The Turkey-based Zaman newspaper quoted informed sources in the Turkish government as saying that a military and diplomatic plan has been prepared to deal with the Egyptian parliament’s decision to send troops to Libya.
According to their sources, the Turkish newspaper said that Ankara “is closely watching the consequences of the Egyptian parliament’s decision.”
Their sources stressed that if “Egypt sends military forces to Libya, Turkey has a plan to increase its forces and military equipment in Libya to stand up to the Egyptian forces.”
Egyptian Army file image, via Pinterest
It also quoted Turkish sources as saying that Ankara “is ready to respond to any attack on its forces present in Libya, whatever the party that carried out the attack.”
Turkish presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin had recently confirmed that his country “does not want to escalate tensions and confront Egypt in Libya,” but at the same time he stressed support for the Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli.
He said in this regard: “When looking at this general scene, it becomes clear that we have no intention of confronting Egypt, France, or any other country there (in Libya).”
Currently, Turkey is the only foreign country that has national troops present inside of Libya.
El-Sisi had stressed that the frontline of Sirte and Al-Jufra was “a red line” for Egyptian national security in response to the advancement of the GNA supported by Turkey to those areas.https://t.co/uBOXNosESs
Early this week Egypt’s parliament approved sending its national forces to assist Gen. Khalifa Haftar in Libya, however, it doesn’t appear Sisi has moved on the authorization yet. Turkey has long backed Tripoli with ground and air forces, including drones.
If Cairo does send troops, which would be the first such foreign deployment since 1992 during the Gulf War, Turkey has promised to surge its own national forces there, in what could hold the potential for direct confrontation in Libya.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ZRv4YN Tyler Durden
I have written two posts about the felon disenfranchisement case pending before the Eleventh Circuit. I think Judge Brasher made the correct decision to recuse himself, because his former employer (the Alabama Attorney General) filed an amicus brief. I do not think Judges Luck and Lagoa are disqualified, based on their service on a related case before the Florida Supreme Court.
Currently, there is a pending motion to recuse for Judges Luck and Lagoa. Maybe they’ll recuse. Maybe they won’t. Who knows? I trust that all federal judges have the impartiality and independence to assess a motion on its merits. And the judiciary can handle this matter internally.
Alas, members of the legislative branch decided to intervene. Yesterday, ten Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee sent letters to Judges Luck, Lagoa, and Brasher. I think the letter to Brasher is moot, so I’ll focus on the Luck and Lagoa letters. Both conclude with the same paragraph:
As the first branch, it falls to Congress to oversee the federal Judiciary. That oversight includes a responsibility to ensure that sitting federal judges honor their commitments to the Senate and the public and follow all applicable rules and codes of judicial conduct. Consistent with this congressional oversight purpose, we ask you to explain how your involvement in the decision to grant en banc review in Jones v. DeSantis — and your continued participation in this case — is consistent with the commitments you made to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Code of Conduct.
Let me offer a charitable reading of the letter. Perhaps the Senate could ask the judges to provide information that would allow them to craft legislation to promote judicial ethics? (The Supreme Court recently shot down a similar argument in Mazars). Or perhaps this information is needed to help enforce the Voting Rights Act?
I’ll be blunt. These letters are blatant efforts to intimidate life-tenured federal judges. Judges Luck and Lagoa are under no obligation to explain themselves. If the Senators think the judges committed a high crime or misdemeanor, they can be impeached. Impeachment is the only way that Congress can exercise oversight over a single federal judge. Short of that, the Senate should focus on their own business.
Florida addressed these letters in its brief in opposition to the recusal.
Over the last 36 hours, two members of this Court have become the targets of extraordinary attacks by the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee intended to intimidate them into recusing themselves from this case. See Notice to Counsel re: Ex Parte Communications (11th Cir. July 22, 2020). Verbal assaults on the judiciary have become regrettably common in American politics, and they pose a growing threat to the rule of law. The Framers anticipated this type of attack on the courts: because of “the natural feebleness of the judiciary,” it would be “in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches.” The Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton). That, Alexander Hamilton explained, is why Article III gives federal judges lifetime tenure. Id.
Ironically, while Movants and their Senate allies invoke statutes and ethical canons designed to promote public confidence in the judiciary, it is they who threaten the judiciary’s independence by calling into question the integrity of two of this Court’s Members without even a colorable basis for doing so. As the Chief Justice recently said in response to threatening statements made by a United States Senator about Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, such statements “are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.” Office of Public Info., Statement of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Supreme Court of the U.S. (March 4, 2020).
