with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verifying “implementation of agreed nuclear-related measures by Iran.” Iran will not use its advanced centrifuges to produce enriched uranium for the next decade.

The deal reduces the number of Iranian centrifuges by two-thirds. It places bans on enrichment at key facilities, and limits uranium research and development to the Natanz facility. The deal caps uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent and limits the stockpile to 300 kg, all for 15 years. Iran will be required to ship spent fuel out of the country forever, as well as allow inspectors from the IAEA inspectors certain access in perpetuity. Heightened inspections, including tracking uranium mining and monitoring the production and storage of centrifuges, will last for up to 20 years. The USA estimates that the new measures take Iran from being able to assemble its first bomb within 2-3 months, to at least one year from now.

US Congress has 60 days to review the agreement, giving its opponents plenty of time to dig into the details and challenge the Obama administration’s position. In Tehran, the deal will need the clear backing of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to fend off any objections from hardliners suspicious of an accord with the United States after decades of hostility and mistrust.

The United Nations Security Council is likely to vote next week on a resolution to endorse the Iran nuclear deal and terminate targeted sanctions, but retain an arms embargo and ballistic missile technology ban. The five permanent veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council – United States, Russia, China, Britain and France – were parties to the deal agreed with Iran in Vienna, along with Germany and the European Union. The UN Security Council resolution would terminate its seven previous resolutions on Iran, but under the Vienna deal it would leave a UN weapons embargo in place for five years and a ban on buying missile technology for eight years.
According to the Vienna deal, the six world powers, Iran and the European Union will form a Joint Commission to handle any complaints about breaches. If the complaining state is not satisfied with how the commission addresses its concerns, it could then take its grievance to the UN Security Council. The Security Council would then need to vote on a resolution to continue the lifting of sanctions on Iran.

If the nuclear deal is adhered to, all the provisions and measures of the UN resolution would terminate 10 years after its adoption and the Iran nuclear issue would be removed from the Security Council agenda.

Iranian response

 

 

The deal is god news for humanity, especially the Iranians – the target of West and Israel for quite some time now. People of Iran felt relieved and even joyous for the first time in years of sufferings due to western sanctions that cripple Iranian economy as its export of energy sources and other goods were effectively blocked.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said his country’s nuclear deal with major powers would open a new chapter of cooperation with the outside world after years of sanctions, predicting the gradual elimination of mutual mistrust. He added in a live televised speech that Iran would abide by its commitments under the agreement as long as world powers did so too. he suggested the deal reached after marathon talks between the OPEC oil producer and world powers would lay the foundations for an improvement in an economy battered by years of sanctions.

President Hassan Rouhani recalled that his election in 2013 was made possible by voters who “clearly said they want a government that protects the nuclear programme and brings prosperity to the country as the same time”. “We didn’t ask for charity. We asked for fair, just and win-win negotiations,” he said. “Today after 23 months of negotiations with world powers we reached a turning point.”

Israeli response

Pursuing genocides cum expansionism in Palestine and militarism in Mideast as its key policy Israel wanted the UNSC-Iran deal to fail so that it can resume its  terror attacks on  the Palestinians in territories being occupied by  it, but the  successful deal has clearly upset all its terror designs for the ME region.

As expected, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, after failing to fail the UN-Iran deal, quickly slammed the landmark nuclear accord hammered out between the world powers and Iran as a “historic mistake” and hinted that he remained “committed” to order military action against Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. The hardline Jewish leader said that the powers negotiating with Iran –- the US, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany –- made far reaching concessions on the areas meant to prevent Iran from ever being able to obtain nuclear arms.

PM Netanyahu, whose government continues to pursue its aggression and terror in Palestine, also called for Israel’s political leaders to put party politics aside and unite around a most fateful issue for Israel’s future and security- i.e. to protect Zionist occupational terror practices in Palestine as he is coming under withering criticism from the illegal settler opposition for what is being termed a colossal failure on his part to stop the agreement.

American response

The agreement, a focal point of U.S. President Barack Obama’s foreign policy, appears set to reshape relations between Iran and the West, with its effects likely to ripple across the volatile Middle East.

