Japan’s revitalization strategy for the upturn in the economy has been polarized on invest in Japan drive. Among various reforms, inward foreign investment gained prominence as a strategic approach to turnaround the lost paradise of Japan as a manufacturing hub in the world. Japan lost its power of manufacturing hub after the yen appreciation in the economic war with USA in late eighties and the China’s cheap cost since late nineties. Powered by market size and slip in the business costs , owing to downturn in the yen value, hopes are rising for an upward curve in inward foreign investment.

Inward foreign investment in Japan , which leapfrogged 19.4 percent up in 2014 and excelled the fence of 20 trillion yen for the first time , was cheered a big success of the revitalization drive. By 2014, for the first time, the stock of inward foreign investment reached 23 trillion yen .

Nevertheless, can this momentum ensure Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ‘s dream of 35 trillion yen stock to be achieved by 2020, given the slow pace of world economic growth?

Historically, Japan has been the only developed nation which was reticent to foreign investment. Despite it surged the 3rd biggest economy in the world, its’ ratio of inward foreign investment to GDP was 4.8 percent in 2014 – the lowest in OECD countries.

The average ratio of inward FDI among the OECD countries is 34.1 percent. USA and Germany, for instance , have ratios seven to eight times more than Japan. In other words, inward foreign investment never played a significant role in Japanese economy, or to say, Japan was never a nation of Rising Sun for the foreign investors.

Japan’s turnaround to inward foreign investment began with a renewed interest of Abe government. Various reforms were taken to eliminate formal restrictions governing foreign investment in Japan. But, these initiatives remained inconsistent , given the prevalent business culture in Japan.

According to US Department of State, “ the reform components of Abenomics, considered essentials for long term growth and competitiveness, has been slower to take a shape”. Unlike other countries, most of the obstacles and challenges faced by foreign companies in Japan relate more to prevailing social practices in the business culture than government regulations . These included insular and consensual business culture , which acted resistant to Merger & Acquisition, lack of independent Directors in most of the company boards, exclusive binding in the supplier’s networks and alliances between groups (popularly known as Keiretsu system), according to US Department of State.

The Abe Government set up a Council of Economy and Fiscal Policy, with an aim
of promotion of FDI in Japan. To this end, the Expert Group Meeting made a survey of foreign companies in Japan and unveiled the challenges faced by the foreign companies in Japan.

The Expert Group Meeting revealed two important obstacles to the foreign investors. Low profitability and high costs. Low profitability was catalyzed by systems and practices , lack in global competitive Human resources and lack in transparency in corporate governance compared to foreign companies . High costs were factored by complex distribution system, separate production line to meet the quality hunger of Japanese customers, high taxation and long time taken to start –up the business.

Well, all these obstacles and challenges are rather relative in terms of magnitude depending upon the types of foreign investors . They might have been deterrents to foreign investors. But, the magnitudes of the deterrents are low in case of Japanese investors, who went abroad after yen revaluation. This is because the Japanese affiliates abroad, or say, Non-Resident Japanese corporates, are immunized to these obstacles and challenges. They are well acquainted with typical business cultures in Japan.

In the pre-Plaza Agreement, these Non-Resident Japanese corporate contributed large to re-built Japan after World War II, despite the obstacles. They were the major role players to catapult the Japan ‘s economy as the second biggest global economy before China edged out Japan.

High yen appreciation, which led Japanese corporate shift from Japan and make the country a hollow investment zone , is no more a major obstacle to woo the Japanese affiliates abroad. The high cost of doing business in Japan slipped from top rank obstacle in 2013 to fifth position in 2015, according to a JETRO’s survey  “ JETRO Invest Japan Report 2015”. The yen has depreciated sharply since Mr. Shinzo Abe returned to power last year and promised for weakening yen to reflate the economy.

This unleashed an opportunity for the Japanese affiliates abroad to return to Japan since Abe’s promise will place Japan a new turf for export competitiveness
Given the opportunities on the anvil , which can attract the Japanese affiliates abroad to invest in Japan, it can be argued that why not they should be encouraged to invest in Japan and resurrect the sluggish inward foreign investment in Japan.

A separate promotion campaign should be made to woo the Non-Resident Japanese investors. Japan is the second biggest foreign investor abroad. Its overseas investment stock was US $ 1,259 .06 Billion at the end of 2015. Of these , the biggest stocks were held in USA and China. After the downturn in cheap cost in Chinese economy, Japanese overseas investors resorted to China +1 strategy or hunting for new nations to invest , such as India, Africa and South East Asia.

Against the backdrop of these new challenges faced by Japanese overseas investors in the wake of China loosing low cost manufacturing hub, Japanese affiliates abroad should be encouraged to invest in Japan with their profits reaped abroad, instead of reinvesting in overseas. To woo the Japanese affiliates abroad, special incentives should be granted to allure them. Followings are some of the incentives which can attract e the Japanese affiliates abroad.

First, given the high corporate tax in Japan, a dual corporate tax policy should be introduced. Japanese affiliates abroad investing in Japan from their profits earned in overseas should be bracketed in the lower corporate rate structure and with tax breaks initially for the period requiring for start-up.

Second, investment subsidy should be given for setting up mega projects like infrastructure, power , transportation and others.

Third, Japanese affiliates investing in Japan should be given preferences in the Government procurement, complying however WTO regulations.

Fourth, Single –Window clearances should be set up to simplify the start –up business. Despite Japan claiming an hassle –free investment destination, Japan ranked 35 th in the global survey of Ease of Doing Business by World Bank .

Therefore, Japan’s sluggish inward foreign investment can be overturned by the Japanese affiliates abroad only, given the prevalent business culture in Japan.

*S. Majumder, Adviser, Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO), New Delhi. Views expressed are personal.

By Todd Royal

The state of global affairs hasn’t been this poor in over seven decades. Russia blatantly affected US presidential credibility in many ways by overtly and covertly meddling in the process. And they still keep amassing troops in Belarus and the border with Ukraine. Putin, for good reason, seems to believe the Europeans will do nothing to stop him from causing utter disarray on Europe’s eastern flank. Meanwhile, President Obama continues an apology tour in Europe by encouraging anti-Trump protesters. Putin has wagered correctly that the West is weak and vulnerable.

Iran continues breaking the so-called peace deal they made with the P5 + 1. Not only have they recently hijacked an American boat and buzzed US warships, but have made frequent promises to destroy Israel and America. Was this the peace deal western powers had in mind when they supposedly reigned in Iran’s nuclear weapons program?

The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency signaled recently the Iranians again broke the spirit of the agreement, by creating excess heavy water; a material used to cool reactors that produce plutonium. Anyone who actually believes this agreement did anything to stop the Iranian hegemonic march in the Middle East and other parts of the world is delusional at best, and dangerously naïve at worst.

North Korea is delusional, but as long as China has their proxy’s back in manufacturing chaos to allay the world’s interest away from them grabbing the South China Sea then Kim Jong-un may actually believe he could win a war with Japan, South Korea and the U.S. North Korea is testing ballistic missiles that could reach the western U.S. Imagine California seceding from the U.S., striking a peace deal to avoid imminent nuclear destruction. They already moved politically away from the U.S. as a reaction to Trump’s election by unanimously electing liberal Democrats over Republicans.

Political correctness has Western leaders not able to articulate the threats taking place with Russia and China while still bellowing the hollow assertion that if it weren’t for Guantanamo Bay, all the world’s problems with radical Islamists would abate. Then striking at non-elite citizenry who dare attempt uttering the words, “Islam,” and “terror” in the same sentence. Tongue-lashing and finger pointing ensues while ruining lives with the claim of Islamaphobia, sexism, or racism yet never looking their own hollow cowardice in the mirror.

Returning to the Middle East, a region never known for tranquility has certainly not been this bad. US leadership has left the world stage after leading from behind, and a giant void has been left in its place. Civil wars simmer and are raging in Iraq (which the U.S. should have never left) Libya (which the US, NATO, and the Europeans caused), Syria (in which the U.S. didn’t back up its threats), and Yemen (which the Iranians felt emboldened to invade via their proxy the Houthi’s after the nuclear agreement).

Simmering fights are brewing in Egypt (which the US abandoned for the Muslim Brotherhood), South Sudan, Turkey, and these could easily spill over to Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the one country to come out democratically from the so-called Arab Spring, Tunisia. Higher levels of tension are noted between Iran and Saudi Arabia; the two are in the early stages of a full-fledged religious fight not seen in centuries between Sunni and Shia Muslims. For once, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has taken a break from violent levels not seen since WWII.

A few countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman and Qatar have sailed through the storm, but have they really when oil prices continue below $50 a barrel? Shots may not be fired in these countries, but how long will their citizenry, which expect largesse based upon government handouts through oil receipts, stay tranquil under autocratic benign dictatorships? Kenneth Pollack of Brookings states, “not since the Mongol invasions of the 13^th century has the Middle East seen so much chaos.”

Drug violence and instability racks Central America, and South America still has drug-lord instability and the Columbian peace process with FARC is in shambles after the electorate pulled a Brexit-Donald Trump election surprise by voting no to peace. Mexico continues their almost decade long uprising against former Mexican Special Forces now turned drug terrorists that have the US border in constant flux.

The Congolese civil war is in its 22^nd year, Peru’s at 36 years, and the perpetually unstable Afghanistan enters year 37 of its civil war. What makes each of the above conflicts, wars, and tensions so malicious are the spillover effect. Without intervention that could last decades in the case of US troop presence still active in Germany, Japan and South Korea none of the problems will go away. Instead they only feed upon themselves, and metastasize into something far more insidious and ravaging.

Since the U.S. has morphed into an angry bastion of electoral infantile behavior, and the Europeans continue their march toward self-inflicted destruction, who will lead? Jordan and Tunisia are somewhat stabilized but now with the vituperative Philippines marching towards the Chinese that adds further Pacific instability to the world’s problems. What issue then should be tackled first?

The short answer is every issue needs to be confronted with the U.S., NATO and Pacific-based democracies leading the way. The U.S. should immediately rescind sequestration, and begin building their blue-water navy to Cold War levels, which peaked at 594 vessels in 1987 through a combination of new construction and keeping older ships afloat longer.

Incoming president-elect Trump should also allow the Japanese to build a larger navy and troop presence along with South Korea to deter the North Koreans and Chinese. But the real issue is the instability of the Middle East, and the aggressive nature of the Iranian regime’s hardliners. Not only should the U.S. confront them with new sanctions and scrapping the nuclear deal, but also NATO, led by the Europeans, should triple the size of the NATO Response Force. With Libya teetering on the edge of collapse a plan to confront armed factions at Europe’s doorstep needs to be in place along with securing their borders against an influx of displaced refugees and armed terrorists.

Further, Western allies can work with sympathetic Middle Eastern regimes whose “tipping points” for societal breakdown aren’t just going away. Jordan, Kuwait, Tunisia, and Egypt are a few examples where the U.S., NATO, and Pacific democracies reliant on economic stability can provide logistics, military command and control structure, intelligence and combat-advisors.

Every at-risk country mentioned needs Western economic assistance, cheap energy provided by coal and natural gas, stable infrastructure, political reform without democracy being the end-goal, and trade benefits for political reforms to possibly take hold. Transparency, rule of law, respect for private property and the elimination of graft in the public sector are the goals, while seeking a fair distribution of goods and services to all citizens regardless of religious affiliation, gender, and sexual orientation.

