The Paris-style 14 January 2016 assault by pro-IS militants in the heart of Jakarta is a game-changer. Indonesia’s leaders are closing ranks as the Jokowi government pursues a long-term response amid the growing IS threat in the region.

By Yang Razali Kassim*

Sarinah at Thamrin, Indonesia’s oldest shopping plaza in Jakarta, is just next to a Starbucks café – a popular meeting place for yuppies, expatriates and others – that became the target of an audacious suicide bomb-and-gun assault by militants on 14 January 2016. Indonesian supporters of Islamic State (IS) claimed responsibility, with police linking them to an emergent loose alliance of nine cells called the Jamaah Ansharut Daulah (JAD).

Immediate public reaction, however, showed that the brazen attacks only succeeded to alienate Jakarta’s population. Shocked Indonesians took to social media to show defiance with hastags such as #KamiTidakTakut” (WeAreNotAfraid). The same week, a local public opinion poll showed 95 percent of those interviewed nation-wide rejected IS and its methods.

Strategic location

Why did the militants attack the Starbucks cafe and a nearby police post when they could have chosen other malls? Jakarta city’s police chief Tito Karnavian pointed to two key targets – symbols of Westernism and the state security apparatus, especially the police.

Strategically located at Jalan Thamrin, a major boulevard, the two targets lie in the heart of Jakarta Pusat (the “Navel of Jakarta”). They are within a 20-minute drive to a number of prominent sites – the US, French and other embassies; a United Nations office; international media hubs; and government buildings. Indeed, within the same radius from Sarinah are the Ritz Carlton and JW Marriott hotels which were bombed in 2009. As any of these places could be within their reach, the attackers were perhaps indicating that the assault in Jalan Thamrin was just the beginning.

Unprecedented in scope and tactics, the attacks took terrorist violence in Indonesia to a new level. Prior to this, the modus operandi was largely by suicide bombings – the 2002 Bali bomb blasts; the 2004 car bomb outside the Australian embassy; the 2005 triple bombs in Bali; and the 2009 twin bomb attacks on JW Marriott and Ritz Carlton hotels.

A new ball-game

This time, it was a combination of suicide bombings and gunfire – a simultaneous, coordinated and multi-targeted assault, reportedly involving even a bike-mounted offensive. Perhaps this was the “konser” (concert) that the militants had referred to in a coded threat. Four attackers were killed while six more who were directly involved were arrested in subsequent police raids. In terms of body count, the attacks were, however, seen as a failure. But it has also exposed Jakarta’s vulnerability to urban terrorist assault ala Mumbai and Paris.

Officials close to the palace told RSIS Commentary that the attackers were second-liners after the first team had been neutralised following pre-emptive police strikes prior to Christmas and New Year’s Day. “We were lucky that the second team were amateurish,” says Atmadji Sumarkidjo, special assistant to the Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs.

Greenlight for the attacks was apparently given by Aman Abdurrahman, the jailed spiritual leader of JAD, also known as Jamaah Ansharut Khalifah Daulah Nusantara (JAKDN). Aman directed through Bahrun Naim, whom police alleged as the mastermind of the Thamrin assault. One of the dead militants – Suhakim (or ‘Afif’) – had visited Aman in jail for ‘blessings’. Bahrun Naim, believed to be in Syria, has a bigger ambition of setting up an IS ‘province’ in Southeast Asia, covering not just Indonesia but also Southern Philippines, Southern Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore. According to a well-placed source, Bahrun Naim had also set sights on a possible attack in Singapore. “For him, Singapore is like a prize to be won,” says this source.

Indonesian national police chief Badrodin Haiti says the pro-IS network has a core of four Indonesian leaders – Bahrumsyah, Bahrun Naim and Salim Mubarok At-Tamimi or Abu Jandal, led by Aman Abdurrahman as amir (leader) and ideologue. The Syria-based Bahrumsyah allegedly funded the attacks by sending back one billion rupiah (US$72,000). A fifth member linked to Aman is Santoso.

JAKDN was formed in March last year, comprising supporters of IS from Southeast Asia for the Syrian front. According to the police chief, JAKDN brings together nine hitherto disparate groups – essentially amounting to a loose network of IS-inspired cells. Media reports say JAD/JAKDN’s adviser is Abu Bakar Ba’asyir but this has been denied by Ba’asyir’s lawyers.

Jakarta’s three-pronged response

The Thamrin attacks have jolted Indonesia’s political elite into unprecedented cohesion and action. Within days, the government of President Joko Widodo and the fractious legislative branch closed ranks to reform the currently weak anti-terror law by giving it effective preventive powers. The legislative changes look set to be passed soon, notwithstanding whimpers of concern by some groups over possible abuse. This is the first significant change.

The second big move forthcoming is closer coordination of three domestic intelligence bodies and the creation of a fourth – Badan Siber Nasional (National Cyber Agency). The three existing ones are the national intelligence agency Badan Inteligen Nasional (BIN); the military intelligence unit Badan Intelijen Strategis (BAIS); and the police’s counter-terrorism arm Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Terrorisme (BNPT).

The third response – directly relevant to Indonesia’s neighbours – is closer cooperation and coordination between Jakarta and the regional intelligence agencies, as alluded to by the coordinating minister this week. Backed by the United States, Indonesia has secured the support of Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines, with Thailand still pending. Overarching this will be closer personal links and communication amongst the region’s top leadership which Jakarta wants to forge, given their common and growing threat from IS and its affiliates.

Can Jokowi carry the ground?

The effectiveness of Indonesia’s counter response to the 14 January Thamrin assault ultimately depends on the leadership of President Joko Widodo, currently hampered by his limited political base despite his popularity. He needs to win over the hostile parliament to push through reforms of the anti-terrorism law.

His political battle to strengthen his minority government seems to be succeeding as more parties from that bloc have either crossed over or plan to do so following his wooing. The game-changer will be Golkar, which is now patching up a major split between two rival factions. Over the weekend, the faction led by Aburizal Bakrie hinted of repositioning Golkar as a government supporter – without leaving the non-governing coalition.

The political ground is moving towards a stronger Jokowi government in the face of a growing threat from IS. This will have implications for Indonesia’s neighbours as well. What President Jokowi needs now is the full support of the Muslim community. He has a headstart as the two biggest Islamic movements – Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah – may be behind him. Yet another game-changer could emerge should both groups break new ground by jointly leading the mainstream counter-narrative that IS, fundamentally, is antithetical to Islam.

*Yang Razali Kassim is Senior Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

By Mohammed Rasooldeen

Saudi Arabia’s oil giant expects oil prices to climb toward the end of the year, saying the current price of around $30 a barrel is not sustainable.

Saudi Aramco’s CEO Amin Nasser, speaking Tuesday at the 9th Global Competitiveness Forum, said there are indications that demand for oil picked up last year and that the gap between supply and demand has been shrinking, which could drive prices up.

Nasser would not give a precise price range. He said: “Our prediction is we will see some adjustment,” though not a return to the $100 barrel range of two years ago.

Brent crude, a benchmark for international oils, was trading Tuesday at $31.13 a barrel in London.

Meanwhile, Housing Minister Majed Al-Hogail said 1.5 million housing units would be built throughout the Kingdom in the next seven years.

Al-Hogail was taking part in a panel discussion on “Low oil, high growth: Prospering in a low-oil era,” at the forum which concluded on Tuesday.

He said currently there is a need for about 1.5 million units, which are expected to be completed in seven years. He stressed that the ministry is currently working out details to provide affordable prices for the houses by benefiting from the low cost of building materials.

“We call on local and international real estate to pump in more investment for the housing projects which will demand some SR1.5 trillion during the next five years.” He said low oil prices would not affect the housing program in the Kingdom.

In a separate session, Education Minister Ahmed Al-Issa said his ministry plans to privatize some government schools, which would be run by establishments managed by academics. He was delivering the keynote address on “Perspectives on education in Saudi Arabia.”

He elaborated: “The selected public schools will run as independent institutions managed by small or medium-sized economic institutions headed by qualified educationists. The facilities, services, curriculum and the tutorial staff will be in accordance with the guidelines of the Ministry of Education.”

He pointed out that the ministry is working through three basic approaches to reform the education system in the country, which targets the student, the community and the country in general.

By Terence Chong*

Last year was one of retrospection and affirmation for Singapore. Marking the country’s 50th year of independence, 2015 saw a year-long series of state-sponsored events and projects to celebrate the nation’s achievements.
The effect was a carefully choreographed campaign — known as SG50 — that indulged in widespread nostalgia, popular heritage and the re-telling of the country’s journey from a developing to a developed nation. It could have all easily been reduced to kitsch if not for the passing of Lee Kuan Yew on 23 March 2015. The death of the single most dominant personality in Singapore’s postcolonial politics had a profound impact on ordinary Singaporeans, many of whom may not have been his admirers.

While Lee’s passing had no real impact on politics or the economy — itself a testimony to his legacy — it had a sobering impact on Singaporeans who had taken the country’s achievements for granted. The media continuously played old footage of Lee through various stages of the country’s development and this seemed to crystalise, for many Singaporeans, the trajectory of trials and accomplishments taken by the older generations. The result of this was the replacement of a triumphalist and sometimes superficial celebratory tone of SG50 events by a more reflective mood and a deeper appreciation for the founding fathers who steered the country towards global city status.

If Lee’s passing evoked retrospection, the general elections held on 11 September 2015 was a definitive affirmation of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). The PAP won an unexpected 69.9 per cent of the popular vote. But why did they win this big?

The government’s slew of left-leaning redistributive policies like the Pioneer Generation Package and Medishield Life enabled it to take the wind out of opposition proposals. The PAP had managed to appear more consultative with national projects like the Singapore Conversation and it also made the effort to be more responsive to grassroots concerns. Most importantly, the electorate chose to reward the incumbent for its policy changes since 2011, rather than crediting the opposition for pressuring the government into making these changes.

POLITICS IN SINGAPORE

What does the result say about Singapore’s democratic ambitions? The high 69.9 per cent vote for the PAP suggests that the journey towards a stronger and more credible opposition is not important to most Singaporeans. They seem instead to be contented with a PAP- dominated landscape and a small opposition presence in parliament, and perhaps even with the risk of this disappearing. The transactional relationship of goods and services delivery and electoral reward comes across most vividly, while the desire for political pluralism seems to have been overstated.

Meanwhile, the main opposition party, the Workers’ Party (WP), like the rest of the opposition, suffered an erosion of vote share. Moving forward, it will have to ensure its new candidates, especially its Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, stand out in policy debates in order to gain the trust and respect of the electorate. It will also have to readjust its ideological position of left-of-centre in light of the PAP’s shift to the same position, in order to distinguish itself from the incumbent. There may be little room for manoeuvre between newly implemented redistributive policies and the fear that the country may stray into populist politics. The party will seek to remain nimble and continue to build a strong grassroots presence in the constituencies it runs.

No doubt the PAP’s strong mandate will see it pushing through less popular policies in the term ahead. But the stellar election results come with pressure to perform. There will be higher expectations from the electorate on the delivery of goods and affluence.

A key pressure point will be increased calls for more redistributive and populist policies, and critical reading of the ability of the younger generation of politicians who may not enjoy the stature of senior leaders to resist them. Many will be watching very closely, and judging, the performance of the fourth generation leadership.

CHALLENGES: THE ECONOMY

This comes against a backdrop of economic uncertainty. China’s economic development has been a key driver of regional growth, providing demand for commodities and other goods. However, China’s declining appetite for commodities and its stock market volatility have dented economies around the world. The economic slowdown is in itself not unexpected after years of unparalleled growth. The key question is whether the world’s second largest economy will stabilise to a respectable 6 or 7 percent; go down to 3 to 4 percent; or lower.2 Naturally economies that will feel the most impact are those that have banked on China’s hunger for raw materials and other products. In Southeast Asia, Singapore may be the hardest hit. It has been estimated that a single percentage point drop in China’s economic growth could wipe off 1.4 percentage points from Singapore’s.3 China is Singapore’s largest export destination with almost 15 per cent of total shipment. Other countries like Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam will be less affected.

