Etiqueta: USA

UPS Pilots Union Votes to Authorize Strike

Deje un comentario

Move comes as talks enter fifth year, puts pressure on delivery company

Imagen: reuters

Imagen: reuters

By LAURA STEVENS
Updated Oct. 23, 2015 3:04 p.m. ET

The union representing United Parcel Service Inc. pilots voted overwhelmingly to authorize their executive board to call a strike if and when it sees fit as contract negotiations enter their fifth year, a very public signal of employee dissatisfaction at the delivery giant as the all-important holiday peak fast approaches.

On Friday, the union said that more than 99% of the pilots who voted said yes, authorizing the Independent Pilots Association’s executive board to request a release from federally mediated negotiations with UPS. If the union chooses to ask for release and it is granted by the mediators, the pilots would be able to strike.

“The ball now is really in UPS’s court to decide which direction we’re going,” said Capt. Robert Travis, president of the union, which represents more than 2,500 pilots.

The situation stands in contrast to FedEx Corp., where pilots this week ratified a new six-year contract agreement granting higher hourly pay rates, new-hire compensation, a “significant” signing bonus and work-rule improvements.

The main sticking point between UPS and the pilots union is work rules, specifically to avoid fatigue, said Mr. Travis. The pilots want more time to rest between flights, with rules closer to what the Federal Aviation Administration has come up with for airline pilots. He said other sticking points include pay, health care and retirement benefits.

UPS called the strike “a symbolic gesture” and “a common union tactic in airline negotiations.” The next round of negotiations is already scheduled to take place in November.

UPS said that it takes excellent care of its pilots, with higher pay, better benefits and less flying time. It has successfully negotiated contracts four times in its 27 years of running an airline, the company said, and it doesn’t expect any disruptions this time around. “Any discussion of holiday disruptions is negotiations posturing,” UPS said.

This week, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters—which represents about 250,000 UPS employees working as drivers, package handlers and loaders—pledged to stand with the pilots if it did come to a strike.

“If a strike is necessary, we will not cross your lines, but will stand with you on them,” Teamsters leaders said in a letter to the union.

The agreement between FedEx and its pilots will put more pressure on UPS to get a deal done, says Kevin Sterling, a transportation analyst with BB&T Capital Markets. No one fears a strike yet, though.

“It’s in the back of everybody’s mind, but I get the sense that no one is running for the hills yet. They understand that it’s a tactic,” Mr. Sterling said.

Both airlines and railroads fall under the U.S. Railway Act, which makes it more difficult to strike. Under that law, contracts don’t expire, and federal mediation is mandated once the two sides come to an impasse. UPS and its pilots union entered that process in early 2014. Federal authorities likely would hesitate before releasing the two parties from mediation, which would effectively allow a strike that could cripple the economy.

Contract negotiations between UPS and its pilots typically last several years, and the union has twice in previous years voted to authorize a strike vote before the two groups came to an agreement.

Even a hint of a strike leading into the holiday season could prompt nervous shippers to consider other options. FedEx and other rivals are sure to use those fears as a selling point.

“With the holiday season approaching, a pilot strike would certainly put shippers in a precarious position,” said Scott Langley, president of global sales and strategy for shipping consultant Intelligent Audit, in an email. “Shippers are constantly evaluating their contingency plans, especially as it pertains to peak season shipping, so they are monitoring this situation very closely.”

UPS flies packages across the country and around the world in planes, with space often reserved for higher-revenue packages that need to get there fast. The delivery giant runs a delicate, precise network that can be easily rattled by severe weather events, unexpected surges in packages and other disruptions. In 1997, a Teamsters strike cost the company an estimated $600 million as employees walked off the job for a little more than two weeks.

Write to Laura Stevens at laura.stevens@wsj.com

In: wsj

Many Low-Income Workers Say ‘No’ to Health Insurance

Deje un comentario
An employee at Golden Corral taking clean cups from the kitchen. Some Golden Corral restaurants began offering health insurance to employees, but few have opted in.

© Logan R. Cyrus for The New York Times An employee at Golden Corral taking clean cups from the kitchen. Some Golden Corral restaurants began offering health insurance to employees, but few have opted in.

JACKSONVILLE, N.C. — When Billy Sewell began offering health insurance this year to 600 service workers at the Golden Corral restaurants that he owns, he wondered nervously how many would buy it. Adding hundreds of employees to his plan would cost him more than $1 million — a hit he wasn’t sure his low-margin business could afford.

His actual costs, though, turned out to be far smaller than he had feared. So far, only two people have signed up.

“We offered, and they didn’t take it,” he said.

Evidence is growing that his experience is not unusual. The Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate, which requires employers with more than 50 full-time workers to offer most of their employees insurance or face financial penalties, was one of the law’s most controversial provisions. Business owners and industry groupsfiercely protested the change, and some companies cut workers’ hours to reduce the number of employees who would be eligible.

But 10 months after the first phase of the mandate took effect, covering companies with 100 or more workers, many business owners say they are finding very few employees willing to buy the health insurance that they are now compelled to offer. The trend is especially pronounced among smaller and midsize businesses in fields filled with low-wage hourly workers, like restaurants, retailing and hospitality. (Companies with 50 to 99 workers are not required to comply with the mandate until next year.)

“Based on what we’ve seen in the marketplace, we’re advising some of our clients to expect single-digit take rates,” said Michael A. Bodack, an insurance broker in Harrison, N.Y. “One to 2 percent isn’t unusual.”

