அரசியல் பிரச்சாரத்தின் ஆதாரக் கோட்பாடு

========================================================================================================

அரசியல் பிரச்சாரத்தின் ஆதாரக் கோட்பாடு.

'' நீதி, மதம், அரசியல், சமுதாயம் சம்பந்தமான எல்லாவித சொல்லடுக்குகளுக்கும் பிரகடனங்களுக்கும் வாக்குறுதிகளுக்கும் பின்னே ஏதாவதொரு வர்க்கத்தின் நலன்கள் ஒழிந்து நிற்பதைக் கண்டுகொள்ள மக்கள் தெரிந்துகொள்ளாத வரையில் அரசியலில் அவர்கள் முட்டாள்தனமான ஏமாளிகளாகவும் தம்மைத் தாமே ஏமாற்றிக்கொள்வோராகவும் இருந்தனர், எப்போதும் இருப்பார்கள். பழைய ஏற்பாடு ஒவ்வொன்றும் எவ்வளவுதான் காட்டு மிராண்டித் தனமாகவும் அழுகிப் போனதாகவும் தோன்றிய போதிலும் ஏதாவது ஒரு ஆளும்வர்க்கத்தின் சக்தியைக் கொண்டு அது நிலைநிறுத்தப்பட்டு வருகிறது. சீர்திருத்தங்கள், அபிவிருத்திகள் ஆகியவற்றின் ஆதரவாளர்கள் இதை உணராத வரையில் பழைய அமைப்பு முறையின் பாதுகாவலர்கள் அவர்களை என்றென்றும் முட்டாளாக்கிக் கொண்டே இருப்பார்கள். இந்த வர்க்கங்களின் எதிர்ப்பைத் தகர்த்து ஒழிப்பதற்கு ஒரே ஒரு வழிதான் உண்டு. அது என்ன?

பழைமையைத் துடைத்தெறியவும் புதுமையைச் சிருக்ஷ்டிக்கவும் திறன் பெற்றவையும், சமுதாயத்தில் தாங்கள் வகிக்கும் ஸ்தானத்தின் காரணமாக அப்படிச் சிருக்ஷ்டித்துக் தீரவேண்டிய நிர்ப்பந்தத்திலிருக்கிறவையுமான சக்திகளை, நம்மைச் சூழ்ந்துள்ள இதே சமுதாயத்துக்குள்ளேயே நாம் கண்டுபிடித்து, அந்தச் சக்திகளுக்கு ஞானமூட்டிப் போராட்டத்துக்கு ஸ்தாபன ரீதியாகத் திரட்ட வேண்டும். இது ஒன்றேதான் வழி. ''

மாமேதை தோழர் லெனின்
===========================================================================================================================

Friday, 22 July 2016

Turexit: Should Turkey leave NATO?

ஆட்சிக்கவிழ்ப்பு முயல்வுக்குப் பின் துருக்கி -3




Turexit: Should Turkey leave NATO?
If Turkey leaves NATO, the risks to its security are minimal - but the alliance would suffer if it quits.
by Marwan Bishara

Marwan Bishara is the senior political analyst at Al Jazeera.

Ever since Turkey joined NATO in 1952, Ankara has viewed its membership in alliance as a win-win proposition, where NATO enhances Turkey's security and contributes to its integration with the Euro-Atlantic community, and in return, Turkey assumes its responsibilities in defending the interests of the alliance.

But the past few years have put much strain on the relationship, as NATO proves unable or unwilling to stem the tide of mounting regional instability caused by the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) group against the backdrop of the civil wars in Iraq and Syria on Turkey's doorsteps.

And last week, the failed coup seemed to deepening distrust between Turkey and its NATO allies.

US Secretary of State John Kerry warned that exploiting the coup to crack down on its detractors and undermine its democracy, could cost Turkey its NATO membership.

But regardless of the seriousness of the US warning - and I think it's not serious - will Ankara continue to be part of NATO, especially when its attempts to join the European Union have all but failed?


Inside Story - Are Turkey's military bases safe after the failed coup?

Asset or burden?

The US has long embraced Turkey as a strategic asset, regardless of the latter's abuse of democracy.

For decades, Washington has maintained close strategic relations with Ankara despite - or thanks to - four military coups, in 1960, 1971, 1980, 1997, and even after its invasion of Cyprus in 1974.

But reading the mainstream Western media gives the impression that Turkey under the Erdogan administration has become hostile to Western interests; a "strategic liability", an "irresponsible loose cannon", or a "reckless, aggressive ally" and a "fifth column".

Is any of this true?

Not according to retired NATO Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis. He argued in a recent Foreign Policy magazine expose that Turkey has been present in "virtually every NATO operation with significant impact: training Afghan Security Forces and leading coalition efforts in the central district, including Kabul; sending ships and aircraft to Libya; participating in counterpiracy operations; maintaining a steady presence in the security and peacekeeping force in the Balkans".

Contrary to huffs and puffs coming out of Washington and Paris, Turkey's experience shows that its NATO membership guarantees it can do what it pleases internally as long as it serves US and NATO externally.

