By Saeed Davar*

Russians have attracted a lot of attention in recent months.

After Moscow’s surprising show of force in Ukraine and Crimea, Russians have now taken their northern and Baltic fleets into the Mediterranean in order to defend their interests in Syria. Russia’s aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, which they had already said would remain in Murmansk for overhauls until 2017, along with Peter the Great battlecruiser, Severomorsk destroyer, Vice-Admiral Kulakov destroyer, and five other logistical vessels have started a move, which has stirred excessive sensitivity of NATO.

If the United States’ estimate that there are 39 battleships in Russia’s Northern Fleet is accepted, it must be said that by transferring all its Northern Fleet, that is, 39 ships, and part of the Balkan Fleet, which is the oldest marine fleet of Russia, to the Mediterranean, Moscow has been trying to lay emphasis on the extraordinary importance that its attaches to Syria. Of course, it is not logical for Russia to deplete all its northern parts of warships and risk a major void in its defense shield, which would provide the United States with a good opportunity to infiltrate those parts. So, we assume that Moscow has dispatched the aforementioned eight vessels to the Mediterranean.

Here, I must emphasize that according to NATO’s estimate, Russia’s Northern Fleet consists of 45 atomic submarines, some of which may have been dispatched to Syria along with the above fleet. In addition, it must be noted that it is not only the situation in Syria that has made Moscow embark on such remarkable marine shift, but the need to defend comprehensive national security interests of Russia in the most sensitive region of the world should be considered as the most important strategic reason for Kremlin to do so, because it indirectly affects Russians’ interests across the globe.

At present, Russia is in a special situation. By focusing its fleet in this region, Russia not only increases the number of warships and the quality and quantity of operational weapons, but increases its military personnel to more than 3,000. At the same time, the number of Russian airplanes and helicopters will increase to more than 80 and Russia’s missile power will be also able to operate from a close range in this region. In doing so, Russians are, in fact, conducting a marine drill and it is possible for them to test speed and capabilities of their forces and weapons. Russians need this situation. The main strategic goal pursued by Russians is to announce their victory in this region. Except from Crimea, they have never been so serious in enforcing their foreign policy following the collapse of the former Soviet Union and have never used military force on this scale. I believe that the factor that increases Russia’s courage is the approaching presidential election in the United States, which practically slows down US administrations in their foreign policy moves.

Since at least the 1950s, there have been tensions between Moscow and the West, especially the United States, in the Arab Middle East, specifically with regard to deployment of 5,000 US forces to Lebanon, and at times, those tensions have spread to the Caribbean region and Cuba. Russia only resorts to military forces in its foreign policy when its normal diplomacy is in a defensive position and there is a need to change power equations. Even in Eastern Europe, Russians have been always willing to settle challenges through political negotiations and when their efforts proved futile, they resorted to military force. The same was true about Cuba. However, today, unlike the measure taken by then Russian leader, Nikita Khrushchev, who had to react to the United States’ threat from a distance of 11,000 kilometers and finally send missiles to Cuba, Moscow is berthing right on the side of the gravitational center of the crisis.

The method used by Russians is to make efforts to control and resolve crises in a matter of less than a year and they have continued using this method in their foreign diplomacy. The question is will Russians be able to shift their problems to a political phase and solve them within the next five months after deployment of forces and bolstering their military presence? Perhaps, some Cold War terms must be revived from now on to have a more objective understanding of developments. The aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov will turn into a regional airport and base for Russia in the Middle East, which will greatly increase Russia’s mobility in the region. Through their measures, Russians put the United States in a position where they will have to regularly change their plan and this issue will inflict heavy costs on the United States. It seems that Russia is repairing power voids created as a result of the absence of the Soviet Union.

*Saeed Davar
International Analyst
*These views represent those of the author and are not necessarily Iran Review’s viewpoints.

The European Council said Thursday it added 10 persons to the list of those targeted by EU restrictive measures against the Syrian regime for being responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, benefiting from or supporting the regime, and/or being associated with such persons.

This decision follows the Council conclusions of 17 October 2016 and the European Council conclusions of 20-21 October 2016.

The persons added to the list include high-ranking military officials and senior figures linked to the regime. This decision brings to 217 persons the total number of persons targeted by a travel ban and an asset freeze for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria.

In addition, 69 entities are targeted by an asset freeze. More broadly, sanctions currently in place against Syria include an oil embargo, restrictions on certain investments, a freeze of the assets of the Syrian central bank within the EU, export restrictions on equipment and technology that might be used for internal repression as well as on equipment and technology for the monitoring or interception of internet or telephone communications. These measures were last extended on 27 May 2016 and are in place until 1 June 2017.

The EU remains committed to finding a lasting solution to the conflict in Syria, as there is no military solution to the Syrian civil war. The EU is determined to save lives and continues its intense humanitarian diplomatic effort to deliver aid to Aleppo and wherever needed, and to evacuate the wounded.

The legal acts adopted by the Council, including the names of the persons concerned, are published in the Official Journal of 28 October 2016. The decision was adopted by written procedure.

Turkish prosecutors have issued arrest warrants for 73 air force pilots as part of Ankara’s ongoing crackdown on alleged plotters and sympathizers of the July 15 coup attempt.

The arrest warrants were issued on Thursday as police forces launched operations across 17 provinces to detain the pilots over their alleged links to US-based opposition figure Fethullah Gulen, Anadolu reported.

The operations focused on an air base in the central Turkish province of Konya, the news agency added.

According to Turkey’s private Dogan news agency, the suspects are accused of “armed rebellion against the Turkish Republic” and membership in what Ankara calls the Fethullah terror organization for FETO.

The latest detentions will bring to more than 300 the number of pilots dismissed or arrested as part of the coup investigation.

Other media reports said more than 200 soldiers and civilians were to be arrested in coup-related operations on Thursday.

Last week, police detained 47 soldiers in a similar operation focused on the Konya base, of which 29 were subsequently remanded in custody, according to Dogan.

On Wednesday, Ankara said it had replaced three quarters of provincial police heads as part of the crackdown.

Since the July 15 coup attempt, Turkey has arrested 35,000 people and sacked or suspended more than 100,000 others in the civil service, judiciary, police, military and elsewhere.

Gulen denies involvement in the failed coup.

The crackdown has raised concerns among European countries and human rights organizations, who have urged the Turkish government to show restraint and act within the rule of law.

Original source

Thousands of people in major cities across the world will on Friday unite for a 24-hour hackathon to accelerate the ability to respond to climate change on a global scale.

According to organizers of the event, Climate-KIC’s 2016 Climathon brings together specific urban challenges with the people who have the passion and ability to solve them. More than 59 cities across 36 countries on 6 continents have set up a local climate change challenge for teams to respond to.

Students, entrepreneurs, big thinkers, technical experts and app developers around the world will take action by coming up with innovative solutions to these challenges in the 24-hour marathon session.

London is spearheading the Climathon in partnership with the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, where teams will focus on improving air quality. Other cities registered to participate in the Climathon include Toronto, Sydney, Bogota, Trondheim and Shanghai.

Ebrahim Mohamed, Director of Education, Climate-KIC, said, “The science of climate change is indisputable, but the problem often seems so removed from everyday reality that organisations have for many years struggled to engage citizens. The Climathon changes this, providing the critical impetus for city citizens, innovators, business experts and policy makers to come together in a global climate movement to solve one of the most pressing issues of our time.”

City-level action to address climate change is needed at speed and scale. Cities already contribute over 70% of global carbon emissions and are rapidly growing, with 70% of the world’s population expected to live in cities by 2050[1].

According to Glen Murray, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Ontario Province, Canada, “Climate change is a global problem and to fight it, we need collaboration on a global scale and from all levels of government. We need everyone doing their part to find solutions. Innovators in clean technology are going to find new and expanding opportunities here in Ontario. I’m pleased to be part of Toronto’s first Climathon and I’m encouraged to see the enthusiasm and creativity of students and entrepreneurs who can’t wait to get started in the low-carbon economy.”

This year’s event builds on the success of the inaugural Climathon, which saw teams in 20 cities across six continents come together to identify – and work on solutions for – local urban climate change problems.

Ideas that emerged from the 2015 hack ranged from encouraging cycling in Copenhagen, conscientious and cost-effective means of river or stream reclamation in Addis Ababa, to public-private partnerships to reduce food waste in Washington DC.

Ebrahim Mohamed, Director of Education, added that, “Last year’s teams were inspired and motivated by their counterparts in cities around the world, and many have gone on to form successful businesses and public-private partnerships that are helping to ensure the impacts of climate change are mitigated.”

Climathon locations include major universities, research centres, government facilities and corporate offices around the world.

Tibor Navracsics, European Commissioner for Education, Culture, Youth and Sport, responsible for the EIT, said, “Young people have a vital role in tackling global challenges such as climate change. We need to ensure they can participate fully in making the change Europe needs. With this in mind, the EIT’s Climate-KIC Climathon can make a big contribution to training a new generation of entrepreneurs and innovators. It connects them to a global network and enhances crucial skills such as team-work, creativity and openness that are vital to help young people find fulfilling work, become engaged citizens and help build the Europe of the future.”

Climate-KIC is the EU’s largest public private partnership addressing climate change through innovation to build a zero carbon economy

The use of virtual girl Sweetie, used by the police to investigate pedofiles, is problematic in the Netherlands. Researchers of Leiden University and Tilburg University conclude that this is due to the criminal law applicable at the moment.

