Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live

Trump’s Election A Critical Moment For India-China Ties – Analysis

0
0

By Arun Mohan Sukumar

A week into the election of Donald Trump as the next President of the United States, the world has seen the remarkable spectacle of China publicly endorsing the core values of the liberal, international order. In his congratulatory call to Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping reportedly suggested his country is ready to fight climate change “whatever the circumstances.” In Marrakesh, at the first conference of the parties after the Paris accord came into effect, Beijing’s chief climate negotiator underlined the “global responsibility” to work under the UN framework to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. In Latin America, where Xi is on state visits to Ecuador, Peru and Chile ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Community summit, the Chinese president has dusted off a decades-old trade proposal and sought renewed discussions on it. The Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) proposal, Xi said, is key to building an “institutional mechanism” that ensures an “open economy” in the region. On the sidelines of an APEC ministerial meeting, Chinese Vice Commerce Minister Wang Shouwen spoke out against trade protectionism and the need to remove trade barriers for the flow of goods and services.

Meanwhile, at the World Internet Conference hosted here in the Chinese town of Wuzhen, the country’s leading entrepreneurs invited immigrants to work and innovate for China’s tech giants. “I read that an advisor to President-elect Donald Trump complained that three-quarters of engineers in Silicon Valley aren’t Americans,” said Baidu’s CEO Robin Li in his speech. “So I myself hope that many of these engineers will come to China to work for us.”

Sensing the virtues of the liberal order

Self-interest, and not any burning desire to take over the mantle of protecting the liberal, institutional order from the US, explains Beijing’s recent declarations. For long, China has taken refuge under American stewardship that allowed it to trade freely in Asia, Africa and Latin America; with Trump’s election, its leaders now fear the adoption of protectionist measures in not just the US and Europe — still its most lucrative markets — but also in emerging economies. Hence the Chinese push for FTAAP, which, along with the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership now seems poised to be a viable alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Peru and Chile are heavily invested in the TPP’s future, whose dismal prospects may galvanise their support for the FTAAP.

Narrow considerations aside, China’s appetite to foster long and cumbersome trade negotiations also reflects its own perceptions as a global player. Long Yongtu, a former vice minister for foreign trade and an influential voice in Beijing, wrote recently that China is willing to make “additions” to the existing rule-based order without “subtracting” from them. China cannot “pick which rules to follow and which to ignore,” wrote Long. His views reflect that of the Chinese elite who argue Beijing should no longer pursue a transactional approach to its economic relations with other developing countries. This constituency feels the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the Belt and Road project (OBOR) are tools to ensure future economic and political configurations ensure China’s leadership in the region. Ensuring that these institutions will consolidate China’s export-oriented economy may be possible if Chinese planners actually have a grand strategy for them. Translating their economic clout into political and normative value is another matter, which both the Chinese leadership and diplomacy is not ready for. If anything, Trump’s election and the role social media played in ensuring his victory will only harden the views of those in the Communist Party (CPC) who argue against easing domestic Internet controls and freer exchange of political thought. For now, the CPC is expected to focus on domestic issues, without wading too deep into international developments.

What next for India?

India’s immediate and long-term interests are affected by the US-China relationship during regnum Trump. Over the next four years, Trump is likely to channel government spending towards the building of domestic infrastructure, reducing further the US dollars available for foreign aid and economic assistance. Developing countries will realise — if not already — that Chinese capital is probably going to be the most reliable source of funding for the next decade. Even if Beijing has not offered a strategy to harvest intangible benefits from projects like OBOR or AIIB, it is only a matter of time before the opposition to Chinese projects become muted. Europe has already expressed a growing interest in OBOR, and the UK after Brexit is looking at the AIIB for infrastructure-based projects. As China continues to champion economic values that underpinned the US-led order, more countries will become comfortable engaging with Beijing. Were that to coincide with a general lack of interest from the Trump administration in South and Central Asian affairs, India’s opposition to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) will receive little attention in Western capitals. How (and whether) the Trump administration pursues the US-Afghanistan-India trilateral dialogue is another matter of interest to India. The trilateral is the only dialogue mechanism on Afghanistan, which excludes China and Pakistan, which Islamabad is none too happy about. China’s footprint in South Asia has neither been conditioned by US foreign policy, nor is it expected to step into America’s role in the region. But the China-Pakistan military and economic relationship could grow steadily during this period, which should prompt India to begin pursuing options that make this bilateral embrace costly for Beijing.

On a more immediate note, China will have its ear to the ground for noises from the Trump administration in contentious areas of the bilateral relationship, as well as its commitment towards Asian security. Expect it to test the waters, through provocative conduct in the South China Sea, a border incident along the Line of Actual Control or a state-sponsored cyber attack on infrastructure in the United States or Japan. Such actions would necessitate a diplomatic response from India, which would be a difficult task given that it does not yet have a pulse of the new US government. Nevertheless, these are eventualities that New Delhi should be prepared for.


Rwanda: Bishops Apologize For Catholic Role In Genocide

0
0

The Catholic bishops of Rwanda have apologized for Christians’ role in the deadly 1994 genocide.

“We apologize for all the wrongs the Church committed. We apologize on behalf of all Christians for all forms of wrongs we committed. We regret that church members violated (their) oath of allegiance to God’s commandments,” said Rwanda’s Conference of Catholic Bishops

The statement, read at parishes across Rwanda, said that some Catholics planned, assisted, and executed the genocide. Hutu extremists killed over 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus.

Clergy members were included in the ranks of both perpetrators and victims. In some cases, Hutu priests, bishops and religious helped to hide and protect Tutsis. In other cases, they took up arms against them. They ushered victims into church buildings with false promises of security and then trapped and betrayed them, facilitating their massacre.

“Forgive us for the crime of hate in the country to the extent of also hating our colleagues because of their ethnicity. We didn’t show that we are one family but instead killed each other,” the bishops said.

Bishop Phillipe Rukamba, spokesman for the Catholic bishops, said the statement’s release was timed to be released at the end of the Catholic Church’s Year of Mercy, according to the Associated Press.

There were complex causes for the violence, including decades of ethnic tension dating back to Belgian colonialism. The violence was inflamed by hate-filled propaganda broadcast by political extremists.

The genocide began April 7, 1994 after controversy over the plane crash that killed the then-president of Rwanda, a Hutu.

About 57 percent of Rwanda is Catholic, with another 37 percent Protestant or Seventh-Day Adventist. The churches have worked to bring about healing and reconciliation as well.

As the country sought to recover from the genocide, the Catholic Church suggested the revival of traditional communal court system called Gacaca, to relieve the burden on the nation’s justice system in adjudicating charges. Well-respected elders served as judges and aimed to facilitate justice for both victims and perpetrators.

In a 2013 interview, Fr. Celestin Hakizimana, general secretary of the Rwandan bishops’ conference, described the current relationship between Church and State in Rwanda as generally good. Efforts are ongoing to repair relationships that were damaged during the genocide, and the Church is dealing with modern challenges, including a recent law to legalize abortion, which the bishops vocally opposed.

Although obstacles do exist, the Church in Rwanda is strong, Fr. Hakizimana said. With the help of Catholic Relief Services, the national bishops’ conference has improved its structure and organization, and many dioceses are working with the international agency to strengthen their efficiency, professionalism and financial management capabilities.

In addition, Fr. Hakizimana explained that he knows the Church is growing “because every Sunday, there are baptisms.”

As of October 2013, the seminaries in the small country were filled to capacity, with 530 men studying in major seminaries. Church leaders have been forced to limit the number of applicants while one facility is being expanded. As Rwanda works to rebuild, the local Church grows as well.

Is It Over For Turkish Democracy? Implications For Regional Peace – OpEd

0
0

As the Erdogan government presses for a more authoritarian regime and curtails civil freedoms at home, Turkish foreign policy takes an increasingly hawkish direction. Turkey’s democracy deficit, if not managed properly, risks diminishing the impact of its peace efforts.

By Dr. Ulas Doga Eralp*

I have published a new edited volume earlier this year called the Turkey as a Mediator: Stories of Success and Failure. Along with my fellow contributors, we conducted a systematic analysis of Turkey’s contributions to regional and global peace mechanisms. We wanted to explore whether there is any novelty in Turkey’s approach to peace compared to established actors such as the US and EU. One of the key observations was that Turkey’s democracy deficit, if not managed, properly risks diminishing the impact of its peace efforts. Obviously as the Erdogan government presses for a more authoritarian regime and curtails civil freedoms at home, Turkish foreign policy takes an increasingly hawkish direction. There are two external reasons for this shift; the first is the demise of the Arab Revolutions and, second, the re-emergence of Russia as a global player.

One obvious question is whether it is possible to pursue pro-peace policies abroad even when you pursue pro-war policies at home. Turkey has been contributing to dialogue processes in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Somalia, and Afghanistan among others. The model of a relatively democratic capitalist emerging economy promoting cooperation has been quite attractive to many stakeholders. Turkey’s peace initiatives had a positive impact as the perception was that Turkey has been making stringent efforts to promote democracy and coexistence. This international perception has started shifting with the Arab Spring revolutions of 2011, when Ankara threw its lot with the Muslim Brotherhood inspired movements. Ankara’s motivation in supporting MB movements across the MENA region is an extension of its not-so-hidden neo-Ottoman policies. Erdogan and AKP officials imagined the Arab Revolutions as the most cost-effective opportunity to achieve their neo-imperialist agenda. However, as the Spring turned into winter, the Egyptian revolution faded away and Syria slid into full scale civil war, Ankara decided to consolidate a pro-Sunni camp against Iran’s growing regional influence. Turkey formed a strategic partnership with Qatar and supported radical Islamist groups in Syria. Not surprisingly, Turkey’s shift into radical policies in the Middle East raised the tensions in the tedious peace process with the Kurds and led to its eventual demise.

In the aftermath of the July 15th Coup Attempt, Turkey’s policy in the Middle East and Southern Caucasus has decidedly come under Russian influence. There are rumors that it was the Russian intelligence that warned Erdogan of an impending coup attempt.  Russia was the first to condemn the coup attempt and stand with the Turkish Government. As a result, Ankara readjusted its policy in Syria, taking a strong stance against ISIS and distancing itself from the likes of Al Nusra Front. Turkey is in the process of making amends with Egypt over the fate of the Muslim Brotherhood, re-establishing diplomatic relations with Israel and even looking for ways to rebuild relations with Armenia. Ankara’s attempts to be a key player with troops on the ground at the expense of Kurdish forces in Iraq and Syria also seem to have been quelled for the time being due to American and Iraqi resistance.

While Turkish foreign policy is going through a process of re-rationalization in the Middle East under Russian influence, its relations with EU are at an all times low. Erdogan has started campaigning for the re-introduction of the death penalty as part of his bid for executive presidency, and ordered the imprisonment of hundreds of opposition journalists under the disguise of purging Gulenists. Elected mayors of Kurdish cities along with co-Presidents of Turkey’s third largest party pro-democracy, HDP, are currently in prison awaiting trials on charges of treason. Brussels has so far voiced “strong concern” over the authoritarian turn, but stopped short of freezing relations. The only positive development is the on-going re-unification negotiations in the island of Cyprus, seemingly an anomaly in the larger scheme of EU-Turkey relations, which are most probably fail before the end of the year.

