By Fatih Karimov

The result of the US presidential election has no impact on the Islamic Republic’s policy, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said.

Rouhani made the remarks commenting on Republican Donald Trump’s victory at the US presidential election, Iran’s state-run IRINN TV reported Nov. 9.

Rouhani further said that the nuclear deal is independent from the administrations’ decision and cannot be overturned by the government’s change.

“Iran’s sagacity was in having the nuclear deal endorsed as a resolution by the UN Security Council and not just an agreement with a single country or administration, so it cannot be changed by decisions of one government,” Rouhani said.

The P5+1 (China, France, Russia, the UK, the US as well as Germany) reached a historic deal with Iran last year to curb the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program in return for lifting the nuclear related sanctions. The deal came into force in January.

Trump has severely criticized the nuclear deal during his presidential campaign.

He has said that would rip up the Iran nuclear deal, which was aimed at curbing the nation’s ability to acquire nuclear arms.

“The nuclear deal puts Iran, the number one state sponsor of radical Islamic terrorism, on a path to nuclear weapons,” Trump said in one of his convention speeches.

An airstrike by the US-led coalition purportedly fighting Daesh in Syria has killed at least 23 people, including a child, in a town near the Daesh-held northeastern city of Raqqah.

The strike targeted the village of al-Heesha, about 40 kilometers north of Raqqah, early on Wednesday, the  Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

Raqqah, on the northern bank of the Euphrates River, was overrun by Daesh in March 2013 and was proclaimed the group’s so-called headquarters the following year.

The attack is not the first US-led airstrike to leave civilian casualties.

In mid October, at least 15 civilians were killed when a US-led attack hit areas in the Daham Village near Suluk in the northeastern countryside of Raqqah.

Since 2014, the United States has been leading a bombing campaign in Syria and neighboring Iraq with the declared objective of hitting Daesh.

In a separate development, foreign-backed militants carried out mortar attacks on the village of Hadar in Syria’s southwestern Quneitra Province, leaving at least one civilian dead and several others injured, according to the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA).

On Wednesday Syrian forces continued targeting militants across the country, advancing further in Aleppo’s western countryside.

A military source said that army units and allied forces managed to regain control over the al-Hikma School in the 1070 Apartments district to the west of Aleppo.

A number of militants were killed or injured during the operation, the source said, without specifying how many.

The 1070 Apartments district, a strategic neighborhood on the southwestern outskirts of Aleppo, and its surrounding hills were liberated on Tuesday.

The recapturing of the area is considered as the most significant gain by the government in Aleppo since September.

Aleppo has been divided over the past four years between government forces in the west and rebel militants in the east, making it a frontline battleground.

Backed by Russian air cover, the Syrian army launched operations to reunite Aleppo in September.

Separately, a military source said that the Syrian forces shot down 14 spy drones operated by militants on the suburbs of the country’s southwestern city of Dara’a.

Syrian fighter jets also struck militant positions in the East Ghouta region of Damascus, inflicting heavy losses on them.

Since March 2011, Syria has been gripped by civil war. Parts of the country and neighboring Iraq are controlled by Daesh fighters.

Original source

President-elect Donald Trump, during his campaign, refreshingly criticized Republican George W. Bush’s war in Iraq and Democrat Barack Obama’s war in Libya; seemingly advocated a more restrained American foreign policy abroad; touted the need for a better relationship with Russia; and even propounded a badly needed reassessment of overextended U.S. alliances around the world. However, already his apparent consideration of the usual hawkish Republican retreads for top foreign policy and national security posts threatens to take him down the well-worn path of the Bush presidency he so vehemently criticized during the political season.

In the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush, to distinguish himself from the interventionist presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton, promised a “more humble foreign policy.” Yet, after he became president, Bush, advised by neo-conservative hawks, took advantage of the tragic 9/11 attacks to invade a Muslim country that had no part in those attacks—Iraq. This invasion was one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in American history—turning into a U.S. quagmire that destabilized both Iraq and Syria and led to an Islamist guerrilla opposition movement that ultimately became the brutal group Islamic State, with which will Mr. Trump will now have to contend.

Yet disappointingly, Trump’s rumored consideration of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Sen. Bob Corker (Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), and former diplomat and neo-conservative John Bolton for Secretary of State point in the direction of continuing the standard Republican hawkish foreign policy of George W. Bush—about which Trump complained in the campaign and which the American people resoundingly rejected in the election.

For defense secretary, the seeming consideration of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), former Bush National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, and former Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) seem to go down the same road. The apparent consideration of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) for National Security Adviser also have an excessively muscular tinge.

For such high security posts, some Trump consideration is needed of fresh voices on the right who advocate the time-tested and more restrained foreign policy of the nation’s founders—to be more aligned with Trump’s campaign rhetoric to the American people implying fewer entanglements in exhausting faraway foreign wars, better relations with great powers such as Russia, and reassessment, and perhaps a scaling back, of the costly U.S. role in a globe-spanning network of outdated alliances.

This article was published at Huffington Post and reprinted with permission.

By Adarsh Vijay*

The Baltic Coast has descended, again, into a quandary against the backdrop of the placement of the Iskander Missile System in the Kaliningrad Oblast, a Russian enclave sandwiched between Lithuania and Poland. Concerns about Russian attempts at “nuclearisation” are increasing in its backyard. This move, which has already invited skirmishes and diatribes in the region, is bound to have varying repercussions.

The implications of this altered strategic landscape can be decoded under the following heads: Was Moscow’s action a reciprocation to any geopolitical stimulus? Does it hold the prospects of escalating risks in the region? If so, are there options available to minimise the expected tensions?

Emerging Strategic Quagmire

The move comes at a time when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is expanding its wings across the Baltics. The US interests in this region are purely guided by NATO’s commitments to its member states – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Washington is apprehensive of the Russian revisionist tendency that seeks to retrieve the erstwhile Soviet territories, and which caused alarm bells with the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. The consequent fear among the NATO countries over the likelihoods of further aggressive policies by Russia had induced the former to redevise its style of presence on its eastern flank.

The White House has been wary of the fate of their Baltic counterparts, which were once part of the former USSR. A check over the security of Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius has been brought within a first-of-its-kind deterrence mechanism. The deployment of an enhanced four-battalion sized troops in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland as decided at the NATO Summit at Warsaw (2016) reflected a change from the earlier policy of “reassurance” as promised at the Wales Summit (2014) against possible threats posed by Russia. The galloping presence of NATO in the Baltic Republics since the Crimean annexation under the pretext of joint-military exercises and drills had already been a perplexing concern for the Russians.

NATO vis-à-vis Russia: an Offensive and Defensive Equation

The installation of 9K720 Iskander, a short-range and nuclear-capable tactical ballistic missile system, in the Kaliningrad; home to the Baltic Sea Fleet, during the first week of October 2016 can be viewed as the materialisation of a belated, but apt, reaction. Nonetheless, the Kremlin underplays fears about a possible nuclearisation of Baltic sphere and a direct military confrontation against the West. The placement of this mobile missile system reveals the chances of relocation in due course and it has been projected as part of the routine military drills of the Russian Armed Forces. Despite this claim by Moscow’s defence ministry, the NATO members see this as a provocation. Iskander with its range of 440 miles brings even Germany, a NATO member, within its scope of target.

The arrival of an E-3A AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) aircraft on 13 October at the Siauliai airbase in Lithuania was a natural counter-reaction of NATO. The situation seems to be even more tense when seen in conjunction with the altercations between the US and Russia over the ongoing Syrian War.

Solutions as Uncertainties

Should Russia invade any of these Baltic NATO allies on its western border, the alliance would have no option but to invoke Article V of the treaty that sanctions a collective action against the aggressor state. By considering the precedents of failures with regard to non-coercive measures such as sanctions that were adopted in the wake of the Crimean annexation, a military response is what the NATO might rely upon in a next crisis. The Iskander-M, which is known as SS-26 Stone in the NATO circles, has been placed as a reaction to the US missile establishments in Poland.

What makes the alliance suspicious is the hesitance of Moscow to be transparent in its policies with respect to the region. Apart from that, the military geography also stands in favour of Russia in the event of a conventional battle. According to a report of the RAND Corporation, the optimum time that the NATO could buy, in a hypothetic crisis, to avert the entry of Russian forces into the Baltic capitals is 60 hours. It is also unthinkable to ensure the presence of a permanent combat troops from NATO countries on the eastern flank owing to the lack of unanimity among the member states. Therefore, what seems feasible as of now is the stationing of rotational troops across the region in defence of the Baltics. NATO would also have to consider an additional withdrawal of forces from Germany to Poland and beyond as conventional deterrence continues to be the only means for tackling a Baltic crisis. As a mutual withdrawal from force-restructuring and postures is unlikely, the only effort that can prevent NATO and Russia from a collision is to let the deterrence-building measures continue without any disruption.

* Adarsh Vijay
Postgraduate Student, Madras Christian College, Chennai

As atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels rise, very few coral reef ecosystems will be spared the impacts of ocean acidification or sea surface temperature rise, according to a new analysis. The damage will cause the most immediate and serious threats where human dependence on reefs is highest.

A new analysis in the journal Plos One, led by Duke University and the Université de Bretagne Occidentale, suggests that by 2050, Western Mexico, Micronesia, Indonesia, parts of Australia and Southeast Asia will bear the brunt of rising temperatures. Reef damage will result in lost fish habitats and shoreline protection, jeopardizing the lives and economic prosperity of people who depend on reefs for tourism and food.

“Some scientists have held out hope that there would be reef areas that could escape the harm of climate change, but we find that most reefs will be affected by either warmer seas or more acidic oceans,” said Linwood Pendleton, the study’s lead author, a senior scholar at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and an International Chair of Excellence at the European Institute of Marine Studies. “2016 has been one of the worst years in memory for coral bleaching. This fact is demonstrated by this year’s bleaching event that affected nearly all of the Great Barrier Reef.”

The study builds on previous analyses to identify exactly how people and coral reefs are affected by a high-CO2 future and suggests pathways to help deal with changes. The authors mapped human dependence at the country level, scoring for two indicators: shoreline protection and coral reef fisheries. Simultaneously, the authors mapped the largely unavoidable impacts of increased sea surface temperature and ocean acidification.

