Iran Nuclear Deal, a Win-Win Solution?

Article published in Cafebabel

Iran nuclear negotiations were tough but constructive. © European External Action Service

After ten years of negotiations, a historic nuclear deal has been sealed between six world powers (USA, Russia, China, UK, France and Germany) and the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the 14th of July. What’s behind this agreement? 

Despite all efforts, the agreement is still subject to long discussions as President Barack Obama’s words have indicated, “this agreement is not made in trust but in verification.” Iran will dismantle much of its nuclear infrastructure while the UN, US and EU will take down a range of sanctions that were imposed on Iran over the past nine years. 

Among the conditions determined by the agreement, Iran will: reduce its enrichment capacity by two thirds while closing its underground facility at Fordow for enriching uranium; Iran’s accumulation of low enriched uranium will be reduced by 96%; the core of the heavy water reactor in Arak will be removed and redesigned in a way that will not produce significant amounts of plutonium; Iran will allow a UN inspector to enter in certain places, such as military sites, should the inspectors have any doubts regarding Iran’s nuclear activity. Once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has verified that Iran has moved forward in order to reduce its programme, the UN, US and the EU will lift the sanctions. 

Reactions to the Nuclear Agreement 

In his declaration, Barack Obama has said that this was the best agreement in order to prevent Tehran developing a nuclear bomb. He also promised to veto any attempt of the Republicans who are opposing the nuclear deal. Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif defined the outcome of the negotiations as a “win-win” solution, though not perfect. 

As for Netanhyahu, he described the moment as a “bad mistake of historic proportions.” The Israeli President was clearly dissatisfied with the agreement and has even demanded the US Congress kill it. The sense of insecurity has grown in the Zionist country, as the hypothesis of the end of the Iranian sanctions might canalize billions of dollars to militant allies like Hezbollah and sectarian battles in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, is now on the table. 

On the European side, French President François Hollande has manifested optimism before this historic step but warned, “we must be extremely vigilant on what Iran will be.” Both Frans Timmermans and Federica Mogherini have shared words of optimism, congratulating the historic agreement and all the efforts involved. 

When did this all begin? 

Shortly after World War II, in 1953, an orchestrated plan from the CIA overthrew Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq, in a coup that defeated a democratically elected Prime Minister. Mossadeq, just like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2002, had sought to nationalise Iran’s oil industry. The US didn’t like it. 

Later on, in 1979, the Iranian revolution began when the Shah of Iran, an American puppet called Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, was obliged to leave the country. This revolution happened following months of protests and strikes against his policies. Once Pahveli was exiled, Islamic religious leader Ayatollah Khomeni returned from exile. The Iranian people then voted a referendum and on the 1st of April the Islamic Republic of Iran was proclaimed. In 1979/1981 the US Embassy hostage crisis determined the loop of bad relations between the two countries that seemed not to have an end. After 444 days, the final 52 hostages were released. A few years later, in 1985/86, under Reagan administration, the US secretly shipped weapons to Iran in exchange for help in liberating America hostages taken by Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as to illegally head off profits from these sales to the Contra rebels fighting to takeover the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. This ended up in a major political crisis for President Reagan. In 1988, an American warship shoots down an Iran Air flights in the Gulf, killing all people on board. The US claimed that the Iranian Airbus was mistaken for a fighter jet. 

After these consecutive attacks towards the Islamic Republic of Iran and its people, still, in 1997, Mohammad Khatami was elected President and has called for a dialogue with the American people, which never really happened. 

George Bush’s allegations towards Iran 

Nevertheless, the major accusation concerning Iran came in 2002, when president George Bush, in his State of the Union address, denounced Iran as part of an “axis of evil” along with Iraq and North Korea. This claiming with no real evidence had full support from the mainstream media across the United States. Speculation had been implanted in the American citizens’ minds and Iran was set to be the next target. From 2002 onwards all nuclear fears and sanctions began, when an opposition group reveals that Iran was developing nuclear facilities including a uranium enrichment plant at Natanz as well as a reactor at Arak. Naturally, the US accused Iran of clandestinely developing a nuclear weapon programme, which Iran vehemently denied. 

More than a decade of talks and discontinuous attempts of engagement between Iran, the UN and the US, a big pack of sanctions over the nuclear issue was imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran, between 2006 and 2010, by the UN. The US and the EU have also imposed sanctions on Iran, extending its measures in 2012 to the financial sector. Bilateral sanctions were applied in several other countries. 

