Climate change increases the danger of falling rocks in the Alps and other mountain regions, adding to existing risks for mountain climbers. This is the conclusion of a study by Arnaud Temme of Wageningen University using climbing guides written by mountaineers in the past.

Global warming causes thawing of permafrost and retreat of glaciers and snowfields. More rocks get exposed to the air, reducing their stability and increasing the chance of rolling or falling. After permafrost degrades, freezing and thawing in cracks and crevices start to alternate. Every time water freezes, it expands and lets the cracks grow slowly until the rock breaks.

Higher temperatures lead to more instable rocks, increasing the risk of falling.

Old climbing guides

In his research Arnaud Temme of Wageningen University gathered information on safety of climbing routes from so called climbing guides. These guides are written by very experienced mountaineers that describe the climbing routes in a certain area, in this case the Bernese Alps in Switzerland.

In addition to climbing routes, information about risks of falling rocks is mentioned in the guides. For all routes, the type and orientation of the rock and an indication of all risks along the route are noted.

Until know there was little information available on the risks of falling rocks: the available data was on large, rare rock avalanches or for small slopes. However, in the climbing guides, multiple generations of climbers noted the climbing dangers for whole mountain ranges.

The oldest guide out of the dozens of guides used in the research was written 146 years ago. This allowed Temme to record the changes for a longer period and link these with climate change.

Forecast

Climate change does not enhance the risks in the mountains in an equal way, other factors play a role as well. Orientation of the slope is important to calculate the risks. East and west sides of a mountain appear to be more risky due to larger temperature swings. Risk also may be higher in places surrounded by rocks and on faces of granite and amphibolite.

This knowledge allows for forecasts: the properties of a specific area can give an indication of the risks involved. In the future, the collection of area properties can be processed into a map with high risk areas, even in mountain ranges where no research has been conducted. This way, historical knowledge contributes to forecasting of future risks in the mountains.

By Chintamani Mahapatra*

The Obama administration faced many thorny challenges in 2015, and none of those are likely to fade away in 2016. While foreign policy challenges encountered by the US are global, the most critical of those come from a region that is very much part of India’s strategic environment.

To start with, the decision of the Obama administration to fully implement its goal to end its military operations in Afghanistan witnessed a turnaround in the absence of a credible peace process involving the Taliban. The current efforts towards the same will almost certainly fail, unless some miraculous developments take place.

The dynamic Indo-Pak hostility, rising divergences between the Afghan government and the Pakistani establishment, resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, and spread of IS influence into the Af-Pak region will continue to obstruct the US aspiration to make a quiet exit from Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, US military involvement in Afghanistan will progressively thin down, enlarging the political abyss between the US and Pakistan. While the White House and the US State Department will struggle to maintain cordial ties with Pakistan as long as the US troops remain in Afghanistan, the executive-legislative tug of war will increase and the massive US assistance to Pakistan will keep dwindling in the coming months. As Pakistan’s chances of severing ties with terrorist organisations appear dodgy and the possibility of China enhancing its economic footprint in Pakistan seems plausible, the trust deficit between Washington and Islamabad is bound to mount. The steady growth of Indo-US strategic cooperation with regular military exercises and advanced arms trade will also impact the state of US-Pakistan ties.

Significantly, the US, China, Pakistan and Afghanistan have begun their quadrilateral cooperation to address the Afghan situation. India is out of this loop. This, precisely, is going to weigh down the US effort of peace-making in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s nightmare is a stronger Indian influence in Afghanistan, and it vetoes an Indian role in peace-making. After so much investment in nation-building activities in Afghanistan, can India afford to allow Pakistan to re-design its strategic depth in that country? Can India really trust the above-mentioned quadrilateral and buy the outcome of their deliberations, even while remaining a bystander to a peace process in its immediate neighbourhood?

The bigger challenge to US engagement beyond South Asia comes from the knotty precariousness in the West Asian strategic scene. The Obama administration withdrew all US troops from Iraq and left a power vacuum that was filled by the IS. While President Obama stopped using the term “global war on terror,” promised to engage with the Islamic world with constructive cooperation, and terminated military operations in Iraq, the end result turned out to be more perilous. The IS declared a caliphate, ran civil administration, sold oil in the international market, beheaded its opponents, and in a way, provoked the US to return to the battle fields of the region. President Obama did practically that, while repeatedly promising not to put boots on the grounds. He bombarded IS facilities from the sky, sent some troops to train Iraqi soldiers, and now, US Special Forces are also selectively engaging in combat.

The expectation that the entry of the Russians and the Iranians to wage war against the IS would be of great benefit were belied in 2015. The Russians are more interested in protecting the Assad regime than combating IS. In the meantime, the US began to complain that Russian planes were also hitting anti-Assad, pro-Western rebels. While Iran is deeply involved in Iraq and is reportedly training, aiding and equipping the private Iraqi militias to take on the IS, Tehran does not coordinate its operations with the US forces. The US backing of Saudi military intervention in Yemen and killings of Tehran-supported Houthi rebels have contributed to more US-Iranian hostility.

In the meantime, the signature achievement of the Obama administration – the Iran nuclear deal – is under stress. It has annoyed the Saudis and angered the Israelis. The other GCC countries have paid lip service to the deal, but privately appear quite unhappy. Besides the Shia-Sunni divide currently engulfing the West Asian region, the Persian-Arab cultural conflict is also aggressively surfacing. Arab countries are increasingly using the term ‘Arabian Gulf’ instead of ‘Persian Gulf’ and Iranians think that it is an affront to their ancient history.

All these developments have contributed to the plight of the US Middle East policy, although critics partially blame US policy for the current crisis in the region. The US has lost its grip over the developments in the region, even as the civil wars in Syria, Yemen and Libya are ravaging on. Anti-Americanism is at its height among the Shias and Sunnis, Arabs and the Persians, and the most trusted ally, Israel, also appears to have lost faith in the Obama administration for its handling of the Iran nuclear deal. The constant depreciation of energy prices has negatively affected shale gas producers in the US as well. It is very unlikely that the economic crisis, social instability and the political upheavals or even terrorism in West Asia would be satisfactorily handled in this region. American hegemony in West Asia, already facing trouble, will have no respite in 2016.

Developments in the Asia Pacific are no less exigent to US power.

North Korean nuclear obstinacy and Chinese muscle-flexing in the South China Sea raise questions of US credibility among its allies. The competition between the US-led TPP and the Chinese-led RCEP, Chinese defiance of US calls for multilateral dispute resolution in the South China Sea, Chinese resistance to the movement of US ships or surveillance planes close to islands reclaimed by China, the single-minded construction of potential military facilities by Beijing in the disputed islands of this sea and several other similar developments indicate that Obama’s strategy of a “pivot to Asia” is little more than gesturing.

In 2016, US’ Asian allies such as the Philippines, Australia, Japan and South Korea will expect it to behave more robustly vis-à-vis China. Deployment of ships, flying of bombers, more frequent surveillance, selling military equipment and reiterating US commitment to the security of its allies will not be considered enough. All these actions by the US have hardly altered Chinese policy or behaviour. Nor have threats and sanctions brought North Korea to its knees. As the EAS, ARF and APEC have proven powerless to manage an assertive China and adamant North Korea, the US may look for alternative methods to deal with provocations in this region in 2016.

The US preoccupation with the unprecedented chaos in the Middle East/West Asia, domestic political polarisation, persistent economic recession in the world and the election year in the US will constrain the Obama administration from taking tough measures abroad. As such, President Obama has tasted the bitterness of some of his liberal approaches. First, he drew a red line for the Assad regime on the issue of use of chemical weapons and fell short of carrying out the promised response.

Second, he wanted to reset relations with Russia and found that US-Russia relations have deteriorated further. Third, the Budapest Pact promised Ukraine territorial integrity in exchange for its surrender of nuclear weapons. But the US could do precious little when Russia annexed Crimea.

Fourth, critics hold President Obama responsible for continuing violence in Libya, mishandling the Arab Spring, and the inability to overthrow the Assad regime. Fifth, two key US allies – Israel and Saudi Arabia – feel estranged in the wake of the Iran nuclear deal, and yet there are still there no signs of Iran refraining from missile tests, or supporting alleged terrorists, or providing muscular support to the Assad regime.

Is there any possibility of President Obama taking appropriate measures to answer his critics? Can he stabilise Libya? Can he bring an end to the Yemeni and Syrian civil wars? Can he get Iran to abide by the nuclear agreement it negotiated with the P5+1? Can he stop the Saudi-Iranian regional Cold War? Can he improve the image of the US in this region? Can he persuade or pressurise China to vacate the occupied islands in the South China Sea? Can he coerce China to withdraw its declaration of an Air Defense Identification Zone? Can he end the US military presence in Afghanistan even after seeing the consequences of total US withdrawal from Iraq?

There is hardly any time for Obama to do so much. Nevertheless Obama has not done everything wrong. In the complex strategic landscape of the post-9/11 era, we have all witnessed the empowerment of non-state-actors. Modern technology has proven to be both a boon and curse. No superpower can flex its muscles and use all its abilities to control, direct and shape global events. Even then President Obama’s diplomatic success in the Paris Climate Change Conference, in roping in Russia and China to strike a nuclear deal with Iran, in opening a new chapter in US relations with India in the post-Devyani Khobragade episode, are no mean achievements. In the last year of his office, President Obama will certainly try to build on his successes.

 *Chintamani Mahapatra
Professor, School of International Studies, JNU

Climate change promises disruptions, and nations must develop policies to manage waves of refugees.

By Richard D. Lamm*

There is an ancient, perhaps apocryphal story in the Christian tradition of Martin of Tours, who was riding outside an unnamed city gate on a cold and windy night in the 3rd century when he came across a cold and starving beggar. In a gesture of compassion that would win him sainthood hundreds of years later, Martin divided his cloak and dinner, giving half to the destitute man.

Playwright Berthold Brecht raises this haunting issue in 1939’s Mother Courage and Her Children: What if instead of one cold and starving beggar, there were a hundred? What does the ethical traveler do?  With tens of thousands of desperate refugees knocking at Europe’s door, this is no longer a philosophical quandary, but rather, a life-and-death issue of a multitude of cold and starving people seeking survival.

Traditional moral reasoning is inadequate to address the magnitude of the problem. Climate change, poverty, civil war and civil strife, and myriad other threats are causing massive movement of people. Last summer’s Mediterranean crisis, a migration of Biblical proportions from Syria to Europe, is likely merely a preview of the dislocation to come. It is not too apocalyptic to consider the possibility that ultimately a warming world cannot support the 9 billion human beings anticipated by 2050.  The Pentagon issued a 2002 report that states, “Abrupt climate change is likely to stretch (the Earth’s) carrying capacity well beyond its already precarious limits.” National leaders must ponder this new reality, asking how many dislocated people any nation can take without ruining its own economic and social fabric.

The academic community overwhelmingly recognizes the threat of global warming, but few venture to address the consequences on refugee policy if hundreds of millions of people are dislocated by flooding, starvation and chaos. Melting glaciers in the Himalayas threaten the food supply of as many as 2 billion people. The population of sub-Saharan Africa is expected to double in the next 30 years. Similarly, high birth rates and political unrest in most of the Middle East and Africa suggest continued massive migration from that volatile area. The world sails into uncharted ethical waters.

Public policy cannot, ultimately, be at variance with ecological reality. The new challenges require rethinking of our economic, social and ethical assumptions. As oceans warm, deserts creep and seas rise, the time has come to debate how our ethical principles fit into a finite world challenged by infinite demand. The limits may require us to rethink the very basis of our ethics and public policy along with cherished concepts of individual and human rights.

