All is fair in love and war, and this particular electoral battle in US politics has assumed more belligerent proportions than most. Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton genuinely deserve to be in the White House, but elections are rarely fought, let alone won, on the issue of the deserving.

As the election moves into it’s the cracker phase, Trump is scrapping his way back in the polls, ever the immeasurable factor in this election. For the establishment, the battle is already won, creating a dangerous sense of entitlement for the Democratic nominee.

That sense of entitlement shone through in the latest fury from the Clinton campaign, nervous about the FBI’s foray into the last days of this election. As ever, it was that seedy matter of emails sent on a private server when she was Secretary of State that came bobbing back up.

On Friday, Director James B. Comey sent a letter to the US Congress noting that he was wishing, due to “recent developments” to “supplement” previous testimony on the previous and closed investigation into Clinton’s use of a private server. “In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”[1]

That unrelated case involved emails discovered on the laptop of disgraced former congressman Anthony D. Weiner, and a Clinton aide and Weiner’s estranged wife, Huma Abedin. Clinton found herself back in the frame.

Imaginations started to gallop, notably at the open nature of the remarks. The investigation would involve the old issue of whether classified information had been involved, and whether relevant emails would be pertinent to the investigation.

No sense of scope, length or frame of the investigation was given: “Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony.”

Previously, Comey railroaded efforts to bring charges against Clinton’s misuse of classified material despite noting “evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of information.” In so doing, he did acknowledge that prosecutors ponder a “number of factors before bringing charges.” These include “the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past” and “the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.”

While his then recommendation for non-prosecution was hardly binding on the Attorney-General, it would have been irregular to expect a prosecution in absence of hearty approval from the FBI. The result, or so thought those manning the barricades of the Clinton campaign, was permitted to rest.

This naturally unleashed a hailstorm of speculation from such figures as Rush Limbaugh, who pondered whether there had been an element of connivance between the Obama administration, Comey and Clinton. Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch saw “a disconnect between Comey’s devastating findings and his weak recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.”[2]

This “disconnect” has been a feature of the entire discussion about Email Gate. For one, President Barack Obama, despite being an enthusiast for prosecuting whistleblowers who disclose classified information for a perceived higher ideal for information transparency, did not see a legal problem with Clinton’s use of a personal email server.

It was “not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered” even if it was imprudent.[3] Rather confidently, and in a manner befitting premature judgement, Obama insisted in April this year that Clinton “would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy.”

Certain outlets of legal commentary, notably Lawfare, have taken note about the entire background surrounding Comey’s moves as murky and compromising for a range of parties. Attorney-General Loretta Lynch, for one, had been compromised by the President’s certitude on the subject of Clinton’s behaviour, a point made even more complicated by a promise – albeit one made by Clinton – that Lynch would continue to remain AG in her administration.[4]

In then testifying before Congress about his own decision not to prosecute, an investigation was essentially being given dramatic air time. Truly, we were bearing witness to another Clinton saga, the legal equivalent of constipation in an ailing Republic. “As a general matter,” lamented Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution, “when prosecutors and investigators decline to indict someone, we don’t want a report, much less congressional oversight of the unindicted conduct. We want them to shut the heck up.”[5]

There was, however, no shutting up Comey, who is making more electoral history than is customary for a law enforcement organisation. It baffled Clinton, who has persistently wished the email matter to disappear in a confusing haze. Nor did Comey listen to senior Justice Department officials, who attempted to dissuade the move to send the letter.[6] “Never in recent history,” claimed the New York Times, “has the FBI been so enmeshed in a presidential race.”[7]

The FBI director’s intervention has already inflicted range of shocks, though it is imprecise to what extent his own announcement will alter set minds or convince the confused. Trump, most certainly, was emboldened, and the unpopularity contest is set for a few more hiccups prior to the November 8 poll.

Notes:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/28/us/politics/fbi-letter.html?_r=0

[2] http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/05/republicans-and-conservatives-assail-fbis-decision-not-to-indict-hillary-clinton/

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/12/us/politics/obama-tells-60-minutes-hillary-clinton-made-email-mistake.html

[4] https://www.lawfareblog.com/james-comey-hillary-clinton-and-email-investigation-guide-perplexed

[5] https://www.lawfareblog.com/comeys-testimony-precedent

[6] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/us/politics/comey-clinton-email-justice.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[7] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-emails.html

By Joyce Karam

As the US Presidential race heads into the final stretch less than a week before the vote on Tuesday, excitement and organizational strengths are reshaping the Arab-American vote. However, the question remains if they could tip the balance in the race between Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in key battleground states.

From phone banking to canvassing and participating in state, and legislative races, the Arab-American vote is no longer a dormant block in US politics. The “Yalla Vote” (Let’s Vote) campaign, “Ammu Sam” (Uncle Sam) wearing a Kaffiyah poster, and a signature “Arab American” logo from the Clinton campaign embody the level of organization and turnout push among more than a million and a half Arab-Americans living the US today.

High visibility and participation

The visibility and increased participation by Arab-Americans in this election is no surprise for James Zogby, the founder and president of the Arab American Institute that has launched the “Yalla Vote” campaign in 1998, with repeated successes in 2008, 2012 and today. Zogby tells Arab News that percentage of Arab-Americans voting and getting involved in the election is “higher than the average population as a whole.”

This year especially, Zogby points out to a robust effort in Michigan where Dearborn could get its first Arab-American state representative. He says that with Arab-Americans making 5 percent of the population in Michigan, and in a tight race between Clinton and Trump in the state, the participation and turnout could tip the scale for either candidate on Tuesday.

Illustrating the significance of the Arab-American vote in Michigan, a giant billboard in Arabic taunting Trump with the words “Donald Trump can’t read this, but he’s afraid of it anyway” is over a major Dearborn highway. In an election that was interjected by the Republican nominee Donald Trump’s suggested ban on Muslims and incidents of discrimination and rising anti-Arab and Islamophobic sentiment, the community sees a lot at stake in the outcome.

Advantage Democrats

Zogby who has closely studied the Arab-American vote over the last three decades, sees the shift from voting Republican (2000 and prior) to a ratio of 2-1 for Democrats today as the most interesting phenomena when discussing the community’s impact in 2016.

In a survey conducted by Zogby Analytics earlier this month, this shift toward Democrats is evident. Hillary Clinton tops Donald Trump among likely Arab-American voters 60 percent to 26 percent. Zogby reads these numbers as consolidating the trend for Democrats in the community and that “it is not a fluke” after the Obama years. In the same poll, 88 percent of Arab-American millennials say they are planning to vote, favoring Clinton to Trump in a 57 percent-26 percent ratio.

This support is not particularly driven by enthusiasm toward Clinton, with one-third supporting the former secretary of state as a way of casting a ballot against Trump. Nevertheless, the issues that take priority in the community, explains why it has leaned for Democrats. Jobs and the economy lead Arab-Americans’ priorities in this race, followed by gun violence. The issue of discrimination is also front and center in polling the community, whereby 8 out of 10 Arab-Americans of Muslim background voice concerns. This is also visible in the ground participation of Arab-Americans in the Democratic campaigns.

While former Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders has brought forward a strong outreach to the community with a more pro-Palestinian and anti-war message, an army of Arab-American and Muslim volunteers has continued the outreach in the Clinton campaign.

Zogby underscores the importance of geography when noting the Arab-American influence in this race. He estimates, besides the 5 percent in Michigan, a 1.5 percent-2 percent in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and a concentrated number in Florida, Virginia, and Minnesota. It is highly unlikely that either candidate can clinch the Presidency without winning some of these states.

More than anything, the 2016 race will be decided by turnout. “It is a turnout game,” says Zogby, and in that game, the “Yalla Vote” T-shirts and Arabic logos will be a testimony to the community’s engagement and participation which will continue beyond next Tuesday.

By Osama Al Sharif*

Despite stiff resistance Iraqi forces appear to be inching closer to the outskirts of besieged Mosul, two weeks after a major offensive to liberate the city from Daesh had begun. But fiercer battles are expected as the offensive moves into second phase and into the heart of the second largest city in Iraq. No one really knows what kind of a fight the stranded militants, numbering between 4,000 and 8,000, will put in this major battle whose outcome will decide the fate of the terrorist organization in Iraq and beyond.

So far they have launched suicide attacks, set oil fields on fire and waged surprise attacks in Kirkuk and Rutba. Militarily, they are outnumbered and have no defense to intensive airstrikes carried out by the US-led coalition. On the ground, Iraqi forces, backed by the Kurdish Peshmerga, appear to be coordinating well and are now moving in from the east in a sustained effort to penetrate Daesh defenses.

Daesh is carrying out atrocities against civilians in the city and neighboring villages as they attempt to flee. They have executed hundreds and appear to be ready to destroy Mosul, as they did in Ramadi and Fallujah, before giving it up.

There is no doubt that the human toll will be hefty. Mosul, a city of 1.5 million inhabitants, will suffer massively before final victory is declared.

The length and sustainability of the battle will depend on other factors as well. Prime Minister Haidar Al-Abadi will have to walk a tightrope as he tries to appease the Americans while not distancing himself from Iran and his Shiite allies. The US has warned him not to involve the notorious Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in the military operations in Mosul. Mosul is a predominantly Sunni city and the PMF’s record in persecuting Sunni Arabs is dismal. PMF’s participation will surely anger local tribes who are seen as instrumental in the fight to liberate their city from Daesh.

Furthermore, the presence of Turkish troops in nearby Bashiqa base has strained relations between Ankara and Baghdad and has triggered statements from Tehran that Iran will seek to place its own troops in the beleaguered Nineveh province. On the other hand Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned that the Shiite-led PMF’s advance on the border town of Tel Afar, with its mainly Turkmen residents, will not be tolerated.

For President Barack Obama liberating Mosul is a major goal in his strategy to defeat Daesh before the end of his presidency. Keeping the coalition together in the fight against the terrorist group is hard enough and will affect the course of the battle and its aftermath.

But if keeping various parties in play in Mosul is hard enough imagine how difficult it will be when the US turns its attention to Raqqa, the self-proclaimed capital of Daesh, in eastern Syria. US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter promised that the battle for Raqqa can go in parallel with the war on Mosul and may even start in few weeks. But the challenge in Syria differs in scope and nature.

In Iraq, the US can depend on the Iraqi Army, the Peshmerga and local tribes in addition to some Shiite groups that are not necessarily loyal to Iran and its agenda in Iraq. But in Syria the picture is different.

A loose Arab-Kurdish coalition of the Syrian Democratic Forces and the YPG, is the only reliable fighting force that the US can depend on. In Syria the US lacks the support of the regime and its main ally, Russia, whose military goals are strikingly different. Damascus and Moscow are now completely focused on securing what is left of Aleppo and have resisted international pressure to put a stop to the blood bath there.

