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

Tighter Marine Fuel Sulfur Limits Will Spark Changes By Both Refiners And Vessel Operators – Analysis

0
0

The sulfur content of transportation fuels has been declining for many years due to increasingly stringent regulations. In the United States, federal and state regulations limit the amount of sulfur present in motor gasoline, diesel fuel, and heating oil. New international regulations limiting sulfur in fuels for ocean-going vessels, set to take effect in 2020, have further implications for both refiners and vessel operators at a time of high uncertainty in future crude oil prices, which will be a major factor in their decisions.

Bunker fuel—the fuel typically used in large ocean-going vessels—is a mixture of petroleum-based oils. Residual oil—the long-chain hydrocarbons remaining after lighter and shorter hydrocarbon fractions such as gasoline and diesel have been separated from crude oil—currently makes up the largest component of bunker fuel. The sulfur content of crude oil tends to be more concentrated in heavier hydrocarbon molecules, with heavier petroleum products such as residual oil having higher sulfur content than lighter ones like gasoline and diesel.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the 171-member state United Nations agency that sets standards for marine fuels, decided in October to move forward with a plan to reduce the maximum amount of sulfur and other pollutants present in marine fuels used on the open seas from 3.5% by weight to 0.5% by weight by 2020. This decision follows several other marine fuel regulations limiting sulfur content, such as the implementation of Emissions Control Area (ECA) requirements in coastal waters and specific sea-lanes in North America and Europe, where the maximum sulfur content of fuels was limited to 0.1% by weight starting in July 2015 (Figure 1).twip161123fig1-lg

Additionally, the state of California and the European Union have regulations on the sulfur content of marine fuels, and the types of fuel used when ships are at dock, waiting to dock, or are maneuvering within port. For example, a vessel approaching the port of San Francisco may have to change its fuel mix twice: once when going from the open seas higher-sulfur fuel of mostly residual oil, to an ECA compliant lower-sulfur fuel mix, and again to a marine diesel fuel compliant with California’s ocean-going vessel regulations for use within ports (Figure 2).twip161123fig2-lg

The IMO sulfur limits that take effect in 2020 will affect the fuel used in the open seas, the largest portion of the approximately 3.9 million barrels per day of global marine fuel use, according to the International Energy Agency, presenting several challenges for both refiners and shippers.

The first challenge for refiners is to increase the supply of lower-sulfur blendstocks to the bunker fuel market. Refiners have several potential paths. One approach is to divert more low sulfur distillates into the bunker fuel market. Another option would be to use low sulfur intermediate refinery feedstocks in bunker blends. In both cases, care is required to assure that new fuels continue to meet specifications for use in marine engines.

A second challenge for refiners is what to do with the high sulfur residual oil that can no longer be blended into bunker fuel. Adding capacity to desulfurize residual oil is one option, but the economics do not currently appear to be attractive. An alternative strategy is to build or expand refinery units that take heavy hydrocarbons, such as residual oil, and upgrade them into lighter, more valuable products, but this would require large investments. In either of these cases, refineries would be faced with investments and costs that are acceptable only if there is certainty of future demand from the shipping industry.

Vessel operators also have several choices for compliance with the new IMO sulfur limits. For example, IMO regulations allow for the installation of scrubbers, which remove pollutants from ships exhaust, allowing them to continue to use higher-sulfur fuels. Some ship owners that operate primarily in coastal areas, such as cruise lines and ferries, opted to install scrubbers on their vessels as the new ECA regulations came into force. The possibility of widespread scrubber installations, which would allow for continued use of higher sulfur residual oils, could make refiners hesitant about making large investments to build refining units capable of upgrading the residual oils.

Ships also have the option of switching to new lower sulfur blends or to non-petroleum based fuels. Some newer ships and some currently being built have engines that would allow them to use liquefied natural gas (LNG) rather than petroleum-based products. However, the infrastructure to support use of LNG as a shipping fuel is currently limited in both scale and availability.