Using data from the maps, the study predicts that the countries of Oceania will be among the first to face the greatest environmental stresses from climate change and ocean acidification, followed by the Coral Triangle countries of Southeast Asia and other parts of Australia — all areas with high dependence on coral reefs.

Countries most likely to experience severe ocean acidification are generally different from those that will experience the earliest onset of coral bleaching. Acidification is projected to be worse for Baja California (Mexico), Japan, China, and southern Australia because they are at the upper and lower latitudinal bounds of coral reef distribution and thus generally in cooler waters that naturally carry more CO2.

“The response of non-governmental organizations, nonprofits, and labor and trade organizations will be critical in mounting a response to the threats posed by warming and acidification because these organizations represent the people that will be most severely impacted by the failure of coral reef fisheries,” said Chris Langdon, a professor in the Department of Marine Biology and Fisheries at the University of Miami. “These groups must speak up for the individuals they represent so that their local, regional and national government agencies see that action is needed.”

The authors say policy action to combat the threats of ocean acidification and surface temperature rise must be informed by data and science, but the research community is still doing a poor job of collecting this information where these threats are most substantial for people. Many of the countries most dependent upon coral reefs are also the countries for which we have the least robust data on ocean acidification, especially the South China Sea, an area of high human dependence and equally high political tensions.

“Because sea temperature and ocean acidification is largely beyond the control of the communities that depend on coral reefs, it is critical that we constantly monitor conditions there,” said Adrien Comte, a Ph.D. candidate at the Université de Bretagne Occidentale. “Better environmental management can help delay the impacts on corals, and stepwise actions to improve monitoring and plan for adaptation should be funded.”

An international team of scientists suggests that we must ramp up energy production by nuclear power if we are to succeed in warding off the worst effects of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change. Writing in the International Journal of Global Energy Issues, the team suggests that beginning in 2020 we could achieve an annual electricity output of 20 terawatts without needing to develop carbon dioxide trapping and storage technology for the tens of billions of tons of emissions that would otherwise drive global warming to catastrophic levels.

Herve Nifenecker of the Université interages du Dauphine, in Grenoble, France and honorary chairman of “Sauvons Le Climat” and colleagues in Australia, Austria, Belgium, China, France, India, Singapore, and the USA, explain how solutions to the problem of climate change developed in the wake of requirements established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) make various assumptions we might not be able to address.

One scenario involves attempting to capture and store carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, coal, natural gas, and oil, in power stations and vehicles. However, the quantities involved amount to a massive geological-scale engineering effort even at today’s emission rates based on rising energy requirements.

The team also points out that if we renounce nuclear power as an option, then aside from the storage needs of carbon dioxide emissions, the international demand for electricity will fall short by about 40% over the period 2020 to 2100. It is unlikely that such a scenario will be accepted by developed and developing nations alike. Several large, highly populated nations, such as China and the US are forecast to need more and more power over the coming years. The uptake of sustainable, non-carbon alternatives power sources such as wind, solar, tidal and other technologies seem not to be adopted at the requisite rates to keep up with needs and are limited by physical factors such as their random production, despite the best efforts of environmental lobbyists.

“An accelerated development of nuclear electricity production, starting as soon as 2020, would significantly alleviate the constraints required to stabilise global temperatures before 2100,” the team reported. “The carbon dioxide volume to be stored would be divided by at least a factor of 2.5 and might even prove unnecessary. The constraints on the development of expansive and intermittent renewable electricity techniques might also be lessened,” the team added.

Their research suggests that it should be physically and economically plausible to multiply by a factor of fifty the production of nuclear energy by 2100, leading to a complete elimination of fossil fuels wherein 60% of electricity demand is met through nuclear and the remainder through sustainable technology. Despite tabloid hyperbole surrounding nuclear accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the long-term health effects of these accidents are negligible compared with the chronic pollution of coal-fired power stations. It might even be said that nuclear energy is the most benign way of producing electricity in terms of environmental health and biodiversity. “Nuclear power could both answer the climate challenge and give a perennial solution to humanity’s energy needs for thousands of years,” the team concludes.

South Korea is building a new base on Jeju Island in the Korea Strait, better known for its beach resorts and scenic landscape. This shows its need to strike a balance between its regional and global aspirations.

Geoffrey Till

North Korea’s provocative actions at sea reflects its efforts to develop a capacity to launch nuclear armed ballistic missiles from its submarines. This has alarmed its southern neighbour; and there is talk in Seoul of the need to develop an enhanced capacity to track North Korean submarines. This is to enable Seoul to deal with them pre-emptively should the need arise and, in some circles even for the country to develop its own countervailing nuclear capabilities.

But below the surface, a much quieter, less dramatic naval transformation in the Korean peninsula is going on which will in due course have its effect on the already complicated security dynamics of North East Asia. This little noticed shift is in the steady development and expansion of South Korea’s blue-water capability.

Quiet Revolution

It began in the 1980s and has been gradually accelerating ever since. The development faltered in 2010 with the loss of the Cheonan to a North Korean submarine. Critics, especially from the army, argued that the navy had been distracted from more urgent, local dangers and should focus on defence at home rather than engage in adventures overseas.

2010 was also the year of the effective foundation of Maritime Task Force Flotilla 7, the Korean navy’s rapid reaction force. This force now comprises 2,500 people, three Sejong the Great Aegis class destroyers and six DDH 2 class destroyers, supported by elements – usually one or two Type 209 submarines from Submarine Squadron 93, together with a number of small combatants and patrol craft for local defence, a strong force of military police for the protection of the facilities, and a Marine base nearby.

It has secure dedicated communications with land-based aviation. MTF 7 moved from Busan at the end of 2015 and is now headquartered at the new naval base on Jeju Island off the southern end of the Korean peninsula, which opened in February 2016.

The force serves a variety of functions, apart from general deterrence of aggression in Korean waters as befits a force that takes the famed ‘turtle ship’ as its emblem. It has successfully tracked ballistic missiles fired from North Korea, assisted in the evacuation of civilians from Libya, participated in Operation Dawn Blitz, and ROKS Wang Gun i has just returned from the 21st Korean anti-piracy mission off Somalia where it operating alongside Chinese and Japanese units.

MTF7’s redeployment from Busan, and the building of the base on Jeju Island in the Korea Strait to accommodate it, is strategically significant, since the move to the very southern tip of the Korean peninsula should position MTF7 for the quick response to any crisis anywhere, for which it is designed. Moreover, the comparatively narrow waters between Japan and the Republic of Korea, in the northern reaches of the East China Sea have always been of considerable strategic significance and the Island of Jeju effectively sits at the maritime crossroads of a volatile and sometimes tense region.

North Korea Threat and Jeju Island Base

While the prime responsibility of the Korean Navy’s 2nd fleet based at Pyong Taek remains firmly focussed on North Korea, the Navy is investing in projects like the next generation patrol ships such as the PKX jet-powered patrol ships, specifically to respond to North Korean threats.

The investment of such resource into the base on Jeju also signals that the government and navy of South Korea are not so intimidated by the pugnacious policies of its northern neighbour as to ignore the need to take account of Chinese, Japanese and Russian activities or to respond to the defence of Korean interests, direct and indirect, in a wider world.

This determination to expand South Korea’s horizons from a fixation on its troublesome neighbour was also demonstrated by the size, cost and ambition behind the project to build this new base on Jeju Island. Although there was already a small naval base on the Island, Jeju was in some other respects a surprising choice for such a large project since it has long had a reputation for a kind of liberal anti-militarism.

Known for its scenic beaches and landscape, it is no coincidence that the Jeju Forum for Peace and Prosperity was established there back in 2001, and is also now a major annual event. Moreover, the Island is being given over to rapid development as Korea’s tourist Mecca. Accordingly, the building of the base has been highly controversial on both environmental and pacifist grounds.

Although the base is completed, these protests continue, invigorated perhaps by the fact that the ROK Navy is seeking redress from the protesters for the spiralling of the cost of the base at three trillion won (about US$2.5 billion). This was much higher than first envisaged, took longer to build and is a little less ambitious than anticipated.

Cover For Other Missions?

Cynics argue that environmental concerns are simply a cover for the ideological position of anti-militarist pro-North Korea groups, since few of them seem to be raised in connection with the mega tourist resorts that disfigure parts of an otherwise beautiful Island. Moreover, some of the protests have come from people whose land was not bought at advantageous rates by the government!

Even so there seems no doubt that the base, and the strategic ambitions which it exemplifies are here to stay. In theory, it will be open to a degree of civilian use and for that reason is officially referred to as a civil military harbour complex, rather than simply as a naval base. It has employed large numbers of local people directly and indirectly and will continue to do so. It seems most unlikely that the government will ever ‘give it back’ as the protesters demand.

Though smaller than first envisaged, the base is still vast. Its piers can accommodate at least 30 major combatants and its depth – which is 15 meters at its shallowest would allow very large vessels to use it. Thus, the base will be of considerable interest to the US Navy and to South Korea’s other allies and partners.

No foreign ships have yet made use of these facilities, but there is little doubt that they will, maybe for exercises in regional cooperation. In this and other ways, the new base at Jeju, and indeed the Island itself, seems set to transform from an isolated and insignificant economic backwater into one of South Korea’s most important windows to the world.

*Geoffrey Till is Professor and Visiting Senior Fellow with the Maritime Security Programme, at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

By Saeed Davar*

The great America; the powerful America, which possesses the most powerful army in human history; the world leader; are all these American illusions? More than anything, I am willing to draw your attention to this point that power underlies the United States’ national security strategy.

Available statistics and figures show that the United States enjoys the world’s biggest economy and army, but the alloy of this power is not totally American. The main source of the United States’ power is its strong economy. In other words, the basis and fundament of security in the United States and the main source of its influence outside the borders is Washington’s increasing economic power. However, this source has been very vulnerable and if it grows weak, the country’s military power – which was originally created by German scientists, who fled the Third Reich and without whom the United States would not be able to build the nuclear bomb before the former Soviet Union – will collapse.

