The Chinese grab for fossil fuels or its military competition for naval control is not a challenge, but rather a boost for the US Asia-Pacific, even an overall, posture. Calibrating the contraction of its overseas projection and commitments – some would call it managing the decline of an empire – the US does not fail to note that nowadays half of the world’s merchant tonnage passes though the South China Sea. Therefore, the US will exploit any regional territorial dispute and other frictions to its own security benefit, including the costs sharing of its military presence with the local partners, as to maintain its presence on the maritime edge of Asia that arches from the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean, Malacca, the South and East China Sea up to the northwest–central Pacific.

“Is China currently acting as a de facto fundraiser for the US?”, Professor Anis H. Bajrektarevic asked in his policy paper ‘What China wants for Asia: 1975 or 1908?’.

Contextualizing the challenge, hereby is a fresh take on the issue.

The U.S. pivot to the Asia-Pacific in the Obama Administration has concentrated on reinforcing traditional alliances, redeploying Navy forces, and creating multilateral cooperation mechanisms, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Unfortunately, mounting suspicions have undermined the Sino-U.S. relationship and stability and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific.

Washington needs to take a larger, more constructive approach. It needs not only to engage China, but use U.S. leverage to influence China to act in a parallel fashion. U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific rely on regional stability and require a compatible China. The focus of U.S. policy toward China needs to become a win-win relationship.

In September 2016, Obama and President Xi agreed to work together to constructively manage differences and decided to expand and deepen cooperation. This path is promising:

Greater trust. When the United States emphasizes engaging China in multilateral frameworks it leads, both will be less skeptical about each other’s ambition. Therefore, the inclusion of China in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) becomes important, and the establishment of new security structure with China to share the U.S. defense responsibilities. The invitation for Chinese Navy to participate in the Rime of the Pacific Exercise later in 2016 is a likely step forward in this direction.

Pragmatic values. Beijing’s political challenges push Chinese leaders to put their priority on domestic growth and stability. Accommodating to U.S. policy preferences enables China to retain stability with a restless populace. Better Sino-U.S. relations take pressure off the US Navy’s budget and even provide the United States an opportunity to reinforce its strength on dealing with security challenges, like nuclear nonproliferation in the North Korea.

A more manageable regional security order. Statements by President Obama in support of a One-China policy and a resolution between maritime claimants reassure China that the U.S. will not act as a regional trouble-maker. The statements by President Xi that China is not interested in pursuing hegemony prevent China sabotaging the current security order. A wider strategic dialogue will improve the Pentagon’s ability to assess China’s military capabilities. Risks of miscalculation will be reduced.

America’s allies and China’s neighbors may feel less secure when China and the United States get along. Yet their confidence will rebound as both countries develop a shared understanding of responsibilities, and create more development opportunities. All will become stakeholders in better U.S.-China bilateral relations.

The U.S. and China should make every effort to move forward to a beneficial partnership. Neither party wants confrontation and conflict. Both realize how much is at stake, and how much they have to gain from a successful, stable relationship. China’s future membership in TPP, dialogue and cooperation between the Pentagon and China’s military, and a pragmatic approach to managing regional differences all point the way to a better future. Both the United States and China want and deserve an Asia-Pacific region that is prosperous and secure.

*Qi Lin, a MA candidate of the George Washington University, Elliott School of International Affairs. Her research focus is on cross-Pacific security and Asian studies, particularly on the Sino-U.S. relations and on the foreign policy and politics of these two.

By Nick Buffie

Earlier this morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released new data on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), one of the two main measures of consumer inflation. Comparing the average price level from the past three months (August, September, and October) to the average price level from the same three months of 2015, we see that inflation comes to 1.4 percent over the past year. This is well below the 2.3 percent rate that is consistent with the Fed’s inflation target, and also happens to mark a deceleration in price growth from previous months. Using the same methodology, “core” inflation — which excludes volatile food and energy prices, and thus serves as a good predictor of future inflation — comes out to 2.2 percent. If we look at price growth over the last 12 months (October 2015 to October 2016), the core inflation rate comes out to 2.1 percent.

Unusually small price increases were observed for a number of goods and services. Automobile items have generally become cheaper. Used cars and trucks fell 4.1 percent in price over the past year, while the prices of new ones rose just 0.2 percent. Tires fell 0.4 percent in price.

There were also price drops for a large number of goods related to leisure. The prices of “recreation commodities” fell 4.0 percent, while the prices of video and audio products decreased 14.5 percent; both were the largest ever year-over-year price drops ever recorded for these items. Toys, games, hobbies, and playground equipment also experienced a record-high drop, with prices falling 7.8 percent.

Finally, land-line telephone services experienced no price increase, with costs falling 0.2 percent over the past year. This too was the largest decrease ever recorded by the BLS. It would be tempting to attribute this price drop to a shift in demand away from landlines and towards cell phones, but that is clearly not the whole story since prices fell even more (3.2 percent) for wireless telephone services. Also, it is worth noting that information technology commodities — which includes personal computers, computer software, telephone hardware, etc. — saw prices fall 8.3 percent over the past year.

Of course, there are areas in which prices are clearly rising, most notably when it comes to drug prices and rents. Last month, the BLS reported that drug prices had experienced a record-breaking annual price increase, and that trend appears to be continuing. Drug prices have risen 5.2 percent since October of last year. This is driven purely by rising costs for prescription drugs (which are up 7.0 percent), since nonprescription drugs actually saw their prices decrease 1.4 percent over this period. Note that the CPI only tracks out-of-pocket drug spending, so these increases aren’t being picked up by the insurance companies themselves.

Shelter prices are up 3.5 percent over the last 12 months; rent of primary residence — a measure looking at where people live permanently, which excludes stays at motels and hotels, school boarding costs, etc. — is up 3.8 percent. This single factor is actually the primary driver of today’s inflation. Excluding shelter costs, total inflation was just 0.7 percent over the past year, while core inflation was 1.2 percent. This explains a large part of the divergence between the Consumer Price Index and the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index, the latter of which is used by the Federal Reserve to determine if it is hitting its 2 percent inflation target. The two indexes include somewhat different items in their overall measure of inflation, with the CPI placing far more emphasis on shelter costs than the PCE does. Therefore an increase in shelter costs will push up the CPI much more than the PCE, and shouldn’t lead to worries that the Fed will overshoot its 2 percent inflation target anytime soon.

The Producer Price Index showed an inflation rate of just 0.8 percent over the last 12 months. The prices of goods rose 0.3 percent, while the prices of services rose 1.1 percent. The Import-Export price indexes showed a moderate amount of actual deflation. Import prices fell 0.2 percent and export prices fell 1.1 percent over the past year. Moreover, these drops aren’t being driven by volatile food and energy prices — excluding food and fuels, import prices are down 0.7 percent, while export prices are down 0.9 percent.

On the whole, the new data indicate that inflation is low and possibly decelerating, meaning that the Fed should be more worried about undershooting rather than overshooting its inflation target. Moreover, what little inflation there actually is happens to be driven primarily by rising shelter costs, which won’t push up inflation very much in the PCE. While these results could reverse themselves in future months, right now they point to the Fed keeping interest rates low.

*Nick Buffie is a Research Associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, DC.

To the surprise of the country men, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the demonetization of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- high value currency notes.

This unexpected move created considerable confusion and anxiety among the people immediately, as they have never undergone such experience in the past. Immediately after the announcement at 8 p.m. in the evening, crowds started queuing before 0.2 million ATMs all over India. However, the ATMs had to be closed as the old currency had to be removed before being replaced with the new ones. Further, the ATMS have to be calibrated to meet the requirement of new notes.

As the banks were closed the next day, and the ATMS too remained closed, there was panic all around. Some people even started suspecting whether all their money would be lost.

Mr.Modi explained to the people through television media that demonetization was necessary to wipe away the black money and fake currency circulating in the country and eliminate the corruption once for all.

Many people really thought that this exercise would be completed in 3 to 4 days and normalcy would return thereafter. But, the normalcy has not yet returned even after 8 days, though the situation has been gradually improving.

Mr. Modi and his Finance Minister and officials have been reassuring the country repeatedly that the situation would become normal soon and have appealed to the people to put up with the discomfiture for few days for the sake of ensuring a corruption free India.

Overall reaction of common man favorable

The Common man, despite of some reservations as to why they were made to suffer when they are not the black money holders, seem to have reacted more favorably, appreciating the need for eliminating black money and punish the corrupt persons.

As a matter of fact, people belonging to lower and middle income group, who have been suffering enormously due to prevalence of corruption at all levels of government machinery and even in educational institutions and hospitals have been hoping that Mr.Modi would put down the generation of black money and ensure elimination of corruption with great force. Mr.Modi’s demonetization campaign and his explanation about the need for it have largely received positive response from the people.