Good governance is the aim toward nation-state stability otherwise the spillover affect will plague the Middle East, South America, North Africa and eventually the Pacific rim.

Unfortunately paralyzed Western democracies aren’t given to provide military assistance – meaning boots on the ground – because problems the military could solve in the past no longer work in an era of a 24-hour news cycle to shape the message in a way that looks disadvantageous to Western political leaders. War and civil war in particular are messy affairs where millions can be killed and displaced. Disengagement from regions across the world have only emboldened the Chinese, Russians and Iranians to make the world in their image, instead of the post-WWII order that is now crumbling.

Disengagement has been disastrous in Iraq, and has pulled that country into a vicious civil war where security apparatchiks litter the region. Unless security is the first goal then eradicating the illness with pinprick assistance will only prolong the inevitable. Larger blue-water navies to confront the Iranians in the Middle East, Russia in the Mediterranean and the Chinese in the South China Sea are a beginning.

Over the past fifteen years the U.S. and other allies have killed scores of Salafist jihadists, but the problem only grows larger. The scorched-earth policy of President George W. Bush in Iraq provided a road-map to what peace in the Middle East looks like: unleashing militaries to kill, stabilize and bring all political parties to the table. Not the model Western democracies currently follow that have grown factions of self-important educated media elite, London School of Economics grandees, climate change billionaires, financial plutocrats and coastal corridor snobs from California to Lake Cuomo who talk leftism inequality, but live better than the French Monarchy ever dreamed.

This governing elite is now losing their grip on power, and will confront a world that doesn’t care about climate change, renewable energy or eating organically. Instead this new world under men such as Duterte, Trump, Putin, the Iranian Quds Force, and Premier Xi understand strength through military power. Will the U.S., Europeans, NATO and Pacific elites understand this new equation? If they don’t, then World War III is a distinct possibility. Spillovers and tipping points for squashing civil wars and vicious hegemon growth aren’t contained with the crumbs of good intentions, but more than likely at the end of a soldier’s gun. Let’s sincerely hope it doesn’t come to this.

This article was published at Geopolitical Monitor.com

The principles governing the financing of medical care in Russia are moving in exactly the opposite direction that these measures are going in Western countries, and as a result, Russian healthcare is deteriorating rather than improving, according to new research by the Russian Academy of Economics and State Service.

Writing in “Vedomosti” today, Denis Sokolov, one of the experts behind this research, says that “crudely” healthcare systems in the developed world have passed through three stages. Until the early 20^th century, people who were ill turned to doctors and paid them out of their own pocket (vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2016/11/23/666543-meditsina-revolyutsii).

Then there was an effort by the governments to provide medical care for all, a system that has broken down in many places because of the uncontrolled growth in costs, a problem Russia avoided in Soviet times because “there was no money” available to make such increases in expenditures possible, the researcher says.

“In the last quarter of the 20^th century, a third stage began,” he continues. It involved “the development of science and technology” and systems of medical business and insurance which opened the way for the introduction of enormous sums of money into medical care because profits were to be had” and “the methods of administration, characteristic for high tech firms … led in medicine to the very same leap.”

Tragically, he argues on the basis of his research, “Russian healthcare institutionally is situated somewhere on the path from the second period to the first: it hasn’t been able to introduce the insurance principle, private clinics work mainly” in only some specialties “and on the periphery continues the eternal battle” for medical points to provide basic services.

In Russia today, Sokolov says, doctors are treated in most places as government employees with their salaries far too low and set according to bureaucratic standards rather than their skills and willingness to improve them. Indeed, the system fails to provide opportunities for doctors to keep up with medical breakthroughs or share experiences with colleagues.

As a result, most doctors in Russia are “at the edge of life and death” and have to work for basic needs “under conditions of military mobilization.” Some grow into heroes, but “the majority are being transformed into an indifferent mass” who do not provide good services to their patients despite receiving much the same pay that the good ones do.

That opens the way to corruption and the politicization of the system, with those who can afford it buying the services of those who are able to provide it and those who have the equipment and skills they need possessing them only because they have learned how to play the government bureaucracy effectively.

Far more money must be put into the system, something the increasingly impoverished state cannot afford, and consequently, the system must be radically transformed so that there will be profits for private investors rather than remaining or becoming even more so a bureaucratic disaster.

Around the country, Sokolov says, “approximately 35 percent” of the money spend in medical facilities is spend to “create a barrier between the patient and his potential doctor” by tracking him into the arms of those medical time servers who in fact are not able to provide adequate care. Only about 10 percent of the money spent goes to those who do the real work.

According to the researcher, “the patient must have the opportunity to purchase or receive via insurance services” as needed rather than accept what the state gives. For that to happen, the patient must understand that “medicine isn’t free” and thus must help finance things by co-pay arrangements and the like. That is what other countries are doing, but not Russia now.

Pay for doctors must increase by 300 to 500 percent and it must go to those who are most qualified and allow them to keep up with developments in the field by purchasing medical journals and having access to the latest technologies in their part of medicine. That will cost a lot, but if that money isn’t spent, people will suffer.

“As is the case in education, municipal administration, or housing,” he says, “an effective reform of healthcare” will involve “a social revolution which will involve all the participants, the patients, the doctors and the administrators.” At present, that isn’t happening. Instead, what is occurring is a counter-revolution which is leaving almost everyone worse off.

The Northeastern coast of the USA could be struck by more frequent and more powerful hurricanes in the future due to shifting weather patterns, according to new research.

Hurricanes have gradually moved northwards from the western Caribbean towards northern North America over the past few hundred years, the study led by Durham University, UK, found.

The researchers suggest that this change in hurricane track was caused by the expansion of atmospheric circulation belts driven by increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

New York and other major cities along the Northeast coast of the USA could come under increased threat from these severe storms and need to be better prepared for their potential impact, the researchers said.

The findings are published in the journal Scientific Reports. Researchers reconstructed hurricane rainfall for the western Caribbean dating back 450 years by analysing the chemical composition of a stalagmite collected from a cave in southern Belize, Central America.

They found that the average number of hurricanes at the Belize site decreased over time. When the hurricane history of Belize was compared with documentary hurricane records from places such as Bermuda and Florida, this information showed that Atlantic (Cape Verde) hurricanes were moving to the north rather than decreasing in total numbers.

Although natural warming over the centuries has had some impact on shifting hurricane tracks, the researchers found a marked decrease in hurricane activity in the western Caribbean coinciding with the late 19th Century industrial boom associated with increasing carbon dioxide and sulphate aerosol emissions to the atmosphere.

The researchers said that initial regional cooling of the Northern Hemisphere due to increased industrial aerosol emissions should have pushed the hurricane tracks southward since Industrialisation.

But they added that rising amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide had overridden this effect by expanding the Hadley cell — a pattern of circulating air in the Earth’s tropical belt — pushing hurricane tracks further north, away from the western Caribbean towards the Northeastern USA.

This suggests that from the late 19th Century, manmade emissions have become the main driver behind shifting hurricane tracks by altering the position of global weather systems, the researchers said.

If future trends in carbon dioxide and industrial aerosol emissions continue as expected, hurricanes could shift even further northward, exacerbating the risk to the Northeast coast of the USA, they added.

In 2012, Hurricane Sandy struck the Caribbean and much of the eastern seaboard of the United States, stretching as far north as Canada. At least 233 people died as a result of the storm.

A large number of US states were affected by Hurricane Sandy with New York and New Jersey suffering the greatest impacts. The estimated cost of the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy in the USA is said to have run into tens of billions of dollars.

The study’s lead author, Dr Lisa Baldini, in the Department of Geography, Durham University, said: “Our research shows that the hurricane risk to the Northeastern coast of the United States is increasing as hurricanes track further north.

“Since the 19th Century this shift was largely driven by man-made emissions and if these emissions continue as expected this will result in more frequent and powerful storms affecting the financial and population centres of the Northeastern United States.

“Given the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy it is important that plans are put in place to protect against the effects of similarly destructive storms which could potentially occur more often in the future.”

Co-author Dr Amy Frappier, of the Geosciences Department, Skidmore College, USA, said the research showed Atlantic hurricanes were responding to warming. Dr Frappier said: “Aerosols from volcanoes and industrialisation in the Northern Hemisphere have a cooling effect, which tend to shift moisture belts and hurricane tracks southward, closer to the equator.

“On the other hand, warming from more carbon dioxide in the air tends to expand the Earth’s tropical belt, pushing hurricane tracks further north away from the western Caribbean and towards the Northeastern US.

“This suggests that the tracks of Atlantic hurricanes have responded more to warming than to regional cooling.” The researchers added that the northward shift in hurricane tracks may not reduce the risk of tropical cyclones in the Caribbean.

Co-author Dr James Baldini, in Durham University’s Department of Earth Sciences, said: “Although hurricane tracks have gradually moved northwards away from the western Caribbean, rising sea surface temperatures could promote the development of cyclonic storms within the western Caribbean.

“Consequently tropical cyclone activity across the western Caribbean may remain essentially stable over the current century, which has important implications for water availability in this region.

“However, increased sea surface temperatures also provide extra energy, potentially fuelling larger storms. We therefore need to prepare for the effects of more frequent landfalls of larger storms along the Northeast coast of the United States and stronger storms impacting the Caribbean.”

US President-elect Donald J. Trump announced on Wednesday his intent to nominate Betsy DeVos as Secretary of the United States Department of Education. A leader in the national school reform movement for more than two decades, Betsy DeVos is a highly successful education advocate, businesswoman, and philanthropist, said the Trump team in a statement.

“Betsy DeVos is a brilliant and passionate education advocate,” said President-elect Donald J. Trump. “Under her leadership we will reform the U.S. education system and break the bureaucracy that is holding our children back so that we can deliver world-class education and school choice to all families. I am pleased to nominate Betsy as Secretary of the Department of Education.”

“I am honored to accept this responsibility to work with the President-elect on his vision to make American education great again,” said Ms. DeVos. “The status quo in education is not acceptable. Together, we can work to make transformational change that ensures every student in America has the opportunity to fulfill his or her highest potential.”

A native of Michigan, Betsy DeVos has spent decades advocating for school choice reforms and helping underserved children gain access to quality education. Ms. DeVos is chairman of the American Federation for Children whose mission is to “improve our nation’s K-12 education by advancing systemic and sustainable public policy that empowers parents, particularly those in low-income families, to choose the education they determine is best for their children.”

Demonetization essentially means a state deprives people of privileges of using the currency notes as they are withdrawn from circulation. Indian BJP government of Narendra Modi abruptly withdrew currency notes of value Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000, causing an emergency situation of uncertainly in the country.
Indian Hindutva ruling party BJP and its leader PM Narendra Modi seems to be undertaking measures to make over the slide that has taken place in the popular acceptance of the party and its leader by resorting an issue that has caught the attention of Indian masses, namely corruption and black money.

On the evening of 8 November, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his address to the nation, announced the demonetization of Rs 500, and Rs 1,000 notes, it gave a sense of hope that India finally would have a government which was taking decisive action against black money and corruption. A slew of steps were announced as well to ease the transition. The prime minister presented a passionate case: “To break the grip of corruption and black money, we have decided that the five hundred rupee and thousand rupee currency notes presently in use will no longer be legal tender from midnight tonight, that is 8th November 2016…This step will strengthen the hands of the common man in the fight against corruption, black money and fake currency.”