When it comes to diplomatic conceptualization, which forms the basis of any country’s foreign policy, the United States has been mostly reliant on non-American brainpower and people like the German Henry Kissinger and the polish Zbigniew Brzezinski as a result of which most plans made for US foreign policy have been non-American in origin. The interesting, and of course important and remarkable, point, which must be taken into consideration here, is that all this heterogeneity has served the American convergence and worked to meet the country’s national security and interests and this is the great secret behind the United States success in its global show of force.

The sole election, which draws attention from the entire world and whose results affect management of international affairs is the presidential election in the United States. However, despite this very powerful image, this country is considered as among the world’s most vulnerable countries. Beyond their borders, Americans feel powerful, but inside those borders, they are faced with serious concerns. Existence of imbalanced domestic laws both at state and federal levels and people’s inclination toward local governments; destructive continuation of North-South divides, which are remnants of the Civil War; and increasing social gaps between such a poor state as Arkansas in the south and the rich Connecticut in the north are just part of the country’s weaknesses.

On the other hand, controlled and low unemployment rate; being the world leader in terms of oil and gas production; the ability to create jobs for 11 million in less than 90 years, that is, from 1930 up to the present time; existence of a powerful labor and business community; the ability to attract the best students in the world and the most useful immigrants from across the world and use them to help promote growth of the country; and having economic and military coalitions in Europe and Asia are among major strengths of the United States, to which President Barack Obama has pointed in his recent reports.

Now, you imagine an America under conditions when unemployment is at its peak, its oil and gas production as well as strategic energy reserves have dwindled, no new jobs have been created, 14 million workers are jobless on the streets, students and immigrants are getting redirected toward Canada, Europe and Australia, its energy security is in danger and governments in Europe and Asia have lost interest in having coalitions with the United States. What would remain of the United States’ might under such hypothetical circumstances?

When Obama insists that US must continue its leadership role, it is apparently an effort to encourage US sentiments about maintaining its global might. However, the national consensus in America over inevitability of the country’s global leadership role is also the most vulnerable point of America. Any time that America’s national consensus for global leadership is questioned, the pillars of the country’s power and leadership will collapse. Any country that would want to do this, should be able to create doubt among the American people. If the American public opinion reaches the conclusion that continuation of the country’s leadership role would require hefty costs to be paid by each and every American citizen, this issue would be certainly surrounded by doubt.

I personally believe that undermining the United States’ energy security could be a key factor in this regard. When faced with rising consumption of energy for domestic purposes, a steep rise in the energy price in the country, and increasing dependence of the United States on global oil resources, no American government would be able to bring the situation under control, because shocks produced by disruption in energy supply and demand and energy price will do away with the country’s independence.

Another factor that can work to weaken the United States is existence of differences among powerful American institutions.

There have been profound differences of viewpoint and management between US departments of defense and state over various global issues, which still continue unabated. In addition, differences between Congress and Senate, on the one hand, and the White House, on the other, or between the two legislative bodies have led to disruption of Washington’s plans with regard to different issues. Such differences weaken the national unity in the country and prevent profound cooperation between two Democrat and Republican parties, examples of which were the way the FBI chose to deal with Hillary Clinton’s emails and the nuclear negotiations with Iran. With regard to regional coalitions, I only emphasize the single point that Americans are not able to settle many problems in different parts of the world and need collaboration of, alliance with, and collective participation of regional governments as partners to their coalitions. If such a coalition had not taken shape between the United States and Europe, the United States would not have been able to get Iran to the negotiating table in Vienna.

At any rate, it is a reality that as long as the elements of America’s power have not collapsed, America will remain America; but this stability will not remain unaffected in the fluid world of today.

* Saeed Davar
International Analyst

The granite headstones of several graves at a Catholic cemetery in George Town were removed in what is believed to be the work of vandals, reports freemalaysiatoday.com.

The cemetery is managed by the Cemetery Committee of the Church of the immaculate Conception in Palau Tikus. It was brought to the notice of the church office by a 70-year-old retiree who went there to visit her parents’ graves.

A church employee has urged anyone encountering such vandalism to report the incident to the church.

George Town is the capital city of the Malaysian state of Penang. As one of the oldest cities in Malaysia, George Town was inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2008 and is known for its colorful, multicultural history.

By Sarantis Michalopoulos

(EurActiv) — The results of the US election show the need for the EU to start focusing on its own interests, Knut Fleckenstein, vice-president of the Socialists and Democrats group (S&D), told EurActiv.com.

He also stressed that following today’s presentation of the enlargement package by the European Commission, accession talks with Turkey should “freeze” as Ankara is no longer interested in joining Europe.

Not the same US

Referring to the US election, the SPD lawmaker expressed his concern about the results, saying that as a German, “I can say this is not the same US that after Nazi times taught us democracy and values”.

Fleckenstein added that the day after the American elections was also a challenge for the EU to change its focus.

“It may also be a challenge for us to find a new way to go and concentrate on our own interests,” he said.

S&D MEP Tanja Fajon went further, underlining that Donald Trump is “dangerous”.

“Trump is dangerous when it comes to the position of women, discrimination, rights, migration […] if he continues this rhetoric then, I am seriously concerned,” she told EurActiv.com.

Ankara “not interested” in the EU

Presenting the enlargement package today (9 November) Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiation Johannes Hahn strongly criticised Ankara.

“We are gravely concerned about the degradation of the rule of law and democracy unfolding in the aftermath of the failed coup attempt. In its own interest, Turkey urgently needs to stop moving away from the EU,” he stated.

“They say unabashedly and shamelessly that the EU should review its negotiations with Turkey,” Erdoğan told a business group in Istanbul. “You are late, go and review them as soon as you can. But don’t just review them — go and make your final decision,” he added.

Referring to Turkey’s annual report, Fleckenstein stressed that in recent months, Ankara had moved further away from the common values “we thought we had”.

“The pressure on media, arresting of members of parliament […] it’s very obvious that Mr. Erdoğan is not interested in becoming member of the EU and we should accept that,” the German legislator noted, adding that the negotiations should not finish but “freeze it until the Turkish government shows practically it’s interested [in the EU]”.

He also said that the European People’s Party was split on the issue. “Half of them agree with our view and the other half would like to have no negotiations with Turkey at all, because they don’t like them as a member of the EU anyway.”

Tanja Fajon agreed that Turkey was “clearly closing the doors to the European values and standards” and that the situation is showing that the democracy and rule of law are in danger.

Western Balkans

As far as the Western Balkans are concerned, Fleckenstein said that Albania got a clear recommendation and that the Commission acknowledged what was done in the last year

“They [Albanians] really need to start to implement that then we will have the negotiations started […] that’s the aim,” the German politician added.

About the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the S&D vice-president emphasised three points.

“We have to see that the elections will go correctly, secondly the special prosecutor should be supported and is necessary for his mandate to be longer and thirdly, a government should be formed very soon and start the reform agenda.”

Fajon noted that both the Western Balkans and the EU have to do more.

“There is a lack of jobs, bad paid jobs, a brain drain of young people, and growing nationalism. That’s the picture of the region today,” she underlined.

By Andrew Lumsden*

In July 2014, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe embarked on a historic 11-day tour of five countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, culminating in the first-ever summit between Japan and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). CARICOM is an organization of states and dependencies in the Caribbean, with a total of 28 members, associate members and observers. At the summit, held in the Trinidadian capital of Port of Spain, Abe affirmed Japan’s commitment to “more proactively” contribute to “peace, stability and prosperity” in the region.[i]

He set forth “three pillars” upon which Japanese policy towards the Caribbean will be founded, the first being the development of the region’s renewable energy sector and addressing environmental vulnerabilities. The second pillar is the development of cultural and educational exchanges, and the third is further cooperation between Japan and CARICOM in the global arena.[ii]

Japan is not a newcomer to the Caribbean, having trade and investment relationships with a number of states in the region going back to the 1960s and 1970s. However, Japan’s critical economic slump during the 1990s resulted in a more than a decade-long lapse in the country’s economic engagement with the Caribbean community.[iii] As Japan’s own economic fortunes have improved in recent years, it has vigorously begun to re-engage with Caribbean nations. The renewable energy expertise, cutting-edge technology, and unique, bottom-up approach to investment that Japan brings to the table opens up new possibilities for growth and development in the region.

Japan is not a newcomer to the Caribbean, having trade and investment relationships with a number of states in the region going back to the 1960s and 1970s. However, Japan’s critical economic slump during the 1990s resulted in a more than a decade-long lapse in the country’s economic engagement with the Caribbean community.[iv] As Japan’s own economic fortunes have improved in recent years, it has vigorously begun to re-engage with Caribbean nations. The renewable energy expertise, cutting-edge technology, and unique, bottom-up approach to investment that Japan brings to the table opens up new possibilities for growth and development in the region.

A Renewable Energy Future: The First Pillar

Over the course of his premiership, Abe’s government has strongly promoted and heavily invested in renewable energy, both in Japan and abroad.[v] In 2014, Tokyo announced that is investing $15 million USD in eight Caribbean countries with the aim of mitigating the impact of climate change, reducing energy emissions, and ending overdependence on expensive imported fossil fuels.[vi] Japan will be transferring advanced, low-emission technologies to participating countries to assist community-based pilot projects tackling issues such as water resource management, agricultural sustainability, the creation of resilient, environmentally friendly infrastructure, and the development of energy from renewable sources.[vii]

Some of these Japanese investments include a commitment of over $100,000 USD for the installation of solar panels on primary schools in Barbados, which is estimated to reduce the schools’ energy costs by between 10 and 30 percent.[viii] Other investments also include training, equipment, and technical assistance to facilitate the creation of renewable energy infrastructure, such as solar farms, wind farms and geothermal plants in St. Kitts and Nevis, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago.[ix] If these planned renewable energy installations are completed, Caribbean nations could potentially profit from “infra-tourism”, a practice gaining popularity in Japan, in which tourists are encouraged to visit and tour large-scale infrastructure utilities. Lastly, this past April, Japan announced an additional $3 billion USD investment in renewable energy development and energy efficiency projects throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.[x]

This partnership is expected to create jobs and improve livelihoods for residents across the Caribbean. High energy costs, resulting from dependence on expensive imported fossil fuels, are having a seriously damaging impact on many Caribbean residents and is becoming a significant hindrance to economic growth. The World Bank has stated that energy costs pose “a daily hardship” for millions in the region, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reports that energy costs and fossil fuel dependence are “dampening Caribbean competitiveness and potential growth,” even with the recent decline in global oil prices.[xi] Both institutions have called on Caribbean countries to diversify their energy sectors, and Japanese cooperation will help them substantially in doing so.

