(EurActiv) — Talks on a vast free-trade deal between the EU and US are likely to be “frozen” for years after the stunning election victory of Donald Trump, the EU said on Friday (11 November).

US president-elect Trump campaigned furiously on a promise to scrap international trade deals, throwing the ambitious pact with the European Union into serious doubt.

Brussels and Washington tried to get the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) through by the time Barack Obama left office but fell short.

“TTIP will probably be in the freezer for quite some time and then what will happen when it is defrosted, I think we will need to wait and see,” EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström said after trade ministers held talks in Brussels.

“We don’t know what he thinks about TTIP,” Malmström said, referring to Trump, although she acknowledged that the brash billionaire was clearly opposed to big trade deals.

TTIP has been under negotiation since 2013 and was supposed to be one of the most ambitious free trade accords ever attempted.

It would create the world’s biggest free trade market of 850 million consumers stretching from Hawaii to Lithuania.

But it had attracted increasing opposition in Europe, where voters have grown increasingly dubious to the benefits of globalisation.

The stalled talks come as a huge setback to Europe’s trade strategy with a similar deal with Canada facing an uncertain ratification process and difficult talks expected next year with the UK over Brexit.

“These (TTIP) negotiations… are dead and I think everybody knows it even though lots of people don’t want to admit it yet,” said French Trade Minister Matthias Fekl after talks in Brussels with his EU counterparts.

“Never mind who is president in the US, what is important is that Europe … affirms itself as a global player as the most important commercial entity in the world,” Fekl added.

Iran has recently entered a round of negotiations with the European Community representatives over human rights issues.

A delegation of Iranian representative from the foreign ministry and the judiciary are attending these meeting. Majid Takhtravanchi, Deputy Iranian Foreign Minister and member of the said delegation commented on the negotiations saying the talks with the EU over human rights will be long and must be kept at a technical level avoiding any form of “politicization” of the matter.

He added that the Islamic Republic would not negotiate over the issues of the “Qesas (retribution of kind; “eye for an eye” equivalent in Islamic jurisprudence) and the death penalty”.

The EU and the US have imposed a number of international sanctions against some Iranian officials and entities on the basis of alleged human rights violations.

In response to ILNA reporter asking whether international sanctions related to human rights violations could be dropped against Iran through these talks, Takhravanchi said:: “Our chief position in these talks is that the human rights issue must be dealt with on its own and avoid any form of politicization.”

Takhravanchi who was also a member of the negotiating team during the nuclear talks with the 5+1 said in the nuclear talks they had maintained the same position that the nuclear issue had to be discussed without attempt at “politicization”.

In this context the foreign ministry official pointed to the issue of “Islamophobia” in Europe and human rights violations in Yemen as a possible topic of discussion. He stressed that if human rights are treated in their “technical context”, there would be room for much discussion. He maintained however: “In some areas where we have the express guidance of the Quran such as Qesas (retribution in kind), there is no room for discussion.”

“We have told them that in certain areas there are red lines that we will not cross.” Takhtravanchi said; “When they talk about the death penalty, we say the death penalty is part of our laws and is something we cannot set aside. Qesas is a Quranic matter and cannot be set aside. It is clear to us as it is to them.” He added that beside these issues there was room for discussion and reaching closer mutual understanding on other aspects of human rights.

International human rights groups have consistently expressed concern over the purported rising number of executions and human rights violations in Iran in recent years.

Since the finalization of the nuclear deal between Iran and the world powers in 2013, Iran and EU relations have gradually approached normalization and the EU is looking at setting up an office in Tehran.

Following a meeting with EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini earlier this month, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told reporters that Iran will not shy away from representing its stance on human rights issues.

By Hossein Kebriaeizadeh*

The latest presidential election in the United States has drawn attention from many governments around the world due to the existing conditions of the world order and its consequences. However, some countries, including Iran, which has the background of about four decades of political, economic and rhetorical tug of war with Washington on its track records, are considered more important in this regard, so that, the name of Iran was frequently repeated during election debates between the two US presidential candidates along such countries as Russia and Iraq.

The presidential election in the United States has finally ended after many ups and down and Donald Trump, which was known for his fiery, though populist, remarks, is on his way to the White House to run the United States of America as the president for the next four years.

However, despite many governments in the Middle East, the election of trump has not upset Tehran. It seems that the political and scientific reactions shown by the Iranian society to the election process in the United States has become more mature due to accurate observance of 10 rounds of US elections following the victory of the Islamic Revolution.

Political and scientific figures in Iran see the US presidential election on the basis of the turnover of elites at the apex of the power pyramid and also from the viewpoint of its impact on the United States’ large-scale policies and as such, when it comes to confrontation between structure and agent, they consider the structure to play a more prominent role than an agent like the president. Structures in the political system of the United States act in such a way that Washington’s national interests would be met at international level beyond partisan and factional games and in the most desirable manner. Even if the role played by the US president is going to be highlighted, it must be noted that the election of Trump has not been very undesirable for Iran, at least, in comparison to his Democrat rival, Hillary Clinton.

Although the positions taken by Trump during his presidential campaign do not present a full picture of decisions that he will be possible to make after being elected as president, monitoring those positions can provide nontransparent pictures of the way he thinks.

His positions on Iran can be divided under two major topics. The first topic is Iran’s nuclear case and subsequent nuclear agreement with Iran. Unlike Clinton, which believes that Iran’s nuclear deal is a secondary matter and not important with regard to domestic developments in the United States, Trump considers it unacceptable and has described it as the worst agreement signed by the United States throughout its history, which has made America the laughing stock of international community. From the outset of his campaigning, Trump emphasized that the nuclear deal with Iran was just a scrap of paper, which could be easily repealed, but later on, he noted that he would ratchet up sanctions against Iran in order to bring the country to the negotiating table once more for a better deal.

Renegotiating the nuclear deal can be also a desirable option for domestic critics of the deal in Iran, because they also believe that this deal is not acceptable in view of Iran’s national interests and agree with Trump on the point that renegotiation is necessary to rectify executive and legal mistakes of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

In doing this, both sides would have an opportunity to restart their game of good and bad words. Trump is basically a businessman, who sees politics from the standpoint of business and for him, multidimensional political words mean nothing above their value in bargaining over the price. Therefore, a good agreement from his viewpoint, is an agreement with the highest benefit for him and the lowest benefit of the opposite side.

However, due to lack of enough political experience, Trump is not capable of understanding the difference that exists between political and diplomatic issues, on the one hand, and business matters, on the other, and does not know that there are cases in which both sides can emerge as winner. He is also not cognizant of the difference between an agreement accepted by a number of countries and bilateral agreements, though he is sure to come to realize that difference with the help of his advisors soon.

The second topic related to Iran in Trump’s campaigning positions, which happens to be quite encouraging for the Islamic Republic, is the way Trump looks at issues related to the Middle East.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Trump does to have a positive opinion of the Arab world and political actors affiliated with the United States there. Addressing Saudi Arabia, which is now the second most important challenge facing Iran in the region after Israel, he has said that if Saudis want continued support of the United States, they have got to pay the price.

Apart from this issue, which indicates the possibility that Trump’s administration would not support Saudi Arabia’s adventurism in the region, he has lauded the role played by Iran and Russia in fighting against terrorism. This shows that Trump’s understanding of the phenomenon of terrorism is acceptable and liked by Iran and this issue may even provide the ground for cooperation among Iran, Russia and the United States in fighting against Daesh terrorists. As a good businessman, trump knows that the fight for obtaining a public commodity like peace and order is costly and it would be rational to assume that the cost must be divvied up among all involved parties.

Of special importance is Trump’s recalcitrantly tough position on fighting against Daesh, which has been posing threats in Iran’s surrounding environment. If serious, this position can boost Iran’s security and pave the way for increase in Iran’s regional clout as did the fall of Iraq’s former dictator, Saddam Hussein, under the former US President George W. Bush.

Another factor, which is encouraging for Iran following the election of Trump, is his position on Israel, which is the most important challenge facing the Islamic Republic in the region. He was the sole presidential candidate, who did not show any commitment to Israeli traditions during his trip to Israel. Tensions between Trump and Tel Aviv are so acute that the Israeli daily Haaretz has even described his election as the most important achievement for anti-Semitism since 1941.

Trump, who is willing to get the Christian-based US trade out of the clutches of Jewish cartels, has been taking a different and pessimistic approach to Israel and the powerful Jewish lobby in the United States.

Another important issue for Iran is Trump’s leaning toward Russia. The new US president believes in the need to reduce tensions with Russia. In view of similar stances taken by Iran and Russia on regional issues, this position by Trump will cause the conflict between the approaches and interests of Iran and the United States to be ignored or be subject to bargaining as a result of the United States’ decision to get closer to Russia.

The above facts are just a roundup of Trump’s election positions. However, it is clear to what extent the US president can affect the decision-making hierarchy in the United States and it is also evident how wide is the gap between what US presidents say in their election speeches and the realities that are later imposed on them. Since Trump is a member of the Republican Party, it is quite possible that anti-Iran Republican figures will gradually surround Trump and the influence of such hawkish figures as Bob Krueger, Newt Gingrich, and John Bolton will deprive Tehran of the policy of lenience that was exercised toward it by the outgoing US President Barack Obama. Therefore, we must wait and see what happens.

