How Israel violates human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories

How Israel violates human rights  in the occupied Palestinian territories

Having roots in the Ottoman period, Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues until now to be the world's "most intractable conflict". The emergence of Israel in 1948, with the support of Hebrew lobbyists groups in the US Congress, transformed the Palestinians in a “tolerated" population. Examining the initial map Palestinian territories, we can see that over the time they began to contract as a result of military actions and systematic colonization organized by Israel. Thousands of Palestinians came to be expelled from their own territories or were forced into exile after a true policy of ethnic cleansing pursued by Israel. The terrorist attacks of Hamas or Islamic Jihad intensified Israeli military operations in the occupied Palestinian territories. Hamas is one of the main culprits of the failure of the peace process in Palestine. Hamas leaders have come to defend against attacks on Israel, using Palestinian civilians as a human shield. Much of the Arab states did not recognize the right to exist for the Israeli state and continued to promote an aggressive policy towards Israel, secretly arming the Palestinian terrorist organizations. But Israel has taken some security measures which caused outrage among human rights organizations. Israeli security wall that began to be built in since 2003 in the West Bank, Palestinians managed to turn the life Palestinians managed into a nightmare, forcing them to live just like in a true ghetto. Although Israeli and American politicians continue to promote in their speeches  the creation of an independent Palestinian state, the Israeli army is continuing to bomb Palestinian territories, destroying civilian infrastructure (power stations, water pipes, schools, hospitals and other civilian targets) and leaving thousands of casualties among Palestinian civilians.

Zionism and the beginning of Arab-Israeli conflict

Emerged in the nineteenth century among the Jewish bourgeoisie as religious and political movement, Zionism advocated the establishment of a Hebrew state in Palestine. Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in 1920, with ethnic violence within Palestine under the British administration. Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in 1920, with ethnic violence within Palestine, under the of British administration. Violence was gradually transformed into a general conflict with the Arab-Israeli war(1947-1949). Anti-Semitism in Europe hastened the emergence of an independent Jewish state in 1948.

At the core of Zionist thinking is the argument that the Palestinians have never been a people. In the novel to Theodor Herzl, Altneuland (1902), Palestinians are described as some Arabs living in miserable villages and looking like bandits. Herzl's novel will become one of the basic texts of Zionist thought. Palestinian barbarism contrasts.in the Zionist texts, the nobility of European Jews who claim the right to possess the Promised Land, having in the same time a civilizing mission.

The existence of an ancient Hebrew state on this land has no solid archaeological evidence, based largely on the claims of the Bible. Zeev Herzog, professor of archeology at Tel Aviv University, created a media storm in 1999 when he said that he found no archaeological evidence showing that Promised Land of the Bible was actually a Jewish State. A book that has created a great controversy in Israel was that of Shlomo Sand, professor of history at the University of Tel Aviv, entitled When and How Was the Jewish People invented?. In his book, Sand asserts that Jews and Christians in Palestine were converted to Islam with the Arab conquest. In this way, the author denies Israel's official history, which states that Jews of today are descendants of the Hebrew community identified in Palestine 2000 years ago. In Sand's acception, to be Jewish Is not about ethnic origins, but about religion.

International recognition in 1949,apart Arab states, of a new Hebrew state, led to the transformation of the Palestinians into" tolerated population ." Nearly 700,000 Palestinians took the way of exile or were expelled along with the proclamation of Israel.

Why the United States supports Israel in the Palestinian issue?

Internationally, the United States permanently expressed support for Israeli policies in Palestine , by giving financial and diplomatic aid to Tel Aviv government. In many occasions, the United States blocked the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution, condemning Israeli military actions in Gaza and the other occupied Palestinian territories. In many occasions, the United States blocked the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution, condemning Israeli military actions in Gaza and the other occupied Palestinian territories. Jewish Americans represent about 1.7% -2.4% of the U.S. population (5-8 million Jews). American politicians of Jewish origin exert a major influence in Congress since the late nineteenth century. Jewish lobby group has managed often to impose the vision of both US domestic and foreign policy.

Many Jews began to occupy leadership positions in the labor movements of the early twentieth century, contributing to the establishment of trade unions and were an active factor in the implementation of  left policies of the Democratic Party since 1936. New Deal policy of the 30's and civil rights movements of the middle 60s have received broad support among Jewish community in the USA.

In international politics, with the founding of Israel in 1948 and its recognition by the USA, Middle East became an area of ​​interest to American foreign policy. In the context of the US-Soviet Cold War, Israel was the main pillar of American foreign policy implementation in the region. After the collapse of the USSR, Israel has continued to be the centerpiece of American strategy in the Middle East.

Many analysts of US-Israel relationship, as Michael Barnett from George Washington University, believes that the United States support for Israel came originally  more from strategic  calculations  than other reasons. Barnett completes its assessment, saying that after the 1967 Six Day War, the American-Israeli diplomatic relationship was stormy. Taking into account that the USSR enjoyed great influence among the Arab states, Israel was the US perfect tool to restore the balance of power in the region. Hebrew state became the most important member of the anti-Soviet bloc in the region. American support for the government in Tel Aviv, was not only diplomatic but also military one. United States helped Israel to endow itself with the most important weapons, allowing him access to the most important research studies in the American defense industry. Currently, the Israeli  army is considered one of the strongest armies in the world when it comes to military technology developed.