Within minutes, the Modi government’s sudden but big move was extolled, debated, dissected and analyzed; however, the good feeling soon ebbed away leading to panic and anxiety: How to get rid of the old defunct Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes?

In fact, PM Modi has adopted the “surgical strike” on people of Indian to upset the latest trend, first, to join in the media war to make Indian issue look important as US presidential poll, then to help the corporate and transnational lords to use Indian money locked in banks even as Indians are unable to use their money; and, to try for fortunes in the upcoming polls on anti-corruption plank.

However, people are not impressed now as this is the second time that PM Modi has promised extra and free money for the people in their bank accounts This multi-pronged technique has only made people stand in long queues for little money at least, while the rich and corporate lord have other “openings” to continue their money businesses

For politicians, tunnel vision is a deadly handicap. Politics is often the art of making most of the opportunities but exclusive focus on present can erode the possibilities of the future. There is a reason why Narendra Modi fashioned his ludicrously risky demonetization program as a moral fight against corruption. By turning a purely economic exercise into some sort of a political movement, he was hedging against popular backlash. Also, while exhorting citizens to join him in the “war against black money”, he was setting subtle moral traps for his detractors. And most of his rivals walked straight into it.

People are familiar with the notion that an idea is only as good as its implementation. Indian PM, in his zeal for initiating a radical change, seems to have underestimated India’s intrinsic logistical shortcomings. If his idea was a game changer, the implementation — allowing enough room for an operation on this scale and secrecy — has been shocking. Regulations were mended and amended along the way with a clear communication gap emerging between government’s frequent changing of rules and the banks’ ability to cope up with those.

Demonetization idea is made for an ugly spectacle as millions of marginalized and the poor were made to suffer loss of livelihood as they stood in endless queues.

As a useful escape route, the Prime Minister Modi asked for 50 days of hardship but economists say resuscitating the economy to normalcy will likely take several months. It would seem that a leader who has unleashed this amount of mayhem through one fiat, should get ready to pack his bags and take sanyas (retirement) from politics. And yet, despite these hardships, bone-crunching inconveniences whose effect may stretch well beyond 50 days, Modi may emerge as an even stronger leader and put more distance between him and the chasing pack. That is because this is no ordinary inconvenience.

Black money, rent, bribery, permitted mafia

Experts say a good part of Indian money is not genuine but what is dangerous is Indian regime never attempted to clean the money and system that ensures safe passage.

In India, the term “black money” comes with an entire set of cultural and moral connotations beyond the dry definition of “untaxed funds”. Alongside black money there is also dirt money, fake currency floating the system. Both exist and contaminate the system. It carries the baggage of a skewed social order where the rich and the well-connected, for decades, have sucked the poor dry. The licence-permit raj unleashed by the falsified socialist politics of Congress party created a whole bunch of entitled crony capitalists who ran an elaborate, rent-seeking parallel economy, boosting corruption. It leeched away the blood of the poor, but also affected the middle class.

Tired of coping up with a crony corrupt system that serves as an extortion racket every step of the way, the common people have trooped out of the country at first opportunity, robbing it of vital human capital. Maybe that is the state policy as well.

If the poor as well as the salaried now stand solidly behind Modi, it is because they think that the prime minister was “batting” for them, almost single handed, waging an audacious war against this decadal social injustice.

Since 8 November, the lines in front of banks and ATMs have only grown and so has the frustration and helplessness of citizens. While representatives of the government have repeatedly assured that the situation will normalise soon, people are not buying it anymore. Despite the prime minister various members of his Cabinet appealing to the country to focus on the big picture, life for the majority of Indians has been reduced to an endless queue.

Modi knew the power of that appeal and is eager to convert that sympathy into votes.

Promotion of corruption vs using corruption merely to win votes

Congress party, the oldest national party did not think of containing black money because it promoted corruption plus blackmoney and made several congressmen and supporters, among others, millions.

PM Modi’s political rivals have willingly boxed themselves into the wrong side of a ‘good vs evil’ binary. In their overwhelming focus on the immediate, most opposition parties have failed to understand the long game.

Modi refused to attend the parliament session as the cash crisis was to be discussed and he just could not face criticism and does not get to choose his opponents. If he is already winning the political battle, as the BJP claims, despite messy handling of a brilliant idea, he should send Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal and Mamata Banerjee a hand-written ‘thank you’ note each.

People are camping overnight outside ATMs and banks. The urban salaried class of India might have moved to a cashless way of life. Thanks to the cab aggregators, payment gateways and mobile apps, surviving without hard cash may not seem to be so daunting. With the persisting cash crunch, it is the good old jugaad that has come to the rescue of many Indians. Mobile recharges in exchange of vegetables, online transfers instead of cash payments are the new norm. But what about thousands others who have never heard of payment gateways and net banking? India is far away from being a cashless society, forget online banking, there are many who don’t have debit cards or even banks accounts. There are senior citizens, who prefer to keep emergency funds at home, instead of making multiple trips to the ATM. Did the government take the plight of these people into account before plunging into this scheme?

Modi government is try8ng to cut the stems without targeting the roots of black money, rent system, bribery, and mafia tentacles affecting economy and finances of common people. Mafias operate literally in every field and control translations.

Anti-black money slogan as poll strategy

During the parliament poll, Modi, the then PM candidate promised to bring all black money from foreign banks and distribute them among the needy Indians in lacs. Obviously, Indian government must have got a lot of black money form abroad but PM Modi has forgotten about this promise to Indians.

Now PM Modi is premising to deposit huge sums to every Indians when back money indoors is tracked. Again pure promises, an Indian promise that is never kept, never questioned. .

PM Modi has an eye on the forthcoming polls in some Indian states. By-elections being held in Assam, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Tripura and Tamil Nadu have assumed significance as the first major ground test for the ruling BJP after demonetization of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes. Voting is underway for by-polls in eight assembly and four Lok Sabha constituencies. According to officials, elaborate arrangements have been made for the smooth conduct of the polls

Tamil Nadu continues to be a strong pro-ruling party AIADMK base and the ongoing p by polls maybe not be different from the results of the recent assembly poll. Polls for Thanjavur and Aravakkurichi and bypoll in Thirupparankundram and in Nellithope constituencies on Saturday. In Aravakkurichi constituency, V Senthil Balaji (AIADMK) and KC Palanisamy (DMK) and in Thanjavur, Anjugham Boopathy (DMK) and M Rengasamy (AIADMK) are among the candidates. In Thirupparankundram, AIADMK has fielded A K Bose, while P Saravanan is the DMK nominee.

Besides, the AIADMK and DMK candidates, PMK, BJP and DMDK and independents are also contesting the polls. The four-party combine, People’s Welfare Front, comprising MDMK, CPI (M), CPI and VCK, has boycotted the polls. The ruling AIADMK is likely to win all seats.

In Puducherry Nellithope assembly constituency, it will be a crucial test for Congress nominee and Chief Minister V Narayanasamy, a non- member of the house, at bypoll when he crosses swords with AIADMK candidate Om Sakthi Segar. Narayanasamy has the support of DMK and VCK while AINRC, whose founder N Narayanasamy is the leader of the opposition, is backing Segar. The bypoll is being held to fill vacancy caused by the resignation of Congress legislator A John Kumar on September 15 to facilitate Narayanasamy, a non-member of the house, to contest the poll and get elected to the assembly to fulfill the constitutional obligation. Narayanasamy became Chief Minister on June 6 and formed a six member ministry under his leadership with the support of DMK (having two members) from outside. The strength of Congress in the 30 member assembly was 15 before John Kumar quit the post of MLA. Narayanasamy is likely to win the seat.

In Assam, by polls in Lakhimpur Lok Sabha constituency and Baithalanso assembly constituency in Assam will decide the electoral fate of eight contestants. In Lakhimpur, the five candidates included Amiya Kumar Handique (CPI-M), Pradan Baruah (BJP), Dr Hema Hari Prasanna Pegu (Cong), Hem Kanta Miri (SUCI-Communist) and Dilip Moran (Independent). 15,11,110 voters are expected to exercise their franchise in 1954 polling stations spread across the Assembly constituencies of Majuli (ST), Naoboicha, Lakhimpur, Dhakuakhana (ST), Dhemaji (ST), Jonai (ST), Chabua, Doomdooma and Sadiya.

By-elections in West Bengal are underway in Cooch Behar and Tamluk Lok Sabha constituencies and in Monteswar Assembly constituency. Ruling Trinamool Congress, BJP, Left Front and Congress have fielded their candidates in all three seats. Although the Congress and CPI (M)-led Left Front had contested the Assembly polls held earlier this year, the two decided to part company in this round of by-elections.

Demonetization became a key issue in the last lap of campaign for the by-polls. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee did not campaign for the by-polls and left it to the other leaders of her party. TMC MLA and party candidate from Tamluk seat Dibyendu Adhikari told PTI, “Demonetization move has affected every citizen of this country. The common man is suffering.” Demonetization has also impacted our campaign as we are unable to pay the decorators, sound organizers. In Tamluk, most of the rural areas still don’t have proper banking facilities, what will the poor farmers do?” he asked.

According CPI (M) and Congress leaders, demonetization has all of a sudden come up as an issue for the polls as they are receiving feedback that people are inconvenienced due to the new decision. CPI (M) leader Sujan Chakraborty said demonetization became a prominent issue as the people faced huge problems and added that the situation was much worse in rural areas.

The BJP, on the other hand, said that by-elections would be a litmus test for political parties. “It’s not a question of black money or white money. All of a sudden if you scrap high value notes how will you meet various expenditures for the campaign,” Congress candidate from Monteswar Bulbul Ahmed Sheikh said.

By-election in Cooch Behar was necessitated by the death of TMC MP Renuka Sinha while the by-election in Tamluk in East Medinipur district was caused by the resignation of TMC MP Suvendu Adhikari who also won the Assembly poll and joined the state cabinet as transport minister. The bypoll to Monteswar Assembly seat in Burdwan district is due to death of TMC MLA Sajal Panja.

All these constituencies are likely to return the ruling TMC candidates.

By-elections in Madhya Pradesh are being held in Shahdol Lok Sabha constituency and Nepanagar assembly seats in Madhya Pradesh. Thirty companies (15 each) of armed police forces have been deployed in the two constituencies to provide security during the polling. “Over 4,000 EVMs will be used to seal the fate of the candidates. The EVMs also carry the photographs of the candidates to facilitate the voters,” the official said.

While Congress has fielded Himadri Singh, daughter of former union minister Dalbir Singh and ex-MP Rajesh Nandini Singh, from Shahdol Lok Sabha seat, the BJP has given ticket to tribal leader Gyan Singh, a senior minister in Chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan’s cabinet from the reserved seat. The Shahdol bypoll was necessitated due to death of BJP MP Dalpat Singh Paraste. In Nepanagar, Congress has reposed faith in tribal leader Antar Singh Barde, while BJP has fielded Manju Dadu, daughter of late MLA Rajendra Shyamlal Dadu, whose death caused by an accident, necessitated the by-poll to cash in on the sympathy vote. Besides these prominent names, several other candidates have also filed their nominations for the by-polls.

Communist Party of India’s Parmeshwar Singh Porte, Lok Janshakti Party’s Krishna Pal Singh Pavel, Gondwana Gantantra Party’s Hirasingh Markm and Apna Dal’s Sajjan Singh Paraste, among others are in the fray for the Shahdol LS seat. The counting of votes will take place on November 22 and the entire poll process will be completed by November 24.

