The Voice of Mirza Xazar

Ivan Simic: The 2009: Year of the Ox, Gorilla, Astronomy or President?

Mirza Khazar — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:37:35 -0500

By Ivan Simic

The year 2009 is definitely Presidential year; Barack Obama is inaugurated as the 44th, and first African American President of the United States, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir is appointed as the new Prime Minister of Iceland, becoming the world's first openly lesbian head of government. Morgan Tsvangirai is sworn in as the new Prime Minister of Zimbabwe following the power-sharing deal with President Robert Mugabe, the President of Guinea-Bissau, João Bernardo Vieira, is assassinated during an armed attack on his residence in Bissau.

Also, in 2009, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issues an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. Al-Bashir is the first sitting head of state to be indicted by the ICC since its establishment in 2002. The President of Madagascar, Marc Ravalomanana, is overthrown in a coup d'état, following a month of rallies in Antananarivo. The military appoints opposition leader Andry Rajoelina as the new president of Madagascar. Former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori is sentenced to 25 years in prison for ordering killings and kidnappings by security forces.

In addition, former President of South Korea Roh Moo-hyun, under investigation for alleged bribery during his presidential term, committed suicide, El Hadj Omar Bongo Ondimba, President of Gabon dies in Spain. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is reelected as the president of Iran. The Supreme Court of Honduras orders the arrest and exile of President Manuel Zelaya, claiming he was violating the nation's constitution by holding a referendum to stay in power, Barack Obama is awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, Prime Minister of Belgium Herman Van Rompuy is designated the first permanent President of the European Council, among others.

However, let’s focus on the EU, since the EU got its first President.

The EU has chosen its first president, Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy. Leaders of the EU 27 member states also chose a woman, British commissioner Catherine Ashton, who will be the EU's new foreign policy chief.

Van Rompuy remained almost completely unknown outside Belgium's frontiers, until he was anointed as a candidate for President of the European Council by Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, at a Brussels summit in October 2009.

The final decision for Van Rompuy for the President was entirely made by prominent leaders; Angela Merkel, Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy. Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi had its vast share in this decision, since he initially supported Tony Blair for the EU President.

What is done is done; the EU finally got its first permanent President. But, let’s find out what does it means being the President of the EU:

1. Is this presidential appointment solution to stop Muslim expansion to the Western Europe? We all know that in particularly three countries that supported his appointment; France, Germany and UK have large number of Muslims among population. We also know that Van Rompuy is a strong opponent of Turkey joining the European Union. In 2004, he stated:

"Turkey is not a part of Europe and will never be part of Europe. An expansion of the EU to include Turkey cannot be considered as just another expansion as in the past". "The universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigour with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey."

Does this mean that the EU did not have solution to say no to Turkey’s EU membership; therefore they installed Van Rompuy as the President to deal with the matter?

2. How much will this new presidential position cost the EU and its citizens, who by the way did not vote to elect Van Rompuy and were not even asked what they think about him? What we know is: he will be paid over €400.000 a year, he will have a staff of 60 people, a cabinet of 22, 10 body guards and 28 support staff. His total office budget will be €24.7 million. His new office building, which is currently under construction, will cost more than €300 million.

What about armored limousine, annual expense account, a non-taxable travel account, account for entertainment, place of residence, a country retreat, official guest house, aircraft, among others? These are all privileges and amenities that US President Barack Obama has.

3. Does Van Rompuy holds the power to declare war on another country? A declaration of war is a formal performative speech act or signing of a document by an authorized party of a government in order to initiate a state of war between two or more nations. In many nations power is given to the head of state or sovereign.

Is Van Rompuy that head of state?

4. If one country wishes to declare war on the EU, can that same country send the letter to Van Rompuy, declaring the war, or it needs to send the letter to every member of the Union individually? Van Rompuy probably knows how protocol goes, but, let us reminds him. The Hague Convention from 1907, section III – The Opening of Hostilities states:

Article 1

The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.

Article 2

The existence of a state of war must be notified to the neutral Powers without delay, and shall not take effect in regard to them until after the receipt of a notification, which may, however, be given by telegraph. Neutral Powers, nevertheless, cannot rely on the absence of notification if it is clearly established that they were in fact aware of the existence of a state of war.

How can this be done in the EU case?

5. Will the new EU military be under Van Rompuy’s command? According to The Helsinki Headline Goal by the year 2010, the EU will have full military capabilities in humanitarian and rescue tasks, disarmament operations, support to third countries in combating terrorism, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, and peacemaking.

By the way, with this new European army in place, will the EU-NATO Member States suspend their membership in NATO?

6. Will Van Rompuy be the new Commander-in-Chief of the EUFOR (European Union Armed Forces)? Javier Solana, the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy is the main coordinator of the Common Foreign and Security Policy within the European Union. Solana will be replaced by Catherine Margaret Ashton, the EU's first High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Great number of countries has Presidents or Monarchs as Commanders-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, therefore, now when the EU has permanent President, who will command the EUFOR?

7. Who is the supreme authority for military affairs, Van Rompuy or Catherine Margaret Ashton, and who is the only competent authority for the use of nuclear weapons? This is the case with French President Sarkozy and the US President Obama, among other head of states. What about the EU?

8. Which country/member state will benefit most from Van Rompuy, the UK, Belgium, Germany, France or Italy? We know that Van Rompuy is a close ally to Gordon Brown, the UK Prime Minister, and in addition the UK now has its own chief of EU foreign policy. Does this mean that the UK got its long desired advantage over other EU members?

9. Who will be the first head of state to meet Van Rompuy; Barack Obama or Dmitry Medvedev, or none of the above?

10. Does this mean Van Rompuy will be awarded with Nobel Peace Prize in 2010? Barack Obama got the Peace Prize after being elected the first African American President, why not Van Rompuy, after being elected the first permanent.

Ivan Simic: The 2009: Year of the Ox, Gorilla, Astronomy or President?

Mirza Khazar — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:37:35 -0500

By Ivan Simic

However, let’s focus on the EU, since the EU got its first President.

What is done is done; the EU finally got its first permanent President. But, let’s find out what does it means being the President of the EU:

Does this mean that the EU did not have solution to say no to Turkey’s EU membership; therefore they installed Van Rompuy as the President to deal with the matter?

Is Van Rompuy that head of state?

Article 1

Article 2

How can this be done in the EU case?

By the way, with this new European army in place, will the EU-NATO Member States suspend their membership in NATO?