I fear that this broach of ethics by the Senators will become the new normal. We may actually see Democrats try to impeach Trump nominees in the new Congress. Though circuit court packing is a much easier way to accomplish that goal.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hl76v8
via IFTTT
A teenage boy being held at Los Angeles County’s Eastlake Juvenile Hall developed enlarged breasts after being given estrogen, a female hormone, to treat oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), according to a lawsuit. The county has refused to comment on the lawsuit, but the Los Angeles Times reports that medical records confirm the boy was given 2 milligrams daily of the hormone while in the detention center. “Estrogen is not a treatment for ODD. I can’t be more emphatic about that,” James McGough, a professor of clinical psychiatry at UCLA, told the newspaper. “You won’t find a reference anywhere that supports the use of estrogen for ODD.” The boy’s father says he was given the treatment without the family’s permission. He says the boy will need surgery to reduce his breasts.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZRr1f3
via IFTTT
I have written two posts about the felon disenfranchisement case pending before the Eleventh Circuit. I think Judge Brasher made the correct decision to recuse himself, because his former employer (the Alabama Attorney General) filed an amicus brief. I do not think Judges Luck and Lagoa are disqualified, based on their service on a related case before the Florida Supreme Court.
Currently, there is a pending motion to recuse for Judges Luck and Lagoa. Maybe they’ll recuse. Maybe they won’t. Who knows? I trust that all federal judges have the impartiality and independence to assess a motion on its merits. And the judiciary can handle this matter internally.
Alas, members of the legislative branch decided to intervene. Yesterday, ten Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee sent letters to Judges Luck, Lagoa, and Brasher. I think the letter to Brasher is moot, so I’ll focus on the Luck and Lagoa letters. Both conclude with the same paragraph:
As the first branch, it falls to Congress to oversee the federal Judiciary. That oversight includes a responsibility to ensure that sitting federal judges honor their commitments to the Senate and the public and follow all applicable rules and codes of judicial conduct. Consistent with this congressional oversight purpose, we ask you to explain how your involvement in the decision to grant en banc review in Jones v. DeSantis — and your continued participation in this case — is consistent with the commitments you made to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Code of Conduct.
Let me offer a charitable reading of the letter. Perhaps the Senate could ask the judges to provide information that would allow them to craft legislation to promote judicial ethics? (The Supreme Court recently shot down a similar argument in Mazars). Or perhaps this information is needed to help enforce the Voting Rights Act?
I’ll be blunt. These letters are blatant efforts to intimidate life-tenured federal judges. Judges Luck and Lagoa are under no obligation to explain themselves. If the Senators think the judges committed a high crime or misdemeanor, they can be impeached. Impeachment is the only way that Congress can exercise oversight over a single federal judge. Short of that, the Senate should focus on their own business.
Florida addressed these letters in its brief in opposition to the recusal.
Over the last 36 hours, two members of this Court have become the targets of extraordinary attacks by the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee intended to intimidate them into recusing themselves from this case. See Notice to Counsel re: Ex Parte Communications (11th Cir. July 22, 2020). Verbal assaults on the judiciary have become regrettably common in American politics, and they pose a growing threat to the rule of law. The Framers anticipated this type of attack on the courts: because of “the natural feebleness of the judiciary,” it would be “in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches.” The Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton). That, Alexander Hamilton explained, is why Article III gives federal judges lifetime tenure. Id.
Ironically, while Movants and their Senate allies invoke statutes and ethical canons designed to promote public confidence in the judiciary, it is they who threaten the judiciary’s independence by calling into question the integrity of two of this Court’s Members without even a colorable basis for doing so. As the Chief Justice recently said in response to threatening statements made by a United States Senator about Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, such statements “are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.” Office of Public Info., Statement of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Supreme Court of the U.S. (March 4, 2020).
I fear that this broach of ethics by the Senators will become the new normal. We may actually see Democrats try to impeach Trump nominees in the new Congress. Though circuit court packing is a much easier way to accomplish that goal.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hl76v8
via IFTTT
A teenage boy being held at Los Angeles County’s Eastlake Juvenile Hall developed enlarged breasts after being given estrogen, a female hormone, to treat oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), according to a lawsuit. The county has refused to comment on the lawsuit, but the Los Angeles Times reports that medical records confirm the boy was given 2 milligrams daily of the hormone while in the detention center. “Estrogen is not a treatment for ODD. I can’t be more emphatic about that,” James McGough, a professor of clinical psychiatry at UCLA, told the newspaper. “You won’t find a reference anywhere that supports the use of estrogen for ODD.” The boy’s father says he was given the treatment without the family’s permission. He says the boy will need surgery to reduce his breasts.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZRr1f3
via IFTTT
Considering its pleasant climate, sandy beaches and culturally rich cities, it’s no surprise that Spain is one of the most popular travel destinations in the world. As such, the country has come to rely heavily on tourism economically, making it particularly vulnerable to the current crisis.
