Global Perspective


  • Washington Reportedly Tells Sudan It Will Stay on Terror List Unless It Forges Ties With Israel

    September 26, 2020 18:58 Sputnik - Sat, 26 Sep 2020 16:58:09 GMT
    israel , iran
    Read More IsraelIran
  • Israel Isn’t Signing ‘Peace’ Deals

    September 26, 2020 18:19 Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting - Sat, 26 Sep 2020 16:19:32 GMT
    israel , help , iran
    Read More IsraelIran
  • ‘We feel betrayed’: Palestinians fear the cost of Arab states’ deals with Israel

    September 26, 2020 18:15 Taipei Times - Editorials - Sat, 26 Sep 2020 16:15:19 GMT
    israel , palestine , world , iran
    Read More IsraelPalestineIranWorld
  • Brazil to Join COVAX Vaccine Facility, as Chile, Israel, UAE Also Sign Up

    September 26, 2020 16:58 The Algemeiner - World - Sat, 26 Sep 2020 14:58:49 GMT
    israel , world
    Read More IsraelWorld
  • Price too big to pay? Sudan rejects tying its removal from US terrorism list to fixing relations with Israel

    September 26, 2020 16:52 RT - Sat, 26 Sep 2020 14:52:41 GMT
    US h, , israel
    Read More IsraelUS
  • Egypt court upholds verdict barring transfer of Jewish rabbi's remains to Israel

    September 26, 2020 16:46 Al-Ahram Weekly - Egypt - Sat, 26 Sep 2020 14:46:22 GMT
    egypt h, , israel
    Read More IsraelEgypt
  • Sudan’s PM rebuffs tying Israel relations with removal from US terrorism list

    September 26, 2020 16:46 The Times of Israel - Israel & the Region - Sat, 26 Sep 2020 14:46:51 GMT
    israel , US h,
    Read More IsraelUSThe Times of Israel
  • Nuclear armed Israel remains biggest threat to peace in West Asia: Tehran

    September 26, 2020 16:10 Tehran Times - Politics - Sat, 26 Sep 2020 14:10:08 GMT
    israel , asia , iran , world
    Read More IsraelIranWorld
  • Serbia’s choice: move closer to the West or remain with Russia

    May 09, 2016 07:33 THIS YEAR will be a decisive one for Serbia. Many considered the elections held on April 24 as a sort of national referendum. The vote not only gave pro-European Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic a parliamentary majority, it also gave him a mandate to put the country on a path toward decoupling with Russia. The stage is now set for a fierce political battle that will have strategic importance not only for Serbia’s internal stability, but for regional security overall, writes World Review Expert Professor Dr. Blerim Reka. After winning just over 48 percent of the vote, Prime Minister Vucic’s Progressive Party retained its parliamentary majority, though with fewer seats – 131 – than during its previous term. Mr. Vucic now faces the difficult task of steering the country toward the West. He has a historic opportunity to create a European Serbia, after half a century of communism and 25 years of authoritarianism. Despite his party’s win, Prime Minister Vucic faces an uphill battle. Opposition to his pro-European stance is ferocious both inside and outside the country. Pro-Russia sentiment has increased in Serbia – two huge anti-NATO and anti-American protests have recently been held. The far-right nationalist Serbian Radical Party (SRS), which is expected to be Russia’s voice in the new parliament, saw the biggest gain among all parties in the election, nabbing 21 seats. And there are hints of Moscow’s meddling in the election. Serbian police are investigating the falsification of registration signatures for two pro-Russian political parties. The tug-of-war over Serbia’s future is now set to begin. One potential outcome sees the pro-Western forces led by Mr. Vucic form a new government that would exclude the pro-Russian Socialist Party (SPS, led by current Deputy Prime Minister Ivica Dacic) and the SRS. These parties came in second and third in the ballot, respectively. Together, they hold one-fifth of the seats in parliament. After forming a Western-leaning government, Serbia would progress toward integration with the European Union in the short term, and with NATO in the medium term. This would put wind in the sails of similar movements across the region. All of this will be very difficult for Russia to accept. In an attempt to maintain influence, Moscow could either look to defuse tensions with Belgrade, or give ammunition to the nationalists by lifting its veto against Kosovo’s membership in the United Nations. At the beginning of this year, the Vucic administration sent some pro-Western signals, signing a cooperation agreement with NATO, 17 years after the alliance’s bombing campaign over the country. Since then, however, two of Serbia’s most influential pro-Russia leaders have visited Moscow. In March, Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic met Russian President Vladimir Putin, while in early April Mr. Dacic, who is also Serbia’s foreign minister, met with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. Upon his return from Moscow, President Nikolic vowed that parliament would not change the country’s constitution to expunge a controversial phrase that calls Kosovo an “integral part” of Serbia. Mr. Dacic, for his part, heard from Mr. Lavrov that Russia would “support” Serbia on a “solution” for Kosovo. If Prime Minister Vucic successfully advances his pro-European agenda, Brussels will keep Serbia in the EU enlargement process and NATO will establish closer relations with Belgrade. Still, the EU has been clear that Serbia could join the bloc only after relations with Kosovo are fully normalized. Germany and the United Kingdom are the two key member states that insist on tying Serbian membership to recognition of an independent Kosovo. Ulrike Lunacek, the vice president of the European Parliament, recently restated her position that Serbia cannot join the EU without recognizing Kosovo. For a more in-depth look at this subject with scenarios looking to future outcomes, go to our sister site: Geopolitical Information Service. Sign in for 3 Free Reports or Subscribe.
    Author: 
    Professor Dr Blerim Reka
    Publication Date: 
    Mon, 2016-05-09 05:00