Vessel operators and shippers will also likely be faced with the higher costs as the sulfur content in marine fuels decreases and the role of distillate in the bunker fuel market increases. An example of the price difference between fuels can be observed at the refining and trading hub in Northwest Europe, known as the ARA, collectively the cities Amsterdam and Rotterdam, in the Netherlands and Antwerp, in Belgium. Prices for low sulfur gasoil, a type of distillate, in the ARA has averaged over $20 per barrel more than high sulfur fuel oil (residual oil for use as a fuel) to date in 2016. Fuel blends used to meet the new IMO regulations are likely to price somewhere in between these two fuels (Figure 3).twip161123fig3-lg

U.S. average regular gasoline and diesel retail prices decline

The U.S. average regular gasoline retail price dropped three cents from the previous week to $2.16 per gallon on November 21, up six cents from the same time last year. The Gulf Coast price fell six cents to $1.92 per gallon, while the West Coast, Rocky Mountain, and East Coast prices each fell five cents to $2.59 per gallon, $2.19 per gallon, and $2.17 per gallon, respectively. The Midwest price rose two cents to $2.01 per gallon.

The U.S. average diesel fuel price dropped two cents to $2.42 per gallon, down two cents from the same time last year. The Rocky Mountain price fell four cents to $2.46 per gallon, while the West Coast and Midwest prices each fell three cents to $2.73 per gallon and $2.36 per gallon, respectively. The Gulf Coast price dipped two cents to $2.30 per gallon, and the East Coast price fell a penny to $2.44 per gallon.

Propane inventories gain

U.S. propane stocks increased by 1.8 million barrels last week to 102.7 million barrels as of November 18, 2016, 3.5 million barrels (3.3%) lower than a year ago. Gulf Coast and Rocky Mountain/West Coast inventories increased by 1.7 million barrels and 0.1 million barrels, respectively, while East Coast and Midwest inventories remained virtually unchanged. Propylene non-fuel-use inventories represented 4.0% of total propane inventories.

Residential heating oil price unchanged while residential propane price increases

As of November 21, 2016, residential heating oil prices averaged around $2.38 per gallon, virtually unchanged from last week and less than one cent per gallon higher than last year at this time. The average wholesale heating oil price is $1.55 per gallon, nearly eight cents per gallon higher than last week and 13 cents per gallon more than a year ago.

Residential propane prices averaged nearly $2.06 per gallon, one cent per gallon more than last week and almost 11 cents per gallon more than one year ago. Wholesale propane prices averaged $0.62 per gallon, about the same price as last week but 13 cents per gallon more than last year’s price.


UK Split Over Muslim Brotherhood And Saudi Arabia – OpEd

0
0

Britain’s parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee is at daggers drawn with Britain’s Foreign Office. That is to say, the Members of Parliament who form the influential Select Committee that monitors foreign affairs have taken up cudgels against the government department, headed by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, responsible for formulating and implementing UK foreign policy.

The spat is all over how Britain should relate to the Muslim Brotherhood. It was sparked by a review, commissioned by the government in April 2014 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), to examine whether the Muslim Brotherhood put British national security at risk. The report was issued in December 2015.

In accepting its conclusions, Britain’s then Prime Minister, David Cameron, said: “Parts of the Muslim Brotherhood have a highly ambiguous relationship with violent extremism. Both as an ideology and as a network it has been a rite of passage for some individuals and groups who have gone on to engage in violence and terrorism. The main findings of the review support the conclusion that membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism.”

Three months later the Foreign Affairs committee announced its intention to inquire into ‘political Islam’, its characteristics, and “how well the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has understood and engaged with ‘political-Islamist’ groups.” The very terms of its self-formulated remit indicated a clash of opinion, even before the committee had begun its work. After nine months gestation, the committee gave birth to a report which thoroughly castigated the FCO review. It was particularly scathing about the appointment to lead the review of Sir John Jenkins, the UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia, which has proscribed the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

“Notwithstanding his knowledge, experience, and professional integrity, Sir John Jenkins’s concurrent service as UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia made his appointment to lead the Muslim Brotherhood Review misguided. It created the impression that a foreign state, which was an interested party, had a private window into the conduct of a UK Government inquiry…This has undermined confidence in the impartiality of the FCO’s work on such an important and contentious subject.”

Some, however, might characterise this particular criticism as the pot calling the kettle black. The chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is Crispin Blunt – “a Muslim Brotherhood-oriented man,” according to Dalia Youssef, a member of Egypt’s parliament.