Turkey’s authoritarian turn should be thought as part of a larger global trend of rising right nationalism. Four permanent members of the UNSC are now run by populist leaders after the election of Donald Trump; similarly emerging powers such as Brazil, South Africa and India are experiencing wide spread right wing populism. Turkey’s democratic credentials have been severely damaged and security-oriented thinking has replaced its earlier commitment to democratic peace frameworks in the region. This obviously is a strong warning to many analysts to start thinking how security-oriented thinking could be moderated to cause the least damage in the region. It’s now time to make a decision between appeasement and isolation. Unfortunately there is no third choice.

*Dr. Ulas Doga Eralp is a scholar and practitioner of international conflict, human rights, development and democratization. He has a PhD from the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution from George Mason University, and currently works as a Professorial Lecturer at the International Peace and Conflict Resolution Program of the School of International Service (SIS) at American University in Washington, DC.

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

Sri Lanka: President Of World Young Buddhist Sangha Sabha Meets Sirisena

0
0

The President of the World Young Buddhist Sangha Sabha Ven. Shi Kuan female Buddhist Thero who is on a visit to Sri Lanka, recently met with President Maithripala Sirisena at the President’s Official Residence.

The Shi Kuan Thero presented a souvenir to the President at this occasion.

The General Secretary of the World Young Buddhist Sangha Sabha Ven. Mugunuwela Anuruddha Thero also was present at this occasion.

Spain: Two Jihadis Arrested Formed Part Of Islamic State

0
0

Over the past weekend two individuals of Moroccan nationality residing in Madrid and Roda de Ter (Barcelona) were arrested for allegedly belonging to part of the propaganda and recruitment arm of Daesh (Islamic State).

According to the Spanish government, the two arrested individuals formed part of the propaganda and recruitment arm of the terrorist organization Daesh, and carried out extensive activity by publishing, indoctrinating and praising its ideology in order to incite the perpetration of terrorist acts.

Additionally, the government said the arrested individuals were fully integrated into the Daesh structure by means of voluntary membership, which was made public on the social media networks, and acted as individual, decentralised and pre-activated terrorist cells for the perpetration of terrorist acts in Spain. This operational dynamic was managed and controlled by the terrorist organisation, albeit from a distance.

The content disclosed by the arrested individuals on social media sought two objectives:

  1. On the one hand, they were focused on attracting and recruiting young Muslims for the ultimate purpose of building an “army of followers” invisible to police control and fully integrated in the cultures and societies of the countries where they reside. In this regard, they were focused on total anonymity in order to go unnoticed and ensure the effectiveness of their actions.
  2. On the other hand, they carried out propaganda work to praise the military victories and achievements of DAESH, all of which was presented in an attractive visual format in order to attract the largest possible number of followers. Against this backdrop, and following instructions from DAESH on spreading terror in western societies, they published highly radical content of extreme brutality and published videos showing selected acts of violence to justify the cruelty meted out to the victims.

One constant in the activity by the arrested individuals was that of proclaiming their extreme aversion to other religions, ethnicities and groups that they consider as enemies of their religion. They were focused on building a self-sustaining network, transmitting slogans and ways to act against these groups and specifically proclaiming a great aversion to Shiite Muslims, which they referred to as “demons that have to be killed,” the Spanish government said.

The rapid and extreme radicalization of the two arrested individuals should be noted, the government said, which was aided and supported by their complete isolation stemming from the fact that their only contact with society was through virtual contacts of a radical Jihadi nature. Their radicalization had reached such an extreme level as to offer themselves to Daesh as “martyrs”, fully willing to act at any time, anywhere and in any situation.

Since 2015, when the Ministry of Home Affairs raised the Anti-terrorist Alert Level to 4 (Spanish acronym: NAA-4), the State law enforcement agencies of Spain have arrested a total of 163 Jihadis.

China Missteps Disrupt Coal Supplies – Analysis

0
0

By Michael Lelyveld

After a series of miscalculations, China’s government has called on mining companies to supply more coal and sell it for less as the threat of shortages takes precedence over pollution concerns.

For much of 2016, the government has been pressing coal companies to move faster on cutting their huge surplus of production capacity, which has been blamed for slumping prices over the past four years.

In February, the cabinet-level State Council ordered the industry to slash 500 million metric tons of annual production capacity in three to five years and consolidate an additional 500 million tons under more efficient operators.

China’s top planning agency warned for months that the mines were cutting too slowly to meet their reduction targets for 2016.

At mid-year, the industry had achieved only 29 percent of its goal. By the end of August, the closures had reached 60 percent of the target, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) said.

That was when officials started worrying about the opposite problem. China, which accounts for about half the world’s coal output, might have too little on hand rather than too much.

Inventories sank at China’s coal-fired power plants to less than 20 days’ supply before the winter heating season started and prices began to climb.

“Efforts initially aimed at reversing a four-year collapse and help miners repay debts have pushed coal higher and faster than anyone anticipated,” Bloomberg News reported after prices at China’s main coal port jumped to 672 yuan (U.S. $97.40) per ton on Oct. 31, the highest since 2012.

The increase represented a rise of over 50 percent since June, the South China Morning Post said. Spot market prices for steam coal hit 710 yuan (U.S. $102.95) per ton on Nov. 4, according a Reuters report.

An early cold snap in northern regions also contributed to the price spike for China’s dominant fuel.

Pledges sought

The NDRC responded by calling a series of emergency meetings with coal companies “to admonish producers for not regulating their pricing activities,” an official statement said.

The agency sought pledges that the mines would set lower prices for their 2017 supply contracts with major customers such as coal-fired power plants.

The government demanded a rate that would be about 7 percent below the Nov. 4 spot price, according to Reuters calculations.

The second-largest producer ChinaCoal (China National Coal Group Corp.) was the first to respond. The state-owned company initially agreed to a modest price cut of 10 yuan (U.S. $1.44) per ton.

The move was seen as part of a government campaign to persuade both producers and the market that the surge in coal prices had been unjustified.

An unidentified NDRC official told the official Xinhua news agency that high prices were “irrational and unsustainable,” citing a recovery of inventories at major ports and power plants.

“There is no basis for recent increases in coal prices in China to be sustained, and prices might even drop after sporadic factors fade away,” the official said.

The NDRC also authorized 900 mines to boost output by a collective 1 million tons per day to ease market pressures, but the effect of its serial interventions in the market remained unclear.

Bowing under pressure

Jiang Kejun, a senior researcher at the NDRC Energy Research Institute, said the agency’s suggestions “have no legal binding force, and some may still choose to lift output to cash in on the current market,” according to the Communist Party-affiliated Global Times.

By Nov. 8, ChinaCoal and industry leader Shenhua Group Corp. appear to have bowed under pressure as they signed supply contracts with power generators under the watchful eye of government officials.

The contracts with a base price of 535 yuan (U.S. $77.43) per ton were 24 percent below spot market rates, Bloomberg said.

While the price crisis has raised concerns about power company costs and losses, there have also been worries about a bubble and sudden collapse.

“ChinaCoal hopes to see more stabilized coal prices. Any big drops or big falls in prices will hurt both producers and utilities,” ChinaCoal spokesman Jiang Chun told Reuters.

While the government has acted to cool off the market, its policy decisions have been a major source of the volatility.

Faced with the threat of declining economic growth rates this year, the government boosted activity with a wave of stimulus projects, supported by a flood of easy bank loans.

Partial turnaround

The result has been a partial turnaround in power consumption and other coal-intensive industries like steel and cement, which had also been under pressure to cut overcapacity.

Steel production lines that had been slated for closure rushed to reopen and take advantage of rising prices to offset previous losses.

In the first 10 months of the year, crude steel production increased 0.7 percent to 673 million metric tons, compared with a 2.2-percent decrease, according to National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) data.

Cement production rose 2.6 percent, reversing a 4.6- percent decline in the year-earlier period, the NBS said.

Electricity consumption jumped 4.8 percent after edging up 0.8 percent in the 10-month period a year before, the NDRC said. But the five largest power producers posted their first combined loss on coal-fired power since 2012 in the first three quarters due to higher fuel costs, Xinhua reported.

The effect of the government’s emergency push for more coal is still uncertain.

October production rose 1.7 percent from September, but 10-month output remained 10.7 percent below year-earlier rates, the NBS said. China’s coal imports soared over 55 percent last month from a year before.

Last week in a reversal of previous cuts, the NDRC urged coal mines to increase their annual schedule of operations to 330 working days from the earlier limit of 276, Reuters reported.

The government may have succeeded in stabilizing the gross domestic product with third-quarter growth of 6.7 percent, but the consequences may have been price instability for coal and smothering clouds of smog.

Declines over two years

In its annual World Energy Outlook report released last week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) noted declines in China’s coal consumption for the past two years since a possible peak in 2013.

But the Paris-based IEA left open the possibility that China’s coal use could rise above the “historical peak” over the “medium term,” suggesting that the effects of economic stimulus spending, stronger electricity demand, and lower hydropower generation could last for years.

The sequence of events raises questions about the government’s interventions. Did it interfere with market forces too little or too much, or should it have intervened at all?

Arguably, loss-making coal mines would have felt market pressure to cut overcapacity anyway after four years of falling prices, but in China many have been kept afloat by state banks and ties to local interests.

Without some intervention, little progress on pollution would be possible under the partially marketized system.

Under a market system, higher coal prices would create pressure to use less.

Parallel dilemmas

Philip Andrews-Speed, a China energy expert at National University of Singapore, sees more than one clash between China’s policies and its goals.

“The Chinese government faces two parallel sets of dilemmas in the energy sector: central planning versus the energy sector and keeping energy cheap versus keeping it clean,” he said.

The government could have let coal prices rise, leaving power companies to pass on the increase to consumers under newly introduced power market reforms, Andrews-Speed said by email.

“But I guess that this was seen as too risky,” he said. “So instead, they will stagger through a series of reactive policy adjustments.”

Target-setting may be the source for much of the trouble.

The government’s insistence on GDP goals seems to have triggered a chain of reactions. Stimulus-driven pressure for production has been followed by overcompensation that disrupts demand and drives the market to extremes.

The policy conflicts have led inevitably to contradictions.

“ChinaCoal’s price cut is just to please China’s central planners and has nothing to do with economics,” said a blog at www.barrons.com.

The blog cited a Goldman Sachs commentary, noting that coal miners have historically supported prices at the end of the year to gain leverage in annual contract talks, but the government has now pushed them to lower their prices instead.

Trump Promises To Cancel Pacific Trade Deal On Day One

0
0

(RFE/RL) — U.S. President-elect Donald Trump vowed he will pull out of a controversial Pacific Rim trade deal on his first day in office.

The Republican president made the announcement in a video message released November 21 outlining priorities for his first 100 days following his January 20 swearing-in.

Outgoing President Barack Obama had pushed hard to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would lower tarrifs, remove trade barriers, and other measures across 12 countries.

But the pact became a hot-button issue on the campaign trail, with Trump criticizing his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, for backing it and then reversing herself.

Trump’s populist message resonated in many U.S. industrial regions, who have seen huge manufacturing job losses blamed on another major trade deal, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Anti-Joyner: Debunking The Misinterpretation Of JCPOA – OpEd

0
0

This article seeks to debunk the theoretically-indefensible interpretation of the Iran nuclear accord, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), by international law expert Daniel Joyner. Parroting the US Department of State, Joyner has repeatedly defended the US’s interpretation of the JCPOA as merely a political agreement that is “legally non-binding.” This has led Joyner to conclude that US under President-elect Donald Trump can defect from the JCPOA “without incurring the legal responsibility,” and even going as far as claiming that this would be the case if Trump decides to take “the most extreme legal move” by unilaterally “triggering the snapback procedure (on Iran sanctions — KA) stipulated in Resolution 2231.”