By-polls in Tripura in two Tripura Assembly seats – Barjala and Khowai – began on a peaceful note amidst tight security. For purposes of peaceful polling nine companies of central paramilitary forces, including Border Security Force (BSF) and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) have been deployed in the two constituencies and their adjoining areas. State forces, including Tripura State Rifles and state police have also been deployed. The Election Commission has appointed three central observes to oversee the polling in the two seats.

The Barjala (SC reserved) seat fell vacant following the resignation of Congress MLA Jitendra Sarkar due to internal squabble in the party, while the death of veteran CPI-M leader Samir Deb necessitated the by-poll in Khowai seat. At Barjala constituency a multi-cornered electoral battle is on with five candidates of BJP, CPI-M, Trinamool Congress, Congress and Amra Bangali in the fray. Khowai seat too has contestants from the same parties in the ring. A total of 39,007 voters will exercise their franchise in 48 polling stations in Barjala assembly constituency, while in Khowai seat 39400 electorate will cast their votes in 52 polling stations.

Financial terrorism

A prescient politician is one who reads the game better than others. Post his Japan trip, Modi addressed three back-to-back rallies in different parts of the country and asked his cabinet colleagues and party workers not to worry about the political fallout of the move since “the people are with us”. The problem for the opposition was to find a way past the binary and ensure that BJP doesn’t run away with the credit for launching war against corruption. Except Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and his Odisha counterpart Naveen Patnaik, the others badly failed in the job.

While Kumar and Patnaik carefully avoided the trap by welcoming the move and waited patiently for the government to trip up, the pack of Congress, Left, TMC, RJD, SP, BSP and AAP tore into Modi. In a high-pitched campaign filled with shrill rhetoric they alleged that the Prime Minister has leaked information selectively to his “friends”, insinuating that he is morally corrupted and called his currency ban program a “big scam”.

The Left taunted him as “Modi Antoinette”, Congress compared him to Muammar Gaddafi, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler and Ghulam Nabi Azad, the leader of opposition in Rajya Sabha, compared the stress-related deaths due to demonetization program to Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attacks on Uri.

That is economic or financial terrorism.

Arvind Kejriwal and Mamata Banerjee have taken a more confrontational stance, demanding that Modi roll back the move “within three days or else face revolt and unrest.”

Supreme Court criticizes the state move

The demonetization issue has affected lives of common people so much that even the Supreme Court, while refusing to stay the government’s notification demonetizing Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes, has asked it to spell out the steps taken to minimize public inconvenience. “We will not be granting any stay,” a bench comprising Chief Justice T S Thakur and D Y Chandrachud said. The remarks were made after some advocates insisted on a stay. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, however, said he was not asking for a stay on the notification but seeking answers from the government about the steps taken to remove public inconvenience. The bench asked Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to file an affidavit about the measures already undertaken by the government and the RBI to minimize public inconvenience and also the steps likely to be undertaken in future.

Without issuing any notice to the Centre or the RBI, the bench posted the matter for further hearing on November 25. During the hearing, the Chief Justice said the objective seems to be laudable “but there is some inconvenience also to the public at large.” The bench also said “You (Centre) can have surgical strike against black money but you cannot have surgical strike against people of the country.

The Centre which had filed a caveat in the matter, sought dismissal of the petitions challenging demonetization on several grounds including that they were “misconceived”. Attorney General (AG) Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, outlined the idea behind demonetization and said large number of fake currency has been used to finance terrorism in various parts of the country including in Jammu and Kashmir and northeastern states. He, however, agreed with the bench that some inconvenience to common citizens occurs as this kind of “surgical strike” is bound to have “some kind of collateral damage”. He also said there were as many as 24 crore bank accounts including 22 crore opened under the ‘Jan Dhan Scheme’ and the Centre was hopeful to “ramp up” the outflow of the cash to banks, post offices and two lakh ATMs across the country. “Two lakh ATM machines could not have been deliberated in advance to be in tune with new notes as the cash would have been out of the banks,” Rohatgi said, adding that “secrecy is the key to such actions”.

There were approximately one lakh branches of various banks and two lakh ATMs besides the post offices across the country to dispense cash to common people and the restriction on withdrawal is there to ensure that the money be paid to maximum number of people. Supreme Court summed up the submission contending that there was no legal basis for opposing the Centre’s move to demonetize the higher denomination currency notes aimed at “catching big fish” which the previous governments failed to do in last 50 years. He said the Centre has complied with section 26(2) of the RBI Act and the present “surgical strike has to be seen in the context of safety and security of the nation, its border, and financial terrorism unleashed through fake currency.” “The attack is on those who have stashed huge amount of currency,” he said, adding that the surgical strike of this nature has to be carried out in complete secrecy and it was not possible to come out with Rs 10 lakh crore of currency in one go as there was a need for recalibration of ATM machines across the country.

The AG was assisted by a team of lawyers, including two Additional Solicitors General, and a senior official from the Finance Ministry. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners Adil Alvi, said the petition has also challenged the constitutional validity of the notification as the provision of the Reserve Bank of India Act has not been complied with. He referred to section 26(2) of the Act and said the government was not authorised to demonetize all series of currency notes of high denominations in one go.

There has to be legislation if the government wants to demonetize the entire series of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes, Sibal said, adding that in 1978, a law was brought to demonetize the currency notes of particular denominations. Sibal then highlighted the inconvenience faced by the common people in getting their own money from banks and ATMs and said it was a “surgical strike against the common man.” The apex court, on November 10, had agreed to hear pleas against the November 8 decision of the Narendra Modi government that these notes are no longer a legal tender. Out of the four PILs on the demonetization issue, two were filed by Delhi-based lawyers Vivek Narayan Sharma and Sangam Lal Pandey, while two others were filed by individuals, S Muthukumar and Adil Alvi.

The petitioners had alleged that the sudden decision has created chaos and harassment to public at large and the notification of the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance be either quashed or deferred for some time. Sharma, in his plea, had termed the notification of DEA as “dictatorial”, claiming that it did not grant reasonable time to citizens for exchanging the specified bank notes to legitimate notes to avoid “large scale mayhem, life threatening difficulties”. The plea also sought either quashing of the notification or a direction to the Centre for grant of “reasonable time frame” to citizens to exchange the demonetized currency notes to avoid difficulties being faced by the people. The Prime Minister, in a televised address to the nation, had declared that high denomination notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 will no longer be legal tender from November 8-9 midnight. He had said the Government has declared a “decisive war” against black money and corruption.

Severe cash crunch compels citizens to seek psychiatric help

Demonetization, besides causing lot of commotion, troubles, financial difficulties, also caused serious psychological problems for the people who suffer traumatic issues. Many young people have approached psychiatrists for treatment. In many cases, worried families are bringing their aggrieved members to psychiatrists for crisis intervention. A father whose daughter’s wedding is fixed in November came to meet Dr C Suresh, a psychiatrist at Yashoda Hospital, this week. He was undergoing acute stress due to his inability to access his own money kept in the bank. This was before the government relaxed the withdrawal limit to Rs 2.5 lakh for a wedding. “I counseled him that he will get his money back, told him that this is for nation building. In this case, I had to give him a tranquilizer to calm his mind because he was very nervous,” says Suresh. Another patient, who had applied for a US visa, got panic attacks because of the situation and was slipping into a depressed state of mind.

Psychiatrists say the feeling of happiness, contentment, and well-being is controlled by a chemical called serotonin. Its levels dip when the mind is under acute stress. They warn that a prolonged spell of disruption and worry could lead to impulse control disorder, which is an urge that could harm oneself or others.

Experts say this is a new experience for mainland India as it is not used to an unstable economy or a situation in which rationing of some kind takes place. News is being consumed far more than usual for the latest updates. The government’s decision to change the withdrawal limit thrice in the last ten days has +led to doubts if it knows the roadmap well.

Psychiatrists believe that the present crisis has also led to a trust deficit, with everyone suspecting the other of stashing unaccounted cash.

The fabric of trust is slowly broken, which is not good for society in the long run.’ Experts say it is important for this crisis to get over in a week or two. Already many are resorting to obsessive hoarding of Rs 100 notes, which is a disorder arising out of frustration. Tempers are running high and the Supreme Court has already cautioned the government, rightly, that there could be riots on the streets if the currency is not provided in the banks soon.

Observations: triclomacy won’t work for ever

The results of the recent by polls in states do not suggest any hopes for the BJP and Modi, except that they have retained their own seats but the BJP and Congress ruled states need a third alternative to save India and people.

Upon criticism by the Apex Court the Modi government released some Rs 100 and Rs 50 and Rs 20 notes to somewhat relax popular difficulties

Obviously, no proper home work has been done, even considering the seriousness of the government, for the proper implementation but only money is being gathered in banks to promote the corporate lords and transnational bosses globally as government and private sector jointly exploit the confusion among the masses.

Shortage of money is bad. Markets turned empty, small businesses were majorly hit while ATMs stayed out of service, cooperative banks fell silent, banks and post offices neared implosion as public appeared fast approaching the end of their mental tethers.

People are made to think inconveniences that seem insurmountable now will slowly ease over time. Small business enterprises that have come to a screeching halt will eventually move again. ATMs will have their queues shortened and banks will, at some point in near future, see lesser footfalls and more IPL type games adding more black money to the market.

A time will come when the disorder will dissipate, but the opposition will find that in the “war against corruption”, they tried to create hurdles in Modi’s path. That would make for a gripping political narrative.

Normalcy is still some distance away and the lines are not shortening anytime soon but even at the height of discontent when cash was short and tempers were high, people never wavered from backing the drive. They were hit on the chin and bleeding but they wiped the blood and carried on, imposing full faith in the Prime Minister.

Polls conducted among 10,000 citizens from across 200 citizens of India since the demonetization reveal public support for the Prime Minister’s drive remains high.

Strange as it may seem to many, a report by news agency ANI finds that support for the government’s demonetization program has increased during the last week as people want to see a corruption free and black money free India. . According to the report, a portion of the citizens who were unsure and the ones who did not support the note ban are now coming out in support. The survey by LocalCircles found that in the week after Modi’s announcement, 78 per cent citizens backed the demonetization.

That was upwardly revised to 79 per cent in a follow-up poll after a week on 15 November, indicating that even as hardships increased, more and more people kept backing the PM. A survey was also done separately online in 13 states. More than 80 percent citizens in states like Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Telangana offered unconditional support whereas over 25 per cent citizens in states like Uttarakhand, Goa and Odisha said that that they are supportive of the program despite pain and inconvenience.

Whether or not PM Modi and his BJP-RSS partners are trying to burn their fingers is not clear as yet but if they fail to achieve the stated objectives, their future status would be very, very bleak.

Already, the image of BJP as a purely patriotic outfit and PM Modi as a deliverer of justice and money has been declining over time and it is in the negative as people indeed do not trust them as well. .

While Indians seriously doubt sincerity of PM Modi and his BJP-RSS, they also do not want to return to Congress fold even by mistake.

The political outfits with Hindutva agenda are at a crossroads. Whether or not they would give up fanaticism and gimmicks in favor of realpolitik remains to be seen.

By Addie Mena

A French court has drawn international backlash for ruling that a popular video showing happy children with Down syndrome was “inappropriate” for French television.