Vicious campaign of the vested interests

However, the opposition political parties who seem to have developed pledged hatred towards Mr. Modi, called his demonetization strategy as ill conceived, lacking in clarity and forward planning and termed it as costly exercise that India cannot afford.

With 20 percent of the money in circulation in the country being black money and most of such black money being with politicians and business houses and traders, it is no surprise to see the manner in which the opposition parties have denounced Mr. Modi’s demonetization drive.

While the government announced several restrictive measures to ensure that the black money would not be converted into white, the black money holders have tried to circumvent the regulatory measures of the government in a variety of ways, which forced the government to impose even more restrictions. Though such restrictions were aimed at black money holders, common men too have suffered in the process.

Exploiting the situation, attempts are being made to to kill the initiatives of the government by whipping public anger against the move by clever propaganda, by the vested interests, which seem to have been considerably supported by the print and television media. Day after day, debates have been taking place and photographs of the people standing in queue have been publicized with mischievous headlines and sidelines.

Understanding the mood of the people, opposition parties and vested interests have been saying that they support the move to eliminate black money, but not the strategy adopted by Modi government that resulted in suffering for the people. Obviously, their aim is to weaken the resolve of the Modi government to eliminate black money, as the politicians and the business houses and traders would be the worst affected.

Some media and politicians have been irresponsibly stating that civic unrest would take place in India and law and order would become unmanageable due to the so-called public anger of the people.

Mr. Modi’s resolve will take him through

As Mr Modi has now taken a decision to fight against the black money holders and cannot look back, the Modi government is now facing a great challenge. The government cannot afford to allow a situation to develop, where the demonetization drive would end half way or fail to yield the type of positive results that are targeted.

The opposition politicians and the black money holders are likely to become increasingly aggressive and use variety of methods through media to spread an impression among the people that Modi government has failed.

As Mr.Modi is now taking an aggressive stand, fear is now haunting the black money holders that he will not spare them and the law will take its course soon.

Despite such stress , Mr. Modi appears to be determined to take the fight against black money to the logical end at any cost. While meeting the need to implement his strategies competently with well designed process, Mr.Modi has to take the people along with him even as the opposition parties and vested interests would strive their best to derail the demonetization drive.

Mr. Modi is bound to succeed in his efforts as the cause is genuine and people want his efforts to eliminate black money and corruption succeed. While the demonetization drive reflects Mr. Modi’s commitment to the cause, his strength of character and determination will take him through.

Asia-Pacific experts and policymakers met this week (15-17 November 2016) in Bogor, Indonesia at a three-day workshop on ways to transition the region towards sustainable agriculture.

The transition to sustainable agriculture is critical for the Asia-Pacific region in order to reduce poverty and help achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Goal 2—End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture—calls for an urgent and concerted effort to end hunger and poverty and change to more sustainable approaches in food production and consumption.

According to organizers of the event, reorienting policy throughout the region towards sustainable agriculture can achieve increased food production, ensure environmental and social sustainability, and enhance the resilience of food systems to climate change and natural disasters.

The three-day workshop—organized by the Centre for Alleviation of Poverty through Sustainable Agriculture (CAPSA) of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)—brought in experts, policymakers, analysts and practitioners from Asia-Pacific countries to discuss a variety of innovative policy options for accelerating transitions to sustainable agriculture. The discussions focused how potential polices impact people, the environment, social and political institutions, as well as ways to measure policy effectiveness and progress.

“In addition to enhancing the capacity for formulating, implementing and monitoring the progress in sustainable agriculture policies, the workshop also strengthens regional networking for knowledge and experience sharing among policymakers, senior officials and experts in Asia Pacific working for promoting sustainable agriculture” noted Mr. Masakazu Ichimura, Director of CAPSA.

Co-organized with the Statistical Institute for Asia and the Pacific (SIAP) and with financial support from the Asia-Pacific Regional Action Plan of the Global Strategy to Improve Agricultural and Rural Statistics, the workshop showcased emerging practices, successful actions and lessons learned, as well as perspectives for future regional cooperation from representative leaders, practitioners and experts from ESCAP member States.

Russian President Vladimir Putin  reiterated some aspects of Russia’s foreign policy agenda with Africa in speech delivered on November 9, when receiving letters of credence from new foreign ambassadors including six from Africa. The six new African ambassadors are from Burundi, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Mali and Somalia.

The credentials ceremony usually takes place twice a year. The previous ceremony was held on April 20. The ceremony marks the official beginning of the ambassadors duties in the Russian Federation.

Delivering his speech at the ceremony, Putin said Russia was ready to restore cooperation that included developing investment and deepening trade as well as increasing humanitarian assistance with African countries.

“I hope that your efforts to develop relations between the countries you represent and Russia will help to activate political dialogue, strengthen trade and economic ties, and expand humanitarian contacts,” he told the gathering.

With Burundi, Putin pointed out that Russia’s relations with the Republic of Burundi have always been friendly and would be discussing several cooperative projects in the oil and gas sector and in mining. Russia also wished for an early restoration of internal political stability and national accord in Burundi.

Russia seeks to develop ties with the Federal Republic of Somalia, noting significantly the government’s efforts to achieve national reconciliation and harmony and to rebuild the economy and social sector.

“We support political dialogue with the Republic of Chad, all the more so as your country currently holds the African Union presidency. We look forward to President Idriss Deby’s visit to Russia and are preparing for this occasion concrete agreements in trade, the economy and humanitarian areas,” the Russian leader told the Ambassador of the Republic of Chad, Mbatna Bandjang, at the ceremony.

Russia has been cooperating with the Islamic Republic of the Gambia based on the principles of friendship and mutual respect, as a result valued the Gambian partners’ desire to expand bilateral ties in all different areas.

Russia and Equitorial Guinea have had excellent relationship. “In developing our friendly relations with the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, we place great importance on cooperation on geological exploration, extraction and processing of hydrocarbons, including development of offshore fields,” Putin said assertively.

With Mali, Putin noted “we are developing partner relations with the Republic of Mali in the political, trade, economic, cultural and other areas. In June this year, Russia supported the UN Security Council resolution to extend the mandate of the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali.

Obviously, Kremlin’s long term goals include developing all-sided cooperation with African countries but those goals have struck pitfalls. Policy experts have suggested that Kremlin has to substantiate its African policy agenda with consistency, activeness and support, and enhance participation in the economic development of Africa. At the same time, Russia needs to look at simplifying access to its market for African countries.

Quite recently, Putin acknowledged at the VTB Capital’s Russia Calling Forum, that many countries had been “stepping up their activities on the African continent.” At the same time, Putin said that Russia “could not and would not” cooperate with Africa “as it was in the Soviet period, for political reasons.”

In his opinion, cooperation with the African countries may be developed on a bilateral basis as well as on a multilateral basis, through BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and the Republic of South Africa) in particular.

He noted further that the Russian authorities would support national companies aiming to work on the African continent. But so far, Russia has not publicly pledged any funds toward implementing its business projects and other policy objectives in Africa.

As already well-known, towards the Africa’s development, China has offered $60 billion, Japan $32 billion, India $25 billion so also investment funds have come from the United States and European Union.

The White House has released the following article, which was published Thursday in German by German Daily “Wirtschaftswoche” and can be found here. The full English text of the op-ed by President Obama and Chancellor Merkel is printed below.

By President Barack Obama and Chancellor Angela Merkel

Germany and the United States are deeply linked together: Our joint history has led us through both bright and dark chapters and resulted in the deep friendship we enjoy today. That friendship is based on our shared commitment to personal freedom and dignity, which only a vibrant democracy under the rule of law can guarantee.

Our countries share a joint responsibility to protect and preserve our way of life. It is in this spirit that we are working hard to ensure that international law and norms are respected around the globe – which remains a prerequisite for stability and prosperity. Our countries are committed to collective defense within the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) because we want to preserve the security of the Euro-Atlantic area as a whole. We cooperate closely in the fight against terror, including in the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, because we must protect our citizens and because we will not sacrifice our way of life to the enemies of freedom. Our deep respect for human dignity compels us to provide humanitarian relief and aid for millions of refugees worldwide, because we know it is our treatment of those most vulnerable that determines the true strength of our values. And U.S.-German partnership was essential to achieving a global agreement in Paris that offers the world a framework for protecting our planet.

These values of democracy, justice and freedom form the foundation of our successful economies. Both Germans and Americans know that these principles are the basis for creativity and innovation which drive our economic development. And both our countries embrace the idea that the socially responsible market economy, also includes a commitment to social security, advancement opportunities, quality education for all, and an advanced and efficient infrastructure. The paths that we choose in pursuit of these goals, like how we organize our social security system or our universities, may vary, but the underlying bedrock of our shared values is strong.