This is rather absurd and Joyner stands on untenable legal ground by making such dubious assumptions. In fact, Joyner amends himself and elsewhere in his writings reluctantly admits that “some of the JCPOA’s commitments have legal implications.” He then goes on to cite Iran’s “voluntary” adoption of the “voluntary” Additional Protocol under the terms of the JCPOA, without bothering with the legal effects of any US non-commitment, thus betraying his pro-US bias. Contrary to Joyner, US cannot trigger the snapback procedure (a) without first resorting to the dispute resolution mechanism of the Joint Commission set up by the JCPOA, and (b) would be hard pressed at the Security Council to justify its action short of proving an Iranian non-compliance. In other words, this legal venue is simply not available to US in the absence of a viable US complaint of Iranian non-compliance, in light of the reports of both the IAEA as well as UN Secretary General and UNSC Resolution 2231 Facilitator confirming Iran’s good-faith fulfillment of its JCPOA obligations. Clearly, the US and (its so many apologist pundits) want to have it both ways, that is, hold Iran legally accountable while releasing the US of any legal responsibility.

Unfortunately, such grave legal errors by Joyner are not limited to his interpretation of the legal consequences of any US departure from its obligations under the JCPOA and, in fact, are symptomatic of a deeper and more troubling misinterpretation rooted in a legally-untenable highly restrictive interpretation of the JCPOA that is not in sync with the evolution of international law.

Take for instance Joyner’s flawed interpretation of the UN Security Council’s endorsement of JCPOA as merely “hortatory endorsement.” This is nonsense. Resolution 2231 calls on the UN Member-States to carry out the provisions of the JCPOA and to respect its timetables, e.g., implementation date, conclusion date, and furthermore sets up a facilitator to issue a bi-annual report on the accord’s implementation; so far, the UN Facilitator (from Spain) has issued one report in July, 2016 and the next one is due in January, 2017; Italy is scheduled to shoulder the responsibility as the next UN Resolution 2231 Facilitator and may, in fact, adopt an “expansive interpretation” of the Resolution, per the author’s interviews with various UN officials.

Contrary to Joyner’s (mis) interpretation, Resolution 2231 is based on the implicit power of the Security Council, Article 25, which makes it of a mandatory nature, irrespective of the US officials’ self-serving interpretations. In other words, Resolution 2231 reflects a substantive decision within the meaning of Article 25 of the UN Charter, typically referenced to as “legally-binding decisions.” To elaborate, given that Article 25 is placed in the Charter’s sections dealing with the general powers and functions of the Security Council, it clearly indicates the applicability of Article 25 for any of the Security Council’s actions, and not just those taken pursuant to, e.g., Articles 39, 41, and 42. The legal dimension or effects of JCPOA must, therefore, be strictly derived from the UNSC Resolution 2231 pre-figured in the JCPOA. Although the JCPOA is conceived as a “voluntary agreement,” the Resolution 2231 does in fact change “that fact” contrary to Joyner’s misleading conclusion, particularly as it pertains to the relationship between the JCPOA obligations and the corresponding (NPT-based) rights, highlighted in the agreement’s so-called “sunset clause” on the removal of JCPOA-led restrictions on Iran’s civilian nuclear program at the end of the agreement’s life-span.

The Legal Effects of Resolution 2231 in Light of ICJ’s Jurisprudence

Indeed, Joyner’s untenable position — that there are virtually no legal consequences to any US defection from the JCPOA — flies in the face of international law and International Court of Justice’s jurisprudence. Assuming, hypothetically, that Iran and other parties to the JCPOA would seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the legal basis of both the JCPOA and Resolution 2231, there is a great likelihood that the ICJ justices would lean on the side of Iran’s interpretation, e.g., President Rouhani’s recent depiction of the JCPOA as a UN-endorsed “international agreement.”

In so doing, the ICJ’s justices would likely draw insights from their own past rulings and the standards that they have set in evaluating the various UN resolutions and international agreements, whether bilateral or multilateral. Joyner and other US pundits may want to impose their own ‘tyranny of interpretation,’ but the ICJ would probably wound up viewing the Resolution-based JCPOA as a hybrid of binding and non-binding obligations, i.e., containing both lex lata and lex ferenda. Again, to reiterate, a resolution is ‘binding’ when it is capable of creating obligations on its addressees, which happens to be the case with Resolution 2231 as stated above. In the event that the US has defected from the JCPOA, then the Court may find that the US has “controverted” the UN resolution, recalling the ICJ’s finding that Israel had “contravened” a number of UN resolutions, in the case on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2004), even though none of those resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII, unlike the Iran resolutions; only obligations, of course, can be contravened.

As is well-known, the legal effects operate on general international law and are based on customary law. In the Nicaragua v. US case (1982), the Court confirmed that the UN resolutions may have an impact on customary law. In another opinion, in the Nuclear Weapons case, the ICJ identified its standard of review of any resolution/agreement: “It is necessary to look at its content and the conditions of its adoption; it is also necessary to see when an opinion juris exists as to its normative character.” Similarly, in the Namibia case, the ICJ takes a holistic approach that mentions “the Charter provisions invoked” as one of the yardsticks for its evaluation. Various international law experts have recognized that the Security Council rarely makes explicit references to the legal basis for which it adopts a resolution. There is also a consensus among experts that the particular wordings of a resolution “may not be associated with probable legal effects.” Nor, contrary to Joyner, the absence of signature of parties on the JCPOA has any direct bearing on the legal status of the agreement, which is as a result of the UNSC 2231, rendered into a higher level legal meaning or connotation, i.e., the resolution in question has substantive effects, binding, authorizing and (dis) empowering.

In conclusion, again the Nicaragua case is highly instructive here. In Nicaragua case the court ultimately disregarded a US statement — that the declarations contained in a General Assembly resolution (2131) “was only a statement of political intentions and not a formulation of law” — because the similar principles in GA Resolution 2625 had met with no such US statement. This applies to UN Resolution 2231, mutatis mutandis, which was adopted with the unanimous consent of all permanent and non-permanent members and without any such similar qualifications.

This article appeared at Iran Review


Government Failure In Health Systems Is Widespread – OpEd

0
0

The Commonwealth Fund has published yet another survey comparing health care in the United States to health care in other countries. The title conveys its emphasis: US Adults Still Struggle With Access To And Affordability Of Health Care.

Really? As I’ve previously written, I agree utterly with the Commonwealth Fund scholars that health care in the United States is delivered inefficiently and over bureaucratized. Nevertheless, the suggestion that U.S. health care is the worst overall is not consistent with the data.

The latest survey compares 11 developed democracies. The relationship between government control of health care and various measures of health status is not at all clear, despite other countries having so-called “universal” health systems.

When it comes to actual access to care, 35 percent of low-income Americans (with household incomes below one-half the median income) had to wait six or more days to see a primary-care doctor or nurse the last time they needed care. However, so did 38 percent of low-income Germans and 32 percent of low-income Swedes.

Fifty percent of low-income Americans used the emergency department in the past two years, but so did 46 percent of low-income French and 44 percent of low-income Canadians.

One argument made against the fragmented U.S. health system is that it leads to un-coordinated care. Thirty-six percent of low-income Americans reported having “any coordination problem in the past two years,” but so did 48 percent of French and 37 percent of British.

When considering residents of all income levels, 35 percent of Americans used the emergency department in the past two years, versus 41 percent of Canadians. Six percent of Americans waited two months or longer for an appointment with a specialist, versus 13 percent of Canadians.

The idea behind Obamacare and the 2015 Medicare payment reform was that top-down government control would improve continuity and coordination of care. However, the country that performed the worst on two important measures – specialists having access to their patients’ medical histories or regular doctors not being informed about specialist care, and gaps in hospital discharge planning – was Norway, a relatively ethnically homogeneous country of five million people!

If the Norwegian government cannot effectively centralize care coordination and continuity, it is the height of arrogance to believe the United States government can.

This article appeared at The Beacon

Trump Provides Update On Presidential Transition – Transcript

0
0

US President-elect Donald J. Trump on Monday released a video providing the American people with an update on the Presidential Transition, and an outline of some of his policy plans for the first 100 days, and more specifically, his day one executive actions.

In the video address, President-elect Trump outlines steps he will take “to drain the swamp in Washington D.C. and put America First” by focusing on the issues of trade, energy, regulation, national security, immigration, and ethics reform. In his message, President-elect Trump says that the Administration he is putting together is going to Make America Great Again for everyone.

Full Video Transcript

Today, I would like to provide the American people with an update on the White House transition and our policy plans for the first 100 days.

Our transition team is working very smoothly, efficiently, and effectively. Truly great and talented men and women, patriots indeed are being brought in and many will soon be a part of our government, helping us to Make America Great Again.

My agenda will be based on a simple core principle: putting America First.

Whether it’s producing steel, building cars, or curing disease, I want the next generation of production and innovation to happen right here, in our great homeland: America – creating wealth and jobs for American workers.

As part of this plan, I’ve asked my transition team to develop a list of executive actions we can take on day one to restore our laws and bring back our jobs. It’s about time.

These include the following:

On trade, I am going to issue our notification of intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a potential disaster for our country. Instead, we will negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores.

On energy, I will cancel job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy – including shale energy and clean coal – creating many millions of high-paying jobs. That’s what we want, that’s what we’ve been waiting for.

On regulation, I will formulate a rule which says that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated, it’s so important.

On national security, I will ask the Department of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a comprehensive plan to protect America’s vital infrastructure from cyber-attacks, and all other form of attacks.

On immigration, I will direct the Department of Labor to investigate all abuses of visa programs that undercut the American worker.

On ethics reform, as part of our plan to Drain the Swamp, we will impose a five-year ban on executive officials becoming lobbyists after they leave the Administration – and a lifetime ban on executive officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

These are just a few of the steps we will take to reform Washington and rebuild our middle class.

I will provide more updates in the coming days, as we work together to Make America Great Again for everyone.

Robert Reich: California Versus Trumpland – OpEd

0
0

California is now the capital of liberal America. Along with its neighbors Oregon and Washington, it will be a nation within the nation starting in January when the federal government goes dark.

In sharp contrast to much of the rest of the nation, Californians preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by a 2-to-1 margin. They also voted to extend a state tax surcharge on the wealthy, and adopt local housing and transportation measures along with a slew of local tax increases and bond proposals.

In other words, California is the opposite of Trumpland.

The differences go even deeper. For years, conservatives have been saying that a healthy economy depends on low taxes, few regulations, and low wages.

Are conservatives right? At the one end of the scale are Kansas and Texas, with among the nation’s lowest taxes, least regulations, and lowest wages.

At the other end is California, with among the nation’s highest taxes, especially on the wealthy; toughest regulations, particularly when it comes to the environment; most ambitious healthcare system, that insures more than 12 million poor Californians, in partnership with Medicaid; and high wages.

So according to conservative doctrine, Kansas and Texas ought to be booming, and California ought to be in the pits.

Actually, it’s just the opposite.

For several years, Kansas’s rate of economic growth has been the worst in the nation. Last year its economy actually shrank.

Texas hasn’t been doing all that much better. Its rate of job growth has been below the national average. Retail sales are way down. The value of Texas exports has been dropping.

But what about so-called over-taxed, over-regulated, high-wage California?