The developed world’s standard of living, economic system and political stability require expanded use of energy and resources. Much of our political, economic and social thinking assumes ongoing expansion of population and economic activity with little or no restraint on resource use. All feel entitled to grow richer every year, and concepts of social justice require an expanded pie to share with the less fortunate. Progress is growth, and the economy of all developed nations requires steady increases in consumption. Yet such scenarios are unsustainable, and a new reality may force the world to learn to live with finitude.

Herschel Elliott, a philosopher and retired professor described as living off the grid, has considered the world beyond all “human centered ethics.” Human hubris notwithstanding, he expresses doubt that growth can ultimately solve growth-related problems and suggests we ultimately must live within a limited and increasingly fragile ecosystem. He calls for sustainability in public policy and everyday thinking and admits that this would require rejecting much of the paradigm on which the human-centered ethical thinking of Western culture is based.

Traditional ethics, based on reason, often assume a world without limits. But in a world of limits, public policy must not only make moral sense but ecological sense. We cannot ignore the real-world consequences of our abstract beliefs, argues Elliott. We cannot have a moral duty to supply something when the act of supplying further harms the ecosystem and makes life on Earth unsustainable. He postulates that no ethical system or value system can be valid if it cumulatively destroys the ecosystem of which it is a part: “The culture of growth that drives the ethical, political, economic thinking in the Western nations confuses the two domains (mental world and physical world). It assumes the open-ended, infinite expansion that is possible in the mental-cultural domain is also possible in the physical world.”

The ecosystem will not give priority to humans over every other living thing, and he warns, “It is extremely improbable that human ingenuity could devise a system that would be as stable and secure as the one which nature has already designed.” Likewise, neither religious nor ethical thinking can trump ecological limits: “When the man-made bio-system fails because of some ethical misconception about how human beings ought to live in the world, it will be irrelevant that Christians, Muslims and Jews had believed that the true morality was revealed to man in the eternal word of God.” Understandably, this may be heresy to the well-meaning, dedicated people of the traditional thought world. Paradigms die hard.

It is facile to dismiss the argument as Malthusian. As George Bernard Shaw observed, “All great truths begin as blasphemies.” No trees grow to the sky, and the relentless geometry of compounding will at some point smash status quo assumptions.

The world cannot avoid the collective consequences of wrong assumptions as humans march on to a tragic destination. Population growth and economic growth cannot go on indefinitely, and the ecosystem has little use for elegantly reasoned ethical systems. To be valid, public policy and ethics must be sustainable. As Elliott concludes, “If living by a system of ethics should make human life physically impossible, that ethics is absurd.”
Policies and culture must be reconciled with the ecological system. The historic vision for the world, regardless of how attractive or elegantly reasoned it may be, must ultimately fit within the reality of the physical world.

Too often, ethics disregards extreme physical constraints. The world is living on the shoulders of some awesome exponential curves. Ethical codes cannot demand duties and behaviors that nature cannot support. Constructing a moral code based not on human rights but on human sustainability will be a Copernican undertaking.

The exploration should start now. Moral codes, no matter how logical and reasoned, and human rights, no matter how compassionate, must make sense within the limitations of the ecosystem. This does not mean that no rules apply. The world should not return to the laws of the jungle. Geopolitics require the developed world to help deal with problems that, at least in the case of global warming, they helped cause. Few argue with the principle that a nation owes its first duty to its own citizens, but nations will struggle to remain islands of plenty amidst a world of chaos.

The West needs a dose of reality therapy. Maximum generosity of the developed world may meet the refugee demand this year, but the problems of a warming world promise to stretch for decades. The Sisyphean problem requires honest dialogue. Is Europe doomed to absorb all or part of the high birthrates south and east of its borders? How many people dislocated by global warming does even a compassionate United States America take? Yes, the wealthiest nations helped cause a warming world, but are they obligated to commit demographic suicide?

The time has come for new debates on refugee policy in a warming world.

*Richard D. Lamm was governor of Colorado from 1975 to 1987.

The African economy and development models are based on free market system. This is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership and public sector supports only in urgent and areas of national interest of economy.

According to the World Bank, Africa’s gross domestic production (GDP) estimated 4.5% in 2015 and high economic growth witnessed in Democratic Republic of Congo (9%), Ethiopia (8.5%0, Mauritania (5.6%), Mozambique (7.5%) and Cote d’Ivoire (7.5%) while low growth recorded in Sudan (3.1%), Zimbabwe (3.2%) Tunisia (3%) Equator Guinea (-8.7%) and Sierra Leone (-2.5%)

Africa is one of the wealthy continents with abundant natural resources. Governments obtain plenty of revenue from export of natural resources. From precious metals – gold, diamond, platinum to most wanted resources – petroleum, minerals etc. are available. But there is a big question mark whether these natural resources are blessing or cuss word for Africa?

The African economy is suffering from extreme inequalities in its society with lack of employment and underdeveloped manufacturing and agriculture sectors. 10% of richest populations are enjoying around 44% of income or consumption of the continent.

Oil-exporting countries generally expanded their economy more strongly than oil-importing countries. West Africa and East Africa are the two well-performing sub regions.

The African capital cities seem to be well developed similar to big metropolitan cities of a developed country. Out of the capital and big cities, the majority of peripheral village and remote location are undeveloped; poor and disparities are visible between rich and poor. More than 50% of population is below poverty line, with income of less than US$1 per day and who are in dire necessity of basic needs like food, cloth and shelter.

Private and corporate houses are performing better in lucrative sector and locations. Government, donors and the corporate sectors seem more interested to construct highways, airports, railways, seaports, oil pipeline, and energy projects. Furthermore, mines and petroleum exploitation industries, telecommunication, high value agriculture products like tea, coffee, cocoa, leather export processing industries are running successfully. Major share of urban economy depend on service sector. These sectors are supporting national economy up to great extent.

But the industrial and agriculture sector are not capable to support requirement of food and necessities of the people. Moreover, manufacturing industries are lagging behind and most of the capital goods, machinery, vehicle, electronics, heavy equipment and other items are imported from outside. Major industries are considered to be assembling or high profitable primary consumer-based productions. Development of export-oriented manufacturing items and heavy industries need great effort to get flourish.

Moreover, difficulty observed in implementing small projects, which support poor and weak communities and social services like education, health, drinking water and rural infrastructures are in primitive stage. Agriculture, livestock sector, which are backbone of rural population are also very traditional. Major share of land are occupied by limited powerful people. Only small number of farmers and marginalized people own land for cultivation. Development of agriculture means development of village and development of village means real development of a nation. A country should be self sufficient in production of foodstuff and mass consumable items, it is considered to be primary base for forward activities

China, India and South Africa are the top most investors in Africa. Remittance received from foreign countries is top source of foreign currency. EU and China are leading trade partners.

Africa receives roughly $50 billion of international assistance each year. Yet evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that aid to Africa has made the poor poorer, and the growth slower. Truly speaking there are four important objectives of aid flows as: to gain political support of the donors, to accelerate growth in the recipient country, to increase donors export and to improve income distribution in recipient country.

Endemic warfare and unrest, widespread corruption, and despotic regimes are both causes and effects of the continued economic problems. Stealing money from the government treasury is extreme example of corruption in Africa. For example, a former government minister in Nigeria stole $6bn of public money, a state governor has alleged and South Sudan’s president accused government officials of plundering at least $4bn from state coffers.

Ethnic conflict and armed groups presence in the countries of sub-Sahara region are considered to be product of political instability and consequently expenditure on security is ever increasing. Major share of government spending goes on security and recurrent expenditures and limited capital expenditures are concentrated in urban areas. Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Ethiopia, Mali, South Africa, Chad, South Sudan, Somalia, and Nigeria are the countries where conflicts are in higher level compared to other countries.

Too much politics and high attachment of economic agenda with politics have caused afflictions. For majority of the poor people below poverty line, development has little meaning. Government should increase budget many folds in rural areas and social security incentives should be provided to weak, vulnerable and poor communities of the society.

Economic growth is one process of development; economics can unite than politics. National development should not be baffled under any beliefs. Without identifying illness of the economy from the source, it can’t be healed only by temporary cure at outward level. Many countries are in a critical stage of economic transition and if the economy cannot perform better and be balanced, economic misfortune and conflicts would continue years to come.

*Author is a former expert United Nations Africa.

As the New Year gets underway, the highest-paid CEOs of many large corporations have already paid themselves more than the average worker will earn in the entire year!  By the end of the first week of January, the highest-paid CEOs had already made as much as their average workers will earn over 8 years.

An analysis by Equilar, a consulting firm specializing in executive pay, found that on average, the 200 highest-paid CEOs make approximately $22.6 million a year, or almost $10,800 an hour, a 9.1% increase from the previous year.  Meanwhile, the Census Bureau reports the average household earns approximately $53,000 a year.

Over the past fifty years, the pay gap between many highly-paid CEOs and their employees has increased dramatically. In 1965, when they also liked to be rich, CEOs made approximately twenty times as much as their average employee, meaning they would earn their workers’ average pay by the third week of January, and since the 1980s, the average difference and greed have increased. Highly-paid CEOs now make 303 times as much as their employees in a year, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute.

Equilar notes that Discovery Communications CEO David Zaslav makes $156.1 million a year ($74,796.36 an hour), or approximately 1,951 times as much as his average employee. Doug McMillan, the CEO of Wal-Mart takes in $25.6 million ($12,266.41 an hour), 1,133 times as much as the average experienced store associate, who earns roughly $22,000. Other highly-paid CEOs include Larry Merlo, the CEO of CVS Caremark, who makes 422 times as much as CVS employee, meaning that he earns an average worker’s yearly pay by 1 PM on his first work day of the new year; and Goodyear CEO Richard Kramer, who pulls in as much as an average Goodyear employee’s yearly pay by 3:00 PM on January 1^st.

Shareholders, the owners of those companies, do not have binding power to determine the pay of their hired help—the company bosses. The wined-and-dined selected boards of directors regularly rubber stamp massive CEO pay raises.

An additional consequence of CEOs pushing up their own wages is that the company’s accounting, stock options and stock buybacks are often shaped to further directly enrich the corporate executives. With such a vast disparity, the impact on employee morale is not good. All of these consequences for big companies are the reason Warren Buffett takes a critical view of sky-high corporate compensation packages.

As the gap between the wealthy and the working-class continues to grow, the federal minimum wage remains stagnant at $7.25 an hour, or a little more than $15,000 a year, far below the $24,000 poverty line for a family of four.

Do you find this state of affairs upsetting?

Economists see raising the minimum wage as an essential tool to fight income inequality, with an increase benefiting at least thirty-five million Americans, according to a 2015 study by the Economic Policy Institute.

Unlike the soaring pay awarded to highly-compensated CEOs, the minimum wage has not even kept up with inflation. Department of Labor data shows that, had minimum wage increases kept up with inflation since 1968, the minimum wage would be nearly $11 today. Instead, it has lost one-third of its purchasing power.

Raising the federal minimum wage would also reduce spending on numerous social welfare programs. A 2013 study by the Center for American Progress found that by raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, the cost of enrollments in food stamp programs would decrease by $4.6 billion a year, which is why such prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Ron Unz support a long-overdue raise.

On top of that, a minimum wage increase would also benefit the country’s gross domestic product. A 2013 study by the Chicago Federal Reserve showed that increasing the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour would increase the GDP by $22 Billion annually.

In fact, raising the minimum wage can allow companies to remain profitable. A study by the United Kingdom’s Chartered Institute for Personnel Development found that when companies raised wages for their employees, the companies became more efficient, and workplace productivity increased.

Costco CEO Craig Jelenik explains that “An important reason for the success of Costco’s business model is the attraction and retention of great employees. Instead of minimizing wages, we know it’s a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty.” Raising wages means that employee turnover is reduced, meaning that companies do not have to spend as much on recruitment and training. And because of this, Costco has an $11.50 an hour starting salary and benefits.