Moreover, according to Stavridis - who is considered by Hillary Clinton as a running mate - Turkey has an "enormous ability" to influence events, "from the Islamic State to Syria; Israel to oil and gas in the eastern Mediterranean; responding to radical Islam to stability in Egypt".

In short, the record shows that Turkey under the Erdogan administration has been a major NATO asset; indeed, it's been more of a benefactor than benefiter from the alliance.

Enthusiastic member

The Justice and Development Party (AK party) seems as enthusiastic for doing NATO's bidding if not more than its secular nationalist predecessors; or even its Western allies. And it sees a new, greater role for itself and NATO in the Middle East moving forward.

Since NATO's first "out of area" operations in Afghanistan in 2001, Turkey has argued that it's best situated to contribute to such interventions considering the instability in the greater Middle East area.

OPINION: Turkey US - What's the problem?

Former Turkish Foreign and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu went further to urge Europe to support change in the Middle East as it did in Eastern Europe, and vowing that "Turkey will continue to be an asset and an influential actor within NATO if future needs arise, or further NATO involvement in the Middle East" (PDF).

But that, in my view, is not necessarily constructive for Turkey or the Middle East region. Certainly not after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and not when Turkey is treated as a foot soldier in an alliance of powerful Western states.

OPINION: Turkey - Coup 'silence' and pointing fingers at the West

Despite repeated terrorist attacks in Istanbul and other Turkish cities, Turks feel as though their specific worries and interests are "not respected" within the North Atlantic Council.

Instead of being friends and allies on equal terms, the US and its European allies continue to speak down at Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Turkey - most recently France's foreign minister, who was told to mind his own business.

All of which begs the question: what happens if Ankara is suspended or it breaks away from the alliance?

The alternative and its consequences

If Turkey leaves NATO, the risks to its security are minimal. It has a bigger military and higher defence spending than any one of its neighbours or its NATO allies, with the exception of the US.

True, its relations with its neighbours aren't great, but Ankara has tried to improve them over the past few weeks and months, especially by mending fences with Israel and Russia.

In fact, before the coup, Turkey was reportedly heading, once again, towards a more pragmatic non-interventionist "zero-problems" diplomacy towards its neighbours.

Member countries' flags are seen in front of the NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium [Getty]
But one can't say the same for NATO; the alliance will suffer if Turkey quits.

First, it'll be exposed for being a military club of influential, predominantly Christian nations with grave consequences to its out-of-area operations.

Second, NATO will find it far more challenging, if not totally improbable, to win the war against ISIL.

Third, if Turkey were to destabilise, the repercussions would be grave for Europe, and could potentially strengthen ISIL.

Fourth, It will embolden Russia to act more aggressively in the region. And fifth, the US and NATO would lose their five major military facilities in Turkey.

So will Turkey leave NATO?

Realistically, Turkey doesn't have solid alternative options to NATO or the EU.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is more of a forum than anything resembling an alliance. And the same goes for BRICS.

Yet, for all the practical purposes, the Erdogan administration has almost given up on its EU membership in frustration, and is moving further away from it as it rejects the EU's demands to revise its anti-terror laws and potentially legalise capital punishment.

But Ankara will hang tight to its NATO membership - more for its political than military benefits.

Contrary to huffs and puffs coming out of Washington and Paris, Turkey's experience shows that its NATO membership guarantees it can do what it pleases internally as long as it serves US and NATO externally.

Judging from President Barack Obama's phone call to President Erdogan this week, the US is holding tight to its Turkish ally. Likewise, if Admiral Starvidis's recommendations are anything to go by, so will Clinton.

So as Erdogan strengthens his grip over the country's military and political establishment, Turkey and NATO will continue to embrace each other, and probably increase visit exchanges, improve their lines of communications and intensify the cooperation against ISIL.

Marwan Bishara is the senior political analyst at Al Jazeera. Follow him on Facebook.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Source: Al Jazeera
=============




Thursday, 21 July 2016

ஆட்சிக்கவிழ்ப்பு முயல்வுக்குப் பின் துருக்கி-2




Turkey’s Failed Coup: “A Gift from God” or from Washington?

By Tony Cartalucci
Global Research, July 18, 2016

USA-Turkey

The coup this weekend that rocked Turkey was a particularly spectacular geopolitical development. Theories abound regarding who was behind it and their motivations for carrying out what ultimately proved an apparently failed attempt at removing the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Still, it is too early to tell, as facts are far from forthcoming. However, it is possible to discern the most plausible possibilities based on the subsequent actions taken by various potential players who may have been involved in the coup attempt.

US Faces Serious Accusations 

The most significant of these actions is President Erdogan’s own accusations against the United States for having engineered the coup in collaboration with self-exiled Turkish political figure, Fethullah Gulen.

The UK Independent in its article, “Turkey coup: Tensions between US and Erdogan administration rise after failed power grab,” would report that:

Tensions between Turkey and the US have escalated following the attempted coup against the Erdogan administration, with the country’s leader demanding the extradition of a US-based cleric accused of orchestrating the violence. Another senior official has directly blamed the United States.