California leads the nation in the rate of economic growth — more than twice the national average. If it were a separate nation it would now be the sixth largest economy in the world. Its population has surged to 39 million (up 5 percent since 2010).

California is home to the nation’s fastest-growing and most innovative industries – entertainment and high tech. It incubates more startups than anywhere else in the world.

In other words, conservatives have it exactly backwards.

Why are Kansas and Texas doing so badly, and California so well?

For one thing, taxes enable states to invest their people. The University of California is the best system of public higher education in America. Add in the state’s network of community colleges, state colleges, research institutions, and you have an unparalleled source of research, and powerful engine of upward mobility.

Kansas and Texas haven’t been investing nearly to the same extent.

California also provides services to a diverse population, including a large percentage of immigrants. Donald Trump to the contrary, such diversity is a huge plus. Both Hollywood and Silicon Valley have thrived on the ideas and energies of new immigrants.

Meanwhile, California’s regulations protect the public health and the state’s natural beauty, which also draws people to the state – including talented people who could settle anywhere.

Wages are high in California because the economy is growing so fast employers have to pay more for workers. That’s not a bad thing. After all, the goal isn’t just growth. It’s a high standard of living.

In fairness, Texas’s problems are also linked to the oil bust. But that’s really no excuse because Texas has failed to diversify its economy. Here again, it hasn’t made adequate investments.

California is far from perfect. A housing shortage has driven rents and home prices into the stratosphere. Roads are clogged. Its public schools used to be the best in the nation but are now among the worst – largely because of a proposition approved by voters in 1978 that’s strangled local school financing. Much more needs to be done.

But overall, the contrast is clear. Economic success depends on tax revenues that go into public investments, and regulations that protect the environment and public health. And true economic success results in high wages.

I’m not sure how Trumpland and California will coexist in coming years. I’m already hearing murmurs of secession by Golden Staters, and of federal intrusions by the incipient Trump administration.

But so far, California gives lie to the conservative dictum that low taxes, few regulations, and low wages are the keys economic success. Trumpland should take note.

Breaking Up The Euro Would Empower The Nationalists – Analysis

0
0

By Miguel Otero-Iglesias*

There is a strong consensus among Anglo-American economists that the Euro was, and remains, a bad idea. It has proven to be a failure, they say, and should be dismantled. Criticism is pervasive across the spectrum, from Martin Feldstein on the right, Mevyn King in the center and Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz on the left.

It is likely that this perception will only intensivy after Donald Trump surprise win last week. Many believe the European integration project is extremely fragile and if Marine Le Pen wins the presidential elections in France next year it is all over.

Yet, these scholars are misreading the public mood across the Continent. Despite recent tensions, the single currency has created deep ties that go beyond economic cooperation and are integral to European identity.

Most euro experts on the Continent will agree that the eurozone needs to develop further its joint fiscal capacity in order to survive the next crisis. European think tanks have produced reports advocating the introduction of Eurobonds, a common budget and a ministry of finance for the eurozone with appropriate democratic oversight. In these issues, consensus is transatlantic.

Where there is profound disagreement is in assessing the feasibility of further integration. Anglo-American scholars and pundits believe that the possibilities of Germany accepting a transfer union and France relinquishing its fiscal sovereignty are extremely low. Hence, in their view, it is time to accept that the euro experiment has failed and start divorce procedures as soon as possible.

Their European counterparts disagree, and for good reasons.

From outside the eurozone, it is easy to blame high unemployment in Italy, Greece and Spain on the single currency “straightjacket.” But people in these countries see it differently. They know that the problems they face have mostly domestic roots. Leaving the euro, they feel, would only make matters worse.

More than two thirds of eurozone citizens –even in crisis countries like Greece and Spain– want to keep the single currency. According to Eurobarometer, in autumn 2005 only 46 percent of Greeks supported the euro. Ten years later, in late 2015 this number climbed to 70 percent, despite the pain and humiliation of two near Grexits in 2012 and 2015.

In “The Euro: How a common currency threatens the future of Europe,” Joseph Stiglitz argues that Greece could leave the eurozone with only minor disruptions, by adopting new “e-greekeuros” and implementing capital controls. An electronic currency would make it impossible for Greeks to smuggle their savings overseas or dodge taxes, and this would bring monetary sovereignty back to the Greek state, Stiglitz argues.

What is worrying about this proposal is that Stiglitz has failed to specify whether the decision would follow a democratic process or whether an overhaul of this nature –essentially a mega corralito– would be forcefed. Given the widespread distrust of national elites that exists in all Mediterreanen countries, a decision like this enforced from above would most likely trigger social unrest. Current capital controls have worked because Greece has remained inside the Eurozone, if exit were in sight the situation would be very different.

Portugal, Spain, Greece, and Italy have fought hard to be in the rich and democratic eurozone club. They will not give it up so easily. Yes, the euro has structural flaws that need fixing but, even so, the currency has been a pillar of stability throughout the crisis. The same can not be said of national institutions.

We must not forget that before the euro was introduced, most people in these southern European countries would keep at least 30 percent of their assets in hard currency, sometimes overseas. The fear of devaluations and consequent loss of purchasing power was constant.

Few want to go back there. This is why Syriza and Podemos –and even Catalonia’s proud separatists– have held back from calling to ditch the euro. While Beppe Grillo has more openly questioned Eurozone membership, few believe he is really serious about it.

It is important to understand the sociology of the eurozone countries before making recommendations.  The idea of a euro of the north and one of the south, as suggested by the winners of the Lord Wolfson Prize, is not feasible –because France is in the middle, and it will never enter into a union with its more-productive neighbors to the north, or dare to separate itself from Germany to lead the less-productive southerners.

Neither will Germany leave the euro, as suggested by Stiglitz and King. No German chancellor wants to go down in history as the one who killed the European project. Because, as Merkel made clear during the recent crisis: if the euro fails, Europe fails. This is precisely why Alternative für Deutschland (Afd) has morphed from an anti-euro into an anti-immigration party.

There are very few votes to win by bashing the euro in Germany –and in France, as Marine Le Pen has also realised. She advocates now a concerted dismantling of the euro (an unrealistic endevour), excluding thus any unilateral approach without a referendum on the issue.

Currencies, like languages, create a sense of community. Even traumatic monetary phenomena, like the recent eurozone crisis, create bonds.

A far larger number of people in the eurozone say they feel European than do those in European countries outside the single currency. Contrary to popular opinion, recent research shows that a majority thinks there should be more cross-border solidarity within the eurozone. This holds even true for citizens of a net contributor like Germany.

Stiglitz and like-minded scholars in America argue that the EU would not be worse off for abandoning the euro, citing the example of the United States, Mexico and Canada, who each have their own currency and get along just fine.

But again, they have misread the sociology of Europe. Since the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, there is a strong historical commitment to avoid exchange rate instability and hence deepen monetary cooperation between European countries –this is the bedrock of the European project.

There are no tensions between the United States, Canada and Mexico because the United States is by far the strongest power of the three, and thus trade is mostly done in US dollars.

In Europe, however, the balance of power is more distributed and since nobody wants to use the dollar in intra-European trade, a split up of the eurozone would mean going back to the 1980s “tyranny” of the German mark as the anchor currency. This would in turn revive the ghost of the ‘German Problem’. That, not the euro, would be a threat for Europe.

The euro did not create the national tensions we see in Europe today. They were always there. The single currency simply brought them to the fore because it increased and consequently exposed the interdependencies of the Old Continent.

Take away the euro, and the bonds tying Europeans together will dwindle while nationalism will grow stronger.

About the author:
*Miguel Otero-Iglesias
is Senior Analyst, Elcano Royal Institute | @miotei

Source:
This article was published at Elcano Royal Institute. A shorter version of this article was published on 17/11/2016 in Politico Europe.

Canal Of Pangalanes: Co-Development Model Of An Environmentally-Responsible Project – OpEd

0
0

Said Zarrou, the Moroccan chairman of the board of Marshica Med Ltd, signed Monday a memorandum of understanding with the Malagasy party on the project of upgrading and preserving the Canal of Pangalanes.

In a statement to the Moroccan and Malagasy press, Mr. Zarou underlined that Morocco, thanks to the leadership of HM King Mohammed VI, has developed over the past years an expertise in the fields of developing large-scale environment-friendly territorial projects.

The Canal of Pangalanes, whose upgrading and preservation will be ensured under a partnership between the two countries, is a 700- km waterway which is four times longer than the Suez Canal and eight times longer than the Panama Canal, he noted.

The Canal des Pangalanes consists of a series of natural rivers, waterways and man-made lakes and runs down the east coast of Madagascar from Mahavelona to Farafangana.

Mr. Zarou stated that this project concerns the setting up of tools for safeguarding ecosystems of sites adjacent to the said canal, mainly in relations with the ecological, agricultural, industrial, mining, port, urban, cultural and tourist aspects.

The chairman of Marshica MED board also highlighted the successful experience of his body, noting that the Lagoon of Marshica was a laboratory to develop the necessary technical and institutional tools to manage this site on a long term basis.

He added that this expertise, which covers the fields of urban management, transportation, liquid purification and water, is currently shared with the Ivorian friends as part of the Cocody Bay project.

After having experienced increased pollution Canal of Pangalanes is now suffering from serious environmental degradation. The primary goal of the project is to provide a sustainable solution to the problem of the canal pollution and its watershed. The site will be depolluted, reforested and redeveloped into a green corridor.

This major project will also provide for the development of an ambitious program of sports, cultural activities, entertainment and commercial facilities. This significant environmental project will ensure and maintain sustainably of its position as a leading regional tourist destination.

Marchica Med, a Moroccan State-owned company, is a subsidiary of the Agence pour l’Aménagement du Site de la Lagune de Marchica. Established in 2008, Marchica Med’s mission was to depollute the Marchica lagoon in Nador (Northern Morocco) and transforming the town along with its metropolitan area into a centre of competence, competitiveness and sustainable development.

US Voting Results Show Serious Split In American Society – Analysis

0
0

An unexpected victory of Donald Trump who is to become the 45th president of the United States is actively discussed by international experts analysing the county’s possible changes in foreign policy.

According to many analysts, the election results demonstrate deep political crisis, and show a serious rift in American society, the great part of which long for drastic change in the government. For example, Mark Chou from Australian Catholic University stressed that the atmosphere in many parts of the US is now one of division.

“America is a country divided and more than 50% of voters think it’s only set to become more divided under Donald Trump’s watch. President Trump faces an uphill battle to appease his die-hard supporters but to unite or not to further alienate his many critics,” he told PenzaNews.

Answering the question about how Donald Trump, who was mocked by the Media and took a stand against the US establishment and the powers within his own party, could become the president, the analyst said this was precisely what helped him win.

“There’s a populist wave rising in many parts of the world. We’ve seen this for some time in Europe, and now in places like Britain and the Philippines too. Even in my own country, Australia, there’s been a re-emergence of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party on the political scene. These trends tell us that many citizens feel a deep sense of anxiety and fear; they sense crises – economic and political – and they want a savior to make everything stop. The establishment is seen as the source of all evil and all their lived problems. Trump’s rhetoric to ‘drain the swamp’ and ‘take back the White House’ proved extremely powerful for the many who feel they are no longer being represented by their political representatives. Nothing short of a fundamental change will do,” Mark Chou explained.

It is impossible to make any certain assumptions about new policies of the country because the president is ready to reconsider some of his promises made during the election campaign: for example, his position on issues like Obamacare change, he said.

