This is the final part of the Paper. In this part the authors explains the reasons why Cyber War will not take place.

Non- state actors could also carry out cyber attacks that aim to control or disrupt system whether for ideological or criminal reasons. However, such groups do not have the same abilities as large states. As cyber attacks on a high- valued targets such as defense systems or military objects require both high level of knowledge of cyber space but also deep understanding of hacking highly encrypted codes.

Non- state actors could also carry out cyber attacks that aim to control or disrupt system whether for ideological or criminal reasons. However, such groups do not have the same abilities as large states.

Radicalization in Cyber Space 

And nowadays there is a rising threat of radicalization in cyber space as the growing usage of advanced technologies and computer skills not only among individuals and soldiers, but also including terrorist groups, creates the possibility for a cyber war with a special focus on civilian target such as airports, power stations, and military command structures (Gray 2007). Although the fact those radical groups do not have such capabilities in cyber war at the present time, there is a strong possibility that sooner or later they would achieve cyber superiority.

Furthermore, the information systems generate vulnerabilities for large and rich states due to the fact that it enhances profitability and easily disorders targets for terrorist groups. And it is almost impossible to make a modern IT system without some vulnerabilities waiting to be exposed. Therefore the growing concern of the importance of cyber security has impact on cyber space, and more significantly on the real life situations. However, “cyber attacks appear much less useful than physical attacks: they do not fill potential victims with terror, they are not photogenic, and they are not perceived by most people as highly emotional events” (Lachow 2009, p. 450). As a consequence, terrorist groups are not considering the cyber attacks as potential future events.

Cyber War and Clausewitz

On the other hand, with reference to Thomas Rid’s article ‘Cyber war will not take place’ (2011) the existence of an opinion that there is no cyber war in the past, in the present or future due to many facts. Initially, there is no clear explanation and no legal entity for what does ‘cyber war’ mean and how it should be understood. Therefore, the question arises, is there an actual existence of cyber war in the real world? According to Carl von Clausewitz (1832, 1980), there are three elements of war. The first component of war is violent character; the real war is always assumed as the act of physical violence and deaths of innocent citizens.

It should be mentioned that the actions of cyber attacks are usually anonymous and in general are hard to identify and detect. As a result, there is no clear evidence of the beginning of war or attack in the cyber space

Therefore, if there is no an actual act of violence, there is no war. Furthermore, the concept of cyber war is not providing a clear explanation what are the weapons of it, and how to respond to these arms. Which resulted in the non- existence of cyber war itself in the legal framework, “the only issue that has been defined by international agreement is a nation’s right to self defense when attacked, and that applies only to the traditional manner of attack, i.e., ‘armed’ attack” (Carr 2010, p. 39). The second element of Clausewitz explanation of war is instrumental character, he stated that the act of war is instrumental; it has a means and an end (Rid 2011). The actions of violence and threat are the means, and to reach the end of the war the opponent has to be a defenseless and accept the offender’s will (Clausewitz 1832, 1980).

It should be mentioned that the actions of cyber attacks are usually anonymous and in general are hard to identify and detect. As a result, there is no clear evidence of the beginning of war or attack in the cyber space, and no clear distinction of the offender and his will. The third element of Clausewitz meaning of war is its political nature, where in the real world the act of war is supposed to have a political purpose and use of force. Furthermore, in order to “be political, a political entity or a representative of a political entity, whatever its constitutional form, has to have an intention, a will” (Rid 2011, p. 8). To put it in another way, the “Cyber Warfare is the art of science of fighting without fighting; of defeating an opponent without spilling their blood” (Carr 2010).

Geography of Cyber Space

The cyber space is ideal fighting ground as the geography of cyber space is much more mutable than any other environment. For instance, as Gregory Rattray said mountains and oceans are difficult to move, whether the extents of cyber space could be turned on and off with the click of a switch (2009). What it basically means in international affair that in critical moments there is a possibility for a limitation of government’s ability to communicate internationally and control what is going to be heard in the global arena. As a matter of fact that is what happened in Georgia in 2008.

There was a cyber attack organized by Russian government against Georgian websites with a simultaneous military operations happening in South Ossetia

There was a cyber attack organized by Russian government against Georgian websites with a simultaneous military operations happening in South Ossetia (Nazario 2008). The cyber attack on Georgia covered three different types. The first on is attack on country’s website were defaced, for example Georgia’s national bank and the ministry of foreign affairs, one of the most notable defacement was a collage of portraits juxtaposing Adolf Hitler and Mikheil Saakashvili, the Georgian president (Rid 2011). The second type of cyber attack was on Georgian public and private sectors, including state websites, like the parliament, but also news media, the Georgian’s largest commercial bank, and others insignificant websites. And the third approach was on distribution of malicious software that intensified the degree of attack (Rid 2011). It should be mentioned that it was the first time in history on cyber space where there was a simultaneous military actions and cyber attacks.

