US Defense Secretary Ash Carter offered his congratulations to Iraq’s prime minister after Iraqi forces succeeded in retaking the government center in Ramadi from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

“‎The expulsion of ISIL by Iraqi security forces, supported by our international coalition, is a significant step forward in the campaign to defeat this barbaric group and restore Iraq’s territorial sovereignty,” Carter said in a statement.‎

The operation to reach the center of Ramadi was a significant milestone on the path to clear ISIL from the historic city and the overall campaign to defeat the terrorist group across Iraq, according to a statement released by Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve officials today.

Ramadi’s strategic location on the highway that connects Iraq with Syria and Jordan made it a prized target for ISIL, which took the city in May.

“The fight for Ramadi demonstrates how capable, motivated local forces backed by coalition air support and training can defeat ISIL,” Carter said. “‎Now it’s important for the Iraqi government, working with provincial and local authorities, to seize this opportunity to maintain the peace in Ramadi, prevent the return of ISIL and other extremists, and facilitate the return of Ramadi’s citizens back to the city.”

“Even with this success, the fight against ISIL is far from over,” the defense secretary said. “The United States military stands ready to support our Iraqi partners and the rest of the international coalition as we build on today’s progress and continue to strike ISIL on multiple fronts until we achieve their inevitable defeat.”

“Coupled with other recent ISIL losses across Iraq and Syria, including at Tikrit, Bayji, al Hawl, the Tishrin Dam and Sinjar, the seizure of the government center clearly demonstrates that the enemy is losing momentum as they steadily cede territory,” said Army Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the U.S. Central Command commander. “Looking ahead, I expect our partners on the ground in both Iraq and Syria, with coalition assistance, to continue to roll back ISIL gains as we work together to defeat this enemy.”

“The Iraqi security forces, including the counterterrorism service, the Iraqi army, the Iraqi air force, the federal and local police and the tribal fighters, have demonstrated their resolve in the fight for Ramadi,” said U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland, the CJTF-OIR commander. “I also want to commend the thousands of troops of the coalition who have made this success possible … This success belongs to them as well, and we will all work together to defeat our common enemy.”

Task force officials said that coalition support to operations in Ramadi included more than 600 strikes focused against ISIL targets in and around the city, training and equipping multiple elements of the Iraqi security forces, providing specialized engineering equipment to clear improvised explosives devices, and providing advice and assistance at multiple Iraqi headquarters.

Hindus have welcomed the reports of Oscar winner Hollywood star Angelina Jolie praying in a Hindu temple in Phuket island in Thailand few days back.

According to reports, Jolie, along with her Oscar winner husband Brad Pitt and their children visited a Hindu temple where she prayed. They were vacationing at a luxurious beach resort over the holiday season in Phuket, a mountainous and rainforested island branded as pearl of Andaman Sea.

Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada (USA) today, welcoming Jolie’s reported interest in Hinduism, indicated that she should explore Hinduism further and she would appreciate rich, diverse and long tradition of Hindu philosophy; and its interpretation of the nature of reality.

Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, further said that if Jolie needed any help in deeper Hinduism exploration, he or other Hindu scholars would be glad to assist.

Rajan Zed suggested Jolie to realize the Self. Ancient Hindu scripture Katha Upanishad points out that when wise realize the Self, they go beyond sorrow. Self is supreme and those who meditate on Self are freed from the cycle of birth and death. When one realizes Self, there is nothing else to be known.

A week before Christmas, at a press conference, President Obama spoke about Guantánamo, and we wanted to make sure that our supporters know exactly what he said, as it is significant for the coming year — Obama’s last in office — to know what he has planned, and what he thinks of the opposition to his plans in Congress, where Republicans have been imposing restrictions on his ability to release prisoners and to close the prison for most of his presidency, including a ban on bringing prisoners to the US mainland for any reason.

Below are President Obama’s comments, interspersed with our commentary. We hope you find it useful. The president’s comments came in response to a question by the journalist David Jackson.

David Jackson: Thank you, Mr. President. A Gitmo question. Congress has made it pretty clear that they’re just not going to let you transfer prisoners to the United States for trial. But some people think you already have the executive authority to transfer those prisoners and close Gitmo itself next year. My question is, do you believe you have that authority and are you willing to exercise it to close that place?

The President: Well, first of all, we’ve been working systematically — another example of persistence — in reducing the population. We have a review process. Those who are eligible for transfer we locate in countries that have accepted some of these detainees. They monitor them, and it’s been determined that they can be transferred. And my expectation is by early next year, we should have reduced that population below 100. And we will continue to steadily chip away at the numbers in Guantánamo.

WE SAY: We are glad that President Obama spoke about the men approved for release and the efforts to release them. There are, however, 48 men approved for release out of the 107 men still held, and 37 of these men were approved for release six years ago by the Guantánamo Review Task Force that the president established shortly after he first took office in January 2009. Holding men for so long who have been approved for release is unforgivable, as we have repeatedly made clear. We also hope that the recent mentions in the mainstream media of 17 releases in the new year will turn out to be true.

The other 11 men approved for release had their cases reviewed in the last two years by Periodic Review Boards, established to review the cases of everyone not already approved for release or facing a trial (and there are just ten men in this latter category). The PRBs have had an astonishing success rate for the prisoners — 15 out of 18 men’s cases reviewed to date have ended with recommendations for their release (a success rate of 83%), but the process is moving far too slowly. 43 men are currently awaiting reviews, as explained in our definitive PRB list, published at the start of December, and at the current rate these will not be completed until long after Obama leaves office. The president therefore needs to do all in his power to speed up the reviews in 2016.

The President: There’s going to come to a point where we have an irreducible population — people who pose a significant threat, but for various reasons, it’s difficult for us to try them in an Article III court. Some of those folks are going through a military commission process. But there’s going to be a challenge there.

Now, at that stage, I’m presenting a plan to Congress about how we can close Guantánamo. I’m not going to automatically assume that Congress says no. I’m not being coy, David. I think it’s fair to say that there’s going to be significant resistance from some quarters to that.  But I think we can make a very strong argument that it doesn’t make sense for us to be spending an extra $100 million, $200 million, $300 million, $500 million, a billion dollars, to have a secure setting for 50, 60, 70 people.  And we will wait until Congress has definitively said no to a well-thought-out plan with numbers attached to it before we say anything definitive about my executive authority here.  I think it’s far preferable if I can get stuff done with Congress.

WE SAY: It is not just for reasons of justice that President Obama needs to speed up the PRB process. His talk of people who cannot be tried should set alarm bells ringing for anyone who respects the rule of law, as it appears to endorse the policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial that has existed at Guantánamo since it opened in January 2002. However, we recognize that, according to the laws of war, President Obama has the right to hold people until the end of hostilities. As a result, he is entitled to transfer prisoners to the US mainland to be held without charge or trial, but the prisoners will have constitutional rights denied to them at Guantánamo, and will be able to launch new lawsuits that, we believe, will severely challenge the supposed justification for their ongoing imprisonment.

As “Close Guantánamo” co-founder Tom Wilner has explained, “If the detainees are brought to the United States, the government loses its prime argument for denying them constitutional rights. The imprisonment of anyone without charge or trial on the US mainland is radically at odds with any concept of constitutional due process. Bringing them to the United States means that they would almost certainly have full constitutional rights and the ability to effectively challenge their detentions in court. They would then no longer be dependent solely on the largesse of the Obama administration, or whatever administration happens to follow it, but could gain relief through the courts.”

David Jackson: So actually you could — right — [close Guantánamo] on your own?

The President: David, as I said — and I think you’ve seen me on a whole bunch of issues like immigration — I’m not going to be forward-leaning on what I can do without Congress before I’ve tested what I can do with Congress. And every once in a while, they’ll surprise you, and this may be one of those places — because I think we can make a really strong argument. Guantánamo continues to be one of the key magnets for jihadi recruitment.

To Roberta [Rampton]’s question earlier about how do they propagandize and convince somebody here in the United States who may not have a criminal record or a history of terrorist activity to start shooting — this is part of what they feed, this notion of a gross injustice, that America is not living up to its professed ideals. We know that. We see the Internet traffic. We see how Guantánamo has been used to create this mythology that America is at war with Islam. And for us to close it is part of our counterterrorism strategy that is supported by our military, our diplomatic, and our intelligence teams.

So when you combine that with the fact that it’s really expensive that we are essentially at this point detaining a handful of people and each person is costing several million dollars to detain, when there are more efficient ways of doing it, I think we can make a strong argument.

But I’ll take your point that it will be an uphill battle. Now, every battle I’ve had with Congress over the last five years has been uphill. But we keep on surprising you by actually getting some stuff done. Sometimes that may prove necessary, but we try not to get out ahead of ourselves on that.

WE SAY: President Obama is correct to call Guantánamo “one of the key magnets for jihadi recruitment.” In our mission statement, when we founded “Close Guantánamo” in 2012, we quoted President Obama, in a speech in early 2009, stating that, “instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantánamo became a symbol that helped al-Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantánamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.” We also agree with the president about the outrageous cost of Guantánamo, and as we also stated in our mission statement, we believe that Guantánamo “undermines our bedrock commitment to the rule of law, making that fundamental principle less secure for all Americans.”

We also hope, of course, that President Obama will be able to close Guantánamo with the support of Congress, and we remember that, back in May 2013, in a major speech on national security at the National Archives, he said, of Guantánamo, “there is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened.”

However, we are prepared for Congress to fail to cooperate with the president, and we bear in mind the op-ed in the Washington Post in November by Greg Craig, who was White House Counsel in 2009, and Cliff Sloan, the envoy for Guantánamo closure in the State Department from 2013-14, entitled, “The president doesn’t need Congress’s permission to close Guantánamo.” Craig and Sloan wrote, “Some maintain that the congressional ban on transfers from Guantánamo to the United States prevents closure without congressional approval. But that is wrong. Under Article II of the Constitution, the president has exclusive authority to determine the facilities in which military detainees are held. Obama has the authority to move forward. He should use it.”

What you can do now

To ask President Obama to speed up the release of prisoners from Guantánamo, and the Periodic Review Boards, call the White House on 202-456-1111 or 202-456-1414 or submit a comment online.

You can also call the Department of Defense and ask Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to speed up prisoner releases and the PRB process on 703-571-3343.

I wrote the above article for the “Close Guantánamo” website, which I established in January 2012 with US attorney Tom Wilner. Please join us — just an email address is required to be counted amongst those opposed to the ongoing existence of Guantánamo, and to receive updates of our activities by email.

By Colin Dueck*

This is the first in a series of three essays on the challenge of strategic foreign policy planning for the next administration. Here in Part One, I briefly describe problems with the national security decision-making process under the current president, then consider and rebut the argument that any sort of strategy in US foreign policy is a practical impossibility.

Subsequently in Parts Two and Three, I will outline specific policy recommendations for an improved strategic planning process, and offer some guidelines for the substance of an alternate strategic direction.

The Current Problem

President Obama’s foreign policy leadership style should be viewed as a challenge to conventional academic wisdom. Obama has many of the qualities commonly considered essential by scholars: intelligence, personal self-discipline, tactical flexibility, and a generally deliberate manner.^[1] Yet American foreign policy on his watch has frequently been marked by unexpected pushback, failure, and dysfunction. The President’s defenders maintain that such frustrations are inevitable, given the complexity of world politics today. But on closer examination, many of these frustrations appear to have been unnecessarily aggravated by Obama’s particular way of handling the foreign policy decision-making process.

Most credible reports concur that foreign policymaking under Obama is highly centralized into the Oval Office. As Robert Gates notes, reflecting on his time as Secretary of Defense up to 2011: “The controlling nature of the Obama White House took micromanagement and operational meddling to a new level.”^[2] The President surrounds himself with a tight inner circle of de facto foreign policy advisers based inside the White House. Some of the people within this innermost circle possessed little national security, executive branch, or international expertise before taking on roles as top presidential advisers.^[3] Moreover it is abundantly clear that foreign policy is monitored closely by the White House in part to minimize domestic political risk.^[4] Under this modus operandi, the NSC staff has ballooned to something approaching 400 members. NSC meetings are so frequent and time-consuming that they leave top officials from State and Defense less ability to actually implement decisions or manage their own departments. At the same time, these very same officials feel less involved in the actual development of policy. Among other things, this situation creates mistrust, and deprives the President of true exposure to alternative expert points of view. The interagency foreign policy process churns tremendously, but in many cases seems marginal to the final outcome.^[5]

Obama takes his time making decisions, keeps his own counsel, and has a strong aversion to being pinned down. He is exceptionally tolerant of ambiguity, and regularly expresses it in his own carefully crafted foreign policy speeches. The overarching style is one that tends to be especially valued and appreciated within academic circles. But the qualities that make for a successful academic, community organizer, or legal instructor – and even the qualities that make for an effective politician – are not necessarily the same qualities required for a successful commander-in-chief. Indefinite pliancy, profound ambivalence, and a disinclination to commit are hardly unmixed virtues in the field of foreign policy strategy. There comes a time when a president’s role is to make a decision, even a potentially risky one, and then enforce that decision so it sticks. The paradox under Obama is a highly centralized decision-making process, in which actual decisions regarding foreign policy are too often delayed or altogether avoided. As one official described their experience inside the Obama NSC: “It was like ‘Groundhog Day’…with no progress, no refinement. In fairness, these are all tough questions. But eventually, you’ve got to make a choice.”^[6]

Of course, a good part of this pattern is due to Obama’s substantive policy preferences, not just his procedural ones. The President regularly blocks or waters down more assertive foreign policy options because he does not believe in their merit. No doubt he sincerely thinks that accommodating international rivalries and limiting US military commitments is appropriate not only internationally, but for the achievement of a progressive domestic policy agenda. Insofar as he has a grand strategy, this is it. Yet he apparently feels no compelling need to impose a rigorous coherence between declared ends and given means in US policy when it comes to specific cases like Syria, ISIS, or Ukraine. This is the sense in which the decision-making process matters, interacting with substance. At the very least – if he chooses to utilize it – a professional foreign policy process can help a president to impose some capable order on implementation and execution, whatever his chosen approach. It is one thing to adopt a deliberate strategy of limited liability. It is something else to allow presidential words and actions to become dangerously disconnected in one case after another. In a very real way, Obama does both. Now after seven years, not only the overarching direction but the president’s characteristic decision-making style have proved increasingly problematic.^[7]

Strategic Realism Versus Strategic Defeatism

To be clear, this is hardly the first US president to struggle with foreign policy frustration and dysfunction. At one time or another, every single president has, and over the past quarter century the problem only seems to have grown worse. Current US foreign policy appears to lack a coherent strategic planning process. There seems to be no locus for the proper coordination of ends and means in US national security strategy. The historical and institutional roots of this situation go deep, including persistent patterns inside the interagency process and in relationships between the White House, the State Department, and the Department of Defense. For example, over the years the Department of Defense has taken on a prominent role in the implementation of US foreign policy, powered in part by immense talent and resources both civilian and military. The Secretary of Defense is now one of several leading foreign policy advisers to the President, as well he should be. The Pentagon has impressive capabilities when it comes to military planning in the strict sense. But for all its resources, the Pentagon cannot actually coordinate the full range of tools necessary to pursue broad US foreign policy objectives, nor does it have a mandate to do so, as career military know full well.