On this firm basis of shared values, German-American economic relations are flourishing. Europe and the United States form the largest economic zone in the world, accounting for one third of global trade and almost half of the global gross domestic product. Strong German-American economic relations form an unshakeable core of this zone. Since 2015, the United States has become Germany’s most important trading partner with a trade volume of 173 billion euros, and conversely, Germany has become a cornerstone of U.S. economic relations with the European Union. Indeed, the significance of transatlantic trade is even more impressive when we look at trade between the United States and whole of the EU: the trading volume in 2015 amounted to 620 billion euros, the largest between any two partners worldwide. Behind these impressive figures are millions of companies and employees who produce these traded goods and services and whose jobs depend on them.

Of course, German-American relations go far beyond trade. Our companies invest to a great extent in each other’s country; they cooperate with each other in projects, joint ventures, and in investments. Germans make pilgrimages to Silicon Valley, where people practice and think about the future of the digital economy more than anywhere else. Americans thrive in Germany’s many world-class manufacturing and engineering companies, small and large. Americans and Germans learn from each other’s labor systems and study how each benefits their citizens: Americans study Germany’s remarkable labor apprenticeship system and Germans learn from how American companies benefit from the United States’ spectacular diversity.

The basis of such close economic relations is often the personal contact between our citizens. Our people flow across the Atlantic as students, scientists, artists, employees and tourists. Our two-way trade and investment opens new opportunities for synergies, new products, and innovations in technology. At the end of 2014, bilateral investments between Germany and the U.S. totaled $339 billion, creating high-paying jobs in both our countries.

Simply put: we are stronger when we work together. At a time when the global economy is evolving more quickly than at any point in human history, and the scope of global challenges has never had higher stakes, such cooperation is now more urgent than ever. Germany and the United States are spearheading this effort, including through our work in the G-20, the Presidency of which Germany will assume this December. Together in the G-20 we are working to both strengthen global growth and make it more inclusive, while also addressing pressing broad global challenges like climate change, migration, and global health security, and specific challenges like addressing excess capacity in steel and other industries. We also see great potential for successful cooperation in future-oriented areas such as the digitalization of the workplace.

Our shared conviction about the power of trade and investment to lift living standards prompted us to pursue the important project of establishing a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP). There is no question that both German and American employers, workers, consumers, and farmers would profit from T-TIP. Negotiations started three years ago and, considering the complexity of these issues, have made solid progress. An agreement that knits our economies closer together, based on rules that reflect our shared values, would help us grow and remain globally competitive for decades to come. Today, many U.S. and European companies and employees already benefit from transatlantic trade and investments. Global markets and production chains are increasingly intertwined. We realize that decisions in one country have tangible effects in others. To meet all these challenges, we need rules that are currently being negotiated in the framework of T-TIP.

Today we find ourselves at a crossroads—the future is upon us, and we will never return to a pre-globalization economy. Germans and Americans we must seize the opportunity to shape globalization based on our values and our ideas. We owe it to our industries and our peoples—indeed, to the global community—to broaden and deepen our cooperation.

Congressman Keith Ellison, candidate of progressive Democrats and many regressive Democrats for chair of the Democratic National Committee eagerly urged the illegal and disastrous violent overthrow of the government of Libya in 2011, which he celebrated as a success despite what it meant for the rule of law, despite all the death and suffering, despite the predictable instability and weapons proliferation to follow.

Ellison moved on to pushing, and using his perch as co-chair of the Progressive Caucus to push, for a similar war on Syria. For years now he has advocated for the illegal and murderous creation of no fly zones and “safe zones” — what Hillary Clinton admitted only to Goldman Sachs would require that you “kill a lot of Syrians.” Ellison was an early backer of bombing Syria in 2013. He met with peace activists but rejected their appeal.

Back in 2007, before Ellison’s leadership, the Congressional Progressive Caucus had helped organize 90 Congress members to commit to voting against war funding. Most of them turned around and voted for war funding. That ridiculous disappointment was a high point for the CPC.

Since then, the CPC’s commitments — such as to vote against corporate healthcare — have hardly been taken seriously, and so it’s hardly been news when most members have gone back on their commitments.

But in recent years, the CPC has shifted away from even pretending to take a stand on things, and instead moved toward issuing statements full of non-committal rhetoric. Some began referring to it as the Congressional Progressive Statement Caucus.

Yet even that standard must be looked back to with nostalgia when it comes to Co-Chair Ellison’s rhetoric on war. He promotes misinformation about protecting innocent people in Libya and Syria and uses those claims to justify war making. This is exactly what the war makers were looking for in funding Hillary Clinton for President. Should the Democratic National Committee now give it to them in the form of Ellison as Chair?

Of course there are differences between Clinton and Ellison. He hasn’t been around long enough to do nearly as much damage, and he’s legitimately better than Clinton in many ways. He introduced legislation in the Minnesota State Legislature to urge the impeachment of George W. Bush. He dropped support for that once elected to Congress but did sign onto impeaching Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales. He has voted against war funding, more than once. He has asked Obama to end the war on Afghanistan. He was against rewriting laws with signing statements, at least while Bush was president. It’s conceivable that he no longer, post-Bernie, throws a fit if called a socialist. And on domestic issues there’s no comparison: Ellison is excellent by Democratic standards.

But is that good enough? Does empowering someone who is a Muslim erase all concern over bombing Muslims and turning their nations into hell?

This is the best the Democrats have, we’re told. But putting an active member of Congress into another fulltime job is not ideal. And the Democrats have unemployed figures like war-advocate Howard Dean crawling out into the spotlights.

Who would I propose instead? The first name that comes to mind (and I have not discussed this with him, it’s possible he has no interest, and he certainly wouldn’t sanction my criticizing of Ellison) is Dennis Kucinich. You want change? Hope even? Try him.

Obama’s legacy is in tatters, and that is good news. Donald Trump’s victory was not just a win over Hillary Clinton, but against Democratic Party policies that silenced the rank and file. For years Democrats became convinced that the only means of keeping Republicans at bay was to go along with their party leadership without complaint. If they wanted to expand trade deals that stole workers’ jobs, so be it. The people who marched against the invasion of Iraq folded their tents when Democrats became the party of endless war. When Obama promoted austerity and “grand bargains” with Republicans not a word was uttered. Even Black Lives Matter refused to point out that the Obama Justice Department left killer cops unpunished.

Barack Obama is nothing if not consistent. While Democrats take to the streets in protest against president elect Trump, Obama declares that the man he once called unfit is not an ideologue, but a “pragmatist.” No one should be surprised about the conciliatory tone. Obama never had a problem with Republicans. They may have obstructed him, but he was always happy to assist them because he wasn’t really opposed to their policies.

The most obvious example of Obama’s lack of substance was his relationship with black Americans. His disdain and contempt for the people who loved him the most was clear to anyone who paid attention. Jokes about “cousin Pookie” and parents serving fried chicken for breakfast should have been seen as the racist screeds they clearly were. But the desire to see a black face in a prominent place endures to our detriment.

Obama won by making himself palatable to white people while also taking advantage of undeserved black pride. Hillary Clinton would be the president elect if the new voters who emerged in 2008 had remained committed to the Democratic Party. But their loyalty was to the imagery of Barack Obama as president. Their joy was confined to seeing him meet the queen of England alongside his first lady or disembarking from Air Force One with his signature swagger. The sight of Barack and Michelle hosting a state dinner was enough to make black hearts swoon. Policy initiatives need not intrude upon the love fest.

The end result of this unrequited and superficial love was six million fewer votes cast for Hillary Clinton in 2016 than for Obama in 2012. The apocryphal cousin Pookie stayed home and no one should be surprised. There is no secret to keeping voters engaged. They are engaged if their needs are met. Deliver for voters and they deliver in the voting booth.

Even the unpopular and shady Hillary Clinton could have won Michigan if the people of Flint had received the federal help they needed so badly. Not only did the Obama environmental protection agency allow the beleaguered city to be given contaminated water, but he showed up for a photo opportunity and did nothing else as residents suffered. He drank a glass of water, posed for the cameras and returned to Washington. The people of Flint are still living under conditions Americans think of as being “Third World.”

The response to Trump’s victory should mean more than protesting policies the Democrats now have little ability to fight. This moment presents an opportunity for much needed introspection and mea culpas. Millions of people did more than just accept Democratic Party policy. They supported actions they would have rejected if carried out by a Republican or a white Democrat. They supported Muammar Gaddafi when Republicans were president but averted their eyes to his murder when committed by a Democrat. They even voted for the person who bragged about the killing. Democratic voters must ask themselves why they said nothing when their party promoted trade deals that were against their interests. Ultimately that acquiescence led to defeat at Trump’s hands.

The Obama team’s propaganda skills were legendary but the day of reckoning revealed the emptiness of what they produced. The corporate media acted like scribes under White House direction and declared that Russia was an enemy state and its president a 21^st century Hitler. Now it is Donald Trump, the self-promoting reality television star, who declares his willingness to talk to his Russian counterpart. It is the sort of behavior that Democrats once valued.