Conclusion : A New Battlefield 

In conclusion, it should be mentioned that at the present time the world is changing to the highly charged battlefield of the ideas. This is not the world where material resources are valued as the main subject of embittered competition between power states. It is the new emerging world where the strategic planning and management of the information capabilities and cyber resources is the key elements to the success in the global arena. The information resource became an important element in the world; the humankind has reached this stage of development where the regular laptop in the hands of professionals could become a weapon.

Furthermore, nowadays the world is depending on computers as many things are controlled by it: the pressure in the pipelines, the operation of the power systems, and the movement of aircrafts, hospitals and emergency services. These systems are operating under special software and therefore are vulnerable for viruses that could lead to phenomenal effects with the infliction of economic and physical damage comparable to the impact of conventional arms. This essay includes two main viewpoints of cyber war, the first one is supported by Jeffrey Carr, Singer and Friedman, and Rattray, who argued in favor of the existence of cyber war and second one is Thomas Rid who stated that there is no cyber war and it will not take place in the future. According to Thomas Rid there is no clear evidence that cyber war exist, only subversion, espionage and sabotage (2011). He argues that at the present time there is no known act of cyber war where clear explanation of war is defined.

And the political cyber offences, whether they are criminal or not, should not be defined as neither common crime nor common war. Therefore, nowadays there is no confirmation of cyber war that is going on in the global arena. On the other hand, the continuous cyber attacks and the circulation of the idea of possible cyber war are discomposing more and more individuals, military and state minds around the world. The CSIS, the Center of Strategic and International Studies, established many research papers about probability of cyber war and the importance of cyber security nowadays, they also declared that cyber warfare should be concerned as serious as a missile threat.

It should be mentioned that cyber war is the cheapest and effective way of disabling the civil and defensive facilities. Furthermore, the most technological advanced countries are the most vulnerable for the cyber attacks, as currently states, public organizations, and private companies are transferring their management activities to the Internet or a public data networks. To conclude, although there is no clear explanation of cyber war and legal framework of how governments are allowed to react to this kind of attack, and the fact that cyber war is not violent, there is still evidence of the continuous cyber war between states, like Georgia and Russia in 2008, and therefore there is an existence of cyber war in the real world.

Bibliography:

Carr, J. (2010) Inside Cyber Warfare. Sebastopol, O’Reilly Media, Inc.

Clausewitz, C. (1832, 1980) Vom Kriege. Berlin: Ullstein.

CSIS commission (2008)  Securing cyberspace for the 44th presidency: a report of the CSIS commission on cyber security for the 44th Presidency. [pdf] Washington: Center for Strategic and International Studies. Available at: http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/081208_securingcyberspace_44.pdf. [Accessed 1 December 2014].

Dunlap, C.J. (1998) The Law of Cyber war: a case study from the future. In Campen A.D. & Dearth D.H. (Eds) Cyber war 2.0: Myth, Mysteries and Reality. Fairfax,  AFCEA International Press.

Gray, J. (2007) Al Qaeda and what it means to be modern. London, Faber and Faber Limited.

Lachow, I. (2009) Cyber terrorism: menace or myth. In Kramer F.D. & Starr S.H. & Wentz L.K. (Eds) Cyber power and National Security. Washington, Potomac Books, Inc.

Lewis, J. (2003) Interview in: Frontline: Cyber war. PBS. Available at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cyberwar/interviews/lewis.html. [Accessed 1 December 2014].

Nazario, J. (2008) Georgia DDoS Attacks – A Quick

Summary of Observations. Available at: http://www.arbornetworks.com/asert/2008/08/georgia-ddos-attacks-a-quick-summary-of-observations/. [Accessed 1 December 2014]

Petersen, J.L. (1998) Living in a Wired World: Cyber Society 2020. In Campen A.D. & Dearth D.H. (Eds) Cyber war 2.0: Myth, Mysteries and Reality. Fairfax, AFCEA International Press.

Rattray, G.J. (2001) Strategic Warfare in cyberspace. Cambridge, Best-set Typesetter Ltd.

Rattray, G.J. (2009) An Environmental Approach to Understanding Cyber power. In Kramer F.D. & Starr S.H. & Wentz L.K. (Eds) Cyber power and National Security. Washington, Potomac Books, Inc.

Rid, T. (2011) Cyber War Will Not Take Place. Journal of Strategic Studies, 35:1, 5-32.

Singer, P.W. & A. Friedman (2014) Cyber security and Cyberwar: what everyone needs to know. New York, Oxford University Press.

 This paper will explains in two parts, why Cyber war will not take place.

The Importance of Information

The global security environment has changed dramatically after the cold war. At the end of twentieth century the United States became a clear winner in military competition with its main rival, Soviet Union. And “the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the incidence of terrorism have raised serious concerns regarding the defence of the homeland that for the better part of two centuries was a strategic sanctuary” (Rattray 2001, p. 7).