According to data from the World Travel and Tourism Council, 14.3 percent of Spain’s GDP was directly or indirectly linked to travel and tourism – the second highest percentage among the world’s top 15 economies. And thus, as Statista’s Felix Richter details, this makes the current situation all the worse, as international tourism came to a standstill in recent months due to travel restrictions put in place to limit the spread of the novel coronavirus.
Despite reopening to (some) international tourists on June 21, many of Spain’s larger resorts remain closed, as tourists have cancelled their holidays, feeling uneasy to board a plane or sit in a café with other travelers. With July typically the biggest month in terms of tourist spending, the losses are quickly mounting for the Spanish hospitality sector. In the first five months of 2020, international tourist expenditure amounted to $13.4 billion, down more than $20 billion from the same period in 2019.
With Spain’s high season typically lasting through the middle of October, the country’s hoteliers and restaurant owners will be hoping for a busy fall to salvage some of their income, but as long as the COVID-19 pandemic isn’t fully contained, it seems unlikely that travelers will hit the Spanish shores in droves this year.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30D4kdT Tyler Durden
On Tuesday, I blogged about Judge Andrew Brasher’s recusal from the Eleventh Circuit’s en banc felon disenfranchisement case. Judge Brasher made that decision on his own accord. The plaintiffs in that case had previously sought his recusal; that motion became moot. The plaintiffs also seek the recusal of two other judges on the Eleventh Circuit: Judges Luck and Lagoa. You can find their motion here, and the State’s response here.
I am going to simplify the facts a bit in order to cut to the core legal question. On November 6, 2019, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that considered the constitutionality of Amendment 4. (The parties dispute whether that review was limited to the state constitution, or whether that review also involved the federal constitution). At the time, Luck and Lagoa served as Justices on the Florida Supreme Court. During the oral argument, both judges asked question that implicated the constitutionality of Amendment 4. (The plaintiffs include some of the questions on pp. 12-15 of their brief). Two weeks later, Judges Luck and Lagoa were confirmed to the Eleventh Circuit. The Supreme Court issued its decision in the case on January 16, 2020. By that point, Luck and Lagoa were already off the court.
The parties dispute how closely related the Florida Supreme Court case is with the current appeal before the Eleventh Circuit. I will table that question for now. Rather, I will ask a more basic question: can the impartiality of Judges Luck and Lagoa be reasonably questioned because they asked questions, but did not decide the case?
The plaintiffs do not cite any cases that addresses this specific question. I can’t imagine any authority exists. We are presented with such an unusual situation where a judge asks questions during oral argument, and two weeks later is confirmed to another court, where a related matter arises.
After some reflection, I think the State has the better argument. From pp. 3-4 of their brief:
Second, although Judges Luck and Lagoa participated in the oral argument over the advisory opinion, they were no longer members of the Florida Supreme Court by the time that court rendered its decision. Movants make much of questions Judges Luck and Lagoa asked during the argument, but every seasoned litigator has had the experience of being asked seemingly sympathetic questions at oral argument only later to be disappointed by the court’s decision. Judges ask questions during oral argument for a variety of reasons, and such questions do not come remotely close to implicating the concerns that arise when judges sit in review of their own prior rulings.
It is a favorite past-time to read oral argument transcripts, and try to figure out how a judge will vote based on her questions. Alas, this sort of tea-leaf reading is seldom accurate. Judges will often ask questions as a devil’s advocate. Perhaps the Judge wants to probe the weaknesses of a position he agrees with. Or perhaps the Judge is using the advocates to respond to a colleague’s position. I don’t think questions, by themselves, are enough to reasonably question a judge’s impartiality.
There is another factor to consider. How did Luck and Lagoa vote at conference? I do not know how the Florida Supreme Court handles conferences. Do the Justices vote a few days after oral arguments? For argument’s sake, I’ll presume that there was a conference vote at some point after oral arguments, and before Luck and Lagoa were confirmed. Even then, I’m not troubled. A Judge’s vote at conference is not final. (Just this past term, I suspect several votes flipped after conference. And let’s not forget NFIB v. Sebelius.) A Judge reserves the right to change her vote at any time before the opinion is issued. With good reason. We view judges as impartial, and always open to changing their mind. The conference vote doesn’t count.