Jelenik is not the only CEO who supports raising the minimum wage. Other corporations that have started to pay a more livable wage include Aetna, The Gap and Ikea.

With the New Year, seventeen states saw an increase in the minimum wage, with Massachusetts being the first state in the country with a minimum wage of $10.00 an hour. In 2015, the city of Los Angeles set forces in motion to increase their minimum wage from $9 to $15 by 2020, and San Francisco plans to go from $12.25 an hour to $15 an hour by 2018. Currently, twenty-nine states, the District of Columbia and thirty-five cities have minimum wages set higher than the $7.25 federal minimum.

In the 2016 race for president, almost all of the Republican candidates are opposed to raising the minimum wage. The only Republicans who support a small wage hike are former senator Rick Santorum and Ohio Governor John Kasich.

On the Democratic side, all of the candidates endorse a higher minimum wage, with Hillary Clinton supporting an increase to $12 an hour, with no set time-frame, while both Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley support a $15 an hour minimum wage by the end of the decade.

As the 2016 gets started, it is important that CEOs concern themselves more with how they can stop denying their lowest-paid employees a fairer minimum wage than with how much more compensation they are going to demand for themselves over the next 351 days.

Visit Timeforaraise.org for more action-oriented information.

By Hasan Selim Özertem*

After the downing of a Russian Su-24M bomber by a Turkish F-16 fighter jet, Turkey’s energy policies have been brought to the table once again with the most crucial issue coming to the agenda being how to balance Turkey’s energy dependency on Russia. According to 2014 statistics, Russian gas accounts for 54.7 per cent of Turkey’s overall gas imports.

Additionally, considering that Turkey commissioned the Russian company Rosatom with the construction of its first nuclear energy power plant, Turkey’s energy dependency on Russia could became more complex. Currently, however, the more immediate focus centers on the increasing risks entailed by Turkey’s dependency on Russian natural gas.

Potential risks awaiting Turkey

As of December 2015, Turkey entered its most critical period in terms of annual natural gas consumption. Particularly, when considering that Turkey’s gas consumption peaked at 230 million cubic meters in January and February 2015 and was therewith faced with supply shortages, it would not be a surprise if a similar situation were to occur in winter of 2016. Throughout this period, Russian policy has the potential to influence a wide range of activities in Turkey from the industry sector to household heating.

Looking at the general behavior of Russia’s natural gas company Gazprom, it can be argued that economic interests have been the main determinants of the course of Russia’s relations with Turkey. Even during the Ukraine crisis, the company did not make any cuts to the flow of gas to Ukraine despite its difficulties in receiving payments. Although a direct cut to the flow of gas to Turkey is not expected, a possible cut due to what may be deemed ‘technical malfunctions’ could happen. Such is illustrated in the fact that Russia’s Ambassador to Ankara Andrey Karlov brought attention to this risk in his interview with Cumhuriyet newspaper. He says that “Russia will continue to supply gas to Turkey, but to give an example what can it do if something goes wrong in Ukraine”.

Additionally, it is important to underline Russia’s balancing role in Turkish energy sector. Russia has provided Turkey with additional gas when it faced supply shortages in the past, however, it may not be as enthusiastic to do this as it had been before. Going back to 2012, as a result of simultaneous technical malfunctions, both Iran and Azerbaijan cut the flow of gas to Turkey, hence the 40 million cubic meter gas flow decreased to 7 million. During this time Turkey faced significant problems in meeting its domestic demand. If such a situation were to be experienced this year, it would be difficult for Turkey to quickly find alternatives to Russia that would be able to provide it with 90 million cubic meters of gas on a daily basis. In this way, Turkey should carefully consider such short term risks.

Turkey’s pursuit to balance Russian energy

More mindful of its dependence on Russian natural gas, Turkey is now striving to develop new short and long-term alternatives. Currently, Turkey prioritizes four alternatives that could mitigate emerging risks in the post-2020 period while also aiming to send Russia the message that it is not Turkey’s only option. Turkey’s current priorities are securing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Qatar, increasing its natural gas imports from Iraq and Israel via pipeline, and facilitating the existing procedures for the early delivery of 6 billion cubic meters of gas from Azerbaijan.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan signed a memorandum of understanding on the establishment of LNG trade between Turkey and Qatar during his visit to the country from December 1-2 2015. In line with the negotiations held between Turkey’s BOTAŞ and Qatar Oil, the parties agreed on a framework for the future of LNG trade between Turkey and Qatar, and Qatar is expected to invest in the construction of a LNG storage facility in Turkey. If negotiations conclude in a healthy way, the arrangement will propose two advantages. One of them is that Qatar will partially or entirely cover the expenses of a very costly LNG power plant in Turkey which will function as a direct investment and constitute a crucial inflow of capital to Turkey. The other significant advantage is that the arrangement would create new opportunities for Turkey’s own LNG sector. In particular, the share of LNG in meeting Turkey’s domestic energy demand would likely grow beyond its current 15 per cent. Along with the rapid transformation of Turkey’s domestic natural gas market, Turkey would gain a more flexible import structure via pipeline and LNG trade, which together would bring certain advantages. However, it is difficult to formulate an in-depth analysis on the subject in terms of the costs of the entailed projects before a final agreement is signed.

Frequently articulated by the Turkish authorities and various companies operating in the region, Turkey’s second prioritized alternative is increasing its imports of natural gas via pipeline from Iraq. According to CEO of Genel Energy Tony Hayward, by developing the reserves in northern Iraq, anywhere between 10 and 20 billion cubic meters of natural gas could be delivered to Turkey at a very advantageous price. In this regard, two important issues with respect to Turkey’s management of its bilateral relations with Iraq come to the fore. Firstly, considering the waning investment in Iraqi energy infrastructure after ISIS’s occupation of Mosul, Turkey needs to carefully consider what kind of formula should be developed between itself and Iraq when it comes to the necessary capital required to construct infrastructure in the country. If the efforts to remove ISIS from the region produce positive results, this process would be facilitated. The second issue directly relates to how the trade relations between Baghdad, Erbil and Ankara would be shaped. The development of better relations between Ankara and Baghdad, the latter of which has raised concerns about Turkey’s deployment of military forces to Bashiqa in order to train Peshmerga soldiers, will in turn pave the way for smoother relations between Ankara and Erbil.

Eastern Mediterranean gas poses another alternative for Turkey; and in this sense, the normalization of relations between Tel Aviv and Ankara represents a turning point for cooperation in this direction. However, the role that Cyprus will play throughout this process should not be forgotten. While a solution to the Cyprus issue could facilitate cooperation, a possible deadlock in negotiations could pose an obstacle thereto.

The fourth primary alternative for Turkey is seen in speeding up the delivery of Azerbaijani gas to Turkey via the unfinished Trans-Anatolian pipeline (TANAP). Remarkable momentum has already been gained in this endeavor. During Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu’s most recent visit to Baku, both parties declared their intention to complete the pipeline and begin using it to deliver gas at an earlier date than planned. However, finishing the construction of the pipeline before 2019 in addition to developing the necessary technical infrastructure for the development of Azerbaijani gas fields, such as the Şah Deniz II, will bring about extra technical and financial burdens. It may be difficult to realize these two objectives on a shortened schedule. This is augmented by the fact that the infrastructure works will continue in accordance with the same amount of capital and personnel allocated by the stakeholder companies. Throughout this process, while the goodwill of the parties is of crucial importance, how these intentions will be reflected in the reality should be closely followed. In this sense, it should be noted that resource extraction projects have slowed due to rapidly retreating commodity and oil prices. While this brings its own advantages particularly in terms of the costs and availability of technical assistance, decreasing income poses a serious problem. In this regard, the responsible management of extra costs is critical in enabling the early delivery of gas from Azerbaijan’s Shah Deniz II gas field to Turkey.

Turkey’s energy strategy after the Russian crisis

After the downing of the Russian bomber, Turkey has to consider its energy relations with Russia from the perspective of energy security. Although some alternatives that could balance these relations are available in the middle term, severe problems may be faced in the management of risks in the short term. The most concrete solution to mitigating risks seems to be turning to the LNG spot market. However, considering the interruption in the flow of gas from Iran to Turkey on 8 December 2015, it could be said that the existing risks are structural, and thus turning to the LNG spot trade would most likely be a short term solution.

This situation once again clearly demonstrates that Turkey’s energy strategy should be reviewed within the context of resource diversity. Even if Turkey does come to view its energy relations from the perspective of energy security, its newly developed formula should not exclude Russia, and should instead seek to balance it. Such would be a better scenario for Turkey’s long term interests.

To sum up, the deepening of the crisis in the region requires Turkey to consider the principle of ‘energy security’ more seriously as it moves beyond the cliché concept of energy politics. Throughout this process, Turkey, aside from turning to and exploring alternative resources, should improve the capacity of its storage facilities while developing its technical infrastructure. Additionally, Turkey should come to reconceptualize its notion of energy diversity to include local resources such as coal and renewable energy, thus allowing it to develop a more holistic energy strategy.

*Hasan Selim Özertem is the Director of Centre for Energy Security Studies at the International Strategic Research Organization.

**Turkish version was first published at Analist monthly journal’s January 2016 issue.

By Majid Moradi*

Since Saudi Arabia’s King Salman rose to power, especially since Mohammad bin Salman became deputy crown prince after Muhammad bin Nayef was appointed as the crown prince and Muqrin bin Abdulaziz was deposed of his post as crown prince through a soft coup d’état, the strategy that Riyadh has been following since 2011 to counter the Arab revolutions and prevent them from spilling over into Saudi Arabia has been followed with more vigor.

The main goal of Saudi Arabia was to cause failure of the Arab Spring and turn it into a political and social fall. Therefore, it spent more than USD 20 billion in Egypt to bring down the Muslim Brotherhood government and adopted the policy of defeating the Islamist government in Tunisia. In Bahrain, it has been also playing a similar role and while al-Wefaq party was engaged in negotiations with the government to reach a compromise, Saudi tanks appeared at the Pearl Square and suppressed the protesters under the excuse of protecting the public property and government institutions.

In Syria, Saudi Arabia’s strategy since the very beginning and up to about a year after the start of the unrest was not to support the Syrian opposition fearing spillover of the revolution into Saudi Arabia. However, as the unrest escalated in that country and the peaceful revolution entered a military phase, Saudi Arabia opened the country’s doors, allowing Salafist Jihadist forces, who were eager to form an Islamic state, to leave the country, thus getting rid of a major part of these terrorists. Simultaneous with dispatching Salafist Jihadist forces to Syria, which was a great relief to the Saudi government, Riyadh was faced with major problems inside the country, including the rise of democracy seeking demands of liberal forces within the country, which had their roots in the urban middle class.

The activities of liberal forces in Sunni –dominated regions were faced with the government’s iron fist policy and Riyadh started to hand out petrodollars in a generous manner to quench such protests. As a result, every citizens of Saudi Arabia was given USD 3,000 along with new versions of unemployment and medical insurances, bank loans and so forth. Of course, distribution of money among people had a precedent and the Saudi government spends a lot of money every year in order to silence various tribes and reduce the risk of tribal unrest by greasing tribal leaders’ palm.

However, the urban middle class, which has distanced from the traditional sources of power among tribes and has experienced the outside world through academic studies and tourism, has certain demands and the Saudi government will never be able to give suitable answers to those demands.

As protests by liberal forces – mostly modern urban women, who oppose both the Salafists and government’s model of family – started to rise, the government of Saudi Arabia took careful measures and magnified the protests of Shias in such regions as Al-Hasa and Qatif in order to discredit the liberal forces’ moves. Therefore, the Saudi government claimed that the Shia minority’s protests were, in fact, continuation of the Arab Spring. In doing so, it managed to reduce a public demand to that of a minority, while claiming that the protests by Sunni liberal forces, who belonged to the urban middle class, were in fact, the voice of Shia Islamist forces, who carry the most powerful religious symbols. As a result, the protesting voice of Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr, who was executed by the Saudi government recently, was magnified beyond its true proportions.