“The only predictable thing about Trump is that he’s been unpredictable. […] Few world leaders are quite like this – Kim Jong Un, for instance. Broadly speaking, a Trump White House will cut taxes, withdraw from as many international agreements perceived not to be in the US’ interests as possible. Minorities within the US and climate change commitments will probably also suffer,” the expert said.

Meanwhile, for those who are unhappy with the election results, it’s important to oppose Trump’s policies and not the electoral process and procedures that have brought him to office, he believes.

“There’s a real risk that more damage is being done to democracy through the protests which reject that he is ‘my president.’ There’s a lot that many can do, in their communities, with their elected representatives, to resist what’s happening,” Mark Chou added.

In turn, Henry Brands, a historian at the University of Texas at Austin, member of the Society of American Historians and the Philosophical Society of Texas, also noted that the election results were quite a surprise.

“Many people are shocked. The big question now is whether Trump meant everything he said during his campaign. We will have to wait and see,” the expert said.

Analyzing potential causes that contributed to the Republican’s victory, he suggested that US citizens are tired of the political situation in the country and eager for change.

“Very many Americans are so disgusted with government and elites that they just want to blow everything up. Trump is their bomb,” Henry Brands explained.

According to him, it is impossible to predict President Trump’s policies at the moment.

“Will Trump govern as a revolutionary, or will he yield to the status quo? Time will tell. But till then we’d just be guessing,” the historian said.

Meanwhile, Jennifer Gordon, Professor at Fordham Law School in New York and an expert on immigration policy, reminded that during his presidential campaign, Donald Trump made a series of promises about what his immigration policies would be.

“The most prominent included building a wall between the US and Mexico, for which he would make Mexico pay; creating a ‘deportation force’ and removing all 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States; and forbidding Muslims to immigrate to the United States,” the analyst said.

However, now we know little about what Trump will actually do, she added.

“He still insists he will build the wall, but the estimated cost would be approximately 25 billion dollars, and Congress is unlikely to approve that money. For its part, Mexico is a sovereign nation and is under no obligation to fund Trump’s projects. The leading Republican in the House of Representatives has rejected the idea of a ‘deportation force,’ which would cost many billions of dollars. Trump says that he will focus first on deporting what he claims are 2–3 million ‘illegal criminal aliens.’ In fact the number of undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes is probably closer to 800,000. It is unclear how he would fund even that number of deportations in a short period of time,” Jennifer Gordon said.

According to her, Donald Trump now says that he would not bar Muslim immigration but would subject would-be immigrants from countries with ‘high levels of radical Islamic extremism’ to ‘extreme vetting.’

Once Donald Trump appoints his cabinet, we will have a better sense of how he is likely to proceed, the expert believes.

“A number of the people who Trump is considering for key positions, such as Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security, have supported very anti-immigrant policies in the past,” she said and added that there is tremendous anxiety in immigrant communities at the moment.

In turn, Daniel Chirot, the author of Modern Tyrants, Professor of Russian and Eurasian Studies at Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, stressed that the US is badly split now.

“Those more tolerant of minorities and culturally more open were Democrats, and those who were more focused on fears that minorities might take over and less open to the cultural changes that have taken place in the past few decades were Republicans. This promises to continue and lead to permanent conflict between the two sides,” the expert explained.

According to him, the fearful, less urban, more religious, white part of the country still includes about half the population. They voted for Trump, and were not well enough surveyed, the expert said.

“Too many experts did not see that it is more than the white working class that was against Clinton, but a lot of others who dislike change and feel insecure. In a real sense that insecurity is justified as a lot who feel that way are threatened by globalization, but also by technological advances that leave less well educated people stranded,” Daniel Chirot said.

Analyzing potential changes in the foreign policy of the country under its new leader, the expert suggested Washington’s possible weakening.

“The US will be a less reliable international player, there will be less international trade, and in the long run, this leads to a less stable and poorer world. […]One of the bad long term effects will be that bright young people, who already were not joining government service in large enough numbers, will withdraw even more. No modern country can run well without a capable, smart civil service,” he said.

Meanwhile, Tinashe Chuchu from School of Economic and Business Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, suggested that the polls results could mean that some respondents blatantly lied to pollsters.

“How can one explain a democrat loss in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania? The last republican to win Wisconsin was Ronald Reagan in 1984 – in a year he won 49 states. I think the atmosphere in the US can be described by a sense of shock. A democrat win was expected however that ended up not being the case. Unfortunately some cities are currently experiencing protests from Americans that were not happy with the outcome of the elections,” the analyst said.

Donald Trump had a message that resonated with the rust belt: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa and Michigan, he suggested.

“The people in this region of the US felt neglected by the establishment. They lost their manufacturing jobs and blamed the government. He promised to bring back their jobs. This group of voters ended up deciding the election,” Tinashe Chuchu said and added that these four states were states that Democrat Barack Obama carried twice.

In his opinion, the US should expect the new president to honour his promises.

“Donald Trump promised a lot and he will be expected to deliver. He will have control of the White house and both Houses of Congress; on top of that he will be able to appoint a conservative Supreme Court Judge who would make decisions favourable to a republican controlled Washington. The whole world should understand that President-Elect Trump was elected by the American people and their needs come first. The whole world will have to wait and see but they can expect the US to be more conservative in terms of trade deals and immigration policy,” the expert said.

“The world is changing so should its politics. Brexit was a precursor of the Trump victory. It shows that there is a lot of anger from the working class that the establishment needs to address it,” Tinashe Chuchu concluded.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/63151-2016

Obama And Putin Briefly Discuss Syria And Ukraine At APEC Summit – OpEd

0
0

US President Barack Obama, who is enjoying his last days at White House as president, and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin met in Lima, Peru’s capital for around four minutes on November 20 at the APEC summit in what is likely to be their last in-person meeting before Obama leaves office. The two leaders met at the start of the summit meeting and reportedly briefly discussed about Syria and Ukraine. They exchanged pleasantries and remained standing as they spoke.

President Obama later said at a news conference he told Putin the USA is deeply concerned about bloodshed and chaos in Syria “sown by constant bombing attacks” by the Syrian and Russian militaries, and that a ceasefire and political transition were needed. “As usual I was candid and courteous but very clear about the strong differences we have on policy,” Obama said.

President Obama said he didn’t discuss any controversial issues like Crimea or cyber attacks or alleged Russian meddling in the US election in the meeting with Vladimir Putin in Lima, an encounter that’s likely the last between two leaders divided by Ukraine, Syria, human rights and cyber warfare. “As usual, it was a candid and courteous meeting but it was very clear about the strong differences we had on policy,” Obama said in a news conference after a summit of Asia-Pacific leaders in Peru. “The issue of the elections did not come up because that’s behind us and I was focused in this brief discussion on moving forward.”

Later at a separate news conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin said US President-elect Donald Trump confirmed to him he was willing to mend ties; he also said he would welcome President Obama in Russia. “The President-elect confirmed he is willing to normalize Russian-American relations. I told him the same. We did not discuss where and when we would meet” Putin also told a news conference in Lima after the APEC summit that Russia is ready to freeze oil output at current levels. Putin said he thanked Obama during Sunday’s meeting in Lima “for the years of joint work”. “I told him that we would be happy to see him (Obama) in Russia anytime if he wants, can and has desire”, Putin said.

It was the first meeting between the two leaders since Donald Trump’s win in the Nov. 8 presidential election. During the campaign, Democrats accused Russia of interfering in a way that helped Trump, the Republican nominee. U.S. intelligence officials have tied the Russian government to the hacking and subsequent leaking of Democrats’ e-mails that harmed Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

The recent US elections, Trump’s victory and hacking weren’t discussed during the “very brief” meeting, Peskov said via text message.

The world’s top leaders Obama and Putin have had a challenging relationship. The US president had warned Putin last week about consequences for cyber attacks attributed to Moscow that were seen as trying to influence the US election. Obama said he also urged President Putin to help implement the Minsk peace agreement by working with France, Germany, Ukraine and the United States to halt the conflict in Donbass region of Ukraine.

Syria is a major bottle neck between two counties, Obama said he conveyed US concerns about the bombing of civilians in Aleppo by the Syrian government and Russian forces, and he urged Putin to implement a ceasefire in eastern Ukraine, where the Russian military is involved in the country’s civil war — “to see if we can get that done before my term is up,” Obama said.

Notwithstanding the reports of their closeness, sources say that the Trump-Putin bond that may or may not be real. Obama has opposed Putin over Russia’s annexation of Crimea, its backing of the Syrian government and the cyber attacks that weighed on the U.S. electoral process. During a press conference in Berlin on Nov. 17, Obama said Trump should continue to support U.S. policy in these areas. “My hope is that the president-elect coming in takes a similarly constructive approach, finding areas where we can cooperate with Russia where our values and interests align, but that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia where they are deviating from our values and international norms,” he said.

Seeking to prolong terror war on Islam and Muslims, Obama has called on his successor Trump to “stand up” to Putin when Russia pursues policies that are at odds with American interests. Trump displayed an affinity for Russia and Putin during his campaign, and the Russian leader has said Trump’s election is an opportunity to restore the relationship between the two world powers.

Putin’s foreign policy aide, Yuri Ushakov, blasted the Obama administration as recently as Nov. 17. “The departing team has recently been doing everything it can to push our relations into a such dead-end that will be quite difficult for the new team, if it wants, to pull them out of it,” Ushakov said.

The brief encounter with the Russian president, conducted with the help of a translator, came as Asia-Pacific leaders gathered for a Sunday morning session. There are no plans for a second meeting, said Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. Obama, who leaves office in two months, could be seen uttering the word, “OK,” and Putin was observed reacting with facial expressions, as journalists were permitted into the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders’ summit for a few minutes to take photographs. Obama also made his way around the room to greet other leaders.

A summary of the “brief and informal” discussion, provided by the White House, said Obama restated USA and allies’ commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, urged Putin to uphold Russia’s commitments under the Minsk agreements, and said US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov must keep working with the international community to reduce violence and alleviate Syrians’ suffering. A bombing campaign by Syria’s government has intensified in recent days. The USA has criticized Russia for backing the Syrian regime in a civil war that has killed more than 300,000 people.

APEC

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation or APEC in short is a forum for 21 Pacific Rim member economies that promotes free trade throughout the Pacific region. It was established in 1989 in response to the growing interdependence of Asia-Pacific economies and the advent of regional trade blocs in other parts of the world; to defuse fears that highly industrialized Japan would come to dominate economic activity in the Asia-Pacific region; and to establish new markets for agricultural products and raw materials beyond Europe.

The first APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting occurred in 1993 when US President Bill Clinton, after discussions with Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating, invited the heads of government from member economies to a summit on Blake Island. He believed it would help bring the stalled Uruguay Round of trade talks back on track. At the meeting, some leaders called for continued reduction of barriers to trade and investment, envisioning a community in the Asia-Pacific region that might promote prosperity through cooperation. The APEC Secretariat, based in Singapore, was established to coordinate the activities of the organization.

In January 1989, Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke called for more effective economic cooperation across the Pacific Rim region. This led to the first meeting of APEC in the Australian capital of Canberra in November, chaired by Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Gareth Evans. Attended by ministers from twelve countries, the meeting concluded with commitments for future annual meetings in Singapore and Korea.

An annual APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting is attended by the heads of government of all APEC members except Taiwan (which is represented by a ministerial-level official under the name Chinese Taipei as economic leader. The location of the meeting rotates annually among the member economies, and a famous tradition, followed for most, but not all, summits, involves the attending leaders dressing in a national costume of the host country.

Countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) opposed the initial proposal, instead proposing the East Asia Economic Caucus which would exclude non-Asian countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This plan was opposed because of the member countries in the America Region, and strongly criticized by Japan and the United States.

USA and Russia for years have conducted themselves as opposite poles fighting for military supremacy and global influence one has to see if Presidents Putin and Tramp change the rule of game in order to make the world safe and secure. The nature of simultaneously cooperative and confrontational relationship between these top world powers does confuse the world.


Human Rights Watch And FIFA Test Middle East Fallout Of Trump’s Election – Analysis

0
0

Human Rights Watch (HRW), in an initial probing of the impact of the rise of US President-elect Donald J. Trump, has asked the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights to include world soccer body FIFA in a registry of enterprises that do business with Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

The request is based on the fact that the Israel Football Association (IFA) organizes matches in Israeli settlements and allows six settlement teams to play in Israeli Leagues. The Palestine Football Association (PFA) backed by HRW has denounced the Israeli policy as a violation of FIFA policy that stipulates that teams can only play on the territory of another FIFA member with that member’s permission.

Like much of the international community, the PFA and HRW view Israeli settlements as illegal. In response, the IFA has argued that the settlements are disputed territory whose status has yet to be resolved in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

Tokyo Sexwale, the head of a FIFA committee established to deal with Israeli-Palestinian soccer issues, is scheduled to visit Israel this week. Mr. Sexwale’s visit and the HRW request take on added significance in the wake of the rise of Mr. Trump.

Trump insiders have suggested that the president-elect would reverse long-standing US policy that has viewed the West Bank conquered by Israel during the 1967 Middle East war as occupied territory and Israeli settlements as illegal and has argued that they constitute an obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Israeli anticipation of a US policy that is far more empathetic to hard-line Israeli policy has already prompted an Israeli government committee to approve a draft bill that would legalize Jewish settlement outposts built on private Palestinian land. The bill is slated to go to the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, for the first of three separate readings and possible approval by the Supreme Court.

The bill suggests that Mr. Sexwale will find little traction in this week’s talks with Israeli Culture and Sports Minister Miri Regev. FIFA’s governing council is scheduled to decide the fate of the settlement clubs in early January. Mr. Sexwale has said that any such decision may need to be ratified by the FIFA Congress expected to be held in Bahrain in May.

The Israeli draft bill also suggests that Israel will be far less receptive to demands that it adhere to international law governing the status of occupied territory. Israeli perceptions are reinforced by reports that Mr. Trump intends to appoint Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee as his ambassador to Israel.

Mr. Huckabee, a staunch supporter of Israeli settlements and advocate of moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a position espoused by Mr. Trump during his election campaign, denied that the president-elect had discussed his appointment during a meeting last week.

The HRW request builds not only on international law regarding the status of the West Bank as occupied territory but also on a decision by a Swiss government-sponsored unit of the Paris-based Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to classify FIFA as a multi-national bound by the group’s guidelines rather than a non-governmental organization.

The request is also rooted in a report commissioned by FIFA in which John Ruggie, a Harvard professor and former UN Secretary-General special representative for business and human rights, that urges the soccer body to subscribe to the UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

With a US administration likely to be far more empathetic to Israeli policy than past US governments toward the West Bank, the HRW request fits Palestinian strategy that has in recent years increasingly focused on confronting Israel in international organizations and the possibility of challenging Israeli occupation in the International Criminal Court (ICC).

That strategy has so far produced mixed results. Mr. Sexwale’s committee was created last year after the PFA failed to garner sufficient votes to force FIFA to suspend Israel’s membership.

Mr. Trump’s election has moreover raised the prospect of a host of illiberal leaders potentially refusing to recognize international law. China refused to recognize an ICC ruling on the South China Sea even before Mr. Trump’s rise, Russia has since withdrawn from the ICC, and the Philippines has suggested that it may follow suit.

Mr. Trump’s rise is likely to give reinforced impetus to the PFA’s plans to go to the world’s top court for sports in a bid to force its Israeli counterpart to view Israeli settlements on the West Bank as occupied territory rather than an extension of the Jewish state. The move would constitute a first testing of Palestine’s ability to fight its battle with Israel in international courts.

The dynamics of the HRW request and the Palestinians’ strategy take on greater significance in the Trump era in which the United States itself may demonstrate greater disregard for international organizations and law.

A more pro-Israeli US policy could moreover complicate a willingness by Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, to openly engage with Israel based on a common interest oppose expanding Iranian influence in the Middle East and North Africa despite the Jewish state’s de facto rejection of Palestinian rights.

A IFA delegation will be attending the FIFA Congress in Bahrain, where the fate of Israeli settlement teams could ultimately be sealed. The presence of an Israeli delegation in a Gulf capital despite a Gulf ban on Israeli passport holders would follow the opening of an Israeli diplomatic mission in the United Arab Emirates accredited to the Abu Dhabi-based International Renewable Energy Agency rather than the UAE government.

The rise of Mr. Trump potentially throws a monkey wrench into Middle Eastern politics, the fallout of which is uncertain. The rise of a more pro-Israeli US administration that projects Islamophobia and questions long-standing US policies and partnerships could complicate the Gulf’s more open alignment with Israel. Palestinian efforts backed by HRW to enforce international law on the soccer pitch may well offer an early indication of how the new winds blowing from Washington will play out in the Middle East and North Africa.

After Georgia’s Runoff Elections, Bidzina Ivanishvili’s Dream Is Georgia’s Total Reality – OpEd

0
0

By Luis Navarro*

(FPRI) — In the film, “The Candidate,” after Robert Redford’s character wins a seat in the United States Senate, he asks his campaign manager in a private moment, “What do we do now?” Bidzina Ivanishvili’s party, the Georgian Dream (GD), is presumably asking the same question. Four years after achieving a historic and peaceful transfer of power, the GD is now the dominant political force in the nation, just as President Misha Saakashvili’s United National Movement was from 2008 to 2012.

After Georgia’s October 30 runoff parliamentary elections, GD-endorsed candidates won 49 out of 50 second round elections for single mandate parliamentary seats, securing at least two seats more than necessary to achieve the three fourths membership required for a parliamentary majority. The GD now also holds governing majorities in the country’s 73 municipalities and in the autonomous region of Adjara. The party succeeded in leveraging their support from among just under 49% of voters into control of 116 parliamentary seats, plus one from an endorsed independent candidate, former Foreign Minister Salome Zurabishvili. GD “new face” Irakli Kobakhidze will be the next Chairman of Parliament. Despite this tremendous success, Ivanishvili apparently was just as adamant about allegations of first round voter fraud as UNM, saying this was the reason why so many runoff elections had to be conducted.

GD party leaders have said they will move forward with their plans to amend the constitution, starting with a ban on same sex marriage. However, Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili assures everyone that the amendment is not meant to discriminate against anyone, nor is it likely to increase violence against the LGBT community. Ivanishvili’s favored opposition party, the Patriots Alliance of Georgia, also supports the ban. The party crossed the electoral threshold and will have a six-member faction as well as one of the six Vice-Speakers, which will be held by party leader Irma Inashvili. The Industrialists Party, an anti-European Union, anti-NATO and former Georgian Dream coalition party; it won a single mandate seat and supports the ban as well. The amendment is the culmination of an almost yearlong campaign first initiated by the Georgian Dream in Parliament. Then an anti-gay marriage ballot referendum campaign ﷟was led by a former GD parliamentary leader. The effort was only stopped by President Giorgi Margvelashvili’s refusal to allow the referendum to be placed on the ballot.

The main opposition party, UNM, will have just 27 seats, proportional to their overall national support in the first round. PM Kvirikashvili has said that rather than use its power unilaterally, the GD will seek consensus on constitutional amendments. But the GD has asserted in the past that Georgian civil society’s critiques of the government are aligned with UNM, and therefore are questionable. GD has also stated its preferences for right wing populist, even pro-Russian parties,. Thus, the question is with whom will they seek consensus and what is their desired outcome? Were the pre-election alarms about the largest opposition party, UNM, a substitute for lacking an agenda for the future, or were they a reflection of the party’s future approach to governance now that they have almost no serious obstacle to the imposition of their political will?

UNM leaders were assaulted five months before the election and no arrests occurred. Three weeks before the election, the government alleged (without evidence) for the second consecutive election that UNM was conspiring to commit acts of violence to disrupt the process. Three days before the first round of elections, UNM member of parliament Givi Targamadze’s car was blown up, and the Prime Minister immediately blamed the crime on UNM again without evidence; the Ministry of Internal Affairs claimed to have solved the Targamadze case two days before the election, without making any evidence public so far.

The OSCE and other election observers have reported that the elections were conducted in a “calm” environment, but marred by isolated incidents of violence. The government was claiming that the elections were taking place under the threat of violence from the opposition and that the opposition would also launch post-election revolutionary actions upon their defeat. The Georgian parliamentary election was undoubtedly competitive as early polling and negotiations over reforming the electoral laws indicated, and the parallel vote tabulation conducted by the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED) demonstrates that the electoral outcome reflected the will of the people who voted . But calling this election environment “calm” is noteworthy in light of the government’s own narrative and how they view the nation’s most popular opposition party.

To be sure, the United National Movement’s actions through the first round of elections provided plenty of support for the Georgian Dream’s narrative. His ravings (uncovered via undisclosed surveillance) last year over how to violently resist the possible seizure of Rustavi-2 were certain to be capitalized upon by the government. Saakashvili’s further entreaties to boycott the second round of elections and the withdrawal of his wife’s single mandate candidacy in the Samegrelo region have finally called into question his future influence in UNM party affairs. UNM’s residual arrogance as the initiators of the Rose Revolution and its subsequent abuse of power in governance continues to define its public brand.

This perception of UNM also further fuels the West’s disinterest in the their grievances, in stark contrast to Western interest when parties opposed to the UNM government largely chose to forgo their electoral mandates in 2008, or when they took to the streets in an effort to overthrow the UNM government in 2009. Clearly, times change, and the West’s larger regional concerns appear to make them once again just as ready to indulge the excesses of the Georgian Dream now as they were willing to do with Saakashvili prior to the Obama Administration reset with Russia in 2009.

The Georgian Dream will face a number of temptations as it considers how to use its constitutional majority, and the question remains of how the shadow governance by Ivanishvili will affect it. Will they seek to further consolidate their power by having the President chosen by Parliament rather than the public and settle for self-interest disguised as electoral reform? Will they advocate for and possibly engineer through the courts a change in ownership of the only opposition national broadcaster, or further the perceptions of unequally applying[1] its law enforcement prerogative based on political considerations? Will their definition of multi-party democracy rely on the Alliance as their attack dog (the party’s central message is essentially, “Lock them up”) against UNM in parliamentary dealings, or try to create new opposition parties in order to create the façade of political pluralism?

The Georgian Dream has achieved tremendous political success in a very short period of time. It now has the power to remake the Constitution and therefore the nation in its own image without any formal obstacles. The much-anticipated EU visa liberalization should provide a tangible benefit to the public and demonstrate the potential reward for continued faith in pursuing formal Western membership, however Western incentives may be diminishing due to their own changing domestic politics.