Indeed, tensions “rising” might seem like an understatement if Turkey truly believed the US was behind the coup attempt. In essence, Turkey is accusing the United States of backing an attempted assassination of Turkey’s president, the bombing of the Turkish parliament building, the strafing of Turkish citizens from the air, and the deployment of heavy armor in Turkey’s streets.

In essence, Turkey has accused the United States of an overt and egregious act of war.

Turkey’s Actions Fall Short Vis-a-Vis the Scale of its Accusations

However, considering the gravity of Turkey’s accusations against the United States, its actions so far have been disproportionately subdued. No one is suggesting that Turkey would “go to war” with the United States, but even amid diplomatic rows of far lesser significance, nations have expelled diplomats and withdrawn the use of their territory for specific uses by the nation in question. Turkey, so far, has done none of this in regards to the United States.

In the coming week, should Turkey fail to take even these most basic punitive – even cautionary measures, it would appear Turkey’s accusations are a distraction – but a distraction from what?

The Purge. 

The BBC in its article, “Turkey coup arrests hit 6,000 as Erdogan roots out ‘virus’,” reports that:

Arrests in Turkey after Friday’s failed coup have risen to around 6,000, with President Erdogan vowing to purge state bodies of the “virus” that caused it.

At a funeral for one of the victims, Mr Erdogan again blamed US-based Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen for the plot. Mr Gulen strongly denies any involvement.

High-ranking military officers and 2,700 judges are among those held.

Beyond Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, one would be hard pressed to cite a political purge of this scale. Despite the sweeping scale of the mass arrests – the Western media has reported on them without the sensational hysteria that generally accompanies the arrest of even one US-backed opposition member in any other nation. The scale of the arrests are such that preparations for them must have been made ahead of time, calling into question the very nature of the coup itself.

The Coup Was a “Gift From God” 

A Reuters report titled, “Turkey rounds up plot suspects after thwarting coup against Erdogan,” would state (emphasis added):

“They will pay a heavy price for this,” said Erdogan, launching a purge of the armed forces, which last used force to stage a successful coup more than 30 years ago. “This uprising is a gift from God to us because this will be a reason to cleanse our army.”

President Erdogan, heading a NATO-member state and a stalwart US ally, receiving a “gift from God” from an alleged political opponent lodging in the United States, raises serious suspicions over the true motivation behind the coup. While it appeared as a convincing attempt to oust President Erdogan from power, it ultimately failed and instead provided him with the perfect context to uproot the military “deep state” both his political allies and US policymakers have sought to eradicate for decades.

Despite the apparent “rift” between the United States and Turkey’s president, it should be noted that for the past 5 years particularly, President Erdogan and his government have played a key role in US-led regime change operations in neighboring Syria. It was President Erdogan’s anti-secular factions, including factions within Turkish intelligence and within the military itself, that trained, armed, equipped, and provided cover for terrorists operating within, along, and over the Turkish-Syrian border.

Without President Erdogan’s stalwart support, US designs in Syria would have been untenable even before they began. While the US poses as “fighting” terrorist organizations in Syria, it has consistently neglected any attempt to secure the Turkish-Syrian border over which the summation of material support for these terrorist organizations is passing. It must be remembered that not only are the US and Turkey cooperating in regards to Syria, the US has troops stationed within Turkey itself, engaged in various aspects of the ongoing violence in Syria.

US intelligence agencies have admittedly operated along the Turkish-Syrian border since as early as the beginning of 2012, according to the New York Times article, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid,”

A Crucial Litmus Test 

If the world is expected to believe accusations by Turkey regarding US involvement in the recent coup attempt, Turkey must materialize significant changes in its foreign policy.

This would include the expulsion of US forces from Turkish territory, including from Incirlik Air Base as well as from along Turkey’s border with Syria.

The expulsion of US diplomats and the closure of America’s substantially large embassy, diplomatic, and military complex in Ankara would also be expected in the wake of an act of war on this scale.

Additionally, Turkey would be expected to reevaluate its membership within NATO – an alliance that failed to come to Turkey’s aid amid a military attack upon it by one of NATO’s own members. One would wonder what the utility was of an alliance predicated on “collective defense” that is more likely to eliminate one of its own members, than a foreign enemy.

Finally, considering Turkey’s accusations against the United States, Ankara would be expected to realign itself geopolitically. This would mean closer ties to Europe, Russia, and Iran – among others. In order to do this, however, Turkey would have to end its role in the destruction of Syria which has resulted in a torrent of refugees flooding Europe,  and in a conflict that has cost Russians and Iranians their lives as they fight to restore peace and stability across their ally Syria’s territory.

Turkey Likely Will Change Foreign Policy for the Worse, Not the Better 

In all likelihood however, none of these changes will take place – indicating before the entire world that the coup was staged – not against Turkey – but in part by it, with the help of not only the United States, but also Gulen’s political faction. It will represent a 21st century “Reichstag fire” leading to a 21st century “Hitlerian purge,” removing the last remaining obstacles to President Erdogan and the corrosive institutions he has constructed in their collective bid to seize absolute power over Turkey.

And quite to the contrary of those changes one would expect Turkey to make if truly the US engineered this coup to oust, not abet Erdogan, Turkey is very likely to double down on hostility toward neighboring Syria and its allies.