Distinguishing mark of this period is transition from industrial society to information one, in which information is becoming the most important resource in comparison to material or energetic ones. As it is well known the resources is the element of economic potential that used to achieve specific aims and goals of economic activity. Furthermore, categories, that are involved in the economic turnover, such as material, financial, labor and natural resources have become a commonly used and familiar to anyone. However, the concept of information resources is commonly used but not sufficiently appreciated by the modern society.

The information resources are individual documents and collections of papers in information systems, like libraries, archives, databanks, funds and other cyber systems.  Also the information resources are property and responsibilities of relevant bodies and organizations and subject to protection. It should be mentioned that information nowadays is one of the most powerful resource that used by society, not only because it could be transferred into emolument, but also because of the control that individual would have by information ownership. In these circumstances, the important aspect of cyber security arises and therefore protection of data became significant. As a matter of fact, there are many reasons to secure information, which are to prevent the disclosure, leakage and unauthorized access to the protected data; prevention of illegal actions like destruction, reformation, misrepresentation, stealing and prohibition; ensuring the legal regime of documented information as an object of property; protection of the legal rights of citizens to preserve the privacy and confidentiality of personal data held in the information systems and so forth.

Information War or Cyber War?

There is a difference between information war and cyber war, although they are both belonging to the digital war. The information war or as it is also known-  propaganda, it is content war that affecting individual’s mind, responsiveness and understanding of world order. The information war is taking place during times of crisis and conflicts to encourage certain ideas and understanding of current events.

The cyber war is completely different, it is the using of specific source codes in order to damage, intercept control, making faults to the system or destruction of physical objects. To make it clear the physical objects should be understood as computers or computer networks, objects of financial, industrial and energy infrastructure, military bases, where computers are used and telecommunication networks. It should be mentioned that cyber war is anonymous war that could not be identified and detected immediately after it started. Moreover, one of the main dangers of cyber wars is the time, as the invasion to the computer system could be done at one time and actual effect would be later. That is why there is no clear evidence of the beginning of war. Furthermore, there is a possibility that the cyber war would not be detected, as all the actions are anonymous and could be disguised as technological fault or human error, and as a result the cyber attack would not be discovered.

Cyberspace Charateristics

The cyberspace attacks have never been as much appreciated, as it is today, the awareness of cyber security has increased dramatically in the last decade. One of the brightest example of this, is the interview with director of the Center for Strategic and International studies, James Lewis, where he said that “Nobody argues- or at least no sane person argues- that a cyber attack could lead to mass casualties. It’s not in any way comparable to weapons of mass destruction. In fact, what a lot of people call them is ‘weapons of mass annoyance’ (2003).  In comparison to the following excerpt from ‘Securing cyberspace for the 44^th presidency: a report of the CSIS commission on cyber security for the 44^th Presidency’ (2008), where James Lewis was a project director: “The commission’s three major finding are 1.

Cyber security is now a major national security problem for the United States; 2. Decisions and actions must respect privacy and civil liberties; 3. Only a comprehensive national security strategy that embraces both the national and international aspects of cyber security will make us more secure”. These citations clearly show a substantial change of Lewis’s opinion in a relatively short period of time. There are many reasons of not appreciating the need for cyber security. Firstly, it is the fact that cyber space does not demonstrate any significant harm to anyone and therefore has not resulted in human injuries.

Secondly, the cyber space is not tangible, although it is presented in our daily life. Thirdly, the common opinion that technology and cyber space and its ability to communicate the whole world are only creating benefits for the modern society but in reality generates a pseudo understanding of current events in the global arena. As a result, the potential for cyber wars and crimes does not come across individual’s mind, however in the military and state organizations these terms are well respected and commonly used in the national security community. There is a special term that used in the security studies, ‘The Revolution in Military Affairs’ or RMA, although there is no clear explanation for this term, it basically means the combination of new technologies, in particular information technologies, into military equipment, principles, establishments and, eventually, war fighting actions (Dunlap 1998).

  How IT systems have become a weapon 

The speed of distribution of information and technology in the world is rising dramatically and according to the Moore’s law the level of technology is doubling every 18 months (Petersen 1998). Cyberspace has become a new territory for the exchange of digital data to spread business activities, made available entertainment in online regime, lent education available to everyone, and variety of other activities. Simultaneously, the new raising fear of a new form of conflict has appeared, the cyber warfare. “Definitions of cyber warfare range from those narrowly focusing on the improved use of electronic means to achieve advantage on conventional battlefield to very broad definitions conceptualizing information warfare as any effort to affect information systems in peacetime and wartime (Rattray 2001, p. 9).

The IT systems have become a weapon and a target at the same time and emerged a new form of national security risks. As a result, a new form of belligerency has been introduced to the world, that is cyber aggression. According to Jeffrey Carr (2010) there are five types of cyber aggression first one is cyber attacks in contradiction to state or critical civilian websites or networks without supplementary military force; the second one is the virtual attacks against government or dangerous individual websites or networks with accompanying military forces; the third one is attacks against internal political opponents, the fourth is cyber interventions into critical infrastructure and systems and the last one is actions of cyber espionage. Where the critical infrastructure means “the underlying sectors that run our modern- day civilization, ranging from agriculture and food distribution to banking, healthcare, transportation, water, and power” (Singer & Friedman 2014, p.15).