Furthermore, Turkey, which has secured large territory along its border with Syria, has warned the US against involving Syrian Kurds in the battle for Raqqa. Instead, Erdogan has vowed to march, along with the Free Syrian Army (FSA) units that are backed by Ankara, towards Al Bab, Manbij and eventually Raqqa. Damascus, on the other hand, sees Turkey’s incursion as an aggression and has warned that it will shoot down Turkish jets providing air cover to the FSA. This has put Washington in a bind: Without reliable local forces on the ground conquering Raqqa will prove messy and difficult. Erdogan is forcing it to choose its allies and that will prove difficult for Washington.

From a military point of view liberating Raqqa is a much easier goal than Mosul. But logistics and politics will make it tougher for President Obama to chart a clear course to move forward. But the temptation of dealing a fatal blow to Daesh in the waning days of his presidency will prove too tempting to let go.

*Osama Al Sharif  is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman.

By Edward Hunt*

In recent months, a number of U.S. officials have begun to reassess their understanding of why the North Korean government wants nuclear weapons. Rather than repeating the standard claim that the North Korean government is taking extreme measures to intimidate its enemies into making concessions, some officials have begun to suggest that the North Korean government desires nuclear weapons for defensive purposes.

After the North Korean government conducted its fifth underground nuclear test on September 9, 2016, former U.S. official Victor Cha presented the new line of thinking. “This is not a cry for negotiations,” Cha told The New York Times. “This is very clearly a serious effort at amassing real nuclear capabilities that they can use to deter the U.S. and others.”

A few days later, Cha shared the same logic with a subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “Testing was once interpreted by pundits to be an attention-getting effort for dialogue with the United States,” but “it would be irresponsible today to adhere to such an interpretation,” Cha stated. In today’s world, “North Korea is executing a strategy designed to demonstrate a survivable nuclear deterrent before the next U.S. administration comes into office.” In short, Cha insisted that the North Korean government sought to acquire nuclear weapons for the purpose of deterring its enemies.

Threat or No Threat? 

Of course, not everyone in Washington agrees with such thinking. Although Cha and other strategic analysts have proposed that the North Korean government is rationally pursuing a nuclear deterrent to defend itself against the United States, high-level officials in Washington insist that nothing could be further from the truth.

Notably, Secretary of State John Kerry has refuted the idea that the North Korean government needs to take defensive measures. For “any person of common sense,” the answer to the question of whether the North Korean government has to defend itself against the United States is “no,” Kerry announced on October 19, 2016. “Everybody knows that.”

After making his point, Kerry then insisted that the United States posed no threat to North Korea because the U.S. government has made no recent efforts to destroy the country. “The United States has had the power to wipe out North Korea for years – for years,” Kerry noted. “And if indeed that was our goal, we wouldn’t be sitting around waiting while they’re getting additional nuclear weapons.”

Certainly, U.S. officials have not recently attempted to wipe out North Korea. Although the United States had once destroyed most of North Korea during the Korean War, when it spent three years carpet-bombing the country and destroying most North Korean cities, U.S. officials have not resorted to comparable tactics in the country since the armistice ended the fighting in 1953.

At the same time, U.S. officials have continued to take other actions to pressure, marginalize, and isolate North Korea. For starters, U.S. officials have worked with their allies to impose restrictive sanctions on the country. Certainly, “we’re always looking at ways we can continue to apply pressure,” State Department Spokesperson Mark C. Toner acknowledged during a press briefing on July 19, 2016. In fact, “the sanctions are pretty severe right now.”

Two months later, White House official Ben Rhodes made a similar point, only providing more emphasis. “So we’ve passed now through the U.N. Security Council the strongest sanctions ever on North Korea,” Rhodes stated. The sanctions are “having an impact” and “putting a tighter squeeze on North Korea.”

To put an even tighter squeeze on North Korea, U.S. officials have also made it clear that they are ready to take more direct action. Taking advantage of their extraordinary military power in the region, including the 28,500 U.S. soldiers that are stationed in South Korea, U.S. officials have continually reminded the North Korean government that they are ready to resume the Korean War at a moment’s notice.

On the day that the North Korean government conducted its fifth underground nuclear test, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter made the point by stating that “U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula are always ready, and this is true every single day, to fight tonight.”

A few days later, U.S. officials then sent an even more powerful signal of their preparedness, flying two nuclear-capable B-1B bombers over South Korea in a display of military power. As U.S. General Vincent K. Brooks explained at the time, U.S. officials wanted to demonstrate their commitment to using their “full range of military capabilities,” such as nuclear weapons.

Expect Serious Consequences

By applying constant pressure to North Korea, U.S. officials have sent another powerful message to the North Korean government. Although officials in Washington may deny that they are threatening North Korea, they have made it clear that the North Korean government can expect to face serious consequences for continuing to defy the United States with its nuclear weapons program.

“What I can tell you is our policy, with respect to North Korea’s provocations and the resolve of the United States and the international community to try to put adequate pressure on them to change their behavior, has not changed and remains the same,” State Department Spokesperson John Kirby confirmed on October 25, 2016.

Even so, some officials are now providing another way of understanding the situation. On the same day that Kirby made his statement, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper indicated that the United States has ultimately left the North Korean government with no serious alternatives. “I think the notion of getting the North Koreans to denuclearize is probably a lost cause,” Clapper stated. “They are not going to do that. That is their ticket to survival.” Indeed, Clapper indicated that the North Korean government would find it necessary to maintain a powerful nuclear arsenal in order to deter the constant threats it faces from the United States.

“And I got a good taste of that when I was there, about how the world looks from their vantage,” Clapper added. “And they are under siege and they are very paranoid.”

In short, a number of U.S. officials are now beginning to come to terms with one of the main reasons why the North Korean government is making such a major effort to acquire nuclear weapons. These officials are starting to believe that the North Korean government is working to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons to create a powerful deterrent against the United States.

*Edward Hunt writes about war and empire. He has a PhD in American Studies from the College of William & Mary.

Blueberries, and berries in general, are among foods labeled as “diabetes superfoods” by the American Association of Diabetes. Food science researchers at the University of Illinois have found that fermenting berries may improve their antidiabetic potential even more.

Recent research at the U of I includes the development of an alcohol-free blueberry-blackberry “wine” that those suffering from diabetes—who typically must avoid alcohol—can enjoy, while potentially reducing the effects of Type 2 diabetes.

“Unfortunately the number of people with diabetes is increasing astronomically around the world,” said Elvira de Mejia, a food chemist in the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition at U of I. “There are 100 million people around the world who have diabetes and that is increasing, without counting the ones who may be pre-diabetic and not know it.”

Previous research has shown that dietary blueberries may play a role in reducing hyperglycemia in obese mice, therefore de Mejia and colleagues wanted to determine if a fermented, dealcoholized blueberry-blackberry beverage would enhance the potential of the phenolic compounds in the berries that are responsible for reducing diabetic markers.

A new study shows that the fermented berry beverage did reduce the development of obesity and blood glucose levels in mice on a high-fat diet.

The researchers had already determined that the berries, when fermented at low temperatures, resulted in an improved and higher concentration of anthocyanins. Anthocyanins, found in the pigments of fruits such as blueberries, grapes, and apples, have been shown to promote insulin sensitivity, decrease blood glucose levels in the blood, and enhance insulin secretion.

“We know that fruits, vegetables, cereals, legumes, and berries are good, but here we explain that after fermentation we improve and increase the concentration of these pigments [anthocyanins] and they are very high antioxidant components that benefit the body,” de Mejia said.

A previous cell culture study with the alcohol-free blueberry-blackberry wine, showed good results toward inhibiting enzymes related to glucose absorption

“In this in vivo study, as we increased the concentration of these anthocyanin-enriched extractions from blueberries and blackberries we saw an improvement in the uptake of glucose, meaning that the animals with the increased concentration were not as much in a state of hyperglycemia as the other animals.”

The beverage included a ratio of 70 percent fermented blackberries to 30 percent fermented blueberries. The berries were collected from varieties grown at U of I’s Dixon Springs Agricultural Research Station in southern Illinois. Alcohol was removed from the beverage by rotoevaporation and was replaced with water. Some of the sugars left over after fermentation were also removed in the process.

“We optimized the best ratio between blueberries and blackberries. Blackberries are very unique and I think that’s one of the reasons why we selected a high concentration of them in this study. Blackberries have a very specific profile of anthocyanins, and that was amazing at lowering the absorption of glucose in this case,” de Mejia said.

During the study, groups of mice with diet-induced obesity and hyperglycemia were given the fermented berry beverage or the beverage with higher or lower enriched concentrations of the anthocyanins (0.1x, 1x, or 2x). Another group was given sitagliptin, a commonly used medication for diabetes, and another group was given water only. All groups ate the same diet, calories, and amount of sugars otherwise.

While benefits were seen in all groups drinking the fermented beverage, de Mejia says the group on the highest concentration of anthocyanins (2x) showed the greatest results, comparable to what was observed in the group on sitagliptin. This included no increase in body weight, which de Mejia says was a surprise.

“That was not our objective really, we were just looking for markers of diabetes,” she said. “But it was very impressive to see.”

The researchers also observed that glucose was deposited into tissue more than absorbed by and present in the blood, as well. “You want to avoid high glucose in the blood stream, and you want uptake into muscle, liver, and organs, and to keep the level in plasma and blood normal. We saw a reduction of glucose in the blood with the beverage, even in the beverage before it was enhanced,” de Mejia said.

They also saw an effect on oxidative stress in the obese mice. “We saw that in the animals on 2x the enriched anthocyanins, the oxidative species went down, meaning they were kind of protected against oxidation. From that stand point, it was very positive looking at the oxidative stress of the animals because that can damage protein and DNA.”

Regarding the mechanism of action in reducing the diabetic effects, de Mejia says that the antioxidant power of the anthocyanins plays a very important role. “Markers of inflammation went down too. That’s very, very, important. They are correlated. With obesity, less fat means less inflammation, and less oxidative stress. I think it is more toward that pathway of lowering oxidative stress and inflammation and lowering fat. It was very surprising to us,” she added.

Producing this berry wine, complete with the benefits of fermentation but without the alcohol, provides an opportunity for wine makers, de Mejia said.

“There are some bigger wineries/companies that are producing dealcoholized wine for diabetics, but from grapes. It is available in California, for example. I think the novelty of this work is mainly the combination of the blackberries and blueberries and the concentration of anthocyanins as part of the pigment. But it is perfectly doable and I hope that companies can see that there is a market. And it’s delicious,” she adds.

While the berry wine may not be able to replace medications for diabetics, de Mejia says it could help reduce the amount of medication needed; always under the doctor’s supervision and approval.

“There needs to be more studies to see how the anthocyanins work in the presence of medication, to see if they work synergistically, for example. Then, maybe, you could decrease the amount of the drug. All of these drugs for diabetes have adverse effects after so many years of use, even the safest ones.