ஆட்சிக்கவிழ்ப்பு முயல்வுக்கு பின் துருக்கி - 1



Turkey's Prospects After the Coup Attempt

Interviewer: Zachary Laub, Online Writer/Editor
July 18, 2016

U.S. and EU officials have called on Turkey to show restraint amid concerns that Friday's failed coup attempt will be the pretext for an authoritarian crackdown. Turkey’s ability to investigate the putsch will be compromised by the fact that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has repressed the media and weakened the judiciary, says Kemal Kirisci, of the Brookings Institution. The coup attempt will likely bolster Erdoğan’s efforts to consolidate power, and that will make any investigation into the true causes of the coup difficult, Kirisci says.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has pinned responsibility on the cleric Fethullah Gülen, who lives in self-imposed exile in the United States. Is that credible?

It is possible [that the Gülen movement is responsible], but this needs to be thoroughly investigated. The [Turkish] government has long argued that Fethullah Gülen leads a parallel state from Pennsylvania, where he has been living since 1997. The journalist and academic Ali Bayramoğlu has said that the movement, going back to the 1980s and early 1990s, began to systematically place their students in the police and military academies. These students were closely monitored and accompanied.

Other commentators have argued that it's unbelievable how F-16 pilots, on whom the state has spent more than a million dollars each to educate, attacked the Turkish parliament, military headquarters, intelligence services, and communications centers. How can a well-trained, prestigious F-16 pilot do this unless they are deeply attached to a cause? The movement also [includes] high-ranking judges and officers, including many one-star generals, who have been arrested.

Erdoğan has renewed his calls on the United States to extradite Gülen. Is this more plausible after the attempted coup?

Turkey has for a long time been seeking Gülen’s extradition, but the United States has not been cooperative, saying there was not enough evidence to build a case. However, the [U.S.-Turkey] extradition treaty refers to an obligation to extradite anyone who attempts to assassinate the leaders of one or the other country. There clearly was an attempt to assassinate Erdoğan: the hotel where he had been staying was attacked, and there was an attempt to control the airport where he was supposed to land. A necessary condition of extradition is that a convincing connection between the coup and the sought-after person is established; that should be the focus of cooperation.

Many analysts expect that Erdoğan will use the attempt as a pretense to invest the presidency with full executive powers, as he’s long sought.

The difficult issue will be to assess Erdoğan’s accusations independent of his political ends. Many commentators say the allegations put forward by the government serve his political aspirations: Erdoğan has become, de facto, the executive president of Turkey, but he wants to introduce an element of legality to it, which will require either a constitutional amendment or a completely new constitution. Opinion polls just before the coup suggested that the public, even supporters of [the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP)], did not look favorably on it. This kind of threat to the system gives him considerable leverage [to codify an executive presidency], and I suspect he will follow that path rather than what some commentators are calling for, bringing the polarized country to a consensus through dialogue.

How to sort that out from the pursuit of the truth will be a difficult exercise, and I’m not sure today’s Turkey is equipped to do it, given the way the media has been repressed and the judiciary has been brought under the influence, if not control, of the government. These measures raise serious doubts about Turkey’s ability to investigate this within the realm of the rule of law.

The Incirlik air base, from which a U.S.-led coalition carries out air strikes against the self-proclaimed Islamic State, just reopened after a temporary closure. Will the coup attempt 
have broader implications for the anti-ISIS campaign?

Cooperation on ISIS is important, but much more so is the future of democracy in Turkey. A Turkey that is democratic is a Turkey of the rule of law, and a secular Turkey is one in which sympathy for such extremist groups is much less. Such a Turkey shares common values with the West, which makes cooperation much easier.

It looks like a large number of officers—colonels as well as one-star generals—were involved, and so the Turkish military is going to experience a period of weakness. That’s where U.S. cooperation, on intelligence and counterterrorism, is critical. Such cooperation demands trust. That trust will partially, but importantly, be a function of [cooperation over] the Gülenist dossier.

The United States and Turkey are going to have to find a way to cooperate over the PYD (Kurdish Democratic Union Party). [Editor’s note: the United States backs the Syrian Kurdish party’s militant wing, the YPG, to combat the Islamic State; Turkey says the group has aided its compatriots in Turkey, the PKK, whose insurgency against the state resumed in July 2015]. The United States enjoys leverage over the PYD, and now it’s ever more important that it keeps the PYD in line so it does not become involved in the conflict in Turkey and strengthen the hand of the PKK while Turkey is vulnerable.

Turkey hosts roughly three million refugees and the country is party to an agreement with the EU to stem migration to Europe. What will EU-Turkey relations look like in the aftermath of the coup attempt?

If the perpetrators had gained control of government, it would have led to civil war, so the very fact that the coup attempt collapsed is saving Europe from waves of Turkish asylum seekers. The EU will need to expand its basis of cooperation with Turkey, because this coup attempt will adversely impact Turkey’s ability to deal with these refugees. There will likely be a purge from some of the bureaucracies and organizations that deal with them.