Nationwide, the Affordable Care Act has significantly reduced the number of Americans without health insurance. Around 10.7 percent of the country’s under-65 population was uninsured in the first three months of this year, down from 17.5 percent five years earlier, according to the National Health Interview Survey, a long-running federal study. Some 14 million previously uninsured adults have gained coverage in the last two years, the Obama administration estimates.

Most of those gains, though, have come from a vast expansion of Medicaid and from the subsidies that help lower-income people buy insurance through federal and state exchanges. Workers who are offered affordable individual coverage through their employers — a group that the employer mandate was intended to expand — are not eligible for government-subsidized insurance through the exchanges, even if their income would otherwise have qualified them.

But for those trying to get by on near-minimum wages, a plan that qualifies as “affordable” can still seem far out of reach.

Billy Sewell, owner of several Golden Corral restaurants.

© Logan R. Cyrus for The New York Times Billy Sewell, owner of several Golden Corral restaurants.

That is the case for many of Mr. Sewell’s workers. He employs 1,800 people at the 26Golden Corral franchises he owns in six Southern and Midwestern states, and previously offered insurance only to his salaried management staff. In January, when the employer mandate took effect, he made the same insurance plan, with a bigger employer contribution, available to all employees working an average of 30 or more hours a week.

Running the math on his plan — a typical one for the restaurant industry — illustrates why a number of low-wage workers are falling through gaps in the Affordable Care Act.

The annual premium for individual coverage through the Golden Corral Blue Cross Blue Shield plan is $4,800. Mr. Sewell pays 65 percent for service workers, leaving them with a monthly cost of $140.

The health care law defines affordable employer-sponsored insurance as that priced at 9.5 percent or less of an employee’s annual household income for individual coverage. (Because employers do not know how much money their workers’ relatives make, there are several “safe harbors” they can use for compliance, including basing their calculation on only their own employees’ wages.) Mr. Sewell’s insurance meets the test, but $65 per biweekly paycheck is more than most of his workers are willing — or able — to pay for insurance that still carries steep out-of-pocket costs, including a $2,500 deductible.

Clarissa Morris, 47, has been a server at the Golden Corral here for five years, earning $2.13 an hour plus tips. On a typical day, she leaves the restaurant with about $70 in tips. Her husband makes $9 an hour at Walmart but has been offered only a part-time schedule there, without benefits. Their combined paychecks barely cover their rent and daily essentials.

“It’s either buy insurance or put food in the house,” she said. On the rare occasions that she gets sick, she visits a local clinic with sliding-scale fees. It costs her $25 for a visit, and $4 to fill prescriptions at Walmart.

Brad Mete, the managing partner of Affinity Resources, a staffing agency in Dania Beach, Fla., began offering insurance this year to most of his workers only because the law required it. He said the alternative, paying a penalty of about $2,000 per full-time employee, was unthinkable, “That would put us out of business, in one swoop.”

Trying to persuade his hourly workers to buy the insurance is “like pulling teeth,” he said. His company’s plan costs $120 a month, but workers making about $300 a week are reluctant to spend $30 of it on insurance.

The employer mandate has not yet had any noticeable effect on the number of workers enrolled in employer-sponsored health plans, according to a survey by Mercer, a human resources consulting firm. Most of the newly eligible appear to be obtaining coverage elsewhere, such as through the plan of a parent or spouse, or are continuing to go without, said Tracy Watts, a Mercer consultant.

A study by ADP, the payroll processing giant, found an income tipping point at which most employees who are eligible for health insurance will buy it: $45,000 a year.

Workers making $15,000 to $20,000 a year buy employer-sponsored individual insurance when it is offered only 37 percent of the time. That rate rises at every income increment ADP studied until $45,000, when it reaches 82 percent and levels off. Further income gains have virtually no effect on the rate, ADP found.

The study was conducted in 2013, before many of the Affordable Care Act’s provisions took effect, but ADP’s recent figures do not indicate significant changes in that pattern, according to Christopher Ryan, an ADP research executive.

Low participation can pose problems for employers, especially smaller ones. Insurers are reluctant to sell policies to companies with low enrollment, because they fear that only the sickest employees will buy coverage.

Until this year, most insurers would not cover groups that fell short of their minimum participation requirements. The Affordable Care Act struck down that policy — a sea change for the industry — by prohibiting minimum participation rules from being used to deny coverage to any employer with 100 or more workers. But there is a big loophole: Insurers are required to issue the policies, but they are not required to renew them.

Mario K. Castillo, a lawyer in Houston who has extensively studied the new law, said it was poorly understood in the industry, and a bureaucratic nightmare.

“They have to issue you a policy, but dropping it after one year is perfectly legal,” he said. “If you’re in this space, you essentially have to shop for insurance every year.”

For employees, forgoing coverage can mean facing tax penalties. Ms. Morris said she was surprised by the $95 fee she had to pay this year for being uninsured in 2014. “I had kind of heard about it, but I didn’t think it was going to kick in until later,” she said.

Around 7.5 million taxpayers paid the fine, according to a preliminary report by the Internal Revenue Service. That is significantly more than the three million to six million the government had forecast.

Low-income, full-time workers like Ms. Morris may prove to be some of the hardest people to bring into the ranks of the insured, said Gary Claxton, a vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, which conducts an annual study on employer health benefits.

“This is one of the outcomes of trying to keep employer-based coverage in place,” Mr. Claxton said. “These are folks that didn’t have coverage before, and they’re not being given much help to get coverage now.”

