Balochistan in Pakistan has once again been the hit by a terrorist attack. On 24 October 2016, 3 gunmen struck at the Quetta Police Training College causing at least 61 deaths and leaving 117 others injured. Following the bomb blast at the Quetta Civil Hospital on 8 August 2016, it appeared that terrorists were beginning to shift focus from hard to soft targets and also moving towards specific targeted killings1.The latest attack seems to indicate a continuation of such a trend, although the rationale behind the choice of targets still remains unknown. This paper seeks to analyse the recent attack and its implications for Pakistan.

By Anish Mishra2

Quetta, the capital city of Balochistan, is also its largest city with a population of over one million and has a geographical area of 2,656 square kilometres, 3.5 times the size of Singapore, reflective of the sparse demographics of Balochistan. The City is home to the Mazar (mausoleum) of Shaal Pir Baba also known as Khwaja Naqruddin who established the Chisti order of Sufism in the Baloch region. The Chisti order founded by Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti based its religious practice on the expression of love for the almighty and the spiritual master, tolerance and inclusiveness towards other faiths. It also advocated non-interference in the affairs of the state.

Today the city is known for playing host to the Quetta Shura (Quetta Council) of the Afghan Taliban. Its proximity with the Durand Line facilitates shuttling between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This was also the province where the former Emir of the Afghan Taliban Mullah Akhtar Mansour was killed by a United States drone operation3. On 8 August 2016, the Quetta Civil Hospital was attacked by a suicide bomber; at least 70 were killed and dozens of others were injured4. The responsibility for the hospital bomb blast was claimed by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)-linked faction of the Pakistan Threek-e- Taliban (PTT) known as Jamaat-Ul-Arhar.5

The Balochistan separatist movement spearheaded by the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) uses armed resistance to achieve its objective of an independent Balochistan; the organisation is secular in character. Besides the Baloch nationalist insurgent groups, there are also radical Islamist sectarian groups in Balochistan. These include the PTT, Afghan Taliban, Lashkar-e- Jhangvi, Al-Qaeda, and the Ahle Sunnat wal jammat as well as ISIS-backed factions of these groups such as the Jamaat-Ul-Arhar of the PTT.

An example of a sectarian attack was the Hazara Town bomb blast in Quetta in 2013. On 17 February, the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi claimed responsibility for that bomb blast that killed at least 79 and injured over 180, most of whom were members of the Hazara community.6 The Hazaras are a Shia Muslim ethnic group spread across Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The various militant groups operating in Balochistan may differ in ideologies and goals; however, they share two common features. One, they employ the means of violence to attain their ambitions. Two, they share a common enemy which is the Pakistan State. Therefore, this creates an environment for terrorist activities to flourish in Balochistan. The recent terrorist patterns in Balochistan show a commonality between the terrorist groups. This can be inferred as a nexus between the separatist and sectarian groups operating in Balochistan. In the analysis of terrorism in Balochistan, one can draw a triangle connecting the antagonist, target and the objective of every terrorist attack, as these three variables are intertwined.

In just three months after the Quetta Civil Hospital bomb blast, targeted at Balochistan’s legal fraternity, the city has once again fall prey to militancy7. This time round, directed at the Balochistan police force. On the night of the 24 October 2016, 3 heavily armed gunmen wearing vests, intruded into the compound of the Police Training College (PTC), Quetta, after an intense gun battle with the sentry guards8. The police trainee cadets were sleeping in their barracks.9 The first information report on this incident was received by the Balochistan Frontier Corps (FC) at 23.10hrs10.

According to the Inspector General (IG) of the FC Major General Sher Afghan in an interview with the media “the troops of the FC took 20 minutes to arrive at the scene and it was believed that the recruits have been held hostage.”11The quick response showed a sense of preparedness in reacting to such incidents. Out of the 3 militants, one was shot dead by the troops from the FC before he could detonate his vest12. Another suicide bomber was cornered by two soldiers of the Pakistan Army, which allowed many police recruits to escape, before he too detonated his vest13. During this anti-terror operation, Captain Rooh Ullah and Naib Subedar Muhammad Ali lost their lives. Both soldiers were accorded gallantry awards by General Raheel Sharif.14 The Pakistan Army also directed security at the Quetta Civil Hospital to be enhanced, even as the injured were transported there for treatment.15 This precautionary measure was taken in view of the lessons from the previous attack that took place at the hospital.

The identity of the assailants responsible for this latest attack is yet to be determined. The media wing of ISIS, the Amaq News Agency, announced in a press release that its Khorasan province branch was responsible for the attack.16 It also published a photograph of the 3 gunmen on its website.17 This claim is believed to have been by far the most credible one among those made by various terrorist groups. However, Major General Sher Afghan also told news channels within a couple of hours after the attack that the Afghan-based Al-Alimi faction of the Lashkar- e Jhangvi was responsible for the attack18. He said that calls were intercepted which showed the terrorists were communicating with their handlers in Afghanistan.19Pakistan Tehreek-e- Insaf (PTI) leader Imran Khan said during his visit to Quetta that “All political parties had agreed upon and signed the National Action Plan (NAP), so why it’s so that it has still not been properly acted upon?” 20

The Pakistan People’s Party Chairman Bilawal Bhutto said that the “Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Khan had not taken adequate measures to root out terrorism.21 The month of November 2016 is set to be a politically sensitive month for Pakistan. At first, the PTI together with its allies began preparing to cause a lockdown of Pakistan’s capital Islamabad to campaign for the resignation or accountability of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on allegations of corruption figuring in the Panama Papers.22 In a similar fashion in 2014 Azadi March (freedom march) had disrupted life in the capital for four months.

On 1 November, PTI Chairman Imran Khan decided to call off the planned lockdown and hold a “thanksgiving” rally23 in celebration of the Supreme Court’s decision ordering the formation of a committee to probe the Panama Papers findings concerning the elected members of the Sharif family. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is also tasked with appointing a new Chief of Army Staff (COAS); General Raheel Sharif is set to retire on 29 November 2016. The association of terrorism and corruption is a threat to any civilian government in Pakistan as the Army believes these two elements to be inextricably linked.24

The Quetta attack is a reflection of the continuation of the shift from random untargeted killings in public places as seen in the Lahore, Gulshan-e-Iqbal park bomb blast to selective targeted strikes like the Quetta Civil Hospital & Police Training College attacks. The 24 October incident raises the question of how can just 3 gunmen overwhelm armed sentry guards and cause so many deaths in such a sensitive site. Although the response from the various security agencies is noticeable, the casualties could have been prevented if the sentry guards had superior weapons to put up a stronger resistance against the militants.

Due to Quetta’s overwhelming dependence on the Quetta Civil Hospital for its medical needs, the hospital gets exposed as the likely location for a second strike after the initial attempt of whatever magnitude. The Balochistan Ministry of Health should therefore recognise this threat and collaborate with the various security agencies to take possible preventive measures. The Army should also consider opening up the Combined Military Hospital (CMH) which is located 3.5 kilometres away, for civilian use in cases of terrorist incidents.

Pakistan’s troubled province of Balochistan is of strategic importance to the China-Pakistan Economic corridor (CPEC) project. In September 2016, Pakistan’s Minister for Planning, Development and Reforms Ahsan Iqbal announced that the CPEC was now worth US$ 51.5 billion after the Asian Development Bank agreed to lend to Pakistan US$ 2.5 billion and China pledged to provide concessionary credit of US$ 5.5 billion.25 This increase in investment towards the CPEC shows confidence and faith in the project despite the security threats that it faces. This creates a strong incentive for Pakistan to try to eliminate all forms of terrorism in Balochistan. The CPEC is a gateway for foreign direct investment into Pakistan and will create jobs for the people. This exposes this province to greater danger. Hence, the security of Balochistan is essential to Pakistan.

Source:
This article was published by ISAS as ISAS Insights No. 362 (PDF)

Notes:
1 Anish Mishra,Terrorism in Balochistan: Shift towards Soft Targets?, ISAS Brief No.445 – 31 August 2016, available at http://www.isas.nus.edu.sg/ISAS%20Reports/ISAS%20Brief%20No.%20445%20-%20Terroris m%20in%20Balochistan.%20Shift%20towards%20Soft%20Targets.pdf
2 Mr Anish Mishra, a former Intern at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), an autonomous research institute at the National University of Singapore, has contributed this article. He can be contacted at anishmisrasg@hotmail.com. The author bears responsibility for the facts cited and opinions expressed in this paper
3 “Taliban Chief Targeted by Drone Strike in Pakistan” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-leader-mullah-mansour.html?_r=0
4 Same source as in Note 1
5 Ibid
6 “Pakistan: Dozens Dead in Bomb Attack on Quetta Market.” BBC News http://www.bbc.com/news/world- asia-21485731
7 Ibid
8 “61 Killed in Twin Suicide Attacks as Terrorists Storm Police Training College in Quetta.” Dawn News, http://www.dawn.com/news/1291999/60-killed-in-twin-suicide-attacks-as-terrorists-storm-police-training- college-in-quetta
9 “Quetta: ‘We Were Sleeping When Terrorists Attacked’ – CNN – http://edition.cnn.com/2016/1 0/24/world/pakistan-police-academy-attack/index.html
10 “IG FC Media Talks.” Youtube, Dawn News, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzl9i-zwbJM
11 Ibid
12 Ibid
13 “Update Police Training Center (PTC) Quetta,Press Release No: PR377/2016-ISPR.” Inter Services Public
Relations,https://www.ispr.gov.pk/front/main.asp?o=t-press_release&date=2016/10/25
14 Ibid
15 “61 Killed in Twin Suicide Attacks as Terrorists Storm Police Training College in Quetta.” Dawn News http://www.dawn.com/news/1291999/60-killed-in-twin-suicide-attacks-as-terrorists-storm-police-training- college-in-quetta
16 “IS’ Khorasan Province Claims Killing 60 in Three-Man Suicide Raid at Police Training Center in Quetta.” Site Intelligence Group. https://news.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/is-khorasan-province-claims-killing- 60-in-three-man-suicide-raid-at-police-training-center-in-quetta.html
17 Ibid
18 IG FC Media Talks.” Youtube, Dawn News, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzl9i-zwbJM
19 Ibid
20 “PM, Army Chief Attend High-level Security Meeting in Quetta after Police College Carnage.” Dawn News.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1292187/pm-army-chief-attend-high-level-security-meeting-in-quetta-after-
police-college-carnage
21 “Bilawal Bhutto Visits Victims of Quetta Attack” SamaaTv, http://www.samaa.tv/pakistan/2016/10/bilawal-
bhutto-visits-victims-of-quetta-attack/
22 “Won’t Leave Islamabad until PM Resigns: Imran Khan.” Pakistan Today,

Won’t leave Islamabad until PM resigns: Imran Khan

23 “PTI’s Nov 2 ‘lockdown’ Changed to ‘thanksgiving’ Rally in Islamabad.” Dawn News,
http://www.dawn.com/news/1293593/ptis-nov-2-lockdown-changed-to-thanksgiving-rally-in-islamabad
24 “Army Chief Reiterates Resolve to Break Terrorism-corruption Nexus” The Express
Tribune,http://tribune.com.pk/story/1151418/army-chief-reiterates-resolve-break-terrorism-corruption- nexus/
25 “With a New Chinese Loan, CPEC Is Now worth $51.5bn.” Dawn News,http://www.dawn.com/news/1287040

Are there any silver linings to the tumultuous, degrading, sordid presidential campaign of Donald Trump—a failed gambling czar, corporate welfare king, and supreme hypocrite to his own accusations about others?