9. Who will be the first head of state to meet Van Rompuy; Barack Obama or Dmitry Medvedev, or none of the above?

Ivan Simic: North and South Korea: “We Want Reunification But They Don’t Let Us”

Mirza Khazar — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:18:36 -0400

North Korea: World’s newest democracy

By Ivan Simic

We are more or less aware of the current North-South Korea relations, Korea reunification and North Korea’s nuclear development program which fills the pages of the world’s newspapers daily. What is less known however is why disputes between the two states started, and who does not want them to succeed with the reunification.

The legendary 38th parallel (The Korean Demilitarized Zone, a buffer zone between North and South Korea) was first suggested as a dividing line for Korea in 1902 by the Japanese, after the First Sino-Japanese war (a war fought between Qing Dynasty China and Meiji Japan over the control of Korea).

After the First Sino-Japanese war (1894-1895), Russia was attempting to pull Korea under its control, while Japan had just secured recognition of its rights in Korea from the British Empire (The Anglo-Japanese treaty laid out an acknowledgement of Japanese interests in Korea and if Japan went to war in the Far East, and that a third power entered the fight against Japan, then Britain would come to the aid of the Japanese).

Tensions between Russia and Japan had increased in the years after the First Sino-Japanese war. Before the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), in an attempt to prevent any conflict, in 1902 Japan proposed to Russia that the two sides split Korea into separate spheres of influence along the 38th parallel. However, no formal agreement was ever reached. Therefore, in November 1904 because of the rival imperialist ambitions of the Russian Empire and Japanese Empire over Manchuria and Korea, the Russo-Japanese War began.

In 1905, Russia started facing political unrest and Revolution, and eventually lost the war from Japan. The Russo-Japanese War ended on 5 September 1905, with the Treaty of Portsmouth. Russia recognized Korea as part of the Japanese sphere of influence and agreed to evacuate Manchuria. Japan, in due course, took full control of Korea.

Korea was occupied and declared a Japanese protectorate in November 1905 by the Eulsa Treaty (Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty), and officially annexed in 1910 through the annexation treaty (His Majesty the Emperor of Korea made the complete and permanent cession to His Majesty the Emperor of Japan of all rights of sovereignty over the whole of Korea). Japanese Korea was considered to be part of the Empire of Japan along with Taiwan, which was part of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

In November 1943, just two years before Japan’s WWII surrender and liberation of Korea, the Cairo Conference was held in Egypt. At the Cairo Conference, the US President Franklin Roosevelt, the UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek of the Republic of China meet to address the Allied position on Japan during World War II, and to make concrete decisions about postwar Asia. Joseph Stalin refused to attend the Conference in order not to provoke Japan.

The Cairo Declaration was signed on 27 November 1943, with the three main points:

1. The Allies resolved to bring unrelenting military pressure against Japan until it agrees to unconditional surrender.

2. All territories Japan has conquered from China, including Manchuria, Taiwan, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.

3. Korea shall become free and independent.

Two years after the Cairo Conference, in February 1945, the Yalta Conference was held in Ukraine. At the Yalta Conference the Allies failed to establish the Korean trusteeship first discussed. Korea future became unclear.

From 16 July-2 August 1945, the Potsdam Conference was convened in Germany. Again, participants were the big three; Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. All points of the Potsdam Conference were agreed except one concerning Korea.

On 26 July 1945, in addition to the Potsdam Agreement, President Harry S. Truman, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek issued the Potsdam Declaration which outlined the terms of surrender for Japan during WWII in Asia. Japan rejected Potsdam ultimatum.

The Potsdam Declaration, as well, failed to provide Korea solution, the only point where Korea was, in some way, mentioned was the point 8, which stated: “The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine”.

Still, despite all agreements and declarations, no progress concerning Korea was made. Therefore, without resolution on the table, the Allies unilaterally decided to divide Korea, without consulting the Koreans.

Just few days after the Potsdam Conference, on 6 August 1945, the United States dropped nuclear bomb "Little Boy" on the city of Hiroshima, Japan. The blast killed approximately 70,000 people. Estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945 from burns, radiation and related diseases ranged from 90,000 to 140,000. About 20,000 Hiroshima victims were Koreans.

On 9 August 1945, the United States dropped another nuclear bomb the "Fat Man" over Nagasaki, Japan. Casualty estimates for immediate deaths range from 40,000 to 75,000. Total deaths by the end of 1945 have reached 80,000. About 2,000 Koreans died in Nagasaki. The US is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons in combat.

On 9 August 1945, Russia declared war on Japan, as agreed earlier at Yalta Conference (Russia shall declare war on Japan within 90 days after the defeat of Germany). By 10 August 1945, Russia’s Red Army occupied the North Korea Peninsula, the North of the 38th parallel. Japan surrendered to the Allied forces on 15 August 1945. Few weeks later, on 8 September, US forces under General John R. Hodge arrived at the southern part of Korea. The United States took firm control of the South part of Korean Peninsula, the South of 38th parallel.

Korea was under Japanese rule as part of the imperialist expansion of Japan for 35 years from 22 August 1910 to 15 August 1945 (formally until 2 September 1945, upon the Japanese defeat in World War II).

However, instead of finally being freed, Korea was once more occupied, just this time by the Allied Powers: Russia and the United States. The US-Soviet division of Korea excluded the Koreans who were represented by US Army colonels Dean Rusk and Charles Bonesteel.

By December 1945, Korea was administered by the US–Russia Joint Commission, as agreed at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers in October 1945. Again, excluding the Koreans, the commission decided the country would become independent after a five year trusteeship.

With mistrust growing rapidly between the United States and the Soviet Union, no agreement was reached on how to reconcile the competing provisional governments from the North and the South. On 14 November 1947, the UN passed a resolution declaring that free elections should be held, foreign troops should be withdrawn, and a UN commission for Korea should be created. The Soviet Union, a veto power member, boycotted the voting and did not consider the resolution to be compulsory.

The Russians and Americans were unable to agree on the implementation of Joint Trusteeship over Korea. Consequently, the two superpowers backed different leaders and two states were effectively established, each of which claimed sovereignty over the whole Korean peninsula. South Korea, Republic of Korea (ROK) was declared on 15 August 1948 with Syngman Rhee as the first President, while North Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was established on 9 September 1948 with Kim Il-Sung as the Prime Minister.