“It’s so absurd. I have never heard of a ruling so egregious,” said Michelle Sie Whitten, president and CEO of the Global Down Syndrome Foundation.

She called the decision “shocking” and “offensive,” adding that it “flies in the face of freedom of speech.”

The video in question, entitled “Dear Future Mom,” was released in 2014 for World Down Syndrome Day and has received more than 7 million viewers online alone. It shows children with Down syndrome from around the world reassuring a mother whose child has received a diagnosis. The children tell her that her child “can be happy – just like I am” and reinforce what they are able to do and accomplish.

On Nov. 10, the French Council of State, a body of the French government, ruled that the short video was inappropriate for broadcast on French television as a commercial.

In a decision upholding the French Broadcasting Council’s earlier ban of the video, the Council of State said it failed to meet the criteria for a public service announcement. In its reasoning, it pointed out that the happiness of the children shown in the video was “likely to disturb the conscience of women who had lawfully made different personal life choices.”

The Council of State only banned the film as a commercial or announcement, and said it would not ban the video from broadcast in other forms.

Sie Whitten told CNA that the alarming decision should be overturned immediately.

“We need to stand up to this,” she urged. “We need to join the people in France who understand that is a slippery slope.”

Down syndrome, also known as Trisomy 21, is a genetic condition where a child is born with an extra copy of the 21st chromosome. It is typically associated with intellectual disabilities, delays and abnormalities in physical growth, and other concurrent medical issues.

Due to the high rate of prenatal screening, as many as nine out of ten children diagnosed with Down syndrome in utero are aborted. However, advances in care for people with Down syndrome has raised the life expectancy and quality of life for children born with the condition.

A 2011 study found that 99 percent of people with Down syndrome report being happy with their life, higher than surveys of the general public.

The French video was produced, along with other organizations, by the Jerome Lejeune Foundation, which appealed the original ban by French Broadcasting Council. The organization will now appeal the decision at the European Court of Human Rights.

Jean-Marie Le Mene, president of the Jerome Lejeune Foundation in France, criticized the court’s ruling in a statement, saying that the decision puts the destruction and protection of human life on the same plane “as if the two acts had the same value.”

“Indeed, experience shows that women who have given birth to a child with a disability do not regret having chosen life,” Le Mene stated. He further criticized the decision as removing “happy Down syndrome children from view.” This position of the court, he continued, asks people to “consider whether the freedom of expression of people with Down syndrome should bow down in favor of the right to abortion.”

Dr. Monica Lopez Barahona, president of the Jerome Lejeune Foundation, in Spain also commented on the situation, saying that the video campaign was created “to help families with a child with Down syndrome, to show that these children can be as happy as any.”

The Jerome Lejeune Foundation is an international organization founded by friends and colleagues of Professor Jerome Lejeune, the French scientist who is widely considered the father of modern medical genetics.

Lejeune discovered the genetic causes of Down syndrome in 1958, the first discovery of a chromosomal anomaly. An ardent Catholic, he worked for the rest of his life against the use of prenatal testing to target unborn children with the condition for abortion.

He was named by Pope Saint John Paul II as the first president of the Pontifical Academy for Life in 1994. His cause for canonization is open.

More than 30 Sri Lankan Muslims have joined the so-called Islamic State in Syria, said Sri Lanka’s justice minister who added that they came from well-educated families.

Speaking in parliament, Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe said that 32 young Muslims from “well-educated and elite” families had joined the extremist group.

“All these [Muslims] are not from ordinary families. These people are from the families which are considered as well-educated and elite,” Reuters reported Rajapakshe as saying.

Rajapakshe added that the authorities were aware of foreigners coming to Sri Lanka to spread what he described as Islamic extremism.

The justice minister’s statement has been condemned by Muslim organizations who say it is racist politicking.

Muslims make up 10 percent of Sri Lanka’s 20 million people.

US President-elect Donald J. Trump announced Wednesday that he intends to nominate Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC) as the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, a cabinet-level position in the Trump-Pence Administration.

In a press statement, the Trump team said, “Governor Haley is one of the most universally respected governors in the country. After working at her family’s business, Governor Haley turned her focus to economic development and has traveled abroad to negotiate with international companies on behalf of South Carolina. As governor, she has led seven overseas trade missions and successfully attracted jobs and investment through negotiations with foreign companies.”

“Governor Haley has a proven track record of bringing people together regardless of background or party affiliation to move critical policies forward for the betterment of her state and our country,” said President-elect Trump in the statement. “She is also a proven dealmaker, and we look to be making plenty of deals. She will be a great leader representing us on the world stage.”

“Our country faces enormous challenges here at home and internationally, and I am honored that the President-elect has asked me to join his team and serve the country we love as the next Ambassador to the United Nations,” said Governor Haley.

Born in Bamberg, South Carolina, the daughter of Indian immigrants, Governor Haley became the first female governor of her home state in 2011 and is currently the youngest governor in the country. Prior to becoming governor, she represented Lexington County in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 2005 to 2011.

By Sven Milekic

Following controversy and confusion in the media over why Turkey’s ambassador to Croatia, Ahmet Tuta, was withdrawn in August, a newspaper has claimed two former Turkish military attaches have applied for asylum in Croatia and are still in the country.

On Wednesday, the daily Vecernji list reported, citing sources from the Turkish Foreign Ministry, that two former Turkish military attaches present in Croatia for a NATO military exercise in July applied for political asylum in Croatia, after refusing to return to Turkey, fearing arrest.

Croatia’s Interior Ministry did not respond to BIRN’s inquiries about the two attaches.

Vecernji list also reported that Tuta was removed for not publicly stating that as a student he once attended a school run by the exiled Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen, who authorities in Ankara blame for fomenting the failed coup in July.

On Tuesday, the weekly paper Nacional first reported that Ambassador Tuta and his wife Mina were withdrawn for issues connected to the failed coup.

Mina Tuta also headed the Yunus Emre Institut in Zagreb. Opened by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on his visit to Zagreb in April, it promotes Turkish language, history, culture, art and the country.

Turkish embassy in Zagreb has confirmed to BIRN that ambassador Tuta ended his mandate regularly, while the Croatian Foreign Ministry said it was informed he would be leaving in August.

Croatian MP Goran Beus Richembergh, president of the Croatian-Turkish Friendship Association, told BIRN that Tuta was withdrawn before the end of his mandate.

Richemberg explained that the Tuta couple decided together that Mina should leave her post in the Institute, so the family would not be split up after the ambassador was told on August 15 to return to Turkey by the end of the month.

He said the couple continued performed their duties before leaving on August 27.

“I visited the Tutas on the evening of August 26 in the ambassador’s residence to say goodbye because the next day they had a flight back to Turkey. After that, I had no contact with them,” he concluded.

The Turkish authorities have repeatedly blamed Gulen, who lives in the US, for masterminding the failed coup in July, an accusation he denies.

Since July, the authorities have reportedly arrested 36,000 people, and more than 110,000 people have been sacked from jobs in the military, the civil service, the judiciary, education and the media.
– See more at: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/media-claim-turkish-attaches-seek-asylum-in-croatia-11-23-2016#sthash.aaXpYFrK.dpuf

Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State, has condemned slave-like and degrading conditions endured by many workers in the international fishing industry.

“Workers aboard fishing vessels are essentially isolated for long periods, deprived not only of contractual guarantees, but also of the most basic fundamental rights,” said Cardinal Pietro Parolin during a visit to the Rome headquarters of the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organisation on World Fisheries Day, reported Vatican Radio.

“Fishing vessels, particularly those involved in deep-sea fishing, have an ever-increasing capability to stay at sea for long periods of time, even up to several years,” the cardinal said.

“Rather than regularly docking, these vessels can ‘transship’ caught fish and fuel via smaller vessels,” he said.

“For the crews it means living in degrading conditions and in confined spaces, in circumstances that are tantamount to detention, with their documents confiscated and, in only a few cases, returned after long periods of forced and underpaid labor,” he added.

“We are, in essence, faced with persons deprived of their identity, with low wages and who are unable to rebuild their lives if let free. They are victims of a veritable slavery system.”

US President Barack Obama convened members of his national security team on Wednesday to review comprehensive domestic and international efforts to protect the American people during this holiday season.

Obama commended the continued cooperation between federal, state, and local authorities to ensure public safety and directed that all agencies maintain vigilance to ensure the US is best postured to defend the homeland and prevent attacks by individuals radicalized to violence.

The President was also briefed on recent successful military operations against Islamic State and al-Qaeda that targeted key external operations plotters.

According to the White House, Obama instructed the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community to maintain relentless pressure on terrorists seeking to harm Americans.

Obama also expressed his deep appreciation for U.S. personnel deployed around the world and the countless security personnel standing watch at the nation’s borders, ports, and facilities across the nation while their fellow Americans come together for the holidays, the White House added.

By MK Ngoyo*

Africa barely got a mention in the US presidential election. This is good. If Trump succeeds in purging the factions that advocate war, interventionism and imperialism from the US government he will have done all that he needs to do for Africa. We can ask no more than to be left alone by the world hegemon.

Prof Patrick Bond in his piece in Pambazuka News last week gives an interesting perspective on the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency. His article has inspired me to give my own quite different perspective.

How Donald Trump will govern is by no means certain at this point. However, on the basis of the speeches and interviews he has given since his election, there is no reason to conclude that the sky has fallen. In fact his election may prove to be a tremendous opportunity for Africa.

Trump is clearly neither a neoliberal nor a neoconservative. His position on cooperation and good relations with Russia shows him to be a noninterventionist. That is to say he is not an imperialist. The problem for Africa in its relations with the USA is not that the US intervenes too little in African affairs, but rather that it intervenes too much. If the US turns towards isolationism this will allow Africa a golden opportunity to increase and intensify its engagement with Asia, particularly China, but also with India, South America and Russia, free from American interference.

At the same time, because Trump is neither neoliberal nor neoconservative, it is unlikely that his appointments to the world’s multilateral institutions will come from the ranks of those factions. Besides if Trump is true to his promise to cooperate with other countries and in particular Russia, such cooperation will undoubtedly impact his choices for top posts in those organizations such as the World Bank where the US vote is determinative.

On the issue of climate change Trump is clearly not a true believer. Therefore we can indeed expect that his administration will push this issue to the back burner. Still there is no reason to panic. Other nations can take up unilateral and multilateral remedies without the US. It should also be pointed out that the predictions of the climate catastrophe camp are by no means certainties. Predictions of conditions in Africa in the year 2100 are rank speculation, as is the claim that such conditions will be affected by the actions of the US president today. It is hazardous enough to attempt to predict conditions ten years hence, let alone 80 years from now.

Africa barely rated a mention in the US presidential election campaign. This is good. If Africa is not a priority for the new US president, the continent is likely to be left alone. If Trump succeeds in purging the factions that advocate war, interventionism and imperialism from the US government he will have done all that he needs to do for Africa. We can ask no more than to be left alone by the world hegemon.

In Trump the once seemingly inexorable march of the army of free trade and globalization, more correctly called Americanization, that has trampled countries, cultures and communities without a backward glance, may have finally met a force capable of stopping it. If Trump can put a stop to the TTIP and TTP he will have done Africa and the world a signal service.