“We need to consider diet, exercise, lowering body weight, and all the different strategies that the American Association of Diabetes recommends, and maybe in the long run, of course with approval of a physician, you could decrease the level of the drug to keep glucose under control.”

Bridge collapses are rare, but there have been enough of them to raise concerns in some parts of the world that their condition is not sufficiently monitored. In Sweden however, researchers from KTH Royal Institute of Technology are taking a hi-tech approach to the country’s aging infrastructure, with sensors that detect wear and tear on bridges – as it’s happening.

The engineer behind the ongoing project, Raid Karoumi, a professor in the division of Structural Engineering and Bridges at KTH, said that while the internet connections aren’t a substitute for visual inspections, they do provide valuable information about how bridges are impacted by traffic, wind and temperature fluctuations.

“Just as a doctor places a stethoscope and heart rate sensors on your chest, we put our sensors where we want to monitor the condition of the bridge,” Karoumi said. And just like a heart monitor, the sensors pick up deviations that can indicate something is starting to change.

The real-time detection could extend the life of bridges. One older bridge near the KTH campus, which connects the city of Stockholm to Lidingö, a large island in the eastern part of its archipelago, is slated to be replaced in 2020. But the sensors, which will soon be installed, will provide such detailed information about its state that the bridge may be allowed to stand for another 10 years from now, he said.

Bridges undergo change slowly. In the streams of real-time data Sweden’s sensors are delivering – as many as 400 pieces of information per second on some bridges – engineers are looking for clues to what causes wear and tear. Karoumi said that with the technology they can detect cracks that aren’t even visible to the naked eye.

“Of course you drive still out and look,” he added. “But this technology will help to determine when and where an inspection is required, and it will also provide valuable information to those who perform the inspections. It is costly to block traffic so it is good if the inspections are made when necessary.”

But aging bridges aren’t the only ones getting connected.

A bridge that connects Sweden and Norway over the Svinesund sound was fitted with 72 sensors when it was completed in 2005. Researchers at KTH have reaped 10 years’ worth of data from the specially-designed bridge – which is supported by a single concrete arch.

“For newly constructed bridges, we want to check how they behave,” Karoumi said. “You want to confirm that the calculation models used for dimensioning are correct.

“We dimension our bridges for 120 years of life and we want to use the measurements as a kind of footprint that we can compare them with later,” he said.

The sensors are operated either with cables or batteries. The idea is that the cordless sensors can be recharged with the energy generated by the oscillations when the bridge vibrates.”

“Last year we tested the technology on a railway bridge in Södertälje,” he says. “There are various types of energy collection systems. Radio waves can be converted to energy, which we’re testing on the Lidingö bridge in collaboration with Uppsala University.”

Then there’s the micro-blogging bridge, an idea that was scrapped after transport authorities decided it might pose a security risk. The Årsta bridge connecting one of Stockholm’s two major islands to the mainland was fitted with wireless sensors capable of sending information 50 times per second to a cloud-based internet service. Reporting such things as how much the bridge oscillates when trains passed over, the results were presented continuously in one app.

Nevertheless, Sweden’s bridges are well on the way toward the internet of things, as the KTH researchers continue developing cloud connectivity and artificial intelligence for the sensor system.

“There is a lot of development remaining to be done before we get there,” he said. “Our goal is to develop the technology to extend the life of our bridges.”

Marrakech will host the 22nd Climate Change Convention. Hopes are high that the negotiation will succeed in discussing ways of transforming parties’ ambitions into actions including for countries in Southeast Asia.

By Rini Astuti*

Marrakech is hosting the 22nd session of the United Nations’ Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC), on 7-24 November 2016. It will be the first testament on the success or failure of how the climate-constrained world will be governed post-Kyoto Protocol. Does the global community have a strong reason to be hopeful about the next climate change negotiation in Marrakech?

Building on the Paris Agreement of December 2015 the summit will discuss ways of implementing the pledges countries have expressed in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The previous convention held in Paris in 2015 was widely acclaimed as a pivotal point for a global effort to limit the earth’s temperature increase to less than 2 degrees above the pre-industrial level by 2100. Employing the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities, countries individually committed to various degrees of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions reduction levels submitted in advance to the Paris negotiation.

Critiques

However, there have been critiques over the concern that the current pledges are too political and insufficient to achieve the necessary carbon reductions. Scientists highlight that the submitted initial NDCs will lead the world to a temperature increase of around 2.6 – 3 degrees Celcius by 2100. In an article published in Nature (2016), Rogelj et al emphasise that two-thirds of global carbon budget have been emitted, leaving only a narrow room for the world economy to grow while preventing dangerous interference with the climate system.

Scientists and civil society are pressuring parties to take further actions to increase their ambitions under the Paris Agreement’s principle of “progression”. As of 5 October 2016, 87 out of 197 parties to the UNFCCC have ratified the agreement, representing more than 55% global GHG emissions. The agreement will take effect on 4 November 2016.

Hopes are high that more parties will ratify it and negotiations will be directed toward putting ambitions into actions. Otherwise Paris and Marrakech will be remembered as leaving our generation down and out in the race of averting irreversible climate catastrophe.

As the region with fast economic growth, a steep rise in energy consumption and massive land use changes, Southeast Asia has strategic positions in both playing the role of climate mitigation efforts and becoming the beneficiaries of climate adaptation programmes and finance. Although only contributing around 4% of global GHG emissions, all SEA countries have ratified the Paris Agreement.

Southeast Asia’s Role and Challenges

The Philippines’s NDC outlays plan to reduce carbon emissions by 70% by 2030. The commitment is conditional on international support and will heavily rely on energy, waste, transport and forestry sectors. Laos’ NDC drew on the pledge to increase its forest cover up to 70% compared to the country’s total land area by 2020. It will be achieved by joining several international mechanisms, such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) programme to orchestrate necessary international support.

Thailand emphasises its intention to reduce carbon emissions by 20% by 2020 in its NDC. Singapore commits to unconditionally reducing carbon emissions by 36% in 2030. Emphasising its strategy in reducing the carbon footprint in its energy sector, the Singapore Government is working on shifting its use of fuel oil based electricity to natural gas.

As the biggest emitter in Southeast Asia, Indonesia intends to unconditionally reduce GHG emissions by 29% by 2030 while also pledging to reduce up to 41% with international support. The commitment relies heavily on land use sector with emphasise on reducing forest and peatland fires and avoiding deforestation and forest degradation.

Myanmar commits to protecting its rainforests to keep its status as net GHG emitter. Conditional on the availability of international support, Cambodia intends to reduce 27% of its GHG emissions by 2030. Vietnam promises to unconditionally lower its carbon emissions by 8% by 2030 and will reduce further 25% with adequate international support.

Some Concerns

Delving deeper into Southeast Asian countries’ NDCs, some concerns require further discussion. Firstly, on mitigation aspect, the most immediate issue is in ensuring countries move forward with their conditional commitments. It means there should be adequate international support covering essential aspects, such as capacity building, technology transfer, and financial aid. Countries such as the Philippines, Myanmar, Lao and Cambodia will only contribute to GHG emissions reduction with such assistances.

Secondly, on adaptation to the impact of climate change, almost all ASEAN members highlight their position as baskets of climate-related disasters. Hence, adaptation programme must be specifically designed to address the ramification of climate disaster and strengthen the social and infrastructural need of the countries.

Thailand, for example, has highlighted its vulnerability to floods. Hence, the most suitable adaptation program will have to address the direct political-economic causes of the floods as well as to facilitate the most affected communities in coping with the impacts of the disaster while strengthen their socio-economic resilience.

Lastly, the Paris Agreement requires its parties to submit regular updates every five years as the basis for global stocktaking on what has been achieved and how to progress with parties’ ambitions. The Agreement’s effectiveness lies in its parties’ capacity to govern themselves through transparency and monitoring apparatuses. Consequently, strengthening ASEAN members’ capacity to develop information systems (covering aspects of monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon emissions reduction) has to become a crucial agenda for the ASEAN Secretariat.

North’s Responsibilities, South-South Cooperation

Needless to say, to keep the ball rolling for countries in Southeast Asia both state and non-state actors have to collaborate in confirming the existence of international support. While it is essential to demand the North’s responsibilities in assisting the global South, it is imperative to foster South-South cooperation.

ASEAN has provided various platforms for its members to share experience and knowledge concerning climate change. Maximising the current ASEAN initiatives while tending to specific elements required for successful implementation of the Paris Agreement will be the best and fastest option to keep the momentum going.

Contributions from the private sector, donors, philanthropy foundations, and influential public figures will be essential in augmenting countries’ commitments in Southeast Asia. Not only do we ask the business sectors to contribute financially but to be held responsible and accountable for the environmental damages they have caused.

As hundreds of negotiators and thousands of observers make their way to Marrakech, it is hoped the convention is not going to be the representation of a not-too distant Orwellian world where ignorance and inaction are the universal norms. Instead, negotiations need to dive deeper into the revolutionary way of securing the rights of the commons rather than the select few.

*Rini Astuti is a Research Fellow with the Centre for Non-traditional Security (NTS) Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Before Abe Shinzo assumed the office of Japan’s Prime Minister for the second time in December 2012, politics in Japan witnessed an acute spell of political instability with frequent changes in the office of Prime Ministers. The joke in circulation at that time was that Japan has developed the system of having ‘revolving’ prime ministers. Even Japanese lost count of the number of Prime Ministers that the country had since the departure of Koizumi Junichiro and advent of Abe for his second term. Even doubts lingered if Abe could provide a stable government and survive a full second term.

In an academic discussion at a think-tank in New Delhi on Japanese politics after Abe took office in December 2012 where I was invited to present my perspective and assessment of Japanese politics and the prospect of the future of Abe government, I was asked by a senior Army veteran and security analyst: “how much time (months) would you give Abe to remain in office?” Intuitively, I replied at least minimum of two years. I was laughed at for expressing the level of optimism. As it has transpired, the General was not only wrong but my projection has exceeded the period I had in mind.

I had faith in Abe’s understanding of Japanese politics and felt confident that he would work hard to not only ensure stability in the government but would enact measures to bring the economy on track, which is what he is trying to do through his three arrows of Abenomics. Now we reach a situation when his party members are pondering if the party rules can be amended to give Abe 3-year term extension so that he can get enough time to address to the thorny issues facing the nation.

Why is Abe thought to be indispensable in the country’s politics? Under the LDP rule, a Prime Minister can continue in office if he has enough public support and able to manage the administration without much problem. The party’s bylaws restrict a president to two consecutive three-year terms. The party approved a proposal on 19 October to extend the maximum tenure from the current two three-year terms to three consecutive terms for a total of nine years. The party’s General Council will formally revise party’s relevant rules at a convention scheduled for 5 March 2017. Some members of the party are also inclined to endorse if a proposal is floated to eliminate limits on presidential terms. In many countries, political parties do not have fixed term limit for party presidency and Japan is slowly moving in that direction.