There are of course policy planning staff at the State Department – the staff George Kennan once directed – with a mandate to help bring broad strategic coherence to US foreign policy. But since Kennan’s tenure, the role of the State Department has shifted, not only relative to Defense, but relative to the White House. Long before Obama, presidents during the middle of the Cold War began taking increasingly direct control over the foreign policy process into the Oval Office. They did so because it met a variety of their needs, and that pattern is unlikely to be completely reversed.^[8] So even assuming relationships of influence and trust from the director of policy planning, to the Secretary of State, and then up to the President – a very big assumption, not all that common in practice – State’s precise role is not what it was in Kennan’s day.^[9] Nor is the current moment identical to the late 1940s internationally. Advocates of strategic planning should accept these altered realities, instead of trying to replicate the author of US containment strategy. Effective policy planning at the State Department can do a great deal of good, but Kennan was simply unique. There will not be another George Kennan.

Insofar as there is today any plausible institutional locus within the federal government for the imposition of strategic rigor on US foreign policy, it is really the president himself. So when the United States has a president who is either incapable or unwilling to impose such coherence, or who does not see its necessity, no amount of reshuffled organizational flowcharts or expert opinion can make up the difference. Indeed no less an authority than former President Bill Clinton once confided his view that when it came to grand strategy, presidents just “made it up as they went along.”^[10] Certainly, Clinton would be in a good position to know whether or not that was true.

This recurrent frustration with various US foreign policy approaches over the last three presidential administrations has led some observers to conclude that any effective “strategy” in America’s international affairs is quite unlikely. The reasons given are several. The end of the Cold War deprived US foreign policymakers of a single great focus; there are now multiple, shifting threats. Consequently, some say that the international system itself is now so complex, even wildly uncertain, as to make any overarching strategy beside the point.^[11] Others suggest that perennial patterns of bureaucratic politics, especially within the byzantine apparatus of US foreign and national security policy, render the implementation of any coherent strategy highly improbable.^[12] Observers have sometimes noted an “un-strategic” element in the culture of US foreign policy – for example a striking emphasis on technological fixes and idealistic pronouncements, rather than on the need to match ends and means within an internationally competitive environment.^[13] The American political and electoral system has tremendous virtues, but the cultivation of leaders with an international strategic sensibility is not always one of them.^[14] On another level, the appalling, widespread practice of government leaks has had an unfortunate chilling effect on comprehensive internal examinations of alternative US foreign policy strategies, since participants fear that such analysis might be printed in the next morning’s newspapers and thereby rendered moot before it has even had a chance to make a positive impact.^[15] Moreover the sheer quantity of information now processed by government officials on a daily basis, together with expectations for rapid response, make it exceptionally challenging to carve out time for genuine strategic analysis as opposed to crisis management.^[16]

Taken to their extreme – which not all of the above critics do – these observations can lead to the conclusion that any sort of serious US foreign policy strategy is literally impossible. I call this latter position strategic defeatism, not as a pejorative term, but as an accurate description of the stated conclusion: namely, that any attempt at strategy is downright futile. A good recent statement of strategic defeatism can be found in the last November/December issue of Foreign Affairs, where David Edelstein and Ronald Krebs argue that “it is all but impossible to identify the ideal strategy ahead of time,” and that “strategizing is more than unhelpful; it is also dangerous….It does not make Americans feel more secure.” The article ends with a call for policymakers to “leave strategizing behind.”^[17]

Many of the above objections to strategy do carry considerable weight. The creation and execution of a sensibly coherent foreign policy truly is extremely difficult today, for all of the reasons just cited. Nor are critics like Edelstein and Krebs wrong when they say that “credibility cannot be gained merely by issuing a public document,” and “strategic outcomes that appear poorly calculated to one analyst may seem sensible to another.”^[18] In a classic article these authors reference, entitled “Is Strategy an Illusion,” Columbia University’s Richard Betts points out that “among academics, many do not take seriously the barriers to effective strategy….Thus few of them anymore learn enough about the processes of decision-making or military operations to grasp how hard it is to implement strategic plans, and few focus on the conversion processes that open up gaps between what government leaders decide to do and what government organizations implementing those decisions actually do.”^[19] But the obvious answer would seem to be to learn more about these processes in order to master them, not to quit and go fishing. Indeed this is Betts’ own conclusion – including the part about fishing.^[20] Despite a healthy realism on the subject, Betts’ answer to his own question is in fact that “effective strategy is not impossible,” and that “there is no alternative but to engage in strategy unless one is willing to give up the use of force as an instrument of policy.”^[21]

Strategic defeatism may arise from a misunderstanding of what strategy actually is, and what it can do. A strategy articulates clear, achievable national interests; identifies concrete threats to those interests; and then recommends specific policy instruments by which such threats can be met and overcome. A foreign policy strategy may not be entirely coherent, preplanned, or well-coordinated – in fact, very often they are not. But the inescapable nature of limited resources, hard choices, and policy trade-offs means that decisions regarding strategy are both implicit and inevitable.^[22] If we define grand strategy – wrongly – as a prefabricated plan, carried out to the letter against all resistance, then clearly no president and probably no world leader has every had such a strategy, nor ever will. But if we adopt a less stringent and perhaps more realistic definition, we see that all presidents necessarily make choices and decisions based at least partly upon their own preexisting assumptions. Even a president’s refusal to make a decision on some leading international or military issue is itself a choice, with significant material consequences. This leads to several observations relevant to American foreign policy today:

1. Strategic choices are inescapable. To paraphrase what Leon Trotsky is supposed to have said about war: you may not be interested in strategy, but strategy is interested in you.^[23] The issue in judging any president’s foreign policy is not whether he can avoid difficult strategic choices. He cannot. The real issue is the accuracy, fitness, and coherence of his strategic choices, however vague or implicit. In practice, virtually all critics of the concept of strategy – up to and including some US presidents – end up offering what amounts to some other recommended strategic direction. Edelstein and Krebs, for their part, state in their Foreign Affairs critique of grand strategy that “the nation’s external security environment is extraordinarily benign,” and therefore the US should pursue “a more restrained foreign policy that avoids the distraction of peripheral interventions.”^[24] This sounds an awful lot like an alternative grand strategy. It makes clear assumptions regarding threats, as well as interests. So why not admit that strategy is inescapable, and make this explicit?
2. Strategy has always been difficult. We flatter ourselves that we live we in a uniquely “complex” era. But a little historical familiarity reveals that the formation of strategy has always been difficult and complicated.^[25] It was certainly difficult and complicated at the start of America’s Cold War struggle. Later during that struggle, in the 1970s, prominent academics and some political leaders insisted that the rise of multiple new challenges and complex international issue dimensions rendered irrelevant any strategy of the traditional type. Such claims have a familiar ring. There are of course multiple threats internationally today. But these threats are not entirely unpredictable. We know there are great power challenges, such as Russia and China; there are rogue states such as North Korea and Iran; there are jihadist terrorists such as ISIS and Al Qaeda. Past leaders in many countries have also faced situations in which there were multiple threats. Rather than reiterating how impossibly complicated things are in our time, it might be useful to learn from successful examples of past strategies in similar eras.^[26]
3. Some strategies are better than others. Here we hit upon one of the favorite terms in political science: variation. If there were really no variation in the quality of foreign policy strategies across time and place, then of course strategy would be useless. But this is simply not the case. There is in fact an astonishing variety in the quality of strategic thought and action, with tremendous practical consequences, not only from one situation to the next – and sometimes from one president to the next – but even occasionally within a single administration. Take for example the presidency of George W. Bush. As Edelstein and Krebs suggest in their article, and as is now widely understood, the initial planning for the 2003 occupation of Iraq was marked by numerous flawed assumptions, including insufficient preparation for possible stability and counterinsurgency operations. Ultimately, the responsibility for this was the president’s. Yet that same president later oversaw a remarkably effective review and redirection of US strategy in Iraq, starting in late 2006 and implemented during 2007-08.^[27] If the very same president, in relation to the same foreign country, can show such dramatic variation in the quality of strategic decision-making, then we might want to understand how and why national strategies can improve from one case to the next.
4. Strategic defeatism is of no practical help. The question is not whether difficult foreign policy choices are coming, but how they will be made. Refusing to think strategically will not allow the United States to escape what are in effect strategic dilemmas – it will only exacerbate existing frustrations. As Duke University’s Hal Brands points out, if conditions are daunting, this is all the more reason to think systematically about ends and means.^[28] It’s hard to see how deliberately avoiding strategic thought might improve the quality of American decision-making. Policymakers need practical assistance. To put it bluntly: those who do not believe that improvements in the quality of US foreign policy strategy are possible, should probably not be entrusted with the implementation of same. This is true from the president on down.
5. Responsibility for US foreign policy strategy is up to the President. There should be no pretense that mid-level officials with the title of planner can somehow single-handedly draft a grand strategy for the United States, and then see it implemented in Washington and abroad. This is a misunderstanding of the process. American foreign policy is president-centered. It can hardly be otherwise. No other individual is truly able or empowered to weigh, judge, and act upon conflicting domestic and international priorities on behalf of the national interest. Obviously the demands on any president are immense, and conflicting pressures are legion. Still, it is the president who decides how these conflicting pressures will be resolved, through particular foreign policy decisions. Choices and alternatives do exist. A key question is one of priorities, including whether a given president is willing to spend political capital on behalf of sensible foreign and national security policies. In the end, there is simply no substitute for sustained attention in this area from the nation’s commander-in-chief. If the president does not impose some sort of order and coherence on American foreign policy, together with his cabinet, then nobody else either can or will.^[29]

At moments like the current one, when US foreign policy strategy is neither particularly well-conceived nor well-executed, this inevitable reliance on presidential leadership can seem discouraging, because it acts as a kind of overpowering executive blockage against the formation of effective strategies. Yet this conclusion also contains a glimmer of hope, for the very same reason. It is not humanly impossible to develop a reasonably effective foreign policy strategy. More than one past US president has done so, and in those cases where they have, it really does make a difference. If the next president is determined to craft and implement such a strategy, this in itself would alter the current situation dramatically. It can be done.

About the author:
*Colin Dueck is an associate professor in the School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs at George Mason University and Senior Fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute. Portions of this essay are drawn from his book The Obama Doctrine: American Grand Strategy Today (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015).

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

Notes:
[1] For example, Stephen Wayne, “Obama’s Personality and Performance,” in James Thurber, ed., Obama in Office (Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2011), 68-71.

Here we are heralding the entrance of a new year with myriad problems confronting us; some problems appearing as daily spoken realities – those principally dealing with the economy, war and terrorism; others, subliminally present, silenced by national choice – such as bigotry, an ever-expanding income-wealth inequality and the prospect of a world without US economic and military hegemony. The subliminal topics appearing as taboo, where neither government nor most of us dare go or openly discuss. We are ushering 2016 as yet another presidential election year where once again our once reliable presidential system is demonstrating its incapacity to reach political consensus in a diverse nation where the preponderance of voters is no longer centrist “across the board” as in generations past.

Results from Spain’s December 20 general election brought both reality and questions which had been accosting me from my early days of inquiry about politics to my current cynicism which defines the idea of democracy, and self-governance, as just a placebo prescribed by those elites who alternatively rule over us in this United States.

I go back to my teen years when I first questioned which system of government, within the context of democracy, would probably be best: Parliamentarism or Presidentialism. And I recall choosing one over the other depending on my political feelings at that time. Now, after years of swinging back and forth, I am about to reach the conclusion, this time permanently, without the residue of reservations that I had in the past, that at least in this 21st Century America, Presidentialism is not serving us well; and that, braiding it with our insufferable two-party, money-lubricated, political machine has placed us among the worst governed major nations on earth – something which our false pride and concomitant ignorance refuse to acknowledge time and again. Pride and ignorance which have nurtured cancerous instincts in conflict with world peace and brotherhood through militarism, bigotry, jingoism, and a shameful enjoyment of our “empire-feel”; perhaps a great outcome for the ruling elites of the nation but a sorry aftermath for a commoner citizenry which has been profoundly deceived.

A most interesting new approach to American politics has resulted for me from Spain’s recent elections, something which can only happen, or be invited to happen, under Parliamentarism. Instead of the customary two major political forces that usually vie for absolute power, the People’s Party or Partido Popular (PP) – most often tagged as center-right in the right-left political spectrum, and the Socialist Workers’ Party or Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE) – center-left deceivingly misnamed by appropriating the terms workers and socialist, there were two other major political parties of new vintage sculpted from recent popular movements sprouting from both the left and a “modified center”: We Can (Podemos) and Citizens-Party (Ciudadanos).

In the past, much in the fashion of Republicans and Democrats in the US, PSOE and PP alternated holding the reins of power – notwithstanding the required coalitions in two nationalistic (separatist) regions: the autonomous communities of Catalonia and the Basque Country. In a political patronage-prone culture such as Spain, this system of spoils under the two-party yoke has always kept the level of economic corruption high; but as austerity measures were imposed to cope with the most recent world recession, citizen-democracy became invigorated, thus the advent of two new political formations, Podemos and Ciudadanos, for the most part carved from the membership in the two “now-is-my-turn” ruling parties.

Now, after the vote of the 73 percent turnout has been counted, there are not just two but four political forces vying for power, where coalition-consensus will win the day for a new government to emerge: PP with 29 percent of the popular vote and 123 (35%) seats in the Cortes; PSOE, tallying 22 percent and 90 (26%) seats; Podemos gathering 21 and 69 (20%) seats; Ciudadanos with 14 percent and 40(11%) seats; and multiple other parties together garnering the other 14 percent of the popular vote and the remaining 28 seats in the 350-member Cortes. Under a parliamentary system where no winner takes it all, Spain will have to reach political compromise and stability in a democratic consensus government. Something expected to happen, accommodating the sound of all major voices.

These four political forces in Spain bring to mind that our presidential system of winner-take-all will be trying to squeeze in perhaps more than half dozen socio-political forces in the United States, all without coalition or compromise, under the umbrellas held by our “faithful and reliable” Tweedledee and Tweedledum political parties.