Democratic presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton began the tradition of getting Democrats to support what they didn’t like. Obama perfected the art, which ultimately led to the debacle. He will certainly not be the last to tempt the party faithful but in 2016 Democrats sold their souls and ended up with nothing. Defeat creates the most hollow feelings of all.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said historical documents belonging to 30 years ago and classified documents to 40 years ago will be released gradually.

Mr. Zarif told reporters during unveiling ceremony of Foreign Ministry confidential diplomatic documents on Tuesday that the gradual release and declassifying of the documents sought national expediency and complied the legislation allowing such release; “today, we find the opportunity to provide the new generations of the nation with small part of the highly invaluable collection of the Foreign Ministry of diplomatic and historical documents and the role they played in consolidating of national sovereignty, bolstering cultural heritage and civilization,” Zarif added.

“The first series of the legislation allowing the formation of Ministry of Foreign Affairs also addressed a center for archives and documents more than 115 years ago; the Center is home to unique collection of our national documented heritage including more than 50 million diplomatic and historical pieces of evidence, the oldest tracing back to 1463 AD; apart from the sheer value of documents, the material used in documentation, paper, ink, illustrations, royal edicts, gilding, date and place of composition, and method of reproduction, these archive pieces are unrivaled in preserving the heritage of the past and would help a complete review of the collective memory of the nation.”

“Diplomatic documents provides examples of the diplomatic conduct of the past rulers; larger part of the national collection is classified of which 20 per cent comprises diplomatic history of the country,” he told the press.

“The legislation of 1984 in form of Historical and Classified Documents Release Act allowed the conditional release and declassifying of the huge archive; according to the Act, documents more than 30 years of age and classified diplomatic documents more than 40 years of age will be gradually released for the elite of the nation and the general public; the implementation of the law was suspended for 20 years due to Imposed War (1980-88), but good offices of our colleagues in the Center now would help release of over 70,000 pieces of historical and classified evidences, which encompasses events up to September 1941,” Zarif detailed.

“Release of true and historically accurate documents would rule out any misuse and abuse of distorted and unfounded evidence found elsewhere; evidence would improve our Iranian national identity and would strengthen our cultural ties with some of our neighbors; the least advantage is to discredit the forged documents intended to fashion a newly contrived identity and consequent expropriation of Iranian heritage,” he emphasized.

Cold hydrostatic testing has been completed at unit 1 of the Shin Hanul nuclear power plant in South Korea’s North Gyeongsang province, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) announced today. The APR-1400 reactor is scheduled to start up in early 2018.

Cold hydrostatic testing involves filling the reactor’s primary circuit with water, which is circulated by the reactor coolant pumps to verify that the welds, joints, pipes and components of the reactor coolant system and associated high-pressure systems meet regulatory standards. The coolant pumps will help to maintain the reactor’s internal temperature at a safe level during operations. The tests – an important step in the commissioning of new units – were carried out at high pressure, 1.25 times the design pressure of the equipment and piping.

Shin Hanul units 1 and 2 (Image: Hyundai E&C)

Ground breaking for the first two units at the Shin Hanul (formerly Shin Ulchin) site took place in early May 2012. First concrete for unit 1 took place in July 2012, with that for unit 2 following in June 2013. The reactor vessel of unit 1 was installed in May 2014, with that of unit 2 following in April 2015.

KHNP said high temperature functional tests will be conducted at Shin Hanul 1 between May and September 2017, with fuel loading scheduled to be completed in April 2018.

The Shin Hanul units are the second pair of APR-1400s to be built in Korea. The first APR-1400 reactor, unit 3 at KHNP’s Shin Kori site in South Korea, reached first criticality in December 2015 and was connected to the grid in January. A second unit, Shin Kori 4, is expected to start operating in early 2017. Two further APR-1400 units are planned for each site.

Four more APR-1400s are under construction at Barakah in the United Arab Emirates. All four are scheduled to be in operation by 2020.

International law requires the consent of all parties, but China and the US reject when decisions cross short-term strategic interests.

By Humphrey Hawksley*

Flutter over the surprise visit to China by Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte may soon fade. But his abrupt and public dismissal of the United States in favor of China has weakened the argument that international rule of law could underpin a changing world order.

The issue in question was the long-running dispute between China and the Philippines over sovereignty of Scarborough Shoal, situated 800 kilometers southeast of China and 160 kilometers west of the Philippines mainland, well inside the United Nations–defined Philippines Exclusive Economic Zone.

Despite a court ruling and Duterte’s cap in hand during his October mission to Beijing, Philippine fishing vessels still only enter the waters around Scarborough Shoal at China’s mercy.

The dispute erupted in April 2012, when China sent ships to expel Filipino fishing crews and took control of the area. The standoff became a symbol of Beijing’s policy to lay claim to 90 percent of the South China Sea where where it continues to build military outposts on remote reefs and artificially created islands in waters claimed by other nations. Lacking military, diplomatic or economic muscle, the Philippines turned to the rule of law and the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague. A panel of maritime judges ruled China’s claim to Scarborough Shoal invalid in July this year. China refused to recognize the tribunal from the start and declared the decision “null and void,” highlighting the complex balance in the current world order between national power and the rule of law.

Beijing’s response mirrored a 1986 US response to Nicaragua’s challenge in the International Court of Justice. The court ruled against the United States for mining Nicaragua’s harbors and supporting right-wing Contra rebels. The United States claimed the court had no jurisdiction.

With these stands, both China and the United States weakened a crucial element of international law – consent and recognition by all parties.

The Western liberal democratic system is being challenged, and confrontations in Asia and Europe, as in Crimea and Ukraine, replicate the lead-up to the global conflicts of last century’s Cold War. As Nicaragua and Central America were a flashpoint in the 1980s, so Scarborough Shoal and South China Sea are one now. Other flashpoints are likely to emerge as China and Russia push to expand influence.

Western democracies being challenged by rising powers have a troubled history. The 1930s rise of Germany and Japan; the Cold War’s proxy theaters in Vietnam, Nicaragua and elsewhere; and the current US-Russian deadlock over Syria are evidence that far more thought must be given in the deployment of international law as a mechanism for keeping the peace.

The view is supported, on the surface at least, by Russia and China who issued a joint statement in June arguing that the concept of “strategic stability” being assured through nuclear weapons was outdated and that all countries should abide by principles stipulated in the “UN Charter and international law.” Emerging power India, with its mixed loyalties, shares that view. “The structures for international peace and security are being tested as never before,” says former Indian ambassador to the UN, Hardeep Singh Puri, author of Perilous Interventions: The Security Council and the Politics of Chaos. “It is everyone’s interest to re-establish the authority of the Security Council and reassert the primacy of law.”

The United States makes a similar argument, with Defense Secretary Ashton Carter recently speaking about the “peaceful resolution of disputes, the right of countries to make their own security and economic choices free from coercion…. guaranteed by international law.”

The origins of international law go back centuries, and its main instrument today is the 1945 UN Charter. Among its many objectives is to establish conditions under which international law can be upheld.

The problem is that too many governments insist that the international legal system is biased towards vested interests of the West, indicating urgent need of an overhaul.

UN judicial mechanisms suffered damaging blows to credibility in two recent examples.

The 1994 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS was designed to keep shipping and trade routes open, but failed in the Philippines case because of China’s outright rejection of its application even though China was among the early signatories.

The International Criminal Court was set up in the Hague in 2002 to try crimes against humanity. But in October, three African governments – South Africa, Burundi and Gambia – announced plans to quit the ICC. Gambia described it as the “International Caucasian Court,” intended to target Africans, complaining that at least 30 Western nations, had committed war crimes against independent sovereign states since the ICC’s creation with none indicted.

The United States weakens its own support for upholding law by refusing to ratify either UNCLOS or the ICC.

“International law has a double face,” says Keyuan Zou, professor of international law at Lancashire University. “On the one hand, it serves the rule of-law. But on the other it is used as an instrument to pursue national interest. In the latter sense, power politics plays a big role.”

As China becomes richer and more confident, it exhibits disdain for the existing order by planting seeds of a parallel system. It has announced its own International Maritime Judicial Center to counter the Hague tribunal’s Philippines hearing. It created the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to compete with the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and similar institutions. It unveiled its One Belt One Road initiative to secure trade routes and supply chains far from its borders and hurried to build outposts around South China Sea islands and reefs while the Permanent Court of Arbitration conducted its review.

Then in July it tore up the balance between law and power, rejecting the tribunal’s South China Sea ruling, and power became supreme.

Duterte, reacted first by warning of a “bloody confrontation” over Scarborough Shoal. The United States backed the Philippines, supported the tribunal’s finding and challenged China’s resolve by sailing warships through the waters in Freedom of Navigation operations.