Hailing the landmark nuclear deal with Iran, a beaming US President Barack Obama said the pact ensuring Tehran does not acquire a nuclear bomb was based on verification and not on trust as he warned the Congress that he will veto any legislation aimed at scuttling the agreement.  Obama, in a rare early morning statement, asserted that this deal has achieved what the US and the international community wanted from day one — to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Because of this deal, Obama said Iran will remove two thirds of its installed centrifuges, the machines necessary to produce highly enriched uranium for a bomb and store them under constant international supervision.

The US President asserted that under the deal every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off and the inspection and transparency regime necessary to verify that objective will be put in place. Well aware of the challenge that he faces in the Congress where Democrats are in a minority, Obama said, “I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.”

President Obama asserted that with the deal they have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region and under the deal every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off and the inspection and transparency regime necessary to verify that objective will be put in place.

Polls have shown Americans generally to be in favour of a deaf.. For the USA, the nuclear deal struck with Iran holds both promise and peril. The same can be said for Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential race. Clinton embraced the deal in remarks on Capitol Hill. However, Democratic presidential contender eyeing the strong Jewish vote bank Hillary Clinton, in a tough voice vowed that Tehran will never be able to acquire atomic weapons if she is elected to the White House. Mrs. Clinton cannot risk alienating wealthy Jewish donors, some of whom may worry that the new deal further endangers Israel. And focusing on Jewish vote bank, she said she continues to view Iran as “an existential threat to Israel. Clinton enjoys some maneuvering room. Despite Republican efforts to vilify Obama’s foreign policy, the president garnered about 70 percent of the Jewish vote in 2012, suggesting that many American Jews are far from being single-issue voters primarily focused on Israel’s security.

Arab response

The ruler of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, sent a note of congratulations to Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani on Tuesday for Tehran’s nuclear deal with world powers. The statement contained the first official comment by Gulf Arab countries towards a deal many of them privately fear will encourage Iran to back its allies across the Middle East more forcefully.  The UAE, like all other Gulf States except Oman, belongs to a Saudi-led coalition that has been bombing Iran-backed rebels in Yemen since March. Abu Dhabi perhaps fears that the Vienna agreement will strengthen prosperity of Iran and Iranian influence in the region for peace.

Given that Iran is a neighbour, Saudi Arabia hopes to build with her better relations in all areas on the basis of good neighborliness and non-interference in internal affairs. Saudi Arabia expressed hope Tuesday for an end to Iran’s regional “interference” after a historic nuclear deal aimed at ensuring its Middle East rival does not obtain an atomic bomb. Two of the kingdom’s fellow Sunni-run Gulf neighbours also expressed hope for better relations with Shiite-dominated Iran. To counter Iran and Israel, Saudi Arabia is pursuing its own nuclear projects and building alliances beyond its ties with Washington.

Kuwait’s emir, Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, sent cables to Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Rouhani congratulating them on the “historic agreement”. He hoped the deal “would contribute to strengthen peace and stability in the region and to direct all efforts for the development of the countries in the area”.

Peace in Mideast now depends exclusively on Israel- the only nuclear power and effectively the US backed super power of west Asia, terrorizing Arab world, especially the Palestinians. However, USA, unfortunately, is still arming nuclear power Israel with nuclear weapons, threatening the peace in the region.

Israel remains a grave threat to Mideast peace and to the  peaceful and secured existence of humanity at large!

The Iran’s nuclear deal with the West is most welcome.

Clean, renewable energy sources are abundant, so abandon nuclear energy! (A tribute to Fukushima victims)

Clean, renewable energy sources are abundant, so abandon nuclear energy!          (A tribute to Fukushima victims)

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

_______________

Survival of the fittest is a good campaign slogan but now humanity has to seriously think about its own survival on earth before it is too late. The global nuclear forces are becoming too strong now and humanity needs to consider safeguards against the impending nuclear disasters.

Can any human with minimum common sense and essential conscience forget a date: March 11, 2011 when the Great East Japan earthquake caused a massive tsunami which triggered a triple meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant and destroyed thousands of lives and livelihoods?

The Fukushima disaster shows the world community exactly why we cannot and should not try to rely on nuclear energy to solve the electricity or climate crisis.

There has been a huge international outcry with a clear message to all energy hungry countries globally that the only way to avert climate disaster is by embracing a clean energy future.

Universe has enough safe scientific options for the people to choose from to offset the temporal urgency of generating electrify by resorting to the most dangerous nuclear method that has the capacity to  end human race on earth once for all, region by region, country by country, zones by zones there won’t be anyone to use electricity at all.