Evangelicals, Tea-Partiers, Progressives, Libertarians, Ghettofied Blacks, Unionized Labor, and other groups will be tapped and lured by the career politicians in the two parties to receive their financial support and vote, in most instances without political voice… only the prospect that their vote will bring about a government that will provide “the lesser of two evils,” a proposition that the American electorate has, erroneously, accepted as a political act of faith.

Our system of Presidentialism may have served us well in the past but its rigidity in the political process denies the multiple voices that need to be heard in a democracy, nor offers the required tools for political compromise. Sadly… here we are, stepping into 2016 with the possible political prospect of having to elect as chief executive of this nation either a lady with questionable trust-credentials or a boisterous charlatan.

May the Almighty have mercy on us in 2016!

By K. P. Fabian

It was on 17 December 2010 that Tareq Bouazizi, a 27-year-old street vendor of fruits barely making a living to support his family in the small town of Sidi Bouzid in Tunisia, attempted suicide by setting fire to himself. The primary provocation was that he was harassed and insulted by petty local officials. He died on 4 January 2011. That act of protest started a chain of cause and effect initially known as the Arab Spring, but more correctly can be called an Arab Tsunami, which swept off power autocrats in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen, all within thirteen months. Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia was in power for 23 years; Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, 30 years; Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, 42 years; and Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen, 34 years. When each dictator fell, there was hope that the country might move towards democracy even if the route might prove to be long and difficult. That hope has proved to be a mirage, except in Tunisia.

Let us seek an explanation for what happened and what did not happen. In Tunisia, the aspirations for democracy prevailed for two reasons. One, there was no ‘Deep State’ that wanted to grab power and prevent the emergence of democracy. Two, the Islamist Ennahda Party under the wise leadership of its founder Rashid Ghannushi played a responsible role after emerging as the winner in the first post-Ben Ali election. The recent award of the Nobel Peace prize to the civil society quartet in Tunisia is an appropriate recognition of its political maturity and determination to pursue democracy.

Coming to Egypt, Mubarak abdicated on 14 February 2011 for two compelling reasons. One, the popular revolt against him was widespread and there was no way of putting it down unless the Army stood by the President and started killing hundreds. Even that might not have worked. The second reason was even more important. The Army ‘invited’ Mubarak to leave, primarily because it did not want Mubarak’s son Gamal to succeed him. Since 1952, Egypt has been ruled by men in uniform and the Army, heading the Egyptian Deep State, was not going to accept a civilian President. In short, the 25 January Revolution of 2011 in Egypt was only half-a-revolution. The people and the Army wanted Mubarak out, but for different reasons.

The Muslim Brotherhood won the general election and the Presidential election. But, the Army held on to the levers of power. President Morsi tried hard, but rather clumsily, to recover power, and rapidly alienated a large section of the population. The Army saw the opportunity, skilfully encouraged an anti-Morsi agitation and ‘kidnapped’ President Morsi on July 3, 2013 and toppled him, effectively reversing the 2011 revolution. Field Marshal El Sisi, elected President in June 2014, still enjoys popular support though he has hardly taken Egypt towards democracy. Egyptians do seem to prefer military-administered stability to democratic chaos.

In Libya, without the NATO military intervention, Gaddafi might not have fallen, or fallen when he fell (August 2011). With Gaddafi’s fall and his killing, Libya descended into chaos, mainly because he had destroyed all political institutions, and external powers coveting the oil wealth of the country added fuel to the fire of civil wars already raging. There are two Parliaments and two Governments in Libya and any number of armed groups. The United Nations has been arranging talks between the two governments, but it is too soon to say what is going to happen. NATO intervention was a big error of judgment and the people of Libya and the region are paying a high price for it. It seems that the Western political leadership has recognised the error.

In Yemen, Saleh tried hard to cling on to power, but finally and reluctantly, left office in February 2012. His deputy, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, was elected President and for a while Yemen moved towards democracy by adopting a new constitution. But Saleh was watching and sulking. The Houthis, a Shia group, were dissatisfied with the constitution and with Saleh’s support they started an armed revolt in 2015. President Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia. Riyadh decided to intervene militarily in Yemen with support from the rest of the GCC (except Oman) and the war is on though some UN-sponsored talks have taken place. The Saudis have accused Iran of instigating and supporting the Houthis, though without any convincing evidence. The two primary reasons for Yemen’s lack of progress towards democracy are the persisting hold of Saleh on the army and the higher bureaucracy as well as the failure of the political system to address the grievances of the Houthis in good time. Yemen remains de facto divided.

It is in Syria that the Arab Tsunami has done maximum damage. The death toll has exceeded 250,000 and almost half of the 22 million population is displaced. When protests occurred in early 2011, the Syrian government reacted with unnecessary violence. As we all know, violence provokes counter-violence, and soon external powers added fuel to the fire by extending support to President Basher al Assad on the one hand and to his numerous opponents on the other. Assad’s opponents are far from united and they seem to agree only in seeking the president’s fall. But for the military support of Iran, its ally the Hezbollah, and Russia, Assad might have fallen. But he still has support from the people who do not see any alternative to him. The West made a serious error in insisting on his exit from power.

Syria is de facto divided into many parts. The Syrian government’s writ runs over only one-third of the territory, though that is the more populated part of the country. The Kurds are virtually running their own territory. The Islamic State (IS) holds territory in Syria and Iraq, virtually abolishing the 1916 Sykes-Picot line. There are other fiefdoms too in Syria. Except for the Islamic State, the various rebels in Syria are supported by the US and its Western allies as well as by Saudi Arabia and its allies including Qatar and Turkey.

A number of conferences in Geneva, Vienna, New York, Moscow, Cairo, Riyadh and elsewhere have taken place, but so far to no avail. Given the seriousness of purpose on the part of the external powers, the political process can succeed.

The emergence of the Islamic State based on state violence at its extreme has caused much distress in the international community. The West and the rest of the world was shocked when the IS carried out an attack in Paris killing 130 on 13 November 2015. Earlier, it had placed a bomb in a Russian jet carrying tourists returning to Russia from Egypt, killing 224 people when the jet crashed in the Sinai. The threat of terrorist attacks from IS is serious.

However, it should be pointed out that the Islamic State would not have been as powerful as it is but for President Basher al Assad and President Obama. As the Islamic State was emerging, Assad did not try to put it down and did let it grow as he wanted to tell the West that his fall would result in the taking over of the country by violent extremists. Obama watched the growth of the Islamic State and decided to do nothing to stop its growth on the flawed assumption that at some point of time it can be used as a ‘strategic asset’ against Assad. The US did nothing to prevent the fall of Mosul to the Islamic State. When the helpless Yazidis and Christians were killed and raped, the US watched doing nothing. It is only when IS fighters appeared to threaten Erbil, the capital of the Kurdistan state where the US has major strategic interests including oil, that the US started bombing Islamic State fighters. The bombing started on 9 August 2014. Eleven days later, James Wright Foley, a US citizen, was beheaded by the Islamic State. He was the first US citizen to be beheaded.

Until the West stops insisting on Assad’s exit from power, there is no basis for cooperation between it on the one hand and Russia and Iran on the other for seeking a ceasefire and a political resolution to the Syrian situation. The Western position is shifting, but it is yet to realise that it has no power to unseat Assad. A broad based coalition against the IS is being attempted, but it is too soon to say how effective it will be.

What is the future of the IS? The loss of Ramada (29 December, 2015), which it had since May 2015, to Iraqi government forces is a serious setback to the IS. It was the combination of air attacks by the US and action by the ground troops of Iraq that defeated the IS in Ramada. The question is whether this formula can be replicated with a larger ground force in order to administer a decisive military defeat to the IS, say, in Mosul.

When the Arab Spring dawned in Tunisia, the GCC responded by using its money power to launch welfare schemes costing billions of dollars It worked everywhere except in Bahrain. Finally, Saudi Arabia sent in troops to put down the protests when the regime in Bahrain appeared to be in danger of falling. The protests in Bahrain have lost their momentum for the present.

India has watched the Arab Spring scrupulously, avoiding taking sides but constantly arguing the case for a negotiated resolution of differences as there is no military solution. India does not believe that democracy is exportable. India has special interest in the political stability of the whole region and of the GCC in particular for obvious reasons. India successfully arranged for the repatriation of its nationals from Libya and Yemen. Efforts are under way to locate and get released a group of forty odd workers in Mosul.

The IS can pose a threat to India. But, so far only a dozen or two young people have joined it and some have come back disenchanted. The cyber space recruitment has to be stopped and the Government of India is seized of the matter. There is no need for India to join any bombing campaign against the IS or otherwise get militarily involved in the region in turmoil.

Looking for an epitaph for the Arab Spring, Shakespeare’s lines come to mind:

O, how this spring of love resembleth
The uncertain glory of an April day;
Which now shows all the beauty of the sun,
And by and by a cloud takes all away.

That dark cloud is strong, but the sun is shining in Tunisia. How soon will the sun dispel the clouds once again? It seems difficult to be hopeful for the moment.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India. Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://idsa.in/idsacomments/arab-spring-that-was-and-wasnt_kpfabian_311215

(RFE/RL) — Munich train stations reopened and police lifted an alert of an imminent terrorist attack in the southern German city on January 1, but authorities say the situation remains “serious.”

Munich’s main rail station and another station in the west of the city were closed on New Year’s Eve over a “serious, imminent threat” of a suicide attack linked to the Islamist State (IS) extremist group, police said.

In a security update on January 1, Munich police said that “following investigations, there is currently no concrete risk of an attack” in the city.

Bavaria’s Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann told reporters that a “friendly foreign intelligence service” had warned Germany of an imminent attack at midnight by between five and seven IS militants from Syria and Iraq planning to blow themselves up at locations in Munich, including the two stations.

He said authorities are investigating intensively, but so far had not made any arrests.

Authorities said they had received personal data, including the names of some of the militants and were still in the process of investigating and verifying the information.

Munich police chief Hubertus Andrae said police have been unable to find the suspects.

“At this point we don’t know if these names are correct, if these people even exist, or where they might be,” Andrae said on January 1.

Andrae refuted speculation that the threat was a false alarm, saying that “if there is such information, we have to act.”

Munich’s main station and the surrounding area were evacuated just 90 minutes before the city was to ring in the New Year.

The station was cordoned off and heavily armed police blocked the entrances. Partygoers were asked to avoid crowds.

More than 500 police and special unit officers were called to Munich late on December 31 to help evacuate and secure the stations.

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said the situation in Germany and Europe “continues to be serious in the new year.”

Health unions in Peru warn that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement could generate a trade monopoly that would eventually lead to an increase in the cost of medicines.

Non-governmental health organizations and Peruvian doctors unions have made no secret of their concerns following the announcement made by President Ollanta Humala on Oct. 5, when he informed the country about how successfully the TPP negotiations had ended. For these institutions, the signing of the trade agreement would cause the price of medicines in Peru to increase considerably.

The TPP, which brings together 40 percent of the world economy, is the most ambitious economic treaty in the world. There are 12 countries that comprise it: besides Peru are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, Vietnam, the United States and Japan, the latter two being the main protagonists. This multilateral agreement encompasses 23 areas, among which is the chapter on Intellectual Property Rights, which is the most sensitive point for Peru at the moment.

The great fear of the health unions lies in the possibility that the patent protection period, which in Peru is considered to be 20 years, is extended, thereby creating a state monopoly in favor of some pharmaceutical industries. But it was the Minister of Foreign Trade and Tourism herself, Magali Silva, who went to the media and dismissed the rumors.

“The TPP is not going to change the patent system; that is to say, patents in Peru will continue to be protected for 20 years. I deny that we have given in on that system. It is not true as well that the test data are added to the protection period of the patent,” Silva said, who also reiterated that medicine prices will not be altered.

Confusion continues

However, one of the agencies that have been in more disagreement with the TPP is Health Action International Latin America and the Caribbean (HAILAC). Javier Llamoza, HAILAC’s project manager, does not believe when Humala says that the trade agreement will bring great benefits to the health sector. On the contrary, the expert believes that the signing of the agreement is detrimental to Peru, given the risk that large pharmaceutical companies could gain more monopoly power to the point that they can dictate prices of medicines on the market.

To Llamoza, it would be very serious for Peru that pharmaceutical industries be part of big monopolies; this would force consumers to buy a product only from a particular laboratory and at the price it determines. And those hardest hit, says Llamoza, are those patients who need access to expensive medicines, such as the medicines required by people with cancer, leukemia or other rare diseases.

“For example, the manufacturing of an ampoule of Trastuzumab, used for breast cancer treatment, costs about 97 soles [an equivalent to US $30], but in the market this ampoule is sold for more than 5,500 soles, and the average doses needed in a complete treatment is 30, so its cost per patient exceeds 150,000 soles,” explains Llamoza to Latinamerica Press.

However, different is the position of Carlos Fernández Dávila, legal adviser to the National Association of Pharmaceutical Laboratories (ALAFARPE), which groups foreign pharmaceutical companies, who says that the cost of medicines in Peru does not have to climb. On the contrary, he considers that the costs should fall because the treaty is going to allow the entry of new drugs into the market.

“It is not quite true that the cost of medicines will increase. The market dynamics are not dictated in Peru, but in the international market. This is why it is not responsible from some sectors to make cataclysmic predictions, made prematurely and without any scientific basis,” said Fernández Dávila to Latinamerica Press.

Secrecy

For Fernández Dávila, the discussion about a possible increase in medicine costs in Peru is nothing but an intuitive issue, and called it even “primitive”, considering that there are other key problems to tackle. He considers that the government should concentrate its efforts in facilitating access to medicines in some remote sectors of the country.

“The first thing Peru should do is tackle the real problem of health coverage,” he said. “We are a country in medium development, that in relative terms should have universal access to health care, and we do not. Quite the contrary. We are the next-to-last country [in Latin America] in health investment. The efforts in this regard are simply very poor.”

Another issue questioned within the TPP is the atmosphere of secrecy in which the negotiations have been conducted. To Llamoza, the government has not made the necessary efforts to adequately inform the public. The televised message to the nation from President Humala in early October has not been enough to dispel doubts about the implications of the agreement.

The signing of the final TPP document is scheduled for Feb. 4, 2016, when the 12 member states meet in New Zealand. From this date on, each nation will have a maximum of two years for its parliament to ratify the terms of the trade agreement before it enters into force.

(Civil.Ge) — Georgia’s ex-PM Bidzina Ivanishvili said he is personally involved in compiling party-list of MP candidates of the Georgian Dream (GD) ruling coalition and wants to have “new faces” in next parliament to be elected in October, 2016.