This slower growth may manifest itself in several ways.4 Firstly, the macro-economy may suffer if the external demand for manufactured goods dries up. This, however, is unlikely to be as severe as the 2008 crisis because US and European demand for Singapore non-oil exports is approximately 35 per cent, while China’s hovers around 15 per cent. Nonetheless, as China’s slowdown will affect almost all other economies in the region and elsewhere, the expected decrease in purchasing power of those economies would indirectly affect Singapore’s export volume.

In addition, Singapore’s inward foreign direct investment (FDI) flows account for more than 70 per cent of the gross fixed capital formation. Although the share of Chinese FDI in Singapore’s total FDI is low at around 2.5 per cent compared to the US and the EU at 25 and 19 per cent respectively, modest adverse impact will be felt in export-based manufacturing.

Thirdly, Singapore is highly exposed to the global economy especially in sectors like communication (transport and logistics) and tourism (China is the second largest source of tourists for Singapore). Income in these sectors and related ones like Food and Beverages and hotels may suffer.

Fourthly, the financial sector may be impacted as well. Banks will be more careful in lending while the slowdown will also affect the currency and the capital market given the erosion of consumer and investor confidence. This erosion of confidence may extend to the property market, affecting property developers and owners.

Finally, the labour market may experience adjustment pains. The consequences of China’s slowdown may come in the form of job loss or, on extreme, in a temporary reduction in the number of working days. The main source of unemployment will be the manufacturing sector. Self-employed workers and those in goods and services sectors supplying the big firms may also be affected. This could exert downward pressure on wages.

CHALLENGES: SOCIAL SHIFTS AND CONTESTATION

On a societal level there are three challenges to watch. The first two are not new but are likely to become more important.

The first is the integration of new citizens and foreign workers with ordinary Singaporeans. There is a strong chance that the government will ease immigration controls in the near future to bolster economic growth when the shock of China’s slowdown subsides. This may not be popular but the government’s strong mandate will stiffen its resolve to implement this longer-term policy. There is likely to be more friction between immigrants and citizens over mundane issues like public behaviour and social etiquette. Frictions are already evident on the internet and could easily spill over into the real world with increased immigration.

Ironically, one of the main attractions for foreigners moving to Singapore – its multicultural ethos – is the very pillar Singaporeans fear would be eroded. In the eyes of foreigners, the cultural diversity and traditions found in every corner of the island make it easier for their families to take root. Conversely, the influx of immigrants, especially, from China and India, does not augment the multicultural model many Singaporeans carry in their heads but rather, challenges it. For many, it is an ethnic model of Chinese, Malays, Indians and Eurasians, and it will take some time for it to accommodate those with strange accents and practices.

Ultimately, anti-immigrant anxieties are fuelled by two fears – that Singapore is exploited as a stepping stone to greener pastures and that citizens will be displaced economically and culturally by immigrants. These anxieties have not emerged from nowhere. The PAP government’s survivalist rhetoric over the decades has emphasised the island’s precarious nature and its lack of natural resources, thus laying the ground for national anxieties over material competition, the national and individual quest for excellence, precarious national existence, and national duties and sacrifices. Balancing the need for economic growth and integration will be a long term challenge.

The second challenge is the growing stridency of conservative Christians over public morality issues such as homosexuality and censorship. In the past two years alone conservative Christians have lobbied for the removal of children’s books that dwelt on alternative families from public libraries, protested LGBT events like the Pink Dot and petitioned against the hosting of openly gay international artists. The government prefers not to intervene in matters pertaining to morality, so such protests are likely to grow shriller.

The two forms of Christian conservatism to look out for are, firstly, inciting panic over declining moral standards in society, and; secondly, civil society activism where Christians mobilise themselves through social media. In addition to conventional tactics such as petitions or traditional fund-raising, they will adopt the vocabulary of capitalism and corporate-speak to expand their networks and influence. For the moment as long as they rally against public morality or liberal lifestyle issues, conservative Christians will find silent concurrence with conservatives from other faiths such as the Muslim community. The question is what will happen when one faith begins to encroach on the other?

More fundamentally, the country is witnessing a significant change in family structures. There has been a decrease in nuclear families, defined as a couple living with their parents or their children, from 56 per cent in 2000 to 49 per cent in 2014.5 And there has been a significant increase in one-person households, from 3 per cent in 2000 to 11 per cent of all households in 2014. There are now approximately 300,000 households that are either childless or do not have their children living with them. Trends such as increased divorce rates, separation and childless marriages have contributed to these figures.

What these figures mean is that families are shrinking mainly because married couples are having fewer or no children. It also means that these couples are less likely to be living with their elderly parents than before. With the rising number of divorced couples and unmarried individuals, more people are living alone. These different family structures mean that there is no longer an ideal or model ‘nuclear family’ in Singapore, thus demanding a more flexible concept of ‘family’ beyond parents and their biological children. Such a concept may have to be flexible enough to, on the one hand, be expanded to include extended family members or relatives such cousins, aunts or uncles, while on the other, narrowed to capture childless couples or people living alone. The fundamental questions that need to be asked are what now constitutes a typical family in Singapore and how policies will be redesigned to address the changing social reality?

About the author:
* Terence Chong is Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the Regional Social and Cultural Studies Programme; email: terencechong@iseas.edu.sg.

Source:
This article was published by ISEAS as ISEAS Perspective 2016 Number 4 (PDF).

Notes:
1 A shorter version of this article can be found at East Asia Forum: (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/01/02/singapores-shifting-social-landscape/).
2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/11/chinas-slowdown-financial- mayhem-cast-long-shadow-across-world/ (accessed 12 Jan 2016)
3 http://www.straitstimes.com/business/economy/chinas-slowdown-will-hit-singapore-hardest-anz- warns (accessed 12 Jan 2016)
4 The author is grateful to Sanchita Basu Das for earlier discussions on the economy.
5 http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/changing-singapore-family-and-what-it-spells-for-the- future (accessed 12 Jan 2016)

By Elise Harris

On Tuesday Pope Francis met with Iranian president Hassan Rouhani for the first time, an encounter that focused heavily on human rights, religious freedom, and an end to the spread of terrorism.

Originally scheduled to take place in November, Rouhani’s visit was canceled at the last minute due to the Nov. 13, 2015, attacks in Paris. It also follows the lifting of international sanctions against the country after a long-anticipated nuclear agreement was reached in July.

The Jan. 26 meeting between Francis the Iranian president took place in the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace, and lasted 40 minutes.

Rouhani was accompanied by a delegation of 12 persons, all of whom were men save an Iranian woman who served as one of two interpreters assisting during the encounter. Rouhani spoke in Farsi, while Pope Francis spoke in Italian.

A Vatican communique described the meeting between Francis and Rouhani as cordial, and centered largely on relations between the Holy See and Iran, the life of the Church in the country, and the actions of the Holy See in promoting the dignity of the human person and religious freedom.

Though no mention was explicitly made of Iran’s role in the Syrian and Iraq conflicts, the topic was likely a key point of discussion, as well as the condition of Christians across the Middle East.

However, the Vatican communique did note that Iran’s important role in the region in promoting “suitable political solutions to the problems afflicting the Middle East, to counter the spread of terrorism and arms trafficking” was spoken about, as well that of other countries.

“In this respect, the parties highlighted the importance of interreligious dialogue and the responsibility of religious communities in promoting reconciliation, tolerance and peace,” the communique said.

Discussion also touched on the conclusion and application of the recently-agreed to Nuclear Accord. After months of negotiation representatives of the United States, Iran, and other nations met in Vienna in July, reaching a long-awaited deal aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear activity in exchange for the lifting of international economic sanctions.

Nuclear-related sanctions on Iran were lifted on the condition that country abides by the framework set, however, sanctions related to terrorism, human rights abuses and ballistic missiles remain.

Rouhani’s meeting with Pope Francis is part of a larger European tour that will also take him to Paris, and marks the first time an Iranian president or head of government has visited Europe since 1999.

As is customary during papal encounters with heads of state, both Francis and Rouhani exchanged gifts once their conversation was over.

Pope Francis gifted the Iranian president a large medal of St. Martin cutting off part of his cloak to give to a poor man, telling him, “it’s a sign of brotherhood.”

The Pope also gave Rouhani copies of his 2015 encyclical on the care for our common home, Laudato si’. Since it hasn’t yet been translated into Farsi, Francis gave the president copies in both Arabic and English.

For his part the Iranian president gave Francis a large tapestry, which he explained “was made by hand in the holy city of Qom,” which sits just southwest of the Iranian capital, Tehran. He also gave the Pope a large book with colorful illustrations.

As the two were headed to the door, Francis thanked Rouhani for the visit, and said that “I hope for peace.” In turn, the Iranian president asked the Pope for prayers.

After speaking with the Pope, Rouhani subsequently met with the Vatican’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, as well as the Secretary of Relations with the States, Archbishop Paul Gallagher.

Vladimir Putin entered Syria in an attempt to bolster his domestic popularity and demonstrate Russia’s military adequacy- while also containing its rivals in the Middle East.

The Russian military operation in Syria launched at the end of September 2015 has so far raised a variety of opinions regarding the true reasons behind it, as well as what consequences it may bear for Russia. Since the Ukrainian crisis, Russia has become substantially alienated from the West while triggering economic sanctions that have already exerted a grave impact on the energy-dependent Russian economy. This article aims to address the increasingly unpredictable regime in Russia and the barely clear conundrum of forces and interests in Syria.

Few observers believe the Kremlin’s official line that Russian military intervention stemmed solely from a desire to destroy ISIS, which had become the ultimate security threat to both Russia and the West due to the latter’s anemic response to the Islamic State`s territorial and ideological expansion. Russia has not been more successful than others in destroying the militants. In fact, the map of bombardments by the Russian air force draws a picture of more or less indiscriminate targeting of almost all Sunni-based opposition groups, be they radical, moderately Islamic or even declaring adherence to the secular ideology (as the Free Syrian Army does) – as long as they fight President Assad who has steadfastly claimed to remain “Syria’s legitimate president”. The tactical use of combating ISIS — a group whose barbaric atrocities made it universally despised around the world — is a cover for more complex and cynical goals.

Vladimir Putin undoubtedly pursued both domestic and external factors when entering Syria. Among the factors addressed domestically in Russia was the failure to gain considerable success in the proxy war in eastern Ukraine. The rebels were held back and in the end had to acquiesce to the conditions of the Minsk Accords, which though unable to reintegrate the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk republics into the Ukrainian state de-facto, marginalized them despite Russia-nurtured plans to spread the ideology of “Novorossiya” and undermine the very idea of Ukrainian statehood.

Thus the regime that is increasingly relying on controlling the minds of the “silent majority” of Russians through the personal appeal of Vladimir Putin for its longevity badly needed to bolster the public morale by engaging in yet another military campaign abroad. Syria, where the prospects for the end of the conflict look increasingly vague, is the ideal ground for such a move — an opportunity for Russia to punch above its weight at little cost. It is vital to understand the Moebius ribbon-like structure of Putin’s policies — both domestic and foreign dimensions thereof stem from the ultimate goal of preserving and consolidating unchallenged power over the biggest country on Earth.

That’s why the Kremlin’s ideological machine has tried, though with a less zeal compared to the Ukrainian hybrid war, to sell the campaign as driven by “the duty to protect the land vital for Orthodox Christianity”. Moscow-based Patriarch Kirill even claimed Syria to be a part of the “Russkiy mir” (Russian world).

Some Russian historians went even further by drawing historical parallels: Russians were among those who saved the Byzantine Emperor Roman III from Arab captivity at Aleppo in 1030. Alawites (to which the Assad family belongs to) of Latakia and Tartus attempted to swear allegiance to Russian Empress Catherine II in 1770. Czar Nicholas I waged the Crimean War in the 1850s under the pretext of protecting Christians in Holy Land, then part of the Ottoman Empire.

Indeed, Putin’s approval rating enjoyed record levels following the annexation of Crimea and during the ongoing intervention in Ukraine’s domestic affairs to protect Russians and Russian-speaking. And it has not suffered much because of the Syrian campaign.The “Collector of Russian lands” has become an icon, whom the Russians consider the sole power to resist American expansionism all over the world.