Yes. Here are seven:

1. New York Times star columnist James B. Stewart, may be right when he writes that bipartisan outrage over Donald Trump’s not paying income tax for several decades may lead to stronger support for “a comprehensive overhaul of the nation’s loophole-riddled revenue gathering system.” The brazen Trumpeteer may be just the jolt that Congress needs. Maybe.
2. By raising the trade agreements issue (NAFTA, TPP, etc.), Trump startled many complacent Republicans into an awareness long dimmed by the empirically-starved, obsolete, 19^th century “win-win” “free-trade” dogmas. Unknowingly, of course, Trump missed the deeper insidiousness beneath these corporate-managed trade agreements that are driving American industries to Asia and Mexico. I’m referring to the loss of our freedom to improve consumer, worker, and environmental protections in our country in favor of the self-imposed imperatives of corporate commercial international trade (see citizen.org/trade). In any event, when President Obama tries to push through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) giveaway in next month’s lame duck session of Congress, Trump’s blasts may add to the prospect of defeating the TPP.
3. On November 4^th, the New York Times ran the headline: “Veterans, Feeling Abandoned, Stand by Donald Trump.” This is a spreading disdain for both major Parties by veterans about more than how they have been neglected regarding consumer protection, jobs and health care. It is directed toward failed foreign policy initiatives which spur perpetual wars that grind on and on, and the representatives who lack any willingness to ask the questions veterans want asked about the futility of our soldiers being in these countries where the local people do not want us and insurgencies keep spreading.
4. Trump inadvertently has further revealed the consequences of our educational system’s deliberate neglect of exposing students to critical thinking about power in all its forms. To those millions of fed-up Americans who, while disliking Trump’s behavior and foul mouth, nevertheless support him because, “he tells it like it is”: please pause for a moment to consider the facts. How does, “telling it like it is” equate to, “being willing and able to do something about it” and just what is “it”? Trump is inordinately vague here.

These same Americans, so knowledgeable about their own daily occupations and their complex hobbies, somehow forsake any responsibility to face the facts by doing some political homework and demanding that they be participants in the electoral process, not mere spectators of an electoral circus and its chief carnival barker.

5. More openly, Trump has shown us how the mass media can degrade election coverage so long as the prospect of greater profits outshine the impetus to offer varied and well-informed reporting—especially for mass TV and radio. Indeed, Trump’s ability to attract the media’s greed for profits continues to pull the mass media closer to the gutter. We can thank the president of CBS Leslie Moonves for confirming this observation when he told a business audience that Trump’s campaign, “may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”

In addition, so addicted was the media to scouring speeches and Twitter feeds for the latest Trumpisms and provocations that it slammed the door on any participation by those civic groups that actually have been improving our country, know what they’re talking about, and are able to inject broader topics into candidates’ campaigns—topics that are closer to the peoples’ concerns, such as looted pensions, corporate crimes against consumers and workers, crony taxpayer bailouts, and bureaucratic waste.

6. Further, Trump has cast some doubt on the invincibility of entrenched plutocracy and oligarchy over popular sovereignty. Consider this improbable dynamic hurtling toward November 8^th. Supporting Hillary Clinton are those on Wall Street, the bulk of the military-industrial complex , Silicon Valley and, of course, the Democratic Party machinery. She is seen, after all, as predictable and not a wild card prone to displays of ignorance, inexperience and a lashing, bruisable ego.

Trump, by contrast, has largely been abandoned by his party’s elite. He has a fifth of Hillary’s television advertising budget, has little get-out-the-vote ground game to speak of and is being blasted by the mass media day after day. He has also raised far less money than his corporate cash-rich opponent.

Yet, In spite of all of this,  he has made this a close race because enough voters are sweeping all these conventional variables aside in their fury. Go figure. We better do just that right after election day.

7. Lastly, Trump has raised the peril of what South Americans have called “the politics of personalismo.” By making his ego, his persona, his personal boasts, his personal insults, his personal business the core of this year’s campaign, he has forced the media to reap what they have sown with their cynical mantra for the local evening news: “if it bleeds, it leads,” meaning not only street crime but other disasters that are graphic, violent or in otherwise poor taste. Trump’s campaign is the embodiment of such misguided priorities.

Some sixty years ago, in an impoverished state in northeast Brazil, a gubernatorial candidate ran on the slogan “to my enemies the law, to my friends – facilities.” He won the election.

Beware the “politics of personalismo” and its deadly attraction to fateful impulses.

The average number of people registered with the Spanish Social Security system stood at 17,813,356 in October, the largest increase in this month on record. Furthermore, the system has incorporated 591,889 contributors over the last year, the largest increase since 2005 (a year statistically conditional upon the mass regularisation of immigrants).

More than 100,000 new contributors have joined the General Regime (specifically 100,520) in October. Furthermore, the average figure for female contributors is the highest on record, at 8,246,786, since this figure was split up by gender.

This positive result in terms of affiliation is supported by the month-on-month figures in seasonally-adjusted terms (up 107,457), the best figure since August 2005 (118,000).

The casket carrying the remains of Maestro W D Amaradeva was placed at a special platform at the Independence Squire by Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena and other high dignitaries on Friday, thus marking the highest tribute paid to an artist in Sri Lanka.

After placing the body for public homage, President Sirisena paid his last respects to the departed friend.

Amaradeva was a Sri Lankan vocalist, violinist and composer who primarily used traditional instruments, and whose contribution to the development of Sinhala music as unmatched.

The European Commission has approved an investment package of €222.7 million from the EU budget to support Europe’s transition to a more sustainable and low-carbon future. The EU funding will spur additional investments leading to a total of €398.6 million to be invested into 144 new projects in 23 Member States.

The support comes from the LIFE programme for the Environment and Climate Action. €323.5 million that will go to projects in the field of environment and resource efficiency, nature and biodiversity and environmental governance and information.

According to Commissioner for the Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Karmenu Vella, “I am delighted to see that this year again our LIFE programme will support many innovative projects to address our common environmental challenges. LIFE-funded projects use relatively little funding and with simple ideas to create profitable green businesses that deliver on the transition to a low-carbon and circular economy.”

Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy, Miguel Arias Cañete said now is the time for promises to be delivered. “With the Paris Agreement entering into force, we must now focus on delivering on our promises. These projects will create the right conditions to promote innovative solutions and spread best practices in reducing emission and adapting to climate change across the European Union. In this way they support the EU’s implementation of the Paris Agreement.”

According to the EU Commission, the projects illustrate its ongoing commitment to its flagship circular economy package. A significant number of awards are granted to help Member States best make the transition to a more circular economy.

Examples of recognized projects in 2016 include the new energy-saving hydrogen-electric garbage trucks in Belgium, technologies for reducing the health risks of sludge in wastewater pioneered in Italy and a project to help Greek municipalities, such as Olympia, increase recycling rates.

In the field of climate action, the investment will support climate change adaptation, climate change mitigation and climate governance and information projects totalling €75.1 million.

Selected projects support the EU’s target to reduce GHG emissions by at least 40 % by 2030, contributing to the shift towards a low carbon and climate resilient economy. Some examples of 2015 projects include restoration and carbon storage in peatlands in five EU countries (Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland), demonstration of the production of low-emission cement and concrete products in France, enhancing the climate resilience of vineyards in Germany and implementing adaptation measures in urban areas in Cyprus.

By Array*

The US is experiencing one of the most turbulent, contentious and vitriolic political campaigns in the race to the White House in its entire history. Negativities have engulfed the US so much that the entire world has been affected.

While several countries are raising diverse questions, the weightiest concern within the US and in the rest of the world is the future of the global nuclear order. What would be the effect on that order if Donald Trump becomes the next US President? The US is the first country to make a nuclear weapon, the first and only country to have used the bomb during the Second World War, the pioneer in efforts to prevent other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, and, above all, the most powerful nuclear-capable country in the world. The pervasive disquiet related to his views and policies on nuclear weapons thus are unpretentious.

President Barack Obama has backed the idea of a nuclear weapons free world, at least in principle. Will Trump endorse the idea of a world rid of nuclear weapons? The Republican presidencies historically have shown less faith in non-proliferation policies and have tilted towards strengthening the country’s preparedness to handle any nuclear offensive. Will Trump do the same or spend more time and energy in nuclear arms control negotiations with Russia? China has always conveniently kept itself aloof from US and Russian efforts for nuclear arms control. More recently, it has been spending billions of dollars to expand and bolster its nuclear arsenal. In the perceived march of China towards super power status, will Trump take steps to rope in China for arms control negotiations?

How will a probable Trump presidency handle the Iranian nuclear question? His campaign has repeatedly condemned the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran. He has called it a deal that has financially benefitted Iran, that has made room for Iran to walk out of the deal after fifteen years and make the bomb, and that this has made Israel more vulnerable. Will Trump nullify the agreement? Will he renegotiate the nuclear deal with Tehran? Will Iran agree to join hands? If not, will Trump resort to military means to end Iran’s nuclear programme? How will a Trump administration handle North Korean intransigence on the nuclear proliferation issue? North Korea has repeatedly defied the US, members of the Six Party Talks that negotiated several times with Pyongyang for a Korean Peninsula nuclear free zone, and has intermittently conducted nuclear and missile tests in order to thumb its nose at the international community.