In better words, this was a trap laid by the Saudi government for the country’s Shias, and by encouraging and magnifying their protests through media, Riyadh achieved its goal of nipping liberal forces’ protests in the bud.

The moves of the political current that was led by Sheikh Nimr elicited complaints from liberal forces opposing the government, who believed that soaring Shia protests marginalized their freedom seeking moves and reduced the cost of suppressing those moves for the government. Therefore, they believe that Shia protests did not allow for their freedom seeking moves to achieving their goals.

Opposition Shia forces in Saudi Arabia had reached a compromise with the government through mediation of the late Ayatollah Shamseddin, the then head of the Supreme Islamic Shia Council of Lebanon, in the middle of 1990s, which continued up to 2011. Of course, despite the protest move launched by Sheikh al-Nimr, most Saudi clerics still stick to the policy of patience and waiting.

It seems that Saudi Arabia has been a loser in most fields over the past one or two decades and the signs of its failure are evident in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. So, to make up for these failures, it has adopted a policy of stoking crisis and deflecting attention to secondary issues.

When it loses the game to Iran in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, Saudi Arabia launches a ridiculous war in Yemen and as the most powerful Arab country, along with a number of allied countries, goes to war against the poorest Arab state; a war which follows no other goal but to create another crisis and put a cover on Saudi Arabia’s fiascos elsewhere.

In the face of the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the political sphere of the Arab world, which started from Egypt and was sweeping through other Arab countries, Riyadh started to work and created crises for the government of former Egyptian president, Mohamed al-Morsi. Riyadh also moved to divide Egyptian government from the army, thus preventing the first experience of democratic transfer of power to bear fruit in Egypt and instead of Egypt becoming a role model for other Arab nations, turned it into a lesson for them. Also, when domestic forces started their freedom seeking and democracy seeking moves, the Saudi government once again created a new crisis by pointing an incriminating finger at Shia movement.

It even seems that after the recent execution of Sheikh Nimr, Saudis have been able to change the focus from that incident to what happened on its margins when a rogue group attacked the Saudi embassy in Tehran causing Saudi Arabia to appear as the plaintiff, thus marginalizing the main incident.

Fortunately, in the midst of such bleak atmosphere, the remarks made by the leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah movement, Seyyed Hassan Nasrollah, following the execution of Sheikh Nimr, were wise and cunning remarks in which he asked Shias to prevent the execution of Sheikh Nimr from becoming an issue between Shias and Sunnis.

Nimr was a martyr of freedom and democracy and his blood must provide a motivation for the unity of Shias and Sunnis in the Saudi society where most people seek freedom and democracy and are opposed to the monarchy. The demands of the Saudi nation are not limited to the right of driving car by women, on which the main focus has been put. This nation is avidly seeking freedom and democratic rule and wants to get out of the yoke of the Al Saud family, which is now being headed by a young man, who has been blinded by power and wants to grab the throne even at the cost of suppression, massacre and execution.

*Majid Moradi
Doctoral Student of Political Science; Saint Joseph University of Beirut
Member of the Scientific Council of the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Islam – Tehran

Source: Iranian Diplomacy (IRD)
http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/
Translated By: Iran Review.Org

Jammu and Kashmir, already troubled, is now without a government for days as the CM designate Mehbooba Mufti, daughter of former CM Mufti Mohammad Sayeed who passed away last week, is not showing any inclination to hurriedly assume chief ministership in Srinagar. She is mourning the death of her father-cum-political-mentor.
Since then, the future of the BJP-PDP alliance has been under a cloud with Mehbooba Mufti maintaining an uneasy silence over the fate of the coalition government.

It is certain that the PDP has lost support and credibility among Kashmiri Muslims because the party after talking with Congress party which they consider lesser evil than BJP, eventually opted for the Hindutva BJP with hidden agenda for the valley. Muslim voters were disappointed with the PDP decision to popularize BJP in Kashmir valley as well. Kashmiri Muslims are afraid of BJP saffronizing the valley in step by step manner as it has done in India mainland.
Within the PDP as well resistance to PDP-BJP alliance is growing and many MLA want a change in the. Alliance, moving away from BJP. Apparently, Mehbooba is eager to assure Kashmiris of safety and security on a permanent basis.

On January 8, when former chief minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed’s funeral procession passed through his hometown Bijbahera, an unusual sight shocked many of his followers. But Kashmiris seem to have been angry with their leader Mufti and others. When the 79-year-old doyen of Kashmir politics died, many had expected Bijbahera to be completely shut down in deference to the departed leader. But as the procession inched through to Badshahi Bagh, the ancestral graveyard of the Mufti’s family, some of the shops were open, and in many places it was business as usual.

The Kashmiri leader had lost some of his popularity and emotional appeal. This gave party leaders and MPs Muzaffar Hassan Baig and Tariq Hamid Karra, who have been critical of the alliance with the BJP, to once again call for a review. According to sources, the two MPs and a few MLAs pointed out to party chief Mehbooba Mufti that the PDP is losing support among voters and it would be a good idea to reconsider the decision.

Since then, the future of the BJP-PDP alliance has been under a cloud with Mehbooba Mufti maintaining an uneasy silence over the fate of the coalition government.

The latest impression gained is that the PDP will now review the alliance. Senior PDP minister Naeem Akhtar said, “We will review the progress on the agenda of alliance we drafted. It was a common vision of the Prime Minister and Mufti sahib. We are reviewing how much of it has been achieved.” He said a decision on the review of the PDP alliance with the BJP rested with Mehbooba Mufti.

Against the will of the majority people of Kashmir, the PDP-BJP coalition started on the high note of return of power projects. But the plan was scuttled when Union minister of power (state) Piyush Goyal reportedly said the ministry can’t transfer power projects owned by the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) to Jammu and Kashmir because of “legal and financial problems.”

In politics, the safest way to predict an outcome is to consider all the possibilities and then discard the ones that look unviable. So, it would be a good idea to look at Mehbooba Mufti’s options to predict her next move.

BJP expects Mehbooba to break the alliance and call for dissolution of the Assembly, precipitating a mid-term election. But, that may not happen because her party’s popularity isn’t really at the peak it witnessed during the elections in 2014. And it is unlikely the PDP will repeat its performance and emerge as the single-largest party or retain the 28 seats it has.

Kashmiri Muslims expect that Mehbooba to stitch an alliance with the Congress, which has 12 seats in the Assembly. But this will force PDP to look for the support of at least five MLAs more for a majority in the Assembly. Sources in the PDP say that at least five MLAs are willing to join the government. These include Engineer Rashid, Hakeem Yasin, Yusuf Tarigami, Pawan Gupta and an MLA from Sajjad Lone’s party.

Commentators argue that a Congress-PDP alliance with the support of independent MLAs is a risky proposition because they can demand too much and walk out of the coalition any time if the government refuses to oblige them. Hindutva strategists argue, rather warn that the government would be in a fix if a hardliner like Rashid Engineer brings in a bill for referendum on independence. Also, BJP supporters say since the PDP is already struggling for funds from the Centre in spite of an alliance with the BJP leaving the Hindutva outfit would not be economically viable because BJP rules the centre and should release funds.

The BJP sources say Mehbooba is playing hardball and her decision to leave BJP would not be in the interests of Kashmir. A government without the BJP as a partner would definitely be starved of money and support from Delhi. So, a powerless Congress-PDP government with independent MLAs, therefore, appears risky. That, according to BJP stalwarts, leaves PDP with just one viable option: Continue the alliance with the BJP and hope that things get better and the opinion of the people changes.

The PDP is keeping its partner BJP on the edge to ensure that it gets Delhi to fulfill all the promises the BJP had made before finalizing the common minimum program (CMP) of the alliance. These include a financial package for flood relief and development, and return of two power projects — 390 MW Dulhasti and 480 MW Uri I—from NHPC to the State.

As the PDP toughened its stand on government formation in Jammu Kashmir saying it will “review the progress of the agenda of alliance”, the Modi government (Centre) rushed Finance Secretary Ratan P Watal to meet Mehbooba Mufti.

The PDP believes that the coalition government has not followed the “agenda of alliance” drafted by the two parties.

“The agenda has to be implemented,” senior PDP leader and former education minister Naeem Akhtar. “The power projects have not been returned, there has been no progress on vacation of land by the Army, on smart cities, and internal dimension of Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir is a national concern, you can’t deal with it so casually,” he said. Sources in PDP said the party is upset over the last-minute changes to the special package for Jammu and Kashmir.

The Centre, PDP sources claimed, not only reduced the flood relief and rehabilitation package but also left out Rs 40,000 crore, earmarked for power projects, from the package. The PDP’s tough talk has rattled the BJP leadership and Watal was sent to Srinagar.

Another senior PDP leader said: “We formed an alliance with the BJP in the most difficult circumstances and reposed trust in the BJP leadership. We feel that trust has been betrayed. There was clear agreement on the transfer of power projects in the agenda for alliance but the Centre removed that from the package. The tunnel on the Mughal road, compensation for land with Central agencies are other areas.’’ There is also a division within the PDP regarding the party’s handling of the coalition after Mufti’s death. A section of the leadership close to the BJP believes that raising such issues before government formation is “counter-productive”.

The Modi government and BJP leaders are guarded in their response. State BJP president Sat Sharma also refused comment until the PDP made its position official.

Mufti’s family is in mourning and so Mehbooba is not speaking.

Perhaps, Mehbooba Mufti now wants the BJP to honour the promise and transfer these projects to the state. And she wants the assurance of either Prime Minister Narendra Modi or one of his senior Cabinet colleagues that the CMP would be implemented in letter and spirit.

The PDP is known to bargain hard. Mufti Mohammad Sayeed had taken almost two months to say yes to an alliance with the BJP after the elections had returned a hung Assembly. But Mehbooba is deeply concerned about the mood of Kashmiris. Insiders say she is keeping the BJP guessing also to ensure that the terms of the alliance are not renegotiated and dissenters like Baig and Karra are silenced.

Ambition is not a bad thing, manipulating masses for one’s own end is objectionable. This norm is applicable to Hindutva parties that seem to destabilize Kashmir valley by communal coloring – worse than what it is today. BJP is openly opposed to Indian secular democracy as it is misusing the Hindus as their trusted vote bank.

The death of JK CM Mufti Mohammad has helped the PDP to gauge the Kashmiri mood. If Mehbooba takes appropriate steps, that would be good for the party and Kashmir. Coalition by ignoring the wishes of people would work against the party and Kashmiri nation and without moral sanction of the voters no government can survive long.

The great powers, particularly the de-jure status holders, under the NPT framework only confer the nuclear status to those states who acquired the technology prior to 1968 and leaves no further room for others who were unable in the aforementioned timeframe and yet their persistent efforts for the acquisition of nuclear capability labels them as rogue states.

The role and policies of “great-nuclear powers” on the issues of further nuclear proliferation are some of the persuasive aspects of discouraging many non-nuclear states to refrain from seeking the nuclear options, but however, in some cases the situation becomes otherwise and the vested interests of those powers also imply the options and policies of cooperation with the non-nuclear weapon states and conversely eagerly assist in their clandestine nuclear programs.

The business interests and the policies of empowering the non-nuclear strategic partners only for the containment of the rival states such as the case of US–India relationship, the strategic partnership and the nuclear cooperation greatly is motivated by the economic and military containment of China. But as a reaction to such policies, additionally is given the fact that the regional powers consider them second to none and persistently keep-up with the procurement of huge arsenals of latest conventional and non-conventional military equipments merely to preserve their power, and as a consequence, the whole region ultimately is dragged into the budding power struggle.