This division of Korea was seen as unacceptable and temporary by both the South and the North regimes. From 1948, until the beginning of the civil war in June 1950, the armed forces of the North and the South engaged in a series of bloody conflicts along the border in an attempt for Korean national reunification. Both Syngman Rhee and Kim Il-Sung were intent upon reunifying Korea under their own political system.

On 25 June 1950, the North Korean Army (KPA) crossed the 38th parallel and invaded South Korea. Initially, Joseph Stalin rejected Kim's requests for permission to invade the South, but in late 1949 the Communist victory in China and the development of Soviet nuclear weapons made him re-consider Kim's proposal. In January 1950, after China's Mao Zedong indicated that China would send troops and other support to Prime Minister Kim, Stalin approved an invasion.

Just few hours after the North Korea attack, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) unanimously condemned North Korean invasion of the Republic of South Korea with the UNSC Resolution 82. Resolution was adopted despite the Soviet (a veto power member state) boycott of the UNSC, while at the time China was represented by the Republic of China (Taiwan), and not the (mainland) People's Republic of China (Mao Zedong). Due to the stalemate of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, there have been two states claiming to represent China in the UN since then, and both officially claim each other's territory.

On 27 June 1950, the Security Council published Resolution 83 recommending member state military assistance to the Republic of Korea. The US President Truman ordered the US air and sea forces to help the South Korean government, siding with the South, while, People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Soviet Union sided with the North. Consequently, Chinese People's Volunteers Army (PVA) entered North Korea in the late October 1950, while Russia’s support was limited to air strikes and material aid.

On 27 July 1953, the hostilities stopped and the Commander in Chief of the UN Command, on one side, and the Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army and the Commander of the Chinese People's Volunteer Army, on the other side, signed Korean War Armistice Agreement in Panmunjom (a village on the de facto border between North and South Korea). Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) at the 38th parallel, the most heavily militarized border in the world. The Republic of Korea (South Korea) never participated in the 1953 armistice.

The North and South Korea have never signed a formal peace treaty and therefore are still officially at war; only a ceasefire was declared.

After the ceasefire, North Korea was still under Kim Il-Sung rule and the Worker's Party of Korea (WPK). President Kim took full control of North Korean politics, with unconditional support of the armed forces. By the 1960s North Korea was the second most industrialized nation in East Asia, following only Japan. However, North Korea's position was complicated by the Sino-Soviet split (the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union split), which began in the 1960s. Relations between North Korea and Soviet Union worsened when the Soviets concluded that Kim Il-Sung was supporting the Chinese.

In 1972, Juche ideology (man is the master of everything and decides everything) replaced Marxism-Leninism in the revised North Korean constitution as the official state ideology. The goal of Juche was introduced to make North Korea strong enough to resist foreign invasion and capitalist intervention.

By the late 1970s, the North Korean economy began to slow down. The Soviet Union aid and credit declined, the Juche ideology and resistance policy towards the US made it impossible for the North to ask help from the US, while, at the time, China was not financially strong enough to support North Korea.

In the 1990s, North Korea saw stagnation turning into crisis. In 1991, Russia withdrew its support for the North and demanded for payments in hard currency for imports. China stepped in to provide assistance and supplied food and oil, however, by the 1994 China reduced its exports to North Korea.

Kim Il-Sung died in 1994, his son Kim Jong-Il succeeded him as the Secretary General of the Korean Workers Party. During Kim Jong-Il’s rule political ideology remained the same and North Korea's economy has continued to decline. From 1996 to 1999, country experienced a large scale famine which left some 600-900,000 people dead. On 10 February 2005, North Korea declared that it has nuclear weapons which created additional economic pressure on the country. North Korea explains it needs for the nuclear program as a security guarantee against a threat from the US, which has 28,500 troops based in South Korea.

As a result of its policy, North Korea is currently under the UN Sanctions (UN Security Council Resolution 1695 of July 2006, 1718 of October 2006, and 1874 of June 2009) and dependent on international food aid to feed its population (China and South Korea remains the largest donors of food aid to North Korea). On 13 February 2007, North Korea signed an agreement with South Korea, the United States, Russia, China, and Japan, in which North Korea will shut down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor in exchange for economic and energy assistance. However, in 2009 the North continued its nuclear test program and on 27 May 2009 has declared itself no longer bound by the armistice that ended the Korean War in 1953.

While, North Korea’s history is marked by firm communist rule, South Korea's subsequent history is marked by alternating periods of democratic and autocratic rule, political turmoil, April Revolution in 1960, a military coup d'état in 1961, assassination of President Park Chung-hee in 1979, the Coup d'état of December Twelfth in 1979, the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 and suicide of the former President Roh Moo-hyun in May 2009.

Civilian governments are conventionally numbered from the First Republic of Syngman Rhee to the contemporary Sixth Republic. The First Republic, arguably democratic at its inception, became increasingly autocratic until its collapse in 1960. The Second Republic was strongly democratic, but was overthrown in less than a year and replaced by an autocratic military regime. The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Republics were nominally democratic, but are widely regarded as the continuation of military rule. With the Sixth Republic, the country has gradually stabilized into a liberal democracy.

In the 1950s South Korea became one of the poorest countries in Asia. Its infrastructure and resources were severely exploited during the Japanese occupation and completely destroyed by the Korean War. After a ceasefire in 1953, South Korea became heavily dependent on the US.

However, following the military coup led by General Park Chung-Hee in 1962, South Korea became for four straight decades one of the fastest-growing economy in the world history, completely transforming itself from farming and fishing based economy into one of the world's most high-tech industrial powers.

Today, South Korea is a major economic power and one of the wealthiest countries in Asia. The South Korea economy is highly developed and one of the four largest in Asia and 13th largest in the world. South Korea is the world's largest shipbuilder, the fifth largest automobile producer in the world, the world's largest LCD and plasma display maker and the world's leading memory chip producer, among other things.

Despite its historical political differences both the North and South Korea wishes reunification, however, it looks like they are facing strong obstructions by all sides.

Why obstructions?

If reunited, Korea will combine the world's fourth and sixth largest active armed forces and will create the second largest active armed forces in the world with around 2 million active troops (the North has between 1,200,000-1,300,000 active troops while the South has 687,000 active troops). The People's Liberation Army of China with 2,255,000 active troops and 800,000 reserve personnel is the current largest active army in the world. However, North Korea's substantial arsenal of nuclear and chemical weapons and South Korea's technologically advanced and well armed military would have advantage over any army, including China’s.