In the Netherlands the chance that the use of Sweetie will lead to a successful conviction is much smaller than in countries like the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. In these countries the law is more flexible when it comes to the use of these kind of investigative methods. This conclusion is the result of a big law comparison research project in 19 countries. Terre des Hommes commisioned this project to Leiden University and Tilburg University.

Pretending to be a real girl

Sweetie 2.0 is developed by the Dutch organisation Terre des Hommes to fight the growing problem of webcam sex tourism. Via chatrooms on the internet paedophiles ask children, mostly from countries like the Philipines, to have paid webcamsex with them.

Sweetie is an artificially intelligent girl who pretends to be a real girl in chatrooms. When a suspect seeks contact with Sweetie, she can save the conversation and help the police in tracing the suspect. Terre des Hommes is now thinking of using Sweetie outside of the Netherlands.

Changes in law

The research outcome has led to a renewed interest at the Dutch Department of Justice into the proposed changes to articles 248a and 248e Sr. At the moment there is a proposal for new regulation, ‘Computercrime III’. The proposed changes allow the use of people pretending to be under age. They allow the paedophile to lure them to an actual meeting with the intent of sexual conduct (‘grooming’).

Bart Schermer thinks these changes are an opportunity to also change the law where it concerns the use of Sweetie. “The upcoming changes are limited to ‘grooming’. If you want to use Sweetie to fight child abuse, you should also change other parts of the Criminal Law. Still you have to be careful when you do allow the strategy of ‘luring’ someone. The suspect can have other intentions than the police think.”

Upset Hindus have urged for the immediate withdrawal of leggings carrying images of various Hindu gods and goddesses, sold on a Melbourne headquartered online marketplace Redbubble, calling it highly inappropriate.

Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada today, said that Hindu deities printed on Redbubble leggings—Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma, Krishna, Ganesha, Durga, Lakshmi, Skanda, Saraswati, Hanuman, Kali, Seshnarayana—were highly revered in Hinduism and was meant to be worshipped in temples or home shrines and not to be worn around one’s legs. Inappropriate usage of Hindu deities or concepts for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt the devotees.

Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, also urged Redbubble CEO Martin Hosking and Board Chair Richard Cawsey to offer a formal apology.

Symbols of any faith, larger or smaller, should not be mishandled, Rajan Zed noted.

Zed further said that such trivialization of Hindu deities was disturbing to the Hindus world over. Hindus were for free artistic expression and speech as much as anybody else if not more. But faith was something sacred and attempts at trivializing it hurt the followers, Zed added.

The renowned linguist and peace activist Noam Chomsky has recently raised some eyebrows by declaring his support for Hillary Clinton’s presidency, arguing that the logic of “lesser evil” dictates a pro-Clinton vote. But, Chomsky’s logic is highly defective and leaves a lot to be desired, reflecting an indefensible misrepresentation of Clinton, who in some ways is definitely more dangerous than Trump to world peace.

Missing from Chomsky’s 8-point rationalization for a pro-Clinton vote is any in-depth and critical scrutiny of Clinton, whose hawkish foreign policy stance risks open conflict with Russia, among other things.

Compared to Clinton, who has an atrocious record with respect to various Middle East conflicts, at least Trump recognizes the necessity of working with Russia and Iran against the threat of ISIS and Al-Qaeda as well as giving Russia’s Putin a chance to improve relations with the US. Trump has rightly criticized Clinton’s “no-fly over Aleppo” as a recipe for WWIII, and yet none of this figures in Chomsky’s assessment of the presidential candidates, not to mention the huge pile of Clinton’s record of corruption, misuse of authority for personal gain, cunning manipulation of the mainstream media and vicious behind-the-scenes attacks on her opponents, etc. On the whole, Clinton’s so many flagrant defects disqualify her from the vantage point of civic responsibility and deliberative democracy.

Unfortunately, the ‘late’ Chomsky has evinced other evidence of a growing “mainstreamization” such as by endorsing the former head of US’s federal reserve bank, a Wall Street savior, and overlooking his own insights on Obama’s foreign policy misconducts, some of which are shared by Clinton. In essence, Chomsky is absolving Clinton of such responsibility by miscasting her as a “lesser evil,” even though she is clearly the ‘bigger evil’ when it comes to the ties with US’s monied oligarchy, complete sell-out to the pro-Israel lobby, and the like.

Clearly, Chomsky’s huge error of judgment makes the soul of towering American and international left, such as Howard Zinn and Rosa Luxemburg, shiver in their graves. Since when the left intellectuals have consented to becoming appendages of right-wing, hawkish status quo politicians? This makes no sense at all and Chomsky is, in fact, doing his own rich legacy a major disservice by throwing his moral weight behind Clinton, a patently corrupt, vindictive and hawkish warmongering politician who is Machiavellian through and through, as clearly established by the combination of Wikileaks disclosures and other “political dirt” that has surfaced, much to the embarrassment of the Clinton campaign.

At bottom, Chomsky’s flawed rationalization in favor of Clinton suffers from a political triumphalism that overlooks the protean value of sticking with the marginalized third parties such as the Green Party, whose cause can and should be bolstered by open support by the likes of Chomsky. Undoubtedly, Chomsky is rattled by the prospect of a Trump presidency, for the most part for good reason, yet he succumbs to a political reductionism and thus presents a Manichean image of the Trump phenomenon that ignores the populistic streak that resonates with the needs and demands of the American electorate for an anti-establishment candidate.

For sure, Trump fails the test on several grounds, but not all, which is why the entire mainstream US media is lined up behind Clinton, unfortunately as is the case with an enlightened progressive thinker who ought to set the moral and political standards for supporting presidential candidates much higher and, as stated above, has committed a grave error of judgment that will undoubtedly mar his shining legacy as a leading American leftist and proponent of radical democracy. Chomsky’s egregious error is sadly symptomatic of a broader twilight of left in America — that desperately needs new intellectual leadership.

By Lusine Mkrtumova

In the flesh he seemed indestructible. Hugo Chavez was not especially tall, but he was built like one of the tanks he once commanded. He was possessed of seemingly inexhaustible energy. He travelled incessantly, both around his vast country and abroad. Each Sunday he would host live television shows lasting up to 12 hours. He would ring up ministers in the early hours of the morning to harangue them. For 14 years, everything that happened in Venezuela passed through his hands, or so he liked to think, The Economist wrote of him.

However, loved and mourned by millions of Venezuelans, Chavez, failed to turn the country’s oil wealth into prosperity.

Venezuela’s economy is a disaster, a Bloomberg analysis said in 2015. The government stopped releasing regular economic statistics, the annual inflation rate is believed to be150%, while an estimate from the Troubled Currencies Project put the real inflation rate at 808%.

In each of his speeches, Chavez said that Latin America had liberated itself from what he called the American imperialist yoke. He jailed some opponents and labeled his critics as degenerates and squealing pigs.

Chavez used to call his governing “Socialism of the 21st Century,” but political scientist Terry Lynn Karl dubbed it “petrolization” – making the spending of oil money your government’s main purpose, even after the oil money starts to run out. This has left the country in an impossible situation, Bloomberg said.

The divergence between Venezuela’s revenue and spending started long before the oil-price collapse. When oil prices hit their all-time high in July 2008, government revenue – 40% of which comes directly from oil – was already falling. The main problem was Venezuelan oil production, which dropped from 3.3 million barrels a day in 2006 to 2.7 million in 2011. It was still at 2.7 million in 2014, according to the latest BP Statistical Review of World Energy.

Venezuela’s shrinking oil production is a reflection of the country’s grim financial situation, which has caused rolling blackouts that have even left oil facilities in the dark, CNN said in June 2016, when S&P Global Platts announced that the country produced just 2.15 million barrels of crude oil per day that month, showing the weakest pace since February 2003.

Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro (right) addresses the press, accompanied by Brazilian chancelor Antonio Patriota. Photo Credit: Agência Brasil

A former bus driver, Maduro became President not for his personal qualities and achievements, but benefitting from a sympathy vote which later turned into mass protests. In December 2015 parliamentary election, the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) lost control of the National Assembly for the first time since 1999. Demonstrations against Maduro, have been fueled by anger and frustration over high inflation, violent crime and shortages of basic goods.

The opposition-led Assembly voted to begin impeachment proceedings against President Nicolas Maduro for violating democracy. The latest protests that drew hundreds of thousands saw unrest leading to dozens of injuries and arrests.

After launching a political trial against Maduro on Tuesday in the National Assembly, the opposition coalition held nationwide marches dubbed “Takeover of Venezuela”.

“This government is going to fall!” crowds chanted, many wearing white and waving national flags as they congregated at nearly 50 sites across the country, Reuters reported.

“This needs to keep growing so that the government understands once and for all that we’re doing this for real,” said two-time presidential candidate Henrique Capriles, blaming authorities for what he said were over 120 people injured and some 147 protesters detained.

Coalition leaders called for a national strike and a November 3 march to the Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas, unless the election board allows a referendum to remove Maduro.

Thus, while President continues to accuse the opposition of coup attempts, the country with the world’s largest oil reserves remains to be a place, where people form queues to get basic foodstuff and angrily kill animals in zoos.

Fear of trade overlooks that most value creation in advanced economies is based on services, not manufacturing.

By Ajai Gaur and Ram Mudambi*

Trade typically figures prominently in US presidential election, and 2016 is no exception. While campaigning, politicians tend to adopt anti-international business positions that are theoretically unsound and lack empirical evidence.

Four fallacies underline these common political arguments.

Fallacy 1: Manufacturing jobs are the basis of American prosperity.

Fallacy 2: Imports make us poorer.