Donald Trump repeatedly promised to “put America First”. The phrase “America First” hearkens back to the America First Committee that sought to prevent US entry into World War Two. The phrase has a thoroughly isolationist pedigree in American politics, referring also to the isolationist America First political party. It is by no means certain that Trump will succeed in imposing isolationism on the extremely powerful imperialist/neoliberal/neoconservative factions of the American elite. But in pulling off this most improbable election victory, Trump has shown that he is a winner and it would be most unwise to count on his failing.

Perhaps what most disturbed African opinion about Trump was the racism, bigotry and misogyny that lay just beneath the surface of much of his campaign rhetoric. Two things can be said about this. First, the rhetoric has completely disappeared since he won the presidency. Two, this is largely an internal matter for the United States. His treatment of immigrants, documented or undocumented, and of Blacks and the Gay community will be moderated both by American law, which has come quite far along the road towards justice (not far enough though), but more importantly by the push back from the progressive movement. A major domestic benefit for the US arising from Trump’s election will be reinvigoration of the Progressive Movement, which has been almost completely neutered under Obama. This, nonetheless, remains an issue primarily for Americans. From an African perspective it is much better for Africa to be a good home for Africans than for America to be a good refuge for them.

Finally, we must remember that at the present time, probably nobody but President-Elect Trump knows what he intends to do in the coming year. All the foregoing must be taken in that spirit. Trump may surprise us by departing from the tradition of American hegemonistic practice. If so, his will be a truly beneficial presidency for Africa.

* MK Ngoyo is an independent contributor living in the United States. He tweets as @mkngoyo and can be reached at  mkngoyo@gmail.com.

By Dr. Alon Ben-Meir*

In a recent conversation I had with students, faculty, and alumni at New York University just before the start of my program “Global Leaders: Conversations with Alon Ben-Meir” on November 3, I had the opportunity to answer some questions concerning the turmoil in the Middle East and America’s role in the world. The following is my take on some of these events and how they might further evolve over time; questions and answers have been edited and condensed for clarity.

Q: What’s your take on the status at this point of the Iranian nuclear deal?

ABM: I remember when the deal was first sealed, I wrote a piece called “The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly About the Iran Deal.” There were elements that are good in the deal, some were really bad, and some others I called ugly, in a sense that we didn’t know how the deal would eventually unfold. Although the deal may delay Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, say for the next 10 years, I believe that Iran is still committed to acquiring such weapons, under almost any circumstances.

Iran is not seeking such weapons in order to use them—not against Israel or against any other country. The Iranians feel they have legitimate national security concerns. With nuclear weapons Iran would inhibit any outside power from trying to effect regime change. It will be in a position to neutralize both Israel’s and Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals, and prevent any enemy from attacking it. I can cite several other reasons, including its concern over instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and its desire to consolidate its national identity as a superpower under the aegis of the Shiite Islamic regime. It has also ambitions to become the region’s hegemon. With nuclear weapons, it would be in a position to intimidate its neighbors and enjoy greater leverage to advance its own regional political agenda.

The ugly part of the deal, so to speak, is the fact that Iran is now legally permitted to enrich uranium, albeit at a lower grade and quantity, and can keep much of its nuclear facilities almost intact, including more than 10,000 centrifuges that are merely idle. In addition, unlike other nuclear facilities that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can inspect at will, Iran is permitted to deny access to some of its military facilities without prior knowledge. This suggests that should Iran decide to move toward acquiring nuclear weapons, it still has its nuclear plants and technology, including all the centrifuges, to do just that. Even though this could invite severe punitive actions by Western powers, Iran may well be in a position to bear such measures, as it will economically be strong enough to withstand the resumption of sanctions.

On the whole, however, I think delaying Iran’s nuclear weapon program potentially for 10 years was a good idea and still is. It is possible, as some in the West speculate, that the circumstances, globally speaking, could change and Iran may feel sufficiently secure and prosperous and decide not to seek nuclear weapons. That said, the West, Israel, and the Sunni Arab world ought to remain extremely vigilant and not trust Iran, who has the propensity to cheat. As I see it, Iran is committed to acquire nuclear weapons, and it is not likely to change given these reasons.

Q: Have you been in Israel lately? Are public attitudes any less anxious in Israel, now that there’s been some time with the deal in place?

ABM: Those Israelis who know the dynamics of the conflict and carefully assess the Iranian threat also know that Israel possesses potentially up to 200 nuclear warheads. It is believed that Israel has submarines armed with nuclear weapons roaming constantly in the Red, Mediterranean, and Arabian Seas, and Tehran is not oblivious to that. Iran knows that should they acquire such weapons, and should they decide to go mad and use it against Israel, they could inflict unimaginable destruction in Israel. However, Israel will still have a second-strike nuclear capability that could wipe Iran from the face of the earth. Israel made its position abundantly clear: when it comes to existential threats, it will take any steps necessary to ensure the survival of the state.

Q: To somebody who is not knowledgeable, it seems like Putin is trying to reestablish the USSR. Erdogan is trying to reestablish the Ottoman Empire, Iran seems to be trying to establish the Persian Empire, and China seems to be trying to make up for three centuries of insults. Are we standing aside to let these people play out against each other, or do we just not know what’s happening?

ABM: There’s no surprise about Russia’s ambition, or Turkey’s for that matter, or what Iran or China would like to do. However, Putin knows that he cannot and will not be able to restore the so-called glory of the Soviet Union, because the Eastern European map has changed so dramatically that there will be no return to the old days. That said, he certainly wants to maintain Russia’s role as a superpower that can influence events beyond its borders, and he is succeeding to some extent—Syria provide a good example. Turkey’s president Erdogan knows that he will not be able to restore the grandeur of the Ottoman Empire–that’s simply not going to happen.  He is trying to become the leader of the Sunni Muslim world, but he has been rebuffed time and again.

And as I said, Khamenei wants Iran to become the region’s hegemon and he will keep at it, but that too remains in question. China, for obvious reasons, want to be the dominant power in its area by virtue of its size and power. What they all are trying to do is to consolidate their power to the extent possible. And when they see a vacuum that the US has created, be that in Asia, the Middle East, or Europe, you can count on the Chinese, Russians, and Iranians to try to fill in that gap.

Q: Do you think the US could have pursued different policies to arrest some of these developments?

In this regard, unfortunately, over the last 16 years the United States has created more than one vacuum. The Iraq War has, for all intents and purposes, dismantled the Middle East previous order. However chaotic it might have been, it is considerably more chaotic today and will remain so for years, I dare say even decades to come.

And what happened here is that you have a president [Obama] who, with the best of intentions, was in many ways naïve, in a sense that he thought that given the Iraq War and Afghanistan, the US should not engage in another conflict and get more American soldiers to die in another Middle Eastern conflict, in another Arab country.

It is not that we should get involved in every conflict in the Middle East or elsewhere; the question is and will always be, can the United States, as the global power, afford not to get involved in another conflict to ensure global security and the security of its allies? I believe the answer is quite clear. The United States cannot shirk that responsibility, whether we like it or not.

What I’m saying—take Syria for example—is that we should have done something there much earlier. When Assad crossed the so-called red line and used chemical weapons, we should have acted by bombing, for example, some of Assad’s air force facilities to maintain our credibility. By doing nothing, the US lost much of its credibility in the eyes of Assad himself, the Russians, the Chinese, and certainly Iran.

Even though we managed to get rid of Syria’s chemical weapons, our allies in the Middle East are worried. Do the Saudis have a reason to concern themselves with their national security today? Do the Israelis have similar concerns? Do other Gulf States, or do the Egyptians? These countries’ national security depends almost exclusively on America’s ability and willingness to come to their aid when it’s needed. We have created doubt. America cannot afford to create doubt in the minds of countries who depend on its commitment for their national security. That is the greatest concern I have, and that is going to follow us and be with us for a while.

Having said all that and some, whether you speak of Russia, China, or any other country, they are still nowhere near the United States in terms of influence and an ability to project itself. We have troops in a few dozen countries today; we have by far the largest concentration of military power in the Middle East than any other country in the world.

We have the assets, we know what it takes, but I believe in the last 7 or 8 years, there was a lack of will to use these assets, both hard and soft power. But America’s selective involvement and its choice of assets to be used will remain absolutely critical.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

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

By Mihai Popșoi*

(FPRI) — On November 13, over 52.1% of Moldovans voted for Igor Dodon of the Socialist Party. He is the country’s fifth elected president and only the third elected directly by the people. Those dissatisfied with the outcome took to social media to protest under the now popular slogan #notmypresident; a couple of hundred people also took to the streets calling for the Central Election Commission (CEC) members to resign. Dodon’s opponent, Maia Sandu, gained 47.9% of the vote and has not yet formally conceded. Following numerous instances of mismanagement by the CEC and allegations of voter fraud, Sandu announced plans to challenge the election results at the Constitutional Court. However, given the four percent difference in the number of votes, and, even more so, the fact that the Constitutional Court is known to be heavily influenced by the Executive Coordinator of the Ruling Coalition, oligarch Vladimir Plahotniuc, the Court is likely to rule in Dodon’s favor and validate the election. On the off chance that it decides to cancel the results, the country is likely to see mass protests by Dodon’s supporters. In fact, Dodon already threatened Sandu’s backers in no uncertain terms demanding that they tone down their rhetoric and leave the streets; otherwise, they run the risk of being confronted by much larger groups of his own followers. The situation remains tense and somewhat uncertain. Therefore, it is helpful to evaluate how Moldova got to this point.

The presidential race itself was marred by controversy before campaigning even started. Direct presidential elections were reintroduced in March 2016 following a controversial Constitutional Court ruling, which canceled the 2000 Constitutional reform that mandated Parliament must elect the president. This ruling was seen as politically motivated and aimed at derailing the protest movement against government corruption.

The partisanship, divisiveness, and personal attacks waged during the presidential campaign will leave deep scars on Moldova’s political scene because it opened old wounds of ethno-linguistic tension and caused new ones stemming from misogyny, homophobia, and geopolitical fear-mongering. The presumed winner of the election, Igor Dodon, hopes to move forward, but many voters are not willing to accept his olive branch. Apart from his anti-European, anti-Romanian, and anti-Ukrainian message, Dodon led a negative campaign that divorced the facts from reality, and he was funded by powerful backers in Moscow and Moldova. Here are the three major factors that influenced the election in Dodon’s favor:

A political endorsement from Moscow made Dodon automatically a front runner in the election, particularly because the above-mentioned Constitutional Court ruling barred Renato Usatii, the other pro-Russian candidate, who was polling higher than Dodon, from running. The ruling set the age requirement for presidential candidates at a minimum of 40 years. Despite his harsh criticism of Dodon, Usatii still endorsed him in the runoffs—a decision that was dictated by Usatii’s own dependence on Moscow. At the same time, the Communist Party, lacking a feasible candidate, decided to boycott the election in the first round. They then halfheartedly supported Dodon in the runoffs not only to keep what was left of their electoral base, but also not to burn bridges with Russia. Clearly, had it not been for the Kremlin’s stamp of approval in the form of a personal blessing from Patriarch Kirill, Dodon would have struggled more to connect with Russian-speaking Moldovans and religious rural voters. In fact, having the Church in his corner allowed Dodon to a wage a dog whistle campaign questioning Sandu’s sexual orientation, morality, and faith, ultimately questioning her fitness for office.