In an interview with “2030” program on GDS, Tbilisi-based television channel owned by his son, Bera, Ivanishvili said that he will be involved very actively in GD’s activities ahead of next year’s parliamentary elections. In the same interview He also spoke about recent changes in the government and controversial decision of the High Council of Justice to reappoint the Girgvliani case judge.

Asked if he will also be involved in compiling GD’s party list of MP candidates, Ivanishvili responded: “Yes, I will. I will participate in everything of course.”

“I will be involved very actively and help [GD] with all my resources in convincing the society that today it [GD] still remains irreplaceable and that it should [retain] leadership,” Ivanishvili said.

Stressing for number of times his respect to current members of the GD parliamentary majority group, Ivanishvili also said that “the team requires to be reshuffled.” He said that he has already started the process aimed at selecting “new cadre”, adding that it is “desirable to have new faces” in the Parliament.

“The need for that is obvious if you look at the parliament,” he said, adding that people capable to engage actively in lawmaking process should be in the Parliament.

Ivanishvili also said that there is no reason to think that the GD coalition will fall apart; he, however, also added that there would be nothing “dramatic” even if some of coalition members quit. The GD coalition will “anyway win with high score” in the elections, Ivanishvili said.

In his previous TV interview in late October Ivanishvili indicated that at least half of the current lawmakers from the Georgian Dream ruling coalition may not make it on the party list of candidates for next year’s parliamentary elections.

Speaking on new PM, Ivanishvili described Giorgi Kvirikashvili as “very balanced”, who will be a “very successful Prime Minister.”

“Giorgi is a good manager – that’s a fact,” he said. “But will he be a good political leader? That’s a question for me too… But I think he will be a successful leader too.”

He said that Kvirikashvili, who was economy minister from late 2012 till early September 2015, performed well during his about four-month long tenure as foreign minister and added that Kvirikashvili was also well-received by Georgia’s U.S. and European partners.

Kvirikashvili was approved as new PM by the Parliament this week, replacing Irakli Garibashvili, who stepped down without giving specific reason behind his decision other than to say that holding an official post was not a goal in itself for him. Not only opponents, but some GD ruling coalition lawmakers and supporters have called for more clarity. “The version that a person on the peak of career should be stepping down is not convincing; neither it is right,” GD MP Gubaz Sanikidze said during parliamentary debates ahead of confirmation of the new PM.

Ivanishvili praised Garibashvili and his decision to resign. “I don’t know a problem Irakli Garibashvili has failed to deal with,” Ivanishvili said.

Ivanishvili said that Garibashvili had met him for several times for consultations before resignation. He, however, said that resignation was Garibashvili’s “personal decision”.

He said that many of the Georgian Dream politicians were “confused” by Garibashvili’s announcement because they were not aware in advance about his intention to step down. He said that it was because Garibashvili “hurried up” with resignation announcement.

“He resigned at the peak of his success – and that was the reason of his resignation… He resigned for the purpose of resignation itself – to let others to try [the leadership],” Ivanishvili said, adding that Garibashvili has all the resources to even launch his own party if he wishes to do so.

Ivanishvili also spoke about highly controversial decision of the High Council of Justice (HCoJ), a body overseeing judiciary, to reappoint Levan Murusidze as a judge – a highly controversial move, which triggered a wave of criticism from many opposition parties, civil society groups and activists, as well as from President Giorgi Margvelashvili.

Although Ivanishvili said that he too did “not like” this decision, he also tried to downplay it by saying that there was “nothing disastrous” in Murusidze’s reappointment as judge, noting that after three-year probationary period a new vote will be required for Murusidze to remain a judge before retirement.

Controversy over reappointment of Murusidze as a judge, who is also secretary of HCoJ stems from the fact that in 2007 he presided over 2006 high-profile murder case of Sandro Girgvliani, when this case was heard during the appellate stage in the Supreme Court. Lawyers for the Girgvliani family tried in vain at the time to achieve return of the case back to lower court for re-investigation. Murusidze claims that there was no chance to rule otherwise as his hands were tied by faulty legislation. The judge at the time also cut the prison terms of those interior ministry officials who were convicted for Girgvliani murder.

Murusidze would have failed to garner enough votes of HCoJ members if Parliament-appointed and GD-supported three members had not voted for him. Many critics of this decision argue that those three members of HCoJ could not have voted for Murusidze without approval from Ivanishvili, fueling speculation that the GD is making a deal with court system’s “old guard” – judges, who were appointed during the previous government, in an attempt to gain influence over the system.

Some GD lawmakers have spoken strongly against HCoJ decision over Murusidze. GD MP Gubaz Sanikidze of the National Forum party described it as GD’s “serious failure”. “We voted for people [referring to Parliament-appointed HCoJ members], who then voted for Murusidze… Virus Murusidze is very dangerous for us,” he said.

But some other senior GD lawmakers were less critical, saying that although they were against of such decision, there was nothing they could do about it as it was taken by the HCoJ independently and they could not have interfered.

Ivanishvili said that he shares the stance of this latter group of lawmakers.

“I don’t like this decision either… but it’s up to the judicial authorities to decide… and not through interference from outside,” Ivanishvili said in the interview with GDS TV.

When speaking about this issue he also stressed that it would be wrong to lay the blame on individual judges, including Murusidze, on miscarriages of justice, including the one in the Girgvliani case.

“Girgvliani was the victim of the system,” Ivanishvili said, adding: “Many of the judges themselves were the victims of that system.”

He said that when the GD came into power it refused to repeat what UNM did when the latter came into government and to “clean up” court system and filling it with loyal judges. Instead, he said, the GD gave judges absolute freedom. He said it was the only right decision.

“If someone thinks that we should have used the same methods applied by Saakashvili… are very wrong,” Ivanishvili said.

When speaking on this issue he criticized President Margvelashvili for weighing in the debate over Murusidze’s reappointment.

Few hours after the HCoJ voted in favor of Murusidze on December 25, President Margvelashvili said that “struggle” for fair judiciary is far from over and vowed to bring that “fight to the end.”

In the lead up to the December 25 vote in the HCoJ, President Margvelashvili was not commenting publicly on the issue, but his decision to hold just few days before the vote an award ceremony during which he posthumously honored Irina Enukidze, mother of Sandro Girgvliani who died in 2007, with Queen Tamar Order, was viewed as a clear demonstration of the President’s position. The order was handed over to Enukidze’s husband Guram Girgvliani, who said in an acceptance speech that if Murusidze was reappointed as judge it would mean that Irina Enukidze’s struggle for justice was “worth nothing.”

Because of the ceremony’s timing, Ivanishvili described it as a “stage show”; but then he immediately added that Irina Enukidze “deserves all the honors from our society” because of her struggle for justice.

“No other branch of government should intervene into judiciary… But the President, which also part of the government, has clearly started attempts to gain influence over the judiciary,” Ivanishvili said.

Saudi Arabia is committed to oil market stability and would continue consulting with its partners in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), including Algeria, on production levels, said Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir.

Al-Jubeir made the comments at a joint press conference held in Algiers with his Algerian counterpart Ramtane Lamamra at the conclusion of the political consultation committee meeting between the two countries.

Al-Jubeir pointed out that oil prices are linked to supply and demand in global markets and world economic growth.
Saudi Arabia is evaluating these issues carefully to ensure that there is no shortfall in production or excess output in order to sustain a reasonable level of prices that serves the interests of consumers and producers, said the minister.

There is constant consultation between the Kingdom, Algeria and oil producing countries, Al-Jubeir was quoted as saying by the Saudi Press Agency.

OPEC set an output target of 30 million barrels a day at its Dec. 4 meeting in Vienna.

According to reports, OPEC crude output was steady last month for the 12-member group.

Al-Jubeir said that the meeting in Algiers discussed bilateral and regional issues, including the prevailing situation in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

The talks also focused on ways of fighting terrorism and highlighted the need to set up a Palestinian state with Al-Quds as its capital.

Al-Jubeir had earlier met with Algerian Prime Minister Abdelmalek Sallal for bilateral talks, and had offered condolences on the death of Hussein Ait Ahmed, one of the leaders of the Algerian Liberation Revolution.

Al-Jubeir arrived in Algeria on Thursday to take part in the third session of the Algerian-Saudi political consultation committee, established in 2008.

The committee held two previous sessions. The last meeting was held in Riyadh.

The defeated ogre, licking his wounds, finds little comfort from his hawkish “best friend”, despite his love for Israeli birds for whom he helped raise more than ten million Canadian dollars to build a bird sanctuary in the Promised Land. This was in preference to Canadian birds, who along with almost all other Canadians, had their funding slashed.

He did this with the help of the Jewish National Fund (JNF), an innocuous sounding organization, one which operates worldwide, but one which was founded to ‘disappear’ Palestinians and their homes, building bland pine forests (though not indigenous, they grow quickly and help us forget), where villagers once grew olives and tended sheep.

His JNF friends decided to honour him by naming the park, the Stephen J. Harper Hula Valley Bird Sanctuary Visitor and Education Centre. Harperland is near the Golan Heights, on land confiscated from 30,000 Bedouin in 1948. Lake Hula was vital, not only to the Bedouin, but to Nature, as a wetland. But as part of the plan to “make the desert bloom”, the lake was drained, creating a dust bowl, and the new kibbutz soon abandoned. (I’m not kidding.)

In the ogre’s favour, Harperland at least tries to provide migrant birds with refuge, if not the original occupants. In a slick promo JNF video advertising the park and lauding Harper as the new messiah (I’m still not kidding),  DJ Schneeweiss, Toronto’s Israel consul general enthuses, “The birds know no borders.”

Ogre’s mask hard to shed

Is there any advice from Trudeau Sr on how Justin should deal with the prickly beast occupying the Holy Land? Like his predecessors, Pierre Trudeau followed the US-led script, opposing the Arab boycotts of Israel during much of the 1970s, abstaining from United Nations resolutions that were critical, but increasing relations with the Palestine Liberation Organization and opening embassies in Arab countries. PET’s only (timid) public criticisms were of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, and the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

In 2003, then-Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien refused to join the attack on Iraq, much to the anger of our Israel Lobby. In 2006, after ex-Liberal leader Michael Ignatief condemned Israel’s bombing of the Lebanese village of Qana as a “war crime”, the Israel Lobby went into high gear, switching to support Harper, helping him get his majority in 2011 with the help of turncoat (Liberal) Jewish voters. Chastened, Trudeau Jr distanced himself from Ignatief and campaigned zealously in synagogues during the 2015 election, bringing these ridings back into the fold.

There is no question that Trudeau is a vast improvement over Harper on the domestic front. But is his foreign policy just going to be a facelift of Harper’s? The Liberal nay on Palestine last month at the UN (voting with the US and Palau against “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination”) is not surprising. It is part of the ogre’s legacy.

His denunciation of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is disappointing. In a recent interview in Canadian Jewish News, Trudeau called BDS “an example of the new form of anti-Semitism in the world,” and worried that “when Canadian university students are feeling unsafe on their way to classes because of BDS or Israel Apartheid Week, that just goes against Canadian values.”

Who wrote that nonsense for him? Are ‘they’ now whispering in his ear to pass Harper’s draft law outlawing all public protest of Israeli crimes? Wake up, Justin! Those students are your own past and our future. Some of them are your personal friends. Quebeckers are the backbone of BDS in Canada. There are many more Muslim Canadians (3.2% of the population vs 1% Jews), including 50,000 Palestinian. And their cause is just.

BDS will survive and prosper. The fact that Harper couldn’t kill BDS makes it unlikely that the nice Justin will be able to (or willing to, once he thinks about it for a nanosecond). Justin will be sure to have his mailbox flooded with plaints from thousands of idealistic students, his nature constituency, the very ones he writes about inspiring in his autobiography Common Ground.

New-old Liberal face?

In Common Ground, Justin tells how he enjoys math puzzles, but he doesn’t seem very good at sums. As MP, during the invasion of Gaza in July 2014 (2,200 Palestinians vs 66 IDF troops killed), Justin stated: “Israel has the right to defend itself and its people. Hamas is a terrorist organization and must cease its rocket attacks immediately.” He acknowledged “the suffering of Israelis”, but had nothing to say about the suffering of Gazans. Are these “the very values and ideals that define Canada: values of openness, respect, compassion, that seek for justice,” as he opined in synagogues during the election campaign?

There are some hints of a new face. Trudeau has pledged to normalize Canada’s relations with Iran, ties that Harper cut in 2012 to Netanyahu’s loud applause. He will embrace the P5 +1 nuclear deal (it’s Obama’s baby). He has pledged to stop bombing Syria and Iraq, neighbours of our ‘friend’. The beanstalk was slippery, and Justin is just getting his feet on the ground.

Liberal principles include “the creation of a sovereign, independent, viable, democratic and territorially contiguous Palestinian state”. The only way to achieve that is to make sure Palestinians get aid to prepare to run their own state. That is the objective of dozens of NGOs at work in the occupied territories–agencies which were all slashed by Harper, including Kairos and Rights and Democracy. Even the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees was not exempt. There is room here to restore justice without too much squawking from Israeli hawks.

There are Liberal wisemen who Justin can listen to. Top of the list is Robert Fowler, Canada’s ex-UN ambassador, who was kidnapped by al-Qaeda types and spent a harrowing 130 days with them in the Sahara (My Season in Hell, 2011). Fowler caused a furor at the March 2015 Liberal Party conference, castigating Harper for destroying Canada’s reputation in the Middle East as a result of domestic pandering to Jewish voters. He told the squirming delegates (including Justin) that while Canada condemned the 1956 British-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt and established the first UN peacekeeping force (Sinai), it was wrong to support aggressor Israel during the 1967 war. Let’s hope that Justin has a copy of My Season in Hell on his bookshelf beside Common Ground.

Then there’s his brother Alexandre. In 2012, filmmaker Sasha produced the documentary “The New Great Game” which was balanced on both Iran and Israel, and of course much criticized by Zionist media hawks. Justin is lucky to have such a brother. He can help him chart a truly liberal course in the Middle East, void of hype. The major challenge left by the ogre, one that will define Justin in the world as a man of the people, a legend, is shaping up to be Israel, the ogre’s “best friend”.

So far, we’re stuck with the ogre’s epithet–the ‘f’ word, so to speak. In a call to Netanyahu, Trudeau explained there would be “a shift in tone, but Canada would continue to be a friend of Israel’s”. All three parties are now ‘friends’, a term which applies to no other country, and wasn’t used before Harper about Israel. It’s as if there is some doubt about whether a country as prickly as Israel could ever befriend anyone. Note, Mr Netanyahu: “The lady doth protest too much.”