Similarly, in the end of December, 2015, the visit of Indian Prime Minister to Moscow concluded with 16 new deals between the two countries ranging from Russian assistance for India in the fields of defence, energy, space cooperation and notably, the proclamations of procuring Russian nuclear reactors to build a nuclear industry in Kudankulam and some other undisclosed nuclear sites in India.

The politically motivated Indo-Russian strategic cooperation is an outcome of the Indian refusal to Western powers for criticizing the moves of annexing Crimea into mainland Russia, whereas, sanction-hit Russia is also striving for a variety of options to get new markets and investment options.

Apparently the current Indian ambitions are aimed at its self-sufficiency in the fields of energy for civilian purposes, but essentially these fulfill the broader objective of the Modi administration to aggressive and assertively pursue the goals of thorium reactor technology and building nuclear power plants through foreign support.

The Russian state nuclear company Rosatom agreed to assist India in building new nuclear power plants besides the Russian support for Indian defense production means for manufacturing Russian-designed Kamov helicopters in India is the key defense project envisioned by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration for its goals of ‘Make in India’ program. The Modi regime’s ambitions of regional hegemony through the edge of advanced military equipment in the course of the local capability and indigenously made weapons system rather than importing from abroad are some of the factors pushing South Asia towards an unending arms race. India at the moment is one of the world’s largest importers of defense equipments and its further plans for the procurement and modernizing its antiquated conventional military equipment by spending more than $250bn in the next 10 years.

New Delhi’s endeavor to benefit from Russian cooperation in the energy and defense sectors is principally the enthusiasm for modernizing the capabilities of its armed forces, but in turn these ambitions actually contain enduring security implications for the South Asian region.

On December 21, around the time that half the world was busy decking the halls with boughs of holy, in the small and hidden African country of Djibouti, up to nineteen people were shot down in the street by the government’s security forces. According to Voice of America, troops targeted the commemoration of a late religious leader that had been very influential among the nation’s opposition circles. Indeed, a leading opposition figure, Ahmed Yusuf, was wounded in the raid, along with an opposition MP and dozens of civilians.

The United States State Department issued a statement urging restraint and respect of the freedom of speech by the government, but it remains to be seen whether Washington’s appeals will fall on receptive ears. What’s more, the attacks come at a delicate time, as Djibouti is slated to hold a crucial presidential election later this year, in April.

Nestled up against the Red Sea, Djibouti is a little bigger than the US state of New Jersey, and shares land borders with Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia. Formerly a part of the Land of Punt, Djibouti voted its way to independence from its French colonial masters in 1977. It’s the home of about 800,000 people, mostly Muslim, and, though multi-ethnic, it is relatively free from conflicts among those groups, thanks in part to the autocratic regime of incumbent president Ismail Omar Guelleh.

A recent expose written by the Daily Beast’s Tim Mak paints a harrowing image of a country exploited by a venal political class at the expense of an oppressed population. Initially elected to the presidency in 1999, Guelleh is seen by many as a run-of-the-mill tyrant, crushing opposition and consolidating power as he goes. When Djibouti found itself caught up in the Arab Spring of 2011, Guelleh’s henchmen quickly and harshly put down the protests, and Guelleh won a controversial election boycotted by opposition parties whose candidates were twice jailed prior to polling. Predictably, the aging Guelleh announced late last year that he intends to run for a fourth consecutive term.

Djibouti’s Ismaïl Omar Guelleh. Photo by Robert D. Ward, US Government, Wikipedia Commons.

Unlike other African strongmen that have been on the receiving end of Western criticism, Djibouti’s Guelleh was largely spared. Why?  Because the small African country has deftly leveraged its single strength, its strategic location at the mouth of the Red Sea, to cram the armies of seven militaries on its shores. Japan has its only post-World War II military base there, the French still maintain a military presence, and so do the Americans, Italians, Germans, Spanish, and soon the Chinese.

Arguably the most important and only US military base in Africa, Camp Lemonnier, is located on a spot first used by the French Foreign Legion. Refurbished after the al-Qaeda attacks on the United States in 2001, the site is now a Naval Expeditionary Base and is used as a staging area in the US’s War on Terror. Situated on the south side of the Djibouti-Ambouli International Airport, the US is responsible for 30,000 takeoffs and landings per year, which is roughly half the airport’s total traffic. The US government pays around US$70 million per year to use the facility – which is almost as dangerous for US personnel as is running against Guelleh.

As detailed in a Washington Post investigation, the air traffic control situation is an unmitigated disaster. Controllers sleep while on duty, become engrossed in their cellphones while pilots communicate with them, and “punish” pilots they deem disrespectful by putting them in holding patterns until they run low on fuel. The US government tried to retrain the Djibouti air traffic controllers a few years ago, spending US$7 million in the process. Ultimately the Djiboutians stopped going to the classes and locked the American trainers out of the tower.

But that’s not the only particularity of this desert wasteland. A plant called Catha edulis plays an important role in Djibouti culture and politics. Known colloquially as khat, the plant contains cathinone, which is a monoamine alkaloid similar to amphetamine. It’s a stimulant that causes euphoria, loss of appetite, and excitement. It causes mild-to-moderate psychological dependence – not as much as nicotine, but enough to be used to manipulate users, which is exactly what the current governing regime does. “The regime uses khat as a main weapon to make people calm. If the population is angry, or stressed—they make sure there’s khat,” explains independent journalist Maydane Okiye. “For eight hours they are high, and another eight they are sleeping—making the population busy for 16 hours.”

With elections coming up in April, the regime of Ismaïl Omar Guelleh is undoubtedly making sure that copious amounts of khat are on hand. However, as December’s clashes show, the people’s desire for freedom and liberation from tyranny can’t be completely shut out, either by force or by khat.

In this week’s address, US President Barack Obama spoke about the steps we need to take to modernize our unemployment insurance system. Our country has come a long way in the past seven years, with more than 14 million jobs created, and the unemployment rate cut in half. But, as our economy continues to change, there are still steps we need to take to ensure all Americans have the security and opportunity they deserve. In his address, the President laid out his plan to help more hardworking Americans get unemployment insurance, find a new job, and have some assurance that even if a new job pays less than their old one they will have some help paying the bills. These ideas are part of the President’s broader belief that everybody who works hard deserves their fair shot and the chance to get ahead.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
January 16, 2016

Hi, everybody. On Tuesday, I gave my final State of the Union Address. And a focus was this: how do we make the new economy work better for everyone, not just those at the top?

After the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes, we’re in the midst of the longest streak of private-sector job growth in our history. More than 14 million new jobs. An unemployment rate cut in half. At the same time, our economy continues to go through profound changes that began long before the Great Recession hit. It’s changed to the point where even when folks have jobs; even when the economy is growing; it’s harder for hardworking families to pull themselves out of poverty, harder for young people to start out on their careers, and tougher for workers to retire when they want to.

That’s a big part of the reason a lot of working families are feeling anxious. And it offends our fundamentally American belief that everybody who works hard should be able to get ahead.

That’s why we’ve been fighting so hard to give families more opportunity and more security – by working to create more good jobs, invest in our middle class, and help working people get a raise. It’s what the Affordable Care Act is all about – filling in the gaps in employer-based care so that when somebody loses a job, or goes back to school, or starts that new business, they still have health care. And it’s why I believe we’ve got to take steps to modernize our unemployment insurance system.

If a hardworking American loses her job, regardless of what state she lives in, we should make sure she can get unemployment insurance and some help to retrain for her next job. If she’s been unemployed for a while, we should reach out to her and connect her with career counseling. And if she finds a new job that doesn’t pay as much as her old one, we should offer some wage insurance that helps her pay her bills. Under my plan, experienced workers who now make less than $50,000 could replace half of their lost wages – up to $10,000 over two years. It’s a way to give families some stability and encourage folks to rejoin the workforce – because we shouldn’t just be talking about unemployment; we should be talking about re-employment.

That’s when America works best – when everyone has opportunity; when everyone has some security; and when everyone can contribute to this country we love. That’s how we make sure that hardworking families can get ahead. And that’s what I’ll be fighting for with every last day of my presidency.

Thanks everybody. Have a great weekend.

Iran released four US citizens on Saturday in exchange for seven Iranians held by the US, as diplomats gathered in Vienna to announce the lifting of crippling economic sanctions against Iran, bringing the country of 80 million back to the world stage.

The four Americans freed include Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, who was convicted by Iran of espionage and held since 2014. Iranian state television said that the others were Amir Hekmati, Saeed Abedini, and Nosratollah Khosravi.

The prisoner swap in particular highlights a thawing of relations between Iran, the US, and other global powers, coming at a time when the International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to announce Iran’s compliance with last year’s nuclear deal.

Implementation of the nuclear deal under the auspices of the IAEA marks the greatest re-entry of the former pariah state into world commerce since the end of the Cold War.

Hammering out the nuclear deal has also been a defining initiative for both US President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Both leaders faced strong opposition from hardliners at home in countries which have called each other “The Great Satan” and “the axis of evil.”

Obama, who is in his final year of presidency in the US, has been opposed in the deal by all Republican candidates vying for the presidency later this year. And US-Iranian hostility still remains entrenched, as the US maintains its own, separate sanctions on Iran’s missile program.

For Rouhani, it marks a crowning achievement for the moderate cleric who was elected in 2013 on the promise to bring Iran out of isolation.

“Today is a good day for the Iranian people as sanctions will be lifted today,” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a statement.

“It’s now time for all – especially Muslim nations – to join hands and rid the world of violent extremism. Iran is ready,” Zarif tweeted on Saturday.

Original article

The United States on Saturday congratulated Dr. Tsai Ing-wen on her victory in Taiwan’s presidential election.

Tsai Ing-wen will be the Taiwan’s first female president, after voters handed the opposition leader and her independence-leaning party a landslide victory in presidential elections on Saturday, rejecting a ruling party that championed closer ties with China, which claims sovereignty over the island, reported RFA.

“We also congratulate the people on Taiwan for once again demonstrating the strength of their robust democratic system, which will now undergo another peaceful transition of power,” said John Kirby, spokesperson for the US State Department.

In a statement, Kirby said the US shares with the Taiwan people a profound interest in the continuation of cross-Strait peace and stability.

“We look forward to working with Dr. Tsai and Taiwan’s leaders of all parties to advance our many common interests and further strengthen the unofficial relationship between the United States and the people on Taiwan,” Kirby said, adding that, “The United States thanks President Ma Ying-jeou for his efforts to develop a strong partnership with the United States and applauds him for concrete steps he has taken to improve cross-Strait ties in recent years.”

Kirby added that the US hopes that President Ma’s administration and the incoming administration will work constructively to ensure a smooth transition and continue to promote peace and stability in the region.

The Pakistani government should reduce rights violations against Afghan refugees by extending their legal residency status until at least December 31, 2017, Human Rights Watch said Saturday. On January 12, 2016, the government extended registered Afghan refugees’ Proof of Residency (PoR) cards until June 30, 2016.

As Human Rights Watch has documented, the uncertain residency status of Afghan refugees in Pakistan has encouraged police harassment, threats, and extortion of Afghan refugees, particularly since the December 2014 attack on a Peshawar school by the Pakistani Taliban.

“Pakistan’s six-month residency extension reduces Afghan refugees’ insecurity, but the government also needs to stop police abuse of refugees,” said Phelim Kine, deputy Asia director. “A two-year extension both sends the message that refugees shouldn’t be pressured to go home and would give officials time to work out resettlement to third countries and other longer-term solutions.”

The temporary extension of the PoR cards, which officially recognize their holders’ status as “Afghan citizen[s] temporarily residing in Pakistan,” is a relief to the country’s 1.5 million registered Afghan refugees whose existing PoR cards had expired on December 31, 2015. However, the six-month extension falls far short of the end-2017 date recommended by the Ministry for States and Frontier Regions (SAFRON). The extension also fails to address the insecurity among refugees over the duration of that status and uncertainty regarding protection should the government end PoR status.