Fallacy 3: Success of foreign firms always helps foreign countries, success of US firms always helps the US economy.

Fallacy 4: To export, firms must sell to buyers in foreign countries.

The manufacturing fallacy: Since 1980, elections have included clarion calls to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. President Barack Obama focused on reviving the manufacturing sector, and in the current election, Donald Trump vows to revitalize manufacturing to “reclaim millions of American jobs” while Hillary Clinton has promoted a “make it in America” strategy on the stump.

Yet manufacturing continues to shrink as a percentage of total employment. By some estimates, while US manufacturing output increased sixfold between 1950 and 2008, the share of manufacturing jobs as a percentage of all jobs decreased from about 30 percent to 10 percent. The reduction in the share of manufacturing jobs despite a significant increase in manufacturing output is primarily due to tremendous productivity gains since World War II, stemming from continual innovations in technology and management practices. This is neither new nor unique to the US. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the share of US farm sector employment fell from 90 percent to about 10 percent between 1790 and 1950. This was due to increased use of heavy machinery and automation, and a simultaneous migration of labor from the farm sector to the manufacturing and service sectors. Furthermore, all major industrialized nations have experienced job losses in the manufacturing sector.

Guessing game: Actual job losses due to robots may not be as bad as anticipated for most countries (Source: George Graetz and Guy Michaels, “Robots at Work”; Scott Andes and Mark Muro, “Don’t Blame the Robots for Lost Manufacturing Jobs”)

Political arguments often neglect the underlying structure of different economies. Most advanced economies have become primarily service economies. As the structure of the US economy has changed, so have its drivers of value creation. Advanced economies add greater value by focusing on non-repetitive, high-value-added specialized activities such as innovation and marketing, while emerging economies concentrate on repetitive, low-value-added standardized activities. Rich countries are service economies, focused on finance, engineering, design and health care, and this is dictated by their comparative advantage.

The import fallacy: The second popular myth is that imports make a country poorer, and a country must export more than it imports to be prosperous. There are two major problems with this view. First, merchandise trade deficits per se, when countries import more goods and services than they export, are not detrimental to economic growth. Basic economics tells us that merchandise trade deficits must be offset by capital account surpluses because every country’s balance of payments must be zero by definition. Simply put, imports must be paid for with current goods, or exports, or past accumulations or future goods – capital.

As long as the domestic economy is an attractive destination for foreign capital, a country can afford to run deficits. Thus, an innovation-driven economy, such as the United States, can support trade deficits year after year, by way of an inflow of foreign capital. Foreign investment also brings benefits for the domestic economy, including more and higher paying jobs. In the long run, the only way to reduce trade deficits in a healthy manner is to encourage savings. Restricting imports only weakens the domestic economy.

Further, imports and exports go hand in hand. The top export destinations for the US – Canada, the EU, Mexico and China – are also the top locations from which the US imports. Likewise, the top exporting states – Texas, Illinois, Kentucky, and Michigan – are also top importing states.

The mechanics of this correlation are illustrated by Boeing, the largest single US exporter, and its most recent export success – the 787 Dreamliner. This plane has more than 1,100 orders from 60 customers around the world. However, Boeing is also one of the largest US importers. To build the 787, Boeing sources parts from many countries. The 787 illustrates the nature of success in the global economy – countries and firms that do not source from the best in the world cannot export to the rest of the world.

The foreign firm fallacy:  “What’s good for General Motors is good for America,” a misquote in itself, became a slogan for many politicians. The underlying rationale is that US firms are better for the US economy in terms of producing and keeping jobs in the US.

The truth is that US subsidiaries of foreign multinationals have an annual payroll of $510 billion with average wages of $80,041 – 30 percent higher than the national average. These foreign subsidiaries pay 14 percent of US federal corporate income tax, and produce $360 billion in US exports, about 26 percent of the total. Additionally, they spend $45.2 billion annually on US-based R&D activities, accounting for about 16 percent of all R&D performed by US companies.

The reality of the global economy is that few major firms locate high-value activities based on nationality of headquarters. Such activities are based on local resource availability. So long as the United States remains a high-knowledge economy with valuable technological resources and innovation capabilities, it will continue to attract high-value-creating subsidiaries of foreign enterprises. Foreign firms in general, compared to local firms, source more locally, pay higher wages, perform more R&D intensive activities and export more. More importantly, they provide strong linkages for domestic firms to participate in global value chains. This leads to the last fallacy.

The export fallacy: Traditional thinking about exports is that nations must sell to buyers in foreign countries. This was true when firms operated in silos set by organizational boundaries. This is no longer true in the modern economy dominated by global value chains. Different organizations add value at different parts of the chain. Thus, even though a firm may not be directly engaged in selling to a foreign buyer, it may be part of a chain that generates exports.

There are three sets of firms within a global value chain – original equipment manufacturers, tier 1 suppliers and tier 2 suppliers. The original manufacturers ar e “orchestrators” who conceptualize the product and develop overall design. Manufacturing of critical components is then outsourced to tier 1 suppliers that specialize in specific parts. Those suppliers rely on tier 2 suppliers for components. Along with the orchestrators, tier 1 and 2 suppliers are integral parts of the global value chain. Domestic firms can thus become proxy exporters by supplying local or foreign orchestrators. In the aerospace industry, the design firm Sitec, by virtue of being a supplier to Spirit that makes airframes for Airbus, sells its product all over the world without directly dealing with foreign buyers or markets.  Such indirect participation in a global value chain reduces the risks associated with direct exports while imparting critical learning that a firm can use if it decides to go international.

Takeaways: These fallacies offer insights about the nature of international business in today’s global economy:

First, most value creation in advanced economies is based on services and not manufacturing. The sooner policymakers and the general public acknowledge this fact, the sooner the nation can focus on priorities that support robust economic growth.

Second, the trade deficit is not always a bad thing and importing is often a key to exporting success. More importantly, limiting imports certainly won’t help in promoting domestic growth or reversing the trade deficit.

Third, on average, foreign firms pay higher wages, have higher R&D-intensity and greater exports than domestic firms, thereby generating significant benefits for the domestic economy.

Finally, connecting to a global value chain is a means of becoming a “proxy exporter” without the risks of international activity.
*Ajai Gaur is Associate Professor of Strategy and International Business at the Rutgers Business School, Newark and New Brunswick. He is currently serving as the president of the Asia Academy of Management. He also serves as a consulting editor of the Journal of International Business Studies and as a senior editor of the Journal of World Business and the Asia Pacific Journal of Management.

*Ram Mudambi is the Frank M. Speakman Professor of Strategy at the Fox School of Business at Temple University in Philadelphia, where he is the director of the Institute for Global Management Studies. He also serves as an editor of the Global Strategy Journal.

By Mitchell Blatt*

The combination of Donald Trump’s anti-democratic strongman attitudes and long-running hate for Hillary Clinton has brought out the worst in the Republican Party.

Seeing an imminent defeat in the presidential race and the possibility of losing their majority in the Senate as well, Republicans have threatened violence and obstruction.

First we have former one-term Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, who wrote that if Trump loses he’s going to “grab his musket.” Coming, as it is, after Trump publicly refused to accept the election results and has warned for weeks about the election being “rigged,” it raises the very real threat that Trump’s supporters, many of whom buy into the idea that guns should be used to attack the government if they disagree with the government, won’t accept the results of the election and that B-list Tea Party influencers like Walsh will egg them on.

Already these kinds of messages about picking up your arms are common among the conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, whom Trump listens to. Other Republican nominees for high office before Trump have also used such threatening language. Failed 2010 Republican Senate candidate for Nevada Sharron Angle said the Second Amendment (which protects gun rights) is “to defend ourselves. And you know, I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.”

Now the GOP nominee for president himself made allusions to “Second Amendment remedies,” too, this year: “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people—maybe there is, I don’t know.”

So it’s not like it’s just one-term representatives irresponsibility sewing seeds of terrorism in the minds of rabid right-wingers (who make up a relatively large portion of Trump’s base).

Trump’s social media director also made a veiled threat against Fox News’s Megyn Kelly, whom Trump has been obsessed with attacking ever since the first primary debate of 2015.

One wonders what could happen to Kelly “after the election”? Does Dan Scavino still have delusions that Trump might win? Trump has, after all, threatened that Clinton would be in jail if he won and he threatened to bring an anti-trust suit against Amazon, whose owner, Jeff Bezos, also owns the Washington Post. In the same interview he threatened the anti-trust suit, he attacked the Post for its tough reporting on Trump. So Trump, who often expresses admiration for Vladimir Putin’s “leadership,” is on record of saying he would use the mechanisms of government to threaten those whom he views as his adversaries.

Republican senators have a non-violent solution that would simply stifle the working of government. Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is considered a moderate Republican, has already said the GOP would block every single Supreme Court nominee President Clinton proposes. Now hard right Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has seconded McCain’s proposal. McCain once called Cruz a “whacko bird” because of Cruz’s radical proposals. But now it appears radical obstructionism is bringing both sides of the GOP together.

Whether its threats of violence, non-acceptance of the results, or trying to block legislative action at every turn, much of the Republican Party seems determined to make sure the party that wins the election can’t exercise their power.

About the author:
*Mitchell Blatt moved to China in 2012, and since then he has traveled and written about politics and culture throughout Asia. A writer and journalist, based in China, he is the lead author of Panda Guides Hong Kong guidebook and a contributor to outlets including The Federalist, China.org.cn, The Daily Caller, and Vagabond Journey. Fluent in Chinese, he has lived and traveled in Asia for three years, blogging about his travels at ChinaTravelWriter.com. You can follow him on Twitter at @MitchBlatt.