Harperian semantics are still being parsed. In his first press conference, after the obligatory ‘f’ word, Justin’s Foreign Minister Stephane Dion added: “But for us to be an effective ally we need also to strengthen our relationship with the other legitimate partners in the region.” Perhaps Harper’s term of endearment for Israel will be his only legacy in Canadian Middle East policy.

Six decades since the end of World War II and despite several changes in world politics and also in the Northeast Asia, the issue of “comfort women” continued to haunt Japan’s relations with its neighbour, South Korea. The Korean people are unable to forget the atrocities committed by the Japanese military during the long colonial rule from 1910-1945 over the entire Korean peninsula. The issue is too emotive in South Korea. In particular, what hurts the Korean people most is that many Korean women, a euphemistic expression for sex slaves called as “comfort women” or “ianfu” as the Japanese called them, were forced to work as prostitutes by Japan’s Imperial armed forces during World War II. Japan refused to pay individual compensation for the wrongs committed.

This unresolved issue, an unfortunate wartime aberration, was finally buried to the dustbin of history, when the foreign ministers of both Japan and South Korea announced an agreement on 28 December 2015 during Japan’s Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida’s visit to Seoul.1 To further assuage the feeling and applying balm of sort, Japan’s Prime Minister Abe Shinzo telephoned President Park Geun-hye and offered Japan’s “sincere apology and remorse from the bottom of his heart” over the issue. With this, a new era seemed to have dawned in relations between the two countries. Though Japanese leaders had offered apology in the past, the South Koreans always felt the lack of sincerity, as perceptions are hard to change. This time Abe offered apology to the former “comfort women” and committed his government to finance a 1 billion yen (US$ 8.3 million) aid fund for the aging survivors to be set up by South Korea. Kishida and his South Korean counterpart Yun Byung-se resolved that both the governments will confirm that “the comfort women issue will be settled in a final and irreversible manner” so long as Japan faithfully follows through on its promises.

This was a landmark agreement.2 Kishida said, “it’s not compensation. It’s a project to recover the honour and dignity of all comfort women and to heal their emotional wounds”. Kishida further termed the agreement as “historic” and “ground-breaking achievement”. Kishida was hopeful that the deal will not only benefit Japan and South Korea but also “largely contribute to the region’s peace and stability”. It is hoped that following the agreement, relations between both the countries would develop into “a future-oriented new era”.

The comfort women issue was the biggest source of diplomatic friction between Japan and South Korea and animosities continued to rise since the inauguration of Abe to office in 2012. As the two countries marked the 50th anniversary of the normalization of diplomatic ties, Park observed that the agreement removes “the biggest obstacle to efforts to improve bilateral tie”.

According to historians, up to 200,000 females, mostly Korean, were forced into sexual slavery at frontline Japanese brothels during the war. Although a total of 234 former “comfort women” were registered with the South Korean government, only 63 as of December 2011 were alive and most are in their 80s and 90s; 16 died in 2010. Since 1992, they have joined in weekly protests in front of the Japanese embassy in Seoul since 1992. At the time of the December 2015 deal, only 46 are surviving. Nine died in 2015 itself. The 1,000th weekly protest was held on December 14, 2011. A bronze statue depicting a young “comfort woman” clad in traditional Korean clothes symbolizing the victims was installed near the Japanese embassy in December 2011, prompting embassy officials to express their concern regarding its presence to the South Korean government officials and called for its removal. The statue, raised with the help of donations worth approximately $32,000, had become a permanent protest site. When former South Korean President Lee Myung-bak visited Japan on 18 December 2011, then Prime Minister of Japan Noda Yoshihiko had told him that it was “regrettable” and asked him “to remove the statue immediately”. Seoul had refused.3 This time after the agreement was reached, Japan now wants South Korea to remove the statue. Though Yun did not commit, he promised to talk on the matter with the organizations involved, in an apparent reference to the citizens’ group. For Japan, relocating the statue is a priority as it is seen as an embarrassing eyesore and an insult to Japan. Earlier, the South Korean foreign ministry had said that the statue was erected by civilians and the government had no say over its location.

Though the acrimonious relations continued for some time, what were the drivers for this sudden U-turn in mending ties? The first impression to any analyst appear to be, being important allies of the US, the Obama administration seemed to have stepped up pressure on its key Asian allies to mend ties in the face of an increasingly assertive China and nuclear-armed North Korea. The two allies of the US together host about 80,000 US troops for the security of the Northeast Asian region. Both are also members of the now-stalled six-party talks aimed at ending North Korea’s nuclear ambitions in return of aid. In view of this, it was always in the interests of Washington that its two key allies maintain better relations.

A joint Abe-Park joint statement brokered by the US may be needed, possibly in the US, to make the deal irreversible. This is because South Korea has demanded that Japan make an official apology and offer reparations with recognition of legal responsibility. Japan has maintained that the issue was legally settled under a 1965 basic treaty with South Korea and an attached agreement, which states issues regarding property and claims between the two countries are “settled completely and finally.” South Korea maintained that the ‘comfort women’ issue was not covered by the 1965 Agreement on the Settlement of Problems Concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Cooperation between Japan and the Republic of Korea because their use was an inhumane, illicit act.4

This could be tricky because Japan has no plans to acknowledge legal responsibility and pay reparations or government compensation. Instead, it is advocating the formation of the government-backed fund from a humanitarian perspective.
Earlier, Japan had set up an Asian Women’s Fund at Tokyo’s initiative in 1995, which was a pool of private donations.5 It lasted through 2007. The government allocated ¥15 million in fiscal 2015 to the program, which finances periodic visits to the victims’ homes and provides medical and other welfare assistance. Given this background, the name of the new fund could become a problematic issue as well. While Tokyo favours the word “atonement,” Seoul prefers “compensation.”

According to Lee Won-deok, director of the Institute of Japanese Studies at Kookmin University in Seoul, “an act by a government using the state budget can be interpreted as an act accompanied by legal responsibility”. According to him, “if the money is not clearly labeled as reparations, the Japanese government can explain to rightists in the country that it was providing humanitarian assistance to the victims because there was a shortcoming after the 1965 settlement”. “A gray area can be created to allow Seoul and Tokyo to interpret the measure the way each needs”, he says.

There are several interpretations and opinions on the settlement that is reached. One view is that the conditions are not good for South Korea as it does not acknowledge the existence and sufferings of the sex slaves and take proper responsibility. Though South Korea gets just the money, this view holds that Japan will continue to deny and whitewash its history. Those who hold this view suspect that Japan will continue to insult these women, because the Japanese kids are not taught of these sex slaves. The proponents of this view say that South Korea should have attached two conditions for Japan: include the world wide verified information of these women into the textbooks, and enforce their usage nationwide, and never again any government official to express any denial or downplay of these women. In the lack of these two conditions, those hold this view fear that Japanese officials will again visit the Yasukuni Shrine, and some mayor will deny the existence of the sex slaves. As long as the Japanese are not taught of this, this issue will not be resolved, they fear.

Is this the final settlement then? The truism is that revisionism by politicians in Japan is unlikely to stop in a free Japan, though the Kono statement6 might be rendered irrelevant. Similarly, the anti-Japanese sentiment by some in Korea is unlikely to go away so soon, though there seems to be consensus, as showed by polls, that most Koreans want to settle this issue and move on in view of the changing dynamics of geopolitical circumstances.

Earlier, Lee was pursuing the ‘comfort women’ issue as a political strategy to continue remaining in power as he was losing grip in the administration. During his visit to Japan in December 2011, he addressed the Korean Residents Union in Osaka, where he said “if Japan resolves the issue while the former ‘comfort women’ are still alive, the resolution will be extremely useful for the two countries to establish future-oriented relations.” Since then, the South Korean government had taken the position that if Japan could not resolve this issue, Japan would be responsible for it remaining unresolved for all times to come. Even a South Korean constitutional court exhorted the government in August 2011 to negotiate with Japan on the issue of individual persons’ rights to claim compensation and said inaction of the government was unconstitutional because it violated the human rights of the “comfort women”. Japan claimed to have made all efforts to investigate the past documents and testimonies since 1991 and published a report detailing these. The report claims that no evidence was found that the Japanese army forcibly seized women, though Japanese army’s engagement could not be denied.

Successive Japanese governments had repeated Japan’s often-stated position that the issue was resolved in 1965 when the two countries normalized their diplomatic relations. Japan argued that in that agreement, the issue of rights of compensation was included and a lump sum of money paid to South Korea. Even former Prime Minister Noda had said that Japan’s legal stance was “already decided” and the issue been “settled”.

Before the December 28 agreement, South Korea had taken up the issue at the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs) of the UN General Assembly in New York on October 11, 2011, though Japan informally asked Seoul not to do so. While South Korea did not name Japan in its initial speech, it criticized Japan explicitly following Japan’s rebuttal.

During a visit to Seoul in early October 2011, then Japan’s ruling party policy chief Maehara Seiji suggested to Kim Sung-hwan, South Korea’s minister of foreign affairs and trade, that Japan may come up with a compromise regarding Seoul’s demand for compensation for the Korean sex slaves on humanitarian grounds, while categorically repeating Japan’s official stance that the issue had been settled and that Japanese government’s view remained unchanged. Though at times, Japan showed signs of repentance, South Korea always felt that repentance without appropriate actions would not soothe the hurt feelings of the surviving “comfort women”. Even the Kono statement was not enough from the South Korean perspective.

Japan has a long standing abduction issue with North Korea when some Japanese nationals were abducted by North Korean spy agencies in the 1970s. Abe has made a commitment to the families of the abductees that his government shall persevere to resolve the issue. The Abe government has even made efforts to reach out directly to Pyongyang by sending special emissary to negotiate risking to jeopardizing the stalled six party talks from resumption. Tokyo too needs Seoul’s cooperation in resolving this issue with Pyongyang. The territorial dispute over the issue Takeshima islets, which the Koreans call as Dokdo also remain unresolved. Following the resolution of the comfort women issue, hopes could be raised next that talks on the territorial dispute could make some progress.

How did Kishida succeed in striking the deal with Seoul? Kishida was firmly backed by Abe to address the comfort women issue. Abe reportedly told Kishida: “I’ll take responsibility. I want you to go to South Korea by the end of this year to negotiate [over the issue].” Even Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told reporters Japan’s commitment to accelerate talks to reach a deal over the issue as early as possible. In fact, both the governments had been continuing negotiations over the issue behind the scenes since the spring of 2015. The talks were led by Shotaro Yachi, secretary general of the National Security Secretariat and Abe’s close aide, and Lee Byung Kee, presidential chief of staff and former ambassador to Japan, close to South Korean President Park Geun-hye. Yachi and Lee kept contact with each other despite chilling of ties and eyed on the possibility that the situation would change. The summit meeting between Abe and Park on 2 November 2015 in Seoul, the first in more than three years, proved to be the turning point when the two leaders agreed to aim to strike a deal on the issue as early as possible. Before this, Park had refused to meet Abe until Japan offered proper apologies for comfort women.

In 2014 when bilateral ties had chilled, a journalist of The Sankei Shimbun posted in Seoul was debarred from leaving Seoul as he was accused of defaming Park in an article. Following Abe-Park summit meeting, the Korean court acquitted the former Seoul bureau chief. Also the South Korean Constitutional Court did not render a judgment on whether the 1965 Agreement on the Settlement of Problems Concerning Property and Claims and on the Economic Cooperation between Japan and the Republic of Korea was unconstitutional. Such conciliatory moves paved smooth progress towards reconciliation between the two countries and were behind the deal. The behind the scene and frequent talks between Yachi and Lee also helped.

China’s reaction

How did China react to the Japan-South Korea deal? As expected, China cautiously welcomed the landmark deal. As with South Korea, Japan’s relations with China also come under historical clouds and China often accuses Japan for failing to atone for the sufferings it caused before and during World War II. Therefore, China hopes that the Japan-South Korea deal will be “conducive to this region’s stability and development.7 Like with the Koreans, the Imperial Japanese Army had set up “comfort stations” in various parts of China and other parts of Asia with the initial aim of preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases among officers and reducing sex crimes in occupied areas. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang urged Japan to “reflect on its history of aggression, take responsible behavior and properly handle relevant issues”.

However, unlike South Korea, China did not rack up the women’s issues until recently. Taking advantage of the deteriorating ties between Japan and South Korea and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s disrespect towards Beijing, President Xi Jinping started deepening ties with South Korea. The issue of suffering of women by the hands of the Japanese during the War started getting the spotlight. Since coming to power three years ago, Xi not only first visited South Korea breaking the practice of visiting first Pyongyang, he started using historical issues as diplomatic cards against Japan. In fact, to demonstrate China’s solidarity with Seoul, China opened its first museum dedicated to former comfort women in Nanjing in early December 2015, sensing that Tokyo and Seoul are closing in on a possible deal on the issue. In 2014, China nominated materials related to women and the Nanking Massacre for UNESCO listing. While UNESCO included documents on the 1937 massacre in the city Nanking (now called Nanjing), id did not include materials regarding comfort women to its list.

What does it mean to the future Japan-South Korea relations? The deal that included Abe’s apology and an $8.3 million fund may tame a decades-long conflict but can this guarantee the change in perception? Can Abe’s acknowledgement of the Imperial Army’s “involvement” in organizing the comfort women system marking a departure from his previous reluctance to indict the Imperial Army? Notwithstanding the deal, real reconciliation in mind shall surely take some more time or until the shadow of history goes away.

By striking the deal with South Korea, Abe has only added now more responsibilities to himself on how to change his image of being a nationalist or at least being perceived to be so. His attempts to expand Japan’s military powers after decades of pacifism have already caused ripples in the neighborhood, notwithstanding China’s belligerence and assertiveness. While Japan’s choice of course could be reassuring to some of the region’s smaller powers such as Vietnam and the Philippines in view of the perceived China threat, there also lurks fear about Japan’s decision to enhance its military power and relaxation of arms exports because of past history. However, the dragon in the room is seen as a bigger threat than a tamed Japan, whose behavior in the post-War years does not show any sign of returning to old militaristic strategy, just that Japanese new strategy is a reaction to a belligerent China. That could be reassuring to the rest of Asia. The growing bonhomie between India and Japan, Japan and Australia, Japan and Vietnam and the rest of ASEAN region, and blessed by Washington should be seen from that perspective.