It should be mentioned that each one of these stood apart in the past, but now due to linkages in the cyber space and information technology all bound together, and often known as ‘supervisory control and data acquisition’ or SCADA systems. “These are the computer systems that monitor, adjust switching, and control other processes of critical infrastructure” (Singer & Friedman 2014, p. 15). Using SCADA systems or any other recently introduced technologies by modern liberal states is proving to be loss of privacy. Countries are trying to obtain an ultimate power of surveillance over citizens within state using technologies like eavesdropping, face recognition and suchlike. Although governments are doing it in order to observe potential terrorist group, they are exposing the entire nation to extreme level of monitoring.

The leaders of the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan – countries collectively known as the Group of Seven (G7) – met on Friday for a two-day summit in the resort town of Taormina, Italy.

The bloc meets annually to discuss a wide range of issues, including global economy, security and energy – and this year will be no exception.

But with four out of seven leaders sitting at the G7 table for the first time, including US President Donald Trump, experts will be looking for signs about potential policy shifts amid growing global challenges.

• Under pressure from allies, US President Donald Trump has backed a pledge to fight protectionism, but refused to endorse a global climate change accord, saying he needed more time to decide. “There are no indications whether the United States will stay in the Paris Agreement or not.” declared Angela Merkel.

• Italy disappointed with lack of progress on migration.

•  The final communique was just six pages long, against 32 pages last year, with diplomats saying the leaders wanted a simpler document to help them reach a wider audience.

• After lengthy deliberation, the document included a separate threat, that was inserted into the 2016 G7 statement, to take additional action against Russia, if warranted, for its intervention in Ukraine.

• Security questions dominated initial G7 discussion on Friday and the leaders called on internet service providers and social media firms to “substantially increase” their efforts to rein in extremist content.

• No solutions was found for the Syrian and Libya Conflict. The resolution of the Libyan conflict was particularly important for Italia that is facing a large-scale immigration from the war-torn country. 

   

On May 19th Iran went to the polls and Hassan Rouhani was re-elected by a majority. The campaign was about the economy, minority rights and reforms. In theory, when we look at the political structure of Iran, it is close to western democratic countries but in reality it is something else. Explicitly, Iran is a democracy as there is a democratic element but in practice the system is a theocracy, since Sharia religious dogma is used as law and decree.

Since the Islamic Revolution 38 years ago, Iran has been isolated from international relations but the dynamic situation of contemporary Iran has changed. They have managed to return to the international scene through the Iran nuclear deal brokered in 2015. This was between the Islamic Republic of Iran and a group of world powers: the P5+1 (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—the US, the UK, Russia, France, and China—plus Germany) and the European Union.

However, Iran has failed to benefit from the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) nuclear deal in terms of rebuilding relations with Europe and the future of the deal is at risk. However, since the deal’s implementation Iran has been increasing its oil exports, gaining access to $30 billion of its frozen assets abroad and inking investment agreements totaling $60 billion. Apart from the elected presidents’ promises about the deal, the re-election of Rouhani is good news but the bad news is from the US president as Trump has previously promised to undo the Iran nuclear deal, and in his recent trip to the Middle East President Trump warned Iran again about the nuclear threat.

Besides all that, the question that arises here is ‘why do you see the phrase “nothing changes” when searching online about the Iranian election? It seems international analysts and journalists care less about the Iranian elections in comparison to the elections in other countries. Since, international leaders, mainly the US, often reference Iran in their speeches, saying that Iran seeks to develop nuclear weapons, supports terrorism, is backing the Syrian regime, and is using proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain and Yemen, it seems surprising that there is not more coverage of the election.

However, the election is not important in Iran as long as nothing changes internationally and locally because the main leading figure is the supreme leader, currently Khamenei. He succeeded the first supreme leader Khomeini, known in the Western world as Ayatollah Khomeini, who was an Iranian Shia Muslim religious leader, and revolutionary. Khamenei is at the top of the executive branch of political structures but is not the elected president. Therefore, the elections and new president change nothing as the supreme leader set policies, oversees the military, appointing military and judiciary leaders, although he supervises the constitution and selects the revolutionary guards such as the Qasem Soleimani (the senior military officer in the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, and since 1998, commander of its Quds Force). Also, the Supreme leader appoints most members to the Guardian Council.

Iranian Shias think that Imam Mahdi, the prophesied redeemer of Islam, remains hidden from humanity until he reappears and imposes world justice. This faith has caused them to think that the government and country have to be led by high ranks of clergymen. This prevents others such as Sunnis, and other religious minorities from nominating themselves to run for election. Beside the elections for 38 years, there is little tolerance for religious minorities, and there are restrictions on freedom of speech and thought; everything regarded as un-Islamic is banned.