In: nytimes

Study: Supreme Court ‘right to work’ ruling could drag down pay

Deje un comentario

New report finds link between ‘right-to-work’ rules and lower wages for public employees.

Panorama_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Building_at_Dusk

Image: commons wiki

The nine Supreme Court judges will soon hear arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, and their ruling could transform all of the American public sector into a “right-to-work” zone. The result could be lower wages for public employees around the country, according to the author of a recent study from the pro-union Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

At issue is whether non-union public employees can be legally required to pay so-called “fair share fees” to the unions that bargain their contracts. Proponents of right-to-work laws, which ban unions from charging such fees, argue that unions are political institutions, and that mandatory union fees violate the free speech rights of those who object to paying them.

Studies of the nation’s right-to-work states show that such laws tend to lead to lower union membership rates, and to drive down wages among government employees.

Jeffrey Keefe, an EPI researcher and former professor of labor relations at Rutgers University, found that states that adopt public sector right-to-work rules — also known as “open shop” laws — see government worker pay fall by between 4.4 and 11.2 percent relative to non-right-to-work states.

Keefe said he attributed the wage decline to reduced bargaining ability on the part of unions, a result of non-members declining to pay them representation fees. He said a ruling against the California Teachers Association in the Friedrichs case would likely have a similar effect, but one that would likely be nationwide.

“The contagion from free-riding doesn’t work itself out overnight,” he said. “But it would work itself out over a five- to 10-year period. Over time these unions would have significantly lower revenue, which translates into lower capacity to represent union members.”

He suggested this could also affect contracts more widely, beyond the issue of wages. Negotiating the scope of health care and other benefits is a complex and resource-intensive process, he said. As members drop out of the union and non-members decline to pay representation fees, the funds needed to properly bargain for those benefits would decline, he added.

“A great deal of bargaining now is over health care, and it’s an incredibly complicated subject,” Keefe said. “The union really needs hired experts to come in and help.”

In: america.aljazeera.com

Barack Obama and the Powell Doctrine, Reconsidered

Deje un comentario

Leaving troops in Afghanistan is the right thing to do. It is also a telling, sad legacy for the U.S. president.

Barack Obama and the Powell Doctrine, Reconsidered

President Barack Obama was elected to extricate the United States from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a sad irony of his presidency that among his foremost foreign-policy legacies will be leaving American involvement in both countries as among the first and most complex challenges his successor will face.

The president’s decision to leave 5,500 troops in Afghanistan at least into the first year of the next president’s term of office was inevitable. The lessons of Iraq and the volatile situation on the ground in Afghanistan dictate it. It was also the right decision. To leave entirely would be to invite chaos, render America’s enormous investment a write-off, and likely leave the country a home to a new generation of violent extremists even more dangerous than the al Qaeda thugs whom America entered Afghanistan to eradicate.

In reaching this decision, Obama is helping to put to rest one of the most often cited aspects of the Powell Doctrine, the framework for considering American overseas interventions that was named after the former secretary of state. The doctrine traces its roots to Colin Powell’s former boss, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and to the deep desire to avoid future Vietnams that dominated the thinking of American military planners in the wake of that debacle. One of its central precepts is that when America contemplates overseas use of force, an “exit strategy” is developed to avoid the prospect of being bogged down, as in the so-called quagmire of the Indochina War.

It is a natural desire. Protracted, bloody, costly engagements are undesirable on almost every level. Unfortunately, history has shown that in many circumstances avoiding them is unrealistic. In fact, the lesson of the past three-quarters of a century of U.S. overseas military action might be seen as “do not intervene unless you are prepared to remain involved for a long, long time.”

What are the notable “successes” of America’s major wars during that period? Defeating Germany and Japan? Ensuring the freedom of Korea?

In each case, troops have remained on the ground in those countries for more than half a century. In none of these cases did this mean the United States had to be an imperial power. But it did mean that Washington had to accept that troops served an important stabilizing role that could not be otherwise provided. Needless to say, other longer-term interests were also involved in all these circumstances — particularly, counterbalancing Cold War adversaries. But this justification underscored a common-sense corollary to the “be prepared to stay” doctrine that is experience’s real lesson: Don’t intervene unless your long-term interests warrant long-term involvement.

This altered approach should actually be embraced by more anti-war elements in American society — as well as by those who support a strong military. It eliminates the illusion that “in and out” or “low cost” interventions are really options in any situation where the goal is more than of a very limited, tactical nature. As a consequence, it argues even more forcefully than the Powell Doctrine that involvements be weighed carefully and undertaken infrequently.

It is not necessary, of course, that the United States act alone in such interventions. Nor is it required that the long-term commitment of troops to a country be wholly, primarily, or even partially a U.S. obligation. But an effective stabilizing force needs to be present — particularly in a situation where the intervention is meant to address threats that have emanated from local problems that have a long history or have otherwise been protracted in nature. Even overwhelming application of military force can’t undo history, culture, or structural problems with deep roots. Indeed, there are certain circumstances where stabilization is just not a possible outcome, and we must plan for those accordingly, limiting our objectives. As my colleague Tom Ricks has suggested, in Afghanistan this might have meant focusing on securing the area around greater Kabul and not seeking to venture further to try to secure what few Afghan governments ever could.