Japan is also partnering with the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA)—a regional inter-governmental agency responsible for disaster management—to aid in the development of flood-hazard maps, disaster early warning systems, effective flood control measures, and effective climate change adaption methods through technology transfer and technical training.[xii] Caribbean states may also benefit from the example of Japanese-style construction codes. Described as “strict and well-enforced” by the Asian Insurance Review, structures built per modern Japanese codes are among the most resilient in the world to floods and typhoons, both of which occur with some frequency and can be very damaging in the region.[xiii]

A Roof Over More Heads

Though not specifically mentioned in Abe’s CARICOM address, Japan has also made significant contributions to poverty reduction and improving the overall quality of life for millions in the Caribbean, especially in traditionally underserved communities.

It has invested close to $9 million USD in upgrading regional healthcare services in rural parts of Southern Jamaica and the Samana Province in the Dominican Republic, significantly increasing access to reproductive health services and chronic lifestyle disease treatment and prevention education.[xiv]Additionally, Japan has invested in increasing rice production and combating the problem of groundwater contamination in Cuba, expanding agricultural irrigation systems, teaching poor farmers in the Dominican Republic new agricultural techniques and how to substitute for some of the dangerous chemical fertilizers, providing rural fishers in Grenada and Trinidad with more advanced equipment, and in increasing employability and skills training programs for inner-city and disabled youth in Jamaica. [xv]

Trans-Pacific Tomodachi: The Second Pillar

In addition to its investments in the energy sector and in rural development, Japan has pledged to “dramatically expand” cultural and educational exchanges with Caribbean countries to “further foster mutual understanding and respect.”[xvi] In his CARICOM summit address, Abe expressed his appreciation for Caribbean contributions and successes in the fields of academics, music, and sports, and his government has issued a grant of nearly $200,000 USD to the University of the West Indies—a public university system serving 18 Caribbean countries—for the expansion of Japanese language education.[xvii]

In 2015, Japan nearly doubled the number of slots open to students and college graduates from the Caribbean in its state-sponsored Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Program. Participants in the JET program are brought to Japan and serve as assistant English language teachers or sports education advisors at schools there.[xviii] They are also paid salaries for their work.[xix] More than 150 students from the Caribbean have taken part in the program so far this year.[xx]

The vast majority of Caribbean JET participants are from Jamaica, and they are leaving a profoundly positive impression of the island and its culture on Japanese students and officials alike. In 2015, the Deputy Chief of Missions at the Japanese embassy in Kingston praised the “good work ethic, strong character, enthusiasm, and adaptability” of Jamaican JET participants. He explained that because they are beloved by the schools and students, the Japanese Ministry of Education and officials at local levels have been requesting more Jamaican teaching assistants.[xxi] One JET participant from Jamaica said of the Japanese, “there is just so much they don’t know about us,” but they are “eager to learn, and appreciative {of Jamaican culture}.”[xxii]

In addition to the JET program, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), is offering scholarships for students from ten Caribbean countries to study at universities in Japan. MEXT program participants are provided with round-trip airfare, tuition exemption, and a monthly stipend during the period of their study.[xxiii]

As the Japanese government expands opportunities for Caribbean students to study and work in Japan, it is also making significant investments in improving the quality education within the region. In Haiti and the Dominican Republic, it has funded projects aimed at improving elementary school mathematics instruction by providing teachers with new materials and lesson plans. [xxiv] In Jamaica, Japan funded the renovation and expansion of at least five aging school buildings between 2014 and 2015, and contributed to expanding educational opportunities for the island’s special needs children.[xxv]

Tourism

To facilitate cultural exchange, Abe declared Japan’s intention to promote tourism between Japan and Caribbean nations. He invited CARICOM members to participate in the “Tourism EXPO Japan,” an event held annually in Tokyo in which travel agencies, embassies, airlines, tour operators, hotels, and theme parks from all over the world are able to advertise directly to Japanese audiences, and to network with each other to boost Japanese tourism to their respective countries.[xxvi]

Tourism is a bourgeoning area of mutually profitable cooperation between Japan and the Caribbean community. The Caribbean is often described as “the most tourism-dependent region in the world,” with over 2.2 million jobs, and $50 billion USD in the region linked to the industry.[xxvii] Caribbean counties, quick to realize this opportunity, are engaging in their own efforts to attract Japanese tourists.

This past May, Jamaica’s tourism minister, Edmund Bartlett, visited Japan to discuss ways to “increase visitor traffic” to the country. Jamaica currently receives only one-tenth the number of Japanese tourists it did 20 years ago. Bartlett attributes this to Japan’s long period of economic downturn, and he is now looking to “re-engage Japan,” which has over 17 million of its citizens travelling overseas each year.[xxviii] Trinidad and Tobago is looking to do the same; its Tourism Development Company is in negotiations with the operators of Asuka II, Japan’s largest luxury cruise liner, carrying about 500 passengers and 700 crew each voyage, to conduct more frequent and longer cruise calls at Port of Spain.[xxix]

Geopolitical Cooperation: The Third Pillar

Despite their dynamic cultural presence, Caribbean nations are physically and economically small on the world stage. However, they are at their most powerful on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly.

In his address to CARICOM, Abe announced that Japan intends to strengthen cooperation with Caribbean countries at the United Nations to address issues such as climate change and “UN Security Council Reform.”[xxx]The Caribbean community is an influential voting bloc, one that Japan needs in its efforts to reform the United Nations.

Japan has been a fervent critic of the current format of the United Nations Security Council. That body has only five permanent members—the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China— all with the power to unilaterally veto any resolution. According to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, their country has “demonstrated that it has the determination, willingness and capacity” to be made a permanent member of the Security Council. [xxxi] In addition to its own permanent seat, Japan is also advocating for a permanent seat on the council representing the continent of Africa.[xxxii]

At a meeting in Tokyo with CARICOM representatives in November 2014, Japanese foreign minister Fumio Kishida announced that CARICOM members have agreed to support Japan at the United Nations and he reaffirmed Prime Minister Abe’s pledge to expand development assistance to the region.[xxxiii]

For their part, CARICOM’s representatives called on Japan to represent their interests in international organizations such as the G7 and G20 to which Caribbean countries currently lack access. Additionally, CARICOM also seeks Japanese support in their calls for reform in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Some Caribbean countries are denied development aid and forced into burdensome levels of debt due to the organization’s system of income-level classification. Caribbean countries want Japan, as a powerful member of the OECD, to advocate for reforms which would help countries in the region get access to needed international development aid.[xxxiv]

A Dragon’s Shadow

In his appeal to CARICOM for closer geopolitical cooperation, Abe mentioned “the rule of law at sea” and the disuse of force or coercion in international dispute resolution as principles Japan will be pushing on the global stage. This discussion was very likely a thinly veiled jab at Japan’s western neighbor, China, with which it has been in dispute over control of islands in the East China Sea. Tensions between the two powers have existed since before the Second World War, but have escalated in recent years.

China is expected to veto any attempt by Japan to gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and it is believed that Abe hopes to garner a critical mass of support for Japan membership by engaging with countries in East Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean to discourage Beijing from pursuing this course of action.[xxxv] While Japan has been successful in winning the cooperation of Caribbean countries on other issues, it may face a steep uphill battle if it intends to rally them against opposition from China, which has also been dramatically expanding its own influence in the region over the past decade.

Chinese financial aid to Latin America and the Caribbean far exceeds that of Japan, averaging over $10 billion USD annually between 2010 and 2013 compared with Japan’s US$7 billion USD.[xxxvi] Chinese trade with the region is also worth nearly four times that of Japan.[xxxvii] Chinese investments are primarily directed towards developing infrastructure and the construction of great public works. As Dr. Sanjay Badri-Maharaj—a Trinidadian defense analyst and former national security advisor—explains, Chinese works are popular in the region and especially appealing to Caribbean politicians, as these very visible projects help them in “maximizing electoral gains.”[xxxviii] Despite these challenges however, Japan may have a political opening.

To begin with, five CARICOM countries—Belize, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, St Lucia, St Kitts and Nevis, and St Vincent and the Grenadines—do not recognize the Beijing government, opting instead to maintain relations with the Taiwan-based “Republic of China.”[xxxix]

Also, Japanese engagement with the Caribbean community has been largely without controversy, while China’s has been mired in it. According to the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), Chinese state-run companies operating in the region hire very little local labor, use almost no locally sourced materials, do not follow local environmental regulations, are non-transparent about plans and activities and do not engage with communities affected by their work.[xl] Badri-Maharaj details several instances of dangerously poor construction by Chinese firms in Trinidad and the Bahamas, and there have been reports of their bribery of state officials in Jamaica.[xli] Furthermore, as Mikio Kuwayama, senior analyst for the Japan Association of Latin America and the Caribbean and Margaret Myers, director of the Inter-American Dialogue’s China and Latin America Program explain, technology transfer from China is very low and its cheap commodity exports are damaging to bourgeoning local industries in the region, as opposed to Japan’s high-tech imports which strengthen them.[xlii]

The IADB concludes that, because of Chinese practices, the “development impact (of their Caribbean investment) may be reduced.”[xliii] China offers the trappings of development, but Japan’s investments in energy, education and communities are setting the Caribbean community on a course to social and economic growth, and a potential future as a leader in the global energy economy. However, it remains to be seen if that will be enough if Japan intends to counter China’s geopolitical influence in the region.

Conclusion

With its 21st century re-engagement with the Caribbean community, Japan is introducing a unique style of investment to the region, focusing on some of most pressing, yet often neglected, problems the region faces. With its investments in renewable energy, Japan is helping to put Caribbean countries on a path to lower energy costs and greater energy independence, and its funding for community-based healthcare and poverty reduction programs is helping to raise the quality of life for rural residents across the Caribbean. In contrast to many other foreign investors the region has seen, Japan has demonstrated an appreciation and respect for the Caribbean’s rich cultures and works to share them with its own people, enriching the lives of the region’s young scholars in the process. Caribbean governments have done well in taking advantage of Japan’s engagement, working to attract Japanese tourists, and pursuing Japanese support in fighting for their interests in the halls of international power.