Besides these internal reasons, Putin’s major goal was undoubtedly to demonstrate to Western powers its revived might and to raise Russia as a superpower in global affairs again. As no Western powers have thus far deployed any ground forces there, Russia is also likely to restrict its operation to aerial strikes. The latest developments have shown that this strategy is tactically rather effective, as the rhetoric used by the US State Secretary John Kerry during his latest visit to Moscow suggests. He stated “a considerable improvement” in the mutual understanding between Russia and the West on the matter of Syria and acknowledged the vital role Moscow is to play in the conflict resolution process. It should also be noted that Putin was definitely keen to demonstrate Russia’s military prowess in the face of harsh critique of its technical deficiencies against its great power claims. His rather cynical remark that likened Syria to a training ground for Russian pilots1 makes it quite obvious.

Russia definitely aspires to preserve President Assad’s place in a would-be solution to the Syrian conflict. Putin, whose view of the global politics has been profoundly shaped by the realities of the Cold War era, sees Assad’s regime as the necessary guarantor of continuing Russian presence in the region — and all the more so after the relations with Turkey deteriorated badly and a Sunni alliance hostile to the Russian interests in the region, took shape.

In fact, Russia’s strategic long-term interests do not oblige it to stick to its traditional Shia-secular allies in the region, Iran and Syria. It had enjoyed, before the unfortunate accident with the Su-24 over the Turkish-Syrian border, years of unprecedentedly fruitful cooperation with Turkey; the recent softening of the Western stance towards Iran has urged the Saudis to question its allegiance to the strategic alliance with the US and to diversify Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical portfolio. Thus, Russia could be in a rather good position to challenge the regional status-quo had it not been so opposed to the aforementioned countries’ support of the Syrian rebels and their attempts to end Assad’s rule. Moreover, the undiplomatic and awkward measures taken after the plane incident made it almost impossible to restore the normal relationships for years ahead.

Many experts claim that the Syrian campaign was necessary for Russia to distract the world from the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Indeed, Ukraine gradually slid off Western radar for a while. Although Putin might be interested in having control of Mediterranean ports of Syria while preserving Assad in power, he wants the world’s eyes off of Ukraine, to put the focus on Syria, then normalize Donbas” as U.S. Air Force General Philip Breedlove notes2.

Despite Putin’s rhetoric on fighting ISIS in Syria as a pretext for invasion, the Russians apparently aim to weaken American influence in the region. Putin might have also hoped to get support from the Muslim masses given strong anti-American and anti-Western mood in Islamic countries. Russian politicians have been accusing the United States and its allies for intervening in the Middle East since 2003 Iraq campaign and causing chaos and instability in the region during and in the aftermath of Arab Spring. In this context, the Russians – both the regime and common people – sincerely believe they are the only power that can bring the long-desired order and stability to the region.

Their reasoning, however apparently stems from the utterly false assumption that the internal strife in the Middle Eastern countries is a product of direct Western interference and encouragement- and thus Russia is likely to grossly overestimate the appeal of narrowly understood status-quo and pre-Arab Spring order to ordinary Arabs, however keen the latter may be to see the end of the bloody mayhem.

Therefore, it is possible to conclude that while Syrian campaign may indeed fulfill its tactical functions, it cannot add to Russia’s geopolitical credentials in the long term. First of all, the unequivocal support of the Assad regime is likely to be met with disapproval by most regional and Western powers, as information about big civilian casualties inflicted by Russian strikes, will spread. It can also exacerbate Russia’s isolation in the Middle East.

Russia had already found itself ostracized from the elite club following the annexation of Crimea and support of the Donbass separatists, and which is worse, the country finds itself with no true allies – even the CSTO member-states do not fully support Russia, or do provide their support mainly in token form. Despite desperate attempts of Russian diplomats to set up an international alliance“ similar to the anti-Hitler coalition”, the Western countries avoided having any deal with Russia. Persuading François Hollande, who was seeking vengeance in the aftermath of Paris terror attacks, did not produce any results either.The only country that wholeheartedly endorses Russia’s policies, Iran, will soon start to export its oil to the West as the embargo is officially lifted3, likely contributing to the further downfall of oil prices and exacerbating Russian economic recession, and thus is not an obvious long-term partner. Yet it will be very difficult for Moscow to restore its relationships with the major Sunni countries, which now tend to demonstrate solidarity under the Saudi aegis against the pressing security challenges. Thus, for Putin the Syrian campaign may well be described with Lenin’s definition: “one step forward, two steps back”.

Notes:
1. https://russian.rt.com/article/137290
2. http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-nato-chief-syria-deployment-distraction-ukraine/27336284.html
3. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-europe-rouhani-idUSKCN0V20ON

It was a calculated risk. In 2007, Manmohan Singh had dared to dream of having breakfast in Amritsar, lunch in Lahore and dinner in Kabul. But, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi made it happen by dropping in for tea with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on December 25th2015 while returning from a two-day visit to Afghanistan.

For the world’s media, the bonhomie was associated with Christmas and the year-end celebrations. They missed the most important: It was Nawaz Sharif’s birthday and that of Atal Bihari Vajpayee – the last Indian leader to have met a Pakistani Prime Minister.

It was a favor being returned. Nawaz Sharif had displayed charismatic statesmanship by accepting Narendra Modi’s invitation on May 26th 2014 as a leap of faith against hardliners and India-baiters in Pakistan. So, when, in a telephonic conversation with Mr Modi who had called to wish him on his 66th birthday, Mr Sharif invited him to Lahore, Mr Modi accepted. And, the 150-minute meeting that happened in a flurry was received graciously by both nations. It only underlines the reasons; the Indian public brought Narendra Modi to power in such an overwhelming manner. India’s PM has an out-of-the-box thinking that could only help manoeuvre India-Pakistan’s relations towards normalcy.

And, just as Mr Vajpayee’s attempts to further peace with Sharif in 1999 were sabotaged by the Pakistan Army Chief Parvez Musharraf who invaded the de-facto border to launch a blitzkrieg on Kargil, comes the attack on the Air Force base at Pathankot. While then, Nawaz Sharif’s efforts to sack Musharraf led to a military coup, installation of Musharraf as President and the exile of Sharif till 2007, today Nawaz Sharif finds himself in a not-so-unique position. The attack on Pathankot was expected.

During a speech to the Afghan Parliament on the same day, Mr Modi bluntly said, “Afghanistan will succeed only when terrorism no longer flows across the border, when nurseries and sanctuaries of terrorism are shut. Terror and violence cannot be the instrument to shape Afghanistan’s future or dictate the choices Afghans make.” And, just like Vajpayee, Mr Modi extracted a promise ofcooperation from Pakistan in the global fight against terrorism. Mr Modi’s stand on terror has been resolute.

Meanwhile, at the highest levels, the Indian side has been informed that the Pathankot attack was carried out with the full knowledge of the Pakistan Army Chief General Raheel Sharif. India’s intelligence agencies feel that the Pakistan army is not fully on board with Nawaz Sharif’s efforts to forge peace with India.At a meeting recently, Gen Raheel Sharif reportedly told Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif that he was free to pursue talks with PM Modi if he wanted, but the Pakistan army will take no action against Pakistan-based terrorists who were operating against Indian interests.

The Western-dominated international community has been predictably silent on the issue. Why, even Musharraf was never held to account by the community for his Kargil misadventure that thwarted the most promising bilateral diplomacy in decades, nor for his military coup, nor for his double dealings in Afghanistan.

Pakistan was carved on the premise that Muslims of the sub-continent could not co-exist with Hindus. The existence of a Muslim-majority Kashmir as an Indian state clashes directly with the core identity of Pakistan. However, India’s core identity that includes secularism does not permit losing its only Muslim-majority province – Kashmir, as that would thwart India’s very foundation.

Now, while the Pathankot attack has been reduced to a hush, the threat for India stays…and so does the threat for Sharif. While departing from diplomatic channels and cabinet decision-making, Mr Modi displayed informal grace and demystified the whole gamut of ‘bilateral relationships’ and pushed home the fact that not all ‘talks’ are summits that end with substantial outcomes. Mr Modi was welcomed at Lahore airport by Sharif who hugged him before the two walked hand in hand on the red carpet from the plane to a waiting helicopter to fly to Sharif’s home. Mr Modi gave a Indian dress to the bride – Sharif’s grand-daughter – as a wedding gift too. It was a summit of sorts. A summit of relationship building…of a bonhomie that wasn’t conditional…not on Kashmir, religion, territory, power or terror.

While the world watches the two neighbouring states scuffle and fight, these two leaders stand tall towering above all differences that are reduced to a naught.

In engaging the world’s leaders in general and India’s neighbours, in particular, right from the onset at the installation of his government on May 26th2014 when he invited South Asian leaders till date, during which he travelled extensively, bridging differences and building ties…he hits terror the worst. It’s the groups who thrive on hate, instability and bickering who buffer the blow to terror which concurrently flourishes.

Mr Modi knows that and works endlessly to uproot it…in a manner only he can.

When around 50 students were stopped from boarding a United States-bound flight at Hyderabad, which incidentally sends in the highest number of students to the US for higher studies, it made news in India.

Being deported or stopped from boarding a US-bound flight has been a regular occurrence and has always be met with deep-rooted servility, and also has not been considered worthy of being published. After all, going to the US was always an achievement of sorts. And that view: “There must have been some issue with our people…” would pervade. So, a rap on the knuckles for trying to enter into the US, however legally, would be met with little or no resistance.

This time around, however, things were different. India took umbrage.

“We were treated badly by the US officials. Even after confirming I had all documents in place, they said I cannot be allowed into the US. They gave me the option of withdrawing the visa or said they could cancel it, barring my entry into the US for five years,” said a student, while others and their family members were left furious over the on-going fracas and the “embarrassment and insult” they have to suffer.

Apparently, one section of the US administration — Customs and Border Protection — refused to honor the visa given by the other — the US Consulate. This underlines the fact that a visa issued was not a guarantee for US entry. What is important is that immigration officials at the port of entry should be satisfied with the intent of one’s visit leaving it open to subjective interpretation and discretion which would almost always be arbitrary.

The Indian government swiftly sought an explanation from the US on why so many Indian students with valid visas were denied entry into the country and took up this matter with the US government.

“We have asked the US authorities to explain the reasons for denial of entry on a large scale to Indian students holding valid visas. The response of the US Government is awaited,” said the Ministry of External Affairs.

Concurrently and in a similarly tough tone, India warned the US of consequences for its companies if lawmakers tighten visa rules on high-tech firms as part of an immigration overhaul. India perceives a decision to restrict certain temporary visas for skilled workers as a sign that the US economy is becoming less open for business.

Taking an aggressive stand, probably for the first time after the Khobragade imbroglio, India has underlined the fact that the US can’t treat it lightly as in the past. In 2015, international students contributed more than $30.5 billion to the US economy and India’s role was colossal. In the 2014-15 academic year, 1,32,888 Indian students were studying in the US, up 29.4 percent from the previous year. India held the second leading place of origin for students coming to the US and comprises 13.6 per cent of the total international students in the US. In 2015, Indian students in US colleges and universities contributed $3.6 billion to the economy.

India had been the leading place of origin for international students in the US for eight years from 2001-02 through 2008-09. In 2009-10, China replaced India as the top sender and remains in that position today. The number of Indian students in the US is more than double of what it was in 1999-2000.

Now, let’s examine the role of China. In all 3,04,040 students from China are studying in the US today. The number is up 10.8 percent from the previous year. China remains the leading place of origin for students coming to the US for the sixth year in a row and makes 31.2 percent of international students studying in the US. In 2015, Chinese students in US colleges and universities contributed $9.8 billion to the US economy.