The Supreme Court recently addressed this precise issue in Yovino v.Rizo(2019). The Ninth Circuit had a bizarre practice: the en banc court would count the vote of a judge who cast a vote at conference, but died before the final opinion was issued. As a result, Judge Stephen Reinhardt was able to decide a case from beyond the grave. The Supreme Court can’t catch them all, but they caught this one. The per curiam order explained:
As for judicial practice, we are not aware of any rule or decision of the Ninth Circuit that renders judges’ votes and opinions immutable at some point in time prior to their public release. And it is generally understood that a judge may change his or her position up to the very moment when a decision is released.
Judges are allowed to change their views. And that malleability is a good thing. I would be troubled if judges walked into arguments with a set predisposition, that could not be disturbed.
Yovino demonstrates that a Judge’s questions during oral arguments, and even a conference vote, are not “immutable.” Judges are allowed to keep an open mind till late in the game. These preliminary matters are not enough to question a judge’s impartiality. The only decision that counts is the final order. Judges Luck and Lagoa did not participate in the Florida Supreme Court’s published decision. Therefore, they are not disqualified.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3g4PxyY
via IFTTT
On Tuesday, I blogged about Judge Andrew Brasher’s recusal from the Eleventh Circuit’s en banc felon disenfranchisement case. Judge Brasher made that decision on his own accord. The plaintiffs in that case had previously sought his recusal; that motion became moot. The plaintiffs also seek the recusal of two other judges on the Eleventh Circuit: Judges Luck and Lagoa. You can find their motion here, and the State’s response here.
I am going to simplify the facts a bit in order to cut to the core legal question. On November 6, 2019, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that considered the constitutionality of Amendment 4. (The parties dispute whether that review was limited to the state constitution, or whether that review also involved the federal constitution). At the time, Luck and Lagoa served as Justices on the Florida Supreme Court. During the oral argument, both judges asked question that implicated the constitutionality of Amendment 4. (The plaintiffs include some of the questions on pp. 12-15 of their brief). Two weeks later, Judges Luck and Lagoa were confirmed to the Eleventh Circuit. The Supreme Court issued its decision in the case on January 16, 2020. By that point, Luck and Lagoa were already off the court.
The parties dispute how closely related the Florida Supreme Court case is with the current appeal before the Eleventh Circuit. I will table that question for now. Rather, I will ask a more basic question: can the impartiality of Judges Luck and Lagoa be reasonably questioned because they asked questions, but did not decide the case?
The plaintiffs do not cite any cases that addresses this specific question. I can’t imagine any authority exists. We are presented with such an unusual situation where a judge asks questions during oral argument, and two weeks later is confirmed to another court, where a related matter arises.
After some reflection, I think the State has the better argument. From pp. 3-4 of their brief:
Second, although Judges Luck and Lagoa participated in the oral argument over the advisory opinion, they were no longer members of the Florida Supreme Court by the time that court rendered its decision. Movants make much of questions Judges Luck and Lagoa asked during the argument, but every seasoned litigator has had the experience of being asked seemingly sympathetic questions at oral argument only later to be disappointed by the court’s decision. Judges ask questions during oral argument for a variety of reasons, and such questions do not come remotely close to implicating the concerns that arise when judges sit in review of their own prior rulings.
It is a favorite past-time to read oral argument transcripts, and try to figure out how a judge will vote based on her questions. Alas, this sort of tea-leaf reading is seldom accurate. Judges will often ask questions as a devil’s advocate. Perhaps the Judge wants to probe the weaknesses of a position he agrees with. Or perhaps the Judge is using the advocates to respond to a colleague’s position. I don’t think questions, by themselves, are enough to reasonably question a judge’s impartiality.
There is another factor to consider. How did Luck and Lagoa vote at conference? I do not know how the Florida Supreme Court handles conferences. Do the Justices vote a few days after oral arguments? For argument’s sake, I’ll presume that there was a conference vote at some point after oral arguments, and before Luck and Lagoa were confirmed. Even then, I’m not troubled. A Judge’s vote at conference is not final. (Just this past term, I suspect several votes flipped after conference. And let’s not forget NFIB v. Sebelius.) A Judge reserves the right to change her vote at any time before the opinion is issued. With good reason. We view judges as impartial, and always open to changing their mind. The conference vote doesn’t count.