No wonder, therefore, both Abe and Park exulted optimism following the deal. While Abe said the deal opens up a new era in Japan-South Korea ties, Park remarked that both the countries have “fulfilled the responsibility of the generation living now”.8 He hoped the deal could trigger for both the countries to cooperate and open a new era. South Korea’s Foreign Minister promised the government to consider removing a bronze statue of a comfort woman placed outside the Japanese embassy in Seoul. Jin Chang Soo, director of Japan Studies at Seoul’s Sejong Institute, said “the worst if over between the two countries”.9

The next logical step for both the countries could be to look to means how to boost bilateral trade and work together with the US to reshape the geopolitical order of the region. The US shall be pleased with the reconciliation process between its two key allies in the light of China’s expanding activity in the contested waters of the South China Sea and North Korea’s nuclear program. It may be recalled, in 2014, the US signed a pact to serve as a go-between for military information between Japan and South Korea, after they were unable to reach an agreement to share information directly.

Though things look good, there are few caveats. There are some in South Korea who question why the message came from Kishida and not from Abe directly. Also, the issue of legal claims remained unclear about the means of funds transfer – if the funds would go directly to survivors. As said, an apology would not be seen as enough as politician’s positions are too hard to change because of domestic political compulsions. That history remains as the core concern of Northeast Asian politics is unlikely go away so soon. The perception that Japanese school textbooks routinely ignore comfort women is seen to deny correct version of history to young adults. As late as in 2014, public opinion in either country remained negative of each other: 54.4 percent of Japanese carried unfavourable impression of South Korea while 70 per cent of Koreans held unfavourable impression of Japan. How a political understanding can correct such impression is difficult to say. Yet the pact has far more meaning than it appears as it is a shared recognition of each nation’s role in rising above differences towards working together in Asia. The Christian Science Monitor rightly editorialized: “In reaching the agreement, Japan and South Korea have signaled they want to end the controversy over this emotional remnant from World War II and Japan’s colonial era. As their economies and democracies have matured, the two neighbors have come to realize that their national identities are more tightly bound to the universal values necessary to maintain order and freedom in both Asia and the world. And just as they now seek to restore the inherent dignity of the former comfort women, Japan and South Korea are claiming a greater role as responsible stakeholders in the international system, rising above any need to assert an ethnic identity against each other or to define their nations as victims.”10

Importance of Abe’s Role

There is no doubt Abe played a leading part in securing the deal with South Korea. He realized that this could not be achieved without making some compromise. His August statement on the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II was the first move to get Japan closer to China and South Korea. Abe worked on the momentum gained. He probably also calculated that maintaining good neighborly relations with China and South Korea ahead of the coming summer elections to the House of Councilors could help his Liberal Democratic party. It remains to be seen if the comfort women issue shall be closed for ever because there are doubts if the Korean public shall view positively Japan’s “sincerity”.

Future

The next challenge for the governments in both the countries shall be to expand public understanding with patient efforts. From here on, the major premise for building a future-oriented relationship between the two countries shall be to show maturity by both sides to carry out the deal with sincerity and spirit. While the South Korean side shall strive to remove or relocate the statue outside the Japanese embassy in Seoul seen as an insult to Japan, Japan needs to be aware that its payment of a lump sum amount of 1 billion yen on humanitarian grounds to a foundation to be created by South Korea to support former comfort women is not misunderstood in South Korea as de facto state compensation. It is to be seen if the deal will facilitate the right climate for improving ties between the two neighbors.

Japan feels that in the past former Korean Presidents, including Kim Dae Jung and Roh Moo Hyun, had stated they “would never bring up matters of the past”, a reference to historical perception, only to reverse their positions completely owing to strong domestic public opinion. Diplomacy will be a casualty if the issue again flared up when a new President takes office in the future. Already a South Korean support group for former comfort women has slammed the latest deal and decided to erect more such statues.11 This adds extra responsibility for Park to handle the domestic issue. If this group refuses to remove the stature in front of the Japanese embassy, and state intervention is required to do so, Park might find herself walking the tight rope again. A strong leadership in South Korea needs to be insulated from strong public opinion and demonstrate greater maturity in the interests of regional stability. Both Abe and Park need to reorient their diplomatic styles not to needlessly criticize each other and especially while visiting a third country so that greater understanding between the peoples is not marred. Even in Japan, Abe is facing objections from some groups who opine that the government “conceded too much”. Therefore, both Abe and Park have to demonstrate strong leadership and overcome domestic criticism and not allow the domestic constituency to hijack a deal whose implication is beyond purely bilateral.

A possible fallout of the Japan-South Korea deal that could be meaningful in the larger regional interests is that it might facilitate increased economic and military cooperation between the countries, thereby complement Obama administration’s efforts to counter China’s rise and North Korea’s nuclear saber-rattling.

Another consideration for Abe to reach out Seoul on the deal could have been to wean way South Korea from the Chinese embrace. As said, Seoul was rapidly cozying up to China and it was necessary to get Seoul back to the Japan-US side. Abe may have also been influenced by the strategic consideration to improve ties with China to keep Beijing in check from making efforts to use history as a diplomatic card. The deal on comfort women is still not the final hurdle between Japan and South Korea that is removed; both have mountain of pending issues including lawsuits seeking compensation for former requisitioned workers who were mobilized during the war, South Korea’s restrictions on imports of Japanese marine products and negotiations on a free trade agreement. Both Abe and Park ought to demonstrate statesmanship of international order to resolve each of these problems at bilateral level before finding common grounds on regional and global issues.

Notes:
1. “Japan, South Korea reach ‘final’ deal to settle ‘comfort women’ issue”, The Japan Times, 28 December 2015, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/12/28/national/politics-diplomacy/south-korea-japan-reach-deal-to-settle-comfort-women-issue/
2. “Full text of announcement on ‘comfort women’ issue by Japanese, South Korean foreign ministers”, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/12/28/national/politics-diplomacy/full-text-announcement-comfort-women-issue-japanese-south-korean-foreign-ministers/#.VoE_JFR95tp
3. See, Rajaram Panda, “’Comfort Women’ issue: A Constant irritant in Japan-South Korea Relations”, 11 December 2011, http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/ComfortWomenissueAconstantirritantinJapanSouthKoreaRelations_rpanda_221211
4. “New fund eyed to end ‘comfort women’ issue / Kishida to propose deal to South Korea”, The Yomiuri Shimbun, 25 December 2015, http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0002647120
5. The fund was established in July 1995 under the government of Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama. According to the Foreign Ministry, donations from the public totaling ¥600 million and ¥4.8 billion from government coffers were used for projects to support former comfort women, including payment of ¥2 million per person in monetary compensation for 285 of them in South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines.
6. During the administration of Murayama Tomiichi in 1993, Kono Yohei, then Chief Cabinet Secretary, expressed Japan’s apology and remorse from a moral viewpoint. He had then said, “The Japanese army during the war deeply hurt the honor and dignity of many women”. Based on this statement, the Japanese government and the private sector set up the Asian Women’s Fund in 1995 in order to carry out the “atonement project” and pay out condolence money to former comfort women. Besides generous voluntary subscriptions from Japanese nationals, the campaign received extraordinary supports from the business community led by the Keidanren (Japan Federation of Economic Organisations) and the labour world represented by the Rengo (the National Federation of Labour Unions), in particular the Ichiro (All Japan Prefectural and Municipal Workers’ Union). But many comfort women rejected the money which was offered as a gesture of atonement. The Fund was dissolved in 2007 after being criticized as an attempt by the government to avoid the responsibility of state redress.
7. “China cautiously hails Japan-South Korea deal on ‘comfort women’”, The Japan Times, 28 December 2015, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/12/28/national/politics-diplomacy/china-cautiously-hails-japan-south-korea-deal-comfort-women/#.VoE_m1R95tp
8. Molly Jackson, “Japan apologizes for Korean comfort women: Can it heal one of Asia’s thorniest issues?”, The Christian Science Monitor, 28 December 2015, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2015/1228/Japan-apologizes-for-Korean-comfort-women-Can-it-heal-one-of-Asia-s-thorniest-issues?cmpid=ema:nws:Daily%2520Newsletter%2520%2812-29-2015%29&utm_source
9. Quoted in Ibid.
10. “The ‘healing’ aspect of a Japan-South Korea pact on ‘comfort women’”, Christian Science Monitor, 28 December 2015, http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2015/1228/The-healing-aspect-of-a-Japan-South-Korea-pact-on-comfort-women?cmpid=ema:nws:Daily%2520Newsletter%2520%2812-29-2015%29&utm_source
11. “South Korean group pledges to erect more ‘comfort women’ statues”, The Japan Times, 30 December 2015, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/12/30/national/south-korean-group-pledges-to-erect-more-comfort-women-statues/#.VoPOClR95tp

As 2015 ends, India stands today at an awkward position of losing five journalists to assailants in 2015, which is higher than the tolls in previous year. While the robust media in the largest democracy of the globe had lost only two scribes (MVN Shankar from Andhra Pradesh and Tarun Kumar Acharya from Odisha) to goons in 2014, the statistics have gone up this time. In addition to the murders of five journalists, the year 2015 also reported several cases of assault and even suspected deaths of media persons across the country.

Uttar Pradesh witnessed the first killing of a journalist this year on June 8 as Jagendra Singh died after suffering from severe burn injuries at Lucknow civil hospital. The Shahjahanpur-based freelance journalist was allegedly doused with patrol and set ablaze by a group of police personnel on June 1. His family members claimed that the police had targeted Singh at the behest of UP minister Ram Murti Singh Verma as the journalist used to expose his illegal activities through the alternative media.

Singh was understood to receive threats from Verma for his regular postings on facebook relating to the Samajwadi Party leader’s corruption & land grab issues, which was incidentally supported by the RTI inputs. Once worked for leading dailies like Amar Ujala, Hindustan, Swatantra Bharat etc, Singh lately turned into an alternate media journalist for a wider viewership.

However, the UP police floated a different story that Singh himself immolated in front of the police personnel as they arrived at his residence for a raid. Severely burnt Singh was taken to Lucknow, where he died after a week. But in his dying declaration from the hospital bed, Singh accused influential minister Verma for his tragedy.

Soon condemnations started pouring from local journalists to national and international scribe bodies with human rights activists over the UP government at Lucknow. The members of the bereaved family including the victim’s father Sumer Singh, wife Suman, daughter Rachna, sons Rahul & Rajan along with many local scribes also demanded a probe by Central Bureau of Investigation into Singh’s murder.

Facing the heat of stern criticism from various international bodies like the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Reporters Without Borders (RSF), International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), Amnesty International etc, the UP government ordered the suspension of five police personnel suspecting their role in Singh’s murder. The chief minister also offered a compensation of Rs 30 lakh to the Singh’s family.

The second case of a scribe’s murder was reported from Madhya Pradesh, where the mining mafia abducted Sandeep Kothari on the night of June 19 and his charred body was recovered two days later. Kothari hailed from Katangi locality of Balaghat district and the kidnapers brought him from his home town to Sindhi locality of eastern Maharashtra to ‘burn him alive’ there. The MP police quickly arrested two suspects (Vishal Tandi and Brajesh Daharwal), who run illegal mining and chit-fund activities, in connection with Kothari’s murder.

The police however did not forget to declare that Kothari was a ‘criminal’ and he was killed because of personal grudges.

On the other hand, his father Prakashchand Kothari, mother Kanchan Devi and brother Naveen demanded a high level probe into Sandeep’s murder and stringent punishment for the culprits.

Thane-based journalist Raghavendra Dube lost his life to miscreants’ attacks on July 17. The Maharashtrian scribe went to cover a police raid in a night bar, but soon his body with multiple injuries was recovered from a nearby locality. It is suspected that the editor of Khushboo Ujala, was beaten and stabbed to death by the criminals.

Then a television reporter named Hemant Yadav lost his life to goons. Yadav, who worked for Hindi news channel TV24, was shot dead by two motorcycle-borne miscreants on the night of October 3 at Dheena locality of UP. He was taken to a nearby hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.

The fifth and last journalist victim of 2015 was from Bihar. Mithilesh Pandey was shot dead on October 25 in his village in Gaya district. According to the family members, two masked persons entered the victim’s residence in the evening and shot at him. Pandey was taken to a nearby hospital, but he succumbed to injuries. According to his family, Pandey used to receive threats from unknown individuals because of his reporting for various Hindi media outlets.

India’s immediate neighbour Bangladesh also lost four bloggers namely Niloy Chkrabarty, Ananta Bijoy Das, Washiqur Rahman Babu and Avijit Roy last year, while Pakistan has two media casualties (Muhammad Zaman Mehsud and Aftab Alam) in 2015. Sri Lanka reported the killing of Priyantha Ratnayake though other tiny Indian neighbours have maintained satisfactory records of no media casualties last year.

According to the Paris based Reporters Without/Sans Borders (RSF) altogether 67 journalists were killed across the globe last year while reporting or because of their works. There were 43 other deaths of journalists, where the motive was not been clearly established that they were targeted because of their professional activities. Twenty-seven citizen-journalists and seven media workers were also killed in 2015.

Iraq reported the highest number of media casualties (11), followed by France (8), Syria (7), South Sudan (6) and Yemen (5). Some other dangerous countries for journalists in 2015 emerged as exico (3), Philippines (3), Brazil (3), Somalia (2), Ukraine (2), Azerbaijan (1), Colombia (1), Guatemala (1), Kenya (1), Mozambique (1), Democratic Republic of the Congo (1), Turkey (1) etc.

In 2013, India lost 11 journalists to the perpetrators including three media employees (Sujit Bhattacharya, Ranjit Chowdhury and Balaram Ghosh of Tripura) from northeast India. The previous year (2012) witnessed the murder of five journalists including one from Assam (Raihanul Nayum) and another from Manipur (Nanao Singh).

Now demands have been raised in India for a special protection law for ‘journalists on duty’ and a national action plan for safety & security of media persons. Recently the media fraternity of Assam demonstrated their resentments against the assaults on scribes across the country. Wearing black bands around their mouths, the scribes from both print and electronic media staged the protest demonstration in front of Guwahati Press Club.

“We reiterate our demand for a national action plan to safeguard the brave journalists who pursue critical journalism. Moreover we continue insisting on justice to be delivered to all slain media persons across the country,” said the Journalists’ Forum Assam. In a recent statement, the forum also urged the media persons across India to rise on the occasion to compel the authority to punish every single murderer of journalists under the rule of law.

When I started writing this article, one idea dominated my thoughts: “I don’t want to be sent to prison.” Then I thought, religious tolerance doesn’t punish reporting about the taboo of atheism in the Egyptian society. Acknowledging the rights of atheists doesn’t mean adopting their ideas.

While atheists just don’t believe in one further religion in comparison to believers, everyone should be entitled to express their ideas and thoughts without intimidation. Challenging religious oppression and rusty social traditions, many Egyptians risk their lives to uphold and protect freedoms and values of tolerance.