“Blunt was here in Egypt in 2013,” said Youssef, “and he decided to join the Muslim Brotherhood sit-ins in Rabaa El-Adaweya in Cairo. Blunt stayed in Rabaa for four days, eating and drinking and living the Muslim Brotherhood experience without shame and without reviewing their radical speeches delivered throughout the day.”

What lies at the heart of the clash of opinion inside the British establishment about the Muslim Brotherhood? Liberal/left wing sentiment opposes Egypt’s counter-revolution of 2013, led by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, which overthrew the unpopular but democratically elected Brotherhood and its president, Mohamed Morsi. It is prepared to take the Brotherhood at its word that it is a populist movement fully engaged in the democratic process, and overlook or downgrade the deeper religio-political agenda that underlies its operations.

The FCO report contends that “the need to appeal to a broad range of the electorate in order to win elections, and the need to work with other political perspectives in order to govern effectively, will serve to encourage Islamist groups to adopt a more pragmatic ideology, and an increasingly flexible interpretation of their Islamic references.”

Others may maintain that views like these are a triumph of hope over experience. For the evidence of the Brotherhood’s active involvement in terrorism is overwhelming. It is set out in some detail in the Bill submitted by US Senator Ted Cruz in November 2015, requiring the Secretary of State to report to Congress on designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded by Hassan al-Banna in Egypt in 1928, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Its operating philosophy is that the end – the establishment of a world-wide caliphate – justifies the means, and the means can extend from involvement in democracy and social welfare, to militancy, jihad and terrorism, as expediency requires. Its founding belief, as expounded by al-Banna, is that: “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

In the UK, liberal-left wing suspicion of Saudi Arabia extends well beyond the Muslim Brotherhood issue. In September 2016 the four parliamentary committees that make up the Committees on Arms Export Control were due to publish a report into British arms exports to Saudi Arabia. In the event the four could not agree on a proposal, backed by two of them, to condemn Saudi Arabia for civilian casualties caused in Yemen’s civil war, and to cease all exports of British defense equipment to Saudi until the conclusion of a UN investigation. As a result the Foreign Affairs Committee released its own findings, and the Defence Committee opted out altogether.

The International Development and the Business Committees, however, published a joint report calling for the government to cease exports of all weapons to Saudi Arabia that could be used in the conflict with rebel forces in Yemen until a yet-to-be set up independent international investigation reports on claims that civilian targets such as hospitals and schools were bombed in violation of humanitarian law.

The report makes no mention of Saudi’s own investigation into failings in their chain of command structure that led to the loss of innocent life. Nor does it refer to war crimes committed by the Houthi rebels and their Iranian backers who together have plunged the country into bitter conflict. It fails, also, to mention that the Saudis, putting aside their differences with Turkey and Qatar – both supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood – established a coalition of Sunni Arab states which, with the backing of the US and Britain, seeks to prevent Shia Iran from seizing control of Yemen.

Government reaction was swift. Four ministers, including Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, issued a robust joint statement pledging to continue British arms sales to Saudi Arabia, regardless. Perhaps Brexit (to say nothing of Trump’s triumph) foreshadows a less spineless approach by the British establishment to all-too-pervasive political correctness.

The New Trade Future In Asia Pacific – Analysis

0
0

Right after the Asian-Pacific nations embraced the dream of free trade in the regional Peru Summit, President-elect Trump buried it.

Last weekend, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit made it clear that it would move forward with trade pacts; with or without the US.

Right after the Lima summit, President-elect Donald Trump unveiled his plans for the first 100 days in office, which focus on campaign promises that will not require congressional approval. Among his first actions, Trump said he would “issue our notification of intent to withdraw from the Transpacific Partnership” and replace it with negotiating “fair bilateral trade deals.”

Trump campaigned on a promise to halt the progress of the TPP trade deal. The world is different after his triumph – including world trade.

From Berlin Wall to Trump Wall

In the late 1980s, as the Cold War eclipsed in Europe and regional trade blocks surfaced around the world, Australia called for more effective economic cooperation across Asia Pacific, which led to the first APEC talks.

In Washington, neither Asia nor APEC was yet a priority. Rather, the focus was on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which would tie together the economies of the US, Canada and Mexico. “We have got to stop sending jobs overseas,” warned presidential candidate H. Ross Perot in 1992. “There will be a giant sucking sound going south