The issue of extending the term of the party president was raised after the LDP scored a resounding victory in the Upper House elections in July 2016. The discussion was initiated for the first time by party general secretary Toshihiro Nikai when he was the party’s general council chairman.

Prime Minister Abe’s current term as LDP president expires in September 2018 and if he wins the next intraparty election again, he shall remain in office until September 2021. That would give him the opportunity to preside over Japan as Tokyo hosts the Olympics and Paralympics in 2020. Abe had also a short tenure in office from 2006 to 2007 when he abruptly resigned. If that period is added, his time in office would total 3,500 days in September 2021. This would be 614 more than the tenure of Prime Ministers Taro Katsura in the Meiji-Taisho era, making Abe as Japan’s longest-serving prime minister. He would have also surpassed Eisaku Sato as Japan’s longest-serving prime minister during the post-war period who ruled for seven years and eight months.

Since the Liberal and Democratic Parties merged in 1955 to form the present LDP, many changes have taken place in party matters. In 1955, the term was for two years, with no mention about re-election. In 1960, re-election issue cropped up for the first time but no limit was imposed on the number of terms a president could serve. The length of a term was extended from two to three during Sato’s tenure in office from 1964 to 1972 but the term length was restored back to two years in 1977.

In 1980, a new rule was adopted prohibiting a leader from serving more than two terms consecutively. Since then, only Yasuhiro Nakasone and Junichiro Koizumi reached that term limit. Only Nakasone was given a special one-year term extension after he successfully led his party to victories in the Diet’s Upper and Lower Houses in 1986. When Koizumi took power in 2001, the term of the president was extended from two to three years in 2002. Though Koizumi could have easily got another extension because of the immense popularity he enjoyed, he voluntarily opted against it and stepped down in September 2006, heralding a spell of political instability. During this period, Japan saw many Prime Ministers until Abe restored political stability when he came to power in 2012.

What benefit could a long tenure in office by Abe likely to accrue for Japan? The positives could be at two fronts: internal and external. Internally, Abe could get some extra time to get the country’s economy on track and his revitalisation plan would receive a boost. The right-leaning leader could also aim to fulfil his ambition to amend the pacifist Constitution which is one of his long-term goals. In his economic revitalisation plan, Abe’s task to bail out the nation out of deflation is not fully realised. He has the serious issue of raising the consumption tax from the current 8 to 10 per cent, which has been postponed until October 2019, an unpopular move that could potentially undercut his rock-solid popularity.

Reforms are also needed in the social security system. There also runs the risk of Abe being seen as a dominant leader and such a perception could shape thinking of new strategies by potential aspirants to the party’s presidency. If Abe starts losing intraparty support, demand might arise for his resignation. Therefore Abe could face the onerous task of striking a balance between factions within the LDP. The existing party rule provides provision to recall a president and an ad hoc presidential election could be called. Therefore Abe needs to be pragmatic and show humility in taking other faction leaders on board so that political stability is not compromised. In particular, leaders such as Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and Shigeru Ishiba, former minister in charge of regional vitalisation and also Defence Minister could create problem for Abe if he asserts his authority in every issues. Both are considered likely successors to Abe and had argued against extending Abe’s term but acquiesced when LDP brass placated by promising that the longer term limit would apply to future party chiefs as well.

In the external front, his diplomatic drive on long pending issues such as territorial disputes with Russia, abduction of Japanese national by North Korea etc. could be addressed over long-drawn negotiations. In advancing summit diplomacy, Abe would get more time to nurture Japan’s diplomatic drive and built relationships of trust with leaders of other countries. Since the tenure of Russian President Vladimir Putin continues till 2024, the issue of northern territories that Abe is keen to resolve might see resolution through a series of one-to-one negotiations with Putin. LDP policy chief Toshimitsu Motegi observed that the extension accorded to Abe will pave the way for a stronger leadership and “create a more stable administration that is vital to increasing the international presence of Japan”.

Change in party rules or government law proposing extension of tenure of the leader in office is not confined to Japan alone. In the neighbouring South Korea, President Park Geun-hye has called for constitutional reforms that could allow future presidents to serve multiple times. The present rule does not allow the president for a second term. In China too, President Xi Jinping is eyeing a longer tenure in office; he is already declared the “core” leader by the party at par with Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. The LDP views that change in party rule in Japan giving extension to the president will bring Japan in line with global standards.

For example, while in the US the President can have two four-year terms and in France the President can have two five-year terms, in India the president of the ruling party need not necessarily be the Prime Minister as was the case with Sonia Gandhi as the Congress Party President but Manmohan Singh as the Prime Minister for two five-year terms. In case of states (provinces) in India a leader of a party can remain in office any number of years if party wants, as was the case with Jyoti Basu and Navneen Pattnaik in the states of West Bengal and Odisha, for example. A small section within the LDP is sceptical that according a long tenure to the party president in office could run the risk of turning the system to a dictatorship. In particular, Abe’s intent to revise Article 9 of the Constitution and enact legislation by passing bills through the Diet, allowing the Self-Defense Forces to fight alongside the US for the first time since the end of World War II are cited as risks not worth-taking to extend the tenure.

Recent public opinion polls conducted in August 2016 by Nikkei daily, Kyodo and Jiji Press on the issue showed a majority of people voted against giving extension to a prime minister in office. Those who opposed to an extension of the presidency were wary of Abe’s seemingly invincible political persona. Others however feel that Abe will be in a better position to work on the newly emergent issue of Emperor’s abdication, a wish he has expressed because of old age as he is not able to discharge his national duty properly. At present there is no provision for the Emperor’s abdication and to allow that the Imperial Household Law has to be revised and that is a complicated process. Moreover, there is no consensus on this as of now.

Though all present indications suggest that giving a third term to the LDP President is just a formality, there could still be some procedural hurdles. Abe might be tempted to dissolve the Lower House and call for fresh election to seek legitimacy to his remaining in office and thereby endorsing the amendment of the party rule allowing for the third extension in office. If that happens, the result will test if Abe continues to remain as the unifying force. Moreover, election to the House of Councillors is scheduled to be held in the summer of 2019, which will be the time for his potential third term to take effect. The issue of hiking the consumption tax from 8 to 10 per cent in October 2019 following the upper house race will put Abe to another test if his pursuance of economic measures has proved effective or not. In the race to consolidate his position and remain in office for a third term if Abe stumbles even slightly, clamour within the party and from the opposition as well shall mount for him to step down. Abe shall be walking a tight-rope throughout, it seems, and that would be desirable in a democracy nevertheless.

The Patriotic People’s Front Assam (PPFA) on the backdrop of an uproarious atmosphere against the Centre’s move to grant citizenship to religious minorities from Bangladesh and Pakistan in Assam of northeast India raised a demand for concrete refugee policy for the country.

In a memorandum, sent to Assam Governor Banwarilal Purohit recently, the nationalist people’s forum argued that India should have the refugee policy ‘to deal with the issue of immigrants logically and legally’ forever.

“We sincerely believe India should sign the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention. Moreover, our government has to ratify the 1967 Protocol relating to the status of refugees,” said the memorandum, signed by some distinguished personalities including Cologne (Germany) based eminent historian Dr Nirode K Barooah, former director general of National Museum Dr Rabin Dev Choudhury, eminent publisher Giripada Dev Choudhury, senior editor-journalist Dhirendra Nath Chakrabarty, award winning filmmaker Manju Bora, film personality Pranjal Saikia, IIT Kharagpur professor Gourishankar S Hiremath, Banaras Hindu University professor Anil K Rai, with others.

The memorandum also expressed concerns that few ‘recent misleading and manipulative statements by some individuals and organizations on the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2016 issue’ were ‘trying to communalise the issue instead of helping to find an amicable solution’.

“The extremely volatile utterances targeting the Hindu Bengali community of Assam are deplorable and condemnable to say the least,” asserted the memorandum, also endorsed by Ravindra Nath, Dipannita Jaiswal, Jahnabi Goswami, Pranab Kr Sarma, Pranjal Saikia, Jitul Sonowal, Dr Subhra Kinkor Goswami, Onkareshwar Pandey, USA based non-resident Assamese Vavani Sarmah and Kalyan Dutta-Choudhury, etc.

“We are from this land of glorious civilization and culture and we feel that our spirit should be that of accommodation of Hindu, Buddhists, Christians, Sikhs and other religious minorities who have had to face extreme suppression in erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and also West Pakistan and have been the true victims of Partition of India,” pointed out the memorandum, backed by Rupam Barua, Bidhayak Das, Braja Jyoti Sharma, Jagadindra Ray Choudhury, Pranab Kr Sharma, Girindra Kumar Karjee, Anjanil Kashyap, Anup Sarma, Gitika Talukder, Nava Thakuria, etc.

Appreciating the Union government in New Delhi for taking steps lately to provide shelter to the victims of partition across India, the PPFA clarified that the Hindu minorities in Bangladesh include not only Bengali, but also Rajbongshi, Hajong, Adivasi, Jayantiya and Bishnupriya communities.

Similarly, the Buddhists include Chakma and some Assamese people who fled to the Chittagong hill areas of Bangladesh during the Burmese invasion. The Christians include Bengali, Garo, Khasi and Adivasi people. All these people became the victims of Pakistan plan and Partition and had to live in a ‘foreign land,’ for the creation of which they were not responsible, commented the forum.

The memorandum, also approved by Utpal Dutta, Bobita Sarma, Prasenjit Chakrabarty, Bibekananda Choudhury, Namrata Dutta, Bhagawat Pritam, Tarali Chakrabarty, Nripen Dutta, Arun Sarkar, Akhyamala Bora, Sewali Kalita, Devjyoti Saikia, etc clarified that PPFA has no intention of communalizing the issue. But it wants to ‘provide a clear understanding of how history unfolded lest some vested interests and parochial mindsets for their own narrow political gains and cheap mileage would continue to resort to disturb the peace and tranquil atmosphere of Assam’, declared the memorandum.

Also added, “There is a need for a solution to this vexed issue and we would fully agree if those that have been truly victimized owing to the partition and religious persecution are given a place not just in Assam but in all other States of India, a country where the underlying tenets of democracy are tolerance, secularism and freedom of religion, faith, practice and freedom of expression.”

On October 27, it was announced that Abu Zubaydah, the supposed “high-value detainee” for whom the US’s post-9/11 torture program was initiated, had his ongoing imprisonment recommended by a Periodic Review Board, a parole-type process involving representatives of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice and Homeland Security, as well as the office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Zubaydah’s review took place on August 23 (as I reported here), and the decision was taken on September 22, but, for some reason, it was not made public for five weeks.