* Hossein Kebriaeizadeh
Expert on Middle East Issues

By Mehdi Sepahvand

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani inaugurated several megaprojects during a trip to the southwestern province of Khuzestan.

Notable among the projects was the development of oil fields in West Karun, IRIB news agency reported November 13.

The projects concerned North and South Azadegan as well as North and South Yaran fields which will increase the country’s crude output by 300,000 barrels per day.

Shared with Iraq, West Karun is able to yield up to 1 mbpd.

Yadavaran was provided with a budget of $2.9 billion. It was meant to meet an output of 85,000 barrels per day, but the project carrier has managed to hit 115,000 barrels per day.

Another project that was inaugurated by Rouhani was a railway centralized traffic control (CTC) center.

Also, some 10 trillion rials ($313 million) was allocated to anti-poverty projects in the province, which include building schools, small stadiums, health centers, water distribution, and roads.

The president also announced the near-future start of more projects, such as building a second rail for the Ahvaz-Bandar Imam railroad as well as the Ahvaz-Andimeshk railroad.

The railroad is being reconstructed 50 years after it was first created.

By Daniel Kochis and Robin Simcox*

President Obama will travel to Europe from November 15–18, starting in Greece before traveling to Germany. In his sixth visit to Germany, Obama will meet with Chancellor Angela Merkel, as well as the leaders of France, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

Germany is an important security partner of the United States and the largest economy in Europe. Because decisions made by Germany greatly affect transatlantic security, the President should use this visit to advocate for policies that enhance NATO, support the fight against Islamist terrorism, and assist the people of Ukraine. Most important, the President should carry the message that the U.S. will remain committed to transatlantic security.

A Greater Role in NATO

Germany has long underspent on its defense. In 2015, defense spending in Germany constituted a paltry 1.19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), well below the NATO benchmark of 2 percent.[1] In a positive sign, in 2016, the German defense budget increased by 1.2 billion euros.[2] In October, Chancellor Merkel laid out a goal of increasing defense spending to 2 percent of GDP, saying, “We have to spend more for our external security. The conflicts of this world are currently on Europe’s doorstep, massively so.”[3] The Chancellor specifically cited U.S. pressure as a catalyst for her pledge to reach 2 percent.

As the second-most populous NATO member after the U.S., Germany should take on a larger role in bolstering collective defense. In 2017, Germany will deploy 500 troops to Lithuania as a framework nation for NATO’s enhanced forward presence there;[4] in addition, Germany has pledged to contribute capabilities as NATO increases its presence in the Black Sea region.[5] The German government should consistently make the case to its citizens that increased defense spending and a greater role in NATO are in their interests.

Importantly, President Obama should make clear that the U.S. views NATO as the bedrock of security in Europe and that the creation of duplicative EU military structures will compromise the continent’s long-term security by undermining the alliance and diverting scare resources.[6]

Ukraine Remains Important

The President should discuss continuing assistance for Ukraine, including sending defensive weapons, promoting economic and political reform, and extending sanctions against Russia for its invasion and annexation of Crimea and continued aggression in the Donbas. Trade and investment ties between Germany and Russia run deep. Many of Germany’s leading corporations have established strong ties to Russia. Some German companies have even skirted EU sanctions by utilizing subsidiaries to sell products in occupied Crimea.[7]

This past June, the EU extended sanctions over Russia’s annexation of Crimea for one year.[8] Separate sanctions, over Russia’s continued war in the Donbas, are up for renewal in December. Germany should lead in pushing for their renewal and consider a term longer than six months. Former NATO Secretary General Rasmussen recently stated that renewing sanctions for a year would send a clear message to Moscow and “help present a united transatlantic front…. [T]he EU would align itself more closely with the US, which renews its Russia sanctions on an annual basis.”[9]

Tackling Islamist Terror

President Obama should advocate policies that will help Europe comprehensively address the threat posed by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamist groups. Although Germany is a key partner in this fight, Chancellor Merkel’s earlier open-door policy on refugees has made the challenges Europe faces even more complex.

A key problem was identified in February by the head of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency Hans-Georg Maassen: “[W]e have repeatedly seen that terrorists…have slipped in camouflaged or disguised as refugees.”[10] There are multiple examples of this: Members of the ISIS cell responsible for the November 2015 attacks in Paris entered Europe as refugees as did members of the ISIS cell that had pledged to commit an attack before being arrested by German authorities in September 2016.

Even if asylum applications are known to be bogus, German authorities have not always acted quickly enough to expel such individuals. In July 2016, a Syrian refugee (and member of ISIS) injured 15 in a suicide bombing in Ansbach. He was in the country despite having his asylum application rejected and receiving two deportation orders.

The problem is not limited to physical infiltration by ISIS. In September 2016, a teenage Syrian asylum seeker was arrested in a German refugee shelter having been in contact with an ISIS operative abroad via an instant messaging service. ISIS had provided information on bomb-making, causing maximum casualties, and theological justification for the proposed attack.

President Obama should call on Germany to increase military support in the fight against ISIS abroad while pursuing an aggressive counter-terrorism policy against Islamist terrorists domestically. President Obama must ask what assurances Germany can give that its ability to do so is not being complicated by the weaknesses of its refugee policy.

Carrying the Message to Berlin

In his final trip to Germany, President Obama should encourage Chancellor Merkel to pursue policies that advance security. He should:

• Press for increased German defense spending. German defense spending has begun increasing. The President should encourage Chancellor Merkel to follow through on her pledge to make defense expenditure 2 percent of GDP.
• Encourage Germany’s larger role in NATO. The President should encourage Germany to take a larger role in collective defense.
• Push back against deeper EU defense integration and oppose creation of an EU army. Creation of duplicative EU defense institutions with the long-term goal of creating an EU army only serves to undermine NATO, the bedrock of transatlantic security, and to divert scarce resources away from the alliance.
• Advocate for assistance to Ukraine. President Obama should encourage our allies not to forget about Ukraine. He should make the case for continued assistance, including sending defensive weapons and promoting economic and political reform.
• Extend sanctions against Russia for its aggression in Ukraine. The President should encourage Germany to lead the way in an extension of sanctions on Russia for its continuing role in the ongoing war in Donbass.
• Implement policies to weaken Islamist ideology. Germany and the U.S. should share best-practices on policies being implemented to prevent radicalization and discredit Islamist ideology.
• Devote resources to combating Islamist terrorist groups, including ISIS and al-Qaeda. President Obama should reiterate the need for ongoing and greater assistance in the fight militarily against Islamist groups abroad, while emphasizing the importance of giving German police and intelligence agencies the necessary resources to disrupt terrorist plots domestically.
• Adopt a more cautious refugee policy. President Obama should encourage Germany to adopt a more cautious approach to allowing refugees into the country and to act quickly to deport those whose applications have been rejected.
• Offer U.S. support in preventing ISIS from exploiting refugee flows. The President should be willing to offer the expertise of the U.S. intelligence community to help prevent ISIS from smuggling fighters into Germany, particularly as the group responds to losing territory in Iraq and Syria. Simultaneously, Germany must focus on ISIS’s ability to recruit inside German refugee camps (both physically and digitally).

Conclusion

President Obama’s final visit to Germany is an opportunity to bolster transatlantic security by strengthening ties with a critical ally. He should advance policies that enhance NATO, support Ukraine, and address the challenges posed by Islamist terrorism.

*About the authors:
Daniel Kochis is Policy Analyst in European Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation. Robin Simcox is Margaret Thatcher Fellow in the Thatcher Center.

Source:
This article was published by The Heritage Foundation

Notes:
[1] Press release, “Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries (2009-2016),” NATO Public Diplomacy Division, July 4, 2016, http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf (accessed November 4, 2016).

[2] Stefan Wagstyl, “German Military No Longer Standing at Ease as Security Fears Grow,” Financial Times, March 31, 2015, https://next.ft.com/content/90cd4e70-d310-11e4-9b0a-00144feab7de (accessed June 6, 2016).

[3] John Vandiver, “Germany’s Merkel Calls for Large Increase in Military Spending,” Stars and Stripes, October 18, 2016, http://www.stripes.com/news/germany-s-merkel-calls-for-large-increase-in-military-spending-1.434617 (accessed November 4, 2016).

[4] News release, “UK and Germany Step up Defence Cooperation on Day of Unity,” United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, October 7, 2016, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-germany-step-up-defence-cooperation-on-day-of-unity (accessed November 4, 2016).

[5] “Boosting NATO’s Presence in the East and Southeast,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, October 27, 2016, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm# (accessed November 4, 2016).

[6] Luke Coffey and Nile Gardiner, “The United States Should Not Back a European Union Army,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4616, October 20, 2016, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/10/the-united-states-should-not-back-a-european-union-army.

[7] Anton Zverev, Gleb Stolyarov, and Olga Sichkar, “Exclusive: How EU Firms Skirt Sanctions to Do Business in Crimea,” Reuters, September 21, 2016, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-crimea-sanctions-insig-idUSKCN11R1AN (accessed November 4, 2016).

[8] Laurence Norman, “EU to Extend Crimea Sanctions by Year,” The Wall Street Journal, June 17, 2016, http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-to-extend-crimea-sanctions-by-year-1466169675 (accessed November 4, 2016).

[9] Anders Fogh Rasmussen, “Extend European Sanctions to Keep Russia in Check,” Financial Times, October 13, 2016, https://www.ft.com/content/980274f4-9123-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78 (accessed November 4, 2016).