Not only has Japan’s model for foreign investment been good for the Caribbean, it is one that other investors, both state and private, should take notice of. This is much of how foreign investment should look in the 21st century, with special focus on renewable energy, environmental protection, helping the underserved, and fostering mutual cultural understanding and respect.

*Andrew Lumsden, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Notes:
[i]“Press Release: Japan– Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Summit Meeting: Japan’s CARICOM Policy,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, July 28, 2014, http://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000047229.pdf.

[ii] Ibid,.

[iii]Margaret Myers and Mikio Kuwayama, “A New Phase in Japan-Latin America and the Caribbean Relations,” The Inter-American Dialogue, February 2016, accessed October 10, 2016, http://www.thedialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Dialogue-Japan-LAC-Relations-WEB.pdf.

[iv]Margaret Myers and Mikio Kuwayama, “A New Phase in Japan-Latin America and the Caribbean Relations,” The Inter-American Dialogue, February 2016, accessed October 10, 2016, http://www.thedialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Dialogue-Japan-LAC-Relations-WEB.pdf.

[v]Andrew DeWitt, “Japan’s Bid to Become a World Leader in Renewable Energy” The Asia-Pacific Journal 13, 39 no. 39 (2015): 1-20.

[vi] “Japan-Caribbean Climate Change Partnership,” United Nations Division for Sustainable Development, accessed October 15, 2016, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/?p=12369.

[vii] Ibid,.

[viii]“Solar Systems For Four Primary Schools,” Barbados Government Information Service, September 12, 2015, http://gisbarbados.gov.bb/blog/solar-systems-for-four-primary-schools/.

[ix] “JICA technical team visits Nevis ahead of agreement to assist with energy efficiency,” Nevis Island Administration, March 3, 2016, http://www.nia.gov.kn/index.php/news-4/news-articles-3/2598-jica-technical-team-visits-nevis-ahead-of-agreement-to-assist-with-energy-efficiency.

[x] “JICA and the IDB to Fund Energy and Infrastructure, Expanding their Co-Financing Arrangement to $3 Billion,” Inter-American Development Bank, April 9, 2016, http://www.iadb.org/en/news/news-releases/2016-04-09/japan-idb-quality-infrastructure-and-energy-fund,11434.html.

[xi]Arnold McIntyre, Ahmed El-Ashram, Marcio Ronci, Julien Reynaud, Natasha Che, Ke Wang, Sebastian Acevedo, Mark Lutz, Francis Strodel, Anayo Osueke, and Hanlei Yun, “Caribbean Energy: Macro-Related Challenges,” International Monetary Fund, March 2016, accessed October 13, 2016, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp1653.pdf.

[xii]http://www.cdema.org/cdmconference/presentations/2015/YNishimura_JICA_StrentheningCommunityResilience.pdf

[xiii]Yoshiaki Nishimura, “JICA Contribution to the Strengthening of Community Resilience in the Caribbean Region,” The Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency, December 2015, accessed October 13, 2016, http://www.cdema.org/cdmconference/presentations/2015/YNishimura_JICA_StrentheningCommunityResilience. pdf.; “Typhoon Lionrock Makes Landfall in Japan, Bringing Landslides, Floods & Deaths,” Asian Insurance Review, August 31, 2016, http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2016/08/31/424955.htm.

[xiv]“Summary of Evaluation Result: Samana Province Healthcare Service Improvement Project,” Japan International Cooperation Agency, accessed October 20, 2016, https://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/evaluation/tech_and_grant/project/term/latin_america/c8h0vm000001rz7x-att/dom2009_01.pdf; “Terminal Evaluation: The Project for Strengthening of Health Care in the Southern Region,” Japan International Cooperation Agency, accessed October 20, 2016, https://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/evaluation/tech_and_grant/project/term/latin_america/jamaica_2002.html.

[xv]“Activities in Jamaica,” Japan International Cooperation Agency, accessed October 20, 2016, https://www.jica.go.jp/jamaica/english/activities/index.html; “Rolling Plan for Grenada,” Embassy of Japan in Trinidad and Tobago, April 2015, accessed October 22, 2016, http://www.tt.emb-japan.go.jp/Rolling%20Plan%20for%20Grenada%202015.pdf; “Japan funds project to improve lives of people with disabilities,” Jamaica Observer, June 13, 2013, http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Japan-funds-project-to-improve-lives-of-people-with-disabilities. “Government of Japan,” Jamaica Social Investment Fund, accessed October 21, 2016, http://www.jsif.org/content/government-japan.

[xvi]“Japan’s CARICOM Policy,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.

[xvii] “Activities in Jamaica,” Japan International Cooperation Agency.

[xviii] Kimone Thompson, “Japan Wants More Jamaicans,” Jamaica Observer, October 1 2015, http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Japan-wants-more-Jamaicans_19231375.

[xix] “JET FAQ for Prospective Students,” Consulate of Japan at Chicago, accessed October 18, 2016, http://www.chicago.us.emb-japan.go.jp/JIC/JET/jetfaq.html.

[xx] “The Japan Exchange and Teaching Programme,” The Japan Exchange and Teaching Program, accessed October 20, 2016, http://jetprogramme.org/en/countries/.

[xxi] Ibid,.

[xxii] “Language teachers from Jamaica making a difference in Japan,” Jamaica Observer, December 2, 2013, http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestnews/Language-teachers-from-Jamaica-making-a-difference-in-Japan.

[xxiii] “MONBUKAGAKUSHO (MEXT) SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAMME,” Embassy of Japan in Trinidad and Tobago, accessed October 22, 2016, http://www.tt.emb-japan.go.jp/Culture_2.html.

[xxiv]“Activities in the Dominican Republic,” Japan International Cooperation Agency, accessed October 22, 2016, https://www.jica.go.jp/dominicanrep/english/activities/education.html; “Activities in Haiti,” Japan International Cooperation Agency, accessed October 22, 2016, https://www.jica.go.jp/haiti/english/activities/index.html.

[xxv] “Activities in Jamaica,” Japan International Cooperation Agency

[xxvi]“Japan’s CARICOM Policy,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan; “JATA Tourism EXPO Japan 2014,” Japan Association of Travel Agents, May 21, 2014, https://www.jata-net.or.jp/english/news/2014/pdf/140521_top.pdf.

[xxvii] Ibid,.

[xxviii]“Tourism Minister Seeks More Visitors From Japan,” Jamaica Observer, May 30,2016, http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Tourism-minister-seeks-more-visitors-from-Japan.

[xxix] “Luxurious Japanese Cruise ship makes inaugural visit to Trinidad,” Tourism Development Company, March 16, 2016, http://www.tdc.co.tt/index.php/news-and-media/press-releases/220-luxurious-japanese-cruise-ship-makes-inaugural-visit-to-trinidad.

[xxx] Japan’s CARICOM Policy,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.

[xxxi] “Japan’s Position on the United Nations Security Council for the 21st Century,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, March 2011, accessed October 26, 2016, http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/un/sc/pdfs/pamph_unsc21c_en.pdf.

[xxxii] Ibid,.

[xxxiii]“Japan and Caribbean nations agree to cooperate on UNSC reform,” The Japan Times, November 15, 2014, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/11/15/national/japan-and-caribbean-nations-agree-to-cooperate-on-unsc-reform/.

[xxxiv] “CARICOM and Japan Further Strengthens Relationship,” Caribbean Community (CARICOM), November 14, 2014, http://caricom.org/media-center/communications/press-releases/caricom-and-japan-further-strengthens-relationship/.

[xxxv] Julian Ryall, “Japan steps up campaign for full UN Security Council seat,” Deutsche Welle, January 27, 2016, http://www.dw.com/en/japan-steps-up-campaign-for-full-un-security-council-seat/a-19007001.

[xxxvi] Myers and Kuwayama, “A New Phase in Japan-Latin America and the Caribbean Relations.”

[xxxvii] Ibid.

[xxxviii] Sanjay Badri-Maharaj, “China’s Growing Influence in the Caribbean,” Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis, August 3, 2016, http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/china-growing-influence-in-the-caribbean_sbmaharaj_030816.

[xxxix] “Taiwan Country Brief,” Government of Australia: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, accessed October 27, 2016, http://dfat.gov.au/geo/taiwan/pages/taiwan-country-brief.aspx.

[xl] Mark D. Wenner and Dillon Clarke, “Chinese Rise in the Caribbean: What Does It Mean for Caribbean Stakeholders?,” Inter-American Development Bank, July 2016 accessed October 28, 2016, https://publications.iadb.org/bitstream/handle/11319/7777/Chinese-Rise-in-the-Caribbean-What-Does-It-Mean-for-Caribbean-Stakeholders.pdf; Badri-Maharaj, “China’s Growing Influence in the Caribbean;” Debbie-Ann Wright, “Chinese Embassy Shocked By Allegations Contractors Paid PNP Bribes,” Jamaica Gleaner, August 31, 2016,http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20160831/chinese-embassy-shocked-allegations-contractors-paid-pnp-bribes.

[xlii] Myers and Kuwayama, “A New Phase in Japan-Latin America and the Caribbean Relations.”

[xliii] Wenner and Clarke, “Chinese Rise in the Caribbean.”

Cuba on Wednesday, November 9 announced the launch of five days of nationwide military exercises to prepare troops to confront what the government calls “a range of enemy actions,” the Associated Press reports.

The government did not link the exercises to Donald Trump’s U.S. presidential victory but the announcement of maneuvers and tactical exercises across the country came nearly simultaneously with Trump’s surprise win.

It is the seventh time Cuba has held what it calls the Bastion Strategic Exercise, often in response to points of high tension with the United States.

The first exercise was launched in 1980 after the election of Ronald Reagan as U.S. president, according to official history.

Trump has promised to reverse President Barack Obama’s reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba and the ongoing normalization of the relationship between the two countries.

An announcement by Cuba’s Revolutionary Armed Forces in red ink across the top of the front page of the country’s main newspaper said the army, Interior Ministry and other forces would be conducting maneuvers and different types of tactical exercises from the 16th to the 20th of November.

It warned citizens that the exercises would include “movements of troops and war materiel, overflights and explosions in the cases where they’re required.”