By a significant margin, a reunited Korea will have the world's largest reserve troops (North Korea has 4,700,000 reserve personnel, while South Korea has 4,500,000 reserve personnel, total of 9,200,000) and will have a considerable amount of military equipment. A reunited Korea will possess the world's third largest number of tanks and submarines and operate the fourth largest air force and sixth largest fleet of destroyers in the world.

Looking at the above figures, it is obvious that both the North and the South are facing obstructions. The question is: who does not want them to reunite?

Many believe that if North Korean government does not feel threatened by South Korea or the United States, it will have nothing to lose from dialogue and engagement with the outside world, and will have no reason to build weapons of mass destruction. Also, it has been argued that the only solution to the Korean problem is war. However, these arguments should be re-examined.

North Korea's official policy is to seek reunification without what it seen as outside interference, through a federal structure retaining each side's leadership and systems. Both, the North and South Korea signed the June 15th North-South Joint Declaration in 2000, in which both sides made promises to seek out a peaceful reunification. Accordingly, North Korea does not have anything to lose from unification with the South, only to benefit, but some parties do.

North Korea is not threatened by the South, and trough history never was. South Korea is not violent country and it has no intention of attacking or invading North Korea. This is seen in South Korea’s relentless efforts to reunite and trough ongoing financial and material support for the North.

The same is with the United States. The United States, like South Korea, will not attack North Korea and presently, is no threat to the North. According to the President Obama, South Korea is the US closest ally. Therefore, the US will do nothing to disturb this close union, especially not by provoking the North. The US needs strong military ally in the Asia, and that is South Korea.

The US officially supports Korean reunification under a democratic, US allied government. On the other hand, the US has secret agenda. The US needs North Korea as it is to keep instability and maintain its army in the region. In addition, the US needs North Korea’s rule to promote Democracy in Asia, to justify use of war against terrorism, to keep an eye on China’s military expansion and domination and to boost weapons demand from the US based-allied suppliers (to sell weapons to the countries threatened by the North Korea), among other thing.

If the US wanted different North, it would use its intelligence network and South Korean infiltrated spies to take dawn North Korea regime long time ago, yet, no such action was seen, or will be seen in the near future. It appears that North Korea is something like a good friend to the US, rather than the enemy. Lately, this friendship was seen with the former US President Bill Clinton’s visit to Pyongyang in August 2009. In addition, two captured US journalists, after sentenced to 12 years of hard labor, were held in Pyongyang guesthouse, not jail. This was not the case with other convicts, especially not in the country like North Korea where they first beat detainees and then ask questions. The US and its allies invaded so many countries and changed so many regimes, but never North Korea, North Korea still remains undisputed.

China, Russia, Germany and Japan next to the US are four major players in Korean reunification.

China has a definite interest in ultimately maintaining a divided Korea, while, like the US, officially supports reunification. In one word, China does not want the US, South Korea’s ally on its border. North Korea serves as a strategic buffer between itself and the Democratic influences of the Japanese and the South Korean (the US supported) governments. As long as Korea is divided, communism in China is safe and the South Korean investments in China are secured.

Japan officially supports reunification of two Korea’s under a democratic government. Yet, Japan’s interest, like with others, is divided Korea. If Korea becomes reunited, Japan will lose its economical dominance in Asia. In addition, Japan is an island and its natural resources will eventually get exhausted, therefore, Japan needs main-land country to set influence at, perhaps buy, or even invade in order to prevail, and reunited Korea would be very hard to control and impossible to invade. Japan has a history of invading Korea, before Korea occupation in 1905 Japan made two invasions of Korea, one in 1592, and the second in 1594. On top, Japan needs North Korea as a treat to maintain its military. One of the interesting things is that Japan is the only country in the world left with Emperor, and for that reason Japan’s imperialistic ambitions are still present. His Imperial Majesty the Emperor (Akihito) is the world’s only reigning monarch whose title is customarily translated into English as "Emperor".

Many are excluding Germany from Korean reunification influence list, but Germany is more than influential. Germany, the EU leading member state and Europe’s strongest economy, officially supports reunification, yet, Germany’s loyalty to Japan is more important than any reunification. In addition, Germany is Japan’s largest trading partner within Europe, and reunited Korea would end their domination in global market. European Union led by Germany is world’s largest economy by gross domestic product (GDP), followed by the US and Japan. If we count out the EU, Japan is the second largest economy while Germany is the third. This historical link between these two major economies will not be jeopardized by Korean reunion. Germany stands strong beside its partner-Japan, and Germany will support Japan without questioning. On top of everything, reunited Korea may push Japan from the second place (GDP) which would heavily affect German economy.

Russia is very unclear when it comes to Korean reunification. The Russia’s North East Asia Policy appears to have 3 principle objectives:

1) To ensure continued stability of the Korean Peninsula.

2) To limit American and Japanese influence in North East Asia, and to increase Russia's influence there.

3) To increase investment from China, Japan and South Korea in Eastern Siberia

Russia, like China does not want the US on its border, therefore North Korea makes perfect buffer zone. On the other hand, Russia will not lose anything from united or divided Korea. Russia will only benefit; Russia has enough potential to supply both Korea’s with almost anything. For now, Russia is just observing and waiting for its moment in Korean peninsula.

However, what if the war eventually breaks between two Korea’s?

The chances for North Korea to invade the South without outside interference are 1%. On the other side, chances for South Korea to invade the North are less than 1%. Both Korea’s now knows that the war will bring no solution, only devastation and misery. Therefore, war is out of question.

However, we should not exclude outside parties which have the great interest in Korea peninsula. War can be easily triggered by the third parties, trough what is called, intimidating actions, such as: assassinations, terrorist attacks, deliberate military incidents and provoked political talks.

Assassinations and terrorist attacks, among others would have no major impact if executed in North Korea, like it would in the South. This would be more or less useless in the North because of the North’s political situation and lack of freedom of press. Assassination of five persons in the North would trigger immediate war; these include: President Kim Jong Il (the Dear Leader), his sons; Kim Jong-un (just like his father- the Brilliant Comrade), Kim Jong-nam and Kim Jong-chul, and Jang Song Thaek, Kim Jong Il’s brother in law.

