Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Japanese foreign minister Fumio Kishida urges dialogue with China to ease tensions

South China Morning Post

Japanese foreign minister Fumio Kishida urges dialogue with China to ease tensions

Fumio Kishida urges talks on maritime defence to reduce risk of an increase in territorial tensions

Japan's Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida. Photo: AP
China and Japan should resume talks on establishing a maritime defence communication mechanism and other practical issues, Japan's Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida told the South China Morning Post.
Resolving these issues would reduce the risk of an unintended escalation in territorial tensions in the East China Sea and pave the way for improved relations overall, Kishida said in an exclusive interview with the Post in Tokyo.
He urged China to continue "our candid exchange of views" and hoped the discussions would lead to high-level political talks between the two sides.
His appeal came at time when bilateral ties have been severely strained by disputes over the Diaoyu Islands, known in Japan as the Senkakus, and the visit by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in December to the Yasukuni Shrine that honours the country's war dead, including 14 leading war criminals.
Since that visit, Beijing has suspended most official exchanges with Tokyo and said Chinese leaders would refuse to meet Abe and other senior Japanese officials as the countries became locked in a global public relations battle.
In the latest move to ratchet up political pressure, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress approved two national remembrance days to commemorate the Nanking massacre and Japan's defeat in the second world war.
The tensions have stoked international concern over the chance of an accidental confrontation between the two countries - the world's second largest and third largest economies after the United States - as Japanese and Chinese fighter jets and patrol ships shadow each other around the Diaoyus.
Kishida said it was necessary and important for both countries to take concrete measures to reduce unnecessary misunderstanding and friction.
"It indeed serves no-one's interest - neither Japan's, China's or relevant countries - to have an accidental incident between the two countries," he said.
To avoid unintended consequences, he said both sides should move ahead to implement a bilateral maritime defence communication mechanism, which has already been agreed in principle.
He said: "Although the Japan-China relationship is at a difficult stage right now, it is important that we continue our candid exchange of views so that various dialogues, such as the maritime communication mechanism, lead to high-level political dialogue. I hope the Chinese side will respond from the same perspective to our call for dialogue."
Throughout the interview, Kishida repeatedly called for dialogue in a conciliatory tone, saying the bilateral relationship was one of the most important for Japan. He said he wanted to advance the mutually beneficial relationship based upon the common strategic interests of the two countries.
"China's peaceful development is a great benefit and opportunity not only for Japan but the entire region and the international community," Kishida said.
He added that Sino-Japanese relations were closer and more mutually dependent on each other than ever before, citing bilateral trade, Japanese investment in China and tourism figures showing that about five million people visited each other's country every year.
Asked if China had responded in any way to Japan's calls for dialogue, Kishida said there had been various talks between the two countries on working-level co-operation and exchanges in the private sector.
In an interesting development, even as Beijing ratcheted up political pressure on Japan, it has quietly begun easing controls over bilateral economic and cultural exchanges imposed since Abe's visit to the Yasukuni Shrine.
Last Monday, Japan announced that the three Chinese delegations representing young rural officials, journalists and middle-school students, which were originally scheduled to visit Japan in January, would resume their visits from later this month.
Kishida defended Abe's visit to the shrine, which drew condemnation from China and South Korea, who both see the shrine as a symbol of Japan's wartime militarism. The visit was even rebuked by Japan's most powerful ally, the United States.
Kishida said Japan's diplomatic policy and recognition of history had not changed at all. "With regard to our relationship with China and [South Korea], I believe it is important to develop a future-oriented, co-operative relationship."
The Chinese foreign ministry agreed with Kishida's suggestion that Sino-Japanese disputes should be resolved through dialogue, but said it had seen no support for such talks from Tokyo.
"China's position in the East China Sea and Diaoyu Islands is consistent," ministry spokesman Qin Gang said yesterday during a daily press briefing .
"We think that both two sides should properly manage their disputes through dialogue and consultations.
"[However], the Japanese government recently stirred up trouble over the Diaoyu Islands issue, and refuses to carry out real and sincere dialogue and negotiation with the Chinese side.
"That's why the two sides have disputes and differences on the Diaoyu Islands issue and issues in the East China Sea.
"We hope the Japanese side will respond sincerely to China's position, face up to facts and history and carry out real consultation with the Chinese side on relevant issues."

For the full transcript of the South China Morning Post’s interview with Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, visitwww.scmp.com/kishida

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as Japanese minister appeals for dialogue

Source: http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1439661/japanese-foreign-minister-fumio-kishida-urges-dialogue-china-ease

Toncev: (Week) Economy is the Biggest Threat to National Security

Toncev: (Week) Economy is the Biggest Threat to National Security

Ivica Toncev; photo: kurir-info.rs
Ivica Toncev who is engaged as Serbian Prime Minister’s advisor spoke for ‘’Danas’’ about national security of Serbia. He has underlined that week economy and lack of large investments can lead toward rise of corruption and organized crime. He is aware that citizens of Serbia are in fear because of the current state of Serbia’s economy. ‘They are also frightened that they might loose their jobs’, told Toncev.