News of Trump’s victory hit hard among ordinary people and experts in U.S. relations with Cuba, which has spent the last two years negotiating normalization after more than 50 years of Cold War hostility.

Normalization has set off a tourism boom and visits by hundreds of executives from the U.S. and dozens of other nations newly interested in doing business on the island. Trump has promised to reverse Obama’s opening unless President Raul Castro agrees to more political freedom on the island, a concession considered a virtual impossibility.

Speaking of Cuba’s leaders, Communist Party member and noted economist and political scientist Esteban Morales told the Telesur network: “They must be worried because I think this represents a new chapter.”

Carlos Alzugaray, a political scientist and retired Cuban diplomat, said a Trump victory could please some hard-liners in the Cuban leadership who worried that Cuba was moving too close to the United States too quickly.

“There’s been a lot of rejection of what’s been done with Obama,” Alzugaray said. “Many Cubans think that a situation of confrontation is better for the revolution.”

Many Cubans said they feared that a Trump victory would mean losing the few improvements they had seen in their lives thanks to the post-detente tourism boom.

“The little we’ve advanced, if he reverses it, it hurts us,” taxi driver Oriel Iglesias Garcia said. “You know tourism will go down. If Donald Trump wins and turns everything back it’s really bad for us.”

Good afternoon, everybody. Yesterday, before votes were tallied, I shot a video that some of you may have seen in which I said to the American people: Regardless of which side you were on in the election, regardless of whether your candidate won or lost, the sun would come up in the morning.

And that is one bit of prognosticating that actually came true. The sun is up. And I know everybody had a long night. I did, as well. I had a chance to talk to President-elect Trump last night — about 3:30 in the morning, I think it was — to congratulate him on winning the election. And I had a chance to invite him to come to the White House tomorrow to talk about making sure that there is a successful transition between our presidencies.

Now, it is no secret that the President-elect and I have some pretty significant differences. But remember, eight years ago, President Bush and I had some pretty significant differences. But President Bush’s team could not have been more professional or more gracious in making sure we had a smooth transition so that we could hit the ground running. And one thing you realize quickly in this job is that the presidency, and the vice presidency, is bigger than any of us.

So I have instructed my team to follow the example that President Bush’s team set eight years ago, and work as hard as we can to make sure that this is a successful transition for the President-elect — because we are now all rooting for his success in uniting and leading the country. The peaceful transition of power is one of the hallmarks of our democracy. And over the next few months, we are going to show that to the world.

I also had a chance last night to speak with Secretary Clinton, and I just had a chance to hear her remarks. I could not be prouder of her. She has lived an extraordinary life of public service. She was a great First Lady. She was an outstanding senator for the state of New York. And she could not have been a better Secretary of State. I’m proud of her. A lot of Americans look up to her. Her candidacy and nomination was historic and sends a message to our daughters all across the country that they can achieve at the highest levels of politics. And I am absolutely confident that she and President Clinton will continue to do great work for people here in the United States and all around the world.

Now, everybody is sad when their side loses an election. But the day after, we have to remember that we’re actually all on one team. This is an intramural scrimmage. We’re not Democrats first. We’re not Republicans first. We are Americans first. We’re patriots first. We all want what’s best for this country. That’s what I heard in Mr. Trump’s remarks last night. That’s what I heard when I spoke to him directly. And I was heartened by that. That’s what the country needs — a sense of unity; a sense of inclusion,; a respect for our institutions, our way of life, rule of law; and a respect for each other. I hope that he maintains that spirit throughout this transition, and I certainly hope that’s how his presidency has a chance to begin.

I also told my team today to keep their heads up, because the remarkable work that they have done day in, day out — often without a lot of fanfare, often without a lot of attention — work in agencies, work in obscure areas of policy that make government run better and make it more responsive, and make it more efficient, and make it more service-friendly so that it’s actually helping more people — that remarkable work has left the next President with a stronger, better country than the one that existed eight years ago.

So win or lose in this election, that was always our mission. That was our mission from day one. And everyone on my team should be extraordinarily proud of everything that they have done, and so should all the Americans that I’ve had a chance to meet all across this country who do the hard work of building on that progress every single day. Teachers in schools, doctors in the ER clinic, small businesses putting their all into starting something up, making sure they’re treating their employees well. All the important work that’s done by moms and dads and families and congregations in every state. The work of perfecting this union.

So this was a long and hard-fought campaign. A lot of our fellow Americans are exultant today. A lot of Americans are less so. But that’s the nature of campaigns. That’s the nature of democracy. It is hard, and sometimes contentious and noisy, and it’s not always inspiring.

But to the young people who got into politics for the first time, and may be disappointed by the results, I just want you to know, you have to stay encouraged. Don’t get cynical. Don’t ever think you can’t make a difference. As Secretary Clinton said this morning, fighting for what is right is worth it.

Sometimes you lose an argument. Sometimes you lose an election. The path that this country has taken has never been a straight line. We zig and zag, and sometimes we move in ways that some people think is forward and others think is moving back. And that’s okay. I’ve lost elections before. Joe hasn’t. (Laughter.) But you know.

(The Vice President blesses himself.) (Laughter.)

So I’ve been sort of —

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Remember, you beat me badly. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: That’s the way politics works sometimes. We try really hard to persuade people that we’re right. And then people vote. And then if we lose, we learn from our mistakes, we do some reflection, we lick our wounds, we brush ourselves off, we get back in the arena. We go at it. We try even harder the next time.

The point, though, is, is that we all go forward, with a presumption of good faith in our fellow citizens — because that presumption of good faith is essential to a vibrant and functioning democracy. That’s how this country has moved forward for 240 years. It’s how we’ve pushed boundaries and promoted freedom around the world. That’s how we’ve expanded the rights of our founding to reach all of our citizens. It’s how we have come this far.

And that’s why I’m confident that this incredible journey that we’re on as Americans will go on. And I am looking forward to doing everything that I can to make sure that the next President is successful in that. I have said before, I think of this job as being a relay runner — you take the baton, you run your best race, and hopefully, by the time you hand it off you’re a little further ahead, you’ve made a little progress. And I can say that we’ve done that, and I want to make sure that handoff is well-executed, because ultimately we’re all on the same team.

All right? Thank you very much, everybody. (Applause.)

The Fatah movement is involved in a massive tug-of-war that will ultimately define its future. Though the conflict is between current Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and once Gaza strongman Mohammed Dahlan is in no way motivated by ending the Israeli occupation, their war will likely determine the future political landscape of Palestine.

The issue cannot be taken lightly, nor can it be dismissed as an internal Fatah conflict. The latter is one of the two largest Palestinian factions, the largest within the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and has single-handedly pushed Palestinians into the abyss of the “peace process” and the great Oslo Accords gamble, which has come at great cost and no benefits.

Moreover, Fatah embodies Palestine’s ruling elites. True, Abbas’ mandate expired in 2009 and Dahlan has been accumulating massive wealth since he fled the West Bank in 2011 (following his public feud with Abbas) but, sadly, both men wield substantial authority and influence. Abbas runs the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah with an iron fist and with the full consent and support of Israel and the United States, while Dahlan is being actively groomed by various Middle Eastern governments, and possibly Israeli and US powers, as the likely successor of the aging Ramallah leader.

They are both indifferent to the harsh reality experienced by their people on the ground.

A limited uprising, known by some as the “Knife Intifada” and others as the “Jerusalem Intifada”, is teetering on the brink, with no serious efforts by the Palestinian leadership to – at least – try to harness Palestinian energies towards a sustainable, long-term popular uprising. On the contrary, Abbas has done his utmost to ignore the Palestinian people’s cry for help and for an astute, courageous leadership.

Instead, Abbas continues to perceive his “security coordination” with Israel as “holy”, while continuing to crackdown on Palestinian resistance and on his own Fatah opponents and their supporters.

He is yet to designate a successor, despite the fact that he is 81 years old and suffers from heart ailments.

This has signaled an opportunity for Dahlan, who has been accused of involvement in various shady Arab affairs. Dahlan has been aching for a comeback from his villa in Abu Dhabi. In a recent New York Times article, Peter Baker, who interviewed Dahlan, described part of his wealth:

His spacious home here in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates, features plush sofas, vaulted ceilings and chandeliers. The infinity pool in the back seems to spill into the glistening waterway beyond.

Dahlan’s amassing of wealth goes back to his years in Gaza, when he was the head of the notorious Preventive Security Service, itself formed and trained with the help of the US – the CIA in particular – according to various media reports. Its torture techniques were criticised repeatedly by international human rights groups.

Dahlan remains unrepentant: neither apologetic about his unexplained wealth, nor for the Gaza crackdowns which ended when Hamas deposed him and his movement in 2007, resulting in a short-lived civil war.

“Two things that I am not denying,” he told the NYT. “That I’m rich. I will not deny it. Ever. And that I am strong, I will not deny it. But I work hard to increase my level of life.”

Explaining what many perceive as a brutal reign in Gaza, he dismissed it, saying that he “wasn’t head of the Red Cross,” at the time.

A Human Rights Watch report expounded on the extent of the crackdown that commenced soon after the PA took charge of the Occupied Territories in 1994. For example, “during the first eight months of 1996, at least 2,000 Palestinians were arrested” by the PA police. The rate is almost as high as arrests carried out by the Israeli army. “The arrests were arbitrary,” according to HRW and no courts or due process was ever part of the procedure, which, almost always, involved torture.

Sadly, the legacies of Abbas and Dahlan are largely predicated on such behaviour, and their current conflict is mostly concerned with personal power struggles that involve just them and their followers.

Abbas, who is slowly losing the traditional Arab allies who once supported him against Hamas, and is relegated by Israel –  which is trying to arrange the post-Abbas Palestinian leadership –  is trying to explore new alliances. He has recently visited Turkey and Qatar. In Qatar, he met with top Hamas leaders Khaled Meshaal and Ismael Haniyeh.

Hamas is not being courted by Abbas to end the protracted and disconcerting Palestinian feud for many years, but rather to counterbalance earlier moves by Dahlan to pander to Hamas.

Dahlan is involved in various “charity projects” including financing mass weddings in impoverished Gaza. But it is not Dahlan’s money that Hamas is seeking; rather the hope that he mediates with Egypt to ease movement on the Rafah-Egypt border.