Smartphone apps could offer patients with type 2 diabetes a highly effective method of self-managing their condition, concludes a study by Cardiff University.

A systematic review of 14 previous studies found that all had reported a reduction in average blood glucose levels in patients that used an app, compared to those who did not, with an approximate reduction in HbA1c (glycated haemoglobin) of about 0.5%. The analysis also found that younger patients were more likely to report a benefit. No evidence was found to support the use of apps in type 1 diabetes, but further research is needed to substantiate this.

Dr Ben Carter from Cardiff University’s School of Medicine said: “With the number of patients globally with diabetes expected to rise to over 500m by 2030, there is an urgent need for better self-management tools.

“As we enter an era where portable technology is increasingly used to improve our lifestyles, as can already be seen with physical activity technology, apps can offer a large percentage of the world’s population a low cost and dynamic solution to type 2 diabetes management.”

Diabetes management includes monitoring and managing blood glucose levels. This is done by controlling diet and knowing how foods affect blood sugar. For many people with diabetes, it also involves taking medications that help manage blood sugar levels. Current diabetes apps allow patients to enter data and provide feedback on improved management. They can provide low cost, interactive and dynamic health promotion by allowing patients to track medications, set reminders, plan meals, find recipes and plan for doctor’s appointments and blood tests.

Dr Carter added, “By the end of the decade it is predicted that global usage of mobile phones will exceed 5 billion, so apps, used in combination with other self-management strategies, could form the basis of diabetes education and self-management.”

The study comprised of a systematic review of 14 diabetes type 2 randomised controlled trials, involving 1,360 patients. This type of research provides the strongest evidence for drawing causal conclusions because it draws together all of the best evidence.

In a study led by the University of Leeds, scientists have solved one of the most challenging and long-standing problems in atmospheric science: to understand how particles are formed in the atmosphere.

The research paper, published online in the journal Science, details the first computer simulation of atmospheric particle formation that is based entirely on experimental data. The research was made possible thanks to a sophisticated laboratory called CLOUD, based within the research facility CERN in Switzerland.

The lead scientist on the study, Professor Ken Carslaw from the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds said: “This is a major milestone in our understanding of the atmosphere. The CERN experiment is unique, and it has produced data that seemed completely out of reach just five years ago.”

Clouds in the atmosphere consist of tiny droplets, which form when water condenses around small particles in the atmosphere called ‘aerosols’. Understanding how aerosols are formed is therefore vital for understanding cloud formation – a process that has, until now, been an uncertain quantity in climate models, introducing problems for climate change projections.

For over 30 years, scientists have been able to build computer simulations of atmospheric gases based on measurements of chemical reaction rates made in a laboratory. This capability has been essential to our current understanding of the atmosphere, including the destruction of the ozone layer.

Until now, the same level of understanding has not been possible for aerosol particles in the atmosphere because of the enormous challenges involved in reliably measuring particle formation in a laboratory.

The CLOUD experiment can measure the ‘nucleation’ of new atmospheric particles – that is, when certain molecules in the atmosphere cluster together and grow to form new particles – in a specially designed chamber under extremely well controlled environmental conditions. Nucleation is important because, by current estimates, about half of all cloud droplets are formed on aerosol particles that were created in this way.

Professor Carslaw concluded, “These new results will give us much more confidence in how particles and clouds are handled in global climate models.”

Did Italian Prime Minister, Matteo Renzi, actually read the full text of the UNESCO resolution on Palestine and Israel, before he raved with anger?

“I think this is a mistaken, inconceivable resolution,” he said.

“It is not possible to continue with these resolutions at the UN and UNESCO that aim to attack Israel. It is shocking and I have ordered that we stop taking this position (his country’s abstention) even if it means diverging from the position taken by the rest of Europe,” he added.

Renzi, who became Prime Minister in 2014 at the relatively young age of 39 knows exactly how the game is played. In order to win favor with Washington, he must first please Tel Aviv.

His country has abstained from the October 12 vote on a resolution that condemns Israel’s violations of the cultural and legal status of Occupied East Jerusalem. This decision has ignited the ire of Israeli Ambassador to Rome, Ofer Zaks, who riled up the Jewish community in Italy to protest the abstention. Renzi, in turn, was converted into a champion of the ‘Temple Mount’, the name Israel uses to describe the Palestinian Muslim holy site.

Renzi cravenly went on damage control mode without truly understanding the nature of the resolution, which merely condemned Israel’s obvious violations of international law, and only calls for Israel to respect the status of Palestinian culture in the occupied city.

None of procedures that led to the vote on the UNESCO’s resolution – voted by 24-6, with 26 abstentions – violated protocol, nor was any of the wording inconsistent with international law. In fact, UNESCO was merely doing its job: attempting to protect and preserve the historical and cultural heritage of the world.

Jerusalem is a sacred and a holy city to a majority of humanity, simply because it is significant to the spiritual wellbeing of the adherents of the three monotheistic religions. In fact, the resolution stated so:

“Affirming the importance of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls for the three monotheistic religions …”

Renzi’s outburst is quite disappointing, to say the least, for the young, eager politician simply tried to score cheap political points with Israel – thus the United States – without a full, or even partial comprehension of what the UNESCO resolution resolved. Nor did he seem aware of the fact that such text is largely a repeat of what has been discussed by the world’s leading cultural organization in April, and repeatedly before that date.

“If anyone wants to say something about Israel, let them say it, but they should not use UNESCO… To say that the Jews have no links to Jerusalem is like saying the sun creates darkness,” he said, paraphrasing the sentiment displayed by the Israeli Prime Minister.

It would be rather sad if Renzi sees a mentor in Benjamin Netanyahu, for the latter is one of the least liked world leaders who has made a mockery of international forums and derided the United Nations itself as anti-Semitic and its process as ‘theater of the absurd’.

This is what Netanyahu had said in response to the resolution and shortly before he suspended his country’s membership in UNESCO. Using a language that is as amusing as his cartoon depiction of the Iranian nuclear bomb in his famous UN spectacle in 2012, he said:

“To say that Israel has no connection to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall is like saying that China has no connection to the Great Wall of China or that Egypt has no connection to the Pyramids.”

Other Israeli officials followed suit with a chorus of denunciations, included Israeli President, Reuven Rivilin, who described the decision as an “embarrassment” for UNESCO. Culture Minister, Miri Regev, cut to the chase, by labeling the resolution “shameful and anti-Semitic.”

In fact, it was neither.

In addition to Renzi’s odd reaction, the United States and other western governments reacted with exaggerated anger, again without even addressing the situation on the ground, which prompted the resolution – and numerous other UN resolutions in the past – in the first place.

Even the Czech parliament jumped on board, voting to condemn what they described as a “hateful, anti-Israel’ sentiment.”

I have read the resolution repeatedly to pinpoint the specific text that could possibly be understood by Israel’s friends as hateful, to no avail. The entirety of the text was based on past international conventions, resolutions, international law, and refers to Israel as the Occupying Power, as per the diktat of the Geneva Conventions.

The Italian, Czech, American anger is, of course, misdirected and is largely political theater.

But, of course, there is an important context that they refuse to address.

Israel is working diligently to appropriate Muslim and Christian heritage in East Jerusalem, a city that is designated by international law as illegally occupied.

The Israeli army and police have restricted the movement of Palestinian worshipers and is excavating under the foundation of the third holiest Muslim shrine, Haram al-Sharif, in search of a mythological Temple.

In the process of doing so, numerous Palestinians, trying to defend their Mosque from the attacks staged by Israeli occupation forces and extremist Jewish groups, have been killed.

How is UNESCO to react to this?

The resolution merely, ‘called on Israel’ to “allow for the restoration of the historic status quo that prevailed until September 2000, under which the Jordanian Awqaf (Religious Foundation) Department exercised exclusive authority on Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif.”

Moreover, it ‘stressed’, the “urgent need of the implementation of the UNESCO reactive monitoring mission to the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls.”

Where is the ‘hate’ and ‘Anti-Semitism’ in that?

Israel’s anger is, of course, fathomable. For nearly fifty years, following the illegal occupation and annexation of the Palestinian Arab city, Israel has done everything it could possibly do to strip the city of its universal appeal and Arab heritage, and make it exclusive to Jews only – thus the slogan of Jerusalem being Israel’s ‘eternal and undivided capital.’

Israel is angry because, after five decades of ceaseless efforts, neither UNESCO nor other UN institutions will accept Israel’s practices and designations. In 2011, following the admission of ‘Palestine’ as a member state, Israel ranted and raved as well, resulting in the US cutting off funding to UNESCO.

The latest resolution indicates that Israel and the US have utterly failed to coerce UNESCO.

What also caused much fury in Tel Aviv is that UNESCO used the Arabic references to Haram al-Sharif, Al-Aqsa Mosque and other Muslim religious and heritage sites. The same way they would refer to Egypt’s Pyramids of Giza and China’s Great Wall by their actual names. Hardly anti-Semitic.

Since its establishment atop Palestinian towns and village, Israel has been on a mission to rename everything Arabic with Hebrew alternatives. Recent years have seen a massive push towards the Judaization of Arab Christian and Muslim sites, streets and holy shrines, a campaign spearheaded by the Israeli right and ultranationalist groups.

To expect UNESCO to employ such language is what should strike as ‘absurd’.

Not only should the UNESCO resolution be respected, it should also be followed by practical mechanisms to implement its recommendations. Israel, an Occupying Power should not be given a free pass to besiege the holy shrines of two major world religions, restrict the movement and attack worshipers, annex occupied territories and destroy what is essential spiritual heritage that belongs to the whole world.