On the other side, South Korea is in great danger from political turbulence, assassinations, terrorist attacks, kidnapping, among others. South Korea is a democracy and the largest Christianity in Asia. Any kind of major disturbances like mentioned above would get immediate world attention and would escalate to war with the North. List of the potential targets in South Korea is much larger, these include: President Lee Myung-bak, Prime Minister Dr. Han Seung-soo, Chief Justice Lee Yong-hun, Unification Minister Hyun In-taek, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Yu Myung-hwan. Therefore, South Korea should keep all eyes open and stay out of any kind of provocations by the so called third parties-reunification obstructionists.

If, by any chance war breaks between the two, than both the North and the South would lose. The US, China, Japan and Russia would enter the war and eventually split the North and the South in to four spheres of influence. Russia would take/cut northern part of North Korea along side of Chinese border all the way to the Korean Bay to exit to the Yellow Sea (this would be perfect for China, to distance its main land from the US). China would take control of the southern part of North Korea from the Russia’s new controlled border/territory till the 38th parallel (this way China would have perfect control of Korean peninsula). The US would take the northern part of South Korea from the 38th parallel till the splitting line between southern city of Kunsan and eastern city of P’ohang (the US would increase its hegemony and military presence in peninsula), while Japan would take southern part of South Korea from the splitting line of the cities of Kunsan and P’ohang till the island of Cheju-do (Japan would finally have its long desired piece of land on the mainland).

Looking at these facts, it looks like reunification of Korea is hardly possible. Therefore, how can the North and the South resolve their issues and reunite?

Knowing that North Korea is unwilling to change its de facto leader Kim Jong-il and the ruling elite, the only way for North Korea to unite with South Korea is to replace its Juche ideology and Songun policy, with Democracy. First, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should change its name to Democratic Republic of Korea, and the Constitution of North Korea should be changed and state that “the Democratic Republic of Korea shall, by carrying out a thorough cultural revolution, train all the people to be builders of democracy", not socialism and communism.

North Korea should adopt Democracy as an official policy and hold free elections in which, of course, the same regime would be elected. The name of the Worker's Party of Korea (WPK) should be changed with the Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) with Kim Jong-il as the President of the party, not general secretary. If North Korea does this, reunification with South Korea will occur in the matter of weeks. In addition, North Korea economy will prosper since there is no Democracy in the world that would allow newly elected democracy to suffer.

Concerning its Nuclear Development Program, North Korea should sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and limit the spread of nuclear weapons. However, North Korea is not the only country with Nuclear weapons; the US has around 2,500 active warheads, Russia around 3,000 active warheads, the UK around 200 active warheads, France around 300 active warheads, China around 150 active warheads. Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey are hosting US nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy. India and Pakistan, like North Korea, have openly tested and declared that they possess nuclear weapons, while Israel has a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. The difference is that North Korea was a member of the NPT, but withdrew in 2003, citing the failure of the United States to fulfill its end of Agreed Framework, while India, Pakistan and Israel have declined to sign the treaty.

On the other side, Republic of Korea has only two reunification condition: to kindly asks United States Government to withdraw United States Forces Korea (USFK) from its territory and close military bases and camps, and to sign peace agreement with the North (ending 59 years of Korean War).

Looking at the whole story, the most important question concerning both Korea’s would be: for how long do they think to be marionettes in this global political game?

Ivan Simic: North and South Korea: “We Want Reunification But They Don’t Let Us”

Mirza Khazar — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:18:36 -0400

North Korea: World’s newest democracy

By Ivan Simic

The Cairo Declaration was signed on 27 November 1943, with the three main points:

1. The Allies resolved to bring unrelenting military pressure against Japan until it agrees to unconditional surrender.

2. All territories Japan has conquered from China, including Manchuria, Taiwan, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.

3. Korea shall become free and independent.

The North and South Korea have never signed a formal peace treaty and therefore are still officially at war; only a ceasefire was declared.

Despite its historical political differences both the North and South Korea wishes reunification, however, it looks like they are facing strong obstructions by all sides.

Why obstructions?

Looking at the above figures, it is obvious that both the North and the South are facing obstructions. The question is: who does not want them to reunite?

China, Russia, Germany and Japan next to the US are four major players in Korean reunification.

Russia is very unclear when it comes to Korean reunification. The Russia’s North East Asia Policy appears to have 3 principle objectives:

1) To ensure continued stability of the Korean Peninsula.

2) To limit American and Japanese influence in North East Asia, and to increase Russia's influence there.

3) To increase investment from China, Japan and South Korea in Eastern Siberia

However, what if the war eventually breaks between two Korea’s?

Looking at these facts, it looks like reunification of Korea is hardly possible. Therefore, how can the North and the South resolve their issues and reunite?

Looking at the whole story, the most important question concerning both Korea’s would be: for how long do they think to be marionettes in this global political game?

Comments To My Performance Review - 26 September 2002

Mirza Khazar — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:32:42 -0400

Comments To My Performance Review
26 September 2002

I strongly disagree with and object to the rating of my Performance Review and the comments included in the review. I consider the final rating, the "NI" in "Professional Standard" and "Judgment" all to be mistaken and the reflection not of an objective evaluation of my professional performance but rather an indication of personal feelings and deep bias. I was the only journalist at RFE/RL to be subjected to a last minute Performance Review. This indicates that I was singled out for special treatment not for reasons of any alleged performance deficiencies but for other, wholly unprofessional, reasons. These reasons are addressed below:

1. In a summary comment, the reviewer writes: "Too often, Mr. Michaeli injects his personal opinion into Service programming. One example the editorial on the Jewish cemeteries (emphasis added/the reviewer's terminology) was discussed at this year's program review." The reviewer then concludes: "The Service programming does not adhere to our professional codes. This is why the overall rating is NEEDS IMPROVEMENT."