Moreover, without the backing and covert support from Vladimir Plahotniuc, Dodon would have found it difficult to get his message across. After all, it is Plahotniuc who controls more than half of the Moldovan media market, including the rebroadcasting rights of the leading Russian news channel, which promoted Dodon as the Kremlin’s favorite.  Dodon’s ties with Plahotniuc go back to when Dodon was the Minister of Economy (2006-2009) and Plahotniuc was laying the foundation for his business empire, including by privatizing government-owned real estate. After Plahotniuc switched sides in 2009 when pro-EU parties came to power, Dodon stayed in opposition, but soon defected from the Communists and took over the Party of Socialists. He has been in opposition for the last seven years, but has nonetheless cooperated with the Plahotniuc-backed government on a number of crucial occasions. Most notably, in 2012, he helped to provide the necessary votes in the parliament to re-elect[1] the President Nicolae Timofti, thus maintaining the pro-European parties in power. Despite this cooperation, during the 2016 campaign, Dodon not only absolved himself of any responsibility for reelecting Timofti, but also was instrumental in channeling the anti-government corruption sentiment to cast a shadow on Sandu even though she was not connected to a major bank fraud case known as the billion dollar scandal. As Sandu was running on an integrity platform, these allegations caused significant damage. Lacking the traditional media access enjoyed by Dodon, Sandu’s camp failed to respond to these and other allegations effectively, making the damage irreparable.

While the election monitoring mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights concluded that the second round of the presidential election in Moldova was competitive and respectful of voters’ rights, there were still troubling cases of voter manipulation and electoral fraud. Dodon’s margin of victory stands at 67,488 votes, which is a relatively large margin considering the 1.6 million votes cast. However, this margin has shrunk from the moment preliminary results were announced due to what the CEC calls honest errors. Yet, more importantly, this election saw an unusually high number of Moldovan citizens residing in Transnistria voting. According to numerous media reports, there was a concerted effort to bribe and bus people from Transnistria into Moldova proper to vote for Dodon. It is estimated that about 20,000 Transnistrians voted in these elections, compared to almost no participation in previous elections. This mobilization effort would have been impossible without the explicit approval of the separatist authorities. Some of these voters from Transnistria confirmed on camera that it was the Transnistrian leader Yevgeny Shevchuk who mobilized them. Local experts believe it was Plahotniuc who asked Shevchuk for a favor on Dodon’s behalf, and Moscow signed off on the voter mobilization effort to solidify Dodon’s chances. The phenomenon itself not only casts a shadow of doubt over the election outcome, but also needlessly antagonized many people from Moldova proper against their fellow citizens from Transnistria, who are perceived as having contributed to the rigging of the election even though the 20,000 votes would not have changed the results. On the other hand, there was a positive development in this year’s elections as a record number of Moldovans living abroad exercised their right to vote. In fact, more than twice as many people voted compared to the parliamentary election in 2014 despite a very limited number of polling stations opened by the Moldovan government abroad. The Romanian government provided free travel to polling stations for Moldovan students in Romania, but, unlike in Transnistria’s case, there have been no reports of bribes.

Dodon’s victory was hardly unexpected. He garnered much of the popular dissatisfaction with endemic government corruption taking place under the rule of nominally pro-European parties. Backed by Russia and the most influential oligarch in Moldova, Dodon’s victory was all but assured. From this perspective, the support that Maia Sandu was able to garner is remarkable. She was virtually unknown only a few years ago; trailed Dodon in pre-election polls by double digits; and lacked Dodon’s financial and political machine, but nonetheless almost pulled a major upset. Now, Sandu faces the challenge of maintaining the support of the coalition that propelled her to these heights by continuing the mutually-beneficial cooperation with her competitor-turned-ally Andrei Nastase and his party. Such cooperation will not be easy as Nastase and Sandu will soon become competitors again in the parliamentary campaign, but the success of the pro-Western forces will depend on their ability to stand united against the pro-Russian Igor Dodon and oligarch Vlad Plahotniuc.

Despite gaining no new powers, a nationally elected president will employ his newly gained popular legitimacy to project his agenda onto the public as well as state institutions. A president has a high international profile and an important role in defense and national security. Therefore, Moldova’s relations with neighboring Ukraine and Romania are likely to suffer as a result of Dodon’s antagonizing rhetoric. Relations with the European Union are also going to stagnate at best and, perhaps, see a downturn if Dodon pursues his anti-European agenda. On the other hand, Dodon is likely to score some political points by negotiating better market access for Moldovan goods and Moldovan workers in Russia. Despite Dodon being legally required to renounce his party membership once in office, the Socialists will nonetheless benefit and set themselves on a winning trajectory going into the next legislative elections.

About the author:
*Mihai Popșoi is an Associate Expert with the Foreign Policy Association of Moldova

Source:
This article was published at FPRI

Note:
[1] At that time, the president was still elected by the parliament, not through direct elections.

(Civil.Ge) — The Georgian Foreign Ministry condemned “an illegal” and “provocative” step by the Russian Federation on establishing a Combined Group of Forces as “a demonstration of aggression against Georgia.”

“These kinds of provocative steps by the Russian Federation serve the purpose of ultimate annexation of the occupied regions of Georgia, which is a complete disregard of the fundamental principles and norms of international law and undermines the established international order,” the Georgian Foreign Ministry said in its third official statement on this issue over the past year.

The Georgian Foreign Ministry said that this “illegal step” represents “a rude violation of the territorial integrity and inviolability of internationally recognized borders of the sovereign state, and a demonstration of aggression against Georgia.”

“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs calls on the Russian Federation to honor the undertaken obligations and fully comply with the 12 August 2008 Ceasefire Agreement, withdraw its military units from the occupied territories of Georgia and ensure the establishment of international security arrangements in the Abkhazia and Tskhinvali regions.,” it said.

Tbilisi also called on international community “to give a due assessment to the aggressive moves of the Russian Federation and take effective measures to avoid further aggravation of the security situation in the region.”

Russian President Vladimer Putin signed ratification of the treaty into law on November 22 after Russia’s State Duma and Federation Council ratified the treaty on November 2 and November 16, respectively; the breakaway region’s parliament ratified the same treaty in December 2015, a month after its signing.

The treaty will remain in force for 10 years with a possibility of automatic prolongation for a term of 5 years.

The group will combine the Russian military base deployed in Abkhazia as well as two separate Abkhaz motorized rifle battalions, artillery and aviation groups, as well as special purpose unit.

The U.S. Department of State said on November 22 that it does not recognize “the legitimacy of this so-called “treaty”, which does not constitute a valid international agreement” and called on Russia to fulfill all of its commitments under the 2008 ceasefire agreement.

A recent article published in IEEE Intelligent Systems highlights the requirements the IoT will place on search engines and brings together the latest research being carried out in this field.

‘On Searching the Internet of Things: Requirements and Challenges’ was written by leading researchers working in the field of next generation communications at the University of Surrey’s Institute of Communication Systems (home of the 5G Innovation Centre) and Ohio Center of Excellence in Knowledge Enabled Computing (Kno.e.sis) at Wright State University (USA).

With more and more IoT devices being connected to the internet, and smart city data projects starting to be implemented, there is an urgent need to develop new search solutions which will allow information from IoT sources to be found and extracted. While existing search engines have ever more sophisticated and effective ways of crawling through web pages and searching for textual data, the article argues that they will not be effective in accessing the type of numerical and sensory data which IoT devices will need to gather.

The article states that whereas in the past, human users have searched for information on the web, the IoT will see more machine-to-machine searches which are automatically generated depending on location, preferences and local information. Autonomous vehicles, for example, will need to automatically collect data (such as traffic and weather information) from various sources without a user being involved.

The IoT also presents a challenge in terms of cyber security. Applications which rely on public data, such as smart city technologies, need to be very accessible to make them available to a wide range of applications and services. Search mechanisms for these devices will need to provide efficient methods of indexing, crawling and finding data while ensuring the data is safe from hackers.

The University of Surrey’s 5G Innovation Centre – the UK’s largest hub for research into next generation communications- is conducting a number of projects in the field of IoT search engines. These include developing search mechanisms that describe the sources of the data required, and developing algorithms for clustering and analysis of IoT ‘time-series’ data.

The article’s lead author Dr Payam Barnaghi (a Reader in Machine Intelligence at the University of Surrey), said, “Search engines have come a long way since their original purpose of locating documents, but they still lack the connection between social, physical and cyber data which will be needed in the IoT era. IoT data retrieval will require efficient and scalable indexing and ranking mechanisms, and also integration between the services provided by smart devices and data discovery.”

“IoT technologies such as autonomous cars, smart cities and environmental monitoring could have a very positive impact on millions of lives. Our goal is to consider the many complex requirements and develop solutions which will enable these exciting new technologies.”

The article’s second author, Professor Amit Sheth of Kno.e.sis, commented: “I see tremendous opportunities to effectively utilize physical (especially IoT), cyber and social data by improving the abilities of machines to convert diverse data into meaningful abstractions that matter to human experiences and decision making. IoT search, particularly for devices or machines to interact with each other to find and aggregate relevant information on a human’s behalf, will become a critical enabler.”

‘On Searching the Internet of Things: Requirements and Challenges’ was published in IEEE Intelligent Systems.

By Rodney Reynolds

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who has been unwavering in his longstanding campaign to usher in “a world without nuclear weapons”, has expressed strong disappointment over “a deep division” among the UN’s 193 member states over the future of multilateral disarmament.

On the one hand, nuclear-weapon States, along with many of their allies, argue that they have taken steps to reduce their arsenals, he said.

On the other hand, non-nuclear-weapon States point to the lack of disarmament negotiations; the persistence of thousands of nuclear weapons; and plans for modernizing existing nuclear arsenals decades into the future with costs that run well over $1 trillion, said Ban in a November 22 keynote address before the New York University’s School of Professional Studies.

In a farewell address, mostly to a gathering of academics, peace activists and anti-nuclear groups, Ban was critical of the Geneva-based UN Conference on Disarmament (CD), which has been grounded to a standstill for nearly 20 years, including during his 10-year tenure as Secretary-General, even as he steps down on December 31.

Since he took over as Secretary-General back in January 2007, Ban said he has been going to Geneva many times and addressing the Conference on Disarmament. (On United Nations Day Oct 24, 2009 he released a Five-Point Proposal for Nuclear Disarmament.)

The UN disarmament machinery is “locked in chronic stalemate”, he lamented.

“You would be surprised – [for] over two decades, they have not been able to adopt the programme of work. Can you believe it? Not to mention, let alone the lack of progress in the work.”

He decried the CD has not been able to adopt even an agenda.

“Twenty year, this has existed, and I have been warning them: If you behave this way, we will have to bring the discussions in the Conference on Disarmament, we will have to bring them to some other venue, but they don’t listen… Because of the consensus system, just one country can block the whole 193 Member States. This is a totally unacceptable situation,” he warned.

The costs of allowing this kind of a status quo, non-action – they are still persistent. This is very frustrating, Ban complained.

Although he warned, “disarmament is facing a crisis”, he diplomatically avoided responding directly to the harsh pro-nuclear rhetoric from the incoming U.S. President Donald Trump who hinted that countries such as South Korea and Japan should go nuclear to protect themselves rather than rely on the United States.

Asked for his observations on the current state of disarmament, Dr M. V. Ramana, who is with the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University, told IDN: “This is a strange time to be talking about disarmament, given the many developments that make it unlikely that there will be progress on that front anytime soon.”