Signs that the Fukushima disaster has left behind for generations to remember is ongoing are clear: nearly a quarter-million Japanese people are still displaced, radioactive trash has piled up in the affected region, radiation levels remain elevated, and clean-up efforts at the plant continue amid leaks.

And despite public opposition, the Japanese PM Shinzo Abe wants the people and world to trust him that nothing so serious or alarming has happened at the Fukushima and he, like an adamant terrorist in suit, continues his push to restart nuclear plants because the electricity companies are behind him, pushing him to switch the nuclear reactor buttons.

Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Nuclear Information and Research Service (NIRS), Public Citizen and Sierra Club drives home me the point that humanity can live as long as they want by relying on safe energy techniques. It adds:  “There is a way to power our lives without fossil fuels. There is a solution to climate change without nuclear energy. There is a future where we can solve the climate crisis and power our lives from 100 percent renewable sources and energy efficiency. Now is the time to create our fossil and nuclear-free future.

Sierra Club’s campaign urges members of Congress to phase out nuclear power and commit to 100% renewable energy. Public Citizen’s campaign urges the NRC to enforce a dozen safety recommendations for nuclear reactors that were issued after the Fukushima disaster.

Corporatist Japan’s decision to invest in nuclear rather than renewables left the country totally unprepared when calamity struck. Clean, renewable energy sources are abundant, affordable, and ready to go. They can replace nuclear and fossil fuels, which are two sides of the dirty, extreme energy coin.

Greenpeace Executive Director Annie Leonard, spearheading renewable energy, says: “The Fukushima disaster is a constant reminder that nuclear energy is a dirty and dangerous distraction from real solutions like wind and solar. We should commit to rejecting costly nuclear pipe dreams and supporting the renewable efforts that can help avert our climate crisis.”

The Fukushima remains one of the world’s worst nuclear disasters: the triple reactor core meltdowns and catastrophic containment building failures at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. It’s a nuclear crisis that, unfortunately, continues to unfold. The widespread environmental contamination largely remains. Decontamination efforts are, many times, missing the government’s targets. Massive amounts of highly radioactive water flow into the ocean from the reactor site every day.

In spite of these ongoing problems and the fact that many of the over 120,000 displaced nuclear refugees are still living in difficult evacuation conditions four years later, the Abe government in Japan is pushing to restart the country’s idled nuclear fleet. Abe is lying about the targets.

Those who created the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe know that their nuclear power plants have no place in a modern Japan or USA or Germany or India. And they are fighting as hard as they can to stop clean energy progress and shore up their dirty-energy-based profits.

But, for the people of Japan, a majority of whom oppose any nuclear restart, there are massive opportunities on the horizon for a truly safe and clean future. And Greenpeace stands with them against the onslaught of the nuclear village – to ensure that the clean, renewable energy future becomes a reality.

In order somehow to ease the tensed situation, the nuclear power manufacturing companies and reactor suppliers plus middle agents all claim that they have so many safeguards in place that an earthquake by itself cannot cause a meltdown.

The truth is nuclear disasters and devastating radioactivity effects on people and environment cannot be averted at all.

Global youth needs to be educated about the impending nuclear danger the shivering humanity is expected to face.

Indian PM Modi inaugurates railway line in Sri Lanka rebuilt by India

Indian PM Modi inaugurates railway line in Sri Lanka rebuilt by India

Dr. Abdul Ruff

____________________

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi who is in Sri Lanka on a two day official visit said today that the future of any country is influenced by the state of its neighbors.  As he sought to woo smaller Indian Ocean states away from increasing Chinese influence, PM Modi, in his address to SL Parliament hours after his arrival in Colombo, said India’s neighbors should be the first beneficiaries of Indian economic progress.

“The future I dream for India is also a future that I want for our neighbors….The world sees India as the new frontier of economic opportunity. But, our neighbors should have the first claim on India”, he said, “I will be happy if India serves as a catalyst in the progress of our neighbors.”

Modi visited the war-scarred Tamil heartland in the north on Saturday to inaugurate a railway line rebuilt by India. Modi said India has committed $1.6 billion in development assistance for Sri Lanka, promising to continue the development partnership.