More broadly, both U.S.-Turkey and EU-Turkey ties have been strained lately. Will the Turkey’s alliance with the West come out on stronger footing after their condemnation of the coup attempt?

Helping with the investigation to establish the truth will be critical. The way in which, at the end of the day, [the EU and United States came out] with support for the elected government, just as Turkish opposition parties did, should entitle them to some influence, calling on Turkey to live up to the norms, standards, and values of democratic society.

The EU and United States together must reanchor Turkey solidly within the Western alliance. Erdoğan, as much as [the United States and EU member-states] may resent him or disagree with policies, must be made to feel that he's welcome back in the ranks, the way he was between 2003 and 2010, on the condition he reforms his policies.

Erdoğan and the people around him, especially [former Prime Minister Ahmet] Davutoglu, had delusions of grandeur. They dreamed they were going to lead the ummah, the Islamic world. This is all gone now: the emperor is naked. Erdoğan seems to recognize Turkey has boxed itself into a corner and wants to come out in the direction of the West. There is nowhere else to go. Turkey needs tourism, international trade, and foreign investment, and to protect its national security. On all these grounds it needs cooperation, and it’s not going to come from Iran, China, or Russia, even if that might be their preference. It can only come from the West.

Turkey may also recognize that the West is in trouble too, and if the West cannot come out of that trouble, Turkey will be in even deeper trouble. Brexit is going to have a negative impact on Turkey's export market and tourism. An EU in trouble is not going to be able to give visa liberalization to Turkish nationals, which symbolically will anchor Turkey in the West, and is also important economically. If the EU and United States move to the right and say no to free trade agreements [and migration], Turkey will not benefit. Both sides need each other even more than in the past.

This interview has been condensed and edited by CFR.

Monday, 18 July 2016

England MPs vote to renew Trident Nuclear weapons system

England MPs vote to renew Trident Nuclear weapons system: The vote approves the manufacture of four replacement submarines at a current estimated cost of £31bn.

England MPs have backed the renewal of the UK's Trident nuclear weapons system, voting 472 to 117 in favour in Parliament.
The vote approves the manufacture of four replacement submarines at a current estimated cost of £31bn.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told MPs nuclear threats were growing around the world and Trident "puts doubts in the minds of our adversaries".

Labour was split over the issue with about 60% of MPs defying leader Jeremy Corbyn and backing the government.

Although Labour MPs were given a free vote, many used the occasion to attack Mr Corbyn, who is a longstanding opponent of nuclear weapons.

Although the official figures have yet to be confirmed, the BBC has been told that 138 Labour MPs voted with the government, while 48 abstained and 35 voted against.

The SNP opposed the move, saying nuclear weapons were "immoral" and the continued stationing of submarines on the Clyde could accelerate moves towards independence.

After the vote, the SNP said the government "must respect Scotland's clear decision against Trident renewal and remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde".

'Serious investment'
The vote, by a majority of 355, came at the end of a five-hour debate, in which Theresa May spoke at the despatch box for the first time as prime minister.

She said it would be an "act of gross irresponsibility" for the UK to abandon the continuous-at-sea weapons system.

Although preparatory work on renewal is already under way, Monday's vote gives the final green light to a new fleet of submarines which are due to come into service by the early 2030s.
Demonstrations against TridentImage copyrightPA

Summing up, Mr Fallon said Trident had helped protect the UK for more than 50 years and to disown it now would be to "gamble the long-term security of our citizens".

The UK faced growing threats from rogue nations, such as North Korea, as well as a more assertive Russia, he said.

"Nuclear weapons are here, they are not going to disappear," he said. "It is the role of government to make sure we can defend ourselves against them."

While acknowledging Trident was a "serious investment", Mr Fallon rejected claims it was a Cold War relic and could be increasingly vulnerable to cyber attacks.

The UK, he insisted, was committed to multilateral nuclear disarmament and would reduce its stockpile of nuclear warheads to 180 by the mid-2020s.

Meanwhile, Labour's policy is in flux amid continuing divisions at the top of the party. Labour endorsed Trident renewal at the last election and although Mr Corbyn and his allies oppose it, a policy review on the issue has yet to be completed.

A succession of Labour MP accused Mr Corbyn of opposing official party policy by arguing against it at this stage, one accusing him of being "juvenile and narcissistic".

Sunday, 17 July 2016

இன்றைய உலக முரண்பாடு பற்றி

THE BIG PICTURE 
 பரந்த பார்வை

அபரிமித அராஜக உலகமய உற்பத்திமுறையே உலகின் அடிப்படை முரண்பாடு


உலக மறுபங்கீடே உலகின் பிரதான முரண்பாடு.

உலகில் எந்த ஒரு நாட்டின்,தேசத்தின்,சோசலிச,
புதிய ஜனநாயக,தேசிய புரட்சி இயக்கமும்,

ஏற்றத்தாழ்வான பொருள் உற்பத்தி வளர்ச்சி காரணமாக

இனத்துவ,மதத்துவ விடுதலைப்
போர் இயக்கமும்,

இம் முரண்பாடுகளின்
வெளிப்படையும்,
அவற்றுக்கு கீழ்ப்பட்டவையுமே ஆகும்!