Iran has a special and very complicated situation. Iran is a republic and has thousands of years of history. Iran is a culture, and a nation, and additionally Iran means religious plurality and Islamic politics. There is a misconception that Iran is only a Shia state; in reality the Iranian identity is also strong. The Iranian regime has succeeded in combining the Iranian and Shia identity to impose their strategy and the sustainability of their regime.

In my opinion, religious political systems as in Iran that use democracy also use religious laws are more dangerous than non-democratic ones. In fact, historically speaking, Islamism is incompatible with democracy. It’s true that Iran is the birthplace of political Islam, mainly Shia Islam, but the Iranian regime is using religion and democracy only to decorate their political structure and stability. Nevertheless, political Islam has failed to be implemented by other modern states, but Iran has been successful so far.

Edited by Alex Kohn

The new French president Emmanuel Macron is now elected, despite the “hidden” support for his rival coming from Moscow who wanted to see Marine Le Pen winning the presidential race.

Usual Congratulations from Moscow

In fact, the Russian plot in Europe is dead; the presence of an atlanticist candidate will not permit Russia to have a counter-power inside Europe and create the most horrific situation for the Anglo-Saxons. To see part of the Rimland shift to Heartland position, (full explanation with Mackinder and Spykman geopolitical theory). But the change is not for the moment. Russia did not have time to complain about the situation. After the usual congratulations, the time is now to foresee how France and Russia can work together or otherwise.

Macron: a dialogue with all regimes around the world

   First of all, about Macron’s position: first of all, he wants a demanding dialogue with Russia but he agrees on the necessity to talk with all regimes around the world. The first point of tension could be about sanctions, even if the new president wants to decrease sanctioning of regimes, according to his manifesto, this could be possible only if Moscow respects the Minsk agreement. This first point could be a wall for five years. But with the phone call between Macron and Putin on the 18th of May, it seems that both sides want to work together and they desire to change the Normandy format to have better cooperation. Just a few words, but that can be a lot nowadays to change the situation.      

A NATO partnership?

    The other problem could be the enhancement of the European defence. In fact, Russia is not against a better European defence, because such power could be an interesting partner for Russia that could allow greater protection. The real problem here is the NATO partnership. Emmanuel Macron said NATO and European defence are complementary. Such ideas worry Russia because by it could mean that, for Moscow, Europe will not be totally sovereign. No removal of NATO forces in the East will continue to stress Russia about its own position. But the Trump mandate could, maybe, bring a decrease of European relations with NATO and a more independent Europe from American protections but actually for the future its seems to be very complicated. With the process of the removal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, to some France is becoming the first military power in Europe and the only country which has the capacity to intervene everywhere. No other countries in the EU seem to radically increase their military power and the protection of the US is key for many Europeans countries.

Syria, common positions

    Surprisingly, Syria could be a point of common interest. Why? Macron’s position could be better than the Hollande position. First, Macron said Bachar Al-Assad, ruler of Syria, is a criminal and the removal of the Alawite president is necessary but, crucially, only if the political stability of the country is assured. And that is exactly the Russian position, the protection of Bachar regime for all this time is exactly the project of Russia, because Moscow haven’t found any good substitutes to Bachar yet. In fact, Russia do not totally protect Bachar Al-Assad, they protect a regime that they consider leads to more stability (Russia has 170 ethnical groups, so they have experience here) and also preserve the interest of Russia in the region. The preservation of Syria is necessary in order to avoid a domino effect that could reach Lebanon, the Caucasus, central Asian countries and in the end, southern Russian borders.

    Maybe the weak point of their relations could be the military intervention under UN decision, approved by Macron because we don’t know much information about such decision. Who is the target for example? The Syrian regime? Terrorist groups? In that case who are these terrorists? Many questions, for the moment without responses.

The future French-Russian Relations

   If Macron wants to cooperate with Russia he should to avoid hypocritical statements such as those in which he declares that Moscow violates regularly international laws. This type of sentence is very dangerous, even if they can agree on some positions. Macron should understand that Moscow violates international law as much as western countries. If we take some comparison, we have the aggression in 2003 in Iraq or more recently in Libya or the violation of Syrian airspace. Macron needs to understand sometimes a country like Russia, which actually rests its foreign policy on international laws, sometimes prefers to violate some laws in order to protect its own interests.

       But not everything is problematic. According to Arnaud Dubien, the director of “Observatoire franco-russe” for Courrier de Russie, French and Russian relations are better than the relations in Moscow with the rest of the European capitals. In fact, the nomination of Philippe Etienne to advise Jean-Yves Le Drian at foreign affairs is a good sign because he worked in Moscow during the 90’s and speaks Russian. He is not Russophile excessively but he wants to work with the Russian Federation.

      In the end, everything’s not lost for Franco-Russian relations, even if many cases could lead to another breaking point between these two countries. Macron has stayed in the Gaullist-Mitterand vision. France is between Washington and Moscow and needs to avoid a certain servility for one capital or the other; France need to have its own independent foreign policy.