The Indian Diaspora particularly comprising students, has grown from strength to strength. Now, in particular, no foreign nation – however powerful – can afford to take India lightly. With purchasing power on the rise coupled with the newly-fangled tough-speak and positivity, India has arrived. In 2014, over 3,00,000 Indian students went abroad for further studies as did more than 6,50,000 students from China. Though the number of students going abroad is higher in China, India has shown a 10 percent increase as compared to China’s 8 percent. Almost 85 percent of Indian students going abroad to study head to US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Now, let’s examine the viability options for India where students from the US are concerned. India isn’t a preferred choice for US students to study abroad. A US student is likely to opt for UK, Italy, Spain, France, China and so on before considering India, which comes 12th in terms of hosting US students. In the academic year 2013-2014, only 4,583 students – a meagre 1.5 per cent of total students who leave the U.S. to study abroad – came to study in India and fetched a pittance by way of contribution to the Indian economy. Compare that to the whopping $3.6 billion, Indian students contributed to the US economy in 2015. Stopping them en route seems like shooting oneself in the foot.

Even as Bernie Sanders’ insurgent “democratic socialist” campaign for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination is really starting to look like it might actually succeed, with polls now showing him ahead of Hillary Clinton in both the earliest primary states, Iowa and New Hampshire, and with Republicans engaged in a circular firing squad where all the people with guns are nut-jobs of one kind or another, making a Sanders presidency even seem possible, we read that former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg is contemplating running for the White House as an independent candidate.

Now while the idea of a mega-billionaire as president may be a sick joke, Bloomberg’s running for president on his own tab (he’s ready to spend $1 billion of his own money) is no joke at all. With Forbes magazine listing his current worth as $36.8 billion at the start of this year, he is the eighth richest man in America, just behind Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and just ahead of Jim Walton.

It is hard to think of a worse idea than having a smug, self-congratulatory billionaire – someone not just from the top 1% of the population but the top 0.01% — sitting at the top of government telling us all what to do, but I suppose in the interest of fairness we should tote up his pros and cons. So in memory of the departed but not forgotten TCBH! co-founder Chuck Young (see his 2010 article Where Mayor Mike Can Push His Poll [1]), here’s my list of five good and five bad things about having Bloomberg join the race for president as an obscenely wealthy independent candidate:

5. Good: Donald Trump, the likely GOP candidate at this point, will no longer be able to boast about his supposed business acumen. Forbes says Trump, no a self-made man but rather a trust-fund baby who got staked $1 million by his old man, is now worth $4.5 billion, making him only the 72nd richest man in America. That might seem a decent sum, but it’s just lunch money for Bloomberg ,who added more than that amount to his assets just over the past year, according to Forbes. And Bloomberg, who hails from an ordinary working family, made all his money himself (or rather, his employees made it for him), first in the securities industry and then with his Bloomberg financial information network.

Bad: Bloomberg is a tight bastard. During his three terms as mayor of New York, he allowed the New York public school system to sink into a funding black hole, as he tried to squeeze teacher salaries and pensions and to both close some schools and convert others to charter schools. The worst year was the Great Recession year of 2010-11, when revenues from the city budget for the city’s schools fell by 10.4% and from the state government, by 24.1%. Federal aid to New York City public schools was boosted that year by 1%, leaving the schools system short by 17%, or about $4.5 billion. Now maybe it wouldn’t be fair to have expected private real estate magnate Trump to turn over his whole nest egg to get the schools in his hometown through that one-year crisis, but Bloomberg in 2012 was worth a cool $25 billion according to Forbes. He could have funded the schools for the mostly impoverished kids of his city fully that school year and wouldn’t have evennoticed the difference.

4. Good: Bloomberg is 73 years old, just a year younger than Sanders, which should defuse the charge, made by mainstream pundits and no doubt soon by the 69-year-old died-blonde Trump, that that Sanders is too old to be president.

Bad: Bloomberg is impeccably groomed, and probably gets $200 haircuts regularly, which leaves both Trump and Sanders as the messy hair candidates.

3. Good: Bloomberg doesn’t have much love for The Donald, so Bernie won’t have to handle the whole job himself of attacking his Republican rival during the fall campaign.

Bad: Bloomberg has his own news service and an army of journalists on payroll, who no doubt will be called upon to churn out favorable articles about the boss. Sanders for his part can barely get mentioned in the corporate media, and when he does get mentioned, it’s usually in the form of hit pieces.

2. Good: Bloomberg treated the Occupy Wall Street abominably, no doubt because all his cronies are Wall Street bankers and investment bankers who were terrified by the rabble at their gates, and were annoyed at being discommoded by having to endure taunts from spikey-haired lip-ringed kids as they rode to “work” in their limos and by the need to cross police barricades that were blocking off the whole of Wall Street itself. This will give Sanders, who backed the Occupy movement, a great target. He’ll be able to rake Bloomberg, the uber-one-percenter, for calling out the NYPD thugs and loosing them on the protesting kids, for denying them portapotties near the Zuccotti Park occupation zone, and for finally crushing the movement with a night-time assault and police riot that featured clubs, tear gas, mace and mass arrests. (Bloomberg did the same thing earlier with protests against the Iraq invasion and with a march and demonstration against the Republican National Convention.)

Bad: If Bloomberg were somehow to win the presidency, we can expect even more military-style policing, more spying and fewer civil liberties. Mayor Mike may have a soft spot for gay rights and abortion rights, but he’s no fan of civil liberties.

1. Good: Bloomberg has all the charm and easy folksiness of a… robber baron. Looking like he’s badly constipated and just ate something bad when he’s in a group of plebes, he makes Bernie Sanders look positively charismatic in comparison.

Bad: He is a robber Barron, and he can and no doubt would pour endless amounts of his own money into an independent campaign, swamping both Trump’s funding and Sander’s funding – money that he could have put to much better use by donating it to the poor kids of the city’s cash-starved schools, as he should have done back in depths of the recession.

At least if Bloomberg does join the race, reporters like myself can have a field day exploring how Bloomberg managed to go from being worth $4.8 billion on January 1, 2002, when he took office as mayor, to being worth a staggering $27 billion when he left office at the end of 2013.

You really have to wonder how a supposedly full-time mayor of the country’s largest city managed to pull that off. Was he actually moonlighting at Bloomberg LLC through his three terms? Or is that simply how the super-rich get richer, i.e. by doing nothing?

By Luis Durani*

The Saudi Riyal has been pegged to the US Dollar for the past 30 years, but this may all soon change as the volatile oil markets will force them to abandon the fixed currency and devalue.

These types of mumblings have arisen before especially after the 2007/2008 subprime mortgage collapse. But this time the political and economic dynamics of the region have shifted and the Saudis will most likely uncouple their currency with the dollar. This devaluation is yet another battle in the long currency war that countries have been waging with each other since 2008.

What Has Happened So Far

Since 2014, the price of oil has dropped more than 60%, deemed to be one of the worst downturns in decades. When oil was at its peaks, new methods were being researched to help with its extraction. One of the most successful approaches was fracking. This method helped usher a new era for oil production. One of the consequences was that the US became an oil producer but the impact on global oil market would be devastating. Basic economic laws took hold, with an oversupply and weakening demand due to the languishing global economy, prices began to plummet.

Many initially thought the downturn was momentary and would be easily rectified by the Saudis, the largest holder of oil reserves. The Saudis could reduce production and prices would rise back up but instead they continued with full production. The Saudi intent was two-fold; regain market share rather than profits by making all other producers (mainly shale producers) go bankrupt and second coerce the Russians, whose national oil revenues comprise a large part of the state’s income, into some kind of bargain on Syria .

This policy backfired. The price of oil has dropped to levels that were not even contemplated by the Saudis and it is rattling their economy. They are beginning to experience large deficits. The Saudis have been forced to reel back their economic subsidies as well as implementing new taxes to close their budget deficits . The large foreign reserves that the Saudis have accumulated in the last several decades are being burned through in order to maintain the pegged Riyal’s value . Despite their large foreign reserves, the Saudis can sustain only a few years before a major currency crisis if it continues with the current fixed rate.

Currency Devaluation – Its Coming

At the moment, the Riyal is pegged at 3.75 to the Dollar. Ever since its introduction about 30 years ago, the fixed currency has been pivotal in safeguarding the Saudi economy from the fickleness of oil prices, which constitutes the overwhelming preponderance of the state’s income . Inflation is tightly controlled by tying the currency to US monetary policy. In addition, the pegged currency provides protection from the turbulent oil market by allowing the Saudi government to acquire copious amounts of foreign reserves when oil prices are high and protect it when oil prices drop.

But with the US Dollar growing stronger and the price of oil nose-diving, pressure is building on the Saudis to do something with the Riyal. Even though the Saudis have fared through similar currency issues before, tough times call for tough measures. A country usually devalues their currency for the following reasons:

• To Boost Exports – local products are made cheaper as the currency depreciates against other currencies
• Close the Trade Deficit – With a devalued currency, exports increase and imports will decrease resulting in a favor balance of payments
• Payoff Sovereign Debt – If a country issues lots of debt, a devalued currency allows the country to pay off the debt quicker over time

What Does it Mean

If the Saudis go forward with the devaluation, it will lead to further financial and political instabilities. But one major rationale for devaluation is the potential additional revenues the Saudis can achieve even in the current dismal oil market. Based on financial analysis, the Saudis require the minimum price of oil to be approximately $50-60 Dollars per barrel to ensure the nation’s budget remains balanced. But with oil prices dipping below $30 Dollars per barrel, the Saudis will be forced to take some sort of fiscal action soon. The oil revenues are denoted in US dollars but the nation’s internal monetary matters are handled in Riyals. Devaluating the Riyal would mean “more” national revenue, which would help remove the financial strain in the short-term.

For a country like Saudi Arabia to engage in a currency devaluation can be interpreted as an economic attack, which would result in other nations partaking in such tit for tat devaluations . Such an action will further slowdown the global economy. But the Saudis might not be worried about such retaliations, since the beginning of 2016; the Chinese economy has been off to an abysmal start. Many speculate that the Chinese will soon cease supporting its currency, the Yuan, and will engineer a currency devaluation itself . If that measure is taken, the Saudis will find themselves justified to remove the fixed rate and devalue the Riyal.

As oil prices continue to tumble, the Saudis find themselves cornered to make a pivotal choice, which will affect the trajectory of the region and potentially the world forever. The Saudis can either reduce oil supplies or devalue its currency. While the former option appears to be the simpler path, the Saudis appear to be reticent and gambling that the longer they hold out, the more market share they would receive. With a burgeoning deficit and rapidly decreasing foreign reserves, the only other option is to devalue the Riyal, which will set off an economic chain reaction. The currency war that started in 2008 appears to be entering a new phase as oil prices continue to tumble.

About the author:
*Luis Durani is currently employed in the oil and gas industry. He previously worked in the nuclear energy industry. He has a M.A. in international affairs with a focus on Chinese Foreign Policy and the South China Sea, MBA, M.S. in nuclear engineering, B.S. in mechanical engineer and B.A. in political science. He is also author of “Afghanistan: It’s No Nebraska – How to do Deal with a Tribal State.” Follow him for other articles on Instagram: @Luis_Durani

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy.

On January 11, 2016 you could scour the internet to your heart’s content, but nowhere would you find a single reference to the start of ceasefire talks between the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the forces rebelling against him.

Yet on December 11, 2015, after nearly five years of war that had killed more than 250,000 people and displaced millions, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2254, in which the Secretary General was asked to convene formal negotiations “on an urgent basis” between representatives of the Syrian government and the opposition on a political transition process. He was given a target of “early January” – taken by most media to mean one month – to have the talks up and running.

That the timetable for this first stage of the international agreement has slipped does not augur well for the other two, namely the establishment of a “credible, inclusive and non-sectarian” government in Damascus within six months, and free and fair elections and a new constitution within eighteen,

Yet the fact that the Security Council agreed on an international road map for a peace process in Syria is by no means insignificant – it demonstrated a rare, but welcome, unanimity among Council members on a political strategy to end the Syrian conflict, and it saw both the US and Russia endorsing the resolution.

“This council,” said US Secretary of State John Kerry, ”is sending a clear message to all concerned that the time is now to stop the killing in Syria and lay the groundwork for a government that the long-suffering people of that battered land can support.”

Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov added: “This is a clear response to attempts to impose a solution from the outside on Syrians on any issues, including those regarding its president.” His reference to the president is significant. The future of President Assad was, and remains, a bone of contention. It is the one major issue conspicuous by its absence from Resolution 2254. The result is rather like mounting a production of Hamlet without the prince.

As far back as September 2015, Mark Galeotti, a professor at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, was speculating that, despite the longstanding relationship between the Syrian regime and Russia, Moscow was envisioning a future without the Assad regime in power.

“Russians are already thinking about post-Assad Damascus,” said Galeotti. ”The Russians have a tradition of offering sanctuary to dictators who flee their country. So, I’m sure there’s some cosy dacha outside of Moscow, if Assad does need to flee.”

He may be correct, although at present Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is keeping his cards close to his chest on the issue, ruling nothing in and nothing out. When asked outright during an interview with the German daily Bild, published on January 12, if he would shelter Assad, Putin said it was premature to discuss the issue but threw in, as an aside, that Russia had granted asylum to US whistleblower Edward Snowden, “which was far more difficult than to do the same for Mr Assad.”

Having said that, Putin backtracked somewhat. Moscow, he said, was advocating a constitutional reform in Syria, to be followed by presidential and parliamentary elections. And if those elections were democratic, “Assad won’t have to go anywhere, no matter if he is elected president or not.”

Russia, and perhaps the US, appears to envisage presidential elections in Syria in which Assad could be a candidate. Such a scenario is flatly opposed by France and the UK. French foreign minister Laurent Fabius maintains that the negotiations would succeed only with credible guarantees about Assad’s departure. “How could this man unite a people that he has in part massacred?” said Fabius. “The idea that he could once again stand for election is unacceptable to us.”

Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, has been equally unambiguous – Assad can have no future in a post-civil war Syria. “It’s not just my view that you can’t end up with Assad having a role in Syria. The Syrian people wouldn’t accept it. What you need to do is find a government that can appeal to Alawites, Kurds, Sunnis and Christians, and if you don’t have someone who can do that you won’t have a Syria that works.”

Russia’s rather equivocal approach to the issue, especially as it appears to have the backing of US Secretary of State John Kerry, is infuriating Syria’s opposition coordinator Riad Hijab. Hijab, a former Syrian prime minister, was chosen in December as co-ordinator of the opposition negotiating body to lead future Syria talks. He believes the US has reneged on its anti-Assad position, softening its stance to accommodate Russia. This, he maintained, would make it difficult for the opposition to attend the delayed peace talks, which had by then been re-scheduled for January 25 in Geneva.

The path leading towards them is rocky. Syrian rebel groups had declared that they would not take part unless humanitarian provision in the latest UN resolution on Syria were implemented. These call for humanitarian access to all in need and the cessation of attacks on civilians. In order to facilitate the Geneva talks, the UN Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, met representatives of the US, Russia and other major powers and, on January 11, Assad granted access to the government-besieged town of Madaya, and food and first aid was delivered to its starving civilians.

This is not the only obstacle being placed in the way of the talks by the opposition council. They have told de Mistura that the Assad regime would have to take goodwill steps, including a prisoner release, before they would go to negotiations. It is not clear, however, whether this is a “make or break” pre-condition.

Nor are the opposition the only party voicing objections. Assad has long labelled as “terrorists” all the various groups opposing him. Russia is not going as far, but is insisting that the international powers produce an agreed list of terrorist groups, presumably so that they can be excluded from the approved opposition council. Assistant US Secretary of State Anne Patterson has said the United States and Russia were working “very assiduously” on the question of defining terrorist groups.

With all these hurdles to overcome, it would have been a minor triumph in itself if the peace talks scheduled for January 25 had gone ahead on time. But the scheduled start date could not be met because of international disagreement over who should be invited from the opposition, while rebel group stuck to their demands for an end to air strikes and government sieges of territory they hold, and the release of detainees.

Nevertheless, the international desire to end the horror in Syria is real enough and, as the old saying has it, where there’s a will, there’s a way.

Sri Lanka President Maithripala Sirisena says the year 2016 will be the year of building of the economy of the country. He said a lot of programs will be implemented this year to bring about prosperous lives to all people in this country.

Sirisena made these remarks at the ceremony held Wednesday at the BMCH to offer 10,000 scholarships to the students of Samurdhi Beneficiary families.

“No government has ever allocated this largest ever fund allocated by the new government for free education and free health service this year,” Sirisena said. “We also have allocated required funds for the development of infrastructure facilities in rural and urban areas, and these development works have started already,” he added.

“While some people are questioning what the government is doing, the government has entered into the program to bring about prosperous lives to the people by doing required political reforms and saving the people from poverty,” Sirisena said.

Sirisena symbolically handed over the scholarships at the ceremony.

Will the market miss the coming wake-up call and instead deliver a severe supply disruption with skyrocketing prices coupled with a political response along the lines of windfall profits taxes?

By Dan Doyle

Inventories will continue to rise, but the momentum is slowing.

The following are some observations as to how we got here and how we’re gonna get out.

9 reasons why oil has taken so long to bottom:

1. OPEC increased production in 2015 to multiyear highs, principally in Saudi Arabia and Iraq where production between the two added 1.5 million barrels per day (mb/d) to inventories after the no cut stance was adopted.

2. Russian production increased in 2015 to post Soviet highs.

3. Long planned Gulf of Mexico production began coming on in late 2015.

4. An overhang of 3,000 or 4,000 shale wells that were drilled but uncompleted (“ducks”) entered a completion cycle in 2015.

5. Service companies and suppliers went to zero margin survival pricing (not to be confused with efficiency). The result has been an artificial boost to completions that cannot be sustained.

6. Resilience among a few operators in the Permian who felt the need to thump their chests, creating the rally that killed the rally last spring (disclosure: I own stock in Pioneer Resources but am going to dump it if they don’t cut it out!).

7. The dollar strengthened.

8. Iranian exports are coming.

9. And, finally, China.

5 Demand-Side Reasons Why We Need to Hang-On:

1. Chinese oil demand is up year-over-year by 8 percent. It is expected to slow in 2016 to as low as 2 percent (maybe) but it is still growth in a tightening market.

2. Watch Chinese car sales. They were sluggish in early 2015 but finished very strong in what could be a 2016 V-shaped recovery.

3. The Indian economy is on a tear. The IMF has it as the world’s fastest growing large economy. GDP growth was 7.3 percent in 2015 and is projected to be 7.5 percent in 2016. That trumps Chinese growth. Although India’s oil demand is only one-third that of China, it is the growth picture that should be better covered by analysts and headlines. India is about to be the world’s most populous nation with a middle class that is likely to double over the next 15 years. 40 cars now service 1,000 people but that is rapidly changing. And this is not something that will occur sometime, someday in the future. 2015 Indian consumption grew by 300,000 barrels per day (bpd).

4. U.S. consumption has been increasing with higher employment and lower fuel costs. Truck and full size SUV sales have been extraordinary.

5. Europe, the world’s largest oil market, is in a decade long decline but not as steeply as it was. Asia demand is strong with Vietnam’s GDP growing 7.5 percent in 2015. Middle East countries are seeing increases in consumption. And as a final observation, go back one year when most oil analysts were looking at supply as the means to a correction. Demand was thought to be too inelastic and would thus take too long to play out. But it was demand that responded first. When the story is written, it will be demand that outplayed supply 2 to 1 on our way to parity. Thereafter, if we go into imbalance, it will be the damage done to supply that really moves prices.

16 Supply-Side Reasons Why We Need to Hang On

1. Earlier in 2015 global supply exceeded demand by about 2.2 mb/d according to the EIA. Others had it at 2.5 mb/d. The EIA now has it down to 1.3 mb/d and change. We are still nowhere near an inflection point but we are converging.

2. The rig count in OPEC’s GCC countries has not corrected down with prices. It is mostly maintenance drilling and somewhat additive in Saudi Arabia. The level of production that we have seen lately likely means the GCC is close to or at capacity.

3. There is near universal acknowledgement that there will be another 300,000 to 500,000 bpd decline in U.S. production this year. It could be more given the struggles of the onshore conventional market which alone should give up 150,000 bpd. Shale’s steep decline rates will easily make up the rest even against increasing Gulf of Mexico production.

4. Global non OPEC, non U.S. production will decline by 300,000 to 400,000 bpd in 2016 according to the IEA. This number could increase as marginal production at current low prices comes off line due to lifting costs.

5. After an upside surprise in 2015 Russian production, there is a building consensus that 2016 results will be off with further declines thereafter. Russian oil giant Lukoil is stacking contractor rigs which will show up fairly soon in the numbers. State backed Rosneft is showing financial strain.

6. Pemex production is down 10 percent.

7. North Sea production, which has increased over the last few years, will slip in 2016.

8. Long-term Canadian oil sands projects will come on in 2016 as will some production in Brazil, but even collectively the amounts are small. It’s probable too that some of the oil miners will put a hold on production due to lower product costs (about $15/bbl less than WTI) and extraordinarily high lifting and processing costs (some of the sands are subjected to subsurface CO2 drives, others are surface mined).

9. Anticipated Iranian exports are here, but the projections are all over the place from the Iranian government’s claim of 1 million b/day in 6 to 12 months to Rystad Energy’s claim of 150,000 b/day. Even the middle ground argument of 500,000 b/day assumes Iran can get back to their long term trend line, which had been declining during the 5 years prior to 2011 sanctions. Fields are in poor repair and the gas drives essential to production have been mostly abandoned. All in, it’s most likely that production will stutter step up to the trend line due to delays caused by political process and infrastructure funding. This, like all things, will take longer than expected but watch out for early sales. You will be seeing more inventory than production as Iran unloads the 30 to 45 million barrels of oil in storage. Allow some time to work off stocks to get an idea of the actual production numbers which will likely disappoint.

10. Depending on the source, $140 to $200 billion of expenditures has come off of long term projects in 2015 with calls for another $40 to $150 billion in cancellations and postponements in 2016. This won’t be made up by renewables. The current and projected crude and natural gas prices have dis-incentivized consumers from wind and solar. Governments after the Paris accord may throw money around but consumers will likely not follow until commodity prices make them.

11. All said, these capex cuts will result in a loss of at least 5 mb/d in long-horizon production. These are the goliath type projects that we absolutely need to match to current plus anticipated consumption increases.

12. Existing wells have natural decline curves. Some hold up better than others but all said the global yearly decline rate without additional drilling is right around 4 mb/d.

13. Hedged bets started coming off in late 2015 and will continue in early 2016. Accompanying this could be the capitulation in activity and production that the market has been looking for.

14. Global capex declines have occurred here and there over the past 20 years but always rebound the following year. For the first time in recent history, the global oil complex has charted two consecutive years of declining budgets. 2014 showed a small constriction but 2015’s 20 percent capex decline is unprecedented in terms of size and is the highest by percentage in 20 years. And right now, 2016 doesn’t look like it’s going to have much bounce to it.

15. The world seems to be moving closer to a supply side disruption. Middle East wars, skirmishes and terrorist attacks are increasing in size and frequency. Libyan oilfields are a constant target. Nigerian installations are vulnerable. ISIS controls most of Syria’s small oilfields. Yeminis missiles are targeting Saudi oil installations and would have hit their targets in December launches had the Saudi’s not shot most of them down. Iraqi production is somewhat safe, but only somewhat. Venezuela’s PDVSA is teetering in its ability to pay for the imported diluents needed to export its crude. Tankers are stacking up in the Jose Petroterminal demanding payment up front before unloading up to 3 million b/month of naphtha. And then there’s the torched embassies, mass beheadings, a resurgent Shiite state and a hardening Sunni stance amid a claw back of freebies to Saudi Arabia’s citizens. It’s not good. Not at all. Our best hope is that price rebalancing will occur quickly through supply and demand metrics rather than bloody supply-side shocks.

16. At $25 oil, the Bakken is at $13 to $15 after transportation which puts operators up there underwater after lifting costs, taxes and carrying royalty owner costs. Sub $30 oil will not only kill development drilling, but it will be where production stops. In cases where operators are committed to selling natural gas produced alongside oil there may be a reason to continue due to supply obligations, but otherwise what’s the point? If you want to lose money buy a boat. It’s more fun.