That insecurity is exacerbated by implicit and explicit threats by Pakistani officials over the past year, saying that after the expiration of their PoR cards, their holders become “illegal aliens and have no right to stay [in Pakistan].”

Pakistan is host to one of the largest displaced populations in the world. The 2.5 million Afghan refugees, which according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) include an estimated 1 million undocumented Afghans living in Pakistan as of November 2015, consist of many who fled conflict and repression in Afghanistan during the late 1970s and early 1980s, and their descendants. Some arrived as children, grew up in Pakistan, married, and had children of their own who have never lived in Afghanistan. Others have arrived in the decades of turmoil in Afghanistan since, seeking security, employment, and a higher standard of living.

Afghans in Pakistan have experienced a sharp increase in hostility since the so-called Pakistani Taliban, Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, attacked the Army Public School in Peshawar on December 16, 2014, killing 145 people, including 132 children. The Pakistani government responded to the attack with repressive measures including the introduction of military courts to prosecute terrorism suspects, executions after the lifting of an unofficial moratorium on the use of the death penalty, and proposals to register and repatriate Afghans living in Pakistan. On June 23, the federal minister for the Ministry of States and Frontier Regions, Gen. (Rtd.) Abdul Qadir Baloch, announced that there would be no official reprisals against the country’s Afghan population in response to the Peshawar attack. Despite that promise, Pakistani police have pursued an unofficial policy of punitive retribution that has included raids on Afghan settlements; detention, harassment, and physical violence against Afghans; extortion; and the demolition of Afghan homes.

Such police abuses have prompted fearful Afghans to restrict their movements, leading to economic hardship and curtailing access to education and employment. This oppressive situation has prompted large numbers of Afghans to return to Afghanistan, where they face a widening conflict and continuing insecurity. Deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan prompted more than 80,000 Afghans to leave their country in 2015 and seek asylum in Europe. The return of Afghans uprooted by police abuses in Pakistan, where many have lived for decades, to Afghanistan may add to the numbers of those seeking refuge in Europe as conditions deteriorate in Afghanistan.

“Pakistan could reduce police abuses by extending residency cards for Afghan refugees,” Kine said. “This would also provide the government space to develop a long-term, rights-respecting solution for the Afghan refugees.”

In a new video at Fox News, Judge Andrew Napolitano suggests that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has begun a new investigation of Hillary Clinton, in addition to the ongoing investigation of if she as secretary of state in the Obama administration failed to safeguard United States government secrets. This new investigation centers on whether Clinton illegally made decisions in the State Department “to favor her husband’s foundation or her husband’s speaking gigs.”

Clinton’s husband Bill Clinton founded the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation after serving two terms as president of the United States. The Clintons’ daughter Chelsea Clinton is a member of the foundation’s board of directors, as is Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton joined the foundation’s board shortly after leaving the State Department in February of 2013 and left the board in April of last year

Watch Napolitano’s complete video here:

In the video, Napolitano, who is a member of the Ron Paul Institute’s Advisory Board, says that the case against Clinton for failure to safeguard US government secrets has “gotten stronger” in recent weeks. In particular, Napolitano mentions the disclosure of two “smoking guns” emails from Clinton that respectively tell subordinates to send secret information via unsecured means and to strip the secret classification marking from a document before sending it to her.

Napolitano concludes that “the FBI will soon make a recommendation to the Justice Department about whether or not [Clinton] should be indicted.” This would be consistent with Napolitano’s suggestion back in August that the Justice Department may announce criminal charges against Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, on the eve of the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire Primary.

Read more about what Napolitano terms “Clinton’s legal woes” in Napolitano’s most recent weekly editorial.

This article was published by the RonPaul Institute.

For more than two decades, Russian officials have called for making Russian an official language of the European Union, nominally to improve relations between the EU and Moscow but in fact to give Moscow greater leverage to insist on official status for Russian in the Baltic countries and elsewhere.

If the EU were to give Russian official status, it would be harder for countries once occupied by Moscow to defend their own national languages. Consequently, all such Russian efforts have generated a sharply negative reaction from Baltic deputies in the European Parliament and in other venues as well.

Nonetheless, Moscow keeps pushing this idea, even at times of crisis in relations between Russia and the EU, quite possibly out of the conviction that this is the kind of concession to Moscow that would satisfy those who want a “balanced” approach to Russia at a time of sanctions.

And to this end, Moscow has promoted the formation of various groups in Western Europe to act as advocates for this idea, again allowing Russia to act as if this is an expression of their will rather than its own and at a minimum giving Moscow deniability about what it is quite clearly doing.

One such group is the Union of Russophones of France. It is headed by a French journalist, Dmitry Koshko, and he has now given an interview to the Rubaltic portal, arguing that making Russian an official language of the EU is both justified and useful and that Baltic objections reflect narrow nationalisms (rubaltic.ru/news/15012016-status-russkogo-yazyka/).

Koshko says that approximately seven million people in Europe speak Russian, “more than the population of such countries as Luxembourg or even Bulgaria;” and he points out that far from all of them are ethnic Russians. Many are natives of EU states, and others are from other former Soviet republics.

“For Europe,” he continues, “it is not a bad thing to have good relations with Europe;” and giving Russian official status will promote not only that but also European ties with other countries in Eurasia, including “with Central Asian and Caucasus countries.” Consequently, it should be viewed as a humanistic step rather than one driven by ethnic concerns.

“Russophonia,” he argues, “is not the rule of the Russian language or equivalent to the idea of ‘an Elder Brother.’ It is simply the use of Russian in parallel with one’s own language because through Russian one can reach the entire world promoting one’s own culture be it Lithuanian, Uzbek or Georgian.”

Koshko says his group began promoting the idea of adopting Russian as a working language in France in 2012 and now is seeking to push it at the level of the European Union as a whole.

By Lincoln Mitchell and Michael Cecire*

The debate over whether or not the US should open its doors to refugees from the bloody and multisided conflict in Syria has been percolating for months. It probably peaked in the aftermath of the November 13 Paris attacks, as Republican presidential candidates and governors competed with each other to make the strongest possible anti-refugee promises. The debate has receded somewhat, but at least one major presidential candidate continues to press the issue by promising to restrict all Muslims, apparently even those who hold US passports, from entering the country.

Whether or not the US should accept a significant number of Syrian refugees is a question of core American values. It is a choice between giving in to our basest fears and having faith in our national project. Refusing to accept any Syrian refugees is to allow American policy to be shaped by fear, and even midwifed by bigotry and intolerance. It places the illusion of safety over the belief that the American dream is truly universal. It is also, despite the macho bluster associated with it, a position based fundamentally on weakness and a lack of faith in the US, which ignores the reality that America has been at its best when we welcome those who face persecution and can no longer return to their war-torn countries.

In late 2015, the refugee debate become even more partisan as 27 Republican governors, and one Democratic governor, vowed not to allow Syrian refugees into their states. These positions can be variously attributed to those governors trying to generate media attention and throw some rhetorical red meat to their party’s base, but the significance of their positions cannot be dismissed altogether.

These governors appear to be all too willing to discard the constitutional order for the sake of political expediency. Governors who believe that national foreign policy should be optional for their states either do not know or do not care about the differences between the US Constitution and its weak, preceding compact, the Articles of Confederation. Between about 1777 to 1788, such a state-by-state approach to the refugee crisis would have been plausible, but the founders realized this was no way to build a strong, wealthy and enduring national republic—so they created our constitution to balance state sovereignty with a stronger central government charged with, among other things, the exclusive conduct of foreign policy. The America that overcame the scourge of slavery, helped defeat Nazism, put men on the moon, and undid the sprawling Soviet empire would not have been possible without the unified, national foreign policy under our constitution.

The Syrian refugee crisis is global. Those who assert the US should not be entirely responsible for solving this problem or that the US should not be the only country taking refugees are, of course, correct. By the time the war in Syria winds down, it is certainly possible that the number of refugees could run as high 3 to 5 million. It is not reasonable to ask the US to take all of those refugees, but nobody is calling for that. However, the US—a vast land of over 315 million—could probably absorb many refugees, perhaps as many as of 250,000-500,000, and even more if we wanted. In the long run, this would likely be a political and economic boon to our country.

Given recent events in Paris, San Bernardino, Istanbul, Jakarta, and elsewhere, security issues must be considered when crafting refugee policy, but those security questions should not overwhelm the debate. Terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino were tragic and murderous, but if they turn us into a country that makes decisions based on bigotry and fear, they will have become all the more devastating.

The Security Challenge

Any policy regarding Syrian refugees must ensure the safety of the American people and the American homeland. This, however, is true of any policy, and—to the extent that security is could ever be assured—it is also virtually impossible. It is not radical or subversive to point out there is no guarantee that Americans will be kept safe here at home. History shows that threats from Islamist terrorists are just the latest in a broad ideological potpourri that have variously ranged from anarchists to white supremacists to radicals of various stripes that have, at one time or another, threatened the American people through terrorism. It is also imperative to differentiate between the threat raised by Islamist terrorists and the threat represented by Syrian refugees, most of whom are Muslim.

This latest round of discussions about Syrian refugees was touched off by the November terrorist attacks in Paris. Those attacks are relevant to the US not because they were committed by Syrian refugees, but because they demonstrate the multinational complexity of the Jihadist threat. The Paris attackers, like those who committed the atrocities against Charlie Hebdo and at the Kosher Market in Paris earlier last year, were mostly French citizens, many of whom had been born in France. Those people’s radicalism was primarily a product of the French-Muslim experience, rather than a product of a multinational terrorist network like ISIS or Al Qaeda.

The two recent major Islamist terrorist attacks in the US, the Boston Marathon bombing and the shootings in San Bernardino on December 2, were largely perpetrated by US citizens, and not by refugees. So far, the evidence from both cases suggests that the killers were radicalized here in the US. For the most part, the US has had unique success in integrating various migrant and refugee populations. That said, homegrown radicalization represents a problem that obviously needs to be addressed as a matter of domestic policy and within America’s Muslim communities—but it is not a refugee related problem.

It is theoretically possible that a Syrian refugee might arrive and try to commit a violent act of terror, but given a grueling, multi-year screening process, it would be a profoundly difficult and inefficient means of delivering terror to US shores. Islamist terrorists intent on wreaking havoc in the US would sooner activate radicalized US citizens, dispatch one of their vast ranks of European passport-carrying fighters, or simply utilize comparatively far less burdensome student, exchange, or fiancé visa categories. If Syrian refugees resettled in the US did turn to Islamist terror—which, in the history of the US refugee resettlement program, would make them a statistical near-impossibility—it will likely be from being radicalized here in the US.

The refugee debate has been clouded by punditry, a media that likes to use analogies, and exacerbated by a social media that traffics in 140-character tweets and quick images. But some of these analogies are not relevant. The fact that Albert Einstein was a refugee, for example, is a distraction and a pretty unsophisticated argument in favor of refugees. There are, however, other examples from history that are relevant.

The American contribution to the allied victory in World War II represents one of our greatest and most important accomplishments. Playing an integral role in destroying the uniquely murderous and brutal Nazi German regime and its allies is something for which all American can be proud. We should be proud of the Americans who fought for this cause overseas, as well as those who remained home to work in war related industries or kept the country functioning during those war years. We should be proud that our military and industrial might played such a positive rule at such a crucial point in world history.

When we look back on those years, however, two polices engender less pride. One of those, the refusal to accept more Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, has stark parallels to the current situation. At the time, Jews, seen as bearing alien and threatening ideologies like communism, were regarded by many Americans as not quite fit for democracy. Those events were now more than 70 years ago, but few Americans today would likely believe our country would have been weaker or more vulnerable if we had accepted more Jewish refugees. On the contrary, had thousands more Jews entered the country during the Holocaust, the US would almost certainly be a stronger country today—politically, economically, and morally. The internment of Japanese Americans, although not exactly refugee related, is the other example of the US giving into its basest fears during World War II, and also stands out as a clear mistake and a dark stain on American history.