Our latest article about Macron and Putin:

French Elections Latest Results : Macron Vs Le Pen

France : The New French Revolution

Part 1: 2017 in the East

Why Russian Resets Keep Failing

Source:

https://lenta.ru/news/2017/05/18/putin_macron/

http://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/presidentielles/2017/04/27/35003-20170427ARTFIG00095-vis-a-vis-de-la-russie-tout-oppose-emmanuel-macron-et-marine-le-pen.php

https://fr.sputniknews.com/france/201705191031456203-macron-moscou/

http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/politique/elections/syrie-emmanuel-macron-favorable-a-une-intervention-militaire_1896611.html

https://en-marche.fr/emmanuel-macron/le-programme/international

One thing is for sure: President Michel Temer has committed a crime

Yesterday, news broke that Brazil’s President Michel Temer was caught on tape discussing hush money with the owner of the world’s leading meat producing company, JBS. Businessman Joesley Batista made an audio recording of a March 7 meeting with the president. At one point, he mentioned former House Speaker Eduardo Cunha – currently in jail.

The Supreme Court has now lifted the secrecy on the audio file, after Temer himself requested its release. Meaning, yes, anyone can access Temer’s incriminating conversation. For the record, the audio file is long and filled mostly with scratchy silence. The president believed making the tape public would “erase any doubts about his character”. But if you listen closely, enough evidence is there to charge Temer with crimes of corruption.

You can listen to the tape here: https://soundcloud.com/plus55/listen-to-the-audio-that-could-spell-doom-to-brazils-president

After having access to the audio recording, the Supreme Court placed the president under investigation.

Batista discusses his efforts to give laundered money to Cunha in exchange for his silence. Cunha coordinated several corruption schemes during his tenure as Speaker. Since his imprisonment, he has repeatedly attempted to blackmail the political establishment by threatening to reveal his knowledge to authorities.

The businessman says he’d done “everything [he] could,” including “paying up everything he was due.” At one point, this is how the dialogue unfolds:

Batista: What have I managed to do so far? I’m on good terms with Eduardo [Cunha]
Temer: You’ve got to keep that going, okay? (inaudible)
Batista: Every month, yes.
Temer: Yes.
Batista: I’m holding everything together.

In another part of the audio recording, Batista complains about his lack of access to Brazil’s National Development Bank and CADE, the government’s antitrust watchdog. Temer then gives the businessman a green light to harass Brazil’s Finance Minister, Henrique Meirelles. If Meirelles failed to cooperate, Batista should tell him to “speak with the president.”

Batista also comments that he has managed to recruit a mole within Operation Car Wash. At 12’11, he says: “I’ve managed to get to a prosecutor in the task force who’s feeding me information. I’m almost managing to get rid of the guy who’s after me.”

Even if Temer argues that his words have been misinterpreted, this last part is a dagger. When Joesley Batista says that he has an informant within the Federal Prosecution’s Office working to sabotage an ongoing investigation, Temer had the legal obligation to inform authorities.

By not doing so, the President committed a crime.

Protests have broken out across several cities asking for his resignation. Earlier today, Temer guaranteed he would remain in office. But will he be able to?

Cross-posted article by Plus55 on 18 May 2017.

JBS finds itself in the spotlight for the second time this year.

Dirty meat put JBS on the front page in March 2017. Now, dirty money has put the Brazilian meatpackers back in the spotlight. Thanks to the company’s owners, Brazil’s president Michel Temer could now face impeachment.

Joesley and Wesley Batista, the siblings in charge of JBS, met with Temer, Eduardo Cunha and Aécio Neves back in March. The conversation, recorded as part of ongoing corruption investigations, shows Temer asking JBS to bribe Cunha. It also reveals Neves, Minas Gerais state senator and 2018 presidential hopeful, negotiating a R$2 million bribe.

Last night, Brazilian news site O Globo leaked news of the plea deal. JBS triggered a police operation into Neves and fellow congressmen as well as placed President Temer under formal investigation.

What exactly is the story behind the company that sparked Brazil’s current political turmoil? Here goes.

Where did JBS come from?

JBS had humble beginnings. In 1991, Joesley and Wesley employed 60 people in their operations. Today, their company is one of the biggest private companies in Brazil, valued higher than mining giants Vale at 116 billion BRL.

In 2006, despite being one of the largest slaughterhouses in Brazil, JBS wasn’t even one of the country’s 100 biggest companies. But they received serious investments when BNDES, the National Bank for Economic and Social Development, became a primary shareholder.

Between 2007 and 2009, BNDES bought 8.3 billion BRL’s worth of shares in JBS, plus a further 2 billion BRL in loans. No other private company had ever received a sum near this value. JBS began to spark international interest, acquiring Smithfield Beef Group and Pilgrim’s Pride, catching the eye of JP Morgan and other investors.