USA were interested in maintaining regional stability in the Middle East and be able to keep under control the world price of oil. Even if the United States assumed the role of mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, promising to take into account the requirements of both sides, everything was limited to the signing of peace agreements without substance, because Israel was not forced in any way to give up Jewish colonies established in the Palestinian territories. The Oslo Accords signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1993 came not to be respected. Regarding the discriminatory policy pursued by Israel in occupied Palestinian territories, American politicians have been reluctant to openly criticize Tel Aviv. So did the president Obama, who limited himself to criticize shyly the establishment of new Jewish colonies in the West Bank, where government of the Palestinian Authority. exercises de facto authority .

According to surveys, Israel also enjoys great popularity among Americans voters, who since the 80s have shown a greater sympathy for Jews than for Palestinians. This wave of sympathy from the Americans could not be ignored by American politicians. The trend was accentuated after the 2001 terrorist attacks, in which Arab terrorists were involved. Americans appreciate that between the USA and Israel are common values.

Regarding Jewish lobbyists , the most influential group in the US Congress is  Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Taking into account the appreciation of the renowned specialists in international relations,, John Mearsheimer şi Stephen Walt,in their book entitled The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy,AIPAC and its allies have come to push the United States to act even against its strategic interests when it comes to supporting Israel.

Life in "Palestinian ghetto"

Image: part of "Israeli security wall" built in the West Bank

With the proclamation of Israel, the Palestinians have come to live in areas that have been increasingly restricted over the years , due to the establishment of new Jewish colonies. Due to limited living space, Palestinian settlements gradually came to acquire the appearance of huge ghettos. On August 30, 2003, along the boundaries of the West Bank under de facto control of Palestinian Authority control ,Israel began to build a security wall in response to the wave of Palestinian terrorist attacks organized in Israel , also known by the name of" Second Intifada ".The Palestinian media named  this barrier, the "apartheid wall." The wall consists of electrical and alarm systems.

Palestinian observers report that it has restricted the freedom of movement of Palestinians, especially for those who have jobs inside Israel. Also have been reported a series of abuses committed by Israeli soldiers at checkpoints in the West Bank. Israel gives response to those who make these accusations to Israeli soldiers, saying that their behavior is constantly kept under observation and any deviation from the rules of conduct are sanctioned accordingly. The big drawback is that these observers fail to always be present at all checkpoints.

Despite the fact that the wall built in the West Bank was declared illegal by the Hague international court of justice, by decision of July 2004, Israel has refused to demolish the wall , arguing that this is a defense against marauding Palestinian gangs.

Another controversial measure taken by Israel is the cancellation of the right of residence in the occupied territories to Palestinians who hold a foreign passport. Palestinians believe that such a measure does nothing else than to isolate more the Palestinian community.

Israel is accused by the Palestinian Authority for the fact that during its military actions in Gaza Strip, Israeli army bombed the civilian infrastructure (water mains, power plants) making daily life of Palestinians a living hell. Under the pretext of mistakes committed by the Israeli army (the so-called collateral damage) came to be bombed schools and hospitals.

As a result of the construction of "the wall in the West Bank", the movement of goods and people has become a logistical nightmare with great cost of delay. Israeli security wall has 75 permanent checkpoints  and an additional 150 mobile checkpoints. In more than 400 places, the roads of the West Bank are blocked by obstacles. In such checkpoints foods degrade until they are brought to market, patients die because of delays caused by congestion at checkpoint, Palestinian children do not make it to school on time and people lose their jobs. In addition, not many Palestinians  get to enjoy crossing permits.

As stated by the World Bank, all of these restrictions on the free movement of goods and people is the leading cause of suffocation of the Palestinian economy and, consequently, low living standards.

As stated in a UN report, a quarter million Palestinians came to be isolated both from the West Bank and inside Israel in their own ghettos.

Palestinian issue from the Israeli perspective

Israeli State is not the only culprit of the current situation in Palestine. Arab aggression and manipulation of public opinion by the Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations have contributed to the widening of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israel has repeatedly stated its willingness to negotiate with Palestinian leaders to form an independent Palestinian state, but the terrorist attacks coming from the Palestinian territories have blocked any action. Relations with the surrounding Arab states continue to be frozen, for the fact that the existence of Israel is still not internationally recognized by them. Immediately after the emergence of Israel as a state, a military alliance of Arab states launched a war of annihilation against him. From Arab camp, only Egypt and Jordan have agreed to officially recognize the existence of Israel. Arab Coalition was also guilty of triggering the Six Day War (1967) and the Yom Kippur War (1972). Some Arab states, such as Iran were actively involved in financing and training terrorist movements that work in Israel (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah).

The political situation in the Palestinian territories was further complicated after Hamas victory in the 2006 presidential elections and Fatah (Palestinian political group organized by Yasser Arafat) has become the target of attacks by Hamas in the attempt to seize full power in Palestine. In the context of the Arab Spring, Hamas managed to conclude new agreements with Arab governments, extending its gun smuggling into Gaza Strip. Taking advantage  of the charities network they created , Hamas leaders turned public buildings Palestinian into potential targets for the Israeli army, which has engaged in military action to destroy the infrastructure used by Hamas brigades.

Another important issue in the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations was dismantling of Jewish settlements erected in the Palestinian territories. According to the disengagement plan signed by Israel, it was reached an agreement to demolish the Jewish colonies in Gaza, considered illegal by the international community. Still remain the Jewish colonies in the West Bank who are still expanding. Israel decided to build as of 2014, another 14,000 colonies. In the meanwhile were destroyed around 500 Palestinian homes, including the village of Khirbet Makhoul.