Comment: It is clear that the reviewer had no example or evidence to support this conclusion and rating other than the reviewer's own reaction to my commentary on "Jewish cemeteries". The reviewer failed to discuss details of the commentary. This failure and the use of the suggestive words "Jewish cemeteries" reveal the reviewer's bias and intent. The reviewer conveys the misleading impression that my commentary is about the history and presence of Jewish Cemeteries (in Azerbaijan). In fact, my commentary addressed the issue of the desecration and destruction of 49 grave- sites at the Jewish Cemetery in Baku in November 2001. Our Service reports on and sometimes provides commentary on events and developments of importance and interest to our listeners. When our buro in Baku learned of this particular event through contact with the head of the Baku Jewish Community, every effort was made to obtain additional, accurate information from other sources. This entailed timely action on the part of our stringer who, in the course of two hours, procured reactions and information from The Interior Ministry of Azerbaijan, The Office of the President, and the Israeli Embassy. All of these sources confirmed the initial report on this case of vandalism and desecration. The police official who was investigating the matter was interviewed and we also aired the opinions and views in regard to this event of all political parties, including the ruling political party. Local print and electronic media outlets in Azerbaijan, with the exception of the State run TV, reported on the event. Surely, desecration of a cemetery in Baku is a matter of interest and importance to our listeners. Surely, the importance and interest of this event transcend the particular religious identity of those whose graves were desecrated. This is certainly true of Azerbaijan and to suggest otherwise would speak more to the reviewer's bias than to the concerns of our Azerbaijani listeners. When the local media give extensive coverage to an event, should RFE/RL minimize its coverage and commentary because the desecration and vandalism involved a "Jewish cemetery" because the Service Director happens to be Jewish himself? No matter what unfortunate bias may motivate the reviewer, this story could not and should not be ignored and it certainly was deserving of commentary. s there any reasonable person in the world who will not denounce vandalism at cemetery, be it Muslim, Christian, or Jewish?

The commentary I provided, following good journalistic practice and RFE/RL policy, was kept separate from our stringer reports on the event. My commentary was, of course, clearly labeled as commentary, again in accordance with our Professional Code and the highest standards of journalism.

According to our Professional Code:

C. Analysis, Commentary and Editorials

. Commentary, which is to be clearly labeled as such, is analytical in content and judicious in tone but reflects the personal judgment or opinion of the author on a particular issue. (See Professional Code)

"Our broadcasters and journalists never reflect their own views and opinions in our news stories: commentaries and points of view must be clearly labeled as such."

Clearly, in direct contrast to the reviewer's view, the Professional Code and RFE/RL Editorial Policy recognize the legitimate role of commentary as long as commentary is clearly labeled as commentary. Since my commentary on this event was clearly labeled as commentary and kept separate from news coverage, as has always been the case with all my commentaries and expressions of my views, I have not violated any editorial policy at RFE/RL or of good journalistic practice in general. The accusation that I have violated the Professional Code or other editorial policies by "injecting personal opinion into Service programming" is baseless. There is no Editorial Policy at RFE/RL which forbids broadcasters from writing commentaries. The reviewer, then, is in error and this baseless accusation can in no way serve as grounds for rating my overall performance as "Needs Improvement". Moreover, the reviewer's personal view of my commentary, should remain just that, a personal view. To permit personal views to replace objective analysis is to invite a distortion of the evaluation process and a challenge to journalistic integrity.

In February 2002 the Intermedia Research Center conducted a Panel Review of our November programming. Of eight panelists, a single panelist expressed “outrage” at my commentary on vandalism at the Jewish Cemetery. He did it in an aggressive, insulting, uncivil manner. In my email message to Jeff Trimble, Don Jensen, and Tom Dine on May 3, 2002, I protested this open attack and aspersions on my character, my religion, and my private life:

“The InterMedia has issued a review of Internal Monitoring Panel on Azerbaijani Service programs for the next Program Review. I appreciate the work the InterMedia has done.

I am not pleased with (basically biased) comments of some panelists about my commentaries on the defacement of Jewish graves at the Jewsih cemetery in Baku such as:

"...Khazar's commentary of 24 November was biased and driven by personal ambition, which did not produce a good impression".(see page 12 of InterMedia Listener Panel Review)

This is what a Panelist Nr 1 and some others has to say about my commentary. They all applauded similar views expressed by Azerbaijani politicians, religious leaders, and officials, but amasingly, were outraged when I (Khazar) have expressed same views. What does a commentary on a crime such as destruction of (Jewish or else) cemetery has in common with my "personal ambitions" remains unclear. This is why, in my view, the InterMedia decided (unfortunately) to include here a "Translator's note" "explaining" (amasing isn't it!) the meaning of my (Khazar's) "personal ambition": " Translator's note: I believe the respondent is implying that Khazar is an Azerbaijani of Jewish extraction, from small community of Jews who live in the mountainous Guba region(?)". (see page 12 of InterMedia Listener Panel Review)

Correction: The translator has absolutely nothing to do with my religion, my belief, my ethnic roots. It is my private business. It is not a public issue. Furthermore, contrary to the Translator's "expertise" I have never seen Guba and it's mountains in whole my life. The Guba mountains has nothing to do with me, my religion or my ethnic roots at all.

What this remark about "mountains of Guba", my private life, my religion has to do with the Program Review? Why this remark concerning only my private life, and believe was included into the Panel Review and distributed IN WRITING to several people?

I categorically protest against this kind of (unfortunate) publicty. It is not helpful. It is harming RFE/RL image. It has nothing to do with the Program Review.

rgds
Mirza"

Don Jensen was silent. Jeff Trimble responded the same day:

“Mirza, I appreciate your comments and I understand your reaction. Given the verve of the panelist's objection, I think it's worth looking together at a translation of this item in order to try to understand the nature of his concern. Let's discuss it together.

Rgds,
Jeff"

But Jeff Trimble did not act on his call for a discussion, "given the verve of the panelist's objection". I have asked Mr. Trimble to discuss this pressing issue, as he had suggested. In response, he has told me that he does not have the time. The discussion he suggested has never taken place. I tried to talk to Don Jensen, but he categorically refused to discuss the issue with me. “If you want to discuss this issue, NO COMMENT. I do not want to talk about this”. My protest remained unanswered. My supervisors, in fact, made no effort to help to me obtain a fair opportunity to respond to these baseless accusations. On the contrary, at the Program Review on May 31, 2002, both Jeff Trimble and Don Jensen used language very similar to that of the listener, suggesting that I had “personal ambitions” while writing about the vandalism which took place at the Jewish Cemetery. Don Jensen called my commentary “clearly labeled, but a wildly speculative commentary”. That the cemetery was, in fact, vandalized is not in dispute. Does my religious identity mean that I am not free (or able?) to provide professional commentary on an event when it happens to relate to persons, dead or alive, who share that religious identity? Is this special handling for an RFE/RL journalist, who happens to be Jewish? Is this religious profiling? I have provided more than 20 years of dedicated, recognized service to RFE/RL and prior to this entire matter I cannot recall a reviewer whose remarks clearly imply that there are special expectations of RFE/RL journalists who happen to be Jewish. Are the reviewer and those who have used some of his unfortunate language, ready to attack RFE/RL journalists who may report and offer commentary on any vandalism that might occur at Muslim or Christian cemeteries and accuse these journalists of "having personal ambitions"?