Systematic Discrimination

Discrimination against atheists in Egypt is primarily a product of conservative social traditions and state religious establishments – Al-Azhar mosque and the Coptic Church. Laws and policies in Egypt protect religious freedom but punish those ridicule or insult heavenly religions by words or writing – i.e. insulting Budhism or Hinduism is not punishable by the Egyptian law but insulting Islam, Christianity or Judaism is. Between 2011 and 2013, “Egyptian courts convicted 27 of 42 defendants on charges of contempt for religion,” according to The Guardian.

Interestingly, an Egyptian citizen is only entitled to one of the three monotheistic religions, namely Islam, Christianity and Judaism. In other words, people are allowed to believe or disbelieve in any religion for obvious reasons, but they are not allowed to have their beliefs or disbeliefs legally recognized. Therefore, on official records, all people have to be categorized as such. Diversity in this sense is systematically blinded.

According to official statistics, religious beliefs in Egypt are as follows: 90-94% are Sunni Muslims and 6-10% are Coptic Christians. While atheism is not limited to a specific segment of the Egyptian society, credible research is still lacking on the matter. It is simply because being without religion is a taboo in Egypt.

Similar to their declared wars on terrorism, corruption and neglect, political and religious state institutions launched a new “war on atheism”.

In a 2014-report, Dar Al-Ifta Al-Misriyyah (Al-Azhar center for Islamic legal research) confirmed that the number of atheists in Egypt is no more than 866 individuals – i.e. the proportion of atheists is 0.001% of the Egyptian population. While the methods Al-Azhar “scholars” used to reach this precise figure remain unknown, discriminatory discourse against atheists is commonplace in Egypt.

This discriminatory discourse is especially accentuated by Al-Azhar mosque and the Coptic Church. Starting from 2014, both institutions have been cooperating to fight against atheism in order to “save the Egyptian society”. In the same year, the government embarked a “national campaign” to combat the spread of atheism among young people using the help of a number of psychologists, sociologists and political scientists.

Nemat Satti, chairman of the Central Administration of the parliament and civic education at the Ministry of Youth and Sports, said to Shorouk News in 2014 that the phenomenon of atheism has become as noticeable and widespread among young people as the phenomena of harassment, rape and extremism. The comparison is pretty clear.

Media Discourse Against Atheists

This discriminatory discourse against atheists can be detected in the Egyptian media as well. Egyptian media is not neutral when addressing the issue of atheists in the society. Similar to the governmental and religious campaigns, media portrays atheists as patients with mental disorder, who need treatment to get rid of the illusions they are talking about.

For instance, in 2015 in her program “the morning of the capital” on the Egyptian channel “the Capital TV” (Al-Asima), an Egyptian journalist throws out an atheist guest on air for his ideas. A wrangle broke out between the Egyptian journalist Rania Mahmoud Yaseen, the host of a debate on atheism, and her atheist guest Ahmed Al-Harqan, who spoke about “the lack of historical evidence concerning the existence of the figure of the prophet Mohammad”.

Rania Yasin interrupted Al-Harqan saying: “Come on! Leave! We don’t need Atheists or infidels. People should pay attention to the warnings against infidelity, atheism and these outrageous ideas in the society.”

Hence the guest left the debate, it remains to wonder why an Egyptian journalist hosts a debate about such a sensitive issue in Egypt, if she isn’t willing to listen to what atheists have to say.

Stories of Persecution

While the stories of persecuting atheists in Egypt are numerous, here are some cases to show how this taboo is being handled systematically. So far, there is no evidence that the change of the head of the government or the government’s political orientation correlates with the number of attacks against atheists.

In 2014, Karim Ashraf Mohamed Al-Banna, 21, was jailed for three years for “insulting Islam” by simply declaring he is an atheist on Facebook. Shockingly, his own father testified against him claiming that his son “was embracing extremist ideas against Islam”.

In 2013, Egyptian clerics such as Al-Azhar professor Mahmoud Shaaban, a member of Al-Jama’a Al-Isalmiyya Asem Abelmajed and a Salafi scholar Abu Ishaq Al-Heweny issued an Islamic ruling (fatwa) against Hamed Abdel-Samad for writing a book on Islamic fascism. Abdel-Samad was accused of being heretic and must be killed for it. Shaaban said on Al-Hafez TV that: “after he [Abdel-Samad] has been confronted with the evidence, his killing is permitted if the [Egyptian] government doesn’t do it.”

In 2012, the Egyptian blogger Alber Saber was sentenced to three years in prison for insulting Islam by posting the trailer of the YouTube video Innocence of Muslims on his Facebook page. While prosecution didn’t find the trailer on Saber’s Facebook account, they accused him of religious blasphemy after finding a short video of Saber criticizing both Islamic and Coptic religious leaders and institutions.

After detaining Saber for religious blasphemy, “police incited the prisoners against Saber, claiming that he was an atheist and insulted the prophet Mohamed,” stated the 2012 Report On Non-Religious Discrimination. Consequently, one of the prisoners injured Saber with a razor blade.

According to the same report, there were similar incidents in 2012 against individuals who allegedly insulted Islam or the prophet Mohammad such as the Christian school secretary Makram Diab, who was sentenced to six years in prison, Ayman Yusef Mansur, 24, who was sentenced to three years in prison with hard labor.

These are not the first incidents in Egypt against atheists. In 2007, the blogger Abdel Kareem Soliman was sentenced to four years in prison for insulting Islam and the president. Another blogger, Kareem Amer, was sentenced to three years in prison for “Facebook posts deemed offensive to Islam”, according to 2012 Report On Non-Religious Discrimination.

While atheism in Egypt remains a taboo, systematic discrimination against atheists remains significant. Prompted by conservative traditions and state religious and political establishments, there are restrictions that deny atheists the right to engage in a serious debate about their fundamental rights.

The behavior of MPs inside India’s Parliament resulting in repeated disruption of proceedings have lowered the image of MPs among the people. Considering the poor standards maintained by them in the Parliament, people think they do not deserve any hike in salary and perks. Such public perception can be readily seen in social media and in several national surveys in recent times.

The Modi government should necessarily understand the public mood and avoid taking unpopular decision to hike the income of MPs. If Modi government would permit such a hike, the people’s unhappiness would become as much with Modi government, as with MPs.

MPs are not salaried class

MPs enter Parliament with the avowed objective of serving society. While MPs do need sort of remuneration and other benefits to enable them to discharge their duties, it is ridiculous to hike the salary for MPs at regular intervals just like raising the salary for wage earners in commercial establishments. MPs are deemed to be a class different from that of employees and the remuneration provided to them must necessarily take into consideration the fact that 30% of national population still live below poverty line, not knowing where their next meal would come from. MPs should not forget the fact that they have a primary responsibility to alleviate the problems of poor people and keep their sentiments in view in all their actions.

What basis salary hike ?

Apart from the fact that considering the performance of MPs they may not deserve remuneration hike, it is not clear about the basis for frequent increase in remuneration and perks. Normally, salary hike is given to the employees by any organisation based on fund availability, profitability, performance criteria and inflationary trends. There is no yardstick to measure MPs performance while frequently providing them higher remuneration and perks. Instead of evaluation by independent body, MPs just vote themselves increased income, which is an unjustifiable practice.

Rewards and no punishments

It is well known that several of MPs face murder, corruption and other criminal charges. Many of them have declared wealth which run into several crores of rupees. They are known to spend several crores of rupees for their election campaign and also pay to their party for getting nomination. Obviously, most of the MPs are not impoverished lot unlike the politicians of yester years such as Gulzarilal Nanda, Kamaraj and Lal Bahadur Shastri. Many MPs just sign and go away everyday and MPs like Tendulkar and Rekha rarely attend Parliament. Why reward them instead of punishing them for their behavior ?

Setting bad example to the countrymen

When the government employees demand more wages, go on strike in favour of such demands, the government often pleads its lack of resources. Govt also tells such govt employees that govt funds are needed for development projects to provide relief to the poor and downtrodden and promote economic and social development. When in such circumstances, MPs frequently raise their remuneration and govt is a party to this, the govt loses the credibility to insist that its employees should be concerned about the overall economy of the country while demanding wage rise, particularly when such stipulations are not thought about when revising the remuneration to MPs.

Put restrictions on business activities of MPs

Several MPs are known to be involved in profit oriented business enterprises in direct or indirect way. If income hike has to be provided to MPs, then relate them to their other sources of income so that the govt does not spend people’s money to pay the MPs who can do as well without such income. Certainly, many of these people would like to continue to remain as MPs even if they would not be paid at all, since they have several ingenious ways of making money.

Let not Modi ignore public mood

The recent decision to stop subsidy in Parliament canteen has received huge welcome in the country. While this would not be big expense for the govt., still this decision reflects the sentiments of what people think. If Modi govt. would choose to ignore the public mood and agree to hike the salary and perks for MPs, it would be squarely blamed for taking this unpopular decision and will pay a price.

N.S.Venkataraman, Nandini Voice for the Deprived, nandinivoice.com

By Erlan Idrissov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan*

From its first days as an independent country, Kazakhstan has been guided by the principle of “economy first and then politics”. Thanks to this principle and the leadership of President Nursultan Nazarbayev, our country has developed its economy very rapidly.

We are now determined to build on this success and, with the adoption of the “Kazakhstan – 2050” strategy, have set a goal of joining the list of the world’s 30 most developed countries.

With this strategy and by strengthening cooperation and dialogue with our international partners, we intend to develop our domestic industries, gain modern experience, attract innovations, exchange technologies and develop investment cooperation.

These are challenging times for the world. But Kazakhstan has enough resources to chart its way through the current international economic and political difficulties to continue improving the country’s economy and the well-being of its citizens.

This resilience has been helped by policies to improve the investment climate, which has seen Kazakhstan receive over US$100 billion in investment over the last five years.

It is impossible for any country to have a stable economy if it ignores what happens outside its borders. Kazakhstan, from its earliest days, has pursued policies to strengthen security and peace on the basis of international law and to be seen as a trusted partner.

We are an active participant in major international organisations such as the United Nations, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia. We are committed to developing economic partnerships as well as strengthening our international relations.

Deepening economic cooperation is the aim of Kazakhstan’s participation in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which started on January 1, 2015. The EAEU is focused on building markets, broadening the transport-transit potential, and improving the social-economic environment. All this will be done within the framework of the World Trade Organization of which we became a member in 2015. We believe it will help us to expand our trade with the whole world and open new opportunities for our economy.

Our country is located where Asia and Europe meet. So it was natural for Kazakhstan to join the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), which we did during the ASEM Summit in Milan in 2014.

There are many opportunities for increased cooperation. Our Development Strategy Kazakhstan 2050 and State Program “Nurly Zhol” (Path to the Future), for example, have been put in place to help us achieve the ambition of becoming one of the world’s 30 most developed countries, and include policies designed to improve education and vocational training, energy efficiency technologies, transport and logistics, food security and energy innovations – all of which provide opportunities for new partnerships with ASEM members.

This is particularly the case in the transport and logistics spheres because of Kazakhstan’s position as a bridge between Asia and Europe. A new railroad linking Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Iran that opens a shortcut to the Persian Gulf has been built, another new rail link connecting Almaty with Lianyungang port in China has been opened and a Western Europe – Western China” road route nears completion. I strongly believe these improved transport links will help to strengthen cooperation with and between the ASEM countries.

The “Western Europe – Western China” road route is an example of the widespread benefits that Kazakhstan’s improved transport infrastructure will bring. At present, the sea journey from China to Europe takes 24 days and the Trans-Siberia rail route 14 days. In contrast, transit on the new “Western Europe – Western China” route will take 10 days from Lianyungang to the borders of European countries.

Global climate change was one of the key topics at the meeting of ASEM Ministers of Foreign Affairs that was recently held in Luxembourg. Tackling this challenge will require all countries to change the way they power their economies. To help identify, develop and share the technologies that will be needed, our capital city, Astana, will host the International Exhibition “EXPO  2017” on the theme of “Future Energy”. I am proud that many foreign countries and global companies have already confirmed their participation at this important event.

Ahead of EXPO 2017, Kazakhstan and ASEF have already held a seminar on “the problems of climate change in Central Asia and the development of the sphere of hydrocarbons” in April 2015. It was the first event that Kazakhstan had conducted with ASEM members and I am sure our cooperation will continue to be fruitful in the future.

The terrible danger that nuclear weapons pose to the world continues to be a major threat to all our safety and security. It is a threat that Kazakhstan knows well from its recent history: as a part of the Soviet Union, our country was the scene of 450 nuclear tests over 40 years and suffered badly. Even before Kazakhstan became formally independent, President Nazarbayev closed the Semipalatinsk nuclear testing site in 1991. Today Kazakhstan continues to work tirelessly in the international arena to end nuclear weapon tests, to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to champion the cause of nuclear disarmament.

The ATOM project, which stands for “Abolish Testing, Our Mission”, is an important part of this campaign. It is focused on raising awareness of the threat of nuclear weapons on humans and the environment all over the world.

Kazakhstan has also taken steps to help the expansion of peaceful nuclear power without increasing the dangers of the spread of nuclear weapons. Our country has agreed with the International Atomic Energy Agency to host the world’s first Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) Bank from 2017. It is an important step towards the strengthening of cooperation in the area of atomic energy and in establishing a safer world.

Kazakhstan is proud to have built a society in which people of many faiths and backgrounds live in harmony. In a world in which there are many religious, military and political conflicts, the need for tolerance and understanding is more important than ever. It was to build this understanding and respect that President Nazarbayev established the Congress of the Leaders of World and Traditional Religions that is held in our capital Astana every three years.

It is to help heal divisions, foster peace and cooperation, and build prosperity across the world that Kazakhstan is seeking a seat on the United Nations Security Council as a Non-Permanent Member for 2017-2018. I know these goals are also important to ASEM countries, and Kazakhstan looks forward to working to achieve these ambitions in close collaboration and coordination with the member states.

Kazakhstan’s above-mentioned initiatives such as EXPO 2017 and the LEU Bank were mentioned in the Chair’s Statement of the ASEM Ministerial Meeting in Luxembourg. It shows that the world community members share the same goals with Kazakhstan in building a better world.

All this leads Kazakhstan to seek forging new humanitarian, socioeconomic and political links within the ASEM. We stand ready to further develop all relevant projects initiated by other members of this distinguished Forum.

*This article – originally published on ASEF website on 23 December 2015 – is part of the ASEM 20th Anniversary Publication on Celebrating 20 Years of Asia-Europe Relations. The publication is a collection of articles by leaders and experts from Asia and Europe on the past, present and future of ASEM. Selected articles from this collection will be compiled and published as a book by the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF), which will be launched at the 11^th Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM11) Summit in 2016 in Mongolia.