The Supreme Court recently addressed this precise issue in Yovino v.Rizo(2019). The Ninth Circuit had a bizarre practice: the en banc court would count the vote of a judge who cast a vote at conference, but died before the final opinion was issued. As a result, Judge Stephen Reinhardt was able to decide a case from beyond the grave. The Supreme Court can’t catch them all, but they caught this one. The per curiam order explained:
As for judicial practice, we are not aware of any rule or decision of the Ninth Circuit that renders judges’ votes and opinions immutable at some point in time prior to their public release. And it is generally understood that a judge may change his or her position up to the very moment when a decision is released.
Judges are allowed to change their views. And that malleability is a good thing. I would be troubled if judges walked into arguments with a set predisposition, that could not be disturbed.
Yovino demonstrates that a Judge’s questions during oral arguments, and even a conference vote, are not “immutable.” Judges are allowed to keep an open mind till late in the game. These preliminary matters are not enough to question a judge’s impartiality. The only decision that counts is the final order. Judges Luck and Lagoa did not participate in the Florida Supreme Court’s published decision. Therefore, they are not disqualified.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3g4PxyY
via IFTTT
The five post-Soviet Central Asian republics – Kazakhstan (19 mln inhabitants), Kyrgyzstan (6), Tajikistan (8,5), Uzbekistan (30) and Turkmenistan (5) – making up a joint area of almost 4 million square kilometers (by roughly one million larger than the area of India or Argentina), with the total population equalling 68 million (comparable to that of France or Great Britain) is a very important spot on the globe, landlocked between Russia, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.
In the 19th century it was the Russian and the British that penetrated the area and vied for dominance there: the former from the north-west, the latter from the south-east. Their rivalry received the name of the Great Game. The five countries were a sort of colonies of the Russian Empire, though – due to the territorial proximity – incorporated into it. The indigenous populations – confessionally, linguistically and racially entirely alien to European, orthodox Russians – would pose problems occasionally, which twice morphed into an open uprising against Russian rule: in 1916 and in between 1923-24. Both attempts were quelled, which resulted in the loss of many lives and massive emigration. Bishkek, Kyrgyztan’s capital, was then renamed to Frunze, to honour the Soviet general who had vanquished the insurgents.
While the people of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan had no political representation in the Russian Duma under the tsars, they enjoyed it during the time of the Soviet Union; at that time they also exercises a sort of statehood, albeit within the framework of the communist superstate. In the 1980s they constituted the bridgehead for Soviet troops invading Afghanistan. The scars left by the Russians did not really heal: they were only allayed for a time. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the five republics declared independence, and began gravitating towards the United States.
At present the five Central Asian states are in the cross hairs of such potent players as Russia, China and the United States. Also Turkey, due to the commonality of the religion and the ethnic relationship (notice the overlap of the demonyms Turkey and Turkmenistan), plays a certain role in the region. The residents of this area seek employment in Russia or let themselves be recruited to fight in Syria against Bashar al-Assad backed by Russia. The collective historical consciousness is fraught with bitter memories of Russians fighting against the forefathers of today’s residents of the area and of Russians combating their brothers in faith in Afghanistan four decades ago. That is something that Washington has been trying to skilfully exploit. To this purpose the United States created the C5+1 political initiative that combines the effort of the five countries and those of the United States to stymie terrorism, boost economic growth and foster the human rights in the region, as the official documents and statements say.
There is no doubt that Washington has been pursuing the tried and tested strategy of subduing the five states through financial and economic requirements, imposition of human rights and shaping the countries’ educational systems. As elsewhere in the world the five governments have been encouraged and softly forced to
[1] carry out reforms that would attract foreign (read: American) businesses,
[2] make governments accountable to their citizens (read: American-backed international or non-governmental organisations that are constantly on the look-out for violations of human rights) and
[3] alter primary, secondary and tertiary education in such a way as to promote critical thinking (read: acceptance of American point of view).
The ties with Uncle Sam are strengthened by means of occasional joint military exercises.
The five countries of the region have received loans while many of their younger residents have been invited to the United States to study there and learn the American way of life. In Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, operates the American University of Central Asia, where young impressionable minds are formatted the way the managers of the world please.
The Chinese New Silk Road Initiative is being countered by the promotion of the Lapis Lazuli Corridor. In its official documents Washington underscores its commitment to help the five states maintain their independence of external actors. One can easily guess that Russia and China are meant. Sovereignty from Moscow and Beijing is going to be replaced with their reliance on the United States. The knowledge of Russian, which is still common in the region – especially in Kazakhstan – is step by step being supplanted by the knowledge of English. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan shortly after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and most recently Kazakhstan have all switched from the Cyrillic into Latin script.