[10] “German Spy Agency Says IS Sending Fighters Disguised as Refugees,” Reuters, February 5, 2016, http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germany-security-idUKKCN0VE0XA (accessed November 4, 2016).

At least three Iraqis have lost their lives after Daesh fighters fired mortars containing chemical agents against civilian areas south of Mosul as Iraqi forces press ahead with the large battle to liberate the northern city.

On Saturday night, the Daesh militants fired 15 mortar shells, some of which filled with chlorine gas, at a village in Sharqat district, located on Tigris River banks 100 kilometers south of Mosul.

An unnamed Iraqi security source told Iraq’s War Media Cell that the victims of the incident were all members of a family. Two others were also wounded in the attack.

The attack comes days after New York-based Human Rights Watch warned against the use of toxic chemicals by Daesh militants in areas near Mosul as the terror outfit is making desperate attempts to keep its last stronghold in Iraq in the face of a large-scale liberation operation there.

“The use of toxic chemicals as a means of warfare is a serious threat to civilians and combatants in and around the embattled city of Mosul, and is a war crime,” HRW said.

In another development, two fighters from the Popular Mobilization Units were killed at a bombing in a district situated north of the central city of Ramadi, Iraq’s al-Sumaria news website reported.

The victims were trying to defuse improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and mines planted in a house, according to the report.

Separately, Iraqi army jets carried out airstrikes on a building in Ramadi’s Anah district, killing Daesh ringleader Mustafa Mansur al-Ravi along with five other militants.

Ravi was said to be among Daesh heads in the western Anbar Province and a direct supervisor of bombings and attacks against Iraqi security forces.

The commander of Nineveh Liberation Operation, General Abdul Amir Rashid Yarallah, said that armored units attacked Mosul’s al-Salam district and targeted Daesh-held positions, killing over 30 terrorists.

Since October 17, the Iraqi army, volunteer Shia and Sunni fighters as well as Kurdish Peshmerga forces have been engaged in an offensive to liberate Mosul, the last Daesh bastion in the Middle Eastern country.

In a relevant development on Sunday, Human Rights Watch accused Iraq’s Kurdish security forces of having illegally destroyed Arab homes in northern Iraq over the past two years in what may amount to a war crime.

The rights group cited in a report the obliteration of homes across 21 towns and villages in Kirkuk and Nineveh provinces between September 2014 and May 2016.

Joe Stork, HRW Deputy Director for Middle East, said the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) security forces “destroyed Arab homes – but not those belonging to Kurds – for no legitimate military purpose.”

“KRG leaders’ political goals don’t justify demolishing homes illegally,” he added.

The report was based on a number of field visits and interviews with over 120 witnesses and officials.

Original source

Sadness has engulfed me. Perhaps a morning-after of the US-Elections.

Feeling that half of America failed to understand the other half — the urban has neglected the rural. I thought of my early days as an undergraduate in Ohio in the early 1980s when professors gave me readings such as Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, O’ Neill’s The Hairy Ape, John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World, Bellamy’s Looking Backwards, and Michael Harrington’s Socialism. I was into understanding America the Real, The Rural Real, The Social Realism of America. The Steinbeck America of The East of Eden, The Tennessee William’s and most importantly, as it pertained to my early experience, The Appalachian America. That was The Willy Nelson Farm Aid America, of early Billy Joel’s Allentown America, and the Coal Miner’s Daughter America. I understood all those, albeit theoretically what the reality was and how through literature as human experience, I emphasized and often shared this sadness of the poverty in the Appalachian, with my professors.

That was Reagan’s America I was in then — when MTV was still at its infancy. When globalization and “the magic of the marketplace” was Reagan’s slogan. In my classes, my professors were preaching a socialist America and opposing the Star Wars program, as well as speaking up against Apartheid. I was a passionate and angry young man then — I marched with the Amnesty International and frequented talks by the Socialist International whilst trying to find answers ranging from the meaning of life to what a perfect socialist society would look like, and in-between reading like a best-seller the work of those of The Frankfurt School.

That was it: Social Realism.

Today, in 2016. It is America of the Speculative Fiction, of Hunger Games, of Harry Potter, of pulp fiction, of David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest, and the like of Quentin Tarantino’s America I was feasting myself. The cultural enrichment stuff of the Post-Post Modern, Post-Truth, Post-Transhumanist America of the Manhattan genre I was lavishing myself with. I knew that is only one view of America. The Liberal, the Democrat, the Cyber-Punk, the Urban, The Urbane, and the Metrosexual and Saposexual America of the Brooklynites and the gangstas of the Bronx-America.

I felt a sense of an uneasy swing of delight – between the rural Neil Young America I cherish and Kurt Cobain’s America I too am trying to understand as an educator as well as a transcultural philosopher. I resorted to reading stuff like J.D. Salinger’s Franny and Zoey sometimes and glad that the opening scene of the James Cameron’s “Interstellar” movie had Steinbeck’s Grapes-of-Wrath imagery of the “dust-bowl” — the Great Depression of the 1930s, besides a great line from Dylan Thomas’s “Do not go gentle into that good night”.

So here I am today — in-between consciousness. Between the surreal and social real America. Here I am back to understanding why people voted Trump. Why Americans are surprised, although 46.7% did not vote. Why the MTV America must now not only understand but empathize the other America — the America not represented by the glitzy-hyper-intellectual America of the cities. The farmland and factory America — this is the America that wanted to be heard. Those whose jobs have been lost, whose farms no longer yield livelihoods — the forgotten America. Blinded by the bright city lights.

Here I am wondering what the next four years will bring. I feel for the Mexicans, the Asians the LGBTs, the Muslims – and the groups of people who felt appreciated, safe and protected under eight years of Obama Rule. The young are protesting in at least 15 major cities with those in Portland, Oregon getting violent, as reported. Those protesting may have been hoping that they will have free education for four years, had Hillary Clinton won. Utter despair, a state they are in – taking their anger the streets a day after Trump won. But those are perhaps city kids primarily. Those who did not realize that there is another America – the America whose children did not get to go to college and sit in classes talking about Socrates, Plato, Marx, Rousseau, and Thoreau. Those who went to trade school, those whose parents are farmers and factory workers or those who lost their jobs. That America that voted for Trump.

I wonder: is this an America of a clash of its own civilization, as Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote about, albeit in a global context – a clash of civilizations of the urban and the rural? Is this akin to the story A Handmaid’s Tale told by the Canadian speculative-fiction author Margaret Atwood of the emergence of a Republic of Gilead, populated by handmaids who tell the tale of an America whose days of the glory of multiculturalism and diversity is dead – replaced by a system of “friendly fascism”?

I don’t know. The end of 2020 will give us an answer. If we do not descend into chaos – of the rise of violent post-industrial tribes such as neo-Ku Klux Klan or neo-Black-Panthers. Or neo anything to respond to the rise of neo-fascism-ala’-America.

I am glad I am reading Steinbeck again, The Grapes of Wrath.

For the second year in a row, the United Arab Emirates and China are the most preferred emerging-market countries among young people who would like to live abroad to advance their careers, according to a World Economic Forum survey.

In the survey, the two countries ranked as the most preferred emerging market countries − in 11th and 12th place, respectively − ahead of the Scandinavian countries, all other BRICS countries and Singapore. The US, UK and Canada led the list.

The survey, organized by the Global Shapers team of the World Economic Forum, asked some 20,000 millennials aged 18-35 about a wide range of issues concerning business, the economy, politics, technology and values. Respondents from 187 countries and territories took part in the survey, with most coming from China, the United States and India.

“The UAE’s appeal lies in the enviable fact that the country is increasingly synonymous with an attitude that nothing is impossible,” said Adeyemi Babington-Ashaye, Head of the Global Shapers Community of the World Economic Forum. “The UAE combines excellent opportunities for young people and start-ups with a competitive economy and sends a clear signal that, if you want to build the future, come and build it in the UAE.”

One reason for the strong performance of the United Arab Emirates may be the good prospects for landing a job in the country. While 34% of millennials globally identified the lack of economic opportunity and employment as one of the three most serious issues affecting their country – making it the biggest issue of concern after corruption –only one in 10 of the UAE respondents said they see unemployment as a serious issue.

Another reason that explains the success of the UAE may be that, globally, more millennials value salary (54%) and career advancement (46%) – criteria for which the UAE job market is typically well regarded – over a sense of purpose and impact on society (37%) in their job. A sense of purpose prevails as the top priority among “Western” millennials from the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and France. But, in the largest emerging economies, including China and India, salary and career advancement remain the most important job criteria. The same is true in the UAE.

As a whole, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) respondents were among the most optimistic about the future impact of technology on jobs, another factor which may explain the attractiveness of countries in the region, including the UAE. Ninety per cent of MENA respondents said they believe that technology is more likely to create than destroy jobs in the future. Only in China (96%) and the wider East Asia and Pacific region (93%) do more millennials believe that technology will create jobs in the future.

Moreover, young people in the MENA region said they see the presence of a start-up ecosystem and entrepreneurship (50%) as “most important” for youth empowerment – making it more important than any other factor. A fair and just system (36%) came in second; and free (social) media (33%) third. Transparency in governance (27%) and opportunities in politics (25%), topics that surfaced in the region during the Arab Spring, fell off the podium.