Modi became the first Indian leader to visit Sri Lanka in 28 years, reciprocating the trip to India last month by Sri Lanka’s new president. However Modi since his election last May has emphasized rally his SAARC neighbors. Modi held bilateral talks with Sri Lanka’s new President Maithripala Sirisena, who seems to have made a departure from policies favoring Beijing and toward ethnic reconciliation with his country’s Tamil minority, a sensitive issue in India-Sri Lanka relations. “We have seen the relationship between our countries weakened during the time of some regimes. As a result, it took 28 years for this visit of an Indian prime minister to Sri Lanka,” Sirisena said after the morning meeting with Modi. He said he considered Modi’s visit now was a blessing.

Modi in his speech to Parliament also invited Sri Lanka to have more regular state visits and work together to build trust and remain sensitive to each other’s interest. ” It helps us understand each other better find solutions to mutual concerns and move our relationship forward.”

In 1987, India’s Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi arrived in Sri Lanka to sign a peace accord in an effort to end the Tamil uprising, which was then in its early years. Sri Lankan Tamils have linguistic and family connections with the sizable Tamil population in India. It was a tumultuous period in relations as India was accused of training and arming the rebels, and then tried to mediate by sending a peacekeeping force, a mission that failed as the Indians were viewed with suspicion by both sides in the civil war.

During his visit, Gandhi narrowly escaped serious injury when a Sri Lankan sailor hit him with his rifle butt during a guard of honor inspection. Four years later, in 1991, Gandhi was assassinated during an election rally in Tamil Nadu.  Since then, India had distanced itself from the Sri Lankan conflict, which China used to get closer to the island nation by supplying weapons and later securing a large presence through developing highways, a port and an airport.

Sri Lanka’s new government has recently suspended the Chinese-funded $1.5 billion Colombo Port City project, citing environmental issues and alleged corruption. It was inaugurated in September during a visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping, who included Sri Lanka in a new maritime “Silk Road” linking the energy-rich Persian Gulf with China.

Although divided by a strait just 50 kilometers (30 miles) wide, Sri Lanka and India kept distance over the past three decades. Their relations have been marred by the failed Indian peacekeeping attempt at the onset of Sri Lanka’s civil war and more recently, Beijing’s foray into India’s neighborhood.

Modi visited Sri Lanka’s former civil war zone, in a sign of solidarity with minority Tamils who are calling for regional autonomy to end a decades-old ethnic conflict. Modi visited Sri Lanka’s former civil war zone on Saturday, in a sign of solidarity with minority Tamils who are calling for regional autonomy to end a decades-old ethnic conflict.

Modi commissioned a section of railway track built with Indian aid in Talaimannar and ceremonially began the construction work of a cultural center to be built in the town of Jaffna with Indian assistance. Jaffna is the cultural heartland of the Tamils and was the stage of many battles during Sri Lanka’s quarter century civil war. The war ended in 2009 when government forces defeated the Tamil Tiger rebels, who were fighting to create a separate state for Tamils in the country’s north and east. Since the war’s end, India has been calling on Sri Lanka to share power with the Tamils in order to promote reconciliation.

India has a strong interest in the issue because southern India is home to 60 million Tamils. India’s government, however, has been reluctant to become directly involved in Sri Lankan politics since a disastrous military intervention during the civil war left more than 1,000 Indian troops dead. The military intervention followed an agreement between India and Sri Lanka that led to an amendment of Sri Lanka’s constitution and established provincial councils in an effort to end Tamil militancy.

During his talks Friday with Sri Lankan leaders, Modi said the full implementation of the particular amendment “and going beyond it would contribute to” building and promoting equality, justice, peace and dignity in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka’s former government promised to allow a greater degree of autonomy for the Tamil-majority regions, but later backtracked, saying it would take back the land and police powers given to the provincial councils. At the time, Indian leaders expressed dismay at the move. The current Sri Lankan government, which came to power in January, has promised to work toward ethnic reconciliation.

Modi visited Seychelles and Mauritius before Sri Lanka on his tour of Indian Ocean states. China in recent years heavily funded infrastructure development projects in these countries, making India apprehensive because it perceives the region to be its traditional territory of influence. He avoided visiting the Maldives, which has a pro-China administration and where a supposedly pro-India opposition leader is being tried for terrorism.

Sri Lanka is the last leg of Modi’s tour of the region, during which he has sought to woo smaller Indian Ocean states away from increasing Chinese influence.