Much more significant will be a Trump presidency’s policy towards Japan and South Korea. Will he adopt as policy what he campaigned during the election year and compel Tokyo and Seoul to fend for themselves in the defence and security fields in the face of a rising China that has been flexing its military muscles, and a North Korea that has been brandishing its nuclear and missile capabilities at the drop of a hat?

All these questions have preoccupied strategic analysts around the world, including those of the US. The fundamental development that is truly bothersome is the doubt expressed by a large number of people who have served as very high officials during the previous Republican administrations about the trustworthiness of Donald Trump as the Commander-in-Chief with the ultimate authority to take decisions on the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic hopeful for the presidency, has expressed her apprehension about the start of a nuclear war under a Trump presidency.

One can dismiss her concern as a mere campaign stratagem to belittle the intelligence of her competitor, but the overall views of Donald Trump during the campaign do raise serious questions about global nuclear stability under his administration. Of particular relevance is Trump’s idea to alter the decades-long time-tested US role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

If NATO disintegrates under the US demand for more burden-sharing and some of the powerful NATO members choose to espouse independent defence postures and abandon the collective security model, new nuclear weapons powers are likely to mushroom. Coupled with Trump’s call for Japan and South Korea to developing their own nuclear arsenals, if Germany and Italy follow the same, the global nuclear order will simply collapse. The NPT will be buried in the sand. Export control regimes may disappear. There may be nuclear winter without a nuclear war! Terror groups may find an easier path to acquire nuclear weapons/materials.

Such an analysis may be termed as doomsday scenarios that may not actually happen. But when the security of the world is in question, no scenario can be discounted. One would, of course, take refuge in the obvious argument that the US system will prevent the president from unleashing his ideas without checks and balances. And, of course, the Indo-US nuclear agreement will most likely remain unaffected under a Trump presidency.

* Array
Rector and Professor, JNU, & Columnist, IPCS

(Civil.Ge) — Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held talks with new Abkhaz Foreign Minister Daur Kove on November 3, who paid the first visit to Moscow in his new capacity.

“During the meeting the sides discussed at length the ways of deepening bilateral relations as well as key avenues of cooperation in regional and international affairs, including participation in the Geneva International Discussions on security and stability in the Trans-Caucasus,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

“The talks have revealed similar or identical positions on the issues discussed along with their mutual commitment to further intensify the diverse cooperation between our states,” it said.

“We are allies and this is the main prerequisite of the republic’s peaceful development,” Lavrov said in his opening remarks during talks with the Abkhaz Foreign Minister.

Daur Kove was appointed as the breakaway region’s foreign minister in early October after Vyacheslav Chirikba resigned from this post.

The Russian Foreign Minister said that bilateral relations with Sokhumi are based on firm legal framework involving “almost all the spheres of relations”. In this context, he mentioned Russia’s ratification of the treaty with Abkhazia on establishing a Combined Group of Forces that was condemned by Tbilisi as “yet another unlawful episode of factual annexation process” that “significantly threatens the stability of the entire region.”

Lavrov said that Moscow mostly focuses on social and economic cooperation. He also spoke about foreign issues and noted that Russia plans to strengthen its support of Abkhazia on the international arena.

“We hope for close coordination of actions in the context of the Geneva discussions on the South Caucasus, primarily, the promotion of legally binding agreements on the non-use of force, as envisaged in the Medvedev-Sarkozy plan that initiated international discussions on the security of Abkhazia and South Ossetia,” the Russian Foreign Minister said.

The non-use of force commitment is one of the key issues discussed by the negotiators for many rounds already in Geneva. Georgia, which made a unilateral non-use of force pledge in 2010, insists on Russia to reciprocate. But Russia refuses to make such a declaration as it does not consider itself to be a party in the conflict and instead wants Tbilisi to sign non-use of force treaties with Sokhumi and Tskhinvali. In the Geneva talks participants have been discussing a possibility of adopting a joint statement on non-use of force for a long time already. Tbilisi wants the text of such statement to make a reference to the need of Moscow to undertake non-use of force pledge.

“I know that on November 9 you expect a delegation of mediators participating in the Geneva discussions. We will be interested in knowing your assessments of the forthcoming contacts,” Lavrov added.

By Oscar Silva-Valladares

The US political system is broken and the American economy is struggling. U.S. economic growth and prosperity ended twenty years ago. The American Dream is at risk and the US economy does not deliver shared prosperity any longer. These statements are not pieces of Kremlin propaganda or political slogans in the current US presidential race; they are among the findings in the recent study named The State of U.S. Competitiveness 2016 by the Harvard Business School.

The Harvard study (which not only provides compelling economic facts, but also supports its views with a broad survey of its alumni and the general public) presents as main examples of the US faltering economic performance the ongoing slowdown in economic growth (currently at 2.1% or less than half of what it was in the 50s and 60s), the deep decline in productivity growth (less than half of 1% as opposed to the 4.6% peak in the 50s), the lowest job creation since the 70s and the declining labor force participation (the lowest since the early 80s, among the 3 bottom ones within the 34 OECD countries and making less meaningful the official unemployment rate improvements in the last few years). More revealing, significant cracks in the American social fabric are expanding as average household income continues to decline (down 7% since the late 90s, with a perverse exception being salaries around Washington D.C.) and income inequality keeps widening since the 80s (with largest gains benefiting only the top 1% of the income distribution bell). The traditional fundamental strengths of the US economy (including higher education, entrepreneurship, communications infrastructure, capital markets, industry clusters and management) are being eroded as small business keeps struggling and fails to lead job generation and start-ups keep lagging.

While its dire economic data is indisputable, the Harvard study presents serious shortcomings in its analysis of the roots and on proposed solutions to these problems as the reasoning is entrapped on the straitjacket imposed by conventional economic and political thinking. Although the study was led by top academicians (including Michael Porter), if objective and dispassionate academic thinking cannot see the light then it is difficult to expect more from the leading US presidential contenders.

David Ricardo and Adam Smith were considered by some as the last economic thinkers able to understand the inner workings of capitalism beyond the subsequent (and current) focus on practicalities of the system. The concept of competitiveness is a good example of current limitations: while competitiveness is the driving force of capitalism, its benefits for winners have been artificially expanded to cover the entire society and to assume that more of it will only extend social welfare. This is not only a dogma of modern capitalist thinking but also the underlying stream of thought in the Harvard study, one from which all flaws on proposed causes and solutions derive.

Tax reform, a national economic strategy and a more proactive role of the corporate business class are the main solutions proposed in the Harvard study. A more efficient, equitable and simpler tax system is expected to facilitate better capital distribution for the benefits of the whole society as a whole, ignoring for instance the limitations imposed by the US federal system and the complexities of the American socio-economic fabric. Calling for a national economic strategy is impractical given the nature of the US economic (capitalist) system and the scarce precedents on management-worker cooperation in America (a crucial underpinning of a meaningful national strategy, something overlooked in the Harvard document). The proposed role of corporate business ignores the fact that it is still the main beneficiary of the system and cannot by nature betray its particular interests.

While short impact economic recipes abound in this report, the study is quite candid in acknowledging ignorance on political solutions. While the US political system is perceived as the main obstacle for economic prosperity, the study also acknowledges it cannot explain why the political system fails to deliver results, although it recognizes that monetary policy has replaced proactive government action. More important, although equally distressing, is the perceived lack of consensus on proposed political reform. The debate on political reform is intended to be circumscribed to economic matters, but even so it ignores broad issues with strong political impact such as defense spending, a matter barely mentioned.

Historians would argue that grave economic and social illnesses, such as the ones pointed out in the Harvard study (and exacerbated by a growing lack of trust in government, a widening social divide and an increasing pessimism and anti-business sentiment) are grounds for future social upheaval. The fact that the American society was relatively immune in the early 20th century to the revolutions that affected and fundamentally changed vast areas of Europe and Asia is not a guarantee against future unrest. The future does not look bright as the Harvard study highlights how the federal budget deficit is expected to triple (from 2.9% to 8.8% of GDP) in 30 years and the national debt is forecasted to raise to 141% of GDP, a level not seen since World War II.

More important, the current socio-economic malaise will drive one way or another political decisions of the next US government. A more aggressive and militarily interventionist foreign policy, as feared by many from Hilary Clinton, would just be a distraction but also a destructive maneuver with far-reaching consequences, not only for Americans but to the entire world. A more inward looking and isolationist approach as expected from Donald Trump looks to many as a more genuine and focused response. There is no need to believe in Karl Marx to acknowledge how economic conditions, as the ones highlighted in the Harvard study, will ultimately be responsible for US domestic and foreign political action. In this context, private e-mail servers and female bullying are just fatal distractions.

This article appeared at Geopolitical Monitor.com

By Mehdi Sepahvand

Iran’s Chabahar Free Zone will start operation in one month when its first phase goes on stream, said Hassan Mohammadi Moein, Chabahar Free Zone’s deputy manager for transportation.

The preparations are 95 percent through and as the phase is completed, the port’s transit capacity will increase from 2 to 8.5 million tons, he said, Tasnim news agency reported.

The port currently berths Panamax and Neopanamax ships. It has a 100,000-ton pier. The last phase of the port is expected to be completed in 2020 with 22 piers and a capacity of 86 million tons.

The Chabahar-Iranshahr railway will come on stream in two years, Moein said.

The port’s development comes with a budget of 24 trillion rials ($754 million). Investors from India, Belgium, and Spain have expressed willingness to build a new airport inside the zone.

Chabahar is headed to become a rival for Gwadar in nearby Pakistan. India is investing heavily in Chabahar.

On Sunday and on the occasion of the 41st anniversary of the Green March, King Mohammed VI will deliver a major speech at the Senegalese capital Dakar.

In fact and at the invitation of the Senegalese President Macky Sall, the Moroccan monarch will start an official visit to Senegal during which he will co-preside with the President of Senegal over the signing of a very important number of conventions and agreements that aim to give a more powerful impetus to the already excellent bilateral relations between the two African countries.

On this occasion the Moroccan Royal Protocol issued a communique stating that, “Regarding the deep brotherly, spiritual and human relations between Morocco and Senegal, the special place that HM the King and all Moroccans give to Africa, and the high solicitude that the Sovereign grants to the continent, HM the King has decided to address the Royal Speech to His faithful people, on the occasion of the 41st anniversary of the glorious Green March, from the city of Dakar.”

The visit to Senegal is not a surprise to anyone, as king Mohammed VI has always included the Dakar phase in his trips to Africa.