On the flip side, young people in MENA are the least enthusiastic among youth globally about a career in the public sector. Twice as many respondents said they see a job in public service to be very unattractive (25%) as those who see it as very attractive (10%). The only region with comparable results was sub-Saharan Africa. In East Asia (mostly China), a majority of respondents said they see the service sector as attractive (56%). In South Asia (including India), the figure was 50%; in North America (including the US) 41%; in Europe 39%; and in MENA only 34%.

MENA is also the region where most youth prefer to be independent workers or entrepreneurs: more than one-third of MENA youth (37%) said they would rather work for themselves. In all other regions, that number is closer to one-quarter or even one-fifth. In countries like India and China, youth prefer to work for a multinational company.

It was time for the negative, offensive, racist and discriminatory caricature of Black Pete (Zwarte Piet) to vanish from the traditional festivities of Netherlands, Hindu statesman Rajan Zed said in a statement in Nevada (USA).

The country of Rembrandt and Van Gogh, which had a long history of social tolerance and which hosted International Court of Justice, should not be in the business of such negative stereotyping, said Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism.

Rajan Zed noted that it was absolutely baffling that racist stereotypes like “Dutch Black Pete”, which should have been extinct many decades ago, continues to exist in 21st century world.

Is not Netherlands famous for promoting equality? Zed asked.

Zed indicated that “Dutch Black Pete” might be a popular Dutch tradition, but it appeared to be a racist throwback to the slavery era.

Rajan Zed urged His Majesty King Willem-Alexander and Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the Netherlands to urgently intervene to put an end to the character of “Dutch Black Pete”.

Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borissov has said he will step down after the candidate his party backed in the presidential elections, speaker of parliament Tsetska Tsacheva, got only 35 per cent in Sunday’s run-off vote.

According to local media, Borissov also called for an early parliamentary election after the centre-right Tsacheva’s defeat.

The announcement came after Rumen Radev, who favours stronger ties with Russia, won Bulgaria’s presidential election on Sunday.

Radev, the candidate backed by the opposition Socialist Party, won 58 per cent of the vote, according to exit poll data.

Borissov earlier pledged to step down if Tsacheva lost the first round of the election, but backtracked and said he would do so if the run-off was lost.

Borissov on Sunday congratulated Radev on his victory, and his voters for “having changed the political situation”.

“From the results it’s clear that the governing coalition has no majority and cannot even pass the budget,” said the Bulgarian premier, according to local media.

Borissov has called on President Rosen Plevneliev to appoint an interim government using a list presumably handed by the Bulgarian oppsotion Socialist Party, BSP, which backed Radev.

A newcomer to politics, former air force commander Radev is thought of as Russia-friendly, with a strong anti-migrant stance.

Despite this, Radev told Bulgarian National Radio that he supported Bulgaria’s clear Euro-Atlantic orientation.

“Why should Europhilia definitely mean Russophobia?” Radev asked, adding that such a polarity was unhealthy.

“Until recently, I flew on a Soviet jet fighter. I graduated from a US academy. But I am a Bulgarian general. My cause is Bulgaria,” Radev said ahead of Sunday’s polls.
– See more at: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/bulgarian-pm-to-resign-after-presidential-election-defeat-11-13-2016-1#sthash.0u89JoTu.dpuf

The human race has experienced two devastating world wars and the race is not ready to experience one more.

Although another world war is neither hoped for nor acceptable by the general human race, the developing incidents in Arctic region, South China Sea, Europe and Middle East indicate that the military superpowers may impose on human race another of such devastating wars.

ARCTIC REGION

The Arctic region is located around the North Pole and surrounded by landmasses of Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Russia, Norway and the U.S. Since the Arctic region was “inaccessible” until the end of 20th century because of the layers of thick ice, there were less territorial disputes until the beginning of this (21st) century. However, ice are melting rapidly in the Arctic region because of the global warming, clearing this ice-covered region from ice. With the rapid melting of ice in the Arctic region, the long-isolated region is becoming a more accessible zone for commercial fishing, fresh water, minerals, coal, iron, copper, oil, gas, and shipping. Thus, the region is increasingly catching the world powers’ attention and the aforementioned five Arctic countries are in rush to exploit all these opportunities from the region. Such circumstances have given rise to plenty of disputes among the aforementioned five countries.

In the prevailing scenario, all the Arctic countries, which are involved in the territorial and maritime disputes among themselves, have been moving towards militarizing the region in order to acquire each of their respective objectives in the region. Norwegian foreign secretary Jonas Gahr Stoere and former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper already expressed their eagerness to earn a better hold of their claimed territories and increase military presence in the region. In 2011, Canada conducted large-scale military exercises in the region.

In August 2015, the U.S. permitted Shell to drill for oil in the Chukchi Sea, which falls within the periphery of Alaskan Arctic. The U.S. Coast Guard” has already deployed sophisticated ships, aircrafts and other maritime assets in the Alaskan Arctic for the duration of Shell’s drilling in the Arctic. Through such presence, the U.S. is not only trying to exploit energy resources of the Arctic region, but also trying to keep its military presence deep inside the region.

On the otherside, in 2007, Russia has already moved to restore a Soviet-era military base and other military outposts in the Arctic. In early 2015, Russia exercised Arctic military patrols from its Northern Fleet, involving thousands of servicemen with several surface ships, submarines and aircrafts. More interestingly, Russia is currently planning to jointly explore for oil in Russia’s Arctic fields with China, which is increasingly becoming a strong military power besides being an economic giant. Through such move, Russia is trying to make sure that Russia has a rising military power like China involved into its stake in the Arctic region so that such cooperation favours Russia at the time of escalation of any military conflict.

Such militarization of the region is likely to increase with almost all the countries urging for increasing their military deployments and exercises, and there appears little hope & opportunity for any diplomatic resolution (or political agreement) regarding the disputes. It can be well presumed that without any diplomatic resolution (or political agreement), the current non-hostile debate over the Arctic could turn into a violent confrontation. If the disputes over the control of the Arctic resources are not resolved quickly, it could turn into a larger military conflict that would not just involve the Arctic countries, but would also drag a larger part of the region into this conflict, leading to a regionwide war. Since Arctic states – Canada, Russia and the U.S. – alongwith other regional powerful states (especially the UK, France and Germany) would be involved in the aforementioned regional military conflict, such regionwide conflict would have the potentiality to turn into a worldwide conflict, dragging rest of the world into the mess.

SOUTH CHINA SEA

Some of China’s ASEAN neighbours (especially Philippines and Vietnam) have been claiming parts of the South China Sea as each of their own territory. On the other side, China also has also been claiming territories in the South China Sea that are also claimed by its ASEAN neighbours and has constructed an artificial island in the region. The relevant ASEAN neighbours of China have been firm on their claims and have been conducting joint militarily drills with the U.S. in order to ensure that China does not establish firm control over their claimed territories in the South China Sea. The U.S. has been maintaining military presence in the region and has been conducting the abovementioned military drills with some ASEAN states in order to ensure that its freedom of navigation under the international law is properly guarded and its allies’ interests are well protected.

A recent Arbitration triggered by the Philippines’ immediate past government regarding the South China Sea dispute went against China’s interests. On the otherhand, the recent closeness between China and the newly elected President of the Philippines, a country traditionally known to be an U.S. ally, made many analysts apprehend that U.S.’s major ally in the dispute is backing off from its claims against China on South China Sea. But such an apprehension is wrong; because, although the Philippines’ newly elected President intends to earn economic leverages from China by his recent rhetoric against the U.S., he could not afford to let go his country’s alliance with the U.S. in reality.

It is worth mentioning that the South China Sea is a major maritime trade route, with trillions of dollars in global trade passing through the disputed area each year. That is why, the region is of utmost importance to many countries across the globe, including the ASEAN states, China, India, Japan and Saudi Arabia. The region is particularly important to the U.S. as over a trillion dollars worth trade from the U.S. alone passes through the disputed waters.

Throughout 2015 & 2016, the U.S. and China had involved in highly confrontational conducts against each other in the South China Sea. In instances, the U.S. sent naval ships within the 12 miles of a Chinese-controlled isle, while in another instance it sent military aircraft over the disputed areas. China, on the other hand, had already built an artificial island on the disputed waters and Chinese coastguard-backed boats has been elbowing out fishing boats from ASEAN states from fishing within the disputed areas.
Chinese Naval Chief Wu Shengli warned that if the U.S. continues with its conducts against China in South China Sea, there could well be an instance of seriously pressing situation between frontline forces from both sides on the sea and in the air that could spark war. Such a warning is the reflection and outburst of increasing tensions that might take the shape of military conflict in no time if sensitive incidents in the disputed areas are not handled properly. A simple military error in the disputed waters between the two sides may lead to a “regionwide” military conflict in the Asia Pacific region, especially in East Asia and Southeast Asia.

Since the ‘geopolitical interests’ and the ‘economies’ of many countries around the world are well connected with China and the U.S., and also since may countries beyond East Asia and Southeast Asia (including India and Saudi Arabia) have interests in ‘maritime routes’ in the South China Sea, the countries outside East Asia and Southeast Asia would somehow be dragged (directly or indirectly) into this conflict, and hence, we might witness another world war in our small, yet way too polarized, planet.

EUROPE

A referendum, which is widely addressed as the Brexit referendum, took place in mid-2016 regarding Britain’s (precisely the UK’s) membership of the European Union (EU); the same EU that was formed in order to ensure, alongwith several other reasons, peace in Europe and avoid wars among the European neighbours. The referendum went in favour of Britain’s exit from the EU.