Friday, 15 July 2016

எந்தப்பாதையில் ஈழ மக்கள்?


சிங்களத்தின் இறைமைக்கு உட்பட்டதே சிறப்பு நீதிமன்றம்- அமெரிக்கா


“ஜெனிவா தீர்மானம் இலங்கையின் இறைமையை முழுமையாக மதிக்கிறது. சிறப்பு நீதிமன்றத்தின் கட்டமைப்பு மற்றும் உள்ளடக்கத்தை தீர்மானிப்பது, இலங்கை அரசாங்கத்தைப் பொறுத்த விடயம்.

தமது இறைமைக்குட்பட்ட வரையறைக்குள் இருந்து கொண்டே, பல்வேறு மட்டங்களில் அனைத்துலக பங்களிப்பைப் பெற்றுக் கொள்ள முடியும் என்று இலங்கை வாக்குறுதியைக் கொடுத்திருக்கிறது.



போர்க்குற்றங்கள் தொடர்பான சிறப்பு நீதிமன்றத்தின் கட்டமைப்பு மற்றும் உள்ளடக்கத்தை தீர்மானிப்பது, இலங்கை அரசாங்கத்தைப் பொறுத்த விடயம் என்று, அமெரிக்க இராஜாங்கத் திணைக்களத்தின் ஜனநாயகம்,  மனித உரிமைகள், மற்றும் தொழிலாளர் விவகாரங்களுக்கான உதவிச் செயலர் ரொம் மாலினோவ்ஸ்கி தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

அமெரிக்க இராஜாங்கத் திணைக்களத்தின் தெற்கு மத்திய ஆசிய விவகாரங்களுக்கான உதவிச்செயலர் நிஷா பிஸ்வாலுடன் இணைந்து இலங்கைக்கு மேற்கொண்ட பயணத்தின் முடிவில் நேற்றிரவு கொழும்பில் செய்தியாளர்களைச் சந்தித்த போதே அவர் இவ்வாறு கூறியுள்ளார்.

போர்க்குற்றங்கள் தொடர்பான சிறப்பு நீதிமன்றத்தில் வெளிநாட்டு நீதி்பதிகளை உள்ளடக்கும் விவகாரம் தொடர்பாக எழுப்பப்பட்ட கேள்வி ஒன்றுக்குப் பதிலளித்த ரொம் மாலினோவ்ஸ்கி,

“ஜெனிவா தீர்மானம் இலங்கையின் இறைமையை முழுமையாக மதிக்கிறது. சிறப்பு நீதிமன்றத்தின் கட்டமைப்பு மற்றும் உள்ளடக்கத்தை தீர்மானிப்பது, இலங்கை அரசாங்கத்தைப் பொறுத்த விடயம்.

தமது இறைமைக்குட்பட்ட வரையறைக்குள் இருந்து கொண்டே, பல்வேறு மட்டங்களில் அனைத்துலக பங்களிப்பைப் பெற்றுக் கொள்ள முடியும் என்று இலங்கை வாக்குறுதியைக் கொடுத்திருக்கிறது.

இலங்கை நீதிமன்றங்களின் மீதான அவநம்பிக்கைகளால் தான் இந்த வாக்குறுதி அளிக்கப்பட்டது. மீண்டும் நம்பிக்கையைக் கட்டியெழுப்புவது என்பதை இலக்காகக் கொண்டு தான், ஒட்டுமொத்த பொறுப்புக்கூறல் செயல்முறைகள் தொடர்பாகவும், இந்த வாக்குறுதி  புரிந்துணர்வு அடிப்படையில் கொடுக்கப்பட்டது.

நீதிமன்றங்களில் அனைத்துலக பங்களிப்பு  குறிப்பிடத்தக்க ஒரு விடயமாக இருக்கவில்லை.

ஏனைய நாடுகளுக்கு இலங்கை தனது நீதித்துறை நிபுணத்துவப் பங்களிப்பை வழங்கியிருக்கிறது. ஒருவேளை இலங்கையும் அதிலிருந்து பயன்பெறலாம்” என்றும் அவர் தெரிவித்தார்.

The “New Cold War” is No Longer Cold

Pic ============         Added      ===============  ENB
The “New Cold War” is No Longer Cold: NATO Expands Military Presence along Russia’s Border, Lying All the Way to Barbarossa II

By Tony Cartalucci
Global Research, July 11, 2016 New Eastern Outlook 11 July 2016

Despite claims made during NATO Summit Warsaw 2016, that “NATO remains a fundamental source of security for our people, and stability for the wider world,” it is clear that the threats and challenges NATO poses as existing to confront are in fact threats of its own, intentional creation and continued perpetuation.

From the ongoing refugee crisis triggered by NATO’s own global-spanning and ongoing military interventions, invasions, and occupations, to its continued expansion along Russia’s borders – violating every convention and “norm” that existed during the Cold War to keep it “cold,”

NATO has proven that it is to the populations it poses as protector over, in fact, their greatest threat.

In particular, the summit in Warsaw, Poland centered on NATO’s expanding military presence along Russia’s borders, particularly in the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, as well as in Poland itself.