The brothers expanded internationally after this. As business accelerated in 2012, the brothers opened J&F Investimentos, producing goods from paper and soap to biodiesel. They have 210,000 employees, spread across Brazil and its host countries – Argentina, Uruguay, Italy, Mexico, Canada, the United States and Australia. Today, BNDES owns 24.59% of the company.

How is JBS involved in Operation Car Wash?

JBS was accused of financial crimes in January this year, but agreed to a plea bargain with Brazil’s courts. The leaked recording wreaked havoc on Brazil’s stock market, causing it to suspend activities in order to avoid a crash. But the Batista brothers still stand to make a profit.

The brothers have been trying to centralize their business operations overseas for a couple of years. Almost 80 percent of their sales today are abroad. Their presence is strongest in the US, which has 56 percent of its meat processing plants and almost half of their global sales. Now, the brothers may move abroad along with their business.

While Brazil’s stock market closed for the day to protect the real from falling, the brothers had already invested in dollars. Reports say that the brothers’ purchase of billions of US dollars just before leaking the recording means they profited from the crisis which they created.

Cross-posted article by Plus55 on 18 May 2017.

Currently, Daesh is considered the richest terrorist group in history. Daesh earn $2.9 billion each year thanks to their various sources of income. The main objective of Daesh is to become a real state. As any recognized state, Daesh needs economic power to weigh in the middle-East region Daesh’s economy is mainly based on two different sources:

Raw Materials in the Middle East

The first source of revenue for Daesh is the sale of raw material. Precious resources are easy accessible on Daesh’s territory: oil, natural gas. Iraq possess the fourth biggest oil reserve in the world and Daesh control 15% of the Iraqi oil and 60% of the Syrian oil.

How does Daesh sell its resources?

Daesh sells their oil on the black market, mostly to Jordan and Turkey. The price of set by set by Daesh is 30% lower than the normal market price. Of course, it’s impossible to trace the money and the different transactions. Daesh possess also with its territory in Iraq and Syria important reserves of natural gas. Actually, both Syria and Iraq are in the top 50 countries with the biggest reserve of natural gas.

As a state, Daesh raises different taxes on its territory. In this way, the Islamic State raises taxes on consumption, telecommunication, on local companies, on the freight transport or even for the protection of Christian people.

All the taxes received by the Islamic State brings about $1,000,000 a day to Islamic State.

The international donors are another source of income. Daesh is a Sunnite state and this rivalry between Sunnites and the Shiites represents an economic advantage for the Islamic State. Thus, few countries like Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are Sunnites finance Daesh. With this financing, the objective of these Shiites (such as Iran and Syria’s Bachar) and weaken their influence in the region of the Middle East. By this financing is weak, it brings $150,000 a day.

Pillaging and hostages

But, there are others sources of income such as pillaging and the demand of ransom. The price of hostages varies between 5 and 10 million dollars. Daesh earned more than $110 million with this activity. The pillaging of Mosul, in June 2014, made $3.047 billion dollars. During this pillaging of Mosul and in others banks (gold and cash). Moreover, the Islamic State army take military equipment left by others. This strategy is repeated for each city conquered (seizing of the military material and the financial resources). The traffic of cigarettes, drugs, organs, human being or works of art is of course another “ugly” source of revenue.

A financial Director

The leaders of Islamic State nominate someone to be in charge of their finances. This minister of finance is in charge of the leaders at the local level and the financial management of all of Daesh’s territory. Its role is very important in the functioning of Daesh.

Isis Ressources in Brief:

Conlusion

In conclusion, the principal weak point of the Daesh’s economy is its dependence on natural resources and on its territory. Actually, the majority of the economic power is threatened by the war in the Middle East. If Islamic State yield ground to their enemies, they will lose a lot of precious source of income. However, some experts think that the Daesh’s economy can stay stable without oil trade. The economy is essential for the construction of the Islamic State and for their chances to win the war.  

Source :http://www.economiematin.fr/news-etat-islamique-argent-ressources-daesh, http://www.lefigaro.fr/economie/le-scan-eco/dessous-chiffres/2015/11/19/29006-20151119ARTFIG00006-petrole-taxes-donations-trafics-d-humains-comment-daech-se-finance.php, http://www.20minutes.fr/monde/1748911-20151211-abou-salah-tresorier-daesh-irak-surement-deja-remplace, http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/450/html,
http://www.storybench.org/a-dummys-guide-to-mapping-daesh/

The China Pakistan Economic corridor (CPEC) is dubbed game and fate changer, not only for Pakistan and China but also for the whole region. In my opinion, the CPEC is not only an economic corridor but it has strategic and geopolitical significance as well as diplomatic toolkit of China. The CPEC is a component of China’s One Belt One Road or the OBOR initiative, to build a new silk road connecting Asia, Europe, and Africa. China has prepared to invest $40 billion for building of a new silk road.

