Germany ignores human rights law in deal with Turkey
German Chancellor Angela Merkel arranged a new deal with Turkey in March designed to solve Europe’s migrant crisis. The core of the deal is an agreement that migrants who cross from Turkey to Greece illegally, as the vast majority of current migrants do, will automatically be sent back to Turkey. For every migrant who is returned to Turkey, the European Union will take in a migrant from a refugee center in Turkey.
The trouble is, the deal is illegal. Europe’s human rights law guarantees asylum for all refugees who did not come to the EU from a “safe third country.” Turkey does not meet the directive’s detailed criteria for a safe third country. “The rules are clear, and there is little space for legal gymnastics,” wrote Duncan Robinson for the Financial Times (March 9). The EU is attempting some of these gymnastics, but it remains to be seen how they will fare in the courts.
The merits of the EU human rights law are debatable, but ignoring law altogether is a major cause for concern. In addition, the EU is making this illegal deal with a leader who is sharply reducing his own people’s human rights. Just days before Merkel agreed to the deal, the government of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan shut down the nation’s biggest daily newspaper, Zaman, and arrested its journalists. The day after the deal, the government went on to shut down the Cihan news agency, further reducing Turkey’s free press to a handful of small media organizations.
In the past, these dictatorial actions would have earned rebuke and sanctions from the EU. But the EU has supported Erdoğan by negotiating with him on immigration and providing him with billions of dollars. Last year, the EU produced a report that sharply criticized Erdoğan; however, its publication was conspicuously delayed until after Turkey’s elections.
Besides being illegal, the deal won’t work. The longer the migrant crisis goes on, the more concessions Turkey can extract. It has little incentive to make the crisis go away. Meanwhile Europe may struggle to meet its part of the bargain and redistribute migrants directly from Turkey.
“Postwar Europe was built to value collaboration and cooperation,” wrote Trumpet writer Brad Macdonald as the migrant crisis began to build last year. “It was designed to be enlightened, multicultural and tolerant. It has positioned itself as the world’s moral authority. … Perhaps the greatest effect of the refugee crisis, together with Russia’s dramatic resurgence and Europe’s rolling financial problems, is the way it is causing Europe to shed this postwar veneer and return to its past. Being tolerant feels good, until hundreds of thousands of foreigners enter your nation and expect you to foot the bill … ” (November-
December 2015).
This is what we are seeing in Germany’s deal with Turkey: major signs of Europe peeling off its “postwar veneer.” When this deal fails, the situation will become even more desperate. It will push Europe to take more radical measures, moving further away from the left-wing, human-rights-loving, multicultural EU the world is accustomed to.
No great expectations for Afghanistan
Afghanistan will be a “success” if it barely survives 2016. That was the somber assessment of Nicholas Haysom, the United Nations’ top envoy in the war-ravaged nation.
“Some may criticize this benchmark as being low,” Haysom told the UN Security Council in New York on March 15. “Yet Afghanistan must overcome each and every one of these five hurdles to avoid severe consequences”: economic meltdown, intensifying violence and insurgency, fractious elites, diminishing foreign aid, and an elusive peace.
In 2012, coalition forces expected that a liberated Afghanistan would earn $1 trillion from its mineral wealth and that its economy would grow by 8 percent annually. “It is now clear” that none of that will happen, assessed Haysom. Unemployment is high, and Afghans are migrating en masse.
The war in Afghanistan killed or maimed 11,000 Afghan civilians last year. According to United States National Intelligence Director James Clapper’s congressional testimony, “fighting in 2016 will be more intense than 2015.”
Additionally, corrupt Afghan officials have wasted more than $700 million of developmental aid from the U.S., according to the office of the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction.
And while the U.S. and other supporting nations have urged the Afghan government to extend an olive branch to the Taliban, the terrorists want jailed fighters freed, their top members removed from UN blacklists, the full withdrawal of foreign troops, and a continuation of the war for control of Afghanistan. The situation is a remarkable illustration of the prophesied curse in Leviticus 26:20, “[Y]our strength shall be spent in vain.”
Billion-dollar bargain
Suffering from economic sanctions after taking over Crimea and from historic lows in the price of oil, Russian President Vladimir Putin stunned the world last September when he announced a new military mission into the Middle East. At the time, Washington warned that Putin’s venture into Syria would inevitably get Russia stuck in a “quagmire,” and number crunchers wondered how he could afford such a mission.