Another conclusion, and a lesson that must be particularly bitter for the president, is that the long-term stabilizing role can only be undertaken by a truly capable force. The president has frequently argued that a centerpiece of his plans to extricate America from its involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan was turning such responsibilities over to local militaries. But in both cases, even after huge investments in training and equipping local forces, America has failed to adequately cultivate forces to which the baton can be handed off.

Given the evidence that was at hand when the president made such transfers of responsibility core to his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan — and fighting extremism more broadly — his conclusion that such an approach could work was at best folly. Probably, it was worse than that: bordering on deep intellectual dishonesty. It was an approach based largely on denial and self-deception.

Now it is clear that it has not only failed — it has done so catastrophically. In fact, it is largely the degree of the failure in Iraq (which, as probably should no longer need to be pointed out, was precipitated by the George W. Bush administration’s deeply misguided intervention in that country) that has obligated the president to leave troops in Afghanistan. With recent gains by the Taliban and the Islamic State in Afghanistan and the continuing bumbling and revealed failings of the government in Kabul, simply pulling out would have produced a second mess like the one that has made the situation in Iraq and Syria such a giant threat to regional and international stability.

Of course, not all of the common-sense precepts of the Powell Doctrine have been invalidated by our recent experiences. We must still weigh whether vital interests are at stake, whether clear objectives exist, whether potential costs have been assessed, whether other means of resolving have been exhausted, whether we are willing to apply sufficient force and resources to ensure the outcome we seek, and whether the consequences of the potential action have been fully assessed. Other concepts associated with the doctrine — that action be supported by the American people and also by the international community — are more debatable; there are clearly circumstances in which national interests may trump either of these otherwise desirable criteria.

It is important to note that this does not mean we should never intervene. It means going in with our eyes wide open, knowing what we are getting into.

Colin Powell is one of the most sensible men I have met in Washington, and I don’t dismiss even one of the conclusions of his great service and experience lightly. Fortunately, he has also provided us with a thought to replace the language about exit strategies (which, like broad public and international support, falls in the category of “hoped for” conditions), which perhaps may be his most famous pronouncement regarding the American use of force abroad. Because if the Obama and Bush years and Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us one thing, it is this: “If you break it, you own it.” With the president’s recent decision, it is clear he and we are now owning that.

Photo credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images

In: foreignpolicy

Estados Unidos: Las Lesiones en el Lugar del Trabajo no Discriminan entre Legales e Ilegales

Deje un comentario

Por: LawInfo

Las leyes para la compensación de los trabajadores fueron creadas para compensar a un empleado por lesiones sufridas mientras estaba en el trabajo. Una de las áreas más debatidas de la compensación a los trabajadores es la que se refiere a la discusión acerca de si debe otorgarse a los trabajadores que han entrado ilegalmente la misma protección en el lugar de trabajo que tienen los empleados legales. Algunos arguyen que los inmigrantes ilegales NO deberían tener derecho a la compensación cuando resultan lesionados mientras trabajan, debido a que no son empleados totalmente legales, y en primer lugar, no deberían estar aquí. Otros alegan que los inmigrantes ilegales DEBERÍAN estar cubiertos por las leyes sobre la compensación a los trabajadores, de esta manera los empleadores no tendrían el incentivo de contratar ilegales y sería un camino para evitar la responsabilidad de la compensación a los trabajadores. Los Estados varían en la forma en que consideran esta cuestión. Muy recientemente, South Carolina dictaminó en favor de dar cobertura a los trabajadores ilegales.

Curiel v. EMS
En Curiel v. Environmental Management Services la Suprema Corte de South Carolina unánimemente sentenció que los inmigrantes ilegales son elegibles para la compensación de los trabajadores si resultan lesionados en el trabajo. En ese caso Curiel, un inmigrante ilegal de México, era un trabajador de la construcción para Environmental Management Services (EMS). Mientras estaba en el trabajo, resultó lesionado en el ojo y solicitó los beneficios de la compensación a los trabajadores debido a dicha lesión. EMS rehusó pagar debido a que la compañía alegó que Curiel no era un empleado de acuerdo con la ley.

Ilegal pagar a ilegales
EMS basó su caso en el argumento constitucional consistente en que la Supremacía de los preceptos de la Constitución invalidan el ordenamiento sobre la compensación a los trabajadores de South Carolina. En términos generales, dicha Supremacía establece que cualquier ley estatal que esté en conflicto con una ley federal, es nula. EMS argumentó que la ley federal que hace ilegal la contratación de extranjeros ilegales prevalece sobre la ley estatal sobre la compensación a los trabajadores que define a un empleado como “toda persona involucrada en un empleo… ya sea que haya sido empleado legal o ilegalmente.” Así, EMS argumentó que la ley estatal no se puede ejecutar sobre los trabajadores ilegales y Curiel no podría cobrar los beneficios.

Sentenciando en el caso de Curiel
Por varias razones, el tribunal sentenció que a Curiel se le debería otorgar la compensación de los trabajadores por su lesión. Parte de esta sentencia sobre Curiel se basó en razones de política pública. El tribunal estableció que si los empleadores pudieran escapar de la responsabilidad por reclamaciones formuladas por los inmigrantes ilegales, entonces sentenciar a favor de EMS, solamente podría alentar a los empleadores a continuar contratando trabajadores ilegales.

El tribunal no fue persuadido del argumento relativo a la supremacía debido a que dispone que el texto y propósito de la ley federal de inmigración no tuvo la intención de “socavar o disminuir” cualesquiera protecciones existentes en la ley laboral estatal. Así, las dos leyes no estuvieron en conflicto entre sí. Sin embargo, el Congreso si así lo determina, puede cambiar la ley si está en conflicto.