Britain’s “formal” exit from the EU, which would atleast take two more years, may pave the way for several other EU member states to follow suit, causing a serious power-imbalance in the greater Europe. In such a scenario, there is the likelihood that Europe will become bipolar and would become a fragmented territory.

In recent times, Britain has been attempting to create a “northern league” consisting of European countries with “NOT so pro-EU” sentimental establishments/regimes. All the probable northern-leaguers – namely Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and Britain itself – share a common desire to restrict the power of the EU. With the attempt of forming such a bloc or alliance, Britain is perhaps trying to restrict the expansion of the EU and to divide the existing EU in order to serve Britain’s own hegemonic interests.

After “formally” leaving the EU, if Britain makes its move towards institutionalizing the “northern league” and also joins the non-EU trade bloc European Free Trade Association (EFTA), a bi-centric Europe would emerge — one led by France & Germany (the Franco-German duo) under the banner of the EU and the other led by Britain.

One of the two European blocs that might emerge out of Britain’s “formal” exit from the EU may lean towards, or align with, the Sino-Russian side of global polarity in confronting the other side that would avail the backing from the U.S. With such two opposite blocs in Europe, further division, cold relations, conflicts, wars and proxy wars are the only possibilities.

The conflict of interests between the Western bloc (led by the U.S.) and the Eastern bloc (led by the former Soviet Union) during the cold war period had led to several proxy wars across the world. Similarly, the Saudi-Iran regional rivalry has been resulting in a number of proxy wars for last one decade. Therefore, it would not be ‘unprecedented’ if the two spreadheads of the two future European regional blocs, one led by the Franco-German duo and the other led by Britain, start fighting between themselves through proxies in the region in near future. However, a direct war between these European spearheads is most likely to spread all over the world (world war), similar to what we have seen in the previous two world wars that started as European conflicts only to turn into world wars.

MIDDLE EAST

The Middle East is of strategic importance to the world, particularly because of its supply of oil. Many analysts believe that the U.S.’s plan is to engineer a conflict between two major regional foes, Saudi Arabia and Iran, in order to make accessibility to the region risky for Russia and energy starved China, both of which are trying to reshape the current global order that is led and dominated by the U.S. On the otherhand, many other analysts think that it is Russia, not the U.S., which wants to engineer such a conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and then get the U.S. embroiled into it and drive up the cost of oil, benefitting Russia that is suffering from the lower global oil price.

The U.S.-led Western alliance, the Saudi-led Sunni alliance and the broader coalition between these two alliances are at one side of the Syrian conflict; the other coalition involves Assad regime, Iraqi regime, Iran and Russia. Although two major powers – Russia and the U.S. – are involved in this conflict, a Russia-U.S. direct confrontation is unlikely. No UNSC member can fight another UNSC member as per UN provisions. However, such international provisions never matter when conflict of interests reaches the height and heat of confrontation goes out of control. But, what would really keep these two powers away from fighting each other are not the UN provisions, but the reality that both are nuclear armed states and a war between these two nuclear-superpowers means total annihilation of not only these two major powers but also a larger part of human race and earth’s landmass. However, the possibility of a war between these two military & nuclear superpowers is not totally out of the cards and any such conflict between these two powers would, for sure, drag rest of the world into it.

WRAPPING UP

It seems our globe does not lack reasons to engage in chaos. The two world wars initially were European conflicts that turned gradually into world wars. For sure, the start of another war between any two major powers would drag the world into it. Another world war would mean the landmasses, waters, environment and, most importantly, living species including human being would became the targets of war machines of the global military elites, jeopardizing the peace and stability of our globe.

*Bahauddin Foizee, primarily associated with law practice, is an analyst & columnist on international affairs, and specializes on Middle Eastern, Asia-Pacific & European geopolitics.

Days after Donald Trump stunned the world by winning the presidency, liberal America remains in the throes of a massive mental and emotional meltdown.

Anti-Trump protests have spread to more cities and continue to turn violent. In Portland Thursday night, rioters stoned police and vandalized businesses and cars.

Anyone expressing support for Trump has become the target of unrestrained venom: There are calls to boycott New Balance — its sneakers have been publicly burned — because an official said Trump would be better on trade issues.

Meanwhile, the CEO of Grubhub, the online food-delivery service, demanded that employees who agree with Trump resign, because “you have no place here.” (He had to retreat: His lawyers read him the First Amendment and noted that political discrimination also violates California law.)

This is just vicious stuff. But for pure pathos crossing into the absurd, we turn (as usual) to the college campus. Consider:

•  The University of Michigan offered its traumatized students coloring books and Play-Doh to calm them. (Are its students in college or kindergarten?)
•  The University of Kansas reminded its stressed-out kids that therapy dogs, a regular campus feature, were available.
•  Cornell University, an Ivy League school, held a campus-wide “cry-in,” with officials handing out tissues and hot chocolate.
•  Tufts University offered its devastated students arts and crafts sessions. (OK, not kindergarten — more like summer camp.)
•  At campuses from elite Yale to Connecticut to Iowa and beyond, professors canceled classes and/or exams — either because students asked or because instructors were too distraught to teach!

Anarchist-fueled violence and destruction can’t be tolerated. Nor should corporate (or anti-corporate) temper tantrums that blatantly violate free-speech rights.

Collegiate sobbing and wailing, on the other hand, shouldn’t be tolerated — especially not by the parents who are shelling out tens of thousands of dollars to pay for it.

And they all should consider that their reaction to Trump’s win goes a long way towards explaining precisely why he did.

By Daphne Wysham*

A few days before Donald Trump’s stunning upset, the Eiffel Tower and Arc de Triomphe glowed green in Paris.

France was celebrating the Paris Climate Agreement, which came into force on November 4. It was a remarkable achievement.

Less than a year after 196 countries signed the accords, over two-thirds of the world’s countries — including the two biggest greenhouse gas emitters, the U.S. and China — ratified it, agreeing to an upper limit of 2 degrees Celsius in atmospheric warming.

But with Donald Trump’s ascendancy, and his pledge to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the world is back to an uncertain climate future.

While some mourn the possibility that the Paris Agreement will be undone, it’s important to remember that it was always aspirational.

After all, the deal offers no timetable for ratcheting down consumption of fossil fuels, and no sanctions for countries that fail to meet targets. The deal promises a small amount of assistance to developing countries fighting climate change, but most of that is merely repackaged development aid.

More frighteningly still, the world’s existing fossil fuel infrastructure and proven wells and mines will sail us right past the 2 degree upper limit if they’re all exploited.

So what’s to be done?

One path forward is emerging from the clear-eyed citizens of Portland, Oregon, who are pioneering a more proactive, locally-led path forward.

A year ago, Portland’s city council unanimously voted to “actively oppose expansion of infrastructure whose primary purpose is transporting or storing fossil fuels in or through Portland or adjacent waterways.”

Its city leaders took this step as much out of a desire to protect their own health and safety as out of a desire to act on climate change.

Much of Portland’s fossil fuel infrastructure lies in an industrial zone that, should an earthquake come, would rapidly turn to Jell-O. And oil train derailments — like the one earlier this year in nearby Mosier, Oregon — can cause out-of-control blazes.

Respect for indigenous communities is another factor. The Standing Rock Sioux’s protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline is a reminder that Native treaty rights are routinely flouted by the fossil fuel industry. It happens here in the Northwest, too.

But climate science is the central piece. A recent study found that if we are to maintain a mere 66 percent chance to avoid passing that 2 degree limit, no more new major fossil fuel infrastructure can be built.

In fact, we must actually leave many proven reserves untapped and begin to dismantle existing fossil fuel infrastructure.

President Obama did the right thing in signing the Paris Agreement. He also took a bold step in issuing guidelines for federal agencies to disclose greenhouse gas emissions associated with major infrastructure projects, like the Dakota Access Pipeline, and consider alternatives should the impact be significant.

But at this moment in time, neither is sufficient.

If Obama takes one final bold action before leaving office, it should be this: He should impose his “climate test” on the Dakota Access Pipeline and ensure that Native American treaty rights are respected.

But in the years to come the real action will be at the local level.

Portland Mayor Charlie Hales is showing the world what a first step might look like. On November 17, Portland’s city council will vote on what is likely the strongest land use code language in the country prohibiting all new fossil fuel export infrastructure.

Should it pass and become binding law, we’ll know who the real world leaders are. Paris — and the rest of the Paris Agreement signatories — would do well to follow Portland’s lead.

And if you do, back home in our evergreen city, we’ll raise a glass of microbrew in your honor.

*Daphne Wysham, an Institute for Policy Studies associate fellow, is the director of the Center for Sustainable Economy’s climate and energy program in Portland, Oregon.

Mr. Modi’s attack on black money has received huge support from all over India, though some politicians, business houses, corrupt government employees and others, such as educational institutions and hospitals who have tasted black money and derive their power from the black money holdings in various forms, are crying foul.

The hardships faced by people belonging to the middle and lower income group may be a ten-day problem, and not a one hundred day problem, and most of them understand this and are willing to cooperate with Mr. Modi. Actually, the common man wants more decisive blows against the black money holders and corrupt persons.