Six months later, when Putin announced the withdrawal of his forces from Syria on March 14, he confidently declared “mission accomplished.” Putin often speaks with braggadocio, but in this case, he was telling the truth.
By some estimates, Russia’s total bill for its six-month venture in Syria was about $1 billion, 2 percent of Russia’s official defense budget for 2015. For that investment, Putin received several big benefits:
He ensured the survival of the regime of Bashar Assad. This protects Russia’s ability to project power into the Mediterranean through its military base in Tartus, which Assad has long guaranteed for the Russians.
He displayed Russia’s military wares. Some analysts called the Syria engagement a Russian weapons expo: Its cruise missiles, Su-34 strike fighter and T-90 battle tank all performed admirably. The display reportedly intrigued potential customers; several nations expressed interest in new weapons contracts that alone will probably recoup Putin’s $1 billion outlay.
He exposed the U.S. as a weak power in the Middle East. As George Friedman wrote in Geopolitical Futures, “Syria was not about Syria …. Reshaping perceptions of Russian power and demonstrating that it was prepared to deploy, solve a problem, and leave was. In contrast to the Americans who deploy, stay and sink in the mud, the Russians did what they came to do and are now leaving” (March 15). To be fair, Russia’s rules of engagement are looser. Reports indicate Russians killed about 2,000 civilians. World opinion would consider this outrageous if it occurred at U.S. hands.
He announced that Russia is a resurgent power in the Middle East. As America shrinks from its role as Middle East mediator, Russia has handled itself well in a foreign theater. It showed its allies that it will come to their aid, and its enemies that Russia is willing to put skin in the game in foreign lands if need be.
He reshaped his image after Ukraine. After invading Crimea and destabilizing Ukraine, Putin was largely anathema to European powers and the U.S. Now he has proved himself a stabilizer in the most volatile of regions. He is also pulling out of Syria immediately before peace negotiations begin, indicating a willingness to pressure Assad to make some concessions to the Syrian opposition.
Not a bad list of accomplishments for a billion dollars.
Trumpet readers will not be surprised to see Putin’s efforts paying off. The Trumpet has drawn attention to biblical prophecies of a strong Russian leader in this end time that Putin looks to be fulfilling. You can read about this in “Is Vladimir Putin the Prophesied ‘Prince of Rosh’?”
Europe’s covert war in Libya
Satellite imagery released by Stratfor on March 9 indicates that European special operations forces are present in Libya. The images depict military preparations typical of Western deployments to conflict zones. However, the nationality of the troops is unknown, and no European nation has acknowledged a military buildup in Libya. Stratfor suggests that France is responsible for the mission, and in February, unconfirmed reports alleged that about 180 French troops were in the region.
On February 25, the French newspaper Le Monde reported that France was waging a “secret war” in Libya and that President François Hollande had authorized “unofficial military action” by French special forces and intelligence commandos. A senior French defense official who spoke to Le Monde said, “The last thing to do would be to intervene in Libya. We must avoid any overt military engagement, but act discreetly” (February 24).
Since nato helped depose former dictator Muammar Qadhafi in 2011, chaos has engulfed Libya. Multiple factions are fighting for control, and now the Islamic State is infiltrating.
France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States have all discussed sending troops. At a February 2 summit on Libya, European leaders proposed an Italian-led European force of about 6,000 troops to stabilize Libya. But to date, no country has been authorized to wage war or has acknowledged waging war in Libya—at least not publicly.
The U.S. is unlikely to commit further troops to Libya. President Barack Obama has indicated that Libya had descended into chaos because the Europeans who convinced him to lead the 2011 invasion failed to see the mission through. In an interview with the Atlantic, Obama blamed “free riders” in Europe who were unwilling to “put skin in the game.”
The satellite images might indicate that Europe is taking more ownership of the mess in Libya, albeit covertly. While the amount of military hardware on-site suggests limited combat operations, as Stratfor noted, it serves as a “preliminary foothold [that] could facilitate a rapid buildup of the base in the future.”
As the Islamic State’s presence in Libya grows, Europe will likely act more overtly. For a big-picture analysis of these events, read “The Next War in Libya.”