With a growing clout and rising number of benefactors, Dahlan’s resurrection is assured, but imposing him on an embattled Fatah faction in the West Bank remains uncertain.

To preclude Dahlan’s attempt at regaining his status within Fatah, Abbas’s PA forces in the occupied West Bank have been conducting arrests of Dahlan’s supporters. The latter’s armed men are retaliating and clashes have been reported in various parts of the West Bank.

Moreover, Abbas has called for the seventh Fatah conference to be held sometime later this month, where the Abbas faction within Fatah is likely to rearrange the various committees to ensure Dahlan’s supporters are weakened, if not permanently removed.

Considering Dahlan’s strong support base and his ability to win followers using his access to wealth and regional allies, a move against his followers is likely to backfire, splitting the party, or worse, leading to an armed conflict. Despite Israel’s intentional silence, there are also reports that Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who was tied to Dahlan repeatedly in the past, is keen on ensuring the return of Dahlan at the helm of Fatah.

Tragically, the power struggle  rarely involves ordinary Palestinian people, who remain alone facing the Israeli military machine, the growing illegal Jewish settlements, the suffocating siege, while persisting under an unprecedented leadership vacuum.

This is one of the enduring legacies of the Oslo Accords, which divides Palestinians into classes: a powerful class that is subsidised by “donor countries” and is used to serve the interests of the US, Israel and regional powers, and the vast majority of people, barely surviving on handouts and resisting under growing odds.

This strange contradiction has become the shameful reality of Palestine, and regardless of what the power struggle between Abbas and Dahlan brings, most Palestinians will find themselves facing the same dual enemy, military occupation, on the one hand, and their leadership’s own acquiescence and corruption, on the other.

By Abhijnan Rej

Trump wins contentious US election for president, but globalization loses with a bitterly divided electorate.

By David Dapice*

It’s Brexit all over again. Donald Trump, a candidate who managed to offend most demographics, shocked the world by winning the US presidential race. The race’s competitiveness suggests deep dissatisfaction with the status quo, and governing such a discontented nation promises to be a challenging task. Republicans retain control of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

In the United Kingdom, the Brexit vote underlined the discontent many felt while the European Union faces rising extremist parties and calls for similar referenda. Meanwhile Syria and Yemen are being destroyed. Deranged democracies in Venezuela and the Philippines and dysfunctional dictatorships in North Korea, Zimbabwe and arguably Thailand all point to an unraveling that is beyond worrying. If this were not enough, a debt-ridden Chinese economy doubles down on old solutions while becoming ever more aggressive externally, and Russia’s economy sinks while Putin fiddles in Ukraine and Syria. Is this where globalization has brought us?

To understand the present, go back a few decades. A combination of mostly technology along with trade and immigration began to reduce the number of manufacturing jobs in many rich countries while depressing wages for entry-level jobs.The burden initially fell most heavily on workers with little formal education and skills that could be automated. They were not reckoned to be important politically, and so little was done. But more families were pressured as machines grew more capable, trade volumes grew with the rise of advanced foreign technology in China, and migration rose to millions of workers in the United States and within the European Union from its newest members.

Meanwhile, a minority with higher levels of education and scarce skills did well. Due to a number of factors, the top 1 percent did incredibly well, as evidenced by the growing gap between median and executive incomes. Income inequality rose to levels not seen since the 1920s. The US political system – meaning both parties, the Congress and the judiciary – responded by becoming more conservative and more responsive to special interests, often creating gridlock. In the European Union, more often the choice was made to protect incumbent workers which meant fewer good jobs for the young. It’s not surprising that the unemployed and under-employed white working class, and others upset by social and demographic changes, provided the rank-and-file of Donald Trump’s revolution.

In China, the Communist Party regained its sanity after the excesses of Mao and began a pragmatic combination of economic growth and party control just short of totalitarianism. It succeeded in bringing China’s income up to where South Korea’s had been in the mid-1990s by 2015. This gave the party some legitimacy, but slowing growth, rising corruption and widening income inequalities threatened stability. The response of the current leader has been to crack down on lawyers, NGOs and ideas that do not fit the party line. There has also been a widely popular crackdown on corruption and the promulgation of the “China Dream,” which at least some of China’s immediate neighbors see as re-establishing the Middle Kingdom rather than making China an attractive place for its citizens, much less a model for others. Still, the lack of US vision in reorganizing the World Bank and International Monetary Fund created an opening for China to establish its own institutions to use its excess capacity to build roads, ports and railways in countries near and far. Since infrastructure is badly needed and underfunded in many places, these initiatives may do more good than harm, depending on the degree of corruption in planning and implementation. Meanwhile, the US pivot to Asia lacks depth due to Congressional resistance to the Trans Pacific Partnership with too much emphasis on military strength and not enough on other elements of a broad strategy.

South and Southeast Asia accommodate China’s increasing pressures in different ways. In Vietnam and Myanmar, the governments try to balance the unpopularity of China with the need to get along. Indonesia and India, while not looking to create divisions, are willing to risk being more confrontational, though they have less successful economies and need capital and technology, some of which China can supply. The Philippines and Thailand defer to China due to domestic weaknesses, while smaller nations, except Singapore, are already highly responsive to China’s pressures. Japan and Korea try to balance China, which is also threatening their air and sea spaces, but lack strength to do much regionally without a better US strategy. Pakistan remains close to China, trying to destabilize India through terrorist attacks and blocking the rise of a peaceful Afghanistan.

These shifting sands might be bad enough without a weak but disruptive Russia, a distracted EU and a collapsing Middle East creating millions of refugees. Turkey’s government has moved to a hard line against the Kurds, one of the few effective anti-ISIS groups, and decapitated the military and opposition professionals. Iran is backing Assad in a murderous civil war, using its own soldiers sparingly but Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon copiously. Libya’s collapse has given the Islamic State another possible haven and released fighters and arms across much of the Sahel. Radical movements such as Al Shabab and Boko Haram make it difficult for northern Africa states to reform and improve their economies. Their outrages drive people away and make others less willing to take a chance on refugees.

The world’s temperatures are rising, and its weather getting more extreme and erratic. Floods or droughts expected once a century come along more often. Farmers find it hard to grow enough food reliably in many developing countries. Coastal zones face rising sea levels and stronger storm surges. These add to the pressure for economic migration and often lead to political instability. This is true even though poverty has been reduced and health and education improved. Widespread use of mobile phones and the Internet have spread information about better conditions elsewhere, and many people are no longer willing to suffer in their current situations. China’s reduced demand for raw materials has also slowed growth in much of Africa and Latin America.

The risk of developing psychosis is more than tripled for those who abuse cannabis, according to results from a new twin study.

Researchers from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH), together with colleagues from Virginia Commonwealth University, examined the relationship between cannabis and psychosis using psychiatric interviews of Norwegian twins. The interviews reveal whether the twins had symptoms of psychosis and cannabis abuse.

“Previous research has shown that patients with psychotic disorders use cannabis more often than the general population. However research has been divided over whether cannabis use was the cause of the psychotic disorders,” said Ragnar Nesvåg, senior researcher at NIPH and the main author of the study.

Genetic factors influence both cannabis abuse and psychosis and the same genes may lead to an increased risk for both problems.

“The relative importance of genes in the causes of a disease is known as heritability, and we know from previous studies at the NIPH that cannabis abuse is very heritable,” said Eivind Ystrom, senior researcher at NIPH.

“In order to determine whether cannabis abuse can lead to psychosis, it is important to account for genetic risk,” he added.

The researchers therefore tested both the hypotheses that cannabis use causes psychotic symptoms and that psychotic symptoms lead to cannabis abuse.

Abuse increased the risk by 3.5

The hypothesis best suited to the data was that cannabis abuse caused symptoms of psychosis. Within a twin pair, the twin with symptoms of cannabis abuse had a 3.5 times higher risk of developing symptoms of psychosis compared with the twin who did not have symptoms of cannabis abuse.

“Our analyses showed a significant association between cannabis abuse and symptoms of psychosis in the general population. We also tested the hypothesis that symptoms of psychosis caused cannabis abuse, but the hypothesis was less suited to the data. Therefore, it appears that cannabis abuse can be a cause of psychosis,” said Ystrom.

Confirmed high heritability

Previous studies have shown that cannabis abuse is very heritable, which was also confirmed in this study. As much as 88 per cent of the causes of why some people abused cannabis, yet others did not, could be attributed to some people having risk genes.

Despite this, the researchers found that a common genetic risk could not explain the entire association with symptoms of psychosis. Even after genetic risk and risk of childhood environment were taken into account, people with cannabis abuse still had a multiplied risk of developing symptoms of psychosis.

Nesvåg said that psychosis is associated with huge costs to society. These findings should be considered when evaluating the cost of policies for increased cannabis availability, such as decriminalisation or legalisation.

About twin studies

Investigating whether a particular risk factor causes disease requires studies where you look at two people who are otherwise identical, where one is exposed to a risk factor and the other is not. The effects on their health can be investigated. For obvious reasons, these experiments are neither practical, ethical or legally feasible.

Studying twins is a viable option because they have genetic similarity, they have grown up in the same family, and they have the same socioeconomic background.

By Mihir Swarup Sharma

Prime Minister Narendra Modi was elected to take big, transformational decisions. He hasn’t exactly been full of such decisions in the past two and half years – but he showed on Tuesday that he was certainly capable of them.

The decision to ban existing 500- and 1000-rupee notes has a certain economic logic to it. Certainly, the absence of large-denomination notes will make it harder for people to keep black money in hand. That said, there are no clear estimates as to how much black money is in actual currency notes, and how much in land or gold or other forms of wealth.

But the point behind Modi’s announcement wasn’t to actually change the way that the black money economy works. It was to show that he is capable of doing something – of strong leadership. And, from that point of view, it was a sign both of desperation and brilliance.

Modi is now reaching that point in his term in office when the promises he made in 2014 are coming back to haunt him. He spent the last week under a spotlight because of the One Rank, One Pension (OROP) agitation – something that he politicised to start off with, and on which he has failed to deliver to the satisfaction of many ex-servicemen. Two and a half years into his term, their patience was at an end. I wrote last week that it was only the beginning of a long-overdue accounting for Modi’s extravagant promises on the campaign trail in 2013 and 2014.