The summit also covered ongoing NATO involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, two nations so far beyond the Atlantic states the alliance allegedly was founded to protect, it would be comical if the consequences of their far-reaching meddling weren’t so serious.

Pic ============         Added      ===============  ENB
Belligerence Vs Balance 

Global peace and stability is tenuously maintained through a careful balancing act between conflicting centers of power. The story of human history is that of this balancing act being performed.

World War II, which gave way to the current international order we live in, came about because of a fundamental failure to maintain this balancing act.

Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of World War II’s genesis, was the German military build-up along the then Soviet Union’s borders characterized by Berlin at the time as a means of collective defense for Europe, when in fact it was the lead up to a full-scale invasion known now as “Operation Barbarossa.” It is troublesome particularly because NATO is currently building up its forces in almost precisely the same areas and in almost precisely the same manner Nazi Germany did in the 1930s.

When German forces crossed into Russia on June 22, 1941, a potential balance of power meant to preserve Germany and the rest of Europe against perceived Soviet menace turned into a war that devastated both Europe and Russia.

The subsequent Cold War is an example of a balancing act of power being performed mostly with success. However, despite many common misconceptions regarding the Cold War, the mere existence of opposing nuclear arsenals and the concept of mutually assured destruction was not why balance was maintained.

Instead, balance was maintained by an immense framework, painstakingly constructed by both American and Soviet leaders, at the cost of both nations’ egos, pride, and interests and involved everything from agreements about the weaponization of space, to the composition and deployment of their nuclear arsenals, and even regarding defense systems designed to protect against nuclear first strikes.

There were also specific and complex agreements arranged over the deployment of troops along each respective center of powers’ borders, including the borders of nations that existed within their spheres of influence.

It was clear during the Cold War that both Washington and Moscow vied to expand their respective reach over the rest of the world, resulting in proxy wars everywhere from the Middle East to South America, and from Africa to Asia in a “low-intensity” bid – relative to all-out nuclear war – to gain the upper-hand.

Preceding and in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse, tentacles of Western influence had finally prevailed, and reached deep within Russia itself, eroding not only Russia’s own institutions and national sovereignty, but unsettling the global balance of power that had existed for decades after World War II.

It was only during the rise of Russian President Vladimir Putin that this trend was reversed and something resembling global balance reemerged.

It was clear that during the early 2000’s, whatever progress the US had made in dismantling the remnants of Soviet checks to its otherwise unlimited desire for global hegemony, would need to come to an end, and a new framework mirroring that of the Cold War, established to accommodate emerging global powers including the Russian Federation

But this is not what happened.



The New Build-Up 

Instead, under the administration of US President George Bush and continued under that of President Barack Obama, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty or ABMT) was unilaterally withdrawn from by the United States.

Additionally, the United States –

Pic ===       Added      ===  ENB                                                  beginning in the 1990s and continuing until today as seen in Ukraine – has funded and backed various political coups across Eastern Europe under the guise of “promoting democracy,” installing client states along Russia’s borders. Attempts to undermine and overthrow governments continues in nations like Belarus and Azerbaijan, as well as the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

Nations successfully overthrown and co-opted by Washington have been systematically turned against Russia economically, politically, and militarily. These nations are almost immediately folded into NATO’s military alliance. In 2008 for example, the US client regime in Georgia would invade the Russian-backed republic of South Ossetia, precipitating a full-scale Russian response in what many believe was a NATO attempt to test Russian resolve. It is reminiscent of Nazi-Soviet geopolitical jousting in Finland just before Operation Barbarossa commenced.

Ukraine, overthrown in a NATO-backed putsch between 2013-2014, has also taken a hostile posture toward Russia, and again, Western military aggression, seeking Ukraine as a vector through which to strike deeper at Russia is a direct replay of events that unfolded during World War II.

The story of NATO post-Cold War has been one of confrontation, not of fostering security or stability.

Instead of working on a new framework to establish global stability by recognizing a new emerging balance of power between East and West,

NATO has attempted to “race” in a reckless bid to expand its own influence as far and wide as possible before this balance of power establishes itself through the realities of military, political, and economic force

It appears that NATO may even be contemplating the destabilization and overthrow of the political order in Moscow itself with attempts to foster terrorism in Russia’s southern regions through massive NATO-backed conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as the funding and support of hostile political fronts all across Russia.

A Gradient of Balance Versus a New Cold War 


Today, very easily, a gradient of balance can be established between North America, Europe, Russia, and Asia – where the best benefits of dealing with each other could be enjoyed by all. The only requirements would be first allowing Europe to develop a foreign policy that reflected the best interests of its own governments, people, and industry, and second, the ability for Washington, London, and Brussels to abandon their unrealistic designs toward global hegemony and opt instead for a more realistic balance of multipolar power.

NATO precludes all of this – effectively coercing Europe into a zero sum game with Russia, just as it had done during the Cold War.