On October 26, 2016 UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee adopted a controversial resolution that ignores Jewish and Christian ties to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount; Draft Resolution 40COM 7A.13, entitled “Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls,” by a ‘majority’ of 10 countries voting in favor, eight abstaining and two opposing the text. Just ten “yes” votes out of the 20 members were needed for the resolution to pass.

While the UNESCO resolution on Jerusalem totally ignores any Jewish or Christian connection to the Temple Mount, what should worry us most is its affirmation of a paranoid conspiracy theory holding that Jews are plotting to harm Islamic holy sites. The UNESCO resolution “condemns the escalating Israeli aggressions” against “Muslims’ access to their holy site Al-Aqsa,” “deplores the continuous storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif by Israeli right-wing extremists,” and “deeply decries the continuous Israeli aggressions” committed by “the so-called ‘Israeli antiquities’ officials.”

There’s a long history to Palestinian claims that Jews, Zionists or Israelis are threatening Al-Aqsa. Such claims are part rallying cry, and part conspiracy theory. The power of this lie, both in inciting violence as well as mobilizing Arab and Muslim public opinion, was first understood in the 1920s by the Mufti of Jerusalem (and future Nazi collaborator) Haj Amin al-Husseini.

He saw Al-Aqsa as a way of turning a local conflict into a regional, religious, and even global conflict. Claims that Jews were seeking to harm Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem in 1928 sparked a wave of Arab violence against Jews, culminating in the Hebron massacre of 67 Jews a few months later.

This method served as a model for each of the future eruptions of violence following false claims of Jewish threats to Al Aqsa, which occurred roughly once a decade. What is clearly a political pathology is treated instead as a possible grievance – and, in the case of UNESCO, a genuine one.
The truth is that immediately after conquering the Old City of Jerusalem in 1967, Israel handed control of the Temple Mount to the Islamic Trust, or Waqf, and forbade any Jewish religious rites on the entire Mount, a status quo Israel has maintained to this day. Nor has Israel conducted any excavations under the Mount or the mosques on the Mount, although it has done archeological digs near the outside of the retaining walls.

It is the visits of Jews to the Temple Mount – but never inside the mosques – that is preposterously described in the UNESCO resolution as “storming Al Aqsa.” In fact, the only worshipers regularly harassed on the Temple Mount are the few Jews who Israel allows to quietly visit their religion’s holiest site.

Instead of the Palestinians using false claims that Jews, Zionists or Israelis are threatening Al-Aqsa. and inciting violence the Temple Mount could be sanctified by retelling this ancient tale; transmitted orally in both Arabic and Hebrew for many centuries, and finally written down in several versions in the 19th century. Some say this happened in the time of Adam and others say in the year that Abraham was born.

Two brothers who inherited a ‘valley to hilltop’ farm from their father, divided the land in half so each one could farm his own section. Over time, the older brother married and had four children, while the younger brother was still not married.

One year there was very little rain, and the crop was very meager. This was at the beginning of a long term draught that would turn the whole valley into an arid, treeless, desert where even grain did not grow, and all the springs dried up.

The younger brother lay awake one night praying and thought. “My brother has a wife and four children to feed and I have no children. He needs more grain than I do; especially now when grain is scarce.”

So that night the younger brother went to his barn, gathered a large sack of wheat, and left his wheat in his brother’s barn. Then he returned home, feeling pleased with himself.
Earlier that very same night, the older brother was also lying awake praying for rain when he thought: “In my old age my wife and I will have our grown children to take care of us, as well as grandchildren to enjoy, while my brother may have no children. He should at least sell more grain from his fields now, so he can provide for himself in his old age.”

So that night, the older brother also gathered a large sack of wheat, and left it in his brother’s barn, and returned home, feeling pleased with himself.

The next morning, the younger brother, surprised to see the amount of grain in his barn seemed unchanged said “I did not take as much wheat as I thought. Tonight I’ll take more.”

That same morning, the older brother standing in his barn, was thinking the same thoughts.

After night fell, each brother gathered a greater amount of wheat from his barn and in the dark, secretly delivered it to his brother’s barn. The next morning, the brothers were again puzzled and perplexed.

“How can I be mistaken?” each one thought. “There’s the same amount of grain here as there was before. This is impossible! Tonight I’ll make no mistake – I’ll take two large sacks.”

The third night, more determined than ever, each brother gathered two large sacks of wheat from his barn, loaded them onto a cart, and slowly pulled his cart toward his brother’s barn.

In the moonlight, each brother noticed a figure in the distance. When the two brothers got closer, each recognized the form of the other and the load he was pulling, and they both realized what had happened.
Without a word, they dropped the ropes of their carts, ran to each other and embraced.

God looked down at the two brothers and smiled thinking that their love and concern for each other made them and their their descendants, worthy to build a center of worship in this holy place. Someday their descendants will each build and rebuild a holy House in this valley and on this hill.

When all those, both near and far, who revere this place as a standard, share it in love with everyone else who reveres it, then I will do as Abraham requested, and “Make this a land of Peace, and provide its people with the produce of of the land”. (Qur’an 2:126). Then will the children of Abraham live in Holiness, Peace and Prosperity.

Jews believe the hill is Jerusalem. Muslims believe the valley is Makka. I believe both are right.

Slavko Mangovski, MHRMI International Coordinator and a dual-citizen of the US and Macedonia, was denied entry into Greece on October 24, 2016 at the Medzitlija/Niki (Negochani) border crossing. He was told by border officials that he is on the “list of undesirables”, Greece’s blacklist of Macedonian human rights activists, despite being previously removed from it due to pressure from local human rights organizations. He was placed on Greece’s blacklist again after being a guest at a gala banquet held by Macedonian Human Rights Movement International on June 1, 2013 in Toronto.

Representatives from the US Embassy in Athens were told by the border officials that they had “no record of the incident”, despite border documents being issued (see www.mhrmi.org/news/2016/october27_e.asp). MHRMI immediately followed up with the US State Department to investigate the continued abuse by Greek officials against Macedonians and its large Macedonian minority.

Furthermore, the documents refer to “FYROM”, with the European Union logo on prominent display. MHRMI not only condemns Greece’s actions, but the European Union in allowing a member-state to negate and violate an entire ethnic group’s rights to its own name, ethnicity, identity, culture and language. MHRMI calls on the EU to:

• force Greece to abolish its racist blacklist;
• immediately denounce Greece’s persecution of Macedonians;
• enforce all of the European Court of Human Rights judgements against it;
• denounce the Greek-initiated name dispute with Macedonia;
• compel its member-states to uphold and adhere to the human rights conventions that it espouses as core European values

Failure to do so would only indicate the European Union’s lack of commitment to its own stated ideals and a continued blind eye to Greece’s anti-Macedonian, anti-minority conduct and policy.

*Macedonian Human Rights Movement International (MHRMI) has been active on human and national rights issues for Macedonians and other oppressed peoples since 1986

By Eyad Abu Shakra*

For President Barack Obama to enjoy around 55% support among Americans according to the latest polls, a few weeks before the election of the new president, is a very interesting phenomenon. It is interesting especially as America’s international credibility wanes and prestige tumbles to the extent that a Yemeni militia subservient to Iran managed to target one of its navy’s ships three times within the space of a few days.

The ends of US presidential terms, more so the penultimate and last terms, usually point to voters getting tired of the boss in the White House. Even ‘ultra-charismatic’ presidents like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton failed to achieve the popularity of Obama near the end of their sojourns in the Oval Office. Indeed, the 55% figure is much higher than the figures achieved by either the Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump. So what is the “secret” behind Obama’s continuing popularity within America, while losing his glitter abroad, even reaching unprecedented lows in regions like the Middle East?

Most likely, there are two very important reasons. The first is that Obama has succeeded in securing a social and economic ‘safety net’ inside America, mainly in the fields of healthcare, employment, economic upturn and improvement in living conditions after the pains suffered by ordinary Americans during the financial crisis of 2008-2009. In democracies, it is a well-known fact that a voter passes judgement on his/her elected leaders based on how they directly affect his/her direct interests, regardless of anything else.

The second reason is that Americans are getting sick and tired of political involvement and military adventures abroad, and are becoming inclined instead to look inward and concentrate on issues close to their livelihood. Thus, what many — especially in the Middle East — regard as Washington’s letting down, if not betraying its global allies, this is viewed as wise and prudent policy by ordinary American voters who cannot see why their children should die in foreign lands.

In addition to these two reasons, one might add the fact that the Republican Party, which is supposed to provide the ideological alternative to the Democrats, has gone too far in “giving in” to the extreme Right, whether within the party establishment or the erstwhile ‘marginal’ extremist outsiders who have managed to infiltrate its organizations. These extremists — including ‘The Tea party’ group and ultra-fundamentalist Evangelists and White Supremacists — have penetrated the Republican Party structure, taken over most of its networks, and imposed their political agendas on it.

Today it is a fact that the Republican Party may be anything but the party of Abraham Lincoln. In fact, the mere term ‘Lincoln’s Party’, which Republicans love to parrot during their rallies and major events, is an insult to the great man who defended the Union and broke the back of slavery in the second half of the 19th century. If a proof is ever needed, one cannot go further than how ultra-fundamentalist Evangelist and racist votes in the ‘Old South’ states have turned these states into Republican strongholds, noting that the American Civil War (1860-1861) in which the Republican Lincoln defeated the Southern ‘Confederates’ had virtually eliminated his party’s presence there almost until the World War II. Indeed, the Party did not recover its presence in the South except when it became the vehicle of the ‘conservative’ Right facing the Left-bound Democrats towards… Liberalism.