Duterte’s bravado did not last long. He back-pedaled, acknowledging that the Philippines $294 billion economy could not withstand hostility from China’s $11 trillion economy. He flew to Beijing and came away announcing that he had struck his own deal over Scarborough Shoal while winning $13.5 of trade and investment agreements from China. Most significantly, he declared that his country’s future lay with China and not with its traditional ally. “America has lost,” he stated coldly, in a grim marker.

The United States promotes international law as the level playing field on which smaller nations need not make such black and white choices, as they had to during the Cold War, of deciding which of two larger rivals to support.

Many weaker nations such as Moldova, Cambodia and Singapore watch closely and hope the Philippines story does not become a trend.

To achieve that, two steps are required: First, the institutions of international law must be overhauled so they are recognized by all parties and rejected only as a last resort. Second, governments must accept the concept of international law in the balance of power even when it might go against their short-term strategic interests.

The cold reality of global politics exemplified by Duterte’s decision shows that such an overhaul might not be possible and, in short, warns about a repeat of history whereby a dominating hegemonic power holds threatening sway over regional vassal states.

Evidence of this came within weeks of Duterte’s Beijing visit. China stated unequivocally that the situation with Scarborough Shoal was unchanged: It remains Chinese sovereign territory, and satellite pictures show Chinese Coast Guard ships still patrolling there.

*Humphrey Hawksley is formerly the BBC’s Beijing Bureau Chief and author of The Third World War: A Novel of Global Conflict. His next book Asian Waters: America, China and the Global Paradox will be published in 2017.

New research shows that a lack of oxygen during sleep helps enable the spread of cancer cells

A team of researchers from the University of Chicago and the University of Barcelona has found that intermittent hypoxia, or an irregular lack of air experienced by people with sleep apnea, can increase tumor growth by promoting the release of circulating exosomes. Their results are published in the current issue of the journal CHEST.

Obstructive sleep apnea has been associated with increased incidence of cancer and mortality. In order to better understand the connection between the two, investigators took a detailed look at lung cancer tumor cell growth in mice. Half of the mice experienced regular breathing patterns, while the other half were exposed to intermittent hypoxia (IH) to simulate sleep apnea. The team found that exosomes released in the mice exposed to IH enhanced the malignant properties of the lung cancer cells.

Exosomes are microscopic spheres that transport proteins, lipids, mRNAs, and miRNAs between cells, similar to courier messengers delivering packages. They play a central role in cell-to-cell communication and are involved in promoting cancer cell growth. When exosomes increase in number and change their content, tumors become bigger and metastasize more easily.

“Exosomes are currently under intense investigation since they have been implicated in the modulation of a wide range of malignant processes,” explained lead investigator David Gozal, MD, MBA, Department of Pediatrics, Pritzker School of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. “Hypoxia can increase exosomal release and selectively modify exosome contents such as to enhance tumor proliferation and angiogenesis. We found the overall concentrations of plasma-isolated exosomes in IH-exposed mice were significantly increased.”

Data revealed that exposing the mice to IH increased the number of cancer friendly exosomes. These exosomes increased the speed at which cancer cells replicated and promoted the movement of those cells throughout the body, disrupting the endothelial barrier and increasing the likelihood of metastasis. Researchers also found that when they isolated the exosomes from mice that had been exposed to IH, the extracted exosomes promoted malignant cell properties in vitro. Furthermore, exosomes from actual patients with sleep apnea showed the same effects on human cancer cells in culture when compared with exosomes from the same patients after treatment of their sleep apnea with CPAP.

“Over the past few years, exosomes have emerged as critically important players in intercellular communication,” noted Dr. Gozal. “Notably, several studies have demonstrated the role of tumor exosomes in regulating major processes of tumor progression, such as angiogenesis, immune modulation, and metastasis.”

Researchers also examined the miRNAs released by the exosomes and found differences in the miRNA from mice exposed to IH compared with those with regular breathing patterns. Eleven discrete miRNAs were identified, along with their gene targets inside the lung cancer cells. “The fact that IH elicits altered exosome miRNA content and selectively enhances specific properties of tumor biology provides a strong impetus and rationale for future studies in both mice and humans,” commented Dr. Gozal.

Sleep apnea’s variable oxygen levels cause damage that is detectable even at the tissue level. Although many other confounding factors exist, sleep apnea is shown to be an independent factor associated with adverse cancer outcomes. This study illustrates that exosomes, invigorated by IH, can influence tumors by facilitating their growth and helping them spread throughout the body, making cancer potentially more dangerous for patients who suffer from sleep apnea.

“There is no doubt,” concluded Dr. Gozal, “that improved understanding of the complex network of genes and cellular signaling transduction pathways regulated by exosomal miRNAs in the context of obstructive sleep apnea will augment our knowledge on its potential deleterious effects among cancer patients.”

Do you always get “shot” playing computer games? Do you like a sore loser also blame the equipment? Actually, rather surprisingly, you might be justified.

“When you experience a delayed response playing games or working on your computer it doesn’t necessarily mean there is something wrong with your human responses,” according to  Kjetil Raaen.

In his PhD work at the Department of Informatics at the University of Oslo he has studied the actual delays caused by the computer and the screen. This detection was made possible by installing an additional cable to the computer mouse and by detecting light from the screen.

Consequently, you can measure the time it took after pushing the button firing the «shot» before it revealed itself as a flash across the screen.

“Some combinations of computer and screen noted a lag time delay of 0.2 seconds. Most people will experience this as a delay. Additionally you will almost certainly lose the game,” sayid Raaen.

He is frustrated by the fact that there has been so little research on response time in computer equipment.

“The focus has been on the internet connection. Now the time has come to look more closely at the equipment. For many years computer speed has increased tremendously. Lately, that development has been halted quite a bit. Instead we see manufacturers trying to fit more systems in to the same computer. This is really affecting the speed,” said Raaen.

As a result of this old computers are in many cases faster than brand new ones.

What time it takes before people experience lag or delay as a problem differs a lot. 0.2 second is the average. However, some people react to delays as small as 0.05 seconds. This applies mostly to experienced gamers.

He has reached these numbers through research collaboration with Ragnhild Eg – a former PhD at Simula, who completed her PhD at the Department of Psychology/UiO and now is a colleague of Raaen at Westerdals School of communications.

Raaen’s PhD is collaboration between UiO, Simula and Westerdals.

An increasing number of people connect their games to the TV screen. That is not a good idea; the TV is not at all built for that kind of activity – it is super slow. The delay is on average 0.2 seconds. That is far beyond an acceptable response time.

Paradoxically, he pointed out that a laptop can have a faster gaming response time even if they otherwise are slower and have other weaknesses as gaming computers.

He strongly recommends avoiding connecting your laptop to a big screen.

“The gaming experience probably becomes better on a big screen. However, the lag time and delays increases substantially compared to using the laptop by itself. Our research also shows that screens with G-sync installed are faster than traditional screens.”

Raeen emphasized that this isn’t all about gaming: Lag time and delays during office work can make people frustrated and tired.

“We are talking about delays so small that the famous hour glass doesn’t pop up, but they are nonetheless frustrating when ever present.”

And in a Fighter Jet this kind of delay can be critical.

“The problem actually materialized in a model of JAS Gripen – there was a delay between the maneuverable controls and the trackpad. As a consequence the pilot pushed his controls harder to get a reaction. When the plain in the en reacted the fighter jet made a much steeper turn than it should,” said Raaen.

“And what if the same thing happens when they are dropping bombs? This is supposed to be a problem with the Lockhead Martin F-35, the type of fighter jets that the Norwegian government is currently purchasing.”

Additionally, there are a lot of indications suggesting that computer delays play a part in Virtual Reality. This is probably the reason why so many VR-players experiences seasickness.

Raaen said he hopes that an increased awareness at computer manufacturers and game developers surrounding these issues creates a future where future gamers only have themselves to blame when they are shot or eaten by a spider.

Then they cannot blame the equipment, said Raaen who himself has spent seven years as a game developer at Funcom, developing games like Anarchy Online and Pets Vs Monsters.

Currently he aims to study this more closely with a combined research position at Simula and a lecturer position at the bachelor program on Game Developing at Westerdals.

Together with Ragnhild Eg he will test 54 students at Westerdals 165 times in different gaming situations to study more closely in what extent these delays are affecting their ability to succeed.

They will also measure how the testing subjects experience the delays. Do they for examples become stressed out, frustrated or experience other traumas?

Raaen also pointed out other things that should be put under scrutiny; for example does it matter whether the computer mouse and keyboard are wireless or not.

A brief but brilliant burst of radiation that travelled at least a billion light years through Space to reach an Australian radio telescope last year has given scientists new insight into the fabric of the Universe.

ICRAR-Curtin University’s Dr Ryan Shannon, who co-led research into the sighting along with the California Institute of Technology’s Dr Vikram Ravi, said the flash, known as a Fast Radio Burst (FRB), was one of the brightest seen since FRBs were first detected in 2001.

The flash was captured by CSIRO’s Parkes radio telescope in New South Wales.