As the UK prepares for the national referendum on whether to stay in the EU, the British Prime Minister attempts to negotiate reforms to the union. Choosing to leave would have significant consequences for all parties involved. Could ASEAN face a similar situation one day?

By Aédán Mordecai*

Prime Minister David Cameron has spelt out his demands for remaining in the European Union, which he hopes to renegotiate with the union before the in/out referendum he promised the nation during the last general election. The referendum, likely to be in 2017, will ultimately determine whether the UK continues to be part of the EU, regardless of the outcome of the negotiation attempts.

Cameron called for the referendum because he is unsatisfied with the Bloc as it is, but conversely is also campaigning to remain in the EU. The reasons to stay for Cameron are obvious: the EU is the UK’s main trading partner and the single market offers many economic benefits. Although Cameron, as leader of the Conservative Party, represents the majority of the nation’s capital owners first and foremost, the promise of a referendum was a necessary move as they were losing votes to the party further to the right, the populist, United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).

Britain to leave the EU?

The question seems is why is the UK threatening to leave whilst simultaneously renegotiating? Does this represent a failure in the EU model, whereby members cannot otherwise air their grievances formally, in a manner where they are addressed in a timely and serious fashion, or is Cameron just using this episode as a political ploy to satisfy his domestic constituents?

Either way, the EU has to face this conundrum, which could lead to contention among its members due to the UK’s demands. As well as requiring alterations to existing treaties, Cameron wants to change the requirements for EU migrants to claim benefits. This would undermine the EU’s principle of free movement, and would require some creative negotiating on Britain’s side to achieve. Ultimately a compromise will likely be reached and a deal made, as the UK is not alone in desiring reform.

Why is Britain, one of the union’s core members, potentially on the brink of leaving the EU? This situation has surfaced after much debate regarding the UK’s position in the EU. Eurosceptic sentiment has grown within the country over recent years, a trend not just restricted to Britain. Parts of society believe that Brussels (the home of the European Union) decides too much of what happens domestically, with sovereignty being chipped away.

Others are unhappy about the perceived influx of foreigners and the effect this has had on local society. Sentiments such as these have been magnified by the emotions that the recent Paris attacks have stirred, with many fearing that Europe’s open borders could be exploited by terrorist organisations. These feelings are underlined by the common belief that the British Isles inherently differs from Continental Europe.

Implications of a ‘Brexit’ on ASEAN

The momentum is with the ‘Exit’ camp, with recent polls indicating they have gained a majority. The implications of leaving the union will not be trivial. For one, it will not just lead to the UK separating from the EU, but also from Scotland. Scotland would almost certainly demand a repeat referendum regarding its independence, with the Scottish population likely to vote for this time around.

Cameron would be in an untenable position as a result, and would have to step down as prime minister. The new leader would be obliged to negotiate bilaterally with the EU countries as Britain will no longer be part of the single market, an inevitably arduous process. Most crucially the UK – or what is left of it – would be on the outside, looking in, when it comes to EU matters. Britain’s strength militarily, economically as well as geopolitically, would represent a loss for Europe. While one could not predict the referendum result at present, leaving will have considerable implications.

ASEAN, despite the constant comparisons, differs hugely from its European counterpart, both in organisation as well as culturally. ASEAN is far more flexible in nature, where there is almost no infringement on respective member’s sovereignty. A number of provisions are in place to avoid situations like the current EU showdown.

The insertion of the ‘ASEAN minus X’ clause allows members to opt out of agreed economic conditions if they feel they are not ready. Though this could lead to a two-track ASEAN, it does at least ensure that agreements are not forced upon states. These provisions all stem from the ASEAN principle of consensus. Whilst the principle has its critics, and results in a snail’s pace process of integration and decision making, it minimises the level of discontent.

The potential Brexit stems from domestic concern of Britain’s relationship with the union, conversely ASEAN hardly features on any of the member states’ domestic agendas, as it is predominantly an inter-governmental organisation and does not possess the EU’s supranational character. It’s highly improbable that there could be the backlash against ASEAN as an institution that we are currently witnessing in Europe.

Future safeguards

The establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) on 31 Dec 2015 will lead to further integration, though not to the degree of the EU’s single market arrangement. This pattern of a steady integration raises the possibility of future calls for changes to previous agreements, as consensus in the present does not ensure consensus in the future.

Unlikely as a Brexit scenario seems at present, the future is less predictable. ASEAN should consider including an exit mechanism within its charter, as well as provisions for when a member state strongly desires an immediate change to the organisation. Safeguards and formal procedures could mitigate any damage arising from one of ASEAN’s members deciding to rock the boat.

*Aédán Mordecai is a Research Analyst with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

By Bahram Amir-Ahmadian*

Iran’s position as a regional crossroads is a very valuable potential which is pointed out in most viewpoints on Iran, both by Iranians and non-Iranians.

Iran’s infrastructural facilities for road and rail transportation as well as its ports and trade services such as onloading and offloading, storage and distribution enjoy good potential, but the degree to which they have been used has not been adequate to promote Iran’s geographical position to a geopolitical position and lead to desirable development in the country and job creation. The North-South International Corridor is a potential that has received less attention than it deserves and under the present circumstances the need for paying more attention to it is felt more than before.

The international North-South Corridor was first introduced in 2000 by Russia, India and Iran with the goal of establishing a shorter route compared to the present transport corridor that passes through the Suez Canal in order to reduce transportation time and decrease costs of commodity trade. Later on, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Oman, Armenia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan and Turkey joined the project.

Some factors have prevented progress of this project in the past 15 years. Mounting economic pressure on Iran by the United States and the member states of the European Union over Iran’s nuclear program, which started in early 2000s, Russia’s unwillingness to be an active partner to this process, and India’s reluctance to take practical steps for investment in the project have been among major factors that have prevented progress of the project.

Now, as Western sanctions against Iran are to be removed, the country is able to once again activate the corridor. Activation of the corridor will lead to increased trade exchanges in the region, activation of Iran’s trade services and promotion of Iran’s position in the region.

Goals and purposes

The goals and purposes sought through the implementation of the North-South International Corridor project include:

• Development of transportation ties among involved countries in order to organize transport of goods and passengers along the North-South International Corridor;
• Increased access by involved countries to global markets through facilitation of rail, road, maritime, river, and air transportation;
• Helping to increase the volume of international transport of goods and passengers;
• Ensuring security of traveling, safety of products, and protection of environment in accordance with relevant international standards;
• Coordinating transportation policies and formulating necessary transport rules and regulations to implement this agreement; and
• Providing suitable conditions for suppliers of all kinds of goods and passenger transport services in involved countries within framework of the North-South International Corridor.

Investment made in implementing the North-South International Corridor project:

• Investment made by the United Arab Emirates includes building freight ships for the Persian Gulf in addition to building necessary docks for them and construction of a railroad station at Dubai port;
• Investment made by Iran includes construction of freight docks in Bandar Abbas port city and construction of their jetties at Shahid Rajaei port in Bandar Abbas city in addition to construction of similar docks in Amirabad port and building a train station in Amirabad port;
• Investment made by the Russian Federation includes construction of port and infrastructural facilities in Lagan town, construction of freight docks in Lagan town, building 34 freight ships for navigation in the Caspian Sea, and building four towboats for container cargos.

Attention should be also paid to the implementation of the following plans within framework of the North-South International Corridor project:

1. Improvement and development of managerial structures of the corridor;
2. Union among project member within its regulations;
3. Attention by governments to infrastructural necessities; and
4. Increased volume of cargo transport through all routes and in both directions.

From a geopolitical viewpoint, transportation of goods through the North-South Corridor will not only have many benefits for Iran, but will also strengthen Iran’s standing in the Caspian Sea region because Iran plays a central role in this corridor. From a strategic viewpoint, this corridor can be used when critical conditions govern international waters and cause problems for shipping, and as such, guarantee continuation of the free flow of goods. Since Iran is a gravitational center in this corridor, activation of the corridor will have many benefits for our country. This mechanism is one way to turn Iran’s geographical position into a geopolitical position.

*Bahram Amir-Ahmadian
Tehran University Professor & Researcher at the Institute for Trade Studies and Research

Source: Khabaronline News Website
http://www.khabaronline.ir/
Translated By: Iran Review.Org

Although the number of terrorist acts in the North Caucasus fell in 2015, largely because of the departure of radicals to Iraq and Syria, official repression of Salafis there and especially efforts to exclude them from the legal zone is radicalizing other Muslims and inadvertently helping the Islamic State, according to experts.

Yekaterina Sokryanskaya, director of the International Crisis Group’s North Caucasus project, says that increasing official pressure on the Salafis was directly connected with a shift in Russian policy regarding those who wanted to leave the region to fight for ISIS or other radical states (kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/275342/).

“If earlier jihadists practically departed without any obstacles to the Middle East, then from the middle of 2014 and especially in 2015 after the beginning of bombing in Syria, the authorities imposed harsh obstacles to their departure and sought to control all the dissenting religious space,” she says.

More cases were brought against those who had fought with ISIS and then returned, and in Daghestan, the authorities took various steps first to isolate and control and then to suppress the salafi communities. This process is “not new,” she says. “It has existed since the mid-2000s,” but many thought this effort had “exhausted itself” and been discarded.

“However, before the [Sochi] Olympiad, the old methods were recalled, and in the last year they began to acquire quite wild forms,” Sokiryanskaya says. In 2014, Daghestan led the regions and republics of the North Caucasus in terms of the number of killed and wounded in counter-terrorist actions.

Last year, those numbers fell by about half, but “mass detentions of mosque parishioners throughout the republic were carried out.” Those detained were entered on official black lists and could not thereafter move about the republic freely or travel outside it. Indeed, such pressure “became unbearable.”

One of the most important events of the last 12 months, Sokiryanskaya says, was the conflict between salafis and officials over the Kotrov mosque in Makhachkala and the closing of a number of other mosques in Daghestan. (For background on this, see windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2015/12/sufi-salafi-war-breaking-out-in-north.html).

Official pressure on the Kotrov mosque continues, ostensibly with the goal of forcing a change in imams. But there is an increasing sense, the analyst says, that the authorities want to drive the salafis out of the legal field. “This is a very bad thing,” she says, “because it weakens the position of the moderate salafis and plays into the hands of the extremists.”

If only the people who engage in “road rage” would engage in “corporate rage” when they are harmed by cover-ups or hazardous products and gouging services,  aloof CEOs would start getting serious about safety and fair play. With press report after press report documenting how big business stiffs millions of its consumers and workers, why is it that more of these victims do not externalize some of their inner agonies by channeling them into civic outrage?

It has happened on occasion and with good results. After Candy Lightner lost her daughter to a drunk driver, she founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in 1980 as the only way she could deal with her intense grief. Asked what her principal motivation was in building a national movement to put homicide-producing drunk drivers behind bars, she replied: “Revenge.”

Medical malpractice victims or their next of kin have started special lobbying associations to stop the attempt by the insurance companies and physician lobbies to weaken the rights of patients to have their full day in court against their negligent harm doers. They also inform the public about the need to discipline bad doctors and careless hospitals so as to reduce some of the 100,000 fatalities a year (according to the Harvard School of Public Health) from malpractice.

Jean Rexford started such a group—the Connecticut Center for Patient Safety—in 2005 to press for quality health care through the media and before the state legislature.

Joanne Doroshow, a public interest lawyer, has gathered people injured by defective products as well as negligent medical procedures to testify and lobby a callous Congress often on the verge of usurping the state courts and these vulnerable victims’ access to justice.

For the most part, however, Americans swallow their grievances and try to muddle through their disrupted lives with subdued anger. A major reason for this external passivity is that the plutocrats and oligarchs have signaled that it is futile to even try to make a challenge or a ruckus. The “you can’t fight the Big Boys” feeling starts in the schools where youngsters are given no instruction and no experience (such as learning how to use small claims courts) in pursuing their remedies when defrauded or wrongfully injured. They are scarcely educated about our courts of law and the duty and role of civil juries—rooted in the Seventh Amendment to our Constitution—in judging the facts about wrongs.

Let’s refer to some recent examples. You may have read news stories about drug companies suddenly spiking the cost of specialized drugs 100 fold or more, or “price gouging of old drugs,” in the words of Johns Hopkins’ Dr. Martin A. Makary. The era  of the $1,000 pill per day has arrived.

Picture the scene – companies that have monopoly patent ownership of drugs (many based on taxpayer funded research and development) are essentially telling their customers with life-threatening diseases that they have to “pay or die” for unique drugs that are priced at more than $100,000 per patient per year, unless they have an insurance company to pay the tab. Already, those insurance companies that do pay, along with Medicaid and Medicare, are staggering under the sharp surge in costs during the past two years. A casual Congress is just starting to notice its responsibilities here.

On December 22, 2015, the New York Times reported that Fred Kellerman, a retired car salesman from Los Angeles, was receiving a drug for free for his rare neuromuscular disease.  The drug improved his life dramatically.

Then he learned that a pending FDA approval, with a seven year patent monopoly, could raise the price to $100,000 per patient. There are thousands of terrified patients and families in the same situation as Mr. Kellerman. Fright needs to motivate organization. They would receive media and Congressional attention with their heartfelt stories and expressed sense of injustice.

Gilead Sciences, Inc. bought a company that had a drug to cure Hepatitis C with a 12 week regime. It started selling it for $1,000 a pill a day in 2013 or $84,000 for the full treatment. In one year, Gilead took in more than $10 billion from the drug, Sovaldi.

But in Egypt, where there are nine million people suffering from Hepatitis C, Gilead agreed with the government of that poor country to sell it for $10 a pill which is then dispensed free by the Health Ministry to ailing Egyptians.

“Do you Americans love Egyptians more than yourselves?” asked Hany Tawfil, one of the first Egyptians to take Sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), according to the New York Times, adding, “Why aren’t you putting pressure on Gilead to sell to you at a reasonable price, too?”

Good question. And why aren’t more students and recent college graduates organizing to rebel against their gouging student loans – an exploitation unheard of in other western countries? Why aren’t consumers who are being sued unlawfully by aggressive debt collectors or being crammed on their telephone bills charged for so-called services they never requested?

Short of organizing into a demanding group, why can’t more people just shout out via telephone, letter, e-mail, text message, to anyone who could do something or at least spread the word. Just a growing rumble from the people has gotten elected officials moving, including President Richard Nixon who signed wonderful bills into law that he never wanted. But he feared the rising RUMBLE FROM THE PEOPLE. Who can stop you from rumbling?

Happy New Year!