On Nov. 8, American voters will elect a new president who won’t take office before the 20th of January 2017. It is quite likely that regardless of who wins, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will adopt policies different from those of Barack Obama.

Despite the obvious differences; if Clinton wins she’ll be the first woman-president and if Trump does he will be the first outsider who has never been elected to political office, the personalities of both candidates and political cultures – as divergent as they are – as well as their vision of America and its role in the world differ markedly from Obama’s personality, culture and vision. Clinton and Trump, for example, do not necessarily believe that America is an arrogant and aggressive Super Power that needs to apologize to its enemies and turn against its old allies.

Clinton and Trump are also less reliant on small cliques of ‘mafias’ of close advisers and associates, while more committed to broader party consensuses; Clinton with Congressional blocs and ‘Liberal’ lobbies, and Trump with business, industrial and conservative religious lobbies.

Having said this, it would be naïve to expect Hillary Clinton to dump Obama’s Middle East policies; however, one expects her to be less shackled by JCPOA with Iran, or to continue the ongoing collusion with Tehran against Washington’s traditional allies in the Arab World and West Asia. On the other hand, ‘President’ Trump, in spite of his controversial stances – including how he views Russia – is expected to adopt different approaches to Obama’s and his political ‘kitchen’ towards the Arab World, Middle East, Islam, terrorism, and America’s policies with its foes and what is left of its friends.

On November the 8th, a painful page for the Arab World but a good one to 55% of Americans will be turned in Washington, and although the decision is American and so is the main and direct interest, we – Arabs – are entitled to honestly tell the American voter that in foreign policy you harvest what you plant, and the bad seeds that President Obama has planted shall bear bad fruits in the future. It is then the judgement of history on his presidency and political legacy that will be more truthful and objective.

* Eyad Abu Shakra is the managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat.

Since his early days in office (2007), President Daniel Ortega and his government began elaborating a National Plan of Human Development with a clear goal to reduce inequality by increasing the fight against poverty, cutting irrelevant expenditures and increase investment in social sectors and rural infrastructure. [1]

In the meantime international organizations such as the World Bank and FAO have provided expertise and assistance through their technical cooperation programs including the International Association of Development (AIF) in order to help alleviate the most vulnerable rural – farming families and improve the state of public works and infrastructure throughout Nicaragua.

Despite of an overwhelming global economic turmoil, the government of President Daniel Ortega has been highly praised by competent international actors for maintaining an economic growth that is beyond average in Latin America and the Caribbean. Managua, regardless of its leftist government, has implemented admirable macroeconomic policies, combined with a growing international presence of Nicaragua’s exported products and an ever growing attraction of Foreign Direct Investment. These long term actions have helped the Central American nation to appropriately handle the economic turbulences of 2008-2009 and make the most out of the spiking food and oil prices.

In 2011, national economic growth reached a record high of 6.2 percent; meanwhile in 2015 the country had a 3.9 percent national growth, the lowest growth level in the last five years. In 2016, Nicaragua is expected to reach a 4.5 percent economic growth, making it the country with the highest prosperous level in Central America, and is expected to exceed Panama’s and Costa Rica’s economic growth this year due to: the contracted flow of commodities and movement of cargo in Panamanian ports [2]; Costa Rica’s president has been voted the least popular leader of the Americas and as a result his country is expected to perform poorly this year. [3]

According to a National Central Bank study, during the first semester of 2016, Nicaragua’s economy grew up to 4.6 percent, while experiencing a significant growth level if compared with the same period in 2015. Managua has ripe conditions to maintain a stable level of growth, as this year is coming to a close the level of growth could slightly exceed the level of 4.6 percent.

In the same vein, in May 2016 there was an average of 5.4 percent growth higher than May 2015. This year the economic activities that registered a hoicked level of growth were: financial intermediation and related services (9.6 percent), agriculture (7.9 percent), domestic and international commerce (6.3 percent), public administration and national defence (5.2 percent) and transportation and communications infrastructure (3.2 percent). In 2015, Nicaragua’s Gross Domestic Product grew by 4.9 percent with an inflation of only 3 percent.

The macroeconomic stability of Nicaragua has allowed the government to embrace pioneering strategies that combat poverty in the long run, especially in the rural areas, instead of succumbing into short run decisions that could further protract the glaucous levels of poverty. Visionary leadership and determination of President Daniel Ortega has been quintessential towards reducing the rampant levels of poverty, where in just a five years period (2009-2014) the national poverty level in Nicaragua saw a significant reduction by 13 points (from 42.5 percent down to 29.6 percent); meanwhile extreme poverty was reduced by 6 points (from 14.6 percent down to 8.3 percent).

Another important matter that will have a direct impact in Nicaragua’s economy is the construction of the “Great Bi-oceanic Canal of Nicaragua,” which pretends to unite the Pacific with the Caribbean Sea through: a spacious canal that will allow the circulation of large cargo shipments; connect the two shores with a major highway; the construction of a double track railway; installation of an oil pipeline; two deep water ports; two airports and two free trade zones.

This is an initiative that President Ortega’s government is trying to develop so that it can compete with Panama and offer an alternative service to maritime transport and to the shipment of commodities; such an investment could exceed the amount of USD40 billion.

While the legal aspects of this concession are already finalized, in Managua there are high hopes on this mega project; it is expected to bring optimistic structural changes to the matrix of national economy. Nicaragua would emerge from an economy based on raw materials into a nation that has an economy centred on a highly integrated chain of services, logistics management and the storage of consumption goods. [4]

The study of feasibility and environmental impact for the Great Canal of Nicaragua started this year and the government has already awarded a fifty year long concession (with the possibility for renewal) to HKND Group, a Chinese construction company that will start the project in December 2016 and cut the ribbon of inauguration by mid 2019. [5]

Nicaragua’s Great Canal is perceived as a project that will pave the strategic road of the future economic development of Nicaragua as well as raise the bar of growth in the whole region. Let’s not forget that amid persisting economic stagnation and recession in the global north, Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua continues to sail on calm water that ensure a constant state of economic growth equilibrium.

Sources:
[1] http://scl.io/a01Rf48L#gs.mZ7B1bw
[2] http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/panama
[3] http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/costa-rica
[4] http://scl.io/a01Rf48L#gs.mZ7B1bw
http://laestrella.com.pa/economia/economia-nicaragua-crecio-46-mayo-2016/23952490
[5] http://www.forbes.com.mx/nicaragua-el-milagro-de-una-economia-en-crecimiento/#gs.mZ7B1bw

By Amanullah Khan*

Every terrorist incident in Pakistan strengthens my belief that root cause of terrorism in the country is external. The father of the nation, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, truly said that no power on earth can undo Pakistan, however, he did not say that no power can hurt Pakistan. It is equally true that mere existence of Pakistan is not acceptable to many countries in the world. These ‘rogue states’ worked together in the disintegration of Pakistan (East Pakistan) and the same forces are active since ‘9/11’ to destroy Pakistan from within.

Internally, hostile forces have worked hard to deprive the nation from the spiritual power of dignity. These forces have applied multiple subversive methods to achieve this goal. The important among such strategies is the political and economic systems that are mainly responsible for all of the evils. When a nation loses the way to live with dignity, loses everything at last. This is a universal principle and in line with the teachings of Islam also. Allah in Quran says, “Allah will never change the condition of the people until they change it themselves.” Surah Ar Raad, part of Ayaat 11.

The Pakistani nation has lost its cause to live like a nation. Two times Roti (meal) is the prime goal of life for majority (poor class) in the country, and add two more to it, kapra and makan (cloth and a house), is the mindset and life style of the middle class. Making money is the practice of the rich, and ruling the country is the right of the 1% elites. In such a scenario, everyone is busy to grab an opportunity. State machinery is out of work, institutions are serving privileged class in the power corridors, and thus performance of the institutions is next to nil. National assets are being sold/privatized, money is borrowed in trillions of dollars, and a new wave of unregulated capitalism has emerged that is exploding the nation like a bomb.

Other than that, enemies have deployed their assets across the country at different stations, in different forms and at different levels. These include people in politics, media, academia, judiciary, religious circles and in the civil society organizations at large. These people are more dangerous than the bullets fired from an enemy’s guns. We may call them mouthpieces who are on the mission relating to subversion—changing the national narrative and mindset that suits their masters.

The only national institution working efficiently to defend the nation and the state is Pakistan armed forces (Army, Navy, Air Force). The nation acknowledges their sacrifices at both peace and war times. However, the emerging security challenges are grave and complex in nature, and in different spheres and domains of the society that seem beyond the capacity of army alone to cope with them effectively. In the strategic terminologies, these security challenges are collectively termed as fourth and fifth generation warfare.

There is dire need for a fundamental change in the political system of the country. Structures of political, economic, judicial, education, and social systems have got corrupted that should be revised. The political system requires a major surgery at first place because leadership, whether honest or corrupt, emerge through a political system. Surgery of system will bring about change in the mindset of political leaders which will automatically lead to rigorous revision of Pakistan’s internal and external policies.

Here are some policy recommendations that would certainly serve the purpose if implemented in letter and spirit: first, there is an urgent need for Turkey like purge all over the country. Turkey realized this reality after the coup and started a purge campaign to brought traitors into justice. Secondly, Pakistan must learn to deal effectively with ‘rogue states’—India and a few more—by applying tit-for-tat policy. Thirdly, Pakistan should learn to engage Afghanistan and the US the way Iran is doing. Fourthly, time has come to fight enemies assets beyond our own borders, same as Iran, Turkey, US, India and Russia are fighting. And finally, death penalties to all hard terrorists be given at public places which is in accordance with the teachings of Islam.