Ahmadinejad’s allegations towards the US 

In 2005, when Ahmadinejad was elected President, the relations between Iran and the West got worsen. During his speech at the UN in 2010, the former Iranian President claimed that most people believed the US government had orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Since 2013, when Hassan Rouhani became Iranian President, the relationship between the West and his country turned a lot smoother. Thirty years later, an Iranian President held a phone call with the US head of state, Barack Obama. 

Conclusion 

Following a historic and political timeline of the US and Iran, the big winner of this agreement is the US. Iran will visibly win as well, primarily by expanding its financial sector through negotiations with external investors once the sanctions are lifted. Also, Iran represents the fourth largest oil reserves in the world. However, due to international sanctions, Iran’s ability to export became seriously restrained. If the nuclear agreement passes in the Congress and the sanctions are lifted, the country could increase its oil production by approximately 50% and consequently lower oil prices. 

But the main question remains: why was Iran submitted to sanctions in the first place? What legitimacy has a country like the US, or some other country with a history of invasions and plotting, to impose sanctions in a sovereign state? Real evidence was never found, just like in Iraq, but a single suspicions from the West, namely from the US, seems to be enough to dictate deals and agreements as if the other part had any choice. 

As I have mentioned in previous articles, I am totally against political and military interference in other states, be it directly or indirectly (via coup attempts). By sanctioning Iran, the UN, US and the EU kept on impoverishing the Islamic country, based on political fears. Iran is not being given anything new because much of its chance of generating wealth was taken away nine years ago, and yet the US, not directly, still wins the legitimate control of Iranian facilities. Nevertheless, this was indeed a memorable deal, considering the past relations between Iran and the West, and Iran’s geographical position in the world, as Iran has the capacity of fueling prosperity throughout the Middle East.

South Sudan: four years of independence amidst violence, blood and corruption

Article published in Cafebabel

Southern Sudanese soldiers parade at the John Garang Mausoleum during the celebrations of independence day in the city of Juba.  © European External Action Service

Four years have passed since the independence of South Sudan but the country is facing an enormous humanitarian crisis since the outbreak of the civil war, last December. Political impasse due to corruption is the major concern in a country rich in oil and yet one of the least developed countries in the world. 

On the occasion of South Sudan’s independence from Khartoum, on 9 July, High Representative Federica Mogherini, EU Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development Neven Mimica, and EU Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Management Christos Stylianides, have shared some thoughts and demonstrated some commitment towards the Sudanese people. “Genuine peace negotiations are the only way forward and need to be revitalised swiftly. The EU pledges its full support for the peace efforts being made and recognises the steps to date. But it’s too little and too slow. Government and opposition leaders remain unwilling to engage seriously or to stop using violence as a means to achieve their objective,” stated the European representatives. 

The European Commission estimates that around 4.1 million people are currently in life-threatening situations and in need of urgent medical care. Since the dawn of the conflict around 1.6 million people have been displaced and over half a million (590 000) are living now in neighboring countries. Before such a devastating situation, the European Union had contributed, along with the Member States, some €217.5 million in 2015. In early May, the United States pledged $5 million to help set up an accountability mechanism for South Sudan. 

A Country Weakened by its Past 

Four years ago, after a referendum held in line with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), South Sudan, a country with 8.26 million inhabitants and one of Africa’s biggest oil producers, has turned into a state. Recognised as the newest nation in the world, the most triumphant scene of African progress since the end of apartheid in South Africa, the country located in Central Africa faces now a serious humanitarian crisis that began in December 2013. The international community was blamed of lacking efficacy to ensure that South Sudan would develop into a democratic and stable nation. 

More than any other part of Africa, the Sudan is defined by civil war. It was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, and then ushered into the 20th century by a discriminatory arrangement of Egyptian and British control. Colonial efforts at modernisation were confined to the north while the south was left to exploit land and slaves. 

On 15 December, an armed conflict erupted at the centre of the South Sudanese governmental authority, the presidential palace in Juba, the capital. This confrontation divided army officers loyal to president Salva Kiir, of Dinka origins, and discontented soldiers supporting his ex-deputy Riek Machar, of Nuer roots, becoming into a tragic civil war, in which more than 50,000 people were killed. Kiir accused Machar of plotting a coup attempt, while Machar blamed the president for trying to kill him. The Dinka and the Nuer are the two most prominent and most populated tribes in South Sudan: longtime rivals who had battled over land and resources since at least the 19th century. 

Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) at Zam Zam camp outside El Fasher, Sudan. | (cc) United Nations Photo

Corruption in South Sudan, what else? 

Nevertheless, there is so much more behind religion that one cannot see. According to Global Witness, a NGO dedicated to exposing corruption, there is no evidence that oil revenue in South Sudan is reaching those who need it most. Identified as the most important source of income, just 5% of the latest budget was used on healthcare, education and infrastructure combined. The oil industry is definitely the root of this revolting conflict and several battles have been fought in order to control the sought after black gold. 

Before the unleash of the armed conflicts, South Sudan’s government spent months developing laws which should ensure that the country’s oil sector was not a source of corruption or conflict. However, as of December 2013, since the outbreak of the conflict, all the work done to improve governmental transparency has fallen apart. 

Last April, South Sudan received a $500 million loan from the Qatar National Bank (QNB), which means that the African country will owe around $781 million, interest inclusive, paid over a seven years period. Naturally, the government has suggested a payment in oil, should cash be lacking. The problem with this agreement is the certainty that the money invested will not go to the country, people’s needs, and infrastructures, but yes into private pockets. Here we have a good example of a parasite country. A country that chooses to live from other country’s financial support instead of making the most out of its natural resources to enrich the country and its people. 

Political deadlock 

On the 29 May, Kenyan president Kenyatta announced plans to merge Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD) peace process and SPLM (Sudan’s People Liberation Movement) reunification process. Due to quarrels between president Kiir and former vice-president Machar, in Nairobi, the merged process was stalled 28 June. 

This political impasse has been costing the lives of thousands of South Sudanese people as conflicts continue in Equatoria and Bahr el Ghazal. 

On the 30 June, the United Nations released a human rights report documenting widespread rape and women buried alive. Why is the international community so quiet before such outrageous actions? Why do some lives matter less than others?

Greek Debt Audit's Coordinator Accuses Criminal Debt System

Article published in Cafebabel

Greek tragedy. Andrea_44 © Flickr 

The situation in Greece is calamitous. Draghi has dictated the closing of all banks, restricting people to withdrawals of 60€ per day from the ATMs. How far will the Greek crisis go? The mainstream media has been flooding our news feed with the same discourse over and over again: Will there be reforms? Will Greece pay its debt? But what do we really know about what is happening in Greece? 

Outcomes of the Greek Debt 

Auditor Brazilian Maria Lucia Fattorelli is the coordinator of the Greek Debt Audit, whose outcomes she has presented in the Hellenic Parliament early in July. This technical and detailed description of the debt system’s modus operandi is a must see in order to widen our perspective and therefore our own conclusions about what is really happening behind this massive debt. The first point to note is that the set of agreements was not an initiative of the Greek government. "It was an initiative of the Troika and the benefits reverted to the organisms that constitute it,” said Fattorelli. 

Moreover, the conclusions from the audit show that all contracts analysed are attached to the memos and within an attachment they found another agreement. The mechanism found in the Bilateral Agreement was hidden in one of its annexes where it was another agreement. Fatorelli claims that through this mechanism, the money borrowed from bilateral creditors did not go to Greece; instead, abusive costs were transferred to the Hellenic country. 

The revelation of this mechanism tears down the utterance that the taxpayers of other European countries would be funding Greece. “We must submit a report. It is an instrument, not an opinion. Once made available, it is the responsibility of the government and society to know how to use it to change the situation of the country and its relations with creditors,” alerted Fattorelli. Many wonder why we haven't seen this information on the mainstream media. Shouldn’t this be public knowledge? 

Behind Fattorelli’s audit on the Greek debt, there are three main players at stake: The European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). 

The EFSF was created as a temporary crisis resolution mechanism by the Euro zone Member States in June 2010. However, some voices like Fattorelli claim that the IMF imposed the creation of the EFSF, turning this new mechanism into a disguised money laundering facility. The EFSF has already provided financial aid to Portugal, Greece and Ireland. A permanent rescue mechanism was also created in October 2012, the ESM. The ESM acts currently as the unique instrument responding to new requests for financial assistance by the Eurozone. So far, it has provided loans to Spain and Cyprus. 