China’s Silk Road reaches Iran, pushes toward Europe
The first train on China’s “Silk Road” railway arrived in Tehran on February 15, making the 5,900-mile journey in a third of the time required by a sea voyage.
The name Silk Road recalls an ancient network of trade routes that connected Southeast Asia to the Mediterranean—especially the lucrative trade of Chinese silk. In 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping unveiled his plan to revive the Silk Road with his One Belt, One Road initiative, and that transport network has now reached Iran.
Beijing says the initiative “aims to promote the connectivity of Asian, European and African continents” while “strengthening partnerships” along the path of the ancient Silk Road.
“Some people say there are only 65 countries involved, but that’s a misunderstanding,” says Zhao Changhui, an analyst at China Export-Import Bank. “It’s a new method of development for China and the world.”
But the train routes don’t stop in the Mideast. A diesel locomotive can already make the 8,100-mile journey from China’s east coast to Spain. Leaders in Europe, including Britain’s prime minister and Germany’s chancellor, have lauded the initiative and expressed enthusiasm to participate. Many European countries showed their desire to cooperate when they joined the China-sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
The Diplomat wrote, “For centuries, the long distance between Europe and China has been a natural obstacle to strengthening bilateral trade relations. As the [One Belt, One Road] project concentrates on enhancing connectivity and transport infrastructure, there is huge potential to enlarge and accelerate the movements of goods between China and Europe” (April 9, 2015).
To learn about how this Euro-Chinese cooperation fulfills biblical prophecy, read “The Silk Superhighway.”
China buying Chicago Stock Exchange
It emerged on February 5 that a Chinese company is buying the Chicago Stock Exchange. On Capitol Hill, members of both parties denounced the takeover, calling for the Treasury Department to investigate the proposed sale.
The founder of the Chongqing Casin Enterprise Group (Casin Group), which is buying the exchange, assured regulators that his interests were purely financial. Yet the Casin Group is owned in part by the Chinese government. “This proposed acquisition would be the first time a Chinese-owned, possibly state-influenced firm maintained direct access into the $22 trillion U.S. equity marketplace,” members of Congress wrote in a letter to the Treasury Department.
Consider many recent revelations of Chinese cyberattacks and cyberespionage against American targets, does it make sense to give China direct access to our financial markets?
The stock exchange isn’t the only infrastructure China is after. In the first two months of this year, Chinese companies committed $39 billion to buy 36 American corporations. Last year, they spent a record $17 billion to buy 114 companies; 2014 was a record year too. In China, any company seeking to buy a foreign company must first receive government approval. That means the Chinese government is approving a record number of acquisitions.
Last August, China surprised the world by initiating the greatest single-day devaluation of the yuan in China’s history (2 percent). Within a week, the yuan dropped a total of 4.8 percent. This devaluation coincided with China’s record corporate buying spree. Beijing not only approved for Chinese companies to purchase foreign assets, it encouraged them to do so—before it devalued the yuan.
China shock-devalued its currency once. With its struggling economy, will the pressure mount for it to do it again? Whatever the case, the Chicago Stock Exchange won’t be the last Chinese takeover.
Obama crosses Cuban redline
On March 20, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to visit Cuba since 1928. He met with President Raúl Castro, highlighting the normalization of U.S.-Cuban relations.
This past December, Obama said he would only visit the Communist island nation if he saw more freedom for Cuban citizens. But liberty in Cuba never improved, it got worse. The Castro regime arrested 1,474 dissidents in January alone, the second-highest number in years. Just hours before the president’s arrival, Cuban authorities arrested more than 50 dissidents in Havana marching for improved human rights.
These two countries have had strained relations for over 50 years, during which Raúl and Fidel Castro worked with the Soviet Union to undermine the U.S. and attempted to place nuclear-capable missiles on the island, only 90 miles from the American mainland. President Obama has pressured American lawmakers to strike down a decades-old commerce embargo against Cuba, but so far he has been unsuccessful. Yet American tourism to Cuba has surged, Cubans can now open U.S. bank accounts, and record numbers of Cubans are streaming into Florida and over the border from Mexico. The Castro regime, especially its military, stands to reap most of the benefits from increased U.S. trade and investment.