Unfortunately, the National Action Plan (NAP) does not maintain any of the above noted points. It also does not address the real—external—source of terrorism. Like 3D policy (Deterrence, Development and Dialogue) of the previous Peoples Party government, NAP is also not a promising policy which does not touch upon the root causes of terrorism in the country. It mostly addresses internal sources of terrorism with implementation on the part of Army only which resulted into temporary peace in the country.

Time has come that we say enough is enough to all enemies inside and outside the country. Condemning every terrorist incident is not going to be productive. Similarly, providing evidences to the stooge Afghan government, disinterested America, compromised UN, and biased international community is not a result-oriented policy option. International system is so chaotic and anarchic that one cannot rely on these so-called international entities. Self-reliance is the best approach. Offence beyond borders would work definitely. Internally, terrorists, facilitators, and traitors should be hanged in open space along with the arrested Indian spy, Kulbhushan Yadav.

In sum up, Pakistan needs a competent, honest, courageous and visionary leadership who could restore national cause, and perform well to all challenges and threats, at home and from abroad. A kind of controlled revolution can bring about such fundamental changes. The core question yet remains; who will dare doing all this. I personally do not see any chances in the foreseeable future, although people have strong desire for a revolution—survey reports confirm. However, there could be some scenarios that may alter whole course of history and relieve Pakistan from the menace of terrorism forever: First, a controlled revolution with military support in order to establish a technocratic government; second, a miracle in the shape of a war between big powers in which India suffers (this happened during World War-II in which an arrogant Japan was defeated and Chinese were relieved from its atrocities), and finally, Almighty Allah can bring up an honest, competent, and a brave leader within the existing system of democracy who could introduce revolutionary policies and practices in the best interest of the country and the nation. There are many such examples in the political history of countries (Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey).

The bottom line is that we should give up the unworkable policy of, jeo aur jeene do (live and let us live), situation demands we must send a clear message to these ‘rogue states’ especially India that, jeena hai to jeene do (let us live if you have to live).

*Amanullah Khan is a Research Associate at Strategic Vision Institute, a think tank based in Islamabad. He can be reached at: aukhan1@hotmail.com

Now is clear that colonialist and imperialist powers cause, promote and support terrorism. There are new “strategic partnerships” across the globe to deny equality, basic rights, and freedoms to people. That is the reason why Palestinians, Kashmiris, Tamils, Chechens, Muslims in Xinjiang continue to struggle for freedom.

The European Union has been mulling removing Hamas and the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) from its “terror list” as its top court took a step toward confirming the removal of Hamas, as well as the Tamil Tigers, from an EU terrorism blacklist despite protestations from Israel and the Sri Lankan government – the real cause for terrorism by accelerating state terror and repressive operations against the respective minorities.

An advocate general at the European Court of Justice, whose advice is usually followed by judges, recommended that they reject an appeal by the Council of EU member states against the lower EU court’s decisions in late 2014 to remove both movements for freedom and human rights from the sanctions list due to flaw procedures.
The EU Council’s appeal also cited the lower court’s failure to accept its argument that the groups’ presence on the US terrorism list justified sanctions. Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston concluded, however, that the EU could not assume that other countries gave those it listed sufficient right of appeal. Her advice, which also said some elements of the appeal were justified, is not binding. But judges’ rulings typically follow closely the recommendations of the advocates general. The ECJ said its justices were beginning their deliberations on the case and there was no set date for a ruling. The General Court did not address whether the groups’ actions merited inclusion on the list of terrorist organisations but ruled the procedures putting them on the list were flawed.

In both cases, judges of the EU’s General Court ruled that EU leaders relied too heavily on media reports rather than their own investigations when they imposed asset freezes and travel bans dating back 15 years on members of Hamas and the LTTE. Both organisations argued that they were engaged in legal wars against Israel and the Sri Lankan government respectively.

Israel offered no immediate comment on the court officer’s advice on Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement which controls the Gaza Strip and has fought Israeli occupational attacks for three decades.

The Sri Lankan government had said in 2014 that it would provide the evidence which the court found lacking to support sanctions against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

Israel gets all benefits from European nations and USA by calling the Hamas as terrorists. At the time, Israel, which apparently sells terror goods manufactured in USA and EU, has had fraught relations with the EU in recent years, “rekindled” the old trick of Europeans’ treatment of Jews in the Holocaust and denounced the bloc’s “staggering hypocrisy”.

However, the United States, opposing freedom movement in Palestine and supporting the Israeli fascism and fanaticism with its UN veto, has urged the maintenance of sanctions on Hamas. The assets have since remained frozen pending the appeal.

Hamas was founded in 1987, soon after the First Intifada broke out, as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood which in its Gaza branch had been non-confrontational towards Israel, refrained from resistance, and was hostile to the PLO. Co-founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin stated in 1987 and the Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine, including modern-day Israel, from “Israeli occupation” and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The group has stated that it may accept a 10-year truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders and allows Palestinian refugees from 1948, as well as their descendants, to return to what is now Israel although clarifying that this does not mean recognition of Israel or the end of the conflict Hamas’s military wing has objected to the truce offer. Analysts have said that it seems clear that Hamas knows that many of its conditions for the truce could never be met.

The military wing of Hamas has launched attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians, often justifying them as retaliatory, in particular for assassinations of the upper echelon of their leadership. Tactics have included suicide bombings, a tactic which was largely, but not totally abandoned after 2005, —and since 2001, rocket attacks. Hamas’s rocket arsenal, though mainly consisting of short-range homemade Qassam rockets, also includes long-range weapons that have reached major Israeli cities including Tel Aviv and Haifa. The attacks on civilians have been condemned as war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch.

In the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, Hamas won a plurality in the Palestinian Parliament, defeating the PLO-affiliated Fatah party. Following the elections, the Quartet (the United States, Russia, United Nations, and European Union) made future foreign assistance to the PA conditional upon the future government’s commitment to non-violence, recognition of the state of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements. Hamas rejected those changes, which led to the Quartet suspending its foreign assistance program and Israel imposing economic sanctions on the Hamas-led administration. In March 2007, a national unity government headed by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas was briefly formed, but this failed to restart international financial assistance.[Tensions over control of Palestinian security forces soon erupted in the 2007 Battle of Gaza after which Hamas took control of Gaza, while its officials were ousted from government positions in the West Bank.[41] Israel and Egypt then imposed an economic blockade of the Gaza Strip, on the grounds that Fatah forces were no longer providing security there. In 2011, Hamas and Fatah announced a reconciliation agreement that provides for creation of a joint caretaker Palestinian government. Progress stalled, until an April 2014 agreement to form a compromise unity government, with elections to be held in late 2014

In 2006, Hamas used an underground cross-border tunnel to capture the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, holding him captive until 2011, when he was released in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners. Since then, Hamas has continued building a network of internal and cross-border tunnels,[46] which are used to store and deploy weapons, shield militants, and facilitate cross-border attacks. Destroying the tunnels was a primary objective of Israeli forces in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict.

Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated by several governments as a terrorist organization. Others regard this designation as problematic. Israel outlawed Hamas in 1989, in 1996 the United States followed suit, as did Canada in 2002. The European Union defined the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades as terrorist in 2001, and put Hamas in its list of terrorist organizations in 2003 but such designation was successfully challenged by Hamas in the courts in 2014 on technical grounds. The judgment was appealed, but in 2016 a EU legal advisor recommended that Hamas be removed from the list due to procedural errors. The final decision is not thought likely to effect individual government lists

LTTE – a terrorist organization or defender of Tamils?

Any reaction to state crimes, violence or attacks is called terrorism while all terror operations by the states are glorified as heroism. LTTE as an umbrella organization was formed as a shield to protect from “enemy” attacks the lives and interests of Tamils living in Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan regime used the Tamils in tea plantations and elsewhere to increase economic inputs but denied even basic requirements of the Tamil populations. Disparities between Tamils and Singhalese grew wider and conflict became strong. Lately, Tamils were attacked by Singhalese mobs with state backing, leaving conflict in Lankan society. State suppression methods were harsh which led to the demand by Tamils for separate Tamil state in the island. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) is the only terrorist group which once possessed its own ‘Military’ – Tigers (infantry), Sea Tigers (sea wing) and Air Tigers (Air Wing), in the world, began its armed campaign in Sri Lanka for a separate Tamil homeland in 1983. Founded in May 1976 by Velupillai Prabhakaran, it waged a secessionist nationalist insurgency to create an independent state of Tamil Eelam in the north and east of Sri Lanka for Tamil people. This campaign led to the Sri Lankan Civil War, which ran from 1983 until 2009, when the LTTE was defeated by the Sri Lankan military during the presidency of Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The LTTE was a self-styled national liberation organization with the primary goal of establishing an independent Tamil state. Although it had dabbled with Marxism, Tamil nationalism was the primary focus of its ideology. LTTE was influenced by Indian freedom fighters such as Subhas Chandra Bose.LTTE denied being a separatist movement and saw itself as fighting for self-determination and restoration of sovereignty in what they called their homeland. Despite most Tigers being Hindus, the LTTE was an avowedly secular organization hence religion did not play any significant part in their ideology. The Tiger leader criticized what he saw as the oppressive features of traditional Hindu Tamil society such as the caste system and gender inequality. The LTTE presented itself as a revolutionary movement seeking widespread change within Tamil society rather than only independence from the Sri Lankan state; therefore its ideology included removal of caste discrimination and support for women’s liberation. The Tiger leader also expressed his political philosophy as being “revolutionary socialism” which constituted the creation of an “egalitarian society”
Since people of Tamil Nadu, government and politicians cutting across their political brands supported the cause of LTTE, Indian government also supported and promoted growth and operations.