The promise to “bring back black money” was another such promise, one even more resonant than the OROP promise. Rare was the BJP voter in North India who was not convinced by the party’s skilled propaganda, and by statements from senior leaders that they had personally been defrauded of lakhs of rupees (Rs. 15 lakh is the generally accepted figure) by Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh, and a cabal of sinister figures from the Vatican, Switzerland, and Dubai. Modi would end the black money economy, we were told. Whether or not Modi specifically promised to bring back 15 lakhs and put it in everyone’s bank account, there’s little doubt that many of those who voted for him expected some cash in their account from black money.

Well, that hasn’t precisely worked out, has it? It is one of the most effective weapons in the opposition’s arsenal, in fact. Rahul Gandhi had a lot of fun last year comparing the Prime Minister’s “10-lakh suit” with the absence of 15 lakhs in people’s bank accounts.

People may be led to believe any number of things by the government’s skillful control of regular and social media. They may believe that everyone in the world suddenly started “respecting” India in 2014, that Pakistan and China are on the run, that there hasn’t been a single shady deal since May 2014, that Acchhe Din have come to India in general, just not to their particular village. But you definitely can’t be led to believe that a black money refund has arrived in your bank account when it very certainly hasn’t.

In other words, the black money issue was one of the most vulnerable for Modi. And that’s what underlies the sudden and swift decision to outlaw Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 notes. It’s something that every single voter will get to know about – no exceptions. And it’s something that each and every one of them will be told is meant to cut down on black money. They may not be getting any money in their accounts, as they expected, but they will go away with the solid impression that their Prime Minister is certainly doing something about it. There are enough voters in the world who don’t much care what sort of decision you take and whether it works – if it’s big and courageous enough, they will just admire you for having taken it at all. That’s the angle that Modi’s going for.

No more coasting along, no more promises he can’t deliver on. Now he’s going to focus on changing the subject from everything he hasn’t been able to do since 2014. If the opposition fails to figure out that’s happening, then they’ll be so far behind when 2019 rolls around that they won’t be able to put up a fight. And if the opposition isn’t nimble enough in constructing counter-narratives, they won’t stand a chance even if they try to fight. Each time a voter sees or misses a 500-rupee note, will he praise Modi for making an effort – or condemn him for making life more inconvenient for his own ends?

The answer to that question depends on how well the opposition mobilises its counter-narrative. And the answer to that question will determine whether Modi’s big gamble pays off politically or not. But make no mistake – this is the first of many such gambles. Modi is India’s first modern politician. He knows better than anyone else in this country – except perhaps Arvind Kejriwal – how to seize a narrative. He certainly knows exactly how to turn it around, and to his advantage. Let’s see if this one works, and what gambles will follow in the months leading up to the Uttar Pradesh election – and beyond.

This article originally appeared in NDTV.

By Matt Hadro

Catholics voted once again for the winning presidential candidate in Tuesday’s election, as they have done in recent elections.

“Catholics continue to be the only major religious voting block that can shift from one election to the next,” Dr. Mark Gray of the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University stated on Wednesday.

“This is what makes the Catholic vote such an important swing vote. Presidential candidates who win the Catholic vote almost always win the presidency,” he added.

The few election polls that did list respondents by religion showed results for Catholics that varied widely depending on the day. Polling experts who warned of “volatility in the polls” insisted that the Catholic vote would be almost impossible to predict before the election.

For instance, one Investor’s Business Daily tracking poll showed Trump winning Catholics by 16 points on Nov. 4, only to have Clinton winning Catholic voters by three points on Nov. 7.

After President Obama narrowly carried the Catholic vote by two points in his 2012 re-election bid, Trump won the Catholic vote by seven points on Tuesday, according to exit polls. The Pew Research Center reported on the religious voter data. This marks the fourth straight election that Catholics have voted for the winning president.

In 2000, Catholics also voted for the winner of the popular vote Al Gore, who narrowly lost the Electoral College. Trump lost the popular vote, thus breaking the trend of Catholics voting with the popular vote in presidential elections.

Trump’s margin of victory among White Catholics on Tuesday was striking. While that bloc normally votes Republican – Mitt Romney won it by 19 points in 2012 – Trump went even further and won it by 23 points according to exit polls, the highest margin of victory in that bloc since before the 2000 election.

As expected, Trump lost the Hispanic Catholic vote decidedly – 67 to 26 percent – but still at the lowest margin of defeat for a Republican presidential ticket for that bloc since the 2004 election. And, the group CatholicVote.org noted in its post-election statement, “among non-Spanish speaking Latino Catholics the margin was likely significantly closer.”

Dr. Gray cautioned that, although Catholics clearly supported Trump in the exit polls, more data may be needed for the full context. “What we don’t know yet is why Catholics voted as a majority for Donald Trump,” he told CNA.

Historically, Catholics vary in their ultimate party preference – usually voting for the winning party in an election. “No other major religious group does this,” Dr. Gray emphasized. “Other Christians reliably vote majority Republican. Those of non-Christian affiliations or no religious affiliation vote consistently Democrat.”

There was a divide in support among weekly churchgoing Christians and those who do not attend church as frequently. Exit polls showed Trump winning among weekly churchgoers 56 to 40 percent, while among those attending a “few times a year” there was basically an even split.

Clinton enjoyed a large victory (31 points) among those who do not attend religious services.

By Dr. Anurag Tripathi*

On October 29, 2016, at least five Shia persons were killed and many injured in a gun and bomb attack outside a Majlis (a place of sitting) in Nazimabad area of Karachi, the provincial capital of Sindh, in Pakistan, where people had gathered for a religious meeting.

According to police officials: “Four men wearing helmets and riding on motorcycles came to the house where the religious gathering was taking place in the month of Muharram and they opened indiscriminate firing on the people standing at the gate.”

The Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) claimed responsibility for the attack. The Sunni supremacist and jihadist militant organisation, whose roots are in the heartland of Punjab province, has a history of carrying out sectarian attacks across Pakistan, particularly against the Shia Muslims.

According to data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), a total of 2,575 Shias have been killed in Pakistan in 454 targeted attacks on Shias since 2001.

The rise in the killings of Shias is a manifestation of perpetual anarchy that has gripped Pakistan, the ‘Land of the Pure’, with no hope of refuge for the targeted community. The Shias of Pakistan remain the worst hit.

Militant outfits like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) and its extremist allies like the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) — alternatively referred to as the Pakistani Taliban, along with subtle State support and ideological backing from religious elites together form the militant troika that has encouraged and thereby sustained the massacre of Shia community. As a consequence, the Pakistan society, which has grown over sectarian and ethnic biases, has been poisoned to no repair.

The historicity of sectarian dissension goes back to the period after Prophet Muhammad’s demise in 632 A.D. when his followers split into supporters of Ali (Shias) and those supporting the companions of Prophet (Sunni). This broad division between the Shias and the Sunnis has over a period of 1400 years been thoroughly exploited by the power seekers — both within and without.

According to the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) World Factbook, Shias constitutes nearly 10-15 per cent of the population of Pakistan, and are spread across the country.

The highest concentration is found in the Gilgit Baltistan Province, where they constitute a majority. The Kurram Agency of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) is a Shia stronghold in the tribal belt. Similarly, all urban capitals, namely, Lahore (Punjab Province), Karachi (Sindh Province), Peshawar (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province) and Quetta (Balochistan Province) have sizeable Shia populations.

Sunni militant groups backed by the authorities at the helm have sustained a violent campaign against Shia Muslims, particularly since the time of former dictator General Zia-ul-Haq.

Prominent anti-Shia groups include the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), the Ahl-e-Sunnat Wal Jama’at (ASWJ), earlier known as Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), and the TTP. Despite a Government ban on these terrorist organisations, they operate freely and brazenly.

Sunni extremist formations have propagated their violent ideologies with impunity and in the most open manner possible. In June 2011, LeJ distributed pamphlets calling Shias wajib-ul-qatl (obligatory to be killed),

“All Shias are wajib-ul-qatl. We will rid Pakistan of the unclean race. The real meaning of Pakistan is pure land and Shias have no right to live here. We have the fatwa (religious edict) and signatures of the Ulema (religious scholar) in which the Shias have been declared kaafir [infidel] … Our mission [in Pakistan] is the abolition of this impure sect, the Shias and the Shia-Hazaras, from every city, every village, every nook and corner of Pakistan….”

Despite these brazen threats, Governments, both at the Centre and in the Provinces, instead of initiating any corrective measures have taken steps that have worsened the rising graph of attack against the Shias. No province is safe anymore.

While the State is struggling to suppress violence against Shias, the deep-rooted support for militants in society and the inadequate judicial system in Pakistan has created a situation where hardly any terrorist has been convicted of sectarian violence or other terrorism in Pakistan.

In the past few years, several known militants have been set free by the courts because of the archaic judicial system that is incapable of convicting those involved in the modern-day guerrilla warfare.

Soon after the June 2011 LeJ threat, for instance, on July 14, 2011, Pakistan’s Supreme Court ordered the release on bail from Lahore’s Kot Lakhpat Jail of Malik Ishaq — the former operational chief of LeJ, who had been charged in 44 cases, including the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in March 2009, involving the killing of at least 70 people, mostly belonging to the Shia sect. The Court said the prosecution had failed to produce sufficient evidence to support its charges.

On February 22, 2013, police again arrested Malik Ishaq in connection with sectarian attacks in Quetta that had killed nearly 200 people in 2013. However, he was again released on bail on December 23, 2014.

Until Malik Ishaq was killed in Muzaffargarh, Punjab, in a gun battle with the Punjab Police on July 29, 2015, he was always getting protection — either by politicians or the courts.

Conspicuously, the State’s inaction in mounting effective resistance against the militants is suggestive of collusion and collaboration, each serving the interest of the other. Pakistan has become the operational base for various sectarian militant outfits.

The killing of Shias is a manifestation of the existence of an embedded militant troika where three crucial players — religious heads, militant operators and the State — work in tandem in massacring the community.

*Dr. Anurag Tripathi is an Assistant Professor in Department of International Studies and History, Christ University, Bengaluru. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent on: editor@spsindia.in