El Futuro
Dos secciones de la Constitución permiten al Congreso actuar para prohibir sentencias similares en el futuro, la de la Supremacía antes mencionada y la de Comercio. La de la Supremacía permitirá al Congreso explícitamente anular los beneficios de la compensación a los trabajadores que sean ilegales debido a las disposiciones de la ley de Inmigración. La Cláusula de Comercio otorga al Congreso la capacidad exclusiva de regular el comercio interestatal. El Congreso podría aprobar una ley que prohiba pagar los beneficios de la compensación de los trabajadores, a los inmigrantes ilegales que resulten lesionados en el comercio interestatal. Esta clase de ley podría contemplar una larga batalla política para poder llegar a ser ley y una batalla eventual en el tribunal, en caso de ser aprobada.

En: abogados.lawinfo

Uno de los padres fundadores del Internet ruso quiere ‘borrar a Siria del mapa’, y por qué se culpa a EE. UU. de eso

Deje un comentario
Imagen de Kevin Rothrock.

Imagen de Kevin Rothrock.

La intervención de Moscú en Siria está teniendo algunas consecuencias raras en Rusia. Uno de los episodios más extraños de esta historia es el ferviente apoyo de Anton Nossik a los nuevos ataques aéreos. Uno de los expertos líderes del Internet ruso, uno de los fundadores del popular sitio web de noticias Lenta.ru, y considerado de forma generalizada uno de los arquitectos clave de la blogosfera rusa, Nossik conmocionó a muchos cuando publicó en su blog una aprobación entusiasta de la nueva campaña de bombardeos en Siria del Kremlin. Nossik fue un poco más lejos que tan solo aprobar los ataques aéreos rusos, respaldando también cualquier cosa que ayude a “borrar Siria de la faz de la Tierra”.

Nossik es un destacado miembro de la oposición democrática de Moscú, pronunciándose con regularidad contra la represión política en Rusia (en particular las medidas del Kremlin contra la libertad de Internet). También es judío y ha pasado una cantidad de tiempo significativa en Israel, donde trabajó como periodista desde 1990 hasta 1997.

En su publicación del 1 de octubre en LiveJournal, donde promueve la destrucción de Siria, Nossik dice que él, “como cualquier israelí,” comprende la necesidad de usar fuerza armada contra Siria. “Estoy completamente a favor de cualquiera que esté bombardeando Siria hoy,” escribió Nossik, añadiendo, “y si es borrada del mapa mundial, no derramaré ni una lágrima—solo diré gracias”. Continuó explicando que Siria, durante los últimos 70 años, no ha contribuido con nada al Medio Oriente “excepto con agresión, guerras, canibalismo, caos, y pena”. Nossik finaliza con un chistoso mensaje a Vladimir Putin, a quien invita a unirse a la fe judía, para escapar de las preocupaciones de la vida después de la muerte (en la cual Nossik, como judío, no cree) acerca de cualquier niño sirio al que las bombas de Rusia puedan matar.

Nossik se metió en más problemas cuando apareció en el Eco de Moscú para hablar de la entrada en su blog. En una entrevista, dijo que se alegraba de las muertes de “mujeres, niños, y ancianos” en Siria. Cuando se le preguntó, “¿Pero son personas?” Nossik respondió, “No, son sirios”.

Aunque sus comentarios aparentemente apoyan los ataques aéreos del Kremlin, varias figuras públicas se han abalanzado sobre Nossik por su discurso de odio. Su posición ha sido muy impopular entre la mayoría de rusos, tanto entre los partidarios como los críticos de la intervención de Rusia en Siria. Algunos incluso lo ven como motivo de intervención policial. Georgy Fedorov, un miembro de la Cámara Cívica (que aconseja al presidente ruso), ha apelado formalmente al Fiscal General del Estado, pidiendo que los fiscales investiguen la entrada en el blog de Nossik por incitar a la xenofobia y al odio religioso.

Además, Ilya Remeslo, un autodefinido abogado que con frecuencia lanza pullas a los miembros de la oposición en línea, ha lanzado una petición en Change.org dirigida al Comité de Investigación de Moscú y al Fiscal del Distrito. Remeslo está pidiendo a la policía que investigue a Nossik por incitar al odio y hacer un llamamiento a desatar una guerra agresiva, ambas acciones ilegales según el Código Criminal de Rusia. Actualmente, la petición ha conseguido poco más de 2.000 firmas.

El sitio web de noticias Russkaya Planeta, que perdió a gran parte de su personal el pasado mes de diciembre bajo misteriosas circunstancias editoriales, obtuvo una copia de la carta de Fedorov a los fiscales y fue el primero en publicarla. El artículo de Russkaya Planeta insinúa, más bien absurdamente, que Nossik podría estar actuando bajo las instrucciones del Embajador de EE. UU. en Rusia, John Tefft. Como prueba, el sitio web apunta que Nossik y Tefft “se reunieron en secreto el día anterior” en una reunión de blogueros rusos en la embajada estadounidense en Moscú. Como prueba, Russkaya Planeta señala una de las publicaciones en Instagram de Nossik, donde dijo que Tefft había dicho las palabras “mazel tov” (felicidades).