Dr Shannon, from the Curtin node of ICRAR (the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research) and CSIRO, said all FRBs contained crucial information but this FRB, the 18th detected so far, was unique in the amount of information it contained about the cosmic web – the swirling gases and magnetic fields between galaxies.

“FRBs are extremely short but intense pulses of radio waves, each only lasting about a millisecond. Some are discovered by accident and no two bursts look the same,” Dr Shannon said.

“This particular FRB is the first detected to date to contain detailed information about the cosmic web – regarded as the fabric of the Universe – but it is also unique because its travel path can be reconstructed to a precise line of sight and back to an area of space about a billion light years away that contains only a small number of possible home galaxies.”

Dr Shannon explained that the vast spaces between objects in the Universe contain nearly invisible gas and a plasma of ionised particles that used to be almost impossible to map, until this pulse was detected.

“This FRB, like others detected, is thought to originate from outside of Earth’s own Milky Way galaxy, which means their signal has travelled over many hundreds of millions of light years, through a medium that – while invisible to our eyes – can be turbulent and affected by magnetic fields,” Dr Shannon said.

“It is amazing how these very few milliseconds of data can tell how weak the magnetic field is along the travelled path and how the medium is as turbulent as predicted.”

This particular flash reached CSIRO’s Parkes radio telescope mid-last year and was subsequently analysed by a mostly Australian team.

A paper describing the FRB and the team’s findings was published today in the journal Science.

The Parkes telescope has been a prolific discoverer of FRBs, having detected the vast majority of the known population including the very first, the Lorimer burst, in 2001.

FRBs remain one of the most mysterious processes in the Universe and likely one of the most energetic ones. To catch more FRBs, astronomers use new technology, such as Parkes’ multibeam receiver, the Murchison Widefield Array (MWA) in Western Australia, and the upgraded Molonglo Observatory Synthesis Telescope near Canberra.

This particular FRB was found and analysed by a system developed by the supercomputing group led by Professor Matthew Bailes at Swinburne University of Technology.

Professor Bailes, who was a co-author on the Science paper, also heads The Dynamic Universe research theme in the ARC Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO), which has seven Australian nodes including ICRAR-Curtin University.

“Ultimately, FRBs that can be traced to their cosmic host galaxies offer a unique way to probe intergalactic space that allow us to count the bulk of the electrons that inhabit our Universe,” Professor Bailes said.

“To decode and further understand the information contained in this FRB is an exceptional opportunity to explore the physical forces and the extreme environment out in Space.”

By Jonathan Power*

In 1772, sailing to the far south, Captain James Cook deflated the prevailing myth of Antarctica, that it was a temperate land, fertile and populated. Although he never landed on the continent he saw the vast icebergs, the frozen sea and the “worst weather anywhere in the world”. He wrote that “it is a continent doomed by nature” and doubted that man would ever find a use for it.

The words had not been long out of his mouth before governments started to make tentative grabs. The British were the first to make a move, claiming sovereignty on the grounds that the government needed to regulate commercial whaling.

The grabbing continued over the next century, to be followed by a lull and a passive acceptance of the status quo by the rest of the world. Now, however, the “ice continent”, the vast wilderness of ice, whipped continuously by hurricane force winds surrounded by cold grey seas, has become the centre of its own stormy debates.

It is mankind’s last frontier on earth, its ice-covered mountains and surrounding seas contain undiscovered resources – oil, gas, uranium, platinum as well as krill, whales, penguins and petrels.

So who owns Antarctica? The original buccaneering nations who grabbed it first? Or is it, like the UN’s Law of the Sea, another “common heritage of mankind”, as suggested by the eminent Latin American jurist Andres Bello who developed the thesis in 1831 that “those things that cannot be possessed by one nation without detriment to the rest have to be considered by the international community as indivisible common patrimony”?

The Antarctica discussions have been even more complicated than the complex Law of the Sea debate because of the longstanding claims already in existence.

At the end of October 2016 delegates from 24 countries and the European Union agreed that the Ross Sea in Antarctica will become the world’s largest marine protected area. In fact it is the Earth’s most pristine marine ecosystem. It covers 1.57 million square kilometres (600,000 square miles) of the Southern Ocean.

It will be protected from commercial fishing and mining for 35 years and possibly indefinitely. The Ross Sea, its shelf and slope comprise only 2% of the entire Southern Ocean but they are home to 38% of the world’s adelie penguins, 30% of the world’s Antarctic petrels and around 6% of the world’s population of Antarctic mink whales. It is also home to huge numbers of krill, a staple food for species such as whales and seals. The upwelling of nutrients from the sea’s deep waters are carried around the planet by currents.

At the end of negotiations last year Russia was the one country holding out against a consensus agreement. But this year was designated by President Vladimir Putin as the Year of Ecology. First, Russia expanded a marine protected area around Franz Josef Land in the Artic. Now it is a signed up member of the Ross Sea agreement.

China and the U.S. have also signed.

Britain, France and Norway have long claimed large areas of Antarctica – partly because they “discovered” and “effectively occupied” big chunks of the wasteland, even if “occupation” was nothing more than a weather station and half a dozen wooden huts. Australia, Argentina, Chile and New Zealand have claims based on proximity. The Chilean and Argentinian claims overlap with claims made by Britain. Surprisingly, neither Russia nor the U.S. have a current claim.

In 1958, the claimants together with the Soviet Union, Japan, Belgium and South Africa met to discuss a code for scientific research on the continent. In 1960 they signed a treaty providing for continued peaceful research. It also banned military activities, nuclear explosions and the dumping of nuclear waste.

It was an unusual piece of ad-hocery without any valid judicial basis. Nevertheless, its principles are important, committing the big powers to behaviour and norms they usually shy away from.

As the Antarctic Treaty has matured it has become recognised as one of the most successful sets of international agreements, setting an example for peaceful cooperation in the rest of the world.

As an environmental regime it is unique – entire continent, which is essentially undisturbed, will remain protected from the cruder urges of mankind.

After existing for 30 years a member country had the right to ask for a review of the Treaty. No country has asked. Clearly the status quo is keeping everyone happy. The Ross Sea agreement 56 years after the Treaty was signed is another important step forward. At the moment an ancillary “minerals regime” treaty is not a pressing issue. Two-mile thick ice precludes mining.

Environmentalists from green NGOs are overjoyed at the successes so far. Now they are shooting for their next target – a series of Marine Protected Areas in other parts of the cold continent. Why not? [IDN-INPS – 15 November 2016]

*Jonathan Power syndicates his opinion articles. He forwarded this and his previous Viewpoints for publication in IDN-INPS. Copyright: Jonathan Power.

By Riad Kahwaji*

The Arab world, like other parts of the globe, was surprised with the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election and is still trying to figure out how to deal with President-elect Donald Trump. It was no secret that many Arab leaders had hoped for a Hillary Clinton victory, not necessarily because they hated Trump or his policies, but because they did not and still do not know much about him. For them Clinton was a known figure they dealt with for years as a First Lady, then as a Senator and finally as a Secretary of State. They have heard of Trump as a businessman and very few Arab figures have done business with him. Hence, Arab reaction to Trump’s victory was more about the fear of the unknown.

It is really not clear why many of America’s Arab allies where hoping for Clinton victory while at the same time seeking a quick end to the policies of President Barrack Obama Administration in the Middle East. Arab officials, especially in the Gulf, have been very critical of Obama’s policies that significantly reduced America’s footprint and influence in the region and allowed Iran and Russia to move in and establish control (jointly or separately) in many parts of the region like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Of course U.S. allies in the Middle East, especially Israel, were very surprised and critical of the nuclear deal with Iran that was reached after secret talks between Tehran and Washington.

Arab officials and Israel believe Obama has done little to check the spread of Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias in the Levant and Gulf region. But what many of Clinton’s supporters in the Arab world fail to see is that most of Obama’s Middle East policies were conceived when she was the Secretary of State. Clinton was expected to preserve Obama’s legacy and hence very little was expected to change as far as U.S. strategy in the Middle East, but maybe tactics would have evolved under her. Trump on the other hand may well be able to bring about the changes desired by U.S. allies in the Middle East.

Trump’s speeches did not shed much light on his foreign policy vision, especially his plans for the Middle East. The most resonating words by Trump that caught the attention of Middle East leaders was his criticism of the nuclear deal with Iran and his intention to tear it up as soon as he gets into office. This surely pleased Israel and did not upset the Arabs. Iranian leaders did not publicly react much to Trump’s statements, and for some unknown reason they seemed to prefer him over Clinton – perhaps because they saw the Russians cheering for Trump, or because the Arabs were supporting Clinton. But the mere fact that Trump will likely have many conservative Republicans in his administration should be a great cause of concern to Tehran.