Thus, in 2001, just two years after coming to power at the demise of his father, the King paid a state visit to Senegal. In June 2004, the Moroccan king paid a second visit to Senegal part of an African tour that also led him to Benin, Cameroun, Gabon, and Niger.

Less than a year later, in the spring of 2005, during a tour that and also included Burkina Faso, Gabon, and Mauritania, King Mohammed VI was again received in Senegal as an official guest.

Last year and during his state visit to Senegal, King Mohammed VI and Senegalese President Macky Sall signed 13 bilateral agreements in the areas of economic development, fishing, agriculture and livestock, tourism, and vocational training; broke ground on a small-scale fishing unloading site in Dakar; and inaugurated the electrification of two rural villages — Massar Teugue and Yamane Seck — as part of two electrification concessions awarded to Morocco’s national water and electricity authority (ONEE) by the Senegalese State following two international tenders.

Each of these visits provided opportunity to consolidate further the historical longstanding relations binding Morocco and Senegal, to sign more cooperation agreements, and to give a new momentum to investments, both at the level of state-owned companies and at the level of the private sector.

Economic relations between the two countries are described as very good and according to 2011 figures, Senegal was Morocco’s leading trade partner in West Africa with a volume estimated at $122 million.

This bilateral cooperation is not limited to the trade and economic sectors only but also covers education and training. Hundreds of Senegalese students are attending Moroccan Universities and other higher institutes with grants from the Moroccan Government. Many Senegalese civil servants and even military also benefit from training and refreshing courses in Morocco.

This royal trip to Senegal will provide a new opportunity to the two heads of state to reiterate their mutual commitment to the everlasting, outstanding relations binding the two countries.

In the first part this paper, it was sought to analyze Chinese perceptions, possibilities of a new world order centered on China, and its military and naval aspirations. In this part of the analysis, the role of the Chinese in the growth of communist regimes based on their own perception as torch bearers of Communism after the fall of socialist Russia has been examined.

Within this conundrum, the role played by the secret service in China has been examined. To further their designs the Chinese have adopted rather successfully cyber warfare; cyber threats seem to be a key ingredient of their strategic play. Further the correlation of spreading Islamic fundamentalism and China, and how it is likely to affect India has also been dealt with in this part. China happens to be at a critical juncture where two transitions coincide, the transition of modernization and the transition from planned economy to market economy. Both transitions are inundated with contradictions and are highly vulnerable to the outbreak of conflicts. Being so intertwined they further enlarge the urban-countryside, regional, wealth and ethnic disparities; all are possible turmoil spark points, if treated unskillfully. This in turn provides tremendous scope for the turmoil and conflict to spill over into neighboring countries such as India.

China’s Role in Growth of Communist Regimes

China‘s rise has seen an outburst of nationalism, driven from two different directions: top-down and bottom-up. From the top, the Communist state has launched an extensive propaganda campaign of education in patriotism since the 1990s to ensure loyalty in a population otherwise subject to domestic discontent. From the bottom, nationalism erupts in mass demonstrations, like the protests against NATO in May 1999 and Japan in early 2005.

Chinese nationalism has thus become one of the most important domestic forces behind Chinese foreign policy, including China‘s approaches toward Asian regionalism in general and the world at large. It both motivates and constrains China‘s participation in regional cooperation. China has embraced a more multilateral strategy to achieve three nationalist goals: (1) to create a stable and peaceful peripheral environment for economic growth and political stability, on which the political legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party now depends; (2) to suppress ethnic nationalism among the minorities in its border areas and maintain its frontier security and prosperity; and (3) to enhance its position with other countries, especially major powers such as Japan, US and India.

The increasing assertiveness of popular nationalism poses a daunting challenge to the Communist state, which has tried to maintain political stability and its monopoly of power for rapid economic development. Nationalism has thus become a double-edged sword; it is both a means for the government to legitimize its rule and a means for the Chinese people to judge the performance of the state. The Chinese government has based its legitimacy on its ability to provide political stability and economic prosperity, including a peaceful, stable, and friendly periphery. As a part of an effort since the early 1980s, Chinese leaders have devised a regional policy known as periphery policy (zhoubian zhengce). In making the periphery policy, however, Chinese leaders have been tested by the contradiction between bilateralism and multilateralism. Historically, China has been wary of participating in multilateral institutions because of its concerns about the possible erosion of state sovereignty or exploitation by foreign countries to restrict China‘s actions. The post Cold War era, however, has witnessed the rise of multilateralism in international and regional affairs, creating more and more pressure on China‘s traditional diplomacy.

Many of China‘s smaller neighbors have preferred to deal with China in multilateral settings because China‘s market potential, military capability, and enormous size threaten smaller Asian states. China‘s conduct of relations with them on a bilateral basis could put them at a disadvantage and raise their suspicions that Beijing might seek to exploit divisions among them to assert influence. Coping with China in a multilateral setting not only gives them the power of collective bargaining but also enhances their security by embedding China in a web of multilateral structure. A recent example of China’s disdain for multilateralism was its instantaneous and extreme reaction to the judgement by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague in the dispute of the South China Sea.

This power of collective bargaining is particularly important with an increasingly powerful China, which has maintained assertive positions on its territorial and sovereignty claims on land and at sea and has not hesitated to flex its military muscles to reinforce these positions. China‘s neighbors are therefore better situated if they can deal with China in collective bargaining institutions like the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Going by this premise, India would do well to leverage its responsible membership in these fora.

As communist regimes collapsed in the late 1980s, the defeat of the communist parties seemed complete. These were the same regimes that had shown no regard for basic civic rights, had strategically planned the economies into negative growth rates, and had displayed a remarkable propensity for corruption and self-enrichment. Over forty years of oppression had left the people with memories that were as bitter as they were vivid, and the popular uprisings of 1989 fought to remove the parties from power. The first demand voiced by the masses of demonstrators in the streets was that the communist stranglehold on the economy and the polity finally end. The democratic breakthroughs of 1989 thus bade farewell to regimes widely despised by their own citizens. Few predicted that the successors to these parties would survive in the democratic political system, much less thrive.

As the new regimes took over, the communist parties were forced to exit from power and governance. They were no longer allowed to organize in the workplace their assets were expropriated, and they were forced to relinquish their auxiliary organizations. It seemed simply a matter of time before these parties would be swept away into the “dustbin of history.” Yet all communist parties survived democracy and the regime transition that began in 1988–89, and all remained politically active afterwards. Several of the successor parties have even won free elections, returning to govern.

These parties regenerated based on learning from their communist allies in China by transforming their appeals, garnering broad support, and enforcing discipline and professionalism in their parliamentary behavior. Key Chinese communist organizational practices of policy reform and negotiation with the opposition affected the paths these parties would take and spurred the pursuit of regeneration. These parties thus redeemed the communist past by making amends for the most disgraceful elements of their history and by cashing in on their elite resources to remake themselves into successful democratic competitors and governors.

Relevance for India: External policies of advancement within the communist party promote elite pragmatism and technical know-how; experience with policy innovation has led the elites to realize the need for party transformation and centralization. Policy implementation and negotiation with the opposition promotes the formulation of responsive programs, new dimensions of competition, and effective electoral campaigns. These precepts are not only in the public domain, they are actively being taught and propagated by the communist masters in mainland China to cadres in various countries, including India. The communist threat does not so much come from the parties already in mainstream Indian politics (though the lessons may well be of much use to them too), but the same teachings spreading to Maoist and Naxalite cadres. These are on the threshold of entering mainstream politics owing to their large and popular support bases among the marginalized classes. The support from their mentors in China would make this transition easier and more successful.

Intelligence and Promoting the Communist Dream: China’s Secret Service

Kang Sheng is credited for the development of the Chinese secret service (as it is known today) around the time of Mao’s rise. From humble beginnings, the Chinese Secret Service moved to being a key segment of Mao’s and Deng’s China and gradually grew to dominate its foreign policy and decision making. Following the Gulf War with Saddam Hussein, Chinese military intelligence was tasked by Jiang Zemin to reorganize and prepare for the future high-tech war. A new Qingbaobu military intelligence network was formed; its prime targets included copying the Russian MIR space station, building a sea power commensurate to the best that either the US or Russia could muster, buying an aircraft carrier, stealing secrets of French and US missiles and high-tech transfers from Japan and Korea. The intelligence service was responsible for providing immense support to communist cadres in Asia, especially in India. Following 9/11 in the US, the Chinese decided to help the US chase Islamists; a war was organized against the Uighurs of Xinjiang. At the same time surreptitious help was provided to the Afghan Taliban through links with Pakistani services. This was widely recognized as the Chinese contribution to the covert war against Indian interests.

In its newest avatar, the Chinese secret service was used to ensure a trouble free Olympics, as well as keeping an eye on Uighur and Tibetan dissidents. In a bid to move forward with technology across the globe, cyber space is now the latest frontier for the Chinese. As far back as 2009-10, the US FBI estimated that the Chinese Army had developed a network of over 30,000 Chinese military cyber spies, plus 150,000 private-sector computer experts, whose mission was to steal military and technological secrets from countries that China perceived as potential threats, namely US, Japan and India. Since 2003, this special network of the Chinese Army was tasked to cause mischief in government and financial services.

China’s goal is to have the world’s premier “informationized armed forces” by 2020. Chinese hackers are adept at implanting malicious computer code, and in 2009 companies in diverse industries such as oil and gas, banking, aerospace, and telecommunications encountered costly and at times debilitating problems with Chinese-implanted malware.

Chen Yonglin, a Chinese diplomat who defected in Australia provided the valuable knowledge that Chinese embassies across the globe control and use the Chinese Student and Scholar Associations (CSSA) for ulterior motives such as spying. More evidence of this embassy control over students and journalists has surfaced lately. Thousands of young Chinese live abroad and are organized in groups like students’ associations which are linked to the Chinese embassies through the cultural affairs department. What is considered as normal (Chinese people wanting to keep a link with their homeland) is used by China to pass orders to Chinese Diaspora abroad and use these individuals for spying activities.

Relevance for India: One of China’s most effective weapons is a continuation of what was originally dubbed as Titan Rain; it is a Chinese scanner program that probes defense and high-tech industrial computer networks thousands of times a minute looking for vulnerabilities. The Chinese military hackers enter without any keystroke errors leaving no digital fingerprints, and create a clean backdoor exit in under 20 minutes.