According to the arguments against accepting refugees, Muslim refugees fleeing Syria are a particular threat because they are uniquely susceptible to radical ideology and terrorism as a means of furthering that ideology. However, that analysis ignores the most obvious and relevant (but almost entirely overlooked) analogy. Few today, or at any time during the middle two-thirds of the twentieth century, wanted to stop Catholic immigration or bar Catholic immigrants despite IRA terrorism in the UK and support for that terrorism by some American Catholics, particularly Irish Americans. Not all Catholics, or even Irish American Catholics, supported the IRA during these years, but that is precisely the point. The US government did not adopt a discriminatory policy, nor did it tar all Catholics with the same brush. Instead, it addressed the possibility of support for IRA terrorism largely as the law enforcement problem that it was.

The System Works

After initial reports linking the Paris attackers to Syrian refugee flows were found to be false, the predominant justification given by US opponents of Syrian refugee resettlement has been based on the supposed frailties of the refugee screening process. While some consternation has been leveled at the US Department of Homeland Security’s practice of only infrequently monitoring social media accounts (an extremely difficult task made more so, ironically, by social media services’ tendency to ban extremist users, or the surprisingly expansive Federal restrictions on monitoring US persons), the heart of these complaints appear to be tactical rather than technical. Rather than pointing to specific problematic aspects of the resettlement process, one of the more resonant arguments against refugee resettlement has been the call for a “pause” while the refugee security screening and resettlement process is reviewed. Shortly after the Paris attacks, House Speaker Paul Ryan called for the creation of a task force to offer legislation to this end as a matter of prudence.

Yet the knee-jerk calls to pause, halt, or limit Syrian refugee resettlement in the name of security largely ignores that the system already employs a comprehensive, multi-year screening process punctuated by a bevy of in-person interviews, security clearance processes, and orientations. Refugee screening appears to be at least a far more exacting labyrinth than the famously byzantine green card application process and likely even, as many Federal employees and contractors might recognize, all but the highest security clearance levels. Calls for even a “pause” look like a cynical attempt to achieve a political outcome—blocking refugee resettlement—by utilizing the language of due diligence.

Almost by definition, Syrian refugee resettlement to the US would be virtually indistinguishable from the refugee crisis that European countries are facing. In Europe, masses of refugees are transiting through Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and across the Mediterranean where they are crossing—sometimes with legal sanction, sometimes utilizing vast smuggling networks—into European Union states and utilizing the freedom of movement afforded by the Schengen Zone to transit from one state to the next. Registration is spotty, and monitoring is virtually nonexistent by virtue of the sheer scale of the refugee flows. Admittedly, the chaotic situation on the ground makes refugee movements a tempting vector for violent Islamist extremists to follow; in many respects, it is astonishing that Islamist militants have not taken advantage of refugee routes even more often, and to greater effect, than they have.

Yet the situation in Europe has no parallel to the system in the US, which is targeted, process-oriented, and even painfully deliberative in comparison. The only Syrian refugees that would be eligible for US resettlement would be those that have already been registered and received a preliminary screening by international authorities. Only then would they begin, in earnest, the extensive screening process that would result in non-acceptance for all but the very best vetted and most desperate. In effect, the US government will have the ability to screen and choose a tiny percentage of refugees to accept.

Allegations that some refugees—or at least those claiming refugee status—engage in anti-social or militant activity after entering Europe have been held up as warnings against overly permissive refugee policies. For example, Turkish authorities claim that the perpetrator of a January 2016 bombing in Istanbul came to Turkey claiming to be a refugee. And in Germany, sexual assaults apparently perpetrated by refugees against German women in Cologne during New Year’s celebrations have elicited a severe public backlash. Germany, which has taken in over a million refugees, is often rightly held up as an example of a wealthy Western country that has liberally opened its doors to Middle Eastern refugees. Turkey has taken in many more. Yet, as laudable as Turkey and Germany’s policies have been in theory—or however concerning their effects may seem to have been in practice—those countries’ experiences with asylum seekers is largely incomparable to the US refugee discussion. Both country have welcomed hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers who have had little to no vetting. By contrast, the US has the luxury of time and distance to be far more deliberative.

The Economic Case for Refugees

While there is a worthy moral case for bringing in Syrian refugees, there is also an economic dimension as well. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, there is ample evidence that immigration has a positive effect on economic growth in both the US and Europe. Indeed, there is a powerful consensus across the political spectrum—the Cato Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Federal Reserve Bank, and the Obama White House—that immigration is a net positive for the US economy, the US consumer, and the US worker. An appreciable influx of Syrian refugees is a national economic opportunity.

The direct economic impact of migrants themselves is only one dimension of the economic argument, however. There is also convincing evidence that a large part of the US’ enviable economic performance in recent years is due to relatively favorable demographics—at least as compared to Europe. And positive fertility rates appear directly linked to healthy rates of immigration.

Absent robust immigration, US fertility rates are comparable to flagging levels in continental Europe, where economic growth largely remains sclerotic. However, Latin American immigration to the US, a traditional source of population inflows over the last several decades, is noticeably slowing. For example, according to Pew Research Center, there was a net loss of 140,000 Mexicans between 2009 and 2014. Mexicans are the largest single group of Latin American migrants in the US. While some of the immigration slowdown is attributable to the 2008 Great Recession or attendant labor market dislocations or shifts, Mexico’s own economic development is playing a role, possibly marking the end of the wave of major Mexican immigration to the US. The macro effects—on labor markets, productivity, and demography—of slowing Latin American immigration could pose economic headwinds that will be difficult for the US to overcome. However, facilitating the entry of Syrian refugees could help ameliorate, if not replace, the fallout from reduced economic immigration.

This issue is even more pronounced on the local level. In some of the most distressed US economic regions, the effects of depopulation and an absent workforce have been major barriers to economic revitalization. In Detroit, severe decline have left vast spaces and entire neighborhoods virtually abandoned. Recognizing the role that re-populating the region will play in Detroit’s long-term economic and fiscal health, the City of Detroit is coordinating with various agencies and non-profit organizations to bring in immigrants to fill many of the city’s vacant tracts. Other cities suffering from deindustrialization and depopulation are also eyeing immigration as a way to buoy their economies. One potential solution that has been floated by academics and seized upon by some local leaders is the idea of “place-based immigration,” which would facilitate and potentially accelerate immigration into states or localities that wanted increased immigration. The idea, which has support on both the right and the left, has the potential to match need to demand while largely avoiding the political pitfalls that have traditionally accompanied conventional immigration proposals.

Place-based immigration is relevant to the refugee discussion because similar principles could theoretically apply to resettlement. In the past, refugee resettlement has essentially anchored large immigrant populations to one or two major regions, such as Hmong in Minneapolis-Saint Paul and Bosnians in St. Louis, to name a couple. In both places, refugee populations have become a part of the fabric of those cities and have contributed to their region’s economic development. Similarly, refugees that are resettled in the US could be distributed in states or regions that specifically sought them out. Rust belt cities, for example, seeking the influx of immigrants could appeal for large numbers of refugees. Rural counties looking to reverse years of population decline could invite smaller groups. Potentially, competition between regions for refugee resettlement could even mean that most newcomers are only placed in areas where they are actively wanted.

Bring Them In

The US should not only continue allowing refugee resettlement, but we can and should expand the total number well above the meager 10,000 refugees that current plans call for. Our neighbors in Canada have already taken in over 10,000 refugees and have plans for 25,000 by March, despite the country’s smaller population, smaller economy, and the majority of its citizens squeezed along the comparatively temperate belt along the US border. The US—given our size, wealth, and population—could comfortably bring in many times the proposed 10,000 number.

While there is always room for improvement in our vetting (for thoroughness as well as efficiency), the US is already well positioned to welcome large numbers of refugees. And despite trepidation from some quarters of the US population about the efficacy of integrating immigrants and refugees, this country actually has a strong track record of integrating and absorbing newcomers from an array of backgrounds. This is true of Mexican as well as Muslim immigrants. Economically, a number of US regions—and the country as a whole—would benefit from an influx of refugees, and resettlement patterns could be based on a marriage of supply (of refugees) and demand (from regions and localities), which need not necessarily force certain areas of the country to take in large numbers of refugees without demonstrating need.

This debate over refugees, however, is more than economics. It is about who we are as a country, and whether we are prepared to jettison the very principles that makes this country great—a civic nationalism, based on ideals and not ethnicity, race, creed, or orientation—out of a sense of fear or political opportunism. Fortunately, this is the kind of opportunity for the US to do the right thing not only for the sake of its principles, but for the long-term benefit of the US economy.

*About the authors:
Lincoln Mitchell is a writer, scholar and specialist on political development, and an associate at the Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University. His new book, The Democracy Promotion Paradox, will be published by Brookings in this year.

Michael Hikari Cecire is an international relations analyst and an associate scholar at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is co-editor of Georgian Foreign Policy: The Quest for Sustainable Security (2014) and the Colchis columnist at BNE Intellinews.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Petroleum and other liquid fuels

Oman’s petroleum and other liquids production exceeded 1 million barrels per day in June 2015 for the first time since December 2000.

Sector organization

Map of Oman. Source: Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook

The Ministry of Oil and Gas coordinates the government’s role in the Omani hydrocarbon sectors. Final approval on policy and investment; however, rests with the Sultan of Oman. Petroleum Development Oman (PDO) holds most of Oman’s oil reserves and is responsible for more than 70% of its crude oil production, according to PDO.³ In addition to the government’s 60% ownership stake in PDO, Shell (34%), Total (4%), and Portugal’s Partex (2%) also own stakes in PDO.⁴ The Oman Oil Company (OOC) is responsible for energy investments both inside and outside Oman and is fully owned by the government. The Oman Oil Refineries and Petroleum Industries Company (ORPIC) controls the country’s refining sector and owns both of Oman’s operating refineries.

Reserves

Exploration and production

Enhanced oil recovery techniques helped Oman’s oil production rebound from a multi-year decline in the early 2000s.

Oman major oil and natural gas infrastructure. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, IHS EDIN

Occidental Petroleum has the largest presence of any foreign firm in Oman. Other major players with interests in Oman include Shell, Total, Partex, BP, CNPC, KoGas, and Repsol.⁷ By the end of 2013, there were exploration and production activities in all 31 of Oman’s exploration blocks, according to the Ministry of Oil and Gas.⁸ Nearly all of Oman’s oil production comes from the Oman Basin, which spans most of the country (Figure 2).

Oman’s petroleum and other liquids (total oil) production ranks 7th in the Middle East and ranks among the top 25 oil producers in the world. Oman is the largest oil producer in the Middle East that is not a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Oman’s annual petroleum and other liquids production peaked at 972,000 barrels per day (b/d) in 2000, but dropped to 715,000 b/d by 2007. Oman successfully reversed that decline, and total oil production rose each year, averaging 1,002,000 b/d in 2015 (Figure 3). Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) techniques helped drive this production turnaround, although the country also experienced some additional production gains as a result of new discoveries. Oman’s government aims to keep production near its current level for at least the next five years by continuing to apply EOR techniques and the cost management associated with it.⁹

Several recent developments could contribute to future oil production growth in Oman. Some of the notable new developments include Circle Oil’s announcement of Block 52 (offshore) with its 7 billion barrels of oil in place and Occidental Petroleum’s Block 53, located at the Mukhaizna field, which could produce roughly 44 million of barrels of oil each year.¹⁰ Occidental Petroleum implemented one of the world’s largest steam flood projects in Oman in 2005.