The PRBs began in November 2013, and have reviewed the cases of 64 men, who were previously recommended for ongoing imprisonment without charge or trial, on the basis that they were allegedly “too dangerous to release” (41 of the 64) or for men initially recommended for trials, until the legitimacy of the military commission trial system was seriously shaken by a court ruling on October 2012, and by subsequent rulings (the remaining 23). To date, 62 decisions have been taken, with 34 men being approved for release, while 28 others have had their ongoing imprisonment without charge or trial upheld. For further information, see my definitive Periodic Review Board list on the Close Guantánamo website.

In their Final Determination approving Abu Zubaydah’s ongoing imprisonment, the board members, having determined, by consensus, that “continued law of war detention of the detainee remains necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States,” described how they had “considered [his] past involvement in terrorist activities to include probably serving as one of Usama Bin Ladin’s [sic] most trusted facilitators and his admitted abilities as a long-term facilitator and fundraiser for extremist causes, regardless of his claim that he was not a formal member of al-Qa’ida.”

There’s a use of the word “probably” in that cumbersome sentence that ought to set alarms bells ringing about the truth of the board’s claims — and for good reason. Although Zubaydah, a Saudi-born Palestinian whose real name is Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, was touted as a significant figure in al-Qaeda at the time of his capture, he was actually the facilitator for a training camp that was not aligned with al-Qaeda, and by 2010 the US government had officially walked back from its claims in a court submission that I wrote about at the time, in my article, Abu Zubaydah: Tortured for Nothing. For further background, also see my 2009 article, Abu Zubaydah: The Futility Of Torture and A Trail of Broken Lives.

The board members also “noted [Abu Zubaydah’s] responses to the Board which minimized his relationship with al-Qa’ida and contradicted statements he previously made, such as ‘We and the sheikh (Usama Bin Ladin) are one. We have been working together for almost 10 years, but we were hoping to keep this work secret … hidden. We were forced to make ourselves known because of what took place in Afghanistan and thereafter.’”

This quote comes from a video of an interview with Zubaydah, made by militants, probably after 9/11 and before his capture in March 2002, which, though conceivably true, should perhaps be more accurately regarded as an example of Zubaydah trying to make himself sound more important than he was.

The board members also “considered [Abu Zubaydah’s] susceptibility to recruitment by extremists due to his continued feeling of an obligation to defend and support oppressed Muslims,” and also noted that they “received no information regarding whether there are any potential receiving countries that could sufficiently mitigate his threat,” and that they “look[ed] forward to such information being presented to future reviews.”

I can’t help but find it disappointing that a “continued feeling of an obligation to defend and support oppressed Muslims” is regarded as sufficient reason for someone to continue to be held indefinitely without charge or trial — especially as, at the time of his torture in 2002, another reason was given that strikes me as much more compelling from the US government’s point of view; namely, that CIA interrogators specifically sought “reasonable assurances” from their superiors that, if he survived his torture, he would “remain in isolation and incommunicado for the remainder of his life.”

More genuinely problematical is what would happen to Zubaydah if the US authorities ever decided to go against the CIA interrogators’ request and release him, because the Israeli government has never allowed Palestinians at Guantánamo to be repatriated, and Saudi Arabia, presumably, would not guarantee him fair treatment, meaning that a third country would have to be found that would be prepared to offer him a new home — something that his notoriety (as someone tainted by his torture, if nothing else) may well preclude.

That said, his lawyers have no expectations that he will ever be recommended for release. After the decision was announced, Brent Mickum, one of his attorneys, told Jason Leopold of Vice News, “We always expected that it would always come down exactly as it has. We never believed we had a chance.”

Like all the prisoners whose ongoing imprisonment has been approved by the Periodic Review Boards, Abu Zubaydah will be eligible for a file review in six months’ time. This is a purely administrative process, although his lawyers can submit new information if they think it will prove useful. After three years, he will be eligible for another full review, at which he will have another opportunity to make his case to the board members by video-conference, although a full review can take place sooner if the board members receive sufficiently persuasive information to convince them that it would be worthwhile.

Whether it is worthwhile or not, in the cases of “high-value detainees” like Abu Zubaydah, remains to be seen. It is certainly reassuring, for a sense of justice, that six men recommended for prosecution by the last review process seven years ago have ended up being recommended for release by the PRBs, but in the cases of the “high-value detainees” the door is still firmly shut, and it should be asked whether this is because of the dangers these men still pose, or because of an institutional refusal to consider releasing any of them under any circumstances.

By Maria Anna Rowena Luz G. Layador and Darlene V. Estrada*

The Philippine Chairmanship of ASEAN in 2017 is an opportune time to revive the National Branding Council proposal made by the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) in 20121 to build the international image and reputation of the country.

Nation Branding is an important tool in managing a country’s identity across the globe2 forming part of public diplomacy (PD). PD covers aspects such as inducing appeal by influencing public opinion using information, education and culture. This has long been strategically employed by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). Nation branding, on the other hand, is a related concept but not new to Philippine government agencies such as the Department of Tourism and the Department of Trade and Industry. Nation branding, however, entails knowing the country—its people, products, and how it is perceived by other publics.

Source: Country Brand Index 2009-2014

Other Asian countries such as South Korea and Japan have adopted national branding to enhance their soft power. An indicator of their success is the latest results of an international perception survey, in which these two nation brands have been topping the global charts.3 Based on available data, Japan, in particular, has increasingly improved its standing since 2009.

But what lessons can the Philippines learn from the South Korean and Japanese experiences in institutionalizing a National Branding Council?

South Korea and Japan as models?

The turning point in South Korea’s nation branding efforts was in 2009. President Lee Myung-bak created the Presidential Council on Nation Branding (PCNB) to deal with the country’s underdeveloped international reputation.4 The PCNB was tasked to address international perceptions proactively instead of passively accommodating negative publicities.5 In March 2009, the PCNB launched its nation branding program comprised of the following point actions: promoting taekwondo, launching World Friends Korea, conducting a Korean Wave technological aid, producing Global Korea scholarships, increasing external humanitarian aid, developing cutting edge technology, and supporting the global citizenship of Koreans.6 Finally, an “ambassador for public diplomacy” was appointed to manage the country’s public diplomacy strategies.7

Aimed at improving the image and reputation of Japan, the Japan Brand Working Group was established by the Intellectual Property Policy Headquarters in 2004 to set the directions for the nation branding initiatives of the country.8 Its mission was to carry out in-depth discussions on three Japanese cultural aspects – food, local brands and fashion.9 The Japan Brand Working Group (JBWG), is a body solely responsible for setting the policies, but the execution of plans was left to various government agencies and organizations in the private sector.

Contextualizing Philippine National Branding Council

Can we do it? The environment now appears to be more conducive and strategic for nation branding and public diplomacy programs. The Philippine hosting of APEC was an avenue by which nation branding could have been useful. The Philippine Chairmanship of ASEAN in 2017 provides another opportunity to showcase the Philippines, its culture and products. The prospect of adopting strategies for nation branding becomes less difficult with the increasing use of the social media. However, one likely consequence of taking up this recommendation is the creation of another institution: a Philippine National Branding Council. The Council could comprise of representatives from the National Competitiveness Council, Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of Tourism, Department of Trade and Industry, National Commission for the Culture and the Arts, Department of Education, local government units and key partners in the private sector.

Challenges ahead

However, establishing a National Branding Council is no simple task. Support from key stakeholders – the government, the business sector and the public must be on board on this project. And most importantly, financial support from the government will be crucial in the establishment of this council. Once the council has been set up, the challenge is maintaining smooth coordination between and among the government and private sectors. Another issue is harnessing the power of the Philippine diaspora around the world.

But the most important challenge is having clear branding image objectives – what is it for? Is it to attract investments? Is it to increase competitiveness of the country’s exports? Is it for tourism or destination branding? Is it to become an education hub? In other words, the key objectives including messages must be clearly defined.

Moving forward

With numerous regional activities in the horizon, a National Branding Council will be timely and strategic. The DFA can play a role in nation branding efforts by broadening the reach of nation brand promotions through its Foreign Service Posts. Central to all this is the cooperation among agencies involved and the government must be proactive in dealing with negative publicities. The private sector and the Filipinos abroad are significant actors whose active participation can assist the National Branding Council’s projects. After all, projecting a good nation brand – making it global, is a coordinated national effort.

The views expressed in this publication are of the authors alone and do not reflect the official position of the Foreign Service Institute, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Government of the Philippines.

*About the authors:
Maria Anna Rowena Luz G. Layador is the Chief Foreign Affairs Research Specialist of the Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies of the Foreign Service Institute. Prof. Layador can be reached at rlayador@gmail.com.

Darlene V. Estrada is a Foreign Affairs Research Specialist with the Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies of the Foreign Service Institute. Ms. Estrada can be reached at darlene.v.estrada@gmail.com.

Source:
CIRSS Commentaries is a regular short publication of the Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies (CIRSS) of the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) focusing on the latest regional and global developments and issues.

Endnotes:
1 Management Association of the Philippines, “National Branding Committee.” http://map.org.ph/programs/map/2013-01-24-03-01-31/national-branding (accessed 3 May 2016).

2 Gyorgy Szondi, “Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding: Conceptual Similarities and Differences.” Discussion Papers in Diplomacy No. 112 (November 2008): 4-5, http://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/20081022_pap_in_dip_nation_branding.pdf (accessed 3 May 2016).

3 FutureBrand, “Country Brand Index 2014-2015.” http://www.mumbrella.asia/content/uploads/2014/11/CountryBrandIndex2014.pdf (accessed 3 May 2016).

4 Olivia Ih-Prost and Antoine Bondaz, “South Korea Trying to Improve its Nation Brand,” Korea Analysis, July 2014, http://www.centreasia.eu/sites/default/files/publications_pdf/note_ka1_south_korea_trying_to_improve_its_nation_brand.pdf (accessed 3 May 2016).

5 Dinnie, Keith, “More than Tourism: The Challenges of Nation Branding in Asia,” Global Asia Vol. 7 No.3 (Fall 2012): 13-17. https://www.globalasia.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/90.pdf (accessed 3 May 2016).

6 Regina Kim, “South Korean Cultural Diplomacy and Efforts to Promote the ROK’s Brand Image in the United States and Around the World,” Standford Journal of East Asian Affairs Vol. 11 No. 1 (Summer 2012): 124-134. https://web.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal111/Korea2.pdf (accessed 3 May 2016).

7 Op. cit.

8 Dinnie, Keith, Nation Branding: Concepts, Issues, Practice (New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2008):211, http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=6P0JBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA212&ots=9toCh_efkP&dq=japan%20brand%20working%20group&pg=PA211#v=onepage&q=japan%20brand%20working%20group&f=false (accessed 3 May 2016).

9 Ibid.

By Louie Dane C. Merced*

North Korea’s underground nuclear test on 9 September 2016 marks its fifth since 2006, and the first time that it conducted two in the same year. This is in addition to the country’s series of test launches of mid-range surface-to-air and submarine-launched missiles, although with mixed successes. The growing frequency of these activities indicates North Korea’s steady progress in its nuclear and missile programs, including the miniaturization of a nuclear weapon that could fit into an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). More importantly, it highlights how a decade of sanctions imposed by the international community has failed to induce any meaningful change in the behavior of the North Korean regime toward abandoning its nuclear weapons program.