The China – Pakistan economic corridor was firstly proposed in May 2013 to Pakistan by China. After green signal from Pakistani authorities, Chinese President – Xi Jinping – visited Pakistan in April 2015. During this visit, President Xi and Prime Minister Mohammad Nawaz Sharief signed a number of agreements, with an estimated value of $46 billion. Under the CPEC China has announced $46 billion investment projects to infrastructure and energy for Pakistan. The infrastructure projects include motorways, railways, dams, hydropower, and others. It is true to say that the economic corridor will help to boost the economy of Pakistan dramatically. The GDP of Pakistan is expected to increase up to 2.5 percent, and 700,000 jobs would be produced by 2030.

The CPEC is an ambitious plan for regional connection by China. The economic corridor connects Chinese Muslim dominated Xingang province to Gwadar deep sea port of Pakistan. The economic corridor, is only 32,00 km long, and it has planned to link Nowadays, almost 80 percent of Chinese oil is transported from Strait of Malacca to Shanghai, and the distance of more than 16,000 km with estimated travel time 8 to 12 weeks. Once the economic corridor would become operational, the distance would be reduced to 50,00km.

Although, from China and Pakistan’s perspective, the CPEC is game changer and fate changer, yet as an independent analyst’s viewpoint it seems to me a new great game.

Despite its obvious few privileges for Pakistan, CPEC is still controversial issue in the country. Local traders and manufactures are afraid that the CPEC poses new challenges for the domestic industrial sector. They are skeptical that China’s cheap production would overwhelm in the local markets and domestic production would not be consumed. Consequently, local industry would bear the burnt of the CPEC.

Secondly, the separatist movements of Baluchistan are not satisfied about the CPEC. The Gwadar Port, an epicenter of the CPEC, lies in insurgent province of Baluchistan. The separatist movement Baloch can be a toolkit for the proxy wars of opponents of the CPEC. This fact becomes clear from the buttress of India to Baloch separatist Brahamdagh Bugti. More importantly, an Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav has been arrested from the province of Baluchistan. It is alleged that he was in charge of to shore up the insurgent Baloch people and ruin the peace of Baluchistan; thus, the dream of the CPEC would not be materialized.

Thirdly, Sindh and Khaber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) are the most important provinces of Pakistan that have shown their concern about the CPEC. Sindh and KPK are of view that million share of the investment projects of the CPEC that has been given to an influential province Punjab, and smaller provinces have been neglected from the investments. Thus, the CPEC is only for Punjab but not for other provinces of the county.

India is not pleased with the CPEC, because CPEC is passing through Gilgit Balistan, a disputed region between Pakistan and India. Merely two months after China’s announcement of the CPEC projects, it has showed its concerns about the economic corridor. India maintains that the CPEC is crossing the territory of Gilgit Baltistan, a part of disputed Kashmir region, is territory of India. Indian government is afraid that after the completion of the CPEC projects, Kashmir would get more attention of international community. India does not want to internationalize the Kashmir dispute. It is scared that once the Kashmir dispute becomes internationalized dispute, the world community would force India to solve it peacefully. However, solving the Kashmir problem is against Indian interest.  Majority of Kashmiri people are Muslims; and they do not want to be part of India. Therefore, India would do everything to sabotage the CPEC.

Furthermore, India does not want any investment which would support the economy of Pakistan. India is an arch-enemy of Pakistan. If the economy of Pakistan becomes stable it would increase the resources of defense industry, which is also against Indian defense industry.

Moreover, there is apprehension in India that after completion of the CPEC, China would not be neutral about Kashmir dispute. China has tried to convince India the fact that the CPEC is an economic corridor and nothing else. Yet India is skeptical about the CPEC. There is possibility that India would not be silent. Thus, whenever India would try to sabotage the CPEC, China would not be neutral, because the CPEC is a key to One Belt One road (OBOR) initiative of China.

Additionally, it is maintained that there is considerable concern of India about growing influence of China in Indian Ocean. Relationship between India and China are not clear. Both of the countries are trying to get hegemonic position in Asia. Hence, the CPEC is not acceptable to India in any condition. That’s why some experts claim that India has invested secret funds for damaging the CPEC. However, some experts declared that the CPEC would persuade India to join. According to their views, the CPEC is beneficial for India for trade purposes with Central Asian countries (CARs) and Afghanistan. In my opinion, it is misconception. In long run the CPEC will not be beneficial for India, because India has other options to trade with the CARs countries such as Chabahar Port of Iran.

Another significant factor, which could convert the CPEC is the clash of interests of China, Japan and the United States in the region. Firstly, Japan is a skeptical about the China’s OBOR initiative, which is key scheme of the CPEC. Moreover, it is controversial to economic interest of Japan, because it diminishes the strategic position of Japan in the region. Secondly, the USA is trying to hold its hegemonic position in the region. The CPEC and OBOR are eliminating hegemonic position of the USA in the region. Therefore, it seems to me very clear that in near future all the opponents of the CPEC, whose interests are shattered, would be united against the idea of the CPEC and OBOR. Therefore, there would be a new great game in the region, and CPEC is not a game changer but a toolkit of a new great game.

Edited by Yana Mayzenger