The United States, he pointed out, has just elected Donald Trump who has even indicated that he would consider using nuclear weapons. He said relations between the United States and Russia have deteriorated and the future of bilateral arms control between them is bleak.

Most of the countries with nuclear weapons, in particular the United States, are in the process of modernizing or expanding their nuclear arsenals.

“With Secretary General Ban Ki-moon stepping down, the role of the United Nations is also uncertain. One of the few avenues for optimism that I see comes from the recent vote by a majority of the countries at the United Nations to start negotiations on a treaty banning nuclear weapons,” said Dr Ramana.

“Reading runes or chicken entrails would be as reliable predictors of what a President Trump might do on disarmament as sifting through his utterances,” noted Dr Rebecca Johnson, of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy.

“He’s a maverick businessman, not a diplomat. His belief system, which now appears to have been reinforced by this election, is that success is what matters, whatever works to win the short term deal, no matter what else is sacrificed or what the longer term consequences might be.”

Dr Johnson said Trump embodies narcissistic exceptionalism.

As a businessman he clearly hated being required to obey environmental, tax or other regulations and legislation, so it should come as no surprise that he rejects collective security arrangements such as the UN and disarmament treaties whose primary purpose has been to constrain military freedom of action in order to protect vulnerable people from abusive violence and prevent mass destruction and humanitarian catastrophes.

Trump is a kind of “ends justify the means” pragmatist, but not necessarily a nuclear true-believer. Projecting positively, he might be willing to do further nuclear arms reduction deals with (Russian President Vladimir) Putin.

The objective wouldn’t be disarmament, but to cut the costs of stockpiling excess and redundant nuclear weapons, and free up resources for 21st century weaponry.

Projecting negatively, she noted: “Trump seems to think nuclear weapons are usable, and not only in traditional deterrent terms of reinforcing the nuclear taboo, and if he decides that the U.S. arsenal should pay its way, he could make terrible mistakes and unleash dangers he can’t control.“

“In any case, Trump demonstrates what the non-nuclear nations have long argued – that there are no safe hands for nuclear weapons.”

She said Trump is a talking walking justification of the need to change the nuclear regime and prohibit the use, deployment, production, transporting, proliferation and financing of nuclear weapons.

Yet it was not the prospect of a President Trump that caused over 120 governments to vote for UN negotiations.

(On October 27, the Disarmament and International Security Committee of the United Nations General Assembly adopted a ground-breaking resolution Taking forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations. The resolution establishes a UN conference in 2017 ‘to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.’)

Dr Johnson argued that Trump reinforces the humanitarian imperative for nuclear abolition, but over two-thirds of the world voted to negotiate a nuclear ban treaty in October because of Putin, Kim Jong Un, (Narendra) Modi, (Theresa) May and the rest, and in recognition of the vested interests in the nuclear club and the U.S. establishment that meant that even President Obama couldn’t make headway on disarmament after his high-sounding Prague speech of 2009.

“So Trump or no Trump, disarmament will happen when the majority of world peoples take responsibility, and when that happens he will no doubt claim credit!,” declared Dr Johnson

By Dr Subhash Kapila

Asian security in 2016 stands dominated by the geopolitical dynamics that are at play in the complex ‘Strategic Quadrilateral’ comprising the United States, China, Japan and India.

Of the above named countries, the United States is undoubtedly the sole Superpower with complex global predominance in all domains. This predominance has virtually remained intact when the global unipolar moment emerged in 1991 with the disintegration of the former Soviet Union. Many today would like to contest that the United States power and predominance is on the decline. This position is not debatable as none of the major powers enumerated above neither are within closing distance to US predominance nor do they have global power-projection capabilities to carve out their respective spheres of influence at the expense of the United States.

China exhibits the pretensions of emerging as the rival Superpower to the United States, a burning Chinese national aspiration. China no doubt has made exponential progress economically and militarily to reduce the strategic asymmetries in power in relation to the United States. But this is far from done and that makes China a dissatisfied ‘revisionist power’ out to challenge United States predominance. Regrettably for China, repeated by me for over a decade now, is that China has no ‘Natural Allies’ with national aspirations synchronous with China in dethroning the United States. Nor even Russia would fully subscribe to the Chinese aim and in any case Russia is not considered included in the Asian Strategic Quadrilateral as in Asian power dynamics Russia has yet to assert itself independently of China.

Japan has in the 20th Century dominated the Asian geopolitical dynamics for the first half of the Century. Japan was the first Asian country to be considered as a Major Power by the colonial powers of the day. Japan today can still be considered as a major power with a significant bearing on Asian geopolitical dynamics and since 1945 fully aligned with the United States in a military alliance to ensure security and stability in the Asia Pacific.

In terms of Asian geopolitical dynamics, Japan significantly is a contending Asian power against China. China has spared no space and efforts to politically and militarily coerce Japan at every stage.

In the Asian Strategic Quadrilateral, India is the new entrant after decades of wasteful self-inflicted isolation from Asian geopolitical dynamics. With national attributes of power closely comparable somewhat to that of China, the global major powers have conceded to India the status of an ‘Emerged Power’ by virtue of its ascendant economic and military power trajectories.

India not only in the context of the Asian Strategic Quadrilateral but also in the context of the global strategic calculus can be said to enjoy the unique distinction of the reigning ‘Swing State’ especially in relation to offset China. The United States and Japan are strategically investing in India for it to emerge as an ‘Existential Strategic Counterweight’ against a military threatening China.

India more specifically under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has opted to cast and put its weight behind the United States and Japan to balance China’s not so benign military rise. All available indicators point to the fact that in the Asian Strategic Quadrilateral, India would continue with the course adopted in strengthening its strategic partnerships with the United States and Japan.

The above conviction stands reinforced by the sheer irreversibility of China’s military confrontation against India along the China Occupied Tibet border and further complicated by China’s strategic nexus with Pakistan similarly and implacably hostile to India.

The pertinent issue that comes to the fore in the above context is that whether the China-Pakistan Axis can imbalance the USA-Japan-India Trinity. Obviously not, simply because Pakistan despite its nuclear weapons arsenal does not have the strength to be a game-changer. Pakistan at best can continue to be a military irritant to India but not enough to distract India from its pivotal role in the US-Japan-India Trinity.

One was not dismissive in not considering Russia as an important player in Asian geopolitics. Russia was being discounted primarily because in 2016 Russia does not enjoy any strategic proximity with United States or Japan or India in their implicit agenda of countering or managing the China threat.

Asian geopolitical dynamics could change should US-Russia relations ‘normalise’ under the incoming Trump Administration. Russia had in the recent past had indulged in a strategic reach-out to Japan but recessed under Chinese pressure. Russia is once again attempting to recover lost ground with India after an ill-advised pivot to Pakistan.

But despite the above moves, Russia would have to prove a lot to regain credibility with USA, Japan and India that it has moved out of the shadow of being a Chinese satellite. Till the above materialises, the US-Japan-India Trinity has to weld itself more strongly to ensure that this trio is in position of maintaining their position of strength in the Asian Geopolitical Quadrilateral.

The above analysis however presupposes that the United States under the incoming Trump Administration like all incoming US Administrations in their first term does not flip for China, notwithstanding the strong electoral rhetoric against China that President-elect Trump resorted to. Piously, one can fervently hope that the Washington security establishment does not let this deviation take place. Significantly should the incoming US Admiration flips for China, it is welcome to do so at its own cost. As reflected in one of my recent SAAG Papers, Japan and India in such an eventuality have other options.

In conclusion, it needs to be stressed that no game-changers can be expected from China in terms of China emerging as a responsible stakeholder in Asian security and stability in its present strategic arrogance trance. China simply cannot stomach Japan and India as rival contenders for Asian strategic space as Asian powers perceived widely as responsible stakeholders in contrast to China and whose ascendancy to power is perceived as benign.

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

Everything appears to be in a “stand still” position in Nepal. No consensus could be reached on the promised constitutional amendments and the Terain-Janajathi outfit- the Federal Alliance has given an ultimatum to renew the stir in fifteen days if nothing is done. Nothing is likely to be done either and we can expect more ultimatums to follow.

The Madhesi groups have started a movement (losing 50 people in the process) and they cannot go back to their constituencies without getting some “face saving” concessions. They are unlikely to get any with the UML leader and former Prime Minister K.P. Oli continuing to be adamant. So the only action they can show is to give one ultimatum after another!

The Truth Reconciliation Commission (TRC) has not progressed either and the victims of the insurgency movement continue to be ignored.

The case of impeachment of the chairman of the CIAA is going on at a leisurely pace that is proving convenient to all the parties concerned and particularly to the Nepali Congress leader Sher Bahadur Deuba. The only entity that appears to be serious about proceeding with the case is the Supreme Court! The minimum time that the IRSC (Impeachment Recommendation Study Committee) and the Parliament should take will be two months and a half but there are enough indications that it may drag on for many months. Everyone appears to be happy except some of the younger elements of the Nepali Congress like Gagan Thapa, Surendra Pandey and a few others!

The only progress that can be seen is that 90 percent of the first instalment of the funds to the victims of the one year old earthquake has been paid. This is said to be a big achievement for the present Prachanda led coalition that has been fruitlessly trying to list out the achievements of the new government in the first hundred days of its existence!

The irony is that the people have not started reconstruction work with the instalment as they do not know when the next one would come and cannot leave the structures unfinished indefinitely!

No date could be fixed for local elections as the boundaries for the local bodies as recommended by the LLRC are yet to be approved by the government as objections continue to be pouring in from many of the districts. Elections to the local, regional and national levels will have to be completed before the end of January 2018 as mandated in the constitution. This is a difficult task. One cynic told me that ultimately another national election is the only election that will take place again to “make a new constitution!”

The visit of the President of India in the beginning of the month was a tame affair with hardly any crowd in the both the two main cities- Kathmandu and Pokhara. There was some enthusiastic crowd in Janakpur when the Indian President visited the Janakpur Temple. It is hoped that the President’s visit would help in getting enough funds from India to make it a tourist attraction for those who want to visit the temple. The temple as well as the whole environs of Janakpur need a “face lift” as a pilgrimage centre in the days to come. Janakpur is also likely to be capital of the proposed Madhesi district in the new constitution as and when it is implemented.

There were strong objections both in the media and outside on the Indian President’s visit. Firstly, the Nepali counterpart personally received the President at the airport breaking the normal protocol. The issue was that no Nepali President has ever been received by the Head of State in India. The second was the unprecedented action of the government in declaring a public holiday in honour of the visit. The third was the clamping of an unofficial curfew in Kathmandu on the day of the visit with the entire transport system coming to a halt.

The “blockade effect” continues to be still pervasive in Kathmandu valley.

Finally, some tentative changes contemplated as amendments to the new constitution were deliberately leaked by some interested parties. The first was to retain the existing provisions relating to naturalised citizens to hold top constitutional posts in the country, ten years after obtaining citizenship. The second was to remove the hill districts of province number five and make a separate eighth province. This is besides the controversy surrounding the five districts of Jhapa, Morang, Sunsari, Kailali and Kanchanpur districts. The irony is that people of province 5 never complained or wanted any change and it is not clear whose bright idea it was and who was supposed to benefit from the supposed additional province.

UML chairman K.P.Oli whose support is required for any constitutional amendment declared categorically that no further amendments to the constitution are necessary at this stage. So it is back to “square one” so far as constitutional amendments are concerned.