The ending of “The Candidate” is ambiguous, but it is clear that Robert Redford’s character is entertaining a moment of self-doubt regarding the burden he has chosen to undertake on behalf of his supporters and power for himself. How the Georgian Dream’s governing dominance chooses to engage with their pro-West but not pro-GD critics will determine the reality of their democracy in the future. Hopefully they will live up to the spirit of the French National Convention of 1793, “They must consider that great responsibility follows inseparably from great power” and not acquiesce to the populist impulse which consumed and rejected that premise.

About the author:
* Luis Navarro
served as Senior Resident Director for the National Democratic Institute of International Affairs in Georgia (2009-2014) and as both presidential campaign manager and the last chief of staff for then-United States Senator Joe Biden (2007-2009).

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Note:
[1] “Civil society and opposition as well as governing political parties lack confidence that the police, prosecutors, or courts can be relied upon to respond — whether to electoral disputes or physical confrontations — in a timely, impartial, and effective manner. There was broad consensus on the need for greater consistency in policing and greater independence, accountability, and transparency in the judiciary. The delegation heard frequently and consistently of delayed investigations, selective pursuit of cases, inconsistent uses of pretrial detention, pressure on judges, and uneven application of sanctions. The delegation’s interlocutors repeatedly referenced several key events from recent months to illustrate their perceptions that police and judicial independence do not necessarily apply to politically-charged cases.” NDI pre-election report, June 2016 https://www.ndi.org/georgia-pre-election-statement-june-2016

US Walks Away From TPP, Leaving China Free To Dominate Asia – Analysis

0
0

At the APEC meeting, China hustles to replace the TPP free-trade agreement with its own versions.

By Anthony Rowley*

US President-elect Donald Trump has been disparaged as a fan of Russian President Vladimir Putin. But when it comes to “giving away the farm,” he appears more intent, perhaps by inattention, on conferring favors upon China by handing Chinese President Xi Jinping leadership of Asian trade diplomacy.

In threatening to sabotage the Trans-Pacific Partnership by opposing US ratification of the 12-nation pact, Trump is, in effect, stepping aside to allow China to control trade and investment in the Asia Pacific region.

Abandoning the TPP not only runs contrary to Trump’s reported desire to limit China’s influence in the region, but also implies that the United States can expect considerable diminution in its power to shape the architecture of Asian commerce and trade. Trump likewise has signaled expectations for greater responsibility from allies in providing and paying for security.

All this raises questions on the wider roles to expect from Japan and China in the Asia Pacific region.

Outgoing US President Barack Obama represented the United States at the meeting of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders, in Lima, Peru, but Trump’s signaling a new approach to Asia undermines the twin-track policy of supporting the TPP and underwriting Asian security.

The policy shift could confer upon Japan the role of US proxy in Asian security matters. Trump met Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in New York on November 17. Details of the discussion were not disclosed, but Trump was expected to encourage Japan to take a more active role in Asia.

With support for the TPP uncertain, even though Japan’s main house of Parliament already ratified the deal, Abe may find himself outmaneuvered by Xi in terms of economic initiatives.

China pushed its own “free trade agenda” at the Lima meeting of APEC, with China Daily reporting Vice-Foreign Minister Li Baodong as saying the region needs a free-trade agreement as soon as possible. “Trade and investment protectionism is rearing its head, and the Asia-Pacific faces insufficient momentum for internal growth, and difficulties in advancing reforms,” Li was quoted as saying. “China should set a new and practical working plan to establish a free trade area in Asia-Pacific at an early date.”

China has supported the concepts of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific, or FTAAP, and of a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, RCEP, both viewed as competitors to the US-led TPP. Li suggests that such a free-trade area could serve the interests of China, the United States and other smaller economies.

The FTAAP was originally raised in 2006 among members of APEC, which is not a formal free- trade arrangement itself. FTAAP was a loosely defined concept until China proposed that it take the form of the RCEP. At that point, the US and Japan responded by promoting the 12-member TPP.

So China’s plan for economic partnership and a free trade area for the region may proceed. The RCEP will cover trade in goods, services, investment, economic and technical cooperation, intellectual property, competition, dispute settlement and other issues. It broadens and deepens existing cooperation among members of the Association of Southeast Asian nations, although it is not as comprehensive as the so-called “high level” TPP. The RCEP plan includes the 10 ASEAN member states – Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam – as well as six countries with ASEAN free trade agreements including Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. Other states joining require approval of all ASEAN member nations, and if individual ASEAN members conclude bilateral agreements with non-member states, the goods they import from those states would not be entitled to ASEAN-wide concessions and would be subject to “rules of origin in determining tariffs.”

The RCEP agreement excludes the United States, which has a leading role in the TPP. Reports suggest the Obama administration has suspended efforts to win approval from the US Congress and that the fate of TPP now rests with the Trump administration.

Without the TPP to underpin the US commitment to Asia, and with Trump having threatened to impose punitive tariffs on goods imported from China and other countries determined to pose unfair competition to the United States, the notion of cooperating with Washington at Beijing’s expense could prove unattractive.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte recently cemented closer ties with Beijing, at the apparent expense of those with Washington, while Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak’s subsequent meeting with Chinese leaders appeared also to bind Kuala Lumpur closer to Beijing. Both nations are ASEAN members.

Peru’s President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski has meanwhile suggested to Russian media that Pacific Rim countries could forge a new trade deal, including China and Russia, to replace the US-led TPP.

Other TPP proponents are more ambivalent. Vietnam’s Minister of Trade Tran Tuan Anh, for example, noted, “the world will have to wait and see if the new US administration will really reverse the TPP. We have a persistent stance and policies regarding deepening the global integration and the TPP is part of that.”

China is confident that TPP is not moving forward, with China Daily noting, “US president-elect Trump had repeatedly blasted the TPP trade deal on the campaign trail, saying it would hurt American workers. He has vowed to cancel the agreement, regarded by Obama as a major part of administration’s legacy and essential to his pivot toward Asia.”

If Trump does renounce the TPP agreement, with the approval of a Republican-controlled US Congress, Japan must confront choosing between RCEP and a network of bilateral trade accords with other TPP members, including the US.

Tokyo is certainly not eager to renounce the TPP. Abe regards the TPP as being key to his Abenomics economic strategy, and Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda has described TPP as a “landmark deal [which] if signed, would be a huge positive for Japan’s economy.”

Also during the election campaign, Trump promised to demand bigger contributions from US allies – including Japan and South Korea – for the cost of keeping US forces on their soil.

The US has around 800 military bases in more than 160 countries, and a 2013 Senate Committee on Armed Services report puts the cost of supporting the overseas bases at more $10 billion annually. Nearly 70 percent of this was spent in three countries: Germany, Japan and South Korea. A substantial part of the cost is borne by host countries. Japan budgeted ¥190 billion, or $1.7 billion, to host US military bases during fiscal 2015, as part of the costs necessary to station some 54,000 US personnel in the country.

Sources advised Reuters that Trump wants to authorize construction of new US warships. That and an end to budget sequestration, imposing limits on US spending since 2013, would “send a message to China, as well as to Japan, South Korea and other nations that the US is intent on being in [Asia] for a long time,” the report said.

Trump’s stances on economic and security issues are already affecting decisions being made East Asia and the broader region even before his formal inauguration in January. For sure, he will need to do some deft maneuvering if he is to square an anti-TPP stance with his apparent desire to keep an assertive and competitive China at bay.

*Anthony Rowley is a former business editor and international finance editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review and is currently field editor (Japan) for Oxford Analytica and Tokyo correspondent of the Singapore Business Times. During a long career in journalism, Rowley has written extensively on issues of economic and financial development in Asia and elsewhere and his books include Asian Stock Markets – the Inside Story published by Dow Jones Irwin in 1986 as well as The Barons of European Industry, published by Croom Helm in 1973.

8 Foreign Policy Questions Trump Needs To Ask – Analysis

0
0

By Derek S. Reveron and Nikolas K. Gvosdev*

(FPRI) — President-elect Donald Trump is in the midst of selecting his national security team. He not only needs to decide the “who,” but also the “how” of national security decision-making. It is unclear whether he will adopt Ronald Reagan’s model of entrusting empowered Cabinet secretaries to handle such matters; follow in Richard Nixon’s footsteps of retaining close control over foreign policy within the White House through the National Security Advisor; or emulate George H.W. Bush’s hybrid “gang” blending both White House staff and senior officials.

Beyond his staffing choices, the president-elect and his counselors must also be prepared to tackle a series of questions about U.S. foreign policy and defense strategy, both to inform his continuing selection of personnel to serve in his administration and to shape his conversations with foreign leaders who are anxious to take the temperature of the new Chief Executive. In addition, his answers will be critical if he wants to link his campaign promises with actual policies.

Trump ran on a platform which decried the apparent inability of the U.S. government to crush terrorism and the supposed ineptitude of U.S. officials who were outmaneuvered at the negotiating table by allies and adversaries alike. Alongside his critique, he intimated that with a “dealmaker” in the White House, things would change. But it is unclear how his team will translate campaign slogans into governing principles.

Over the last decade, we have begun to discover the limits of what both “hard” and “soft” power can achieve and the challenge of shifting from deterrence (preventing an adversary from doing something) to compellence (getting another country to do something for us). A Trump national security team will need to address eight key questions.

1) Why has the best-funded and most professional military in U.S. history been unable to translate tactical victories into strategic success in Afghanistan?

Since al-Qa’ida attacked the United States in 2001, defense spending has steadily increased from about $300 billion in 2002 to about $600 billion in 2016. The growth provided both for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also modernization. Navy P8s are replacing P3s; F35s are replacing F15s; and every military branch fields a fleet of remotely piloted vehicles. Secretaries of defense have transformed the strategic reserves to an operational reserve. Throughout the wars, training and professional military education were never compromised. With the most experienced force in modern history, the inability to “win” cannot be attributed to resources. Many of the retired military officers whom Trump is considering for administration jobs were at the forefront of defense strategy. To make sense of the last 15 years of war, the new president needs to commission a comprehensive study to know under what conditions military force works best; the changes needed to adapt the force for modern conflict; and ways to improve use of the military as a tool of power—and he must be prepared to confront the limits of what raw force can achieve in future defense strategy.

2) Why has counterterrorism through special operations raids and air strikes not defeated al-Qai’da let alone its offshoots like ISIL?

One of the lasting impacts of the 9/11 attacks has been the transformation and maturation of U.S. counter terrorism capabilities. The Joint Special Operations Command proved its worth during the 2011 bin Laden raid. The U.S. remarkably penetrated Pakistan’s airspace, conducted the raid, and returned to a base in Afghanistan showcasing this capability. When combined with routine air strikes in the Middle East and Central Asia, there seems to be no target out of reach for special operations. In spite of this capability, the president-elect can pose the same question Secretary Rumsfeld posed a decade ago: are we killing terrorists faster than they are created? The persistence of al-Qa’ida and the development of offshoots like ISIL and al-Shabaab suggest an answer. A decade ago, the United States went through a constant list of al-Qaida “number threes” being killed (and just as easily replaced); a similar dynamic is apparent today with the Islamic State. This pattern suggests that the faith of so many in Washington that there is a low-cost, no-casualty, no-risk counter terrorism approach may be misplaced. Whether Trump will want to accept this reality—or insist all that is needed is to simply increase the amount of force that is applied—will help determine the future trajectory of U.S. counter terrorism policy.

3) How can the U.S. convince its European, Canadian, and Japanese defense partners to contribute more to collective defense?