Sanctions and the cycles of provocation

As the Korean Peninsula remains a flashpoint where armed conflict could erupt and where strategic interests of major powers directly intersect, the imposition of sanctions appears to be the most prudent response by the international community in managing the nuclear and missile provocations by North Korea. Given the failure of diplomacy and engagement to yield results (i.e. the Six Party Talks have not resumed since 2008), the international community has instead relied on economic penalties to compel the Kim Jong Un regime to stop further provocations. Every nuclear test by North Korea, in its continued disregard for international agreements on nuclear non-proliferation, has been met with strong condemnation and economic sanctions by the UNSC through the following resolutions: 1718 (2006), 1874 (2006), 2094 (2013), and 2270 (2016). The sanctions center on placing trade restrictions on conventional arms and materials related to the illicit nuclear and missile programs; freezing the financial assets and travel bans for North Korean nationals and officials involved in proliferation activities; and prohibiting export of luxury items.

Following the fourth nuclear test in January 2016, the UNSC passed Resolution 2270 which expanded the sanctions to include mandatory inspections by UN Member States of cargo going to and originating from North Korea which are transiting in their respective territories; bans on sale of aviation fuel to, as well as purchase of coal, iron ore, and other minerals from North Korea; and updating the list of North Korean entities that will be targeted by assets freeze.1 But as with all previous resolutions and rounds of sanctions, North Korea continued with another nuclear test in September –which is also believed to be its strongest yet. This raises anew the question: Why are sanctions failing to stop North Korea?

Gaps in implementation

A commonly held view is that China (and to some extent Russia) ensures that any international response would not severely cripple the North Korean economy and risk the collapse of the Kim regime. While China also prefers denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and is displeased with the nuclear provocations, it views the issue as secondary to preserving the stability of North Korea. China fears that a regime collapse would put its own domestic and geopolitical interests at risk: massive refugee flows to the Chinese border and the possibility of a unified Korean Peninsula aligned to the United States. Thus, aside from providing cover in the UNSC, China is also perceived as not being committed enough in implementing the sanctions. China is the main economic partner of North Korea, with USD 6.39 billion in bilateral trade in 2014;2 and amounting to as high as 90 percent of total North Korean trade.3 While there have been episodic dips in trade of oil and food which hint possible discontent by China about North Korea’s behavior, it is unlikely that the relationship will be fundamentally changed.

While China’s cooperation is crucial, the efficacy of the sanctions against North Korea also hinges on the actions by the rest of the international community. The 2016 report of the UN Experts Group created under Resolution 1718 reported several gaps that render the sanctions regime ineffective.4 It identified the means through which the North Korean government avoids the sanctions, such as linking with foreign companies, use of vessels under flags of convenience, and tapping its own diplomats to facilitate illicit activities including arms transfers. But equally critical are the gaps noted by the Experts Group on the implementation by other UN Member States. Apart from low rate of submission of national reports, several of the reports submitted are not clear on how Member States will enforce the resolutions.5 Several countries also lack the domestic legal and institutional frameworks and capabilities to carry out their obligations under UNSC resolutions. There is also low awareness on how North Korea evades the sanctions; while some countries simply place little priority in implementing the UNSC resolutions.

The Philippines’ experience

The Philippines has been a strong advocate of nuclear nonproliferation and has actively participated in the discussions not only in the UN but also in other international regimes including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO). It has also expressed, either unilaterally or through ASEAN and the UN, its support for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The Philippines has also submitted national implementation reports to the UNSC in which it noted the role of different agencies such as the Bureau of Immigration (BI), Bureau of Customs (BOC), and the Philippine National Police (PNP) in enforcing sanctions against North Korea.6

In March 2016, shortly after UNSC resolution 2270 was passed, the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) reported that it impounded and inspected MV Jin Teng, a Sierra Leone-flagged vessel but with known links to North Korea’s Ocean Maritime Management (OMM). No illicit material was found and the ship was eventually released after China requested the UNSC to de-list the vessel in the resolution. The action by the PCG demonstrates that even though the nuclear weapons issue in the Korean Peninsula is not a direct and imminent threat to the country–in fact impounding the vessel may only risk getting the ire of the North Korean regime–the Philippine government dutifully complied with the obligations set by the UNSC resolution. Although far from being a model, the Philippines showed how each country can contribute to the implementation of UNSC resolutions.

The situation in the Korean Peninsula will largely be shaped by the interactions among regional powers –“a shrimp among the whales” as an old Korean saying describes it. However, achieving progress toward denuclearization also depends on the level of commitment by all members of the international community. Beyond the customary statements of condemnation and calling on the North Korean government to embrace international treaties on non-proliferation, all UN Member States should show diligence and undertake concrete steps in complying with the UNSC resolutions. Member States should cooperate with the UN and with each other in monitoring compliance and in enhancing each other’s capability to enforce the sanctions. Upholding international rules and preserving order, whether it is in the maritime space or on the issue of nuclear and missile non-proliferation regimes, is therefore a collective commitment and responsibility.

The views expressed in this publication are of the authors alone and do not reflect the official position of the Foreign Service Institute, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Government of the Philippines.

About the author:
*Louie Dane C. Merced is a Senior Foreign Affairs Research Specialist with the Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies of the Foreign Service Institute. Mr. Merced can be reached at lcmerced@fsi.gov.ph

Endnotes:
1 Security Council Imposes Fresh Sanctions on Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Unanimously Adopting Resolution 2270 (2016), 2 March 2016, http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12267.doc.htm (accessed 28 September 2016).

2 National Bureau of Statistics of China, China Statistical Yearbook 2015, Table 11-6 http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2015/indexeh.htm, (accessed 28 September 2016).

3 Ruediger Frank, “North Korea’s Foreign Trade,” 38North, 22 October 2015, http://38north.org/2015/10/rfrank102215/, (accessed 29 September 2016).

4 Report of the UN Panel of Experts established pursuant to Resolution 1874 (2009), UN Security Council S/2016/157, 24 February 2016, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2016/157, p.4 (accessed 29 September 2016).

5 Ibid, p. 10.

6 Note verbale dated 1 April 2014 from the Permanent Mission of the Philippines to the United Nations addressed to the Chair of the Committee pursuant to Resolution 1718.

In the event the Oklahoma voters repeal a section of the Oklahoma Constitution in November 8 ballot through State Question 790, which currently prohibits state assets from being used for religious purposes, a US-based Hindu group will re-pursue their interest to install a Lord Hanuman statue in Oklahoma Capitol grounds in Oklahoma City.

Section 5 (Public money or property – Use for sectarian purposes) of Article II (Bill of Rights) of Oklahoma Constitution, states: No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such. The proposed ballot measure, given in State Question 790, if approved by voters, would remove this Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada today, said that if and when Oklahoma State Capitol became open again in the future to different monuments and space was available in the statehouse grounds, Hindus would love to request placing a statue of Lord Hanuman, which might become the first Hindu religious monument on public land in USA.

Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, had written to the Oklahoma State Capitol Preservation Commission (OSCPC) officials in the past showing interest in erecting the Lord Hanuman statue, which they planned to make big and weather-proof. OSCPC, created in 1982 to plan and supervise the preservation and restoration of the interior and exterior of the Oklahoma State Capitol building, also controls the display of objects in public areas of the State Capitol building.

Rajan Zed pointed out that besides honoring the Hindus living in Oklahoma, this Lord Hanuman statue would raise awareness of Oklahomans about Hinduism, oldest and third largest religion of the world with about one billion adherents and a rich philosophical thought.

Zed further said that some Christian, Buddhist and Jewish leaders had already backed in the past the proposed bid of Hindus of erecting a statue of Lord Hanuman in Oklahoma State Capitol grounds.

Lord Hanuman is greatly revered and worshipped in Hinduism and is known for incredible strength and was a perfect grammarian. There are about three million Hindus in USA.

Did Russia invade Iraq and kill one million people? Does Russia have a greater percentage of its population behind bars than any other country in the world? Did Russia occupy Haiti after kidnapping its president? Are Russian police allowed to shoot children to death without fear of repercussion? Is Russia entering its 20^th year of a terror war against the people of Somalia? All of these crimes take place in or at the direction of the United States. Yet the full force of propaganda and influence on world opinion is directed against Russia, which whatever its shortcomings cannot hold a candle to America in violating human rights.

The dangers presented by a Hillary Clinton presidency cannot be overstated. She and the war party have been steadily working towards a goal that defies logic and risks all life on earth. Regime change is once again their modus operandi and they hope to make it a reality against Russia.

Nearly every claim of Russian evil doing is a lie, a ruse meant to put Americans in a fighting mood and lose their fear of nuclear conflagration. It isn’t clear if Clinton and the rest of the would-be warriors actually realize they are risking mushroom clouds. Perhaps they believe that Vladimir Putin will be easily pushed around when all evidence points to the contrary.

The unproven allegations of interference in the presidential election and casting blame on Russia as the sole cause of suffering in Syria are meant to desensitize the public. It is an age old ploy which makes war not just acceptable but deemed a necessity. The usual suspects are helping out eagerly. The corporate media, led by newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post, are front and center in pushing tales of Russian villainy. Human Rights Watch and other organizations who care nothing about abuses committed by the United States and its allies are also playing their usual role of choosing the next regime change victim.

Russia lost its seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council in part because of American pressure and public relations assistance from the human rights industrial complex. The UNHRC is now chaired by Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy that funds the jihadist terrorist groups who caused 500,000 Syrian deaths. The Saudis are causing dislocation, death and starvation in Yemen, too, but they are American allies, so there is little opposition to their misdeeds.

The openly bigoted Donald Trump has been the perfect foil for Hillary Clinton. That is why she and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership preferred him as their rival. He made the case for the discredited lesser evilism argument and his sensible statements about avoiding enmity with Russia made him even more useful.

The United States and its allies are the cause of Syria’s destruction. Their effort to overthrow president Assad created a humanitarian disaster complete with ISIS and al Nusra fighters who love to chop off heads for entertainment. Far from being the cause of the catastrophe Russia left its ally to fight alone for four years. They even made overtures to negotiate Assad’s fate with the United States. All attempts to stop the fighting were rejected by the U.S. and NATO and sealed the fate of the Syrian people. The people of east Aleppo are being shelled by American allies but one wouldn’t know that by reading what passes for journalism in newspapers and on television. The American role in the slaughter is barely mentioned or is excused as an effort to protect the civilian population. The bloodshed was made in the U.S. and could end if this government wanted it to.