These feats were considered possible only for military/ civilian spy agencies of very few governments and perhaps, still not possible by Indian agencies. These attacks are proliferating against Indian networks, as has been seen by the recent reports of hacking of Indian defense networks, identifiable as attacks originating from China. Although the barrage of attacks may at times appear random, it is part of a strategy to fully flush out military telecommunications and to understand and to intercept intelligence being gathered by Indian agencies.

Islamic Fundamentalism and China

Islam has been a practiced religion in China from as early as the 7th century. Some 20 million plus followers of Islam today live in China. Among the 56 ethnic groups recognized by China, 10 follow Islam. These have among them the Uighurs, Tajiks, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Tatars, and some Tibetans and Mongolians also. Apart from cultural, ethnic and social links with China, they also share common links and interests with people of the same ethnicity across Central Asia and Eastern Europe.

With cultural and religious bonds stretching across borders, it is but natural that these people also get sucked into issues of ethnicity and conflict that their brethren face in Asia and Europe. Till the erstwhile USSR controlled its ethnic minorities with an iron hand, conflicts were largely relegated to their own domestic spheres and the world knew little of what was going on. After the break up of USSR, these ethnic minorities now form the majority in their respective countries and growing dissidence is seen to the tough policies of the Chinese state against religion/ ethnicity.

To further complicate the issue, Islamic fundamentalism has seen a rapid proliferation following the events in Iraq and Afghanistan. These have now spread across borders as a general issue of discrimination against the followers of Islam and as a Clash of Civilizations. The rise of the Al-Qaeda, followed by the Islamic State are indicative of the proliferation of extremism and fundamentalism within Islam. The Chinese too face the same issues with their own minorities, especially the Uighurs.

What was so far handled as a domestic issue, now finds sympathizers among the same ethnic people in other countries. This naturally gives rise to proliferation of weapons for armed uprising as also the spread of political thought. However the Chinese still insist on these issues being within their domestic space and have handled it with the same high handedness that was witnessed in case of the Tibetan question. Naturally, the conflict threatens to spiral out of control in times to come, with the growing cohesion that fundamentalists have exhibited. On the other hand, China has had no compunction in using Islamic fundamentalism as an extension of its state policy in waging a covert war against India. The support provided to the Pakistanis and by association to the Taliban, via their Pakistani interlocutors, is evidence of the duplicity followed by the Chinese.

Relevance for India: The prospect of turmoil among the ethnic minorities in China spilling over into India is very real. Indian Muslims, especially from the northern state of Jammu and Kashmir have historically shared close ties with the very ethnic groups that are rearing their heads in China. To that effect any state policy aimed at controlling or subjugating them would be seen as a common enemy; this further gets compounded by the spread of such extreme/ fundamental thought across borders. On the other hand, continued support to the Pakistani military establishment gives another dimension to this threat. Pakistan has been either providing direct support for these extremist groups or acting as conduits for instruments of Chinese state and secret service policies. In either scenario, the Indian establishment is under a very real threat.

In addition to the potential religious and separatist problems within India, China is concerned with India’s involvement in aggravating similar problems inside its own borders. India’s provision of sanctuary in 1959 to the Dalai Lama is still a contentious issue for China because he continues to be politically active in exile, along with approximately 150,000 other Tibetans living in India. These Tibetans carry out activities seen as dissidence by the Chinese, directly threatening the stability of Tibet and endangering China’s security in its southwest region. The sense of calm and camaraderie portrayed currently in writings in China regarding India seems to be more China’s self proclaimed charm offensive than any real outlook on peace with India; veritably, the calm before the storm!

Conclusion

Today’s friendly overtones do not erase the unresolved issues and historical resentment between the countries. Rather, they are indicative of the threat China perceives from India as a competitor for vital resources and international influence, as a destabilizing influence on its western border, and as a conventional military and nuclear power. The rapidly heating up competition for vital resources between China and India, along with its impact on policies of the US and on the economic scenario, is dealt with in Part III of this analysis.

The Vatican’s representative to the United Nations has voiced concern over reports that racism and xenophobia are on the rise across the globe, some of which is politically motivated, reported Vatican Radio.

Archbishop Bernardito Auza told the U.N. General Assembly on Nov. 3 that “progress on eliminating racism, racial discrimination, and xenophobia is at serious risk of being eroded, sometimes intentionally.”

The Vatican diplomat said it is a grave cause for concern that there has been a marked increase in the number of racist and xenophobic incidents of violence, especially in the public sphere.

“This resurgence, in many instances politically motivated, seems to be driven by fear of the other, in particular, the fear in front of our responsibility to care for the marginalized and vulnerable, for those in desperate need of our compassion and solidarity,” he said.

By Jaya Ramachandran

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and independent experts are cautioning against euphoria about the entry into force of the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change.

Ahead of the forthcoming meeting of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), known by the acronym COP 22, beginning on November 7 in Marrakech. Morocco, UNEP’s annual Emissions Gap report said the world must cut a further 25% from predicted 2030 greenhouse gas emissions, “to meet the stronger, and safer, target of 1.5 degrees Celsius” global temperature rise.

The report released in London on November 3 warned that world is still heading for temperature rise of 2.9 to 3.4 degrees Celsius this century, even with the pledges made in December 2015 by States Parties to the UNFCCC. UNEP finds that 2030 emissions are expected to reach 54 to 56 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. The projected level needed to keep global warming from surpassing 2 degrees Celsius this century is 42 gigatonnes.

Scientists around the world agree that limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius this century (compared to pre-industrial levels) would reduce the probability of severe storms, longer droughts, rising sea levels and other devastating climate-related events. However, they caution that even a lower target of 1.5 degrees Celsium will reduce rather than eliminate impacts.

Prof. Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer, chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) said, while the entry into force of the Paris Agreement sends a strong message, the real work is starting only now. “Countries worldwide need to adopt substantially more stringent emission reduction schemes. If they want to be serious about meeting the target of limiting warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, they for instance cannot allow any new coal power plant to be built.”

Pricing carbon, he added, is key to incentivize clean innovation, punish CO2 intensive fuels, and in the same time generate revenues that governments urgently need for infrastructure improvements. “The science is clear: delaying action would only raise costs. It would do so in terms of Dollars and Euros and  Yuan – and even more importantly in terms of human suffering.”

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) reiterated its concern that without greater ambition and more urgency the Paris Agreement will fail to deliver the scale of fair and drastic action needed to prevent dangerous climate change.

FoEI said 197 countries have agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to hold the global temperature increase to “well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels” and to “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsium above pre-industrial levels.’’ However, it warned that even if countries stick to commitments made so far, “we can expect at least 3.5 degrees Celsius of warming”.

“After 24 years of negotiations we are hurtling towards a 3.5 degree world, which will be catastrophic for millions across the world,” said Dipti Bhatnagar, Climate Justice and Energy Coordinator for Friends of the Earth International. “Despite all the science-based evidence, rich countries are failing to do their fair share of emissions reductions as well as provide much-needed finance to drive energy transformation in developing countries. The clock is ticking, we have almost no time left to ensure the peoples of Africa are not sacrificed to increasing temperatures.”

“There are 1.2 billion people living with no access to electricity and over half of those people are in Africa,” said Geoffrey Kamese, Senior Programme Officer, Friends of the Earth Uganda / NAPE “Africa-led and people-centred initiatives – such as the Africa Renewable Energy Initiative – must be given support to work for people. However, we’re only seeing more of the same – old and indeed new dirty energy projects – oil, coal, gas and big dams, fracking, even tar sands – continue to devastate communities.

Erik Solheim, Executive Director of UNEP, said in a new release that while the Paris Agreement and the recent Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol to reduce hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), are steps in the right direction, the strong commitments are nevertheless still not enough.

“If we don’t start taking additional action now, beginning with the upcoming climate meeting in Marrakech, we will grieve over the avoidable human tragedy. The growing numbers of climate refugees hit by hunger, poverty, illness and conflict will be a constant reminder of our failure to deliver,” he declared.

That stark warning echoed his call from the report’s foreword, where he said: “None of this will be the result of bad weather. It will be the result of bad choices by governments, private sector and individual citizens. Because there are choices […] The science shows that we need to move much faster.”

2015 was the hottest year ever recorded and the first six months of 2016 have thus far broken all prior records. Yet the report finds that emissions continue to increase.

In October, the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol agreed to slash the use of HFCs. According to preliminary studies, this could lead to a cut in 0.5 degress Celsium if fully implemented, although significant reductions will not be realized until 2025. Collectively, members of the G20 are on track to meet their Cancun Agreements for 2020, but these pledges fall short of a realistic starting point that would align targets with the Paris Agreement, UNEP report said.

But it finds that through technology and opportunity assessments, there are a number of ways for States and non-State actors to implement further cuts that would make the goals achievable, including energy efficiency acceleration and crossover with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

For example, non-State actors, including those in the private sector, cities, and citizen groups, can help to reduce several gigatonnes by 2030 in areas such as agriculture and transport, according to the report.

Energy efficiency is another opportunity; a 6 per cent increase in investments last year (a total of $221 billion) in the industry indicates that such action is already happening, it adds.

Moreover, studies have shown that an investment of $20 to $100 per tonne of carbon dioxide would lead to reductions (in tonnes) of 5.9 for buildings, 4.1 for industry, and 2.1 for transport by 2030.

The 1 Gigaton Coalition, created by UNEP with the support of the Government of Norway in 2014, recently found that implementing renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in developing countries from 2005 to 2015 will lead to a half gigatonne reduction in emissions by 2020. This includes actions taken by countries that have not made formal Cancun pledges.

Climate action is integral to the SDGs, as the impacts of severe climate-related events undermine our ability to deliver on the promises made by 2030. Failure to meet these challenges will, of course, have greater-yet implications beyond that date.

China’s top legislative body is interfering with Hong Kong’s judicial independence by intervening in a politically charged court case, Human Rights Watch said Friday.

On November 4, 2016, the chairman of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC), Zhang Dejiang, announced that the committee will issue an interpretation of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s functional constitution. The Basic Law sets parameters for NPCSC interpretations of its provisions. This interpretation, which has not been requested by Hong Kong authorities, is expected to dictate the ruling of Hong Kong courts in an ongoing case involving two pro-independence members of the Legislative Council – possibly disqualifying them from office.

“Beijing’s intervention in this case may cause long-term damage to Hong Kong’s judicial independence,” said Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch. “A highly politicized ‘interpretation’ by Chinese authorities would deepen fears that Hong Kong’s promised autonomy is under attack.”