6 Things to Ignore

1. This is not the 1980’s with 14+ mb/d spare capacity. In 2016, we are oversupplied by about 1.5 percent and it will be at zero by early to mid-2017. The last time we were at zero was late 2013/early 2014 when WTI was at $100 and Brent up around $105+.

2. Lower for longer is true but $29 oil is not. This is a classic over-sold scenario and likely somewhere in the realm of capitulation. Operators and service companies can find a footing at $50 oil. We won’t prosper but we’ll survive. $100 may be a long way off and that’s because ridiculously high, sustained oil prices only leads to ridiculously low sustained oil prices. But who wants $100? It will only get us back to $30. The industry makes no sense at the top or the bottom. The high middle is best.

3. Demand is dropping. Not true. Demand growth may be slowing but not by much. Consumption is up and it is increasing.

4. Chinese demand is down. The rate of growth may slow in 2016 but it will still be up year-over-year. A 6.8 percent Chinese economy is consuming more oil now than a 10 percent economy was 5 years ago. A lot more.

5. We’re going to float the lids right off our oil tanks. Don’t worry. You can sleep tight. We’re not.

6. Efficiency gains are offsetting the declining rig count. This one is always amusing. Give me the rig count and higher density fracking and you take all the recent efficiency gains and let’s see who gets invited to the bank’s Christmas party.

6 Things You Shouldn’t Ignore

1. Q1 oil prices are going to be ugly. Try and ignore them if you can. The market will remain uncertain over Iran as it determines and adjusts to how much oil is coming on.

2. Hedges coming off will not bode well for producers and the service companies looking to them for a lifeline.

3. Spring debt redeterminations may knock the wind out of the E&Ps. If capitulation hasn’t already occurred, it will then.

4. China. The sinking Shanghai Composite Index is oil’s anchor.

5. Pioneer and other chest thumpers getting too aggressive. Any recovery will be short lived if they jump the rig count as they did in the short-lived Spring 2015 rally. Traders are fixated on even meaningless moves in the rig count. Best to play it cool. We all want to work but operators need to practice some restraint.

6. Lack of capitulation. There will be no recovery until there is general agreement that the shorts cannot drag the market any lower. The Saudi’s, with Russia following, can always point to a large U.S. failure as proof that they did not blink first.

14 Things We Owe Ourselves:

1. The water wars of 3 or so years ago are mostly solved. Recycling frac water is now a “gimme”. Marcellus operators like Shell and Cabot are able to boast of 99 percent recycle rates. We still have hurdles with deep well brine injection but the issues are getting defined and will be addressed.

2. Progress is being made on recognizing and reducing methane emissions from well sites. Ultimately, this could slow drilling in places like the Bakken until infrastructure is in place, but it will also move operators to effectively use lease gas to power operations.

3. No government agency provided directives for Halliburton and Pattison to build dual fuel frac fleets that run on clean burning lease gas. They just did it in cooperation with their customers.

4. We’ve proven than natural gas is beyond abundant.

5. There have been fewer bankruptcies than anticipated.

6. No one has been arrested yet for fracking.

7. Harold Hamm was still able to write a billion dollar personal check.

8. Aubrey McClendon was still able to raise fresh money.

9. T. Boone Pickens overshot the mark with an $80 call but his optimism helped us – a lot.

10. Even President Obama jumped in and did us a favor with the elimination of the 40 year old export ban. It might have been done grudgingly but we got it.

11. LNG exports will set sail by March 2016.

12. Coal miners displaced by the current administration’s EPA in Kentucky and West Virginia have been finding work in oil and gas fields. Hopefully they’ll find more soon enough.

13. We can celebrate the abrupt end of the glossy multicolored booklets from fawning jewelers and art auctioneers arriving in the mail.

14. David Einhorn’s crass and predictable “mother fracker” short on Pioneer Resources was a yawn. The stock even climbed after the news. If this was a political statement, which was my read of the subtext, then short the stock now big guy.

The inevitable will occur. Supply and demand will cross. The question is will Wall Street notice? Some of the analysts caught the cross in early 2014 but most didn’t. For full disclosure, I missed it too.

The question this time around is will we see it coming and if so will it be an orderly reaction? Or will the market miss the coming wake-up call and instead deliver a severe supply disruption with skyrocketing prices and a political response along the lines of windfall profits taxes? My worry is that everything takes longer than you think, from recognizing coming imbalances in the global crude complex to painting the house. In the meantime, just hang on and keep your equipment running. You’re going to need it. Until then, all the best of luck.

Article Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/60-Reasons-Why-Oil-Investors-Should-Hang-On.html

By Lisa Ferdinando

The U.S. Army commander of NATO land forces has been selected to succeed Army Gen. John F. Campbell as the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, the Pentagon press secretary said today.

Army Lt. Gen. John W. “Mick” Nicholson Jr. is an accomplished soldier with extensive command experience in Afghanistan and around the world, Peter Cook said at a news briefing, reading a statement from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

Carter is “absolutely confident” in the man President Barack Obama intends to nominate to succeed Campbell, Cook said. The nomination and Nicholson’s accompanying promotion to four-star rank require Senate confirmation.

The defense secretary believes Nicholson will build upon Campbell’s hard work to “secure a bright future for the Afghan people, and help the government of Afghanistan strengthen a professional and capable security partner to the American people,” Cook said, adding that the secretary thanks Campbell for his extraordinary leadership and dedication to the mission in Afghanistan.

Carter credits Campbell with taking the fight to al-Qaida and making clear the resolve to deny it safe haven, and with consistently identifying ways to increase the capability and capacity of the Afghan forces, Cook said.

“While many challenges remain, we have made gains over the past year that will put Afghanistan on a better path, and much of the credit for that progress rests with General Campbell,” he said.

Extraordinary Career, Personal Sacrifice

For nearly 18 months, Campbell has given his all to the mission as the top commander in Afghanistan, Cook said. “His personal sacrifices on behalf of his troops and the Afghan people will be remembered by us all,” he added.

Carter personally thanks Campbell as his tour comes to a close for “everything he has done to bring us to this moment in Afghanistan and for all that he has done throughout his extraordinary career,” Cook said.

Understands Complexity of Mission

Nicholson has led soldiers at all levels, the press secretary said, from platoon to division in Airborne, Ranger, mechanized, Stryker and light infantry units in five infantry divisions and the 75th Ranger Regiment.

He commanded the 82nd Airborne Division, re-establishing Global Response Force capabilities, and commands NATO’s Allied Land Command in his current assignment, the spokesman added.

“He knows what it means to lead a responsive and nimble force, and how to build the capacity of our partners to respond to immediate and long-term threats, and remain adaptable to confront evolving challenges,” Cook said.

Carter believes Nicholson understands the importance and complexity of the mission in Afghanistan, Cook said. He noted that the general has served in multiple related capacities, including as chief of staff of operations for the International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, as director of the Pakistan/Afghanistan coordination cell for the Joint Staff, and as deputy commander for stability in ISAF Regional Command South.

Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government.

Ford assured us that those taking up arms to overthrow the Syrian government were simply moderates and democrats seeking to change Syria’s autocratic system. Anyone pointing out the obviously Islamist extremist nature of the rebellion and the foreign funding and backing for the jihadists was written off as an Assad apologist or worse.

Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. Witness this incredible Twitter exchange with then-ex Ambassador Ford:

Then late last year the McClatchy News Service ran an article in which Ambassador Ford admitted that his “moderates” regularly collaborated with ISIS and al-Qaeda to the point where he no longer thought the US government should be arming them.

So those who pointed out that the rebellion in Syria was foreign-driven and jihadist from the start were no longer crazy conspiracy theorists, but were rather conspiracy factists.

Did that stop Ford from pushing radicals, though? Hardly!

As the Syria peace talks are scheduled to begin within days in Geneva, with a main sticking point being whether to admit groups that have allied with al-Qaeda to the negotiating table as potential leaders of “new Syria,” it is extremely instructive to recall what Ambassador Ford said about one such group, Ahrar al-Sham, to a BBC interviewer last October.

Ahrar al-Sham, according to experts including those at Stanford University, “was founded by members of Al Qaeda and maintains links to AQ’s core leadership.” The group vigorously rejects the notion of an elected government in Syria after the overthrow of Assad, instead calling for:

…a Divine system prescribed for his Caliph and slaves… It is the system where the rule is for the pure Islamic law. Allah’s law is complete, and you need only consider the texts and derive rules.

Ahrar al-Sham has been reported by Christian rights groups in Syria to have executed Christians in Idlib, Syria, after they captured the town last year. The Christians committed the “crime” of not following Sharia law.

Sounds like a pretty bad group, but nevertheless it still has its Western cheerleaders…including Ambassador Robert Ford!

Here’s Ford in an interview with the BBC last October about Ahrar al-Sham (emphasis added):

Stephen Sackur BBC: “Ok, let me ask bluntly, Ahrar al Sham (The Free Men of Syria) group, one of the most powerful groups you would call “moderate”, is it really moderate when a group like that proclaims its desire to see Sharia as the driving force of a “future Syria”.. which clearly makes comments which suggest that Alawites and Christians would find it very difficult to find a place in their Syria…. Are these moderate?? You regard this as moderation?”

Robert Ford: “This is how I define as a moderate in the Syrian context, Stephen; a moderate is a group that accepts there has to be a political negotiation and there has to be a political process after a transition government is set up.. a political process to determine the future permanent government of Syria.. That there must be pluralism in that process… and it’s one that works with other groups/ factions in a pluralistic setting… I don’t agree at all with Ahrar al Sham’s desires to set up an Islamic State (in Syria).. but I have to admit that they accept the needs to be a political negotiation.. I have to admit they’re willing to work with other groups and they do on the ground with great effect…This is one of the reasons, they’re strong as they are, as you mentioned… It’s not a group I ever want my daughter to marry into… I don’t agree with their vision of society…but I would not call them Jihadis, they’re not looking to impose an Islamic State at sword point… Different, they’re therefore, from alQaida… Different therefore from the Islamic State..And they’re willing to accept even such things as Parliament…and some kind of government institutions… So, yes they want Sharia … but the kind of Sharia they want may in fact, in the end, not look like the kind of Sharia the “Islamic State” already imposing over most of central and Eastern of Syria…”

Is it any surprise that Syria is in the current disastrous state, where hundreds of thousands have died in a war instigated by those who knew from the beginning would only benefit radical Islamist extremists? Is there no justice for those who push such murder and mayhem on such a grand scale? Today, as civilized people recognize International Holocaust Remembrance Day, is Nuremberg dead?

This article was published by the RonPaul Institute.

New interdisciplinary research in the Southwest United States has resolved long-standing debates on the timing and magnitude of American Indian population collapse in the region.

The severe and rapid collapse of Native American populations in what is now the modern state of New Mexico didn’t happen upon first contact with Spanish conquistadors in the 1500s, as some scholars thought. Nor was it as gradual as others had contended.

Rather than being triggered by first contact in the 1500s, rapid population loss likely began after Catholic Franciscan missions were built in the midst of native pueblos, resulting in sustained daily interaction with Europeans.

The indirect effects of this demographic impact rippled through the surrounding forests and, perhaps, into our atmosphere.

Those are the conclusions of a new study by a team of scientists looking for the first time at high resolution reconstructions of human population size, tree growth and fire history from the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico.

“Scholars increasingly recognize the magnitude of human impacts on planet Earth, some are even ready to define a new geological epoch called the Anthropocene,” said anthropologist and fire expert Christopher Roos, an associate professor at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, and a co-author on the research.

“But it is an open question as to when that epoch began,” said Roos. “One argument suggests that indigenous population collapse in the Americas resulted in a reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because of forest regrowth in the early colonial period. Until now the evidence has been fairly ambiguous. Our results indicate that high-resolution chronologies of human populations, forests and fires are needed to evaluate these claims.”