The formation of a coalition government between Fatah and Hamas, in order to organize new elections, had prompted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to state that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is faced with a decisive choice: either peace with Israel or with Hamas, a terrorist organization that seeks the destruction of Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu decided eventually to introduce economic sanctions against the Palestinians and suspended the construction of houses for Palestinians in Area C of the West Bank.

For Israel, the signing of the Oslo (1993), was a hope for the installation of a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The fact that the Palestinian violence continued after the signing of Oslo, have been a disappointment to the Israeli diplomat who thought it made ​​many concessions to the Palestinian Authority (Israel has agreed to approve 95% of the demands expressed by Palestinian leaders ).

The Second Intifada (Palestinian uprising) was the one that ended the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations aimed at finding a peaceful solution. Since then, Israel has been forced to intervene militarily in the Palestinian territories, whenever Hamas and other terrorist organizations have launched attacks on its territory.

The contribution of Arab Terrorist Organizations in the worsening of the Palestinian conflict

Failure to implement a  long term peace plan has  determined many Palestinians to support terrorist organizations: Hamas and Islamic Jihad. These organizations have come to be labeled terrorist by Israel, USA, Canada, EU, Jordan, Egypt and Japan.

Russia, Iran and China are the main countries that did not want to classify these groups as terrorists, calling them resistance movements. The wave of suicide attacks and assassinations in Israel staged by Hamas and Islamic Jihad since the mid-90s, is the main reason why these organizations came to be called terrorist. The assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish extremist and the waves of terrorist attacks of Hamas and Islamic Jihad were those that led to the failure of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

The fact that there were many casualties among Palestinian civilians is laid by Israel  to the fact that Palestinian terrorist organizations are infiltrating among Palestinian civilians.

Hamas missile attacks over Israeli territory came to be the main reason why Israel frequently launches military operations in Gaza Strip. Retaliation organized by the Israeli army, however, are completely disproportionate. When it comes to intervene against terrorist organizations, the targets can never be precisely determined . That, a Israeli missile destined initially to destroy an objective used by Hamas,can hit in the final an apartment building, leaving behind a real human drama.

Israel didn't care about the fact that his actions in the Palestinian territories leaves a serious humanitarian crisis. Such an attitude of indifference of Israel not only increase the their popularity among Palestinian of terrorist organizations ,but also makes them to be considered liberation movement by some people. The Palestinian Authority has never recognized the legitimacy of Hamas.

A perpetual ethnic conflict

Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the world's "most intractable conflict". Has not been take into consideration whether the current land demarcation in two different states is opportune. The fact is that the existence of a single state in Palestine cannot be a viable solution. As Michael Newman stated in his work, The Case Against Israel, the first step in creating an independent Palestinian state is the withdrawal of all Jewish settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories. To achieve this it is first necessary for Israel to withdraw to the borders existing before the outbreak of the Six Day War of 1967.

A dilemma is what kind of sovereignty will have an eventual Palestinian state on its territory, because USA and Israel certainly are not willing to accept the existence of a Palestinian army to defend the borders of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Iran, through its influence  on Hamas, can instigate according to American and Jewish strategists, an Israeli-Palestinian border conflict.

Israel says it is willing to accept the existence of an independent Palestinian state, but instead continue to maintain the occupation of entire teritory of historic Palestine. The international community does nothing but to accept this fact.

The reason why Israel is trying to prevent the existence of an independent state in the West Bank is linked to the water supply. By giving up the West Bank, Israel will lose control of the mountain springs located here, which now provides much of the water requirement of Israeli population. In this scenario, Israel will be forced to buy water from the Palestinians, a situation not at all happy. An impoverished Palestinian state who lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the citizens, it is unlikely to provide an adequate water supply for Israel. n fact, Israel, as reported by the World Health Organization, currently do not provide not even the minimum water requirement for the Palestinian population, preferring to make supplies for their own population.

For Israel, the Palestinian territories continue to be the test site for the new israeli military technologies. As long as Israel is an ethnic state, the military occupation of the Palestinian territories will strengthen and ethnic cleansing policies will increase to prevent the emergence of a strong Palestinian political influence.

Bibliography

Jonathan Cook, Disappearing Palestine: Israel's experiments in human despair, Zed Books,London,2008.

James L. Gelvin, The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,2014.

What future can have the current Sino-russian strategic partnership?

What future can have the current Sino-russian strategic partnership?

Although different from the cultural point of view, the two countries have come to form the current strategic partnership mainly for economic reasons. Politically, Russian and Chinese leadership militates against the current unipolar international system, in which US has the status of unique superpower. Russia's decision to strengthen, in particular, the cooperation with China economically and militarily was taken amid worsening diplomatic relations with the U.S. and EU. The biggest winner of the current international situation is China, which in exchange for its support to the Russian government, will demand to sustain the Chinese claims in the Asia-Pacific region. Falling apart Europe, Russia is most likely to become dependent on the partnership with China.

USSR and China: between cooperation and rivalry

In the Russian Civil War, which began with the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, Beiyang Government (a series of military regimes that ruled from Beijing from 1912 to 1928), decided to join the troops loyal to the Tsar, beginning with 1918. The city of Harbin, located in Manchuria, became in 1917, the basis for the White Russians, in their fight against the Bolshevik government, that lasted until the beginning of the 30s.

The Soviets decided to support in the first phase, an alliance between the Chinese Communist Party, founded in 1921 by Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao, and the Kuomintang, the Chinese Nationalist Party led by General Chiang Kai-shek. In May 1924, the Chinese government and Soviet signed an agreement establishing diplomatic relations.