On November 3, the Hong Kong High Court heard a request for judicial review sought by Hong Kong’s top leader, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, and the secretary of justice, Rimsky Yuen. Leung and Yuen sought to overturn the decision of Andrew Leung, the Legislative Council’s president, to allow two legislators to retake oaths of office after they did not do so at the swearing-in ceremony on October 12. At that ceremony, Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang of the Youngspiration Party did not take the legislators’ oaths verbatim, but instead swore allegiance to the “Hong Kong nation,” pronounced China as “Chee-na,” a derogatory term, and replaced the word “Republic” with a profanity. They also unfurled a banner that said “Hong Kong is not China.”

NPCSC Chairman Zhang’s announcement suggests that the body may issue an interpretation before the Hong Kong High Court hands down a ruling. The committee has indicated it plans to interpret article 104 of the Basic Law, which states that members of the Legislative Council shall “in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law… and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.” It is unclear when the interpretation will be issued, though it could be on November 7, the day the NPCSC concludes its meeting in Beijing.

Article 158 of the Basic Law empowers the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law and any interpretations issued will need to be applied by the High Court or on appeal. However, regardless of the merits of the case, article 158 should not be interpreted to allow the NPCSC to intervene in cases currently before the courts.

The United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary provide that it is “the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.” The principles prohibit “any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process.”

This will be the fifth time the NPCSC has “interpreted” the Basic Law since Hong Kong’s return to mainland control in 1997. The four previous occasions were: in 1999, over the right of abode; in 2004, over universal suffrage; in 2005, over the terms of the chief executive; and in 2011, over the issue of state immunity. The 1999 and 2005 interpretations were requested by the Hong Kong government. In the 2011 case, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal requested the NPCSC’s interpretation.

The 2004 interpretation was the only case other than the current one initiated by the NPCSC absent any referral from Hong Kong. In that decision, the NPCSC’s ruling on procedures to election methods for the selection of the chief executive and the Legislative Council made it more difficult for Hong Kong to obtain universal suffrage. The interpretation generated strenuous objections in Hong Kong at the time.

The current case is unprecedented in that the NPCSC’s move to interpret the Basic Law is taking place while legal proceedings are ongoing in Hong Kong, Human Rights Watch said.

This NPCSC interpretation comes in the context of the Hong Kong and Beijing governments claiming that individuals who advocate Hong Kong independence have violated the Basic Law, even though the right to freedom of expression is protected in the territory. In July 2016, ahead of the Legislative Council elections, the government disqualified six candidates for their pro-independence stance. In comments preceding the NPCSC interpretation, pro-Beijing media quoted Hong Kong government sources who said the central government decided to interpret the law in order to “rein in the calls for Hong Kong independence.”

“Beijing is trying to stem pro-independence sentiments, but it is coming at the expense of Hong Kong’s judicial independence,” Richardson said. “This hardline position will almost certainly harden resentment to the Chinese authorities’ heavy hand.”

By Trisha de Borchgrave*

Whether the latest addendum to Hillary Clinton’s e-mail debacle is over-eager bureaucracy by FBI director James Comey, or a procedural necessity in terms of accountability, it is clear that the orthopedic boot of containment that Hillary’s team has placed on her Achilles heel of questionable judgment has still left her hobbling for votes.

Parents’ advice to their children has always been to be careful of the company they keep. However, this can be difficult for the person who goes on to attain worldwide fame and influence when the modest roots of a childhood beanstalk grow to the dizzying altitudes of sycophancy, and tear into a lifetime’s hard work and commitment to public service.

Hillary’s drive has been turbo-charged by the childhood humiliation experienced by her mother, whose impoverished beginnings forced her into domestic service at fourteen, and by the betrayal of the man she was in love with. The chronic nature of Bill Clinton’s infidelities hurt her deeply and evolved into angry exasperation at his potential ruination of her own chances at fulfilling her own ambitions, which she deservedly believed herself more qualified to reach, albeit without his orator’s skill and charisma. Not only did it feed into her obsessive need for privacy, as sought by many a jilted spouse, but worsened her persistent blindness to compromising professional situations.

Corporate greed will only ever be embraced by the corporate greedy which constitutes about one percent of the voting population. Hillary’s substantial one-off remunerations from the likes of Goldman Sachs may have helped her prove her punching weight inside a formidable marriage of equals, when instead she should have been flagging up to his acolytes her husband’s sloppy sourcing of funds, be it in the name of the Clinton Foundation’s coffers or Chelsea’s inheritance.

Rarefied living corrodes judgment, just as the rich and famous, such as John Kennedy Jr. or Princess Diana, perceived themselves above mortality when piloting a plane in zero visibility or speeding 70 miles an hour down a Paris tunnel with no seat belt. For Hillary, rarefied living, blind ambition and public service became one and the same thing, and led to an astonishing lack of discipline when applying insight to handling her top aide, Huma Abedin’s, predicament. It is even more difficult to comprehend when watching the documentary “Weiner” how she could possibly have trusted Abedin with any sense either. It is a film about ogling two people’s embarrassing relationship, Abedin’s with her husband, disgraced ex-congressman Anthony Weiner. The viewer reels between open-mouthed disbelief and embarrassed flinching at Abedin’s efforts to win sympathy, while shaming Weiner into non-repeat offending of what is clearly a serial disease.

Faced with the double emotional whammy of being put through the stocks of public indignity and singled out as a Muslim non-patriot, Hillary’s loyalty toward her “surrogate daughter” blindsided her yet again to what was an untenable position for Abedin as Hillary’s professional confidante.

As a result, the gaping reality for Hillary is that she could still lose to the awfulness that is Donald Trump. If she wins, nothing will have better prepared her for prioritizing the need to find common ground among a populace united and divided by hatred. She will owe the electorate accountability in her position as commander-in-chief of their lives. It is still frustrating to know that men in her position have got away with far worse, yet now is the time to lead by example, and not make stupid decisions based on insecurity. That is the domain of the male ego.

In an election that could be described by millions of discontented voters as, “What rat are you rooting for in this rat race?”, both candidates will be under investigation should they enter office. She, with the long-on-innuendo-short-on-fact FBI disclosure, and he, on proceedings relating to allegations of rape of an underage girl that a federal New York judge has filed for counsel. The standards for gender gap answerability have never been so hypocritical.

With the optimistic ray of winter’s fading light, perhaps it might be easier for Hillary to plug the hole of public trust she is teetering over, in ways that the tsunami wave of hope that threatened to drown a planet’s expectations of Barack Obama, has inevitably left some disappointed. She might even defy those who have held their noses at the voting booth. Or, then again, Americans might set fire to government buildings instead.

Donna Brazile, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, advised voters this week: “Keep your focus, keep your eyes on the prize.” The trouble is that the prize is simply the lesser of two evils, including for many African Americans who turned out to vote for Obama and indeed for Bill Clinton. Jeez, there he goes again, pipping her to a post that must seem like it is made of mercury.

*Trisha de Borchgrave is a writer and artist based in London. She can be reached at www.trishadeborchgrave.com and through Twitter @TrishdeB

(RFE/RL) — Wall Street stocks marked their longest period of decline in more than three decades on November 4 amid worries about the close U.S. presidential race.

Wall Street’s main benchmark index — the Standard & Poor’s 500 index of blue-chip stocks — fell for a ninth straight day for the first time since December 1980.

While the decline hasn’t been deep — the S&P racked up a total loss of 3.1 percent — it has been broad, dragging down stocks indexes from Tokyo to London and Santiago to Mumbai.

On November 4, Tokyo stocks lost 1.3 percent, London fell 1.4 percent, and Paris and Frankfurt bourses slipped 0.8 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively, as caution reigned ahead of the November 8 election.

Election-related jitters also sent the U.S. dollar to a more than one-month low against the Swiss franc, a currency viewed as a safe-haven by many investors worried about market turmoil worsening in the days ahead.

By Jordan Bazak*

This coming Sunday, November 6, marks the opening of a dialogue between the administration of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and members of the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD), with the goal resolving the country’s escalating political and economic crises.

Each side will send a delegation of four members to the meetings, which are set to take place at the Alejandro Otero Museum in Caracas. The negotiations will focus on four issue areas, each mediated by a respected international figure: peace and justice (José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero – Spain), reparations and reconciliation (Claudia María Celli – The Vatican), the economy (Martín Torrijos – Panama), and an electoral timeline (Leonel Fernández – Dominican Republic).[i] In addition, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Tom Shannon, met with Maduro this week to affirm the U.S.’s support of the dialogue.[ii]

Amid food shortages and the suspension of a recall petition against Maduro, some degree of compromise in the four major areas of discussion between the executive branch and its critics on the right is needed to provide short-term economic relief, overcome the political stalemate, and avoid more violence in the streets. However, divisions within the opposition and differences within critical Chavismo over the utility and content of the talks serve as reminders that, for dialogue to be successful, it must be inclusive, substantive, and transparent. Should these conditions not prevail, Venezuela would pass up a golden opportunity for a peaceful and constitutional resolution to its internal struggles.

Venezuela’s Economic Woes

Venezuela’s political crisis is playing out in the context of severe economic hardship. The Bolivarian Republic is among the world’s largest producers of oil (crude and refined), which accounts for 93 percent of all export value.[iii] Dollars earned from oil sales largely fund government programs and are used to import essential goods. Between 2013 and 2016, the price of crude oil fell from a little over $100 a barrel to around $50, essentially cutting the number of dollars entering Venezuela in half.[iv] The fewer dollars that are available, the more expensive it is for private stores and manufacturers to import goods and inputs.

Without regulation, prices would rise leaving many necessities out of the reach of poorer citizens. To help less fortunate Venezuelans, the Chavista government has maintained price ceilings, directly distributed goods through the Local Committee on Production and Provision (CLAP) program, and allowed for the import of essentials—food and medicine—at a controlled exchange rate.[v] Although such interventions have provided relief to the poor, they have not sufficiently alleviated shortages, as some businesses argue that they cannot charge high enough prices to cover the cost of imports and must sell part of their inventories to CLAP at discounted rates. This said, it is likely that certain manufacturers have cut production and inventory more than necessary as a form of pressuring the sitting government.[vi]

Potential Stumbling Blocks

The success of the dialogue, however, is far from guaranteed and depends on various factors.