Due to its military victories, policies, call for national self-determination and constructive Tamil nationalist platform the LTTE was supported by major sections of the Tamil community. Narrow nationalist ideology the LTTE succeeded in atomizing the community. It took away not only the right to oppose but even the right to evaluate, as a community, the course they were taking. This gives a semblance of illusion that the whole society is behind the LTTE. At the height of its power, the LTTE possessed a well-developed militia and carried out many high-profile attacks, including the assassinations of several high-ranking Sri Lankan and Indian politicians. The LTTE was supposedly behind the assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Gandhi in 1991 and Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa in 1993. One is not sure if the organization was used y some world powers to remove these leaders.

Historical inter-ethnic imbalances between majority Sinhalese and minority Tamil populations are alleged to have created the background for the origin of the LTTE. Post independent Sri Lankan governments attempted to rectify the disproportionate favoring and empowerment of Tamil minority by the colonial rulers, which led to exclusivist ethnic policies including the ″Sinhala Only Act″ and gave rise to separatist ideologies among many Tamil leaders. By the 1970s, initial non violent political struggle for an independent mono-ethnic Tamil state was used as justification for a violent secessionist insurgency led by the LTTE. Over the course of the conflict, the Tamil Tigers frequently exchanged control of territory in north-east Sri Lanka with the Sri Lankan military, with the two sides engaging in intense military confrontations. It was involved in four unsuccessful rounds of peace talks with the Sri Lankan government over the course of the conflict. At its peak in 2000, the LTTE was in control of 76% of the landmass in the Northern and Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka.

At the start of the final round of peace talks in 2002, the Tamil Tigers controlled a 15,000 km2 area. After the breakdown of the peace process in 2006, the Sri Lankan military launched a major offensive against the Tigers, defeating the LTTE militarily and bringing the entire country under its control. Victory over the Tigers was declared by Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa on 16 May 2009, and the LTTE admitted defeat on 17 May 2009.Prabhakaran was killed by government forces on 19 May 2009. Selvarasa Pathmanathan succeeded Prabhakaran as leader of the LTTE, but he was later arrested in Malaysia and handed over to the Sri Lankan government in August 2009.

Meanwhile, former members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) are increasingly taking to writing to articulate their reflections on the civil war, which came to an end in May 2009. In recent months, books of three ex-combatants of the LTTE have been brought out and by a coincidence, all are women. A few days ago, the 24-year-old Rathika Pathmanathan launched her book, which contains a set of poems and a narrative account, at an event here in the presence of former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and leader of the Democratic Front Vasudeva Nanayakkara. Besides the original Tamil work, the Sinhala and English versions were also released. Six months ago, an autobiographical sketch of Subramaniam Sivagami alias ‘Colonel’ Thamilini, (who died of cancer 10 months ago) was released. It has been rendered into Sinhala and its English version is expected soon. Last month, the work of another ex-combatant was launched in Colombo.
The present political climate has been cited by many as the main reason for this “ literary” trend. ‘Perhaps, critics of the LTTE are encouraging people to come out with their accounts,” says a Tamil writer, who wishes to remain anonymous. V. Thanabalasingham, veteran journalist, says the trend has to be viewed as a reflection of self-criticism. The works also demonstrate that there were members of the LTTE who held views contrary to the position of the LTTE leadership on various issues at different points of time but these persons, bound by discipline of their organisation, had adhered to what the leadership had decided.

S. Sivagurunathan, who did the translation of Rathika’s work, says the regime change, which took place in January 2015, has paved the way for an atmosphere of freedom for people to express contrary views. Pointing out that the Sinhala version of Thamilini’s work has seen seven prints, he says this shows that many sections of the Sinhalese society are keen on knowing what had happened during the civil war. However, he feels that still, there is a substantial number of Sri Lankan Tamils who do not relish criticism of the LTTE or its chief V. Prabhakaran.

Rathika, who was in the LTTE barely for nine months during 2008-2009 after having been forcibly recruited, says she chose to write her experiences while she was undergoing treatment at a Colombo hospital during 2009-2010 for injury in the leg. “I did it as a way of overcoming my pain.” Conceding that her stint with the LTTE was short, she points out that there are many young former combatants who require proper guidance from society and the government. “Otherwise, there is every chance that these youngsters choose the wrong track,” she cautions.

Observation

It is indeed a historic decision by the EU to write off both Hamas and LTTE from its terrorist list.
UN has a positive role in this regard. It must ensure that the conditions that led the Hamas and LTTE to choose a path of war with the state terror techniques do not resurface in order to showcase it military prowess against the weak minorities and races.

While Hamas faction of the Palestinians are being terrorized by occupying Israel, the Tamil population in Sri Lanka is being ill treated by majority Singhalese community for which the regime and military-police systems provide full support and Lankan government now led by President Sirisena does not seem to take firm decision to support the needs of Tamils against the will and wish of his own Singhalese community.

It is global shame that colonialist trends still play their devastating role as regional big brother India continues to terrorize Kashmiris after enslaving them on a fake agreement with the former Hindu ruler of a soverign Jammu Kashmir. Indian media deliberately hides the truth about the Jammu Kashmir saying it was a part of India where as the truth is Jammu Kashmir was an independent nation and not an Indian princely state at all and India annexed Jammu Kashmir by fooling the National Conference leader Sheikh Abdullah with an offer of Premiership of new Kashmir under Indian Constitution. Once the deal is safely through, India- Nehru- withdrew the Premiership from Abdullah saying India cannot have two Premiers.

That was a betrayal of Kashmiris by all concerned and unconcerned. Now whenever India loses cricket match, it quickly attack Pakistan in order to terrorize Kashmiris. Yesterday, India, by chance, lost the fourth ODI to visiting New Zealand though they are playing as per a game plan and package deal, India ahs arrested a few Pakistani officials in New Delhi on “espionage” charges. Indians, Hindus, who are terribly disillusioned by the unexpected defeat of Indian only “Bharatratna” team, are expected to forget the cricket loss and enjoy as Indian TVs show the Pakistani officals are paraded into North Block. India cannot tolerate if foreign teams defeat India in India and there takes all precautionary steps to see a package deal is struck before the tournament by the Boards and foreign teams do not bring best bowlers to “OUT” Indian batboys.

One is not sure if Indo-Pak jointly works to terrorize Kashmiris, besieged between the nuclear armed neighbors, to end their demonstrations. Both India and Pakistan seem to show that they are indeed at war. Their media voluntarily oblige the regimes, intelligences and militaries. They don’t want to lose either Kashmir or their WMD.

Uncle Sam seems to enjoy the developments in New Delhi, even if not provoked by it. Does New Delhi say Americans are not doing exactly what Pakistanis being accused of doing? Does India not do the same in foreign countries; say in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal or Sri Lanka?

Anyhow, Indian TV channels enjoy too much at others’ cost. After all they are the privileged people to keep the hate fire inflaming.

Is it a surgical or clinical approach?

Doctors Without Borders /Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has decided to reject a donation of one million doses of pneumonia vaccine from Pfizer, Inc. The global health charity’s convoluted reasoning goes like this:

There is No Such Thing as “Free” Vaccines

Pneumonia claims the lives of nearly one million kids each year, making it the world’s deadliest disease among children. Although there’s a vaccine to prevent this disease, it’s too expensive for many developing countries and humanitarian organizations, such as ours, to afford.

Free is not always better. Donations often involve numerous conditions and strings attached, including restrictions on which patient populations and what geographic areas are allowed to receive the benefits.

Critically, donation offers can disappear as quickly as they come. The donor has ultimate control over when and how they choose to give their products away, risking interruption of programs should the company decide it’s no longer to their advantage.

This remarkable document goes on to praise GSK, a competitor of Pfizer’s, for having declined to offer pneumonia vaccines for free, but instead offer them for $3.05 per dose to all humanitarian organizations. I don’t know about you, but I will take free over three bucks any day.

MSF believes GSK’s offer is more “sustainable,” but it is not. GSK is free to raise its prices or stop supplying vaccine altogether whenever it wants. GSK has just as much “ultimate control” over its actions as Pfizer does. Why does an innovative pharmaceutical company insist it control which populations in which geographic areas receive free medicines?

University of Pennsylvania Professor Patricia Danzon has characterized innovative drug makers’ pricing strategy as a primarily driven by purchasers’ incomes. Because new medicines are protected by patents, drug makers can charge prices higher than in a purely competitive market. However, the profit-maximizing price in a rich country (especially the United States) will result in fewer sales in lower-income countries.

Danzon found that income elasticities explained a significant amount of price variation. But what about patients in places where neither households nor governments can afford anything? In that case, the drug maker might as well give medicine away. It makes for good PR, and costs little.

However, the drug maker must ensure the medicines get to the target population, and not get diverted by unethical middlemen who sell them to wholesalers for distribution in higher income countries. Plus, it must ensure its medicines do not get mixed up with counterfeit medicines in a poorly controlled distribution system.

MSF is not the only game in town. I trust there are other worthy charities, perhaps less well known for their stands against free medicines, which would welcome Pfizer’s donation.

This article was published at The Beacon.