RFE/RL has always been dedicated to democracy and the values of an open society. These values surely include due process, a fair hearing, and opportunities for the accused to present his or her case. Don Jensen and Jeff Trimble, I regret to note, have not acted in the spirit of this RFE/RL dedication to these values. They have misrepresented the facts in this matter. An important part of this misrepresentation is their claim that the issue of my commentary on "Jewish cemeteries" (the reviewer's words) had been "discussed at this year's program review". No stretch of the imagination could enable one to describe that occurrence as a "discussion". At this program review, I was subjected to verbal attack with no real opportunity to respond. On the very few occasions when I managed to begin to speak, I was constantly interrupted, and not permitted to make a complete statement in response to the baseless accusations and allegations leveled against me. A program review in which one has little or no opportunity to contribute in a meaningful way, and discussion is precluded, is hardly a serious exercise aimed at improving programming quality.

At one point in this program review where open discussion and serious analysis were off the agenda, Jeff Trimble called the Azerbaijani Service programs "medieval". Objective observers would recognize the use of a term like this for what it is. In the absence of anything substantive to say or demonstrate, throw a term or name at someone. With some expression of disbelief, he asked: "How do these medieval programs attract the highest number of listeners at RFE/RL?" It seems not to have occurred to him that the answer is obvious. It is not "medieval" programming but rather programming of the highest professional quality which attracts the highest number of listeners. To suggest otherwise, is to demonstrate a lack of respect for the intelligence and discernment of our Azerbaijani listeners.

A program review with the deficiencies I have described is an abuse of the procedure and certainly is no basis for producing a "Needs Improvement" evaluation in regard to "Judgment", "Professional Standard", and overall performance. This particular program review on 31 May 2002 in its denial of due process, open discussion, and basic fairness, was also a violation of the values of a democratic society for which RFE/RL has always stood.

In a Development Plan the reviewer instructs me to avoid writing "personal commentaries". As I stated above, the Professional Code does not prohibit writing such commentaries. But even so, if my supervisors have believed there is no need for my commentaries, why did they not say: DO NOT WRITE COMMENTARIES? Why was I not spoken to about my commentaries on some kind of meaningful basis? Why has there been no effort, short of accusations at a program review, or performance reviews, to speak with me about alleged problems with editorial issues? If, in fact, there has been concern about editorial matters, it hardly speaks well to the professionalism of supervisors who have not communicated in any regular fashion any concerns.

2. The reviewer in a Summary comment says the following: "The most important fact is that long standing editorial issues remain year after year". I deeply disagree with this assessment. The assessment reflects the personal view of the reviewer. This personal view in regard to “long standing editorial issues” may have been of some value if it had been regularly communicated and discussed. In reality, for the last four years we have had only few meetings on editorial issues, mostly at Program Reviews. In fact, year after year my supervisors have failed to discuss, to instruct, and give directives, on editorial issues. Only now, as they depart from Broadcasting Management, have Don Jensen and Jeff Trimble decided to “speak out”.

It is clear to me that the reviewer's use of the phrase “year after year” is an attempt to create an illusion of a long-standing problem with my performance when, in fact, there has been none. It is also clear that this language constitutes an effort to fabricate the appearance of a "pattern" of performance. The aim is to build a wholly unfounded CASE to be used in future actions against me.

I would like to point out that year after year I have implemented all recommendations made by my supervisors at Program Reviews and Performance Reviews. These recommendations were made once every 12 months. There appeared to be a direct correlation between the recommendations and a declining number of listeners. In 1998 our listener rate was almost 36%. After four years of following the recommendations of my supervisors the Azerbaijani Service rate has reached14%. This significant decline in the number of listeners can be attributed to efforts to greatly reduce analysis and commentary. Prior to these imposed changes, analysis and commentary contributed to attracting greater audiences.

At the same time, my supervisors created and fostered an inhospitable work environment in which it was very difficult to maintain productivity and morale. Every opportunity was sought to undermine the authority of my position in the Service, and keep me under constant pressure. Supervisors should direct and assist, not undermine and subvert the dedicated efforts of those whom they supervise.

I have implemented all the instructions given me by my supervisors. I have reduced the number of commentaries significantly during the 12 months of the Review period. Even the Intermedia Review Panel has documented that for the last 12 months I was rarely heard on the air. But the reviewer has nothing to say about this in his summary comments in my Performance Review. As of September 3, 2002 I have completely stopped writing commentaries and analysis.

3. There is a very serious inconsistency in my Performance rating. For example, the reviewer gave me "VG" in "Sense of Mission", but rated me "NI" in "Professional Standards" and "Judgment". How can a Director with a very good "sense of mission" have a bad "judgment" or "low professional standard". At the same time, a Director rated "VG" in administration with the note: "Cooperative and efficient". I cannot be accused of not cooperating in editorial issues. I have always cooperated. There has been no occasion when I have refused to cooperate on editorial issues.

4. The reviewer has given me 3 Very Goods, 6 Goods, and 2 Needs Improvement. But the overall rating is NEEDS IMPROVEMENT. The Internal/External Panel Review conducted among our listeners in May by Intermedia has rated professional content, journalistic quality, objectivity, balance, quality of commentaries and analysis in our programs as Very Good/Excellent. There is a clear discrepancy here and it is the result of biased judgment. This is no way to conduct an appraisal of performance. It seems to me that “politics” played a major role in appraisal of my performance. It is unfair, certainly unprofessional, and I refuse to accept this biased appraisal.

I am ready to cooperate with anyone in Broadcasting Management with the purpose of refining and improving our programs. I have demonstrated my dedication to the highest standards of professionalism throughout my many years of work at RFE/RL. In all these many years I have always assumed others at RFE/RL shared this dedication. My experience of these past four years compels me to note that there are some at RFE/RL from whom I cannot expect this dedication to professionalism.

I urge you to take action to correct my Performance Rating and bring it in
accordance with my REAL performance.