The anti-Russian propaganda effort has worked to perfection. NATO is massing troops on Russia’s borders in a clear provocation yet Putin is labeled the bad guy. He is said to be menacing the countries that join in threatening his nation. The United States makes phony claims of Russian war crimes despite having blood on its hands. The latest Human Rights Watch canards about prosecuting Assad come straight from the White House and State Department and have nothing to do with concern for Syrians living in their fifth year of hell.

There is no lesser evil between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. She is fully supported by the war party in her desire for a more “muscular” foreign policy. That bizarre term means death and starvation for millions more people if Clinton wins in a landslide. She must be denied a victory of that magnitude and any opportunity to claim a mandate. Peace loving people must give their votes to the Green Party ticket of Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka. They are alone in rejecting the premise of an imperialist country and its endless wars.

The United States is the most dangerous country in the world. If it has a reckless and war loving president the threat becomes existential. That is the prospect we face with a Hillary Clinton presidency. If the role of villain is cast on the world stage she is the star of the show.

Another breakaway group from the Muslim Brotherhood and its political arm the Islamic Action Front (IAF) have applied to register a political party.

The Elders Group has filed registration documents for the “Partnership and Rescue Party” to the Ministry of Political Development and Parliamentary Affairs.

Ghaith Qudah, former IAF member and a founding member of the new party, said members did not rush the registration process because they wanted the vision for the new entity to be crystallised first.

The founders include Islamists who submitted a collective resignation in December after disagreements with the IAF, along with other personalities who have experience in public work or served in the government, including Mohammad Abu Hammour, a former finance minister.

The Elders Group is headed by former leaders of the IAF including Abdul Hamid Qudah and Nimer Assaf.

According to Ghaith Qudah, the new party does not share any common ideology with the IAF, as it will be based on the foundations of a civil state with no religious orientations.

Once it is officially registered, this party will be the second to be formed by defectors of the old Muslim Brotherhood and the IAF.

The first, the National Conference Party, was founded by leaders of the National Building Initiative, known as the Zamzam Initiative, led by Erheil Gharaibeh. The Zamzam Initiative was launched in 2012 by moderate Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood and other political figures. It put forward proposals to address challenges facing the Kingdom.

The brotherhood rejected the initiative in a move that was seen as a sign of disarray within its ranks.

The Muslim Brotherhood group was declared illegal on procedural grounds and its offices were closed by authorities after defectors registered the Muslim Brotherhood Society as a Jordanian entity, and managed to seize some of the group’s assets after winning lawsuits.

Although its political arm, the IAF, is still legal, it witnessed the defection of hundreds of its members following disagreement with its leaders.

The IAF took part in the recent parliamentary elections and won, along with allies, 16 seats in the 130-strong Lower House.

Original source

On the eve of Romania’s independence in 1877, a small group of courageous journalists gathered together to launch a new newspaper. From its humble beginnings, România Liberă sought to be a fearless voice, a check against the powerful, often at great risk to our staff and supporters. For 140 years, we have carried on that proud tradition, publishing boldly independent investigative journalism in a country where such endeavors are rarely rewarded. But now, within a week’s time, we may be permanently shut down.

What’s impressive about the plight of our newspaper is not that we have lacked readership or a sustainable business model. We were not directly seized by the Romanian government, we were not gagged by the threats of thugs, or shut down by the police in the traditional vein of heavy-handed state censorship. Instead it was the accountants who came forward to do the dirty work to drive România Liberă into insolvency and silence one of the country’s strongest voices of criticism.

Over the course of our paper’s history, we have broken historic news stories, exposed government corruption, and have shined a light into the dark corners where power is been abused. With a firmly pro-democratic editorial stance, our paper advocated for Romania’s inclusion in NATO and the European Union, and stood firm against the retrogressive policies of communist political movements. In 2012, we published groundbreaking reports on the controversial second attempted impeachment of President Traian Băsescu, highlighting the role of powerful Prime Minister Victor Ponta and the Social Liberal Union (USL) coalition.

Thanks in part to the reporting by România Liberă, then-Prime Minister Ponta’s extra-judicial tactics – including suspicious emergency decrees, the sacking the speakers of both chambers of parliament and threatening to remove judges who could stand in the way of impeachment – were sharply criticized by the European Union.

In a rebuke to Ponta in the midst of this scandal, President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso finally reigned in the prime minister, stating: “Challenging judicial decisions, undermining the constitutional court, overturning established procedures and removing key checks and balances have called into question the Government’s commitment to respect the rule of law.”

This series of articles, of course, did not make România Liberă very popular with the Social Democrat Party (PSD), and in fact made us the most inconvenient voice for Ponta and his cohorts. The pressures against our newspaper deepened following the publication of a series of investigative reports regarding the cronyism of the Ponta government in 2014, revealing millions of dollars of public contracts funneled to companies controlled by family and friends.

Now, it appears that the enemies of the newspaper have finally achieved their goal of silencing our publication. Earlier this week, the editors and journalists of România Liberă published an urgent final plea to the global chairman of KPMG International, the firm appointed to oversee bankruptcy proceedings of our holding company. As we acknowledge clearly in this letter, we stand no chance of resistance against this onslaught of auditors and lawyers as they pound the final nail into the newspaper’s coffin. All we can do is tell the world our story, and put the facts on record.

The attack on România Liberă dates back to January 18, 2014, when the Romanian supervisory authority Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiara (ASF) appointed KPMG Advisory Special Administrator of Asigurare Reasigurare ASTRA S.A. (Astra), Romania’s largest insurance company and one of the financiers of the paper. Although a restructuring plan was proposed by KPMG, none of it was implemented and instead the accounting firm prevented us from repaying debts and refused all settlement offers in order to drive us into insolvency.

Many observers have described the process initiated by the government to intervene and take over Astra as a politically motivated campaign aimed at jailing businessman Dan Adamescu and silencing România Liberă. Whatever one may think about this complex series of cases, it cannot be easily explained why a state-appointed administrator would reject repayment of Astra’s debts, or why KPMG would then later be named as liquidator of a company that they themselves bankrupted.

While these sorts of tactics may seem commonplace in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, it is entirely unacceptable for such flagrant censorship to be taking place within a European Union member state, and even more disheartening that so few of our colleagues in Brussels and elsewhere are aware of our plight.

As we stand on the brink of disappearance, we are comforted by the knowledge that this reprehensible conduct will not remain in the dark forever. Our story will be told, and the facts are right there to be discovered. We hope that this legacy of outspoken, fearless journalism will be inherited by a new generation of writers to carry Romania into the future, and that those who favor censorship to dialogue will learn that some voices can never be silenced.

*Sabin Orcan is Editor in Chief of the daily newspaper România Liberă (http://www.romanialibera.ro/)

By Shamshad A Khan*

Japan and Russia have prepared the grounds to resolve their territorial dispute, which has lingered since the end of World War II, without a peace treaty. President Vladimir Putin will visit Japan on 15 December 2016 for a Russia-Japan summit meeting and the territorial issue will be discussed with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Yamaguchi, Abe’s home constituency.

In the past, Japan and Russia have taken various efforts to resolve this issue but no Japanese leader has sounded as confident as Prime Minister Abe regarding the resolution of the dispute. In a recent policy speech, Abe stated that he will “resolve the territorial issue,” conclude a “peace treaty” with Russia and “cultivate the major possibility of Japan-Russia cooperation in areas such as the economy and energy”. It is apparent from Abe’s remarks, during 15 recent meetings between the two leaders at different venues, that the two countries have laid down a broad framework for the resolution and a formal announcement of it is likely to be made after the summit meeting in December.

The upcoming talks are taking place against the background of both countries showing some flexibility on their long-held stance on the contested territory. In 1956, Russia has offered to hand over the two smaller islands, Habomai islets and Shikotan island off-Hokkaido, to Japan while retaining the two bigger islands, Kunashiri and Etorofu. Japan’s political leadership was amenable to accept the Russian offer but following protests by a section of Japan’s domestic constituency, they pressed for the return of the four islands simultaneously. A stalemate continued between the two countries during the Cold War as both stuck to their respective demands. Since the end of the Cold War, the two countries have engaged in several rounds of inconclusive talks.

In September 2016, President Putin and Prime Minister Abe agreed that the resolution should be based on the principle of ‘hiwiwake’, a term for draw in Judo. This was interpreted in Japan as dividing the contested territory into half of the total geographic area since the two islands offered to Japan constitute only 7% of the contested territory. This, however, has not been the Russian understanding. Russia states that it would hand over the two smaller islands to Japan out of ‘goodness of its heart’ but this would be conditional to the conclusion of a peace treaty.

Japan has adopted a ‘two track’ approach to break this stalemate. It agrees to accept the two smaller islands from Russia and to negotiate the remaining two later. This is also an effort by the Japanese leadership to assuage the concern of its domestic constituency, especially the people who were displaced from the four islands after the Russians gained control of the territory following World War II. The displaced population from the Northern Territories (known as Kuriles Island in Russia) has been pushing governments of both countries to address their demand to go back to their “homeland”. Through a resolution, Tokyo would be able to fulfill this demand and also boost Prime Minister Abe’s and the Liberal Democratic Party’s popularity for the next elections. Japanese entrepreneurs, so far unenthusiastic to invest in Russian markets, would be keen to increase their footprints in the Russian market following a resolution.

A resolution is also in Russia’s interest. First, a mutually agreed settlement will ease Russian efforts to develop infrastructure on the territories. In the past Japan had objected to a Russian bid to involve South Korean and Chinese companies in the infrastructure projects; Japan argued that the territories were under its sovereignty and forced the participating companies to reconsider their bid. Second, Russia has been in search of new markets for its liquefied natural gas (LNG) following a fall in demand in the recession-hit Europe. Post-Fukushima, LNG demands have been high in Japan as most of its nuclear reactors remain dormant. Third, Russia is also trying to improve its image following the Ukrainian crisis and the annexation of Crimea. By concluding a peace treaty that includes an exchange of islands, Russia wants to soften its expansionist image and wants to show the world that it is ready to live amicably with its neighbours.

The discussion between Japan and Russia, scheduled in December 2016, to resolve the territorial dispute is not the first and neither will it be the last. However this time the talks are taking place at a time when a consensus has emerged among the Japanese political parties, backed by their domestic constituency, to adopt a ‘two track’ approach to resolve the dispute. This gives Japan the hope that it will get the two islands for sure. Moscow has however expressed a stiff stance on the other two islands and is unlikely to be ready to lose its hold on them. A deal would, however, ease tensions between Japan and Russia and also bring amity and peace in the region.

*The contributor, until recently, was a Senior Researcher at Keio University’s Keio Research Institute

By Dr. Arshad M. Khan*

Hillary Clinton’s emails are back in the news as the FBI is obliged to investigate again, subsequent to a sordid case involving a former Congressman married to her close aide; Trump is facing lawsuits for sexual assault although he denies wrongdoing.