It is extremely hard to make predictions at this stage as to how the next U.S. Administration will deal with the Middle East. However, it is important for Arab leaders to realize that Trump is not a conventional American official and he is not an ideologue, and based on his background he has Machiavellian traits, is a hyper-capitalist and political realist that respects strength and despises weakness – and he is ready to go all the way to achieve his goals. So for one country to gain his attention or favor, it has to prove its worthiness to his Administration. He will not be about spreading freedom, democracy and values, but about interests, gains and benefits. It will be interesting to see how much conservative establishment officials will fit and smoothly function within Trump’s administration and how much their ideology and right wing values will rub off on him. Nevertheless, his nature and businessman instinct will always be important factors for his vision. Hence, Middle East leaders should not ask what the next U.S. Administration will do for them, they should rather show first what they can do for America to get themselves on the President’s agenda.

President Trump will take over at a very crucial phase for a Middle East region experiencing a transition triggered by several factors in which the United States played a major role. Under President George W. Bush, the region witnessed an interventionist U.S. foreign policy at its most extreme. American-led alliances swept into Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda were on the run, Iran and Syria where living in fear of a U.S. invasion and desperately trying to open channels of communication with Washington to stay on its good side. Russia had a very limited role in the region with a small insignificant footprint in the Mediterranean.

Under Obama’s reign, the region saw a major shift to the left with U.S. pulling out of Iraq and reducing its presence in Afghanistan, and adopting a policy of appeasement with Iran and empowering extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. The extreme non-interventionist policy led to the creation of a vacuum that allowed Iran to spread its influence via proxy Shi’ite militias operating today from Afghanistan all the way to Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Weakened U.S. allies and an emboldened expansionist Iran gave birth to terrorist groups more extreme than Al-Qaeda such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL). Hesitant and indecisive, U.S. policy for the Middle East presented the golden opportunity for Moscow to re-enter the picture via the Syrian door, and today has a significant military footprint on the Mediterranean coast with a naval base and an airbase on NATO’s borders just south of Turkey. The confidence of America’s regional allies in Washington’s leadership has never been lower than it is today.

So President-elect Trump, who does not belong to the neo-conservative camp or the liberal left, might bring about the right balance needed in the Middle East today. Washington must not exercise an interventionist nor an isolationist policy in the region, but a balanced approach that secures its interests and assures its allies that they have a reliable partner and security guarantor. Many of America’s allies in the Arab world today have built their defense capabilities and can operate effectively within a U.S.-led alliance to protect the region and combat terrorism. But they need the U.S. to lead from the front and not from behind. The U.S. should also capitalize on business opportunities in the region presented by oil-rich countries seeking Western technologies and partnerships to build their industrial capabilities.

The war on terrorism cannot be won with continued Iranian efforts to export the Islamic Revolution to its neighboring countries, which exasperates sectarianism and consequently weakens America’s allies by strengthening groups like ISIL and Al-Qaeda. Washington cannot abandon the strategically important Syrian theater so it is managed by Russia and Iran, because it will enable Tehran to create a land corridor linking its western frontiers with the Mediterranean and Israel, and will give Moscow a free hand to expand further into the oil and gas-rich Levant and threaten the southern borders of Europe. Therefore, Trump has much space to cover in order to bring America back from the low point it has reached at the culmination of the Obama presidency to the supremacy it enjoyed in the region and globally under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. The question that now remains is if Trump’s performance as president positively surprises the world as his election victory did?

*Riad Kahwaji, is the founder and director of INEGMA with a 28 years of experience as a journalist and a Middle East security analyst.

By J Nastranis

While there is “a new dawn for global cooperation on climate change”, greater efforts are required to mobilize funding to address climate change, especially to support developing countries, according to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

“Finance and investment hold the key to achieving low-emissions and resilient societies,” Ban said in remarks read by his Special Advisor on Climate Change, Bob Orr, to a High-Level Ministerial dialogue on climate financing at the 22nd Conference of Parties Conference (COP 22) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

According to UN News, Ban underscored that one of the core objectives of the Paris Agreement, which entered into force on November 4, 2016, is “to make all finance flows consistent with a pathway to low-emissions climate-resilient development.” He noted that there has been progress, in particular in renewable energy.

In December 2015 at COP21, 196 Parties to the UNFCCC adopted the Paris Agreement, so-named after the French capital where it was approved. It aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping the global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The Agreement entered into force in time for COP 22 from November 7-18, 2016, where parties are expected to define the rules of implementation of the Paris accord and establish a viable plan to provide financial support to developing countries to support climate action.

“We will invest 90 trillion dollars in global infrastructure over the next fifteen years. It would not cost much more to ensure that this infrastructure delivers the low-emission resilient economy envisioned in the Paris Agreement”, added the UN chief.

He underlined that in Paris, governments collectively reaffirmed their 2009 pledge to mobilize 100 billion dollars per year by 2020, and to continue financing at this level until 2025 to support climate action by developing countries. “This goal is within reach – if we stay focused.”

In remarks read by the World Bank Vice-President for sustainable development, Laura Tuck, the President of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, said that his organization is doing its best “to try to mobilize as much as financing as possible”.

“It is not just about trying to persuade donors and financiers to put up more money, although we are definitely trying to do that, but it also about creating the environment that crowds in a lot more financing. Even if we have the 100 billion dollars we are talking about, it is not nearly enough to reach our goals,” he added.

For the World Bank, the other priority is greening the financial sector. “We are trying to find ways to improve the way the existing banking sector understands and considers the risks of climate smart investments,” Kim stressed.

The outgoing Secretary-General whose second five-year term ends on December 31, 2016 stressed that financing is central to building resilience. In Paris, Ban launched the Initiative on Climate Resilience, or ‘A2R’ – Anticipate, Absorb and Reshape. It aims at redoubling efforts to provide climate risk insurance, in close cooperation with the insurance sector.

On the margins of COP 22, the Secretary-General also participated in a Summit of African heads of State and Government hosted, by King Mohammed VI of Morocco, on November 16. Ban said: “This is a very significant summit – in Africa and about Africa. There is a sense of promise in the air.”

Marrakech, he said, is different from any Conference of Parties (COP) ever held before. “Africa helped bring us to this point. The continent took us from high-stakes negotiations to high-speed ratifications.” He urged all those African countries that have not yet ratified the Paris Agreement to join in shaping a new future.

109 countries accounting for more than 75 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions have ratified the Paris Agreement. But, Ban added: “We still face real and daunting challenges. The Paris Agreement is not a panacea, but it gives us a framework to build on. Now is the time for action.”

Africa is at the forefront. Compared to the global average, temperatures are rising higher in this continent. Out of the 50 countries hit hardest by climate change, 36 are in Africa.

The UN Chief said: “I have seen climate solutions across Africa. This continent is dynamic. Your societies share the hope for a sustainable future – and they have modelled collective action.”

Commending the entrepreneurial spirit across Africa, especially among youth, Ban said: “African young people have led projects to achieve sustainable transport. They have planted millions of trees across Africa. Right here in Morocco, youth are leading climate projects for conservation, reforestation and re-vegetation. There are promising young people in all of your countries. They need investments and they deserve empowerment. With the right opportunities, African youth can forge solutions we may not even be able to imagine.”

Last year, at COP21, Africa Governments launched the Africa Renewable Energy Initiative led by the African Union. “It is a testament to the spirit of collaboration that has united the continent in confronting the climate challenge. So is the African Adaptation initiative.”

Africa has tremendous potential to be a global renewable energy leader, Ban said. “This continent has vast solar, wind and geothermal energy resources. The Africa Renewable Energy Initiative will advance this immense potential. It can help boost Africa’s installed renewable energy capacity by 10 gigawatts by 2020. Just a decade later, the increase will be exponentially higher – with an increase of 300 gigawatts.”

He called on partners from both developed and developing countries to scale up investment and technical assistance so as to ensure that policy incentives align with a temperature-rise pathway that is well below 2 degrees.

The outgoing UN Chief recalled that throughout his tenure as Secretary-General, he had depended on many partners from Africa – Government officials, expert scientists, corporate executives and grassroots activists.

Ban recalled what one Ugandan activist, Sylvia Atugonza Kapello, said at the 2014 Climate Summit in New York: “Climate change is a survival issue – not a question of negotiations.” The time for talk is indeed over, added Ban.

Geopolitics and the development of ICT create a fertile ground for political campaigns based on fear. An effective response would be to start thinking of technology as more than a just tool to deliver messages.

By Arik Segal*

Many were surprised when the Peace Agreement signed between the Colombian government and the FARC was rejected by the public in a plebiscite. The shock resulted not only because Colombians refused to end a bloody conflict that cost more than 200,000 lives, but also because public opinion polls predicted the opposite outcome. There are many possible causes for rejection of the Peace Agreement. Some include: the inability of the elites to translate the benefits of the agreement to the people, inability to understand the needs and concerns of many Colombians who suffered directly from FARC’s atrocities and a tough campaign by the opposition led by former President Alvaro Uribe.