The region is not free from Russian influence. The famous Baikonur, a large area where Russian spacecraft are launched into orbit, is still rented by the Russian Federation. Kazakhstan was also host to the Semipalatinsk atomic testing site from 1949 till 1989. Apart from Turkmenistan, the remaining four nations belong to the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), a kind of loose economic and political prolongation of the former Soviet Union. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are members of the Eurasian Economic Union, created in 2014, where Russia is the largest partner; Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan belong to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO, known also as the Shanghai Pact), founded in 2002, where Russia and China are the most important member states.
All the -stan countries of Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan) plus Iran, Azerbaijan and Turkey also form the Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO), founded in 1985.
Can the C5+1 platform counterbalance the joint influence of CIS, SCO and ECO?
The last of the three international organisations is under a strong Turkish influence.
The heir to the Ottoman Empire has been investing heavily in Kazakhstan and maintaining close ties with Turkmenistan, a nation that is related to Turks. Ankara has also extended invitation to labourers from the five Central Asian states, who do not feel particularly welcome in Russia and among Russians, their traditional employers, because of mutual suspicions. Ankara is also host to the Cooperation Council of Turkic-Speaking States (CCTS or Turkic Council), formed in 2006 on the initiative of Kazakhstan’s president and comprising Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and in the future: Turkmenistan. Chinese Uyghurs keep fleeing to their confessional brothers in the region.
The autocratic rulers of the post-Soviet republics seem to be benefiting from all and any powers, playing them against one another. The said powers need to proceed warily in order to maintain their political clout.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fTqIWF Tyler Durden
“War” Top Trend On Greek Twitter As Military On ‘High Alert’ Over Turkish Drilling Incursion Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/23/2020 – 02:45
Greek news sources are reporting thatGreece’smilitary is on “high alert” after on Tuesday Turkish survey ships entered East Mediterranean waters between Cyprus and Greece.
And Reutersreports that “Greece accused Turkey on Tuesday of attempting to encroach on its continental shelf in a serious escalation of tensions between the two NATO allies at odds over a range of issues.”
For much of the past year European Union leaders have condemned Turkey’s expansive claims to broad swathes of Mediterranean waters around Cyprus and reaching into Greece’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The US State Department is also backing Greece’s condemnation of Turkish encroachment. Meanwhile, the number one trending hashtag in Greek Twitter right now happens to be war.
On Tuesday a US State Department statement demanded that Turkey back down from its drilling plans which are sure to immediately escalation already soaring tensions.
“We urge Turkish authorities to halt any plans for operations and to avoid steps that raise tensions in the region,” the statement said. And Greece’s foreign ministry said it clearly violates the country’s sovereignty and that it stands ready to defend its territory.
This as not for the first time a pair of Turkish F-16s reportedly flew over Greece’s easternmost territory, including the islands of Strongyli and Megisti. Greece’s prime minister also said this week that EU sanctions await Turkey if it moves forward with illegal drilling.
Reuters: “An advisory known as a Navtex was issued by Turkey’s navy on Tuesday for seismic surveys in an area of sea between Cyprus and Crete. The advisory is in effect until Aug. 20.“
A number of very recent issues have already significantly built-up tensions. To review:
Turkey’s provocative move to turn the historic Byzantine Hagia Sophia church into a mosque.
Continued historic animosity over ethnically-partitioned Cyprus.
Turkish claims to all waters surrounding Cyprus.
Recent border tensions involving Erdogan sending thousands of Syrians refugees to Greece’s border.
Greece’s militarized response along migrant crossing points at the Turkish border.
Turkey’s involvement in Libya, which has seen its navy patrols expand into the Mediterranean off the north African coast.
Erdogan just made a hugely provocative visit to Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, which a top Turkish court has declared to be a mosque. Via AFP
All of this means the region stands of the brink, perhaps more than every before, while the Greek navy prepares to prevent Turkish drilling ships to encroach on its territorial waters.
To underscore where things stand, see this message being widely shared in Greek on social media and via Greek news sources: Greek social media users are urging people to not post photos, videos or information about Greek military movements.
Meanwhile Greek stocks saw their biggest daily drop in a month on Tuesday amid the renewed Turkey tensions, while the Turkish lira also felt the pressure, falling further against the dollar, for a total 13% decline so far this year.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/39sDvxa Tyler Durden