First, the opposition remains deeply divided over whether or not it should negotiate with the government. This past Sunday, October 30, 14 political parties signed a letter rejecting talks so long as the Maduro government “insists on blocking all peaceful, constitutional, and democratic processes.”[vii] Although many of the MUD’s top leaders, including Jesús Torrealba, Henrique Capriles, and Henry Ramos Allup, support negotiations, the jailed leader of Popular Will, Leopoldo Lopez, has ordered his party to boycott the dialogue. Lopez demands that the government release “political prisoners” before opening discussions, a condition akin to that which has stalled peace talks between the Colombian government and National Liberation Army (ELN).[viii] The refusal of many factions within the opposition to participate in the dialogue diminishes the legitimacy of any agreement that might be reached and could perpetuate social unrest regardless of the outcome.

Furthermore, both sides have reason to doubt the other’s commitment to compromise. Prior attempts at negotiation have produced little. Many in the opposition feel as if the government is just buying time until oil prices recover and shortages begin to ease. Torrealba, the opposition’s chief delegate, has said that the MUD is approaching the talks with “skepticism and distrust.”[ix] Meanwhile, Maduro’s government is wary of the ultra right elements of the oppositon who have historically resorted to extra-constitutional means at attempting regime change and berates the right wing’s consistent appeals to international actors to intervene. If either side fails to arrive at the table with substantive proposals that present a genuine compromise, the conversation could quickly fall through.

But even if the opposition was to coalesce around dialogue and both sides were to show a commitment to productive action, any agreements must find the favor of the Venezuelan people. Recent history is littered with examples of top-down agreements failing before the court of popular opinion, with the Colombian-FARC peace accord as the most striking one. A closed deal that does not reflect the will of the citizenry could be swiftly undone at the ballot box. To this effect, holding timely elections is very important. The decision to postpone December’s gubernatorial and mayoral elections to the first and second half of 2017 respectively is one point that could be reconsidered.[x]

Economics Comes First

The importance of the third issue area—the economy—cannot be overstated. A poll by Hinterlaces found that 61 percent of the nation wants the two sides to focus on economic problems.[xi] A good compromise would restore some elements of market capitalism (i.e. a floating exchange rate, no price ceilings, and direct subsidies for the poor). The delegates should also discuss strategies for fighting inflation (projected to be 700 percent this year) and reducing the country’s dependence on oil going forward, objectives that are already recognized in the projections of the governments new national budget.[xii]

Reasons for Optimism

There are, however, plenty of reasons for optimism. In recent weeks, the government has released political prisoners and removed some price controls as well as stepped up imports and the CLAP to help alleviate shortages. [xiii] [xiv] On Sunday, Maduro stated, “I have an absolute and total commitment to the peace process, I extend my hand to the MUD… we are ready to listen.”[xv] Additionally, the aforementioned mediators—an envoy from the Vatican and three former center-left presidents—should be well respected by both sides. Finally, despite the absence of Lopez, tentative support from Torrealba, Capriles, and Allup is a promising sign that the opposition is on board.

November 6 is absolutely critical. Those involved in the dialogue must make rapid and substantive progress both to win over the skeptics of negotiations and to preempt potentially violent confrontations in the streets. COHA continues to support the talks as well as constitutional means of deciding political differences.

*Jordan Bazak, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Notes:
[i] “Claves del diálogo entre el Gobierno venezolano y la oposición,” Telesur, October 31, 2016. Accessed November 3, 2016. http://www.telesurtv.net/news/Claves-del-dialogo-entre-el-Gobierno-venezolano-y-la-oposicion-20161031-0016.html

[ii] Brian Ellsworth, “U.S. diplomat meets with Maduro to bolster Venezuela dialogue,” Reuters, October 31, 2016. Accessed November 3, 2016.

[iii] “Exports,” Venezuela, The Observatory for Economic Complexity, last updated September 30, 2016. Accessed November 3, 2016. http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/ven/#Exports

[iv] “Brent Crude Oil [5Y]” Bloomberg Markets, November 1, 2016. Accessed November 1, 2016. https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/CO1:COM

[v] Fabiola Zerpa and Nathan Crooks, “Venezuela’s Latest Cruelty Is Full Shelves of Unaffordable Goods,” Bloomberg.com, October 18, 2016. November 3, 2016. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-18/venezuela-s-latest-cruelty-is-full-shelves-of-unaffordable-goods

[vi] Lucho Granados Ceja, “Economic War on Venezuela: Key Food Maker Cuts Production,” Telesur, October 28, 2016. Accessed November 3, 2016. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/Economic-War-on-Venezuela-Key-Food-Maker-Cuts-Production-20161028-0023.html

[vii] “La oposición venezolana se mantenía anoche dividida en torno al inicio del diálogo con el gobierno,” La Diaria, October 31, 2016. Accessed November 1, 2016. http://ladiaria.com.uy/articulo/2016/10/la-oposicion-venezolana-se-mantenia-anoche-dividida-en-torno-al-inicio-del-dialogo-con-el-gobierno/

[viii] Salud Hernández-Mora, “Sigue el pulso entre el ELN y Santos por la libertad de un secuestrado,” El Mundo, November 1, 2016. Accessed November 1, 2016. http://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2016/11/01/5818c6fe468aebbb128b4571.html

[ix] “La oposición venezolana se mantenía anoche dividida en torno al inicio del diálogo con el gobierno,” La Diaria, October 31, 2016. Accessed November 1, 2016. http://ladiaria.com.uy/articulo/2016/10/la-oposicion-venezolana-se-mantenia-anoche-dividida-en-torno-al-inicio-del-dialogo-con-el-gobierno/

[x] Alfredo Meza, “Venezuela decide aplazar las elecciones regionales hasta 2017,” El Pais, October 19, 2016. Accessed November 3, 2016. http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2016/10/19/actualidad/1476865711_233797.html

[xi] “In Venezuela 83% Back Talks Between Govt and Opposition: Poll,” Telesur, October 30, 2016. Accessed October 31, 2016. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/In-Venezuela-83-Back-Talks-Between-Govt-and-Opposition-Poll-20161030-0010.html

[xii] “IMF: Venezuela will end 2016 with inflation over 700%,” El Universal, July 20, 2016. Accessed November 1, 2016. http://www.eluniversal.com/noticias/daily-news/imf-venezuela-will-end-2016-with-inflation-over-700_375996

[xiii] “Venezuela releases several ‘political prisoners’,” Associated Press, November 1, 2016. Accessed November 1, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/foes-in-venezuelas-political-crisis-agree-to-cool-rhetoric/2016/11/01/6576a2f2-9fe8-11e6-8864-6f892cad0865_story.html

[xiv] Anatoly Kurmanaev, “Venezuela Backs Away From Price Controls as Citizens Go Hungry,” The Wall Street Journal, October 14, 2016. Access October 31, 2016. http://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuela-backs-away-from-price-controls-as-citizens-go-hungry-1476475368

[xv] Maolis Castro, “Una oposición venezolana dividida se sienta a negociar con el gobierno,” El País, October 31, 2016. Accessed October 31, 2016. http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2016/10/31/actualidad/1477880318_999623.html

There is a reason why we are suddenly seeing extreme voices gain political footholds and their support grows across every western democracy. The rise of Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders, to name a few, can only be explained by a failure of our societies.

I don’t just mean the politicians and captains of industry, but each one of us must accept the blame. Divisive and extreme people never rise up in a vacuum in stable democracies. They need oxygen in order to rear their ugly heads, and unless we provide this oxygen they cannot exist.

For me there is not a single moment or event that led to their rise, but a cumulative effect of years of small abdications in personal responsibility, erosion of principles, a loosening work ethic, misplaced priorities and deteriorating culture and values that have led to a social chasm that we see today.

Unlike generations before us, who were willing to roll up their sleeves and get involved when they saw something wrong in neighborhoods, childrens’ schools, communities, governments and countries, I fear we have become so distracted with finding ways to personally get ahead that we have forgotten the basic social bonds and community relationships that are vital to keeping us healthy, empathetic, tolerant and happy human beings.

I think there are big and small things that have changed, in terms of how we behave, interact and function, that have resulted in an erosion of the social glue that used to bond us more tightly together, and these have contributed to the rise the Trumps of the world.

When America invades a sovereign nation without provocation and the media and all of us stand by watching silently even when we know it is wrong, we create room for Trump.

When kids use chalk to desecrate a public monument and we say nothing to the parents because we think it is not our place to say something, we create room for Trump.

When we are not outraged by our country ignoring the Geneva Convention and circumventing the constitution to detain enemy combatants without evidence or due process, we create room for Trump.

When we tune in to reality TV, knowing it glorifies the ills of society and turns people who contribute nothing into celebrities but excuse it as guilty pleasure, we create room for Trump.
When we sue doctors, police and our own families for accidents or well-intended mistakes, not willful negligence, and suing becomes a way to make a quick buck, we create room for Trump.

When we ignore professional courtesies, in business, like refusing to get back to people when we have bad news to share because we want to avoid confrontation, we create room for Trump.

When we stop going to Church, not for religious worship but to connect with our neighbours, get involved in their lives and in our community, and replace it with nothing, we make room for Trump.

When we become numb to the fact that there are two active wars, and we stop honoring the sacrifice of those serving, ignore rising military suicides and do nothing about the growing number of homeless vets, we create room for Trump.

When we see someone being wronged or treated unfairly and we look the other way because we do not want to get involved, we create room for Trump.

When we force people to stop saying Merry Christmas because we are worried about offending people, where no offense is meant, we create room for Trump.

When we tell curious young college-going minds that their feelings are more important than broadening their minds, by challenging their worldviews and offending them in the pursuit of knowledge and creativity, we create room for Trump.

When we desecrate works of literature and art because we deem them offensive, we do a great disservice to humanity because you cannot fix history by whitewashing it, but you do ensure that we learn nothing from our past, and we create room for Trump.

When our President draws a red line for the use of chemical weapons on civilian populations and does nothing when that line is crossed, we create room for Trump.

When we allow legislation with far-reaching consequences to be written by lobbyists and corporations and pass it without knowing what thousands of pages contain, we create room for Trump.

When politicians spew vitriol, attack each other personally, forego decorum, stop talking about the issues and we simply laugh, take sides or join in, we create room for Trump.

When we get our news from the Daily Show and 24 hour cable news that deliver information without objectivity, depth or a well-rounded perspective and we also stop doing our own research, we create room for Trump.

When we complain about the broken education system and our child’s teacher but expect that the government should fix these problems rather than that we get involved, we create room for Trump.