Colombia is not alone. Other recent referendums and political agreements such as the Brexit, Trump campaign and Israeli elections show similar symptoms. The coarse thread between all those can be described as a situation in which people in real time, decide on their future according to their emotions and not according to reasonable arguments based on linear thinking.

From an international relations perspective, the massive use of social media networks, instant messaging apps along with rise of radical Islamic terrorism, mass immigration and economic uncertainty created a fertile ground for the success of political campaigns based on fear.

Whether the threat is perceived or real, the outcome is the same – majority of the public that is detached from physically feeling potential future benefits that were sought by political, economic and social elites. In the case of Colombia, is might have been easier for people to feel anger at FARC than feel the benefits of “peace”, as for Brits to fear losing their jobs for immigrants, or for Israelis to feel the danger of losing strategic ground in case of withdrawal from the West Bank and risk a “Gaza 2” scenario.

In a 1 on 1 game -emotions beat reason, especially when strong national identity is involved. This however is not a new phenomenon. Back in the 16th century Machiavelli said that for a leader “it is better to be feared than loved”. What has changed since then are the means to deliver emotions through technology. Text, pictures, videos carried through social media today create a much stronger impact than 10 or 20 years ago.

Technology is not the drive but the tool- platform of delivery, therefore a “peaceful” message could also be carried on the same platforms. However, our primal evolutionary instincts thought us that fear is the most powerful motivator since our survival depends on it.

So, how can we use technology in an efficient way to overcome the basic human emotion-reason/fear-hope conundrum? The answer could be by looking at technology as more than simply a tool to deliver messages, but to move beyond the virtual dimension into the physical one.

For many years, security industries have been doing so, by creating drones, battlefield robots and cyber-warfare. “Peace industries” should do the same and use technologies that would use technology as platforms to manage processes and creation of tools. Taking for example the Stuxnet computer virus that was allegedly used to penetrate Iran’s nuclear facilities and damage it. This computer virus had two features that made it unique and highly effective: it was undetectable (in its original version) and it managed to transform into a physical force that destroyed machines-centrifuges.

A challenge for Liberals and peacebuilders would be to take the same model and develop a way in which invisible messages swarm through the web and transform into the physical dimension and create objects that carry peaceful ideas. A place to start would be by looking into the Internet of Things and/or Internet of Everything – ideas and messages that will be built in search engines, business networks, wearables and smart homes. Once a Peaceful idea will be resonant in information, processes, things and people then hope will have a chance to stand against fear.

*Arik Segal is the founder and CEO of Segal Conflict Management; he specializes in using technology as a tool in conflict management processes and facilitating online dialogue projects over social media platforms.

Segal Conflict Management is a member of the Global Coalition for Conflict Transformation, comprised of organizations committed to upholding and implementing the Principles of Conflict Transformation.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of TransConflict.

By Samantha Maloof*

When Donald Trump was elected to be the 45th President of the United States, he did so on vague promises and undefined policies. While Asia and Europe featured prominently on the campaign trail, he has been silent on any issue pertaining to Africa. Now that Trump will be taking office in January 2017, there is much uncertainty over the shape his future Africa policy will take, and how the relationship between the United States and the African continent will be affected by his presidency.

What is for sure, however, is that The Donald will be bad news for Africa. Given his staunch “America First” mantra that will be guiding his administration, Africa is going to slip all the way down the list as the US decreases its engagement with the world in order to channel resources inwards. The first budgetary elements on the chopping bloc will most likely be aid provisions to those in need. Despite the fact that Trump had very little to say about the issue, the overall tenor and content of his campaign, in which he pledged to dismantle and reduce the federal state apparatus suggests that USAID could be part of the devolution as well. Although US spending on aid only amounted to 1 percent of the total US federal budget in 2015, this spending will probably careen towards historic lows under President Trump. His transactional worldview relies on receiving tangible returns on his investments – and while Africa is the fastest growing continent, Trump is unlikely to notice.

The Trump presidency could also be the death knell for most of the trade with Africa. The “African Growth and Opportunity Act” (AGOA), which was signed into law in May 2000 to provide “beneficiary countries in Sub-Saharan Africa with the most liberal access to the U.S. market available,” could be one of the first US-Africa agreements to go. While its successes have been debated, AGOA has nevertheless succeeded in pushing trade and investment to become the top priority for US policy in Africa, and in developing “Trade and Investments Hubs” to facilitate African companies’ entry to the American market. With two-way trade valued at $36 billion in 2015, African member countries would lose billions if AGOA were to be abolished. Coupled with the possible abandonment of the “President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief” (PEPFAR) and other development initiatives such as Obama’s “Electrify Africa Act”, Africa might be left standing in the dark.

Furthermore, the president-elect’s controversial history of racist outbursts along with the appointment of Stephen K. Bannon as his chief strategist and senior counselor will not help to reassure African nations to place their trust in his administration. In fact, it may accelerate destructive processes already under way in the region, especially when China is increasing its efforts to win the hearts and minds of African leaders. In fact, the obsessive utterance of “America First” might end up making America last.

The U.S.’ national security interests on the continent are defended through a constellation of military bases and tenuous defense agreements. Camp Lemonnier, the biggest American installation, is to be found in Djibouti and plays a vital role in the drone-based counterterrorism warfare staged against terrorist organizations such as Boko Haram and Somali pirates. From Djibouti, the US military is able to cover many of Africa’s security hotspots, as well as the Southwest of the Arabian Peninsula (read, Yemen). In other words, the United States cannot afford to lose it.

But Djibouti’s autocratic president, Ismail Omar Guelleh, has been slowly gravitating to China, drawn to Beijing by the billions it plans to invest in the country. In 2015, Djibouti agreed to host China’s first military base, in close proximity to Camp Lemonnier, much to the concern of security experts who are worried about Chinese eavesdropping. Guelleh, a four term president notorious for having embarked on a massive opposition crackdown involving curbing freedom of the press and the torturing of activists, is now more likely to give more leeway to Beijing in the future as Trump looks inwards.

The net outcome of all of the above is that African countries will seek ever-closer relations with America’s main contender on the continent – China. Traditionally, the US provided the blueprint for national development, but as China’s engagement on the continent has been growing, many African leaders increasingly look at Beijing as an alternative to the US-led model based on democracy and liberalism. According to an Afrobarometer survey, the People’s Republic ranks second as a development model, aided by the massive influx of Chinese investments and expanding trade relations. Adopting the Chinese model at a time when the International Criminal Court (ICC) is rapidly unraveling means that African dictators can continue to do as they please.

With Donald Trump at the helm, the US will disengage from Africa and China is ready to gladly fill the void. Outgoing President Obama fought hard to win the hearts and minds of Africans, but Trump’s electoral campaign leaves little hope that the advances made in trade, investment and living standards will hold out much longer. Having lost the normative power it once had, the American insistence on democracy and freedom will soon wane as the Chinese approach to development will become the preferred choice, leaving autocratic rulers the continent over in the strongest position in years.

*Samantha Maloof is a freshly minted graduate in International Relations based in Cairo, currently working as a research assistant in a small think tank looking at development and inequality in Africa. This article was published at Modern Diplomacy

Our most beloved works of fiction hide well-trodden narratives. And most fictions is based on far fewer storylines than you might have imagined.

To come to this conclusion, big data scientists have worked with colleagues from natural language processing to analyse the narrative in more than a thousand works of fiction. By deconstructing some of the magic of narrative in fiction books, they have also confirmed that there are six different, common ways of telling a story that can be found time and time again in popular stories.

They were inspired by the work of US fiction author Kurt Vonnegut, who originally proposed the similarity of emotional story lines in a Masters’s thesis rejected by the University of Chicago. These findings have just been published in EPJ Data Science by Andrew Reagan from the University of Vermont, USA, and colleagues.

The authors selected 1,327 books, representative of English works of fiction, from the 50,000 books included in a major open access literature digitisation project called the Gutenberg project. They then applied three different natural language processing filters used for sentiment analysis to extract the emotional content of 10,000-word stories.

The first filter—dubbed singular value decomposition—reveals the underlying basis of the emotional storyline, the second—referred to as hierarchical clustering—helps differentiate between different groups of emotional storylines, and the third—which is a type of neural network—uses a self-learning approach to sort the actual storylines from the background noise. Used together, these three approaches provide robust findings, as documented on the hedonometer.org website.

Reagan and colleagues thus determined that there were only six main emotional storylines. These include ‘rags to riches’ (sentiment rises), ‘riches to rags’ (fall), ‘man in a hole’ (fall-rise), ‘icarus’ (rise-fall), ‘Cinderella’ (rise-fall-rise), ‘Oedipus’ (fall-rise-fall). This approach could, in turn, be used to create compelling stories by gaining a better understanding of what has previously made for great storylines. It could also help teach common sense to artificial intelligence systems.