Sin embargo, la publicación real de Instagram resulta ser de finales de mayo, de la fiesta del 60 cumpleaños de Yuri Kanner. Kanner es el presidente del Centro Judío Ruso. Tanto Tefft como Nossik asistieron a la fiesta, aunque la fotografía de Nossik sugiere que Tefft dijo “mazel tov” a todo el público, no a nadie en privado.

Russkaya Planeta sugiere que la frase “mazel tov” (hablando, explica el sitio web, “en el contexto de las actuales relaciones tensas entre EE. UU. y Rusia y la guerra de información”) fue una señal a los blogueros anti-Kremlin para activarse en contra del gobierno. Cómo esto explica el sanguinario apoyo de Nossik a los ataques aéreos rusos en Siria, nadie lo sabe, pero plantear tales preguntas es probablemente todo lo que Russkaya Planeta esperaba hacer.

En: globalvoices

Islamic State Declares Holy War Against Russia

Deje un comentario

The Islamic State (ISIL) has called on Muslims worldwide to launch jihad against Russian and US citizens.

Islamic State spokesman Abu Mohammad al-Adnani called on the Muslim youth worldwide to start a holy war against Russians and Americans, who, according to ISIL, are waging a “crusaders’ war” against Muslims, as cited by Reuters.

Russia and the United States are carrying out separate campaigns against the Islamic State. Moscow launched airstrikes on ISIL targets in Syria on September 30, following a request from Syria’s President Bashar Assad. Since September 2014, a US-led coalition has been bombing ISIL positions in Syria without the approval of the UN Security Council or Syrian authorities.

Earlier, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov told reporters that Islamic State fighters have lost a large part of their weapons and equipment since Russia has stepped up its airstrikes in Syria. This has forced the group to “set in motion the entire logistics network available to the terrorists in order to transport ammunition and fuel from the Raqqa province.”

In the past 24 hours, Russian aircraft carried out 88 sorties on 86 terrorist infrastructure positions in the Raqqa, Hama, Idlib, Latakia, and Aleppo regions in Syria.

Click in the image:

Islamic State in Details. In: sputniknews

Islamic State in Details. In: sputniknews

See: islamic state in details

In: sputniknews

Top China paper says U.S., Russia playing Cold War game in Syria

Deje un comentario

China’s top newspaper on Tuesday accused both the United States and Russia of replaying their Cold War rivalry by engaging in military action in Syria, saying they needed to realize that era is over and should instead push for peace talks.

Rebel fighters carry their weapons as they head toward their positions in the town of Kafr Nabudah, in Hama province, Syria, on which forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad are carrying out offensives to take control of the town, October 11, 2015. REUTERS/AMMAR ABDULLAH

Rebel fighters carry their weapons as they head toward their positions in the town of Kafr Nabudah, in Hama province, Syria, on which forces loyal to Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad are carrying out offensives to take control of the town, October 11, 2015. REUTERS/AMMAR ABDULLAH

A frame grab taken from footage released by Russia's Defence Ministry October 9, 2015, shows a Russian Su-34 fighter-bomber dropping a bomb in the air over Syria. REUTERS/MINISTRY OF DEFENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS

A frame grab taken from footage released by Russia’s Defence Ministry October 9, 2015, shows a Russian Su-34 fighter-bomber dropping a bomb in the air over Syria. REUTERS/MINISTRY OF DEFENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS

The People’s Daily, the official paper of China’s ruling Communist Party, said in a commentary that the United States and Russia seemed to be using Syria as a proxy for diplomatic and military competition, as during the Cold War.

“The United States and the Soviet Union used all sorts of diplomatic, economic and military actions on the soil of third countries, playing tit-for-tat games to increase their influence – it’s an old scene from the Cold War,” the newspaper wrote in a commentary.

“But we’re in the 21st century now, and people need to get their heads around this!,” it added.

While China generally votes with fellow permanent United Nations Security Council member Russia on the Syria issue, it has expressed concern about interference in Syria’s internal affairs and repeatedly called for a political solution.

Russia last month began striking targets in Syria in a dramatic escalation of foreign involvement in the civil war. This has been criticized by the West as an attempt to prop up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, rather than its purported aim of attacking Islamic State.

The United States and its allies have also been carrying out air strikes in Syria against Islamic State, and have supported opposition groups fighting Assad.

The People’s Daily said nobody should stand by while Syria becomes a proxy war, and efforts to reach a peaceful settlement to the crisis should not slacken.

“The international community, especially large countries with much influence, must fully recognize the critical, urgent necessity to reach a political solution to the Syria issue,” it said.

The commentary was published under the pen name “Zhong Sheng”, meaning “Voice of China”, often used to give views on foreign policy.

China, a low-key diplomatic player in the Middle East despite its dependence on the region for its oil, has repeatedly warned that military action cannot end the crisis.

(Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Richard Borsuk)

In: reuters

U.S. pulls plug on Syria rebel training effort; will focus on weapons supply

Deje un comentario
U.S. Defense Secretary Carter addresses a news conference during a NATO defence ministers meeting in Brussels

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter addresses a news conference during a NATO defence ministers meeting at the Alliance headquarters in Brussels, Belgium October 8, 2015. REUTERS/FRANCOIS LENOIR

Rebel fighters demonstrate their skills during a military display as part of a graduation ceremony at a camp in eastern al-Ghouta, near Damascus, Syria

Rebel fighters demonstrate their skills during a military display as part of a graduation ceremony at a camp in eastern al-Ghouta, near Damascus, Syria July 11, 2015. REUTERS/BASSAM KHABIEH

The United States will largely abandon its failed efforts to train moderate Syrian rebels fighting Islamic State, and instead provide arms and equipment directly to rebel leaders and their units on the battlefield, the Obama administration said on Friday.