Real estate should be the next target

Obviously, the next target of Mr. Modi should be the black money that is hidden in treal estate in the form of land or buildings. It is very well known that almost all transactions of buying and selling real estate in the last several years have been done by part or full payment in cash and these cash amounts could obviously be black money.

With the curbing of circulation of black money, the prices of real estate have already started falling. While the trend will continue for sometime, those who have the black money in the form of real estate are likely to hold on to their land and buildings for sometime, hoping that “the situation would improve in the course of time.”

As thousands of crores of rupees of black money are locked up in real estate, it is necessary to take steps to bring out such black money by fixing the ceiling for number of houses that one can possess or maximum area of vacant land that one can hold.

Those who hold more land or houses than the stipulated maximum by the government should be asked to sell them as per the guidance value.

Need to cleanse the registrar offices

Further, it is very necessary to cleanse Registrar offices all over India, which have become a hot bed of corruption in real estate dealings. The Registrar offices all over the country where property deals are registered should be subjected to heavy scrutiny. Further, all the officers working in such offices should be asked to submit the details of property that they presently possess and that they have acquired in the last five years.

A special cell should be created urgently to deal with the task of rooting out the black money hidden in the real estate.

No looking back for Mr. Modi

This should be the next logical step that Mr. Modi takes in the holy war of fighting against the demon of corruption in the country.

There are around 300 million people, (more than 25% of national population) who live below poverty line not knowing where their next meal will come from without proper shelter. It is impossible to improve the life conditions of such unfortunate persons without rooting out black money and corruption.

Millions of people belonging to the lower income group may not be able to understand the anti-corruption strategies of Mr. Modi adequately due to their lack of opportunity for education, but they would feel the positive impact of his strategy before long and would remain grateful to Mr. Modi.

Certainly, Mr. Modi will have the support of large number of people in the country who want transparency in public life and where the corrupt persons should fear the law.

Now, that Mr. Modi has boldly and clearly declared a war on corruption, he should not look back under any circumstances and should take the fight to the logical end.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Short-Term Energy Outlook(STEO) released on November 8 forecasts that North Sea Brent crude oil prices will average $43 per barrel (b) in 2016 and $51/b in 2017. EIA expects that West Texas Intermediate (WTI) prices will average $43/b in 2016 and $50/b in 2017.

The values of futures and options contracts indicate significant uncertainty in the price outlook, with NYMEX contract values for February 2017 delivery traded during the five-day period ending November 3 suggesting that a range from $35/b to $66/b encompasses the market expectation of WTI prices in February 2017 with 95% confidence (Figure 1).

The 95% confidence interval for market expectations widens over time, with lower and upper limits of $27/b and $96/b for prices in December 2017.

The confidence range for crude oil prices as shown in Figure 1 is derived using a variation of the Black-Scholes model that is often used by financial analysts to estimate the price of options. EIA starts with options prices for WTI crude oil, and uses the Black-Scholes model to calculate the implied volatility. WTI futures contracts and options are the among the more actively traded commodity derivative products, involving many producers, consumers (including refiners, airlines, trucking companies, and fuel distributors), and other investors and risk-takers. The confidence interval is therefore a market-derived range that is not directly dependent on EIA’s supply and demand estimates.

The November STEO forecasts OECD and non-OECD production of petroleum and other liquids to both increase from 2016 to 2017, but their growth differs when examined quarterly. OECD is forecast to drop slightly in the first quarter of 2017 before increasing to over 27 million barrels per day (b/d) in the fourth quarter. Non-OECD likewise has a production decline in the first quarter of 2017, but production increase in the second and third quarters, before a slight decline to 71 million b/d in the fourth quarter.

The outlook for global consumption of petroleum products remains relatively robust because of generally positive global economic data. EIA expects global consumption of petroleum and other liquid fuels to grow by 1.3 million b/d and by 1.5 million b/d in 2016 and 2017, respectively. Forecast OECD consumption is up 0.1 million-b/d and 0.2 million-b/d in 2016 and 2017, respectively, compared with last month’s STEO. Non-OECD consumption remained virtually unchanged for 2016, but was revised up slightly (by about 50,000 b/d) to 50.1 million b/d for 2017.

The current global inventory forecast shows an OECD 0.1 million-b/d stock build in the fourth quarter of 2016 and a non-OECD 1.2 million-b/d stock build in the same period. In 2017, OECD and non-OECD are forecast to have stock builds of 0.1 million b/d and 0.4 million b/d, respectively. However, in the fourth quarter of 2017 the forecast for OECD and non-OECD diverges with a stock draw of 0.3 million b/d and a stock increase of 0.7 million b/d for OECD and non-OECD, respectively. Although the outlook for global consumption of petroleum products remains relatively robust because of generally positive global economic data, the potential for additional crude oil supplies in the global market could push prices lower.

U.S. average regular gasoline retail price flat, diesel fuel price drops

The U.S. average regular gasoline retail price on November 7 was $2.23 per gallon, virtually unchanged from both the previous week and the same time last year. The East Coast price increased two cents to $2.24 per gallon, and the Midwest price increased less than one cent to remain at $2.08 per gallon. The Rocky Mountain and Gulf Coast prices each fell three cents to $2.27 per gallon and $2.02 per gallon, respectively, and the West Coast price dropped by one cent to $2.69 per gallon.

The U.S. average diesel fuel price dropped one cent to $2.47 per gallon, down three cents from the same time last year. The Midwest price fell two cents to $2.43 per gallon, the Rocky Mountain and Gulf Coast prices each dropped one cent to $2.53 per gallon and $2.34 per gallon, respectively, and the East Coast price fell less than one cent to $2.47 per gallon. The West Coast price remained unchanged at $2.77 per gallon.

Propane inventories fall

U.S. propane stocks decreased by 1.3 million barrels last week to 99.6 million barrels as of November 4, 2016, 4.4 million barrels (4.2%) lower than a year ago. Gulf Coast, East Coast, and Rocky Mountain/West Coast inventories each decreased by 0.4 million barrels, while Midwest inventories decreased by 0.2 million barrels.

Propylene non-fuel-use inventories represented 3.7% of total propane inventories.

Residential heating oil price decreases, propane price virtually unchanged

As of November 7, 2016, residential heating oil prices averaged $2.39 per gallon, one cent per gallon less than last week and four cents per gallon less than last year at this time. The average wholesale heating oil price is $1.50 per gallon, 11 cents per gallon less than last week and seven cents per gallon less than a year ago.

Residential propane prices averaged $2.06 per gallon, virtually unchanged from last week and 14 cents per gallon more than last year. Wholesale propane prices averaged nearly 66 cents per gallon, almost three cents per gallon lower than last week but 13 cents per gallon more than last year’s price.

In a disturbing indication of how difficult it would be to bring military spending in line with actual threats overseas, House Armed Services Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry (R – TX) told President Obama last week that his war funding request of $11.6 billion for the rest of the year was far too low. That figure for the last two months of 2016 is larger than Spain’s budget for the entire year! And this is just a “war-fighting” supplemental, not actual “defense” spending! More US troops are being sent to Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere and the supplemental request is a way to pay for them without falling afoul of the “sequestration” limits.

The question is whether this increase in US military activity and spending overseas actually keeps us safer, or whether it simply keeps the deep state and the military-industrial complex alive and well-funded.

Unfortunately many Americans confuse defense spending with military spending. The two terms are used almost interchangeably. But there is a huge difference. I have always said that I wouldn’t cut anything from the defense budget. We need a robust defense of the United States and it would be foolish to believe that we have no enemies or potential enemies.

The military budget is something very different from the defense budget. The military budget is the money spent each year not to defend the United States, but to enrich the military-industrial complex, benefit special interests, regime-change countries overseas, maintain a global US military empire, and provide defense to favored allies. The military budget for the United States is larger than the combined military spending budget of the next seven or so countries down the line.

To get the military budget in line with our real defense needs would require a focus on our actual interests and a dramatic decrease in spending. The spending follows the policy, and the policy right now reflects the neocon and media propaganda that we must run the rest of the world or there will be total chaos. This is sometimes called “American exceptionalism,” but it is far from a “pro-American” approach.

Do we really need to continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars manipulating elections overseas? Destabilizing governments that do not do as Washington tells them? Rewarding those who follow Washington’s orders with massive aid and weapons sales? Do we need to continue the endless war in Afghanistan even as we discover that Saudi Arabia had far more to do with 9/11 than the Taliban we have been fighting for a decade and a half? Do we really need 800 US military bases in more than 70 countries overseas? Do we need to continue to serve as the military protection force for our wealthy NATO partners even though they are more than capable of defending themselves? Do we need our CIA to continue to provoke revolutions like in Ukraine or armed insurgencies like in Syria?

If the answer to these questions is “yes,” then I am afraid we should prepare for economic collapse in very short order. Then, with our economy in ruins, we will face the wrath of those countries overseas which have been in the crosshairs of our interventionist foreign policy. If the answer is no, then we must work to convince our countrymen to reject the idea of Empire and embrace the United States as a constitutional republic that no longer goes abroad seeking monsters to slay. The choice is ours.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

By Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq.*

Now that Donald Trump has been elected President of the United States of America, there are a lot of things he needs to do. He has seen firsthand the unseemly underbelly of the various Deep State actors that have fought tooth and nail to both undermine and character assassinate him, as well as destroy him personally and professionally.

But Donald Trump is made of legendary stuff, and not only endured these constant and underhanded attacks, but also exposed and destroyed them all, one by one.