Last October special advisor decided to work without salary in the Government. He explained that as a measure of support toward other citizens who are in difficult economic situation.

Toncev emphasized the policy of the PM Dacic and his deputy Mr. Vucic regarding future economic measures within Serbia. He believes that all social groups should support these measures which should strengthen Serbian economy and its citizen’s life standard.

Even though many people were surprised by his decision to work as a volunteer in the Government special advisor told that he has a lot of professional experience and enough property to allow self volunteering engagement.

Few months ago special advisor was subject of several newspapers which were writing about Toncev’s controversial academic and business connections. After special advisor’s insisting state authorities condemned several checks which have proved that his professional and academic background doesn’t have any irregularities.

Source: danas.rs


You can real complete article in Serbian on:  http://www.danas.rs/danasrs/drustvo/ekonomija_je_najveca_bezbednosna_pretnja.55.html?news_id=268909

Could use of force in Ukraine's east backfire?

BBC NEWS

13 April 2014 Last updated at 21:24 GMT


Could use of force in Ukraine's east backfire?

John Kerry faces dilemma after latest Middle East impasse

www.theguardian.com


John Kerry faces dilemma after latest Middle East impasse


J Scott Applewhite/AP
US secretary of state is facing demands in Washington to get tougher with Israel over key issue of settlements

Israeli officials were reportedly astounded to hear John Kerry pin the blame on Binyamin Netanyahu for the impasse in the latest round of peace talks with the Palestinians. Maybe they were being a tad naive? Or perhaps Kerry didn't intend to be that blunt? But there's little doubt it was bad news for Netanyahu.
The US has since made soothing noises suggesting that the secretary of state was not in fact pointing the finger exclusively at Israel. Still, his account to the Senate foreign relations committee suggested otherwise: first in the sequence of events he described came Israel's refusal to free 26 prisoners (vital for Mahmoud Abbas to demonstrate he has something tangible to show for negotiating); then the announcement of 700 new settlement units ("Poof, that was the moment," Kerry said); and only then came the violation by the Palestinians – their unilateral move to sign up to international treaties to allow them to tackle Israel's 46-year-old occupation through legal means.
Kerry has invested a huge amount of time, effort and diplomatic capital in an effort to cajole the parties into coming back to the negotiating table and then staying there and making enough concessions to ensure the process continues. Kerry and his officials insist that it can still go on, though the onus is on both protagonists to make sure it does.
The original US deadline of the end of April for an Israeli-Palestinian "framework agreement" now appears impossible to reach, and there are warnings that the window of opportunity for a two-state solution to the conflict is set to slam shut. Kerry has predicted that Israel will face new pressure – in the form of growing calls for boycotts or sanctions – if that option is no longer available.
In the febrile, closely observed world of the peace process, things never stand still for long. Netanyahu's own commitment to a viable two-state outcome may be hard to assess, but the difficulty with his coalition partners was highlighted immediately when his minister of the economy, Naftali Bennett, of the far-right Jewish Home party, vowed that Israel would never apologise for building in Jerusalem.
Settlement in the occupied territories remains the single most important issue on the table – far larger than the recently introduced demand for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
Retaliation was not long in coming: Netanyahu on Wednesday ordered his officials to stop meeting their Palestinian counterparts. The only exception was Tzipi Livni, Israel's chief negotiator. Whether there will be anything much for her to talk about is a different matter. In the absence of a meaningful process, things look more favourable for the Palestinians in the long term.
It is hard to say whether there ever really was a fair chance for Kerry's effort in the face of Palestinian internal divisions as well as Israeli conditions. But it would still be an uncharacteristically bold US administration that admits to total, final failure. "For better or worse, in some form, the overall process will go on and on – and on," said Aaron David Miller, an old hand at the game.
But the US may need to change tack. "The only reason there's any public ambiguity about who is to blame for this latest diplomatic crisis is that the Obama administration … won't play referee," wrote the liberal Jewish American columnist Peter Beinart in Haaretz. "It won't point out the obvious: that one party to the current talks accepts the 1967 lines as the basis for talks and the other doesn't."
Kerry faces a dilemma about what to do next, as well as explicit demands in Washington to get tougher with Israel. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former US national security adviser, and other foreign policy luminaries quickly urged a stronger line on what so many on both sides consider to be the key roadblock.
"US disapproval of continued settlement enlargement in the occupied territories by Israel's government as 'illegitimate' and 'unhelpful' does not begin to define the destructiveness of this activity," they wrote. "Nor does it dispel the impression that we have come to accept it despite our rhetorical objections. Halting the diplomatic process on a date certain until Israel complies with international law and previous agreements would help to stop this activity and clearly place the onus for the interruption where it belongs."
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/09/john-kerry-dilemma-middle-east-israel-settlements