A contentious issue in American Indian history, scientists and historians for decades have debated how many Native Americans died and when it occurred. With awareness of global warming and interdisciplinary interest in the possible antiquity of the Anthropocene, resolution of that debate may now be relevant for contemporary human-caused environmental problems, Roos said.

Findings of the new study were published Jan. 25, 2016 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Native American Depopulation, Reforestation, and Fire Regimes in the Southwest U.S., 1492-1900 C.E.”

The researchers offer the first absolute population estimate of the archaeology of the Jemez Province — an area west Santa Fe and Los Alamos National Lab in northern New Mexico. Using airborne remote sensing LiDAR technology to establish the size and shape of rubble mounds from collapsed architecture of ancestral villages, the researchers were able to quantify population sizes in the 16th century that were independent of historical documents.

To identify the timing of of the population collapse and its impact on forest fires, the scientists also collected tree-ring data sets from locations adjacent to the Ancestral Jemez villages and throughout the forested mountain range. This sampling framework allowed them to refine the timing of depopulation and the timing of fire regime changes across the Jemez Province.

Their findings indicate that large-scale depopulation only occurred after missions were established in their midst by Franciscan priests in the 1620s. Daily sustained interaction resulted in epidemic diseases, violence and famine, the researchers said. From a population of roughly 6,500 in the 1620s fewer than 900 remained in the 1690s – a loss of more than 85 percent of the population in a few generations.

“The loss of life is staggering,” said anthropologist Matthew Liebmann, an associate professor at Harvard University and lead author on the PNAS article.

“Imagine that in a room with 10 people, only one person was left at the end of the day,” Liebmann said. “This had devastating effects on the social and economic lives of the survivors. Our research suggests that the effects were felt in the ecology of the forests too.”

Other scientists on the team include Josh Farella and Thomas Swetnam, University of Arizona; and Adam Stack and Sarah Martini, Harvard University.

The researchers studied a 100,000-acre area that includes the ancestral pueblo villages of the Jemez (HEY-mehz) people. Located in the Jemez Mountains of north central New Mexico, it’s a region in the Santa Fe National Forest of deep canyons, towering flat-topped mesas, as well as rivers, streams and creeks.

Today about 2,000 Jemez tribal members live at the Pueblo of Jemez.

The authors note in their article that, “Archaeological evidence from the Jemez Province supports the notion that the European colonization of the Americas unleashed forces that ultimately destroyed a staggering number of human lives,” however, they note, it fails to support the notion that sweeping pandemics uniformly depopulated North America.”

“To better understand the role of the indigenous population collapse on ecological and climate changes, we need this kind of high-resolution paired archaeological and paleoecological data,” said Roos. “Until then, a human-caused start to Little Ice Age cooling will remain uncertain. Our results suggest this scenario is plausible, but the nature of European and American Indian relationships, population collapse, and ecological consequences are probably much more complicated and variable than many people had previously understood them to be.”

By Amit Dasgupta*

The political decision to resume bilateral talks was a splendid, though surprising, initiative with which to end 2015 – a year that had seen considerable grief globally, especially through the massacre of innocents. Both the Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers are politically savvy and, thus, acutely conscious that attempts would be made, from both sides of the border, to disrupt and derail the peace initiative.

The extraordinary challenge Prime Minister Modi faces is how he would continue to publicly advocate endorsement of the dialogue process when confronted by grieving families of dead soldiers and innocent civilians who had fallen victim to state-sponsored terrorism from across the border. For a politically shaky Nawaz Sharif, shaking hands with a state that saw the dismemberment of Pakistan has attracted the opprobrium of the powerful military establishment that de facto controls Islamabad.

How both leaders negotiate the multiple pitfalls the path is strewn with would not only demonstrate their leadership skills but also establish the negotiating template but, more importantly, it would demonstrate the joint integrity of intent and purpose. This is not easy assignment. Mercifully, expectations are tempered because failure is seen by most political, security and foreign policy analysts as a foregone conclusion. It is also how many in both countries would wish to ensure the talks would end.

The Pathankot attacks and the national alert that terrorists are planning a big ticket event on January 26, for instance, are a clear indication of vested interests that benefit from sustaining the India-Pakistan conflict and for whom, consequently, peace is anathema. Proof that the Pathankot operation had a clear Pakistan connection demonstrates the animosity with which any peace initiative would be perceived from across the border by those who see sponsoring terrorism as strategy. More importantly, the timing, most certainly, deferred the scheduled Foreign Secretary-level talks. More violent incidents cannot be ruled out. Getting New Delhi to retaliate ‘to get even’ and thereby, suspend talks yet again or better, escalate tensions would be the clear end objective of such players.

Apart from terrorists and their military handlers, there are many others who would also like to see the dialogue disrupted. I refer to political opponents. Instead of welcoming the initiative and extending it full support, the Congress Party opted for a petulant outburst through its spokesperson, Anand Sharma. He complained of not being kept in the loop! This was political immaturity at its best because strategic initiatives are never carried out in the public domain. Quiet diplomacy continues to be the most effective and persuasive strategy. The US breakthrough with Cuba or with Iran was a result of a series of secret parleys and negotiations that created history.

Then there are the hawks. They oppose talks till such time as conditions are conducive for talks. Forceful and eminent strategists occupy this space. They have made this India’s long stated position. Unfortunately, it has been a failed strategy. Indeed, if anything, it has only heightened belligerence on both sides of the border and played into the hands of those in Islamabad who have been long-term advocates of India-Pakistan animosity. Without a shift in vocabulary, the next seven decades are doomed to repeat the failed 70 years. How the political leadership in both countries handles the spoilers would demonstrate seriousness of commitment and purpose.

At the same time, there is political awareness that another 26/11 would have devastating consequences. This not only requires accurate and continuous intelligence to thwart an attack before it takes place but the ability to effectively respond when it occurs. Jammu and Kashmir Governor N N Vohra’s statement that the Pathankot attack could have been prevented is a sobering reminder that entering into talks does not mean that terrorist attacks would be suspended. Successful negotiators are constantly mindful of the need to be alert, vigilant and prepared. They know that while you might shake hands above the table, you are open to being kicked from underneath.

Simultaneously, PM Modi needs to recognize that the current perception is that while he is excellent in raising expectations, he is a dismal failure when it comes to delivery. This is because he lacks clarity on next steps and thus, a strategy for implementation. This can seriously erode credibility. In the case of PM Sharif, the problems are even more acute. The dialogue initiative does not enjoy the support of the military establishment. Given Pakistan’s history, he knows he is on slippery ground and if his overtures with New Delhi alienate the generals and the fundamentalists, he could easily invite assassination. The outlier in Pakistan is dispensable.

Negotiating pitfalls is the biggest test that the India-Pakistan talks face. These are talks not between friends but neighbours, who harbour deep mistrust about each other and not without reason. Yet the driving rationale is the transformational impact peace would have on the economic and social wellbeing of both countries and hence, of the impoverished region. To realize this aspiration, both governments need to recognize that they are walking a tight rope. Only strong and unwavering political will based on realism would enable them to negotiate the pitfalls.

*Amit Dasgupta, a former diplomat, currently heads the Mumbai campus of the SP Jain School of Global Management. He may be reached at amit.dasgupta@spjain.org

Daughters of interracial parents are more likely than sons to identify as multiracial, and this is especially true for children of black-white couples, according to a new study in the February issue of the American Sociological Review.

Among black-white biracials (the offspring of interracial couples in which one parent is black and the other is white) in the study, 76 percent of women and 64 percent of men identified as multiracial. In terms of Latino-white biracials, 40 percent of women and 32 percent of men self-labeled as multiracial. Regarding Asian-white biracials, 56 percent of women and 50 percent of men identified as multiracial.

“It would seem that, for biracial women, looking racially ambiguous is tied to racial stereotypes surrounding femininity and beauty,” said study author Lauren Davenport, an assistant professor of political science at Stanford University. “So, biracial women are often seen as not fully white and not entirely minority, and they are cast as kind of a mysterious, intriguing ‘racial other.’ As a consequence, it may be easier for women to reside in multiple racial groups simultaneously. However, biracial men may be more likely to be perceived as ‘people of color.’ I argue that the different ways that biracial people are viewed by others influences how they see themselves.”

Titled, “The Role of Gender, Class, and Religion in Biracial Americans’ Racial Labeling Decisions,” the study relies on data from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) Freshman Survey. Every year, thousands of incoming freshmen at hundreds of community colleges, four-year colleges, and universities across the United States complete the survey, which the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California-Los Angeles conducts. For her study, Davenport pooled data from the 2001, 2002, and 2003 CIRP Freshman Surveys, giving her a sample of more than 37,000 Asian-white, black-white, and Latino-white biracials, who collectively were the focus of her study.

In addition to gender, religion and socioeconomic status also strongly influenced how biracials self-identified. “Relative to biracials who were religiously unaffiliated, those who identified with ethnically homogeneous religions were more likely to label themselves with a single racial category, than as multiracial,” Davenport said.

For example, in contrast to religiously unaffiliated black-white biracials, the likelihood of identifying as multiracial declined by 44 percent for black-white biracial Baptists.

“I also found that money ‘whitens’ racial identification for biracials,” Davenport said. She noted that compared to less affluent biracials, those from the most affluent homes and neighborhoods were more inclined to identify themselves as “white” or as multiracial than as singular minorities.

“These findings show that for the growing mixed-race population, racial labeling choices are intimately linked to social group attachments, identities, and income,” Davenport said.

Overall, Davenport found that 71 percent of black-white biracials, 54 percent of Asian-white biracials, and 37 percent of Latino-white biracials identified as multiracial.

“For decades, hypodescent — commonly known as the ‘one-drop rule’ — structured how individuals of part-black backgrounds were legally and socially identified in the United States,” said Davenport. “As a result, I found it particularly interesting that the vast majority of young people of black-white parentage in my study opted to self-identify with a multiracial label. The fact that of the three biracial groups I focused on, black-white biracials were the most likely to call themselves multiracial is striking. But, it is also in line with the Census statistics showing that ‘black and white’ has become the largest multiple-race population in the United States, tripling in size since 2000. For black-white biracials, a multiracial identification is the new normal.”

So, why were black-white biracials the most likely to identify as multiracial?

“I think it relates to the fact that the ‘one-drop rule’ has been so strong for this population that they feel like historically they have been given less of an ability to choose their race,” Davenport said. “I believe this movement towards multiracialism is partially a response to that frustration. Because people in this group have so strongly been expected to identify as black, they are choosing to assert a new identity, one that incorporates both their black and white heritages. It is also likely that, for some, a multiracial label reflects a desire to socially distance and distinguish oneself from blacks.”

While black-white biracials were the most likely to identify as multiracial, they were also the least likely to self-label as white. Davenport found that 5 percent of black-white biracials identified as white only, compared to 11 percent of Asian-white biracials and 18 percent of Latino-white biracials.

“It’s not completely unexpected that Latino-whites were the most likely of these three groups to identify as white only,” Davenport said. “I think a lot of Latino-Americans think of themselves as having a race that is separate from their ethnicity. On the other hand, that black-white biracials are the least likely to adopt a singular white identification is to be expected, given the legacy of hypodescent, historical norms against ‘passing’ as white, and the greater tendency for black-white biracials to be categorized as non-white by other groups.”

As for why her study is important, Davenport said the multiple-race population is currently one of the fastest-growing racial groups in the country.

“Rates of interracial marriage continue to rise, and social scientists have estimated that one in five Americans will be of mixed-race by 2050,” Davenport said. “This population is a young one, and how members of this group choose to label themselves will have implications for the American racial landscape and race relations. Racial identification is also important for the allocation of political resources, the implementation of affirmative action, and the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in employment, education, and housing. How biracial individuals choose to identify is more than an assertion of their racial group attachments — it also has real political consequences.”

Even as in the aftermath of the ‘Implementation Day’ of the Iran nuclear deal certain US sanctions are still in place, but the US Treasury Department has done away with some major restrictions on what US companies can do with Iran through their foreign subsidiaries. The list of individuals banned under the sanctions has been pruned, although there are still another 5,000 names that are on it. The UN sanctions could snap back into place if Iran defaults on its commitments under the nuclear agreement. Yet today, the trade potential of Iran is one of the few bright spots in the largely gloomy global economy.