Enhanced oil recovery (EOR)

Oman’s ability to increase its oil and natural gas production relies heavily on extraction technologies. Several EOR techniques are already used in Oman, including polymer, miscible, and steam injection techniques.¹¹ Because of the relatively high cost of production in the country, Oman’s government offers incentives to international oil companies (IOCs) for exploration and development activities in the country’s difficult-to-recover hydrocarbons. The government enlists foreign companies in new exploration and production projects, offering generous terms for developing fields that require the sophisticated technology and expertise of the private sector. Given the technical difficulties involved in oil production, the contract terms for IOCs have become more favorable in Oman than in other countries in the region, some allowing significant equity stakes in certain projects.¹²

To increase oil production, EOR techniques, such as steam injection and miscible injection, have been the key driver of Oman’s oil production growth. Block 6, operated by PDO, is the center of current EOR operations, with the Marmul field (polymer), Harweel field (miscible), Qarn Alam field (steam), and Amal-West (solar), using all four of the EOR techniques within the same block.¹³ Solar EOR at Alam-West in southern Oman is the first solar EOR project in the Middle East, completed by GlassPoint Solar in 2012 and commissioned in early 2013. Backed by a US $53 million equity investment, including funding from Oman’s State General Reserve Fund (SGRF), GlassPoint Solar’s project involves the production of emissions-free steam that feeds directly into the thermal EOR operations currently in existence. This process reduces the need to use natural gas in EOR projects.¹⁴ This project serves as an operational starting point for larger steam-powered EOR projects in the future.

Consumption and refining

Oman is an important oil exporter, particularly to Asian markets. In 2014, virtually all of the country’s oil exports went to countries in Asia, of which 72% went to China

Natural gas

In 2013, Oman combined the Oman LNG and Qalhat LNG companies to streamline the country’s LNG sector.

PDO has an even greater presence in the natural gas sector than it does in the oil sector, accounting for nearly all of Oman’s natural gas supply along with smaller contributions from Occidental Petroleum, Oman’s largest independent oil producer, and Thailand’s PTTEP. The Oman Gas Company (OGC) directs the country’s natural gas transmission and distribution systems. The OGC is a joint venture between the Omani Ministry of Oil and Gas (80%) and OOC (20%). Oman Liquefied Natural Gas (OLNG)—owned by a consortium including the government, Shell, and Total—operates all liquefied natural gas (LNG) activities in Oman through its three liquefaction trains in Qalhat near Sur.²³

Exploration and production

Oman’s potential for natural gas production growth may be substantial, supported by promising developments in several new projects.

Imports

Oman currently exports LNG from two liquefaction facilities, although rising domestic demand for natural gas could limit the volumes available for export in the future.

Oman’s electricity sector relies heavily on the country’s domestic natural gas resources to fuel electricity generation in Oman.

Notes:

Endnotes:

By Jorge Valero

(EurActiv) — The loss of state control, the fragility of EU institutions, and the rise of populism could bring about a disintegration process in Schengen, the eurozone or “even the Single Market”, according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2016.

European and national officials believe these centrifugal forces affecting the union are only expected to worsen in 2016, as the British ‘in-or-out’ referendum will add to the gloomy scenario.

“We are in difficult times”, summarized European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on 15 January (Friday). “But I am not giving up”.

Against this gloomy backdrop, and the growing turbulence coming from other parts of the world such as China, leaders of national governments, international organizations and the private sector will meet on 20-23 January in Davos to discuss how to build more resilient societies against these risks.

This year’s forum will examine how to seize the opportunities that the upcoming industrial revolution (Industry 4.0) is bringing as a growth engine in times of stagnation.

But the perspective looks rather bad for Europe. Although member states remain united over the Ukraine crisis, “a bigger challenge is presented by the refugee crisis, a clear testament to the loss of state control and the frailty of intergovernmental structures”, says the report, released ahead of the leaders’ forum.

“Insularity, xenophobia and right-wing populism are gaining ground across the continent, calling into question the integration process and a common European front on international security policies. If Europe proves unable to find common solutions to today’s pressing challenges, we might see a de-integration process unravelling achievements such as the Schengen passport-free zone, the common currency, or even the Single Market. While still unlikely to happen, such a process could hardly be expected to be harmonious and peaceful,” the WEF report warned.

Juncker echoed the same concerns, as he insisted that the euro and Schengen are linked, stating “those who want to end Schengen will kill the internal market”.

The refugee crisis is “the risk being considered most likely in the region”, the report emphasised. According to the study, the mass arrival of Syrians, Iraqis and Afghans, “challenged local financial and absorption capacities and exacerbated the trend towards polarization of societies and the political spectrum, which in turn undermined the efficiency of European governance structures”.

The risk posed by the refugees is expected to continue increasing globally. During 2014, the number of people displaced – 42,500 per day – was four times greater than in 2010.

But, looking at 2016, the private sector in Europe still considers the economic risks as predominant, including fiscal crises, unemployment and energy prices.

The new industrial revolution

The World Economic Forum study also stresses the importance of being responsive to the fast-changing industrial and technological landscape.

If Europeans miss this train, around €600 billion in value could be lost over the next 10 years, corresponding to about 10% of Europe’s industrial base.

Therefore, European economies should properly address the high risks that could emerge from this transition toward a more digitalized economy. These include cyber-related risks, the exchange of data between countries and stakeholders, changes to the work environment, and widening wealth, income and social inequalities.

Beyond Europe, the WEF report highlights that the failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation has risen to the top of public concern, and is perceived in 2016 as the most impactful risk for the years to come, ahead of weapons of mass destruction (2nd) and water crises (3rd).

However, large-scale involuntary migration tops the list of risks in terms of likelihood, and is the fastest rising in terms of both impact and probability. Cyberattacks are now considered to be the greatest risk to doing business in North America.

N ANY list of Israel’s 100 most important women, Ilana Dayan would occupy a prominent position.

Dayan (no relation to the late general with the eye patch) is the host of one of the most prestigious television programs. While Israeli TV in general is slowly sinking into a morass of stupid “reality” entertainment, her program, named “Uvdah” (“Fact”), stands out as a beacon of responsible investigative journalism, of the kind my late weekly news magazine was known for.

In general, Dayan has always been considered as mildly “leftist” – since uncompromising criticism of the powers that be is generally identified with the Left.

Now she is being accused of serving the extreme, near-fascist Right. Shocking.

In the furious debate that ensued, Dayan quoted me for support. For 40 years, my magazine carried on its masthead the slogan “Without Fear, Without Prejudice”. Dayan claimed that was acting according to this motto.

This compels me to get involved in the dispute – against my better judgment.

THE BACKGROUND of this affair concerns the very foundation of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Since the Six-day War of 1967, Israel has been occupying, among other territories, the area called by the Arabs, many Israelis and most of the rest of the world “the West Bank” (of the Jordan river) and by the Israeli government and right-wing Israelis “Judea and Samaria”, their Biblical appellation.

Almost since the beginning of the occupation, the Israeli right-wing has been making strenuous efforts to “settle the land” – putting up Jewish settlements, towns, villages and small “outposts” all over the place.

To whom do the lands, on which the settlements are built, officially belong?

Much of it was “government land”. This goes back to the Ottoman Empire. Communal land reserves, which did not belong to individual fellahin (farmers) but to the entire village, were registered in the name of the Sultan. Under the British “Government of Palestine” it became “government land”. When the Israeli army occupied the territory, the Israel government just laid its hands on all these properties. Which means that this land is now being held solely for the benefit of Jewish settlers.

Other areas of land were simply expropriated by the military government for “security reasons” or “public purposes” – and then turned over to the settlers.

Many of these settlements are manifestly illegal, even according to the Israeli law prevailing in these areas. But the law is very rarely applied. The Israeli military government, the army and the police quite openly support the settlements, protect them and connect them to Israeli grids. The courts very rarely intervene.

Yet what about settlements which are being set up on privately-owned Arab lands? Ah, there’s the rub. All possible and impossible tricks have been used to take them over. Among them, the use of false documents, false signatures, often of dead owners. But the most common method is the use of Arab middlemen.

FOR THE Palestinian people, this is an existential struggle. The Israeli Right, which now dominates the government, does not hide its vision of a country free of Palestinian Arabs (“Araberrein” in German). The vision of the entire country settled by Jews, with no one else around, has strong attractions for some, especially in religious circles.

The settlers and their allies have created an entire network for “legal” land acquisition. They approach an Arab owner and offer hugely inflated prices for his land. The money comes from Jewish billionaires in the United States or from secret government funds. The Arab owner is sorely tempted. He wants to sell and run away with the money. But he is afraid of his neighbors and of Palestinian fanatics.

This is where the Arab middlemen come in. They act as agents of the settlers and buy the desired land, in a way that enables the sellers to claim that they sold their property to other Arabs.

For the Palestinian community, these middlemen are worse than traitors. They endanger the very existence of the Palestinian people. They arouse intense fury.

THAT IS where the TV report of Ilana Dayan starts.

It centers on an Israeli peace activist called Ezra Nawi, an Iraqi-Jewish name. He is very active in the Hebron area in the southern West Bank. I have known his name for decades.

My impression has always been that Nawi is a kind of a loner, selflessly at work to help the Palestinians, connected with some of the many active Israeli peace organizations, especially Ta’ayush.

Hebron is a center of the most fanatical Jewish settlers. It is there that the settler-mass-murderer Baruch Goldstein massacred dozens of Arabs while they were praying in the mosque, after which he was killed by the enflamed survivors. He is now revered by the settlers as a saint.

These settlers are engaged in a prolonged struggle to get all the Arabs out of the surrounding villages. They destroy their homes, cut down their fruit trees, fill their wells with dirt. Ezra Nawi works untiringly to help the Arabs to hold on.

ON THE settlers’ side there are several Jewish fascist organizations (sorry, no other appellation quite meets the case), who are lavishly financed by US Jewish billionaires.

As now appears, these organizations have built an espionage network to infiltrate Israeli peace and human rights groups. One of their agents succeeded in winning the confidence of the unsuspecting Nawi, who, in a moment of self-aggrandizement, bragged that he had disclosed the names of Arab land-sale middlemen to the Palestinian security forces, who executed them for treason.

The fascist organization turned the information over to Ilana Dayan, who made it the centerpiece of her weekly TV program. Nawi made a run for the airport, but was taken off the plane by the police.

So here we are.

In the furious debate now raging in the media, Dayan is accused by leftists like Gideon Levy of having become a turncoat and serving the fascists. Dayan responded with a furious article, in which she cited my motto. It is not her concern, she claimed, to ask herself whether her disclosures serve the Left or the Right. Her job is only to make sure that they are true.

Also, she asserts, it is not her business to investigate the motives of the people who supply the information. There, again, I have to agree with her. Important information may sometimes emanate from quite disgusting sources. The public good may demand its publication nonetheless.

I am against the death penalty under any circumstances. I am also against torture. However, I have never seen any evidence that the Palestinian security services have executed Arab land-sale middlemen, though some may have been interrogated harshly.

There is a comic angle, too. Nawi is accused of having contacts with foreign agents, a crime that equals espionage. Which foreign agents? The security services of the Palestinian Authority, under the command of Mahmoud Abbas. Yet only a few days ago the Israeli security service disclosed that the two security services – the Israeli and the Palestinian – work closely together to prevent Arab “terrorism” and that many Israeli lives have been saved this way. So when are the Palestinian services enemies, contact with whom is such a serious crime?

Another question concerns the disclosure that extreme right-wing organizations, financed by foreign (Jewish-American) donors, are conducting widespread secret espionage activities against Israeli activists. How come the Shin-Bet doesn’t know about this – or if they do know, why do they keep it secret?

One thing is certain: Israeli politics is becoming uglier by the day. The gap between left and right is turning into a gulf of hatred. The right-wing uses methods that remind me of what I saw as a child in 1933 Germany.