Chiang Kai-shek's decision to abandon in 1926 the Soviet advisers and exclude the Communist members of the Chinese government, prompted the Soviets to provide limited support for Chinese Communists during the Chinese Civil War, which ended with the proclamation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 by Mao Zedong. Soviet support was manifested especially during the existence of the Soviet Republic of China in the provinces of Jiangxi and Fujian (1931-1937), a state founded by Mao and Zhu De.

At the end of the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation, Soviet Army distributed some of the weapons of the captured Kwantung Army to the Chinese Communist Party, who were still fighting against the KMT led by Chiang Kai-shek

Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship signed in 1950, between China and the USSR, but it was not at all satisfactory for Stalin, who was forced to abandon the naval bases of Port Arthur and Dalian, returned to Communist China.

As a result, the treaty failed to eliminate tensions in Sino-Soviet relations, which will deteriorate rapidly from the 50s and 60s, leading took the Sino-Soviet split during the Cold War (1960-1989). The split had an ideological issue. With the coming of Nikita Khrushchev at the forefront of the CPSU, the Soviet Union decided to promote peaceful coexistence in relation to the Western democracies. Mao Zedong wanted instead to maintain a belligerent attitude towards the West.

Sino-Soviet split advantaged especially the U.S., which managed to improve diplomatic relations with China, during the Nixon Administration. The break in diplomatic relations between the USSR and China was on the verge of degenerating into a war during the Sino-Soviet border conflict (1969). With the coming to power of Deng Xiaoping, the gap between China and the USSR, becomes a manifest conflict , in which  the Chinese Communists demanded USSR to fulfill 3 conditions for normalizing bilateral relations:

·         Reducing the number of Soviet army stationed at the Sino-Soviet border and in Mongolia

·         Retracting the support for the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia

·         The withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan

Deng Xiaoping’s commitment to peace and development was one of the factors that contributed to Sino-Soviet normalization in the 1980s and laid the foundation for the development of strategic partnership since the 1990s.  

Redefining Russian-Chinese relations after the collapse of the USSR

After the collapse of the USSR, Moscow liberal movements have continued to fuel suspicions of leadership in Beijing, preventing ideological consensus. This uncertain situation persists until 1992, when the Russian-Chinese relations began to gradually return to normal.

The change of direction in Russian-Chinese bilateral relationship takes place in April 1996 when President Yeltsin with his Chinese counterpart Jiang Zemin signed a document formally establishing a "strategic partnership" between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. The act was seen as a symbol of reconciliation after years of "freezing" in the Sino-Soviet diplomatic relations. The signing of the strategic partnership between Russia and China  was not followed by immediate implementation of concrete measures to improve Russian-Chinese cooperation in various fields of interest, such as economic and military.

Russian hesitancy manifested even at the beginning of the presidency of Vladimir Putin, to favor a single international actor is the main cause of the slow progress in the Sino-Russian bilateral relations. Russian-Chinese strategic partnership began to be implemented only in 2003. Russia and Communist China finally learned to seek common ground on issues related to Russian Far East, migration, bilateral economic ties, energy, multilateralism in the Central Asia, the tense situation in the Korean peninsula and East Asian regionalism and the relations with the other three countries with strong interests in the Asia-Pacific region (USA, India and Japan). President Putin has taken several decisions for the relief of the tense situation in the Russian Far East:

·          forbade any interference of regional governors in Russia's international relations, as it was the case of  Evgeny Nazdratenko, Governor of Primorsky Krai

·         In the fall of 2004, it was made ​​a new demarcation of the Russian-Chinese border, which transferred to China, part of an island located near Khabarovsk.

Chinese Migration in the  Russian regions, however, is a source of concern, given that many companies, even with Russian capital,  are seeking cheap labor force from China. Smuggling and tax evasion are other issues linked to the Chinese businesses in Russia. In an attempt to establish a new control in the Russian-Chinese border trade (trade with timber, fish and precious metals), Putin dismissed in the 2006, several leaders within the Russian tax authorities.

The main reason for the rapprochement between Russia and China is too challenging the unipolar nature of the current international system, where the U.S. is trying to defend its status of unique superpower. September 11 also played a role in redefining the bilateral Russian-Chinese relations, with the war against terrorism launched by the Bush Jr. Administration.

China-Russia military ties

Chinese Russian military cooperation, despite some hesitations which are based on past obstacles, extended both in arms industry and   joint military planning implemented in Russian-Chinese military exercises. . Russian-Chinese military relations were often influenced by the personality of leaders in power both in Russia and in China. Each of these leaders, want Russian-Chinese military relationship to develop in a slightly different direction and at a different pace. For example, while an officer of the Russian General Staff would recommend caution in selling the latest Russian military technology, a plant manager of a state-owned arms factory should urge their co-production with China, seeking profit.

According to the statement of Konstantin Makienko, deputy director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Techniques based in Moscow, the  secret that floats above  military cooperation with China, is better hidden  than in the case of similar relationships with countries such as India or Malaysia.

Russian arms sales to China have begun to rise since the early 90s. Makienko  estimates that the first delivery contract  of military equipment to China (especially SU-27 fighters ) was signed in 1991. The first 26 Su-27 aircrafts were delivered to China in 1992. Since 1996, the Chinese have obtained the license for co-production of Su-27 aircraft from the Sukhoi Design Bureau, but without the approval of the Russian leadership. The export of Russian military equipment in the 90s reached an unmanageable character. In the first years after the fall of the USSR, the Russian state did not have enough resources to fund the military industrial complex inherited from the Soviets, forcing many armament factories to conclude supply contracts with foreign countries, in order to survive.