The U.S. announcement marked the effective end to a short-lived $580 million program to train and equip units of fighters at sites outside of Syria, after its disastrous launch this year fanned criticism of President Barack Obama’s war strategy.

The Pentagon said it would shift its focus away from training to providing weapons and other equipment to rebel groups whose leaders have passed a U.S. vetting process to ensure they are not linked to militant Islamist groups.

The strategy switch comes as the Obama administration grapples with a dramatic change in the landscape in Syria’s four-year-old civil war, brought about by Russia’s military intervention in support of President Bashar al-Assad. Moscow’s intervention has cast doubt on Obama’s strategy there and raised questions about U.S. influence in the region.

Washington’s announcement came as Islamic State fighters seized villages close to the northern city of Aleppo from rival insurgents, according to a monitoring group, despite an intensified Russian campaign.

Moscow is mounting air strikes and missile attacks that it says are aimed both at supporting its longtime ally Assad and combating Islamic State. Washington says Russian air strikes in Syria are targeted primarily not at Islamic State but at other rebel groups, including those that have received U.S. support.

Obama has previously questioned the notion that arming rebels would change the course of Syria’s war. In an interview with the New York Times in August 2014, he said the idea that arming the moderate Syrian opposition would make a big difference on the battlefield had “always been a fantasy.”

By vetting only rebel commanders, the new U.S. policy could raise the risk that American-supplied arms could fall into the hands of individual fighters who are anti-Western.

Christine Wormuth, the Pentagon’s No. 3 civilian official, said however that the United States had “pretty high confidence” in the Syrian rebels it would supply, and that the equipment would not include “higher end” arms such as anti-tank rockets and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft rockets.

The Pentagon will provide “basic kinds of equipment” to leaders of the groups, Wormuth, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, told reporters on a White House conference call.

The Syrian rebel groups that have recently won favor with Washington include Sunni Arabs and Kurds as well as Syrian Christians, U.S. officials have said.

Wormuth defended the Pentagon program launched in May that trained only 60 fighters, falling far short of the original goal of 5,400 and so working out at a cost so far of nearly $10 million per trained fighter.

“I don’t think at all this was a case of poor execution,” Wormuth said. “It was inherently a very, very complex mission,”

Ben Rhodes, the White House deputy national security adviser, said the new approach showed there had been “deficiencies” in the train-and-equip program that had to be addressed.

When it was launched, the program was seen as a test of Obama’s strategy of having local partners combat Islamic State militants and keeping U.S. troops off the front lines. But the program was troubled from the start, with some of the first class of fighters coming under attack from al Qaeda’s Syria wing, Nusra Front, in their battlefield debut.

The Pentagon confirmed last month that a group of U.S.-trained Syrian rebels had handed over ammunition and equipment to Nusra Front, purportedly in exchange for safe passage.

PROBLEMS RECRUITING

The administration has acknowledged that its efforts to attract recruits have struggled because the program was solely authorized to fight Islamic State, rather than Assad.

“No one in Syria is going to just fight ISIL … it’s doomed to fail with these restrictions,” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said on MSNBC, using an acronym for Islamic State. Graham has been a leading critic of the Syria policy of Obama, a Democrat.

Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook said in a statement that the plan was to supply rebel groups so that they could “make a concerted push into territory still controlled by ISIL.”

The United States would also provide air support to rebels as they battle Islamic State, Cook said.

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in the statement he believed the changes would “over time, increase the combat power of counter-ISIL forces in Syria.”

U.S. support would now focus on weapons, communications gear and ammunition, another Pentagon official said, speaking on condition of anonymity, adding the re-envisioned program would start in “days.” The official declined to say how many Syrian rebel leaders would be trained.

Another U.S. official said the new weapons supplies could eventually be channeled through vetted commanders to thousands of fighters, but declined to be more specific about the numbers.

The Pentagon did not name which groups would receive support.

Reuters reported last week that the Obama administration was considering extending support to thousands of Syrian rebel fighters, including along a stretch of the Turkey-Syria border, as part of the revamped approach to Syria.

The United States would also support members of the Syrian Arab Coalition, under that plan.

Speaking to reporters during a visit to London, Carter said the new U.S. effort would seek to enable Syrian rebels in much the way the United States had helped Kurdish forces to successfully battle Islamic State in Syria.

After Islamic State’s brutal offensive through northern Iraq in June 2014, Obama asked Congress for an initial $500 million to “train and equip” Syria’s opposition fighters, whom he later described as “the best counterweight” to Islamic State militants and a key pillar in his campaign to defeat them.

(Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu, Roberta Rampton, Idrees Ali, Matt Spetalnick and Warren Strobel.; Editing by Richard Balmforth and Frances Kerry)

In: reuters

Iran troops to join Syria war, Russia bombs group trained by CIA

Deje un comentario

https://youtu.be/9JOvD8yW1bQ

https://youtu.be/5RhyJ0cn1Os

BEIRUT/MOSCOW | BY LAILA BASSAM AND ANDREW OSBORN

Hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria to join a major ground offensive in support of President Bashar al-Assad’s government, Lebanese sources said on Thursday, a sign the civil war is turning still more regional and global in scope.