    Read More Reuters
  • Ukraine’s new government pleases few at home and in the West

    May 05, 2016 07:47 THE PAST weeks have brought extremely bad news from Ukraine. The country now finds itself at a crossroads, where fundamental and disturbing questions must be asked about its governability. Domestic elites persist in placing their own personal interests above those of the nation, and Western governments are realizing that their ambition to steer Ukraine by remote control has reached the end of the road, writes World Review Expert Professor Stefan Hedlund. The lifeline that keeps the country afloat is a $17.5 billion Extended Fund Facility (EFF) agreed with the International Monetary Fund in March 2015. How much longer the IMF will be able to maintain this critical life support is a crucial question. If and when it decides to pull the plug, other lenders and investors will run for cover, making a sovereign default unavoidable. The political implications of financial failure would be severe. At worst, the looming threat of Ukraine degenerating into a “failed state” would be realized. Kiev’s implementation of the reforms agreed as a condition for the EFF has been slow and uneven, prompting IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde to issue repeated stark warnings. The trigger was the resignation, on February 3, of Economy Minister Aivaras Abromavicius. After struggling hard for reforms, he confessed to being overwhelmed in the end by government corruption. Mr. Abromavicius’s departure produced shockwaves, prompting President Petro Poroshenko to seek the resignation of his deeply unpopular Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Five days later, right-wing nationalists descended on central Kiev, clashing with riot police and burning tires outside the presidential building. March passed in relative calm. But on April 3, it was revealed that President Poroshenko, elected in May 2014 on a mandate to “wipe the country clean of corruption,” had been implicated in the Panama Papers scandals. Mr. Poroshenko had promised that upon taking office he would sell his confectionary empire Roshen. Instead of honoring that promise, it was revealed that he had set up an offshore holding company in the British Virgin Islands. On April 6 came the Dutch referendum, in which 61 percent voted against ratification of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union. While this was as much a swipe at Brussels as a genuine vote against Ukraine, the words of an unnamed EU official quoted by the website Politico did raise a serious question: “Why should our economies make sacrifices for Ukraine, when its leaders are unwilling to make economic sacrifices themselves?” On April 10, Mr. Yatsenyuk tendered his resignation, and on April 14 the formation of a new government was announced. The new prime minister is Volodymyr Groysman, a former speaker of the Rada and a staunch Poroshenko loyalist. The question that is now placed before both the IMF and the EU is whether the new tandem will be able to deliver on hopes and promises that over the past couple of years have been consistently frustrated and broken. The new government’s main challenge is lack of credibility. Markets had hoped, against odds, that Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko would be elevated to the premiership. She had served as the anchor in dealings with the IMF, and had conducted hard-nosed negotiations with the country’s creditors. Appointing her to succeed Mr. Yatsenyuk would have sent a strong signal that the fight against corruption would be joined in earnest. The fall of Mr. Yatsenyuk was a symbolically important setback for Western ambitions to micromanage Ukrainian government affairs. His original appointment, in the wake of the February 2014 “revolution of dignity,” was the result of heavy U.S. pressure. Never popular from the outset, by the time of his ouster Mr. Yatsenyuk’s credibility was in shreds. According to a March 2014 poll, 44 percent of Ukrainian voters strongly or somewhat disapproved of his work. By February 2016, that number was 89 percent. Washington had backed a losing horse. For a more in-depth look at this subject with scenarios looking to future outcomes, go to our sister site: Geopolitical Information Service. Sign in for 3 Free Reports or Subscribe.
    Author: 
    Professor Stefan Hedlund
    Publication Date: 
    Thu, 2016-05-05 05:00

    Read More Reuters
per page

 

LATEST OPEN LETTERS


PETITIONS


LINKS


DONATION


Latest Blog Articles


Latest Comments


LIVE CHAT


Discussion