Sincerely,
Mirza Michaeli,
Director,
Azerbaijani Language Service

Political parties represented in the Swedish Parliament express their concern over the detoriation of freedom of expression and human rights in Azerbaijan

Mirza Khazar — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:45:45 -0400

ll seven of the political parties represented in the Swedish Parliament, The Social-democratic Party, The Conservatie Party, The Liberal Party, The Centre Party, The Christian-democratic Party, The Green Party and the Left Party, are involved in the case of Emin and Adnan. Six of them have already taken action and the seventh are preparing forceful actions.

Also, the Youth Federations of the above mentioned parties have come together and engaged in this question, as well as the Swedish blogworld which is soon launching an international solidarity campaign with the two arrested bloggers.

Swedish parliamentarians demand that the EU observs the trial of Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizadeh

In a joint pressrelease the spokespersons on foreign affairs questions for the Swedish Social-democratic Party, the Left Party and the Green Party demand that the Swedish government, as holder of the EU presidency, sends an observer to the trial of Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizadeh. The members of the Foreign Affairs Committe also express their concern over the detoriation of freedom of expression and human rights in Azerbaijan and calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to release Emin and Adnan.

source: Nərgiz Nedayi

Political parties represented in the Swedish Parliament express their concern over the detoriation of freedom of expression and human rights in Azerbaijan

Mirza Khazar — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:45:45 -0400

Swedish parliamentarians demand that the EU observs the trial of Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizadeh

source: Nərgiz Nedayi

Swedish Youth Federations demand the immediate release of Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizadeh in a letter to President Aliyev

Mirza Khazar — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:36:28 -0400

Leaders of all the Youth Federations of the seven political parties in the Swedish Parliament, have in a joint letter to the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, expressed their concern over the detainment of the two young bloggers Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizadeh. The letter states that the youth leaders finds the arrestment of Emin and Adnan politically motivated and demand their immediate and unconditional release. They also demand that all charges against them are dropped and that the perpetrators are brought to account. The letter is ended with a note to the Azerbaijani government underlining that the undersigned will continue to follow the case of the two bloggers, as well as the genreal development in the country.

source: Nərgiz Nedayi

Swedish Youth Federations demand the immediate release of Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizadeh in a letter to President Aliyev

Mirza Khazar — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:36:28 -0400

source: Nərgiz Nedayi

İvan Simic: New World Order Evolving Theory

Mirza Khazar — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 04:31:52 -0400

By Ivan Simic

The term "New World Order" (Novus Ordo Mundi) has been used to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power.

When we talk about New World Order we can say that everything is about hegemony and dominance of stronger countries over others. If we look back through history we can recount various attempts of several countries to create a New World Order or some sort of dominance among countries. Some of these attempts was led by great warriors such as, Alexander the Great (Macedonian Empire), Julius Caesar (Roman Empire), Genghis Khan (Mongol Empire), Napoleon Bonaparte (French Empire), Adolf Hitler, among others. From this we can see that every attempt to rule the world was needles and devastating.

We heard many theories and conspiracy theories concerning the New World Order, some of which include the USA and the UK wanting to form the Federal World Government, or the Illuminati (The People of The Light) believing that they are masterminds behind events that will lead to a New World Order, or that the Freemasons are involved in the conspiracy to create a New World Order, or that international organizations such as the World Bank, IMF, European Union, the United Nations, and NATO are often listed as core NWO organizations, Black helicopters, among others. In my opinion, these theories will never take place because of strong disagreement from Russia, China and Islamic countries.

In regard to the above, in present times, we can see that even more countries are trying to dominate and create some sort of order among themselves by creating Unions and Alliances between them; like European Union, African union, Alliance of the USA, the UK, Australia and Canada, among others.

In the very near future, in order to survive, keep national identity and to maintain economy, costume and culture it is more likely that more Unions and Alliances would be formed to create a New World Order; bigger European Union with new member states such as: Macedonia, Croatia and Turkey. Union of Asian and Eurasian countries Russia, Mongolia, China and India, Union of Islamic countries from Middle East and Central Asia, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, stronger unity of African Union, Union of Central and South America; Panama, Colombia, Cuba and Venezuela, and eventually North American Union; USA, Canada and Mexico. After these Unions, we can expect even bigger ones. My vision is that they are going to look like this.

European Union (EU) led by supreme members Germany and Austria will expand to five more countries Switzerland, Norway, Serbia, Montenegro and Moldova. It is most likely that the EU will have problems with France and Turkey because of the pressure from Muslim countries from the South.

In order to maintain stability in the world, Union of Asia and Eurasia countries (UA) led by Russia, China and India will expand to Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and North Korea. South Korea and Japan will try to stay neutral while on the other side Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan will try to form some sort of Union among themselves because of historic experience and influence from Russia and India. This Union will create struggle between Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and the UA but eventually will get them back to Russian and Indian embrace.

Because of enormous power of other Unions, Union of Islamic countries will transform it self in Union of Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and led by Iran and Saudi Arabia will enlarge to whole Middle East (except Cyprus and Israel), North Africa, Sudan and Afghanistan. In these circumstances, Israel will lose support from the USA and the UK. This Union will be one of strongest unions since it would be directed strictly by religion and desire to preserve their customs; also, it will become economically one of the strongest and one of the most influential Union since there is great number of Muslims in the EU and the USA. Turkey, France and Morocco will be the bridges of MENA to set influence on the EU.

The African Union will get weakened when it loses members from the North but eventually she will form new Sub-Saharan Union (SSU) which will become stronger, and finally place Africa on the right way. Because of the events in North Africa and new MENA Union, the SSU will prosper with great economic support from the EU, the UA and Great American Union (GAU).

Union of Central and South America will enlarge to the whole continent and they will join North America to create Great American Union (GAU). The USA will have great influence on other members through Mexico. This Union will be led by the USA in the North and Brazil in the South. This Union will make the USA to concentrate on the American continent and eventually stop supporting the UK and Israel, which will lead to the UK drawing closer to the EU and Europe; this would push the State of Israel to find a new way out, and for the USA to become independent from the two of them.

Countries from Southeast Asia like Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, etc. will become oasis for peace and world’s largest tourist destinations. It is most likely that Japan and South Korea will join them.

Formation of these Unions will bring many difficulties and misunderstandings; however, Unions will be formed with an objective; to compete, to dominate, to parry, to be biggest and for some to survive. Unions will be formed regardless of differences in religion, nationality, color of skin, history, and culture, among others.

Bigger Unions means bigger desires, desire to be first, to be biggest, to be strongest no matter what. These desires will create disorder among countries, and eventually will create war of the Nations; war that will destroy mankind and mark the beginning of a True World Order.