As Iran opens-up for business and China and Iran agree to take their bilateral trade to a whopping USD 600 billion over next 10 years, this article look at the efforts being made by India and Iran to kick-start their development cooperation and trade relations.

India-Iran Efforts

The 18th session of the India-Iran Joint Commission was held in New Delhi on December 28, 2015. The session was co-chaired by External Affairs Minister of India (EAM) and H.E. Mr. Ali Tayebnia, Minister of Economic Affairs and Finance of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Joint Commission Meeting (JCM) was preceded by meetings of the Joint Working Group (JWG) on Trade & Commerce (18th-19th November 2015), JWGs on Energy and Infrastructure on 26th December 2015.

At the JCM, EAM highlighted key areas where efforts were underway to enhance bilateral economic cooperation; these included energy, infrastructure, shipping, ports, railways and trade and commerce. The Iranian side suggested participation of India’s public and private sectors in development of Chahbahar port and Chahbahar Free Trade Zone (FTZ) and in setting up industrial units in the FTZ. EAM also emphasized the need for early completion of all necessary procedures for India’s participation in Farzad-B field besides other oil and gas explorations in Iran.

Farzad-B

ONGC Videsh Ltd-led consortium is expected to win the USD 5 billion rights to develop Iran’s Farzad-B gas field and convert the gas produced from it into liquefied natural gas (LNG) for shipping to countries including India. The first development phase of Farzad-B is expected to require USD 3 billion in investment, another USD 2 billion would be required for setting up LNG train (liquefaction and purification facility) of 6 million tonnes a year. A consortium of OVL, Oil India Ltd (OIL) and Indian Oil Corp (IOC) had discovered 12.8 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in the Farsi block in 2008. OVL in August/September 2010 had submitted a revised master development plan (MDP) for producing 60 per cent of the 21.68 trillion cubic feet of in-place gas reserves; the discovery was named Farzad-B. OVL and IOC hold 40 per cent interest each in the block, while the remaining 20 per cent is with OIL.

Iran and India have agreed to settle their outstanding crude oil dues in rupees in preparation for future trade in their national currencies. Since 2013, Indian refiners have been depositing 45 per cent of their oil payments for crude oil to Iran in rupees with UCO Bank and withholding the remainder which was to be cleared in USD. The dollar dues of $6.5 billion equalling 55 per cent of oil payment is now likely be deposited in National Iranian Oil Co account with Indian banks, in rupees. These are likely to be used by Iran for non-oil imports and by India, to provide a $150 million loan to Iran for the development of Chahbahar port. Iran has been offering India a 90-day credit and free shipping on oil purchases.

Chahbahar Free Trade Zone

India is looking to invest to the tune of Rs 2 trillion at Chahbahar in various infrastructure projects ranging from road and rail to shipping and agriculture. The investments, however, will depend on the outcome of the negotiations on gas price as Iran has offered to supply natural gas at $2.95 per million British thermal units (MBtu) while is negotiating for a price of $1.5 per MBtu. India wants to set up a gas-based urea plant at Chahbahar as it currently imports eight-nine million tonne of urea annually. The 1.3-million tonne per annum urea plant in the FTZ would cut down domestic urea prices by half.

IOC is seeking to build a USD 3 billion petrochemicals plant in Iran, to access cheap natural gas as feedstock. The petrochemicals plant will allow IOC to diversify from its existing projects that use oil products from its own refineries. National Aluminium Company NALCO will soon send a team to Iran to explore setting up of a gas-based 500,000-tonnes-per-year smelter complex worth about USD 2 billion and an associated power plant.

Oil and gas today are reflecting bearish trends, with prices of both these commodities at their lowest in recent years. While Iran needs financial and technical support to get its industry going, India at this point would have to take a call on a long-term partnership with Iran, against the interest who would like a delayed entry of the Iranian oil and gas into the global market.

Iranian Railways

At the JCM, the two Ministers had discussed the possibilities of cooperation in railways, including supply of rails, rolling stock, signalling and other works and India’s participation in Chahbahar-Zahedan-Mashhad railway line. Iran is planning to invest about USD 25 billion in modernization and expansion of its rail network. The expansion plans aim to increase the country’s track length from the current figure of about 15,000 kilometres to 25,000 kilometres by 2025.

In October 2014, India’s State Trading Corp (STC) had signed a $233 million contract to facilitate exports of rail tracks from SAIL Ltd and Jindal Steel and Power Ltd to Iranian railways. The value of the deal was later reduced by about 7.3 percent to $217 million after renegotiations by Iran because the euro had declined against the dollar and steel and iron ore prices had fallen significantly since the deal was first struck in 2014. SAIL is now supplying 100,000 tonnes of rails to Iran from its Bhilai Steel Plant. India will supply 250,000 tonnes of rails to Iran over 18 months through the STC.

Trade

The two countries are preparing a Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA) and working on increased connectivity in the banking sector. The JWG on Trade & Commerce in November 2015 had agreed to open up a channel of communications to start preliminary consultations on the PTA.

An Iranian team, which included officials from the Institute of Standards and Industrial Research of Iran, and the Health Ministry, recently visited India for an interaction which focused on quality and safety issues. This would facilitate trade in items such as rice and tea.

Assessment

Even after the nuclear deal, doing business with Iran comes with risks. The struggle between Riyadh and Tehran for political and religious influence has geopolitical implications that extend far beyond the placid waters of the Gulf and encompass nearly every major conflict zone in the Middle East.

Last October, Iran successfully test-fired Emad, a new precision-guided, long-range missile. Recently revolutionary guards (IRGC) vessels reportedly fired “several unguided rockets” at US and French ships. Iran had dismissed the claim as “psychological warfare.” Analysts feel these sorts of provocative run-ins are likely to continue in 2016 as hard-line forces in Iran exploit uneasy relations with the West. Iran’s expansion of its missile programme, its aggressive stance and policies towards both the US and Israel, and the current US Congress’s hostile position towards the Iranian establishment raises the possibility that at some point, the US may, unilaterally or in alliance with its partners, decide to confront some of Iran’s policies or actions.

There are other challenges in doing business with Iran; corruption is endemic, the IRGC controls certain economic activities and political hardliners threaten reforms as elections loom. However challenges that would constrain India would be its low appetite for risk, limited financial resources and sluggish bureaucratic decision making.

*Monish Gulati is the Associate Director (Strategic Affairs) at the Society for Policy Studies, New Delhi. He can be reached at: mgulati@spsindia.in. This article was published at South Asia Monitor.

1. “He’d never beat Trump or Cruz in a general election.”

Wrong. According to the latest polls, Bernie is the strongest Democratic candidate in the general election, defeating both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in hypothetical matchups. (The latest RealClear Politics averages of all polls shows Bernie beating Trump by a larger margin than Hillary beats Trump, and Bernie beating Cruz while Hillary loses to Cruz.)

2. “He couldn’t get any of his ideas implemented because Congress would reject them.”

If both house of Congress remain in Republican hands, no Democrat will be able to get much legislation through Congress, and will have to rely instead on executive orders and regulations. But there’s a higher likelihood of kicking Republicans out if Bernie’s “political revolution” continues to surge around America, bringing with it millions of young people and other voters, and keeping them politically engaged.

3. “America would never elect a socialist.”

P-l-e-a-s-e. America’s most successful and beloved government programs are social insurance – Social Security and Medicare. A highway is a shared social expenditure, as is the military and public parks and schools. The problem is we now have excessive socialism for the rich (bailouts of Wall Street, subsidies for Big Ag and Big Pharma, monopolization by cable companies and giant health insurers, giant tax-deductible CEO pay packages) – all of which Bernie wants to end or prevent.

4. “His single-payer healthcare proposal would cost so much it would require raising taxes on the middle class.”

This is a duplicitous argument. Single-payer systems in other rich nations have proven cheaper than private for-profit health insurers because they don’t spend huge sums on advertising, marketing, executive pay, and billing. So even if the Sanders single-payer plan did require some higher taxes, Americans would come out way ahead because they’d save far more than that on health insurance.

5. “His plan for paying for college with a tax on Wall Street trades would mean colleges would run by government rules.”

Baloney. Three-quarters of college students today already attend public universities financed largely by state governments, and they’re not run by government rules. The real problem is too many young people still can’t afford a college education. The move toward free public higher education that began in the 1950s with the G.I. Bill and extended into the 1960s came to an abrupt stop in the 1980s. We must restart it.

6. “He’s too old.”

Untrue. He’s in great health. Have you seen how agile and forceful he is as he campaigns around the country? These days, 70s are the new 60s. (He’s younger than four of the nine Supreme Court justices.) In any event, the issue isn’t age; it’s having the right values. FDR was paralyzed.” In any event, the issue isn’t age; it’s having the right values. was paralyzed, and JFK had Addison’s Crohn’s diseases, but they were great presidents because they fought adamantly for social and economic justice.

The bishops of southwest Nigeria have praised the country’s apparent progress towards countering the Boko Haram insurgency.

“Occurrences of senseless killing by the Boko Haram have decreased and many displaced people are apparently returning to their former homes. We prayerfully congratulate the Nigerian Army and the security forces for their sacrifice and commitment,” the Catholic bishops of the Ibadan Ecclesiastical Province said.

“We appeal to the government that the current general vigilance in the area of security be sustained so as to forestall a recurrence of the worst days of insurgency in Nigeria. In the meantime we plead that great care be taken to avoid punishing innocent people for the crimes of the guilty insurgents.”

The Islamist extremist group Boko Haram began a violent uprising in northern Nigeria in 2009. It seeks to impose an Islamic state. An estimated 20,000 people have been killed in the uprising, while 2.3 million may have been driven from their homes.

The group became notorious around the world after its partisans kidnapped over 200 girls from a school in Chibok in 2014. The group’s activities have expanded into Cameroon.

The bishops of the Ibadan region said that the public in Nigeria tends to believe that President Muhammadu Buhari is well intentioned and is working hard to address critical problems like the insurgency and corruption.

The province’s bishops issued their statement at the close of their first plenary meeting of 2016, held Jan. 18-19. The province includes the Archdiocese of Ibadan and five other dioceses.

Their message noted the Catholic Church’s Jubilee of Mercy. The year is intended “to remind all human beings of the mercy we enjoy from God the Father of all and to focus us on the role of Jesus Christ as the face and personification of God’s mercy.” The bishops echoed Pope Francis’ call for God’s mercy to be manifest wherever Christians are.

“We call especially on all Catholics in Nigeria to seek God’s mercy through penance, the Sacrament of Reconciliation and the practice of the spiritual and corporal works of mercy which includes the mutual forgiveness of wrongs,” they added.

The bishops outlined their “ABCs” of the Year of Mercy: ask for God’s mercy; be merciful; and communicate God’s mercy.

“That so much injustice, violence and bloodshed permeate our society today is a clear indication that we all indeed need God’s mercy, for blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy,” the message continued.

The bishops praised efforts to enhance and protect “the sanctity of human life, marriage and family in all areas of life.” They have authorized a pro-life, pro-family catechesis as a handbook on Church teaching.

They also praised Catholic education efforts, while warning of a lack of resources and unjust takeovers of schools.

The bishops discussed the economic downturn in Nigeria and emphasized the need to resolve conflicts over the payment of workers’ salaries. The controversy is causing “considerable hardship” among people in many Nigerian states.

“Our leaders must avoid any sign of threat, arrogance or impunity in dealing with sensitive public challenges,” they said. “Most people are bearing the brunt of the current economic situation with everything they have and the leaders must not add more emotional trauma to their burden.”

According to the bishops, Nigerians are happy to see prosecutions for embezzlement of public funds. They called for respect for the rights and dignity of the accused. Official lawlessness is “always toxic for public sanity,” they warned.

The bishops noted the desire for peaceful co-existence and the need for “genuine, harmonious relations among religions.”

They encouraged groups and individuals in interreligious work to foster interaction and collaboration among people of different religions. In their view, such efforts will help promote mutual understanding and prevent hatred and violence.