___________

Sri Lanka President Sirisena arrives in New Delhi for talks with Indian PM Narendra Modi

Sri Lanka President Sirisena arrives in New Delhi for talks with Indian PM Narendra Modi

-Dr. Abdul Ruff

_________

 

 

Sri Lanka President Maithripala Sirisena who left the island of Sri Lanka on 15th February on a four-day state visit to India on the invitation of Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi has arrived in New Delhi.

Apart from the Minister of External Affairs Mangala Samaraaweera who is now in Washington and is expected to join his president in New Delhi, the presidential team includes Ministers Rajitha Senaratne, Patalie Champika Ranawaka, D.M. Swaminathan, Governor of Easter Province Austin Fernando and Secretary to the President P.B. Abeykoon during this visit. Sirisena, accompanied by his wife Jayanthi Pushpa Kumari, waved to waiting media before being greeted at the airport by India’s minister for shipping Pon. Radhakrishnan, who hails from Tamil Nadu (Nagercoil) and is the only BJP MP and minister from  Tamil Nadu in Modi government.

India’s foreign ministry spokesman Syed Akbaruddin told reporters in New Delhi ahead of his arrival: “We expect substantial talks, we expect outcomes in terms of agreements, in terms of frameworks, and in terms of announcements.”

President Maithripala Sirisena chose India for his first foreign trip in office, trying to rebuild ties hit by tensions over growing Chinese influence on the strategically located island. His maiden visit to India may see New Delhi and Colombo moving towards a civil nuclear cooperation agreement to take bilateral ties to a new height.

President Sirisena, who took over as the new President of Sri Lanka last month after defeating Mahinda Rajapaksa in what came to be a historic poll for the nation, has arrived in New Delhi. He is scheduled to hold talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday.

A comprehensive India-Sri Lanka nuclear cooperation agreement is expected to be among the outcomes of the meeting.  If New Delhi and Colombo ink the deal, it will be India’s first nuclear cooperation agreement with any of its neighbours.

New Delhi was quick to reach out to the new President after his election, as it expects Sirisena, unlike Rajapaksa, to not allow China to use the island nation to add to the strategic assets it has been building encircling India. As Sirisena chose New Delhi as his first overseas destination after taking over, the Modi government is expecting “substantive talks and outcomes in terms of agreements, frameworks and announcements” across a range of areas for prospective bilateral cooperation, India’s Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson recently said.

Sources, however, said that both India and Sri Lanka were keen to move fast on the proposed nuclear cooperation agreement.

Offers from Pakistan and China to help Sri Lanka build nuclear reactors had prompted a jittery New Delhi to launch consultations with Colombo in 2012 for “a comprehensive agreement on bilateral civil nuclear cooperation”. Indian and Sri Lankan officials held two more rounds of talks in 2014.

The scope of the proposed agreement is likely to include New Delhi helping build small nuclear power plants in Sri Lanka using Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors indigenously developed in India, in addition to training officials on nuclear safety and response to nuclear accidents.

The proposed deal is likely to provide for bilateral cooperation between India and Sri Lanka for research and development works exploring power generation using thorium. Indian nuclear scientists may help their Sri Lankan colleagues conduct feasibility studies on use of thorium deposits, found in abundance along the southern coastal belt of the island nation, to generate atomic power.

Indian nuclear plants commissioned ignoring the protests by the fishermen and village people in Kudankulam, Tamil Nadu in South India came for severe criticism from Combo because of effects of radioactivity from the nuclear plants could reach Sri Lanka. With suitable nuclear deal with the new government in Colombo, India hopes to bring its sea neighbor Sri Lanka on board.

India has long considered Sri Lanka to be within its strategic sphere of influence. But China ploughed huge sums into Sri Lankan infrastructure projects, becoming the country’s biggest foreign financier and enjoying significant political and even military influence under Rajapakse.

Critics say China is trying to develop facilities around the Indian Ocean in a “string of pearls” strategy to counter the rise of its rivals and secure its own economic interests.

A first visit is always an opportunity to set directions. Sirisena is expected to try to secure greater Indian investment in Sri Lanka, which said last week it was seeking an international bailout of more than $4 billion. Sirisena will also travel to the Buddhist pilgrimage site of Bodh Gaya in Bihar of North India and a Hindu temple in Tirupati of Andhra Pradesh further south on Tuesday before leaving on February 18 for Colombo.

President Maithripala Sirisena and his fifteen member delegation, it was reported, flew to India in a commercial flight instead of a chartered flight to India as always used by his predecessor.