However the problems facing him and his administration still exist, and part of his mandate needs to not only “make America great again,” but to also ensure that the cancers that plague American society are dealt with and destroyed, once and for all:

The Media

Donald Trump needs to somehow dismantle and break up control of the American media by only 6 major corporations.

He needs to light a fire under the collective asses of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and force them to do their job.

No agency in the United States is so important but has been so asleep at the wheel than this one.

Problems with the FTC and its lack of teeth or motivation has resulted in some of the most heinous consolidations of illicit power in the hands of an evil greedy few, devastating and hurting the American people, and Donald Trump and his family as well.

Large behemoths such as the Hillary Clinton/Deep State allies such as Google and the Major Media need to be first on the chopping/neutering block.

The Big International Banks

Similarly, the awesome power and monetary capital of the big banks, hedge funds, investment banking houses, and other financial institutions have also been left to their own devices, allowed to grow like a cancer without any FTC or Treasury oversight, to the point where they literally threaten American democracy and its people on a daily basis – indeed they, just like the Major Media, got behind Hillary Clinton, even in the face of all her crimes and conspiracies, to unseat Donald Trump to ensure that he never got into Presidential Office.

This lesson Donald Trump should never forget – because as long as they are allowed to continue their domestic and global hegemony unchallenged, they will also pose an existential threat not only to the American people and their civil liberties/human rights/constitutional guarantees, but also to Donald Trump and his efficiency as President himself.

One of his first orders of business should be the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, previously repealed by Bill Clinton in 1998, which separates investment banking money from mom and pop checking/savings accounts, so that risky investments by banking houses will, and should, result in their bankruptcy, rather than being bailed out by the American taxpayer.

Many argue that this repeal, coupled with the forced reduction of credit standards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by Bill Clinton through his HUD Director Andrew Cuomo to buy a home, created the mortgage crisis and crashed the American economy (some say deliberately) in 2008. Goldman Sachs sickeningly created a reverse credit swap derivative, betting on the impending housing mortgage crisis, and made billions in the Glass-Steagall repeal that was pushed by their own Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Gene Sperling, when they were US Treasury Secretaries and Economic Policy Advisors under Bill Clinton.

Donald Trump also needs to take on the Federal Reserve, audit them, and if he finds any irregularities or shady behavior (which he most assuredly will), then he needs to immediately repudiate and/or renegotiate the insanely ridiculous 23 Trillion Dollars in American Debt, delivering the American People from the yoke of financial and tax slavery by the Central Bankers of America, Europe, and Overseas.

Optimally he might consider issuing American currency from the US Government, rather than by a secret closed-off cabal of illicit and greedy private international citizens/corporations.

Bring Industry and Manufacturing Jobs Back to the USA

As Donald Trump so effectively and succinctly repeated while on the campaign trail over the past 2 years, the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) was single-handedly one of the most devastating and disruptive treaties ever placed on the books of American jurisprudence, thus resulting in the mass loss of tens of millions of American jobs, industries, manufacturing facilities, revenue, and self-confidence of the American people –

Donald Trump needs to rebuild and re-establish American pre-eminence in industry, manufacturing, and hardcore goods for services, all made and manufactured in the United States of America.

Stupid Foreign Wars

Donald Trump has also echoed the American overwhelming cry of anti Neo-Conservative bloodlust by keeping America out of stupid, foreign wars geared only for the benefit and power of a few, endangering the safety and welfare of the many.

To do this Donald Trump must revamp and refresh the US Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Intelligence Services, and the Military.

He must ensure that not one single drop of American blood be shed for another hopelessly stupid war – if the United States has become a National Security State with its greatest source of income and revenue being the weapons, artillery, and products of the Military Industrial Complex (“MIC”) then he needs to find alternative and supplemental sources of revenue such as what was described above in terms of manufacturing and industrial jobs and factories being re-established within the United States.

Donald Trump needs to value the heroism and self-sacrifice of American soldiers, military and veterans, and stop sending them on unnecessary stupid wars for the sake of the wealth and power of the Deep State, and also to ensure that once our soldiers return home, that they are treated like the true heroes and privileged class that they are, and always should be (jobs, health care, benefits, and utmost respect).

No one has better described the predicament facing the American People in this regard than Dr Paul Craig Roberts in his stellar work, “The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.”

This also means developing working and effective relationships with other great world powers such as Russia, China, and India, in the spirit of mutual respect and friendship, to jointly take on the world’s problems and terrorists together, based on mutual consultation and consensus, rather than with the United States “policing the entire world.”

Reversing Divide and Conquer

One of the first things that Donald Trump said upon accepting his election as President was that he wanted to listen to everyone, and bring everyone together under the fabric of the United States of America.

Right off the bat, he declared that he would be a uniter, and not a divider.

To that end he needs to now undo the “special protected classes,” chock full of con-artists and whiners who use their protected class status to get special privileges, abuse others, trample on the right of others not lucky enough to be different, or oppress the constitutional, civil, and human rights of the rest of America.

These protected classes have been revealed to be the “henchmen” and agents of the Deep State, by the likes of such men as arch-manipulator and “color revolution” social engineer, George Soros, who use these unwitting “protected classes” to do their dirty work, in their ongoing assault on the American people with their “divide and conquer” rhetoric, pitting men against women, children against their own parents, gays against straights, minorities against majorities, and different races/religions against one another.

The only ones who benefit from this intra-American infighting have always been the Ruling Class Deep State Plutocrat Elite, who have watched with smiles, rubbing their hands, as they kept the American people fighting amongst themselves, so that the People are too busy fighting and killing each other to notice or challenge the crimes and conspiracies of the Deep State Elite themselves.

Criminal Justice and Family Court Reform

No single “American Industry” has been so lucrative to the Deep State Elite, and debilitating to the American People, than the horrific butchering process known as the American Criminal Justice and Family Court system – indeed many would argue that the dismal state of race relations in America have their origins in the disparate treatment of racial and religious minorities by the state-sanctioned and wholesale criminality of the American Police State as implemented by Bill Clinton and Joseph Biden’s Crime Bill of 1994 and its corresponding draconian legislation pertaining to the family and criminal courts and its privatized prison industrial complex.

All too often, fundamental constitutional rights and guarantees have been squelched and squashed by the “American Stasi” as formulated by the 1994 Crime Bill, and its corresponding US Department of Justice state-sanctioned “Community Oriented Policing” gang-stalking program, resulting in 1/3 of all African-Americans, 1/6 of all Latinos, and 1/10 of all Whites having been unfairly and without due process, probable cause, or evidence arrested, incarcerated, with families destroyed, resulting in over 70 million Americans with permanent criminal records (more than the entire population of France) – something is wrong here, and Donald Trump needs to do something about the fact that Biden and Clinton et al have transformed our once great and proud country into a “Nation of Criminals.”

Donald Trump needs to take the immediate measures and remedies to undo and reverse the American Police State as described by John Whitehead in his seminal book and treatise, “Battlefield America.”

Foreign Relations

As Donald Trump echoed while on the campaign trail, he is a subscriber to the Thomas Jefferson school of thought of “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.”

Donald Trump is an “America-Firster,” and will not allow the United States to get embroiled and enmeshed in unnecessary foreign stupid wars, treaties, and other entanglements which tend to negatively affect American sovereignty, weighing us down like a rock around our collective necks – foreign nations need to put their “big boy pants” on and deal with their own internal skirmishes, civil wars, financial problems, and other internecine conflicts on their own, without the constant hand-holding (and financial and military support) of the United States and its hard working taxpayers.

Unless the sovereignty or security of the United States is directly at risk, the USA needs to stay the hell out of the worlds’ problems and to focus on our own people, economy, and issues.

The sentiments echoed herein can be attributed to legendary libertarian statesmen such as Dr Ron Paul and his protege Daniel McAdams.

Re-injecting and Reinforcing American Moral Standards

No area of American life has been so undermined and impacted as the deterioration of fundamental American values, morals, and character in the past few decades of American society, disastrously affecting American individuals, families, cities, states, and eventually the nation itself.

This has been augmented and exacerbated by the constant, irresponsible, and disgusting messages in the American media, movie industry, Hollywood, by the undermining of organized religion in America, and the disruption of common value systems as brought on by unregulated mass immigration and non-assimilation by various foreign elements.

A nation’s moral health and compass is absolutely essential for it to be considered a “Shining City on a Hill” as described by legendary President Ronald Reagan himself.

For this, Donald Trump must use his “bully pulpit” as a leader to identify, isolate, target, and then take on the purveyors of common filth and disrepute by the American Hollywood movie and television industry, media, and other enemies of common human decency and morality.

American Infrastructure

As Donald Trump is the ultimate and consummate “builder,” it will be awe-inspiring to watch him re-build American infrastructure, such as our railroads, transportation systems, airports, roads and highways, hospitals, schools, buildings and cities.

There has never been a better-suited and more experienced President when it comes to these issues, and Donald Trump will not disappoint in this very important arena of America’s pride, patriotism, self-confidence, and self-respect.

Cleanse The Judiciary

It is no secret that the last 8 years of steady Obama appointments have stocked the American Judiciary, federal state and local, with either Deep State bankster agents, or their “protected class” useful idiot appointees, who all report back to the same Deep State Oligarchy/Plutocracy anyway.

