05.06.2013: TALKING TURKEY - WHAT' S GOING ON IN TAKSIM?

Written by Justin Raimondo

A small non-violent protest against the development – some would say over-development – of Istanbul’s Taksim Square has turned into the Turkish equivalent of the Tahrir Square protests in Cairo, Egypt, that brought down Hosni Mubarak, that country’s pro-US dictator. What do the Taksim Square protesters want? Or, rather more to the point in this case, what don’t they want? Initially, the protests were over the plans by the Turkish government to turn over a public park and surrounding small shops to its crony capitalist allies. Politically-connected “entrepreneurs” got the green light from authorities to destroy one of Istanbul’s last green spaces to build a shopping mall and a historic recreation of the old Ottoman military barracks in what is the epicenter of Istanbul’s crowded urban scene. A spontaneous protest grew up over the plans, with a non-violent resistance campaign launched on the site by locals fed up with the transformation of their city into a combination tourist trap and symbol of Ottoman revivalism.

29.05.2013: FORMING A COMMON ENERGY DOCTRINE FOR GREECE & CYPRUS

Written by Stavros Karkaletsis*


If the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean were regions of extremely vital strategic importance for decades, today, it’s a common acknowledgement  that  the  importance of this particular area has become even greater. This is one of the three or maybe, four “hot” spots (heart lands) in the planet, where huge interests (lately and also economic) are crossed and also confronted, where projection of power by global and peripheral powers is confirmed. The Aegean and the East. Mediterranean form as endings, two maritime passages of incalculable economic and strategic value: The passage of Dardanelia and the Suez Canal. So, especially, the Aegean and the sea area at the south of Crete are becoming vitals to all the states of the Black Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East.

09.05.2013: POLITICS OF ETHNICITY IN NORTH AFRICA

Written by Morris Mottale*

Contemporary international politics has seen a phenomenon in the Arab world that has been dubbed the Arab Spring. It began on December 17, 2010 in Tunisia where a young fruit vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, committed suicide by burning himself to give vent to his grievances against the system that he thought had treated him arbitrarily and tyrannically in denying him economic opportunities. The episode sparked an uprising where the autocratic ruler of Tunisia, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, a military man who had taken over in a bloodless coup when the founder of the modern Tunisian Republic, Habib Bourguiba, became incapable of continuing his rule. The Tunisian example sparked popular and populist demands for political reform in the entire Arab-Islamic world from Morocco through Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and Syria. Such developments brought about the demise and violent death of Libyan strongman Muammar al-Gaddafi, followed by the defenestration of Hosni Mubarak in Cairo, and the replacement after much violence, of the Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh.

16.05.2013: NO INTERVENTION IN SYRIA

Written by Sheldon Richman*

If after the debacles in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya (dare I say Vietnam?) some people still want the U.S. government to intervene — further — in the war inside Syria (but fueled by outsiders), we must conclude, not that they can’t learn the lessons of recent history, but that they won’t because doing so would be contrary to their assorted political, ideological, and material interests. It is quite clear that the U.S. military is powerless to make things better in Syria. That’s right. For all the trillions spent on the national-security state and global empire, the United States stands as a pitiful giant on the Middle East stage. Sure, it could increase the bloodshed on the ground and perhaps even cause the release of chemical agents. Indeed, it could even turn the dominant al-Qaeda-related rebels, some of them the same jihadists the U.S. government fought in Iraq, into a better-armed force. As the New York Times reports,

29.04.2013: ARMENIA, GEORGIA & AZERBAIJAN > BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE WEST

Written by Kevork Oskanian*

Since their independence, the three South Caucasian states have come to adopt widely divergent strategic responses to the complex structural realities underlying their region’s security landscape. Following the 2003 Rose Revolution, Georgia became unequivocally pro-Western: the goals of EU and NATO integration were firmly inscribed in two National Security Concepts, adopted in 2006 and 2011, which were recently confirmed in a rare bi-partisan parliamentary resolution uniting the otherwise fractious supporters of President Saakashvili and Prime Minister Ivanishvili. Over the past ten years, Armenia’s pro-Russian orientation has, if anything, deepened, with Moscow gaining control of Yerevan’s strategic industries and extending its basing rights till 2044; the Sargsyan regime has nevertheless maintained some elements of a ‘complementary’ foreign policy, most importantly an active engagement with the European Union, and, to a lesser extent, NATO. 

14.09.2017: Ο ΣΑΒΒΑΣ ΚΑΛΕΝΤΕΡΙΔΗΣ ΓΙΑ ΤΟ ΔΗΜΟΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ ΣΤΟ ΚΟΥΡΔΙΣΤΑΝ (ΠΗΓΗ: ΤasTV/Πέλλα)
27.09.2017: Ο Καθηγ. ΧΡΙΣΤΟΔΟΥΛΟΣ ΓΙΑΛΛΟΥΡΙΔΗΣ ΣΤΟΝ ΣΚΑΙ
You are here: Home