During an event to promote support for the Greek people in Portugal, Francisco Louçā, coordinator of the Left Bloc party, has said that a “new order in which there is no space for either contracts or solidarity” has been created in Europe. To be true and proven that the entire debt system is a big scheme, dictating an ultimatum to Greece, is the absolute proof of how the world elite is working on shrinking human rights and dignity of life. Let us keep in mind that a bailout with the same features and conditions, massive austerity and the downfall of social rights, is now being paid back to its creditors, from Ireland, Portugal and Spain… 

The Greek Tragedy 

Luckily, we are living in a democracy, at least that is what all Europeans believe, and even though the Greek people might be under a terrible financial dictatorship, they were recently able to vote on a referendum where most Greeks admittedly manifested interest in leaving the Eurozone. Sunday, the so-called “Ultimate Summit” decided whether the creditors extended financial aid to Greece or not. As expected, Eurozone leaders reached an agreement over a new Greek bailout, which is still under discussion about its conditions. However, German Finance Minister Schäuble as well as Angela Merkel will put a short leash on Greece. 

What we are witnessing currently is a political struggle between the Greek Government and the “European government.” Along came a societal struggle and different stances have been formed throughout the EU. In one side, we see numerous protests across Europe trying to appeal to the suffering that the Greek people is enduring now and likely even more in the future. On the other side, we see a faction condemning Greece for its fiscal irresponsibility and many years of living like kings. This group claims that Greece should leave the Eurozone since they don’t want to pay more taxes because of the laziness of the Greek people. But is this really the truth? When we live in a democratic society, we have to face and respect other people’s opinions… 

A look back into Greek’s political history 

Despite of a big percentage of the European population being well aware of the tyrannical procedure of the banking system, in the Greek case, we have to take into consideration that, compared to many other European nations, they have been slightly more irresponsible when dealing with their public finances. 

When it comes to Politics, Modern Greece has always been an unstable country. It is important to rewind the tape in order to better understand the Greek crisis. In 1967, with support from the United States, Greece saw the installation of a dictatorship, which only ended in 1974. Considering that for half a century Greece hasn’t closed its budget (!), we must assume that there was an enormous governance problem inside the country. Along with an extreme badly management of Greek public accounts there is a powerful banking synchronization that has been destabilizing the whole Eurozone as well. 

For example, if we look at fractional-reserve banking, a very common banking policy and the current form of banking practiced in most countries worldwide, we can have a small idea of how banks play with our money generating debt — a huge irresponsible financial policy. The process is very simple: for instance, if you put 1 euro in the bank, 50 euros will automatically be assumed as ready to be lent, depending on the reserves of the bank. This system is clearly not sustainable on a large scale. 

The economic imperialism that has now blown-back to the United States and Europe has been evolving for decades and can be directly traced to the end of World War II, to the birth of the CIA, the IMF and the World Bank. “The stock market and economy have become weapons of mass oppression manipulated by an imperial banking cartel to impose order and exploit the masses. This crisis boldly represents the manifest evolution of the fascist spirit reasserting itself as the dominant ideology,” wrote David DeGraw in Global Research. 

Conclusions 

It is always difficult to make a reasonable judgment on the Greek crisis as many factors are at stake and we cannot take for granted that we know everything of this complex tragedy. 

It seems to be that an agreement will take place very soon and therefore Greece will remain in the Eurozone. The conditions of this agreement are yet to be known, but we already know that many of Syriza’s promises during the campaign period went downhill. Instead of getting rid of the debt, the Greeks will now pay more taxes, the VAT on restaurants will go up, and pensions will diminish. This is a recipe for disaster. If Greece wants to rise from the ashes and save the country from a likely default, it must open up, attract external investors, encourage internal investors and reduce the huge amount of bureaucracy that is constantly obstructing any attempt of progress. This is the only way of generating wealth in a country that has nothing to offer, besides tourism and high quality olive oil. 

Above all, one must have respect towards the Greek people, the cradle of democracy. Youth and the elderly do not have to pay for the mistakes of past governments, and the global banking cartel must be stopped. But, by whom? Are we really living in a democracy?

Hot in Copenhagen! What's the odds?

Old Port in Nyhavn, Copenhagen, July 2015. © Marta Pacheco

Old Port in Nyhavn, Copenhagen, July 2015.

The Little Mermaid, Copenhagen, July 2015.

Egeskov Castle, Denmark