Russian warplanes, in a second day of strikes, bombed a camp run by rebels trained by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, the group’s commander said, putting Moscow and Washington on opposing sides in a Middle East conflict for the first time since the Cold War.

Senior U.S. and Russian officials spoke for just over an hour by secure video conference on Thursday, focusing on ways to keep air crews safe, the Pentagon said, as the two militaries carry out parallel campaigns with competing objectives.

“We made crystal clear that, at a minimum, the priority here should be the safe operation of the air crews over Syria,” Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook said.

Two Lebanese sources told Reuters hundreds of Iranian troops had reached Syria in the past 10 days with weapons to mount a major ground offensive. They would also be backed by Assad’s Lebanese Hezbollah allies and by Shi’ite militia fighters from Iraq, while Russia would provide air support.

“The vanguard of Iranian ground forces began arriving in Syria -soldiers and officers specifically to participate in this battle. They are not advisers … we mean hundreds with equipment and weapons. They will be followed by more,” one of the sources said.

So far, direct Iranian military support for Assad has come mostly in the form of military advisers. Iran has also mobilized Shi’ite militia fighters, including Iraqis and some Afghans, to fight alongside Syrian government forces.

Moscow said it had hit Islamic State positions, but the areas it struck near the cities of Hama and Homs are mostly held by a rival insurgent alliance, which unlike Islamic State is supported by U.S. allies including Arab states and Turkey.

Hassan Haj Ali, head of the Liwa Suqour al-Jabal rebel group that is part of the Free Syrian Army, told Reuters one of the targets was his group’s base in Idlib province, struck by about 20 missiles in two separate raids. His fighters had been trained by the CIA in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, part of a program Washington says is aimed at supporting groups that oppose both Islamic State and Assad.

“Russia is challenging everyone and saying there is no alternative to Bashar,” Haj Ali said. He said the Russian jets had been identified by members of his group who once served as Syrian air force pilots.

The group is one of at least three foreign-backed FSA rebel factions to say they had been hit by the Russians in the last two days.

At the United Nations, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told a news conference Moscow was targeting Islamic State. He did not specifically deny that Russian planes had attacked Free Syrian Army facilities but said Russia did not view it as a terrorist group and viewed it as part of a political solution in Syria.

The aim is to help the Syrian armed forces “in their weak spots”, said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook described Thursday’s military talks as “cordial and professional.” During the talks, Elissa Slotkin, an acting assistant U.S. secretary of defense, “noted U.S. concern that areas targeted by Russia so far were not ISIL strongholds.” Cook said, using an acronym for Islamic State.

The Pentagon said it would not share U.S. intelligence with Russia and suggested the talks included ideas to increase safety, such as agreeing on radio frequencies for distress calls and a common language for communications.

U.S. Republican Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and a frequent Obama critic, questioned the logic of talks on how to keep U.S. and Russian militaries apart, known in military parlance as “deconfliction.”

“Unfortunately, it appears ‘deconfliction’ is merely an Orwellian euphemism for this administration’s acceptance of Russia’s expanded role in Syria, and as a consequence, for Assad’s continued brutalization of the Syrian people,” McCain said.

SAME ENEMIES, DIFFERENT FRIENDS

Russia’s decision to join the war with air strikes on behalf of Assad, as well as the increased military involvement of Iran, could mark a turning point in a conflict that has drawn in most of the world’s military powers.

With the United States leading an alliance waging its own air war against Islamic State, the Cold War superpower foes, Washington and Moscow, are now engaged in combat over the same country for the first time since World War Two.

They say they have the same enemies – the Islamic State group of Sunni Muslim militants who have proclaimed a caliphate across eastern Syria and northern Iraq.

But they also have different friends, and sharply opposing views of how to resolve the 4-year-old Syrian civil war, which has killed more than 250,000 people and driven more than 10 million from their homes.

Washington and its allies oppose both Islamic State and Assad, believing he must leave power in any peace settlement.

Washington says a central part of its strategy is building “moderate” insurgents to fight Islamic State, although so far it has struggled to find many fighters to accept its training.

Moscow supports the Syrian president and believes his government should be the centerpiece of international efforts to fight the extremist groups.

It appears to be using the common campaign against Islamic State as a pretext to strike against groups supported by Washington and its allies, as a way of defending a Damascus government with which Moscow has been allied since the Cold War.

The Russian strikes represent a bold move by President Vladimir Putin to assert influence beyond his own neighborhood. It is the first time Moscow has ordered its forces into combat outside the frontiers of the former Soviet Union since its disastrous Afghanistan campaign in the 1980s.

The Russian and Iranian interventions in support of Assad come at a time when momentum in the conflict had swung against his government and seem aimed at reversing insurgent gains.

Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi of neighboring Iraq, where Washington is also leading an air war against Islamic State while Iran aids government forces on the ground, said he would be open to Russian strikes as well.

A Syrian military source said on Thursday that Russian military support would bring a “big change” in the course of the conflict, particularly through advanced surveillance capabilities that could pinpoint insurgent targets.

Putin’s gamble of going to war in Syria comes a year after he defied the West to annex Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula, drawing U.S. and EU economic sanctions while igniting a wave of popular nationalist support at home.

(Reporting by Laila Bassam, Sylvia Westall and Tom Perry in Beirut, Andrew Osborn and Lidia Kelly in Moscow, and Yeganeh Torbati, Warren Strobel and Phil Stewart in Washington; Writing by Peter Graff; Editing by Giles Elgood, Howard Goller and Ken Wills)

In: reuters

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 14