Unlike its Chinese and Russian rivals, the U.S. maintains an extensive list of allies and partners. By treaty, the U.S. pursues collective defense with 27 partners through NATO and five others through bilateral treaties in Asia. With few exceptions—like Estonia, the United Kingdom, or Poland—our treaty allies fail to meet the NATO benchmark of spending two percent of GDP on defense. While they provide important basing and host nation support, the third and fourth richest countries of Germany and Japan do not meet the benchmark. As the president-elect looks to encourage allies to become contributors, he can look at surging diplomatic efforts to withdraw U.S. forces from Kosovo, Afghanistan, and the Middle East, so U.S. allies feel the security dilemma the same way the U.S. does. Indeed, just in the weeks since his election, concerns that a “green-eyeshade” approach to alliance accounting has spurred a number of U.S. partners to commit to real increases in their defense spending.

As allies and partners are put on notice that Trump may be prepared to make U.S. defense guarantees more conditional based on the extent to which allies take their defense responsibilities seriously, there could, in fact, be a hidden boon for American manufacturing. Encouraging partners to increase their defense outlays by purchasing U.S.-made weapons could provide a small stimulus. More importantly, increased sales of U.S. equipment promotes interoperability both between the U.S. and partners and among themselves, and including partners in U.S. command structures will give allies the tools to be partners. There are already dozens of countries represented at U.S. combatant commands.

4) Why has the U.S. reverted to isolating Russia rather than improving upon multilateral negotiations that halted Iran’s nuclear program and removed 1300 tons of chemical weapons from Syria?

A Trump administration will need to give a definitive answer as to whether the revival of Russian power and the Kremlin’s insistence that it play the leading role in the Eurasian region and be consulted on major problems of international significance is a direct threat to U.S. national interests and core values. Russia is important for U.S. presence in Afghanistan, essential for the U.S. space program, and has been a critical partner on countering nuclear proliferation. Can the U.S. accept a greater Russian role in the world under the Kremlin’s current management, or does the United States need to take steps to contain and reduce Russian power? Part of the answer to this question will come if the Trump administration sees Russian actions as annoyances rather than as threats and views the costs of alienating Russia as greater than the benefits of collective action with the Kremlin.

5) How does the U.S. preserve cyberspace as a civilian space while protecting critical infrastructure, identifying terrorist activities, and protecting citizens from malicious activity?

Cyber tools have expanded the range of actors in international security. Only governments can conduct missile strikes, but individuals and groups can conduct cyber strikes. Development costs are minuscule relative to conventional military power and have expanded the range of threats motivated by profits, espionage, and information operations. While we have not experienced cyber war, dozens of countries are developing cyber commands and are learning how to integrate cyber operations into traditional military operations. While cyberspace is a civilian space, future conflicts will place Americans in the battlespace. As NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers has said, “It is only a matter of the ‘when,’ not the ‘if’—we’re going to see a nation-state, group or actor engage in destructive behavior against critical infrastructure in the United States.”

To improve cybersecurity, the U.S. government wants to and needs to work with industry. But neither side has understood how cybersecurity poses a different set of challenges for each. Government does not appreciate the business side of IT, and the IT industry does not appreciate the national security dimensions of their businesses. Disputes over encryption and surveillance have undermined trust. The president-elect will have to find ways to build bridges to industry to enable information sharing and rethink cybersecurity approaches that largely place the burden of security on the individual user who is exposed to risk by flawed software.

6) How can the U.S. government improve the free trade agreements it has already signed (starting with the North American Free Trade Area and including the bilateral free trade agreements with countries like Colombia and South Korea) to increase American exports?

This question will prove to be one of the most difficult challenges facing the new administration. These agreements were painstakingly negotiated over years and rest on an entire set of compromise arrangements that cannot be unilaterally adjusted without collapsing the entire free trade relationship—and many of these are with key security partners. A Trump administration will need to give new resources and greater priority and prestige to the parts of the U.S. government, starting with the Department of Commerce, whose principal job is to get others to buy more from us. The president also has a panoply of executive powers at his disposal that may allow him to redefine standards and give legal cover to placing greater restrictions on the import of goods or services. As the chief purchasing officer of the U.S. government—one of the largest consumers in the world—he would also be able to set criteria that would redefine what constitutes “American-produced” goods to exclude a higher number of foreign-produced parts and components. All of these could be used as levers to encourage greater purchase of U.S. produced goods, similar to some of the voluntary agreements that Ronald Reagan reached with other G-7 leaders during the 1980s.

7) Does U.S. energy self-sufficiency enable the U.S. to rethink the Carter Doctrine and its Reagan Corollary that sees a vital national interest in exporting oil from the Middle East?

If shale oil enables the United States to achieve energy self-sufficiency, a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy could occur. This shift would overturn the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Corollary, which committed the United States to defend the countries of the Persian Gulf. While oil is a global commodity, a disproportionate share of U.S. military power is in the Middle East to ensure Gulf countries can export oil to China, India, and Japan. It is less likely that a Trump administration will let this state of affairs continue unless there is a clearer quid pro quo in place that benefits the United States.

8) How should the United States cope with a rising China?

Trump will become the latest American Chief Executive to wrestle with avoiding the so-called “Thucydides trap,” whereby a rising power challenges a status quo power. Conflict with China is not inevitable, but there are clear tensions between the U.S. and China caused by extensive Chinese maritime claims and the U.S. desire to remain a Pacific power. During the campaign, Trump shifted between aggressive criticism of China’s approach to trade and calls for greater cooperation between the two countries. Perhaps, on taking office, Trump will reach out to see if it is possible to create a series of quid pro quo arrangements between China and the United States on matters of trade and geo-politics like the maritime disputes in the South and East China Seas and North Korea’s nuclear program. Trump will project an image of American power, strength, and resolve in the region—but at the same time does not want the United States to be the “sucker” that is either seduced by Chinese appeals to U.S. global leadership as a reason for the U.S. to absorb greater costs for dealing with problems like climate change, or is tricked by allies into making their problems with China America’s own. The lack of any detailed overview from Trump of a proposed China strategy makes the question of who will staff the key Asia portfolios in the U.S. national security apparatus all the more important in terms of the advice they will bring to the president.

As we look ahead to the next four years, one thing is clear: Trump does not appear to want to relinquish America’s leading position in the international order, but challenges the notion that the U.S. must always be the first responder and bill payer of choice. At the same time, his campaign seemed to indicate that he wants America to be more feared rather than loved (code, in his view, for exploitation) through judicious but effective uses of force that do not become drawn-out interventions or quagmires. As his cabinet forms and the national security staff is built, Eliot Cohen’s advice seems prescient: “he will begin to school himself on what it takes to wage wars—because he will surely find himself directing several of them.”

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

*About the authors:
Nikolas Gvosdev
is a Senior Fellow in the Eurasia Program and is a Professor of National Security Affairs, holding the Captain Jerome E. Levy Chair in Economic Geography and National Security at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island.

Derek Reveron is the EMC Informationist Chair at the Naval War College

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

Israel Cannot Silence Prayer Calls – OpEd

0
0

In a succession of events that indicated major coordination between various Israeli government offices, Jewish settler groups and the municipality of Jerusalem, Israel recently moved to outlaw the Muslim call for prayer, first in Jerusalem, then in other Arab areas inside Israel.

This move was clearly aimed at literally and figuratively silencing Palestinian Muslims and would have been casually filed under yet a new Israeli attempt aimed at Judaizing Jerusalem and eradicating Palestinian heritage — Muslim and Christian alike — throughout Palestine.

But there is more to the story: The timing of these efforts.

True, the original bill to ban the call for prayer was presented by member of the Knesset Moti Yogev, last March, but has become more pressing in recent weeks, following a vote in the UNESCO, which was the subject of much annoyance by Israel.

Following its occupation and illegal annexation of Arab East Jerusalem, Israeli leaders have labored to claim the occupied city as their own, labeling it Israel’s “enteral and undivided capital.”

However, the reality is that aside from most Israelis and their friends in the Christian Right, the international community has never accepted or agreed to the occupation or annexation of Palestine, nor the Israeli designation.

On Oct. 26, following robust campaigning from various Arab and other countries, a UNESCO resolution, once more, emphasized the status of Jerusalem in international law as occupied and agreed to retain the UN designation of the Old City of Jerusalem as “endangered.”

The resolution, which was passed after a vote by the organization’s World Heritage Committee strongly criticized Israel’s violations of the sanctity of Palestinian houses of worship, demanded access to the holy sites to determine their conservation status and, particularity significant to Israel, called Palestinian holy sites by their Arabic, not Hebrew names.

Israel was infuriated. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded angrily. His ministers alleged that the vote further demonstrated the UN’s supposed anti-Semitism.

Israel’s evangelical friends flooded UNESCO officials with bibles to “refresh diplomats’ memory” on Judaism’s ties to Jerusalem.

Israeli vengeance surpassed the realm of media rhetoric into aggressive action. First, Netanyahu moved to formalize the illegal annexation of hundreds of acres of Palestinian land in Jerusalem, and Jerusalem Mayor Nir Berkat threatened to demolish “hundreds or thousands” of Palestinian homes in the city.

In other words, Israel’s response to UNESCO was a continuation of the illegal and criminal activities that pressed UNESCO to produce the resolution in the first place.

Israel went still further in trying to silence the call for prayer, first in Jerusalem, then in other cities.

Of course, the call for prayer in Islam carries a deep religious and spiritual meaning but, in Palestine, such religious traditions also carry a deep, symbolic meaning that is unique to Palestinians: The call for prayer means continuity, survival, unity and rebirth among a host of other meanings.

It is these very meanings that made Palestinians in Gaza pray on top of the ruins of their mosques, which were destroyed by Israeli bombs in the last, most devastating war of 2014.

According to government and media reports, a third of Gaza’s mosques were destroyed in the last war on the Strip.

Israel’s attempt to ban the call for prayer is a new low. Its pretext behind the move was termed “noise pollution” — a complaint repeatedly made by Jewish settlers, who moved to Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Territories from Europe, the US and other countries, to build homes atop illegally stolen Palestinian land.

On Nov. 3, a small crowd of settlers from the illegal settlement of Pisgat Zeev gathered in front of the home of Nir Berkat, demanding that the government end the “noise pollution,” emanating from the city’s mosques. The mayor readily and immediately obliged.

But it didn’t stop there.

On Nov. 13, the Israeli Ministerial Committee on Legislation approved the draft law aimed at barring loudspeakers on “houses of worship” and quickly pushed the draft for its first reading at the Knesset.

Things seemed to be moving smoothly until Nov. 16 when an ultra-orthodox minister filed an appeal against the draft law. The appeal by Health Minister Yaakov Litzman appeared to be out of character, since ultra-orthodox zealots in the Knesset and cabinet have been the leaders of Israel’s cultural war on Palestinians.

The discerning minister noticed a little defect in the draft law:

Although the bill is entirely aimed at Palestinians, this detail is not specified in its wording, and might, if passed, become a ground for legal arguments by Israel’s secular parties to end Jewish religious practices, where sirens blare every Friday evening to announce the Jewish holy day of Shabbat.

While the vote on the draft law is likely to be postponed for now, until a more unambiguous rhetoric replaces the current one, the war on Palestinian heritage, whether religious and national for both Muslims and Christians, will not cease.

In fact, it will escalate, especially in Occupied Jerusalem and particularly in and around the Muslim Haram Al-Sharif Compound.

It is beneath that compound that Israeli machinery has been tirelessly digging for years, attempting to locate a lost temple, while all the while threatening the foundation of Islam’s third holiest site.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images