When educated people start to debunk sound scientific and medical evidence using unverified articles and citing dubious sources with previously discredited facts, we create room for Trump.

When we decide that the best way to compensate for the excessive discipline our parents instilled and the constant no’s we heard growing up is by over-indulging, mollycoddling and never saying no to our kids (rather than finding the balance between those two extremes), we create room for Trump.

When we start to see complex issues through a simple black and white lens like GMO’s are good or bad and paint all cops with a single brush, we lose sight of complexity and nuance and we create room for Trump.

When we rename Tug of War to “Tug of Love” and stop keeping score to portray a false sense that everyone is a winner, rather than teach our kids that hard work, participation and effort count most (not just winning) and explain that losing does not make you a loser, we create room for Trump.

When we feel like we have performed a social service and done some good in the world by simply LIKING a cause on Facebook or creating a hashtag, we create room for Trump.

When we go to the polls and vote blindly for the party we have always supported rather than research candidates, study their positions and understand their stances, we abdicate our most basic democratic duty and we create room for Trump.

When we think live and let live means we should stay silent when we see something wrong or disagree with someone, for fear of being seen to judge or hurt their feelings, we create room for Trump.

People often ask me how America got here.

How has a man like Donald Trump been able to upend a one hundred and sixty year old political party without a coup and managed to garner much popular support along the way?

My answer is that he exists only because we have given him the room to exist by retreating from our greater societal responsibility.

We live in neighborhoods with like-minded people from similar backgrounds, education levels, jobs and basic interests. In doing so, we have shrunk our world so dramatically that we no longer listen or have the ability to appreciate or understand any view that does not fit neatly into our own little worldview. Even online and in social media we retreat and find comfort only in our own echo chambers.

Think about the mix of people you grew up around, even in your own family; it was a broad swathe of lower to upper middle class, blue collar and white collar. Our neighborhoods had everyone from post office workers and handymen to mid-level executives at IBM and AT&T. This is no longer true.

Today, it has become easier for us to forget large segments of people in our society as we have become more isolated and divided based on income, education, skill level and race.

We have stopped learning and growing, and most importantly we have stopped building empathy for people and alternate views outside of our small, safe and like-minded worlds.

This has been our collective failure and until we fix our broken social divides and start to fill the local and community voids again we will continue to see men like Trump thrive in the vacuum we have created.

Without a shred of evidence and against the expressed wishes of his superiors at the Department of Justice, the head of the nation’s most prestigious law enforcement agency  announced the reopening of an investigation into the mishandling of classified material by Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. The surprise announcement was delivered last Friday by FBI Director James Comey who knew that the action would create a cloud of suspicion around Clinton that could directly effect the outcome of the election.

Recent surveys suggest that that indeed has been the case, and that Hillary is now neck in neck with GOP contender Donald Trump going into the home-stretch of the bitterly contested campaign.

By inserting himself into the democratic process, Comey has ignored traditional protocols for postponing such announcements 60-days prior to an election, shrugged off the counsel of his bosses at the DOJ, and tilted the election in Trump’s favor.  His action is as close to a coup d’état as anything we’ve seen in the U.S. since the Supreme Court stopped the counting of ballots in Florida in 2000 handing the election to George W. Bush.

It is not the job of the FBI to inform Congress about ongoing investigations. Comey’s job is to gather information and evidence that is pertinent to the case and present it to the DOJ where the decision to convene a grand jury is ultimately made. Comey is a renegade, a lone wolf who arbitrarily decided to abandon normal bureaucratic procedures in order to torpedo Clinton’s prospects for election. The widespread belief that Comey is a “good man who made a bad decision” is nonsense. He is an extremely intelligent and competent attorney with a keen grasp of Beltway politics. He knew what he was doing and he did it anyway. It’s absurd to make excuses for him.

In a carefully-crafted statement designed to deflect attention from his flagrant election tampering, Comey said this to his fellow agents:

“We don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed,” Comey said. “I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record.” (CNN)

Let’s take a minute and parse this statement. First: “We don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations.”

True, because it is not the FBI’s job to do so. The FBI’s job is to dig up evidence and refer it to the Justice Department. Comey is not the Attorney General although he has arbitrarily assumed her duties and authority.

Second: “I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record.”

“Supplement the record”?

That’s a pretty suggestive statement, don’t you think? When someone says they’re going to supplement the record, you naturally assume that they’re going to add important details to what the public already knows. Obviously, those details are not going to be flattering to Hillary or there’d be no reason to reopen the case. So the public is left with the impression Comey is going to produce damning information that could lead to an indictment of Hillary sometime in the future.

This is precisely why normal protocols require that no new investigations be announced 60 days before an election. Why?

Because the public invariably assumes that “investigation” equals “guilt”. In other words, “The FBI wouldn’t be investigating Hillary unless they had some dirt on her. Therefore, I’d better not waste my vote on Hillary.”

This is the logic upon which Comey’s dirty trick rests. He knows the effect his announcement will have because he is law enforcements version of Karl Rove,  a bone fide partisan who’s mastered the dark art of political sabotage.

And just in case Comey’s announcement didn’t produce the desired effect (by destroying Hillary’s chances for victory),  a former assistant director at the FBI,  Tom Fuentes,  appeared on CNN shortly after the announcement was made with more explicit information. Here’s a clip from the interview:

“The FBI has an intensive investigation ongoing into the Clinton Foundation,” Fuentes said Saturday, citing current and former senior FBI officials as sources…

According to the CNN report, officials with the FBI and Justice Department met in Washington earlier this year to discuss opening an investigation into possible conflicts of interest between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton State Department.”

(“Former FBI Official: FBI Has An ‘Intensive Investigation’ Ongoing Into Clinton Foundation“, Daily Caller)

Okay. So we’re no longer dealing with just classified emails. The FBI expanded its investigation and is now wading through the real sewage, the pay-to-play corruption scandal that surrounds that vast reservoir of illicit contributions known as the Clinton Foundation. In other words, the FBI is on to something big,  really BIG. I can almost see them dragging poor Hillary off to the hoosegow in leg irons and shackles. Isn’t that the impression the above quote is supposed to produce? Here’s more from Fuentes:

“Several FBI field offices and U.S. attorneys offices pushed for the investigation after receiving a tip from a bank about suspicious donations to the Clinton Foundation from a foreign donor, according to the report….” (Daily Caller)

“Foreign donors”, “suspicious donations”, smoky rooms, bundles of money. It all fits, doesn’t it? It’s all designed to increase suspicion and make Hillary look like a crook which, coincidentally, is the relentless mantra of the Trump campaign. Funny how the FBI and Trump appear to be reading from the same script, isn’t it?  It’s almost like it was planned that way.

But what about the timing of all this? Is it really a coincidence or are Comey and Fuentes part of a one-two punch from the Trump campaign?

And, more important, what does the FBI actually have on Hillary? According to Fuentes:

“When the team looking at the Weiner computers went to the team of investigators who worked on the Clinton email case, and showed the emails to them earlier in the week, they said, “This is really significant. We need to take this to the Director.” (2:05 to 2:23 video)

Repeat: “This is significant”.

What’s significant? Neither Comey nor Fuentes nor the more than year-long investigation has uncovered anything, unless you think the ridiculous rehash of the 15-year old Marc Rich investigation (which popped up on the FBI website this week) is  “new news” that should alter the course of the election. This is pathetic. If they have something, show us. Otherwise, Ferme ta bouche.

Check this out from Thursday’s Wall Street Journal:

“As 2015 came to a close, the FBI and Justice Department had a general understanding that neither side would take major action on Clinton Foundation matters without meeting and discussing it first. …

The public-integrity prosecutors weren’t impressed with the FBI presentation, people familiar with the discussion said. “The message was, ‘We’re done here,’ ” a person familiar with the matter said.

Justice Department officials became increasingly frustrated that the agents seemed to be disregarding or disobeying their instructions.

Following the February meeting, officials at Justice Department headquarters sent a message to all the offices involved to “stand down,’’ a person familiar with the matter said….

As prosecutors rebuffed their requests to proceed more overtly, those Justice Department officials became more annoyed that the investigators didn’t seem to understand or care about the instructions issued by their own bosses and prosecutors to act discreetly.

In subsequent conversations with the Justice Department, Mr. Capers told officials in Washington that the FBI agents on the case “won’t let it go,” these people said.” (Wall Street Journal)

Can you see what’s going on here? There’s a nest of rogue agents running wild at the FBI who’ve been giving the DOJ the finger while they conduct their witch hunt on Hillary. And what have they achieved?

Nothing! So far, they have nothing.

Now, I’m not a fan of Madame Clinton either, in fact I wouldn’t vote for her if they rubbed me down with bacon grease and stuck me in a bear cage, but, c’mon now, do we really want rogue cops and self righteous bureaucrats inserting themselves into our elections and picking the winners?

That’s bullshit.

If the FBI has some solid proof of wrongdoing that will put Hillary behind bars for good, than I say, “Bravo”. But until then, they should keep their damn hands off our elections!

Would a starting salary of just above $160,000 turn you off? Well, maybe if you had a scientific PhD and had to wait four months before the employer could decide whether to hire you or not, you would find a spot elsewhere.

This is the situation the Food and Drug Administration finds itself in, according to the Washington Post:

The Food and Drug Administration has more than 700 job vacancies in its division that approves new drugs, and top officials say the agency is struggling to hire and retain staff because pharmaceutical companies lure them away.

“They can pay them roughly twice as much as we can,” Janet Woodcock, who directs the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), said at a rare-diseases summit recently in Arlington, Va.

(Sidney Lupkin & Sarah Jane Tribble, “Despite ramped-up hiring, FDA continues to grapple with hundreds of vacancies,” Washington Post, November 1, 2016.)

As I’ve discussed before, the FDA is not short of money. On the contrary, its budget for drug approvals has increased significantly over the years. However, one reason it cannot hire enough staff to review new drug applications is that its hiring process is too slow.

If the agency cannot hire regulatory staff efficiently, how will it ever process drug approvals efficiently?

The fundamental problem is that the FDA is a monopoly, protected by government. Its staff do not suffer if new medicines and devices are not approved in a timely manner. Rather, patients, investors, and innovators suffer. The FDA has lots of reason to complain, because that is how it increases its budget.

However, it has no incentive to become more productive or efficient in approving new therapies. A bigger budget just makes the FDA bigger, but not better. Patients need more freedom to use new therapies without having their access strangled by the FDA.

This article was published at The Beacon