The only thing these appointees have in common is that they generally have no respect for or understanding of the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

The direct Deep State judicial appointees, usually hailing from the big law firms who in turn represent the big banks/corporations, know exactly who their masters are, while the ambitious “protected class” judicial appointees are either imbalanced activists, or too stupid to realize that their biased, unconstitutional judicial opinions serve the same Deep State Elite anyway, as they help to eviscerate and destroy the protections afforded and guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Either way, a major house cleaning is in order, and Donald Trump needs to re-stock the judiciary with learned, educated, and constitutionally minded judges in the federal and state courts all throughout America, beginning with the major cities first, “pruning the judicial tree” as he goes along.

Pardon And Assist Whistleblowers Such As Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Jeffrey Sterling, Thomas Drake and Bradley (Chelsea) Manning

The above mentioned whistleblowers, and countless more, were the victims and recipients of the absolute and unbridled retaliation and rage of the full Deep State Plutocratic Elite Shadow Government, spearheaded by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and their information and heroically courageous leaks of outright and blatant government corruption and cronyism came with great personal sacrifice to themselves, their families, and their friends.

But in the true spirit of patriotism, they helped to open the eyes and minds of the American People (and the rest of the world) and helped to catapult Donald Trump into the Office of the Presidency.

Their legacies and memories should not be forgotten, and were part and parcel of Donald Trump’s “movement.”

If Bill Clinton could pardon the likes of Marc Rich and others, then Donald Trump can, and should, pardon the heroic patriots and whistleblowers who helped make his Presidency and the American People’s liberation from repressive Oligarchy, possible.

About the author:
*Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq., Ranked amongst Top Attorneys in the United States by Newsweek Magazine in 2012 and 2013.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

By Chelsea Markowitz*

At long last, the most bruising and sometimes farcical election in recent US history has come to a close. What seemed unthinkable to many just a year ago has happened and Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. While markets have slumped in response, one thing is certain: nearly half of the US population is now faced with a president that they resolutely view as unfit to lead.

For party loyalists, disappointment when a candidate of the opposite party is elected, is a normal occurrence. This time, however, the US population’s polarisation runs much deeper. This will likely lower Trump’s efficacy in the ‘honeymoon period,’ which is the early months following the elections when a new president has the greatest success at pushing through policy initiatives. He will surely have to distance himself from some of the outrageous remarks he made throughout the campaign and soften his stance, as he started to do towards the end of the campaign, to be an effective president.

A Republican Senate and House of Representatives certainly give him a better chance to push through standard Republican agendas such as lower taxes across the board. However, some of the more outlandish statements he has made at various points throughout the campaign, such as building a wall between the US and Mexico, and banning Muslim immigrants will surely not pass even in a Republican Congress. It is in the realm of foreign policy where the President enjoys more power, and up to this point the exact nature of how Trump will deal with global issues remains unclear, other than his intention of making ‘good deals’ with foreign leaders and ‘bombing ISIS.’

What does Trump’s election mean for Africa? At this point, it is difficult to tell. The discussion around Africa has been decidedly missing throughout the campaign, and while Clinton has a track record in dealing with the continent through her tenure as Secretary of State, with Trump, it is anyone’s guess.

Historically, Africa has tended to be a bipartisan issue on the Hill, and the US’ unilateral trade preference scheme for Africa, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), has been extended to 2025. It is unlikely to be a contentious issue, and Trump will likely focus his actions to support his anti-trade rhetoric on more publicly contentious issues such as China and renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Although in a more protectionist Congress, South Africa is likely to come under pressure during the annual AGOA review in terms of its preferential access to the US market, as was the case under Obama with South Africa’s chicken saga.

However, the real challenge may lie in negotiation of a post-AGOA free trade agreement between the US and the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), which would need to start during Trump’s presidency. Though this agreement would be off the public radar, one wonders whether Trump’s promise to negotiate tougher trade deals will lead to the same stalemate that ended US-SACU negotiations in 2003, when the US’ inflexible trade template did not leave policy space for South Africa and the other SACU members in the agreement.

In terms of aid, one can be sure this will not be a primary issue on the agenda of Trump, given his isolationist stance and promise to ‘make America great again.’ However, one will have to wait to see whether Trump will quietly continue important initiatives piloted under the Obama administration, such as Power Africa and the US-Africa Leaders’ Summit.

An important consideration for African leaders which must be relayed to Trump is the notion of a relationship with the continent based on partnership rather than charity. In spite of the criticism Obama has received for his legacy on the continent, this was an important idea that he pushed in his engagements with Africa throughout his presidency. Apart from Trump’s undertaking ‘to lock African dictators up’ he has not provided any insight into how he intends to engage Africa more broadly.

However, with a rapidly rising population and potential for a demographic dividend, the African continent is becoming increasingly important geopolitically, as evidenced by partnerships with other global players such as Japan through the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) and China through the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC).

Trump will do well to acknowledge these dynamics and avoid overlooking the continent during his presidency.

*Chelsea Markowitz is a visiting researcher in the institutes Economic Diplomacy Programme.

Source:
This article was published at SAIIA

Swedish chef Anders Vendel became the latest target of the “inverse racism” backlash sweeping Sweden, when he was reportedly assaulted by three Muslim men who punched and kicked him in the face and head, sending him to the emergency room. Describing the assault on Facebook, Vendel said he was attacked because he looked like Donald Trump.

Writing in a Facebook post which has since been deleted, Anders Vendel explained that two men grabbed his arms from behind, while a third began punching him in the face. After about 20 blows to the face, Vendel fell to the floor, and all three men began kicking him in the head and face. The Malmo chef said he believes the attack, which left him with a “broken nose, bumps, clogged eye, mouth, lips, and jaw… even a broken right thumb,” took place because he “looks like Donald Trump.”

The assault apparently took place at a fast food grill in Malmo at 4:25 Saturday morning, according to Sydsvenskan newspaper.

The reported attack took place as many across the US and the world are protesting Donald Trump’s presidential win last week. Demonstrations and in some case riots, have taken place across the United States, with demonstrators decrying the Republican candidate’s campaign rhetoric even as Trump has been on a quest to moderate his positions in the days since he won the election. Anger against Trump – and now his lookalikes – appears to have spilled over across the Atlantic.

By Marian Chiriac

The almost final results of the presidential election in Moldova show a clear victory for the leader of Socialist Party, Igor Dodon, with around 52.3 per cent of the vote. His pro-EU rival, Maia Sandu, won 47.7 per cent.

Dodon, 41, a former trade minister under a former communist-led government, has called for closer ties with Russia but has promised to be also a president for all Moldovans.

The people had voted “for friendship with Russia, for neutrality, for our Orthodoxy, for the unity of the country in settling the conflict in Transdniester,” Dodon said early on Monday, referring to the breakway region controlled by the Kremlin.

“The first step has been made,” he added.

Dodon, in an earlier campaign speech, said Moldova had lost access to a massive economic market due to its poor relations with Moscow.

Russia placed a trade embargo on Moldovan wine and fruit imports soon after Chisinau in 2014 signed an association agreement with the European Union.

Moreover, Dodon is hoping better relations with Russia will help Moldova to solve the long-lasting dispute with the4 self-proclaimed Republic of Transdniester.

The region is inhabited mainly by Russian-speaking population, which broke away from Moldova in 1991 following a short war that killed several hundred people.

“I continue to believe that country’s federalisation by granting a special status to Transdniester is the only solution,” Dodon said on Monday.

Russia has thousands of troops stationed as peacekeepers in the breakaway region.

Analysts say Dodon’s victory is mainly due to popular dissatisfaction with successive pro-EU governments in recent years.

Political turmoil followed a huge bank fraud in which up to $1 billion US, about a fifth of country’s annual Gross Domestic Product, vanished from three local banks ahead of the 2014 elections.

Since then, three successive cabinets have changed, and one former Prime Minister has been arrested and accused of corruption and of accepting a bribe related to the bank fraud.

The current ruling coalition describes itself as pro-EU, but is widely seen as weak due to internal infighting.

EU member Romania, which is carefully following the situation in neighbouring Moldova and is interested in having a reliable, pro-European partner in Chisinau, has not yet made any official comments on the elections results but is clearly disappointed.

Bucharest-based political analyst Sorin Ionita said Maia Sandu’s did well in difficult circumstances.

“It is impressive that in less than a year a candidate was able to get 48 per cent of the votes wihtout almost any financial resourses and without any support from the mainstream media,” Ionita said.

“The vote for Sandu shows that more and more Moldovans are really supporting an European project … and that the future is theirs,” he added.

Sandu, a former World Bank economist and education minister, called for anti-corruption reforms but said Moldova’s prosperity and security could be best guaranteed by closer ties to the European Union.

This was the first time since 1996 that Moldova elected its president directly through a vote. They were previously selected by lawmakers in a process that consistently led to deadlock in the country’s fractious governments.

Moldova’s constitution places most executive power in the hands of the prime minister. However, the presidency has the authority to propose legislation and to reject and return proposed laws to parliament for further consideration.

Moldova was part of Romania from 1918 to 1940 when it was annexed by the Soviet Union. It became independent in 1991.

It shares the same ethnic and linguistic background as Romania. Today, about 80 per cent of Moldova’s population of 4.1 million are of Romanian ethnic origin and speak Romanian – although the country’s constitution calls the language Moldovan. Russian is also an official language.

Russia and neighbouring EU member Romania have long vied for influence in Moldova.