China and India have been from the beginning the main buyers of Russian weapons. Almost every year, China buys Russian weapons worth at least $ 1 billion. In 2013, Russia took first place among arms exporting states, with sales totaling $ 8 billion.

Russia and China support each other to create a multipolar international system, thus increasing the spectrum of military cooperation. In May 2014 the two countries had planned naval exercises in the East China Sea, in the context of growing tensions between China and Japan linked over the ownership of Diaoyu Island / Senkaku, currently administered by Japan.

Regarding the Chinese military doctrine, it aims to combat possible threats on regional level. In this doctrine called peripheral the Chinese navy plays a crucial role (the Taiwan Strait is the most vulnerable that the Chinese navy should monitor it).

Most likely, given the poor relations with the U.S. due to the crisis in Ukraine, Russia will decide to sell cutting edge military technology to China. First, it is very likely that Russia will start selling air defense systems S-400 and assign co-production license of China. In the future it is expected that Russia will expand military cooperation with China in space and nuclear industry.

A strategic partnership with China, offers Russia the chance to develop economically and to strengthen security on the southern flank, at least for now. At the same time the Russian-Chinese partnership has some risks that cannot be denied. Russia may arm a potential opponent, which will eventually threaten Russian national interests. China may prove to be a disappointment, as was the case of Nazi Germany, with which the USSR was allied before the German invasion in June 1941. In order to not repeat the mistakes of the past, Russian strategists, however, continue to keep a shadow of doubt regarding military and economic partnership with China.

Current energy ties between Russia and China

For Russia, China is an alternative market for its natural gas. In the current context of strained relations between Russia and Europe, due to annexation of Crimea and the severe crisis in Ukraine, the Kremlin has implemented a backup plan, which provided for the extension of the pipeline and negotiation of a new gas supply contract with the People's Republic China.

Businesses in the energy sector are the main component of Russian-Chinese economic relations. During President Putin's visit to Shanghai in May 2014, Russia signed a contract with China for natural gas supply on a period of 30 years. The contract value exceeds 400 billion dollars. As Alexei Miller declared, Chairman of Gazprom's, the new contract with China could affect the price of gas supplied to European consumers. By 2018, Russia should build another pipeline to transport to China annually, a volume of 38 billion cubic meters of gas. The investment on the energy market in China allows Gazprom's, to recover some of the loss of the European market, where demand is stagnating.

Regarding Central Asia, a region of geostrategic importance and rich in energy reserves, Russia has not tried to block the influence of China, which began to invest in the exploitation of energy resources of Turkmenistan. Turkmen authorities have agreed to supply China through a  gas pipeline which will be inaugurated in 2014. It remains to be seen how will Kremlin perceive, in the future, this competition from China on the energy market of Central Asia.

How sustainable can be the present Sino-Russian alliance?

The sustainability of Russian-Chinese alliance will be determined by the degree of mutual trust. If relations with Western democracies will improve in the future, Russia may meditate if is in her advantage to have a partnership so closely with China, especially at the military level. Eventually, China is becoming the dominant power in the alliance with Russia, and Chinese leaders priority is to recover Taiwan and gain the supremacy in the global economy. Chinese leadership cares less of the Russian plans to create a multipolar world.

As it happens in a diplomatic relationship of two strong countries, China will soon ask for something in return for her tacit support of Russia in Ukraine (it could not be a direct support because Chinese leaders do not want to encourage separatist movements in Tibet and Xinjiang). China will require the Russia's support in the differences it has with neighboring Asian countries, especially Japan. Russia risks becoming completely dependent on trade with China and its diplomatic support, if will not improve her relations with the West.

Another major problem is demographic pressure on the Russian-Chinese border which could become a big problem for Russia, since Siberia is largely depopulated. A massive population of Chinese immigrants would put this area under the de facto control of the Chinese state. To restore a balance in the Asia-Pacific region, a close cooperation with India will be indispensable for Kremlin. To not become a country subordinated to China, Russia should expand its influence in the region.

Bibliography

James Bellacqua, The Future of China-Russia Relations, University Press of Kentucky, 2010.

R.K.I. Quested, Sino-Russian Relations: A Short History, Rutledge, 2014.

Odd Arne Westad, Brothers in Arms: The Rise and Fall of the Sino-Soviet Alliance, 1945-1963, Stanford University Press, 1998.

Alekseĭ Dmitrievich Voskresenskiĭ, Russia and China: A Theory of Inter-state Relations, Psychology Press,2003.

Battle of Leyte Gulf, the largest naval battle in history

Battle of Leyte Gulf, the largest naval battle in history

If we sum the total displacement of warships that participated in the four naval confrontations in the Battle of Leyte Gulf (the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea, the Battle of Surigao Strait, the Battle of Cape Engaño and the Battle of Samar), we can conclude that it was largest naval battle of the Second World War and even in the history of naval warfare. Battle of Leyte Gulf, also known by the name of the Second Battle of the Philippine Sea, was held from October 23 to 27, 1944, near the islands of Leyte and Samar in the Philippine archipelago. The defeat at the Battle of Leyte Gulf severely affected Japanese ability to transfer resources from Southeast Asia to Japanese Archipelago.

Preparations for battle

After the defeats in the battles of Midway and Guadalcanal, the Japanese Imperial Fleet composed of three naval forces engaged in a last attempt to turn the tide of the Pacific War. After the U.S. Marines landed on the island of Leyte, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) decides to interfere with his last forces to repel the invasion. To impede the Japanese naval offensive, U.S. Navy decided to send US Navy’s 3rd Fleet under the command of Admiral William Frederick Halsey Jr. and the 7th Fleet commanded by Admiral Thomas C. Kinkaid.