Thus the US political system has now disgorged two candidates the citizenry cannot be less enthusiastic about. Driven by ambition more than a love of the people or a sincere desire to serve, one can be forgiven for wondering if they are just as trapped by their motivations as the public in its two-party myopia. No authentic leader among the two …

These thoughts lead to the rage of my youth, existentialism, and to Jean-Paul Sartre, who died 36 years ago last April. More than 50,000 mourners lined the streets and packed Montparnasse cemetery at his funeral, many quite young — improbable they would exhibit a similar interest in the successor philosophies, notably the current preoccupation with deconstruction, a focus on whether the written or spoken word is successful (or not) in clarity of meaning.

Difficult as existentialism may be to pin down, there are a few necessary elements: the individual, free will as crucial to human existence, the subsequent responsibility for action that accompanies it, leading to an unavoidable anxiety as a consequence. The authentic life then is one chosen freely rather than imposed by society. No wonder it appealed to the young.

What triggered this meandering into Sartre and his philosophy was Hillary Clinton’s two-minute summing up at the end of the last debate. She attested to her lifelong concern (her latest claim) for improving the lives of children — a phrase bringing to mind a balancing scale. One one side the improved lives of children in Arkansas and the benefits of subsidies to children in general, and on the other the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere — the most vulnerable that is the old, the sick and the children bearing the brunt. Politicians are a breed apart, unconcerned with ‘responsibility’ and undisturbed by Sartre’s ‘anxiety’.

Not so long ago there was another US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who, when asked about the 576,000 children who had died (according to a UN report) as a result of the Iraq embargo, simply dismissed the question as a price to be paid to be rid of Saddam Hussein. The embargo failed in that regard, and when Saddam was removed by the successor US government’s military intervention, it resulted in chaos and the birth of ISIS.

The Republican candidate, Donald Trump, is unique, in that responsibility washes over him and into the shower drain like a layer of dirt; he is devoid of it even in personal interaction. The only rational explanation of his behavior is the term ‘prolonged adolescence’ used by professionals.

His basic issue over several decades has been bad deals — bad deals in defending allies who he feels do not pay enough for their defense and bad trade deals. Trying to peel off some voters, Hillary Clinton in the last debate pointed out that he took out an ad in The New York Times opposing the right’s iconic Ronald Reagan over it. Like any business owner or high level executive, he intends to issue orders expecting them to be carried out. Good luck! It might explain the absence of concrete policy.

The American public has been short changed into picking either the lesser of two evils, casting a protest vote with the minor left or right party, or just sitting this election out.

Sartre offered personal bliss in the few post-war years of hope and promise before America’s fear of ideologies and overweening sense of power plunged us into successive wars punctuated with interludes of peace. The wars continue, bleeding the country of an estimated $5 trillion in the present cycle … the death and destruction the worst since the Second World War.

An earlier version of this article first appeared on Counterpunch.org

About the author:
*Dr. Arshad M. Khan is a former Professor based in the US. Educated at King’s College London, OSU and The University of Chicago, he has a multidisciplinary background that has frequently informed his research. Thus he headed the analysis of an innovation survey of Norway, and his work on SMEs published in major journals has been widely cited. He has for several decades also written for the press: These articles and occasional comments have appeared in print media such as The Dallas Morning News, Dawn (Pakistan), The Fort Worth Star Telegram, The Monitor, The Wall Street Journal and others. On the internet, he has written for Antiwar.com, Asia Times, Common Dreams, Counterpunch, Countercurrents, Dissident Voice, Eurasia Review and Modern Diplomacy among many. His work has been quoted in the U.S. Congress and published in its Congressional Record.

Source:
This article was published at Modern Diplomacy

By Arun Mohan Sukumar

Europe’s gradual embrace of China’s Belt and Road initiative (OBOR) presents the most significant milestone in its history after President Xi Jinping pulled the drapes off the project three years ago. To the mercantilist, OBOR is not a connectivity project but an arrangement intended to maximise China’s exports, and help Beijing move up the global value chain. Given that Europe is China’s overseas biggest market — they currently trade over a billion dollars a day — and the one with the deepest pockets, the EU’s warming up to OBOR ensures the project is here to stay. After all, creating “transit economies” without a firm guarantee from the final trading destination makes little sense for China.

But the EU’s eventual endorsement of OBOR also comes with geopolitical consequences, all of which materially affect India’s interests.

1. The Internationalisation of OBOR
2. The institutionalisation of a connectivity “regime” around OBOR
3. Reconfiguration of political relationships based on economic ties

OBOR goes global

What explains the EU’s interest in OBOR, if the project only seeks to satisfy China’s bulging export capacity? To start with, Brussels realises the primary source of capital for infrastructure projects in Eurasia over the next decade will be China. If European diplomats were reluctant to embrace the Belt and Road initiative for want of clarity, they now sense an opportunity to partner some of these projects. Among the EU’s top strategic priorities is a free trade agreement with China, with a focus on services. The Belt and Road project, many European interlocutors feel, is “mutually compatible” with the FTA proposal — in rooting for OBOR, the EU may be trying to attract Chinese investment in specific sectors.

Europe will also nudge Beijing into creating “sustainable” infrastructure along the Belt, and promote the use of green technologies in these economies. Most OBOR destinations, if not all, are parties to the Paris agreement, and the EU could see OBOR as a vehicle to project its climate leadership and ensure compliance with the agreement’s principles. And finally, participation in OBOR may be tied to the future of European influence: several Western European powers are founding members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a likely conduit for OBOR financing, and would be interested in shaping these projects as well as the economies that are receptacles for them.

What does it mean for India?

Europe’s endorsement of OBOR will mark the “internationalisation” of what was previously perceived as a Chinese initiative. Unlike the AIIB, which has significant buy-in from the region, including from India, OBOR has been seen in Asia as Beijing’s project aimed at strengthening its lagging exports. Conversations on OBOR have been almost exclusively bilateral, with the Chinese political leadership reaching out to their counterparts in state capitals. This has been true of Europe as well – China-Europe negotiations on OBOR have taken place under the umbrella of the “16+1” framework, with the project itself eyeing limited European destinations. But the EU’s formal involvement will encourage countries that were wary of China’s grand plans for the region to join the initiative. Second, Europe’s interest in linking the project to the Sustainable Development Goals and Paris Agreement targets could result in the institutionalisation of an OBOR regime, specifying the terms for economic development along the Eurasian landmass. For instance, China-EU negotiations may determine ICT security and data protection standards in the region, which countries in Central and South East Asia find easier to adopt for the ease of doing business.

Such developments would have two potential consequences for India. Even if Beijing has not consulted India on the project, New Delhi has taken comfort from the fact that both countries are placed differently in regional and global supply chains. OBOR has not prevented India from continuing its neighbourhood infrastructure projects, and in any case, the country’s manufacturers have some way to go before satiating domestic demand. By linking to OBOR land and maritime routes, India could even benefit from the supply chains that will be created across the region, and offer products where it enjoys a comparative advantage. However, were OBOR to create an ecosystem of norms and standards, Indian businesses might find it difficult to compete in Asia with their Chinese/European counterparts especially in the services sector. It may also foreclose the future entry of Indian conglomerates into infrastructure projects. Most importantly, the reconfiguration of political relationships based on such economic linkages affects the balance of power in Asia.

China is not expected to pursue a radically different economic agenda for the region, but India should not discount the possibility that Beijing uses the political heft so accrued from OBOR to pursue exclusionary or preferential governance arrangements.

We know how Donald Trump feels about everyone through Twitter, but how do Twitter users feel about Donald Trump?

Computer scientists from the University of Utah’s College of Engineering have developed what they call “sentiment analysis” software that can automatically determine how someone feels based on what they write or say. To test out the accuracy of this software’s machine-learning model, the team used it to analyze the individual sentiments of more than 1.6 million (and counting) geo-tagged tweets about the U.S. presidential election over the last five months. A database of these tweets is then examined to determine whether states and their counties are leaning toward the Republicans or Democrats.

“With sentiment analysis, it will try to predict the emotions behind every human being when he or she is talking or writing something,” said Debjyoti Paul, a doctoral student in the University of Utah’s School of Computing and the project leader along with School of Computing associate professor Feifei Li. “With that in mind, we are not just trying to look at the information in the tweets. We are trying to incorporate the emotion with the information.”

As a result of their work, the team has created an interactive website at http://www.estorm.org in which users can find out if the tweets coming out of their state and its counties are more positive or negative toward Republicans or Democrats during any defined period of time since June 5. Also, the data can tell you the percentage of both positive and negative tweets toward a political party and when there was a surge for a particular type of tweet in the last five months.

Some interesting facts about this year’s U.S. presidential election based on a sample of what people are tweeting:

• Based on the number of positive tweets posted since June toward each party, the computer model predicts that Hillary Clinton will win the presidential election.
• Republicans sent out 17 percent more political tweets than Democrats.
• Delaware was the only state in which a majority of tweets from all counties in the state were positive toward the same party — in this case, the Democrats.
• For the Republicans, South Dakota had the highest percentage of counties in which most of their tweets were positive toward the party (73 percent of the counties).
• The biggest surge of positive tweets for Republicans was during the Republican National Convention on June 18 and when the video of Donald Trump boasting about groping women was leaked Oct. 7 (presumably defenders of Trump tweeting their support of him).
• The largest surge of positive tweets for Democrats was after the last two presidential debates and after the New York Times published its story Oct. 1 that Donald Trump avoided paying federal taxes for nearly two decades.
• Not only did the number of positive tweets for Democrats peak after the last two debates and the Trump federal taxes story, it’s also when the most negative tweets about the Democratic Party were posted.

Analyzing the tweets

Paul and his team started with more than 250 million tweets posted around the world from June 5 to Oct. 30 and then weeded out all non-political tweets based on a system of keywords using advanced software. They were left with more than 1.6 million political tweets posted in the U.S.

Then those tweets were sifted through the team’s “sentiment analysis” software where each tweet was analyzed and assigned a score from 0 to 1 where 0 is the most negative sentiment, 1 is the most positive sentiment, and 0.5 is neutral. The scores are then collected in a database that can calculate a state or county’s political leanings in real time based on the tweets. The database is constantly updated with new tweets.

To measure the accuracy of the model, the team compared its results to the New York Times Upshot election forecast website and found the state-by-state analysis was very similar.

“I think it works really well. It matches up with the major events that happened during this election season. That’s a good indicator that the results are accurate,” said Li. “We’re hoping to develop some more scientific measurements to confirm this observation for an upcoming paper, but the early results are very positive.”

Paul believes that their sentiment analysis software could be used to more accurately reflect the feelings of crowd-sourced opinions on the Internet, for example reviews of products on Amazon or restaurant reviews on Yelp, in which the software can “drill down to the individual sentences of the text” to determine a person’s true feelings about something, he says.

He also said that voice-enabled assistants such as iPhone’s Siri could use such software to better determine what the user wants, not just based on what he or she says but how they say it.