Europe faces many threats. But none of them from Russia. It is flooded by refugees fleeing NATO wars. It is weathering instability in nations like Ukraine, whose political order was upended by NATO-backed political violence. And Europe is plagued by the irresponsible, reckless actions of prospective NATO members like Georgia, run by incompetent regimes installed by and for Washington’s best interests, not the stability and long-term interests of the European people.

Europe’s leadership has clearly demonstrated no interest in recognizing these realities. It will be up to the European people themselves to demand a more rational shift away from the various, intentionally manipulative strategies of tension NATO has cultivated, and toward a more sensible and independent relationship with the world beyond the Atlantic alliance.

There has been much talk of Britain’s leaving of the European Union. Perhaps it is time for the European Union to leave the long and corrosive influence of Anglo-American interests and institutions.

Until then, the people of Europe should examine closely the lessons of history of aggressive expansion toward Russia’s borders, the lies such expansion was predicated upon, and the consequences those lies had on the security and stability of Europe when finally they were exposed
through the unfolding conspiracy they were designed to obfuscate.

The wheel of history turns not because our hands are on it, turning it, but because our apathy and ignorance has prevented our hands from stopping it.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, espe14:44 14/07/2016cially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The original source of this article is New Eastern Outlook
Copyright © Tony Cartalucci, New Eastern Outlook, 2016

Thursday, 14 July 2016

இங்கிலாந்தைக் கவ்வும் இருள்



Brexiteer Boris Johnson: Britain’s New “Undiplomatic Top Diplomat” Foreign Minister…

By Stephen Lendman Global Research, July 14, 2016

New UK Prime Minister Theresa May made key ministerial changes straightaway in office.

Notably she named former London mayor/leading Brexiteer proponent Boris Johnson as foreign minister, shifting incumbent Philip Hammond to finance ministerial duties.

David Cameron’s chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne was sacked, earlier seen as the favorite for Tory leadership, now out of government entirely.

Johnson is no stranger to controversy. Earlier he called Obama “the part-Kenyan president.” He complained about him allegedly removing a Winston Churchill bust from the Oval Office, attributing it to an “ancestral dislike of the British empire.”

He criticized Obama for pressuring Brits to stay in the EU, calling his meddling “outrageous and exorbitant hypocrisy,” adding:

“In urging us to embed ourselves more deeply in the EU’s federalizing structures, the Americans are urging us down a course they would never dream of going themselves.”

“That is because they are a nation conceived in liberty (sic). They sometimes seem to forget that we are quite fond of liberty (sic), too.”

“For the United States to tell us in the UK that we must surrender control of so much of our democracy (sic) – it is a breathtaking example of the principle of do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do. It is incoherent. It is inconsistent, and yes it is downright hypocritical.”

Last year, Johnson blasted Hillary Clinton, comparing her to Lady Macbeth. During her 2008 presidential campaign, he said

“(s)he’s got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital.”

He recently said

“(t)he only reason (he) wouldn’t visit some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump.”

Last year he called Vladimir Putin “a ruthless and manipulative tyrant.” Expect no improvement in UK/Russia relations.

These and other blunt comments hardly make good diplomacy. It remains to be seen how Johnson behaves as foreign minister.

Calling himself a One-Nation Conservative, he was Tory London mayor from May 2008 – May 2012, an MP from June 2001 – June 2008, then again since May 2015.

A leading Eurosceptic, he said Brexit won’t deny Britain access to European markets. “I cannot stress too much that Britain is part of Europe and always will. be,” he stressed.

One critic called him “genial to all…malicious towards most…with a light giggle…knows how to put the boot in.”

Does his appointment mean May intends sticking by her saying

“Brexit means Brexit, and we’re going to make a success of it. There will be no attempts to remain inside the EU.”

Don’t bet on it. Chances for Brexit are virtually nil because US, UK and EU monied interests won’t tolerate it.

Politicians notoriously say one thing and do another. Expect public opinion to be manipulated to oppose what’s now favored.

Britain will remain in the EU, perhaps with concessions granted acceptable to other members.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2016
========================================================



Tuesday, 12 July 2016

புதுமைப் பதிப்பக அறிமுகம் - கோவை

புதுமை பதிப்பகத்தின்
நூல்கள் அறிமுகக் கூட்டம்

         
நாள்: 23.07.2016, சனி, மாலை 5.00 மணி

இடம்: அண்ணாமலை அரங்கம், ஸ்டேட் பாங்க் ரோடு,சாந்தி திரையரங்கம் அருகில், கோவை.

புதிய காலனிய ஆதிக்கத்தின் கீழ் இந்தியா அடிமைப்பட்டு வரும் சூழலில், தேசிய இனங்கள், மொழிகள் ஒடுக்கப்பட்டு வரும் சூழலில், இந்து மதவெறி பாசிசமும் சாதி, தீண்டாமை ஒடுக்குமுறைகளும், பெண்கள் மீதான ஒடுக்குமுறையும் அதிகரித்து வரும் இன்றைய சூழலில் சுதந்திரம், ஜனநாயகம், சமத்துவம் காண்பதற்கான இலக்கியங்களைப் படைப்போம்.
 அணிதிரண்டு வாருங்கள், புதுமை பதிப்பகத்திற்கு ஆதரவு தாருங்கள்.