In the fall of 1944, the U.S. Navy held two offensive in the direction of the Philippines , flanking it from the east and south. On September 15, 1944 were held simultaneously two landings, one on the island of Peleliu and another on Morotai island situated in the Moluccas. By landing on Morotai, General MacArthur managed to advance with his naval forces in the southwestern Pacific  along the coast of New Guinea, 300 nautical miles from Mindanao. The gate of American offensive in the Philippine archipelago was open. However, U.S. Navy did not know which would be the reaction of the Japanese Imperial Navy and how much was it willing to risk another confrontation in the Philippine Sea. Imperial Japanese Navy still represented a formidable force for that time. After the Allied landing at Leyte, the Japanese fleet count on interruption of the communication and supply lines of the U.S. Navy, stretched on long distances.

Initially, in the U.S. plans, landing in Leyte Gulf was to be held until December 20, giving the impression that the whole campaign in the Philippines will stretch over a long period. The American air raids meant to destroy Japanese airfields in the Philippines have shown, however, that the enemy U.S. Navy had a military presence much weaker than expected. This discovery determined the Fleet Admiral American William Halsey Jr., commander of the 3rd Fleet, to recommend the speeding of operations in Leyte Gulf and the cease of any further landings.

U.S. Navy General Staff approves the proposal of Admiral William Halsey Jr and set for October 20, 1944, the landing operation in Leyte Gulf. Any large-scale naval operations were halted, and the American war machine in the Pacific has been redirected to the Philippines. U.S. Navy has expected that this new strategy will shorten the war strategy in the Pacific a few months. Japanese documents captured by Americans before the end of the war revealed in detail how the Japanese naval strategy developed after the Battle of the Philippine Sea and also why the Japanese Imperial Navy High Command decided to launch a naval operation in the  Leyte Gulf. Organizational structure of the Japanese fleet suffered in its turn major changes during  June- October 1944. After the disaster suffered by Japanese carriers at the Battle of the Philippine Sea, Admiral Toyoda Soemu, supreme commander of the Imperial Japanese fleet, regrouped his forces with one goal in mind: to strengthen the forces available for the Western Pacific area. The action of air groups from aircraft carriers remained indispensable to the Japanese strategy.

The Japanese fleet was grouped under a new form of organization called The Striking Force under the command of Vice-Admiral Ozawa Jisaburo. In turn, The Striking Force was divided into four battle groups: Central Force under the command of Vice Admiral Takeo Kurita , Southern Force fleet composed of two naval groups commanded by Vice Admiral Shoji Nishimura and  Vice Admiral Shima Kiyohide, Northern Force under the direct command of Rear Admiral Ozawa. For the first time in battle, the Japanese carriers will conduct  organized kamikaze attacks.

Balance of forces in Leyte Gulf

At the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the American 7th Fleet had on disposition a total of 738 ships. Of these, 157 were combat vessels, 420 were amphibious ships, 84 vessels were used in patrols and removal of mines, and 73 were support ships. US Navy's 7th fleet was equipped with six battleships, five heavy cruisers, six light cruisers, 18 escort carriers, 86 destroyers, 25 frigates and 11 destroyers escort. Under the subordination of the American 7th Fleet were elements of the Australian Navy.

The 3rd fleet was equipped with eight aircraft carriers, 8 light carriers, six battleships with 406.4 mm naval guns, six heavy cruisers, nine light cruisers, 58 destroyers.

Imperial Japanese Navy had only one aircraft carrier, three light carriers, nine battleships, 14 heavy cruisers, six light cruisers and 35 destroyers. It was obvious that the Japanese fleet had no chance in a frontal assault against 7th   and 3rd Fleet. But the Japanese Empire had geographical advantages. Japanese airfields still had enough airfields under control for their planes, although it did not have air superiority.

Taiwan (Formosa), Luzon, Palawan and Borneo were a natural barrier almost uninterrupted from Japan to Malaysia. Behind this barrier, the Japanese were able to repair their ships and then organize them without being directly exposed to the attacks coming from American surface ships. The only ones that thwarted Japanese planes were the US submarines in the area.

Battles of Leyte Gulf

Image: USS Birmingham in his attempt to extinguish the fire on the USS Princeton

Shortly before the start of the battle, Rear Admiral Kurita made ​​the following statement:

"We're going to fight in a battle that will decide the fate of the Empire".

US Navy landing on Leyte Island on October 20, 1944, led the Japanese to accelerate early naval operations. The Japanese fleet fights back at American landing by launching  operation Sho-go (Operation Victory), which had in  plan to  lure  the US Navy 3rd Fleet on north to  San Bernardino Strait. Meanwhile, as this maneuver take place, three Japanese fleets had to interconnect to attack Leyte Island.

The submarine action in Palawan Passage (23 October) was the first action taken by the U.S. Navy against the Japanese fleet located in Leyte Gulf. On October 23, 1944, the submarines Darter and Dace of the 7th Fleet  detected the ships of Central Force led by Vice Admiral Kurita , when they arrived in Palawan Strait. Vice Admiral Kurita's fleet consisted of five battleships (Yamato and Musashi, the largest battleships in history, Nagato, Kongo and Haruna), 10 heavy cruisers (Atago, Maya, Takao, Choke, Myoko, Haguro, Kumano, Suzuya, Tone and Chikuma ), two light cruisers and 15 destroyers. Submarine Darter manages to sink the cruiser Atago (Vice Admiral Kurita’s command ship) and seriously damaged the cruiser Takao, while the submarine Dace manages to sink the cruiser Maya. While watching Takeo cruiser heading to the Brunei shipyard for repairs, the submarine Darter failed on a sandbank, and his crew was transferred to the submarine Dace.

On October 24 followed the Battle of Sibuyan Sea, a series of almost continuous confrontation, both naval and aerial. The 3rd Fleet was not well positioned and in addition had only 60% of its total number of airplanes ready for battle. Planes and torpedo bombers from the aircraft carriers USS Intrepid, USS Essex, USS Lexington and USS Enterprise succeeded to damage the battleship Musashi. After being hit by a total of 17 bombs and 19 torpedoes, the battleship finally sunk. Were damaged the battleships Yamato and Nagato and the heavy cruiser Myoko. Even if Americans managed to reject much of the air strikes organized by Vice Admiral Onishi Takijiro ,a Japanese aircraft manages to launch a 250 kg bomb over the light carrier USS Princeton. After a series of devastating explosions that occur on board, the USS Princeton sinks.

Although he lost the battleship Musashi, sister ship of the battleship Yamato (the largest battleship in history), Vice Admiral Kurita decided to move towards San Bernardino Strait. To defend the strait, Admiral Helsey decides to create battle group 34 consisting of 4 battleships, 5 cruisers and 14 destroyers. The ambiguous message sent by telegraph to Helsey has not entirely clarified the role of this battle group, something that will matter later in the course of battle.

Northern Force commanded by Vice Admiral Ozawa  will succeed eventually to lure US 3rd  Fleet commanded by Admiral Helsey,who decides  to move rapidly north in pursuit of the Japanese fleet. US Admiral, believing that Kurita's Central Force was annihilated by naval aviation of 3rd fleet , has directed his attention to the destruction of all remaining Japanese aircraft carriers belonging to  Northern Force. As a result, San Bernardino Strait remained unguarded. Japanese fleet was located less than 40 nautical miles from the San Bernardino Strait.

The next battle was The Battle of Surigao Strait, the last battle of battleships in history. On the night of October 24, 1944, Southern Force commanded by Vice Admiral Nishimura enters Surigao Strait, which connects Mindanao Sea and Leyte Gulf. Surigao Strait was already known in the pages of history, as the place where he was killed Portuguese explorer Fernando Magellan.

Once arrived in this narrow strait, Japanese ships have fallen into the trap prepared by the supporting force belonging to the US 7th Fleet led by Rear Admiral Jesse Oldendorf. American Admiral had available an impressive fleet of 6 battleships (USS West Virginia, USS Maryland, Mississippi, USS Tennessee, USS California and USS Pennsylvania), 8 cruisers, 28 destroyers and 39 torpedo boats. U.S. ships manage to sink Japanese battleships Yamashiro and Fuso and cruiser Mogami.

Admiral Halsey's decision to pursue Northern Force commanded by Vice Admiral Ozawa and leave unprotected the Strait of San Bernardino, allowed Central Force , led Vice Admiral Kurita,  to move easily near  Samar island.

Battle of Samar Island was the climax of the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Near the island of Samar, the US Navy 7th Fleet retained only 16 escort carriers with very poor performance protected by some light destroyers. Kurita's Central Force received four battleships, among whom was the battleship Yamato. They were accompanied by eight cruisers and 11 destroyers. USS Johnson was sunk by a Japanese destroyer group. The advantage of the US Navy was the 450 planes flying on 6 aircraft carriers. Kurita's Japanese fleet did not have air support, but nevertheless managed to destroy the battleship Yamato escort carrier USS Gambier Bay. Vice Admiral Ozawa was not aware, however, that Kurita managed to lure the carriers of Admiral Halsey.

After he destroyed the carriers from Vice Admiral Ozawa fleet in the Battle of Cape Engano Admiral Halsey found out about critical situation of Leyte and decided to proceed with all speed to the south. The battle ends with the withdrawal of Vice Admiral Kurita, who realizes that he can fight without air support.

 In the battle of Leyte Gulf, the Japanese fleet lost four battleships, three cruisers and 12 destroyers. In battle fell nearly 12,000 Japanese sailors. U.S. Navy lost one carrier easy, two escort carriers and three destroyers. They were killed about 1,500 American sailors. Losses were recorded also among Australian fleet, which lost the heavy carrier HMAS Australia after a kamikaze attack. Battle of Leyte Gulf marked the end of major naval operations for the Imperial Japanese Navy. US victory in the Gulf of Leyte opened the way to the liberation of the Philippines and other territories occupied by the Japanese in Southeast Asia. In the same time, Japanese Empire lost the important resources in the occupied territories in Southeast Asia. Even if he eventually won the battle, Admiral Hasley was criticized for his recklessness, which caused additional losses to the American fleet.

Bibliography

H. P. Willmott, The Battle of Leyte Gulf: The Last Fleet Action, Indiana University Press, Bloom, 2005.

Milan N. Vego, The Battle for Leyte, 1944: Allied and Japanese Plans, Preparations, and Execution,  Naval Institute Press,2006.

C. Vann Woodward, The Battle for Leyte Gulf: The Incredible Story of World War II's Largest Naval Battle, Skyhorse Publishing, Inc, 2013.

CIA and the secrets of brainwashing techniques

CIA and the secrets of brainwashing techniques

Aware by the fact that mind control power is the most powerful  weapon in the world, CIA began experimenting  brainwashing techniques to have control over the individual psyche. The objective of this technique is to erase the memory of the individual and to implement new beliefs. The practice of torture in order to induce a new state of shock among victims of these experiments is the one that sparked the outrage of American society. A long time, CIA experiments in the field of behavioral science were kept secret from american public opinion. The destruction of a large part of CIA documents regarding brainwashing techniques prevents us ,today, from learning the truth.

What are brainwashing techniques?

                  In his book entitled Brainwashing, Edward Hunter gives us a complete definition of what brainwashing technique means. According to his definition, the purpose of brainwashing technique is to change radically  a person's mind so that it becomes a living puppet or a human robot. Those who practice this technique, have the aim to create an individual with new faiths and beliefs compatible with their interests. Without  awareness , man becomes trapped in his own body, because a new thought process is installed. Brainwashing technique was useful in creating an individual who never revolts and listens to orders received from higher authorities that interacts with him (governments, organizations, institutions, officials.

                  The term of ”brainwashing” was first used during the Korean War (1950-1953) to describe the behavior of American prisoners returned from North Korean camps. In their technique of manipulation, the North Koreans have taken the concept ksi-no (cleaning the mind) applied in the Chinese Communism (Maoism),with roots in Confucianism (from the great  Mencius). U.S. commanders realized that some American soldiers returned from North Korean prisons were completely converted to communism, ready to denounce their own country. Their strange behavior continued after release, even without being subjected to communist influence. This negative effect on the morale of the soldiers, was baptized by Edward Hunter with the term of brainwashing. Hunter describes that these soldiers who had returned from North Korean prisons were no longer able to think freely and could no longer adapt to unexpected situations. Individuals subjected to this brainwashing techniques, were acting manipulated by their own instincts .It was a party discipline of North Koreans which extends to mind control. Brainwash is much more than a simple psychosis or neurosis. The technique is labeled with the term "mental rape" because the victim is forced by an attacker, whose intentions are to destroy the victim's faith in her old moral values, ​​to create an empty space in which to implant new beliefs.

CIA and his experiments in controlling human mind

                Between brainwashing technique and politics there is an interdependence that cannot be denied. Beyond being a technique, brainwashing, is a vision of how to hold supreme power over individuals, and yet there is no greater power than the power to control the mind of an individual. That explains the interest of CIA and other government bodies in this technique. Knowledge of Chinese and North Korean communists about brainwashing techniques have been an additional incentive for CIA to start immediately a research in behavioral science.

                MKULTRA was a CIA research operation started in the early 50s, with the support of the U.S. government in order to study the human mind control techniques. According to the report of Senator Sam Ervin from 1974, the CIA had targeted segments of the population such as African Americans, women, prisoners, the elderly, young and sick with mental illness. Regarding nationality, the subjects of the experiments were American and Canadian citizens.

                CIA Specialists in behavioral science have used various methods to manipulate individual mental state and alter their brain functions such as secret administration of potentially hallucinogenic drugs (LSD) and other similar chemicals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, isolation, verbal violence and sexual abuse and various forms of torture such as skin sewing without anesthetic administration made by ​​torturer Dr. Lawrence Schacht. Beatings were common procedures in this picture.           CIA experiments were conducted in 80 institutions including universities, hospitals, prisons and pharmaceutical companies. . Heads of these institutions, where CIA conducted experiments, knew about the torture phenomenon.

                With regard to the horrors perpetrated by CIA in an attempt to control the human mind is advanced a conspiracy theory about CIA involvement in the case of mass suicide at Jonestown. where have been recorded 900 deaths(the second incident on  the number of victims in a deliberate attack after September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks). It supports the theory that the CIA housed in the Jonestown medical experiments. Former CIA Director Richard Helms ordered in 1973 (official year of the conclusion of the  CIA experiments in handling human mind) the destruction of all documents related to  Project MKULTRA. Due to this action of Helms, a small portion of the documents related to the project managed to survive. In the declassification in July 2001, some of the remaining 20,000 documents were declassified. Almost 6% of the funds received CIA went on funding Project MKULTRA.

                During the experiments in Canada, the CIA became interested in the work of the psychiatrist Ewen Cameron and his concept of mental start. .According to theories of Ewen Cameron, patients with mental illness can be treated by erasing the existing memory and rebuilding the psyche from the beginning. Mentally ill sedated with hallucinogenic drugs were forced to listen non-stop Cameron's message recorded on tape. Patients were regular subjected to a drug-induced coma.

                Cameron's methods were eventually used by the CIA as interrogation techniques for suspects who refuse to answer questions asked by CIA agents in an investigation. Cameron's research was included in a CIA interrogation manual for counterintelligence, called KUBARK. The main reason that the CIA has come to conduct all sorts of experiments, is due to too much autonomy granted by the American government. CIA hampered the access to classified documents for the US Congress Commission, intended to supervise the activity of the intelligence agency.

                CIA results obtained from behavioral experiments

                Although mobilized lot of resources, the CIA failed to gain full control of its experiments in brainwashing. As stated John D. Marks, author of the book, Manchurian Candidate, it is still too early to believe that the CIA gave up his plan of controlling the human mind. According to him "the best defense of a free society against unethical behavior modification experiments is public awareness."

                Despite the fact that the CIA failed to achieve the ultimate goal of complete control over the thoughts and actions of the individual, the U.S. agency has applied several techniques over the time (including electroshock), that can succeed in the end in  the future research in  erasing completely the human memory in order to install a new kind of thinking.

Bibliography

Kathleen Taylor , Brainwashing: The science of thought control , Ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004,pp.3-10.

http://www.citizenwars.com/operation-mockingbird-cia-media-manipulation/

http://altnewschannel.com/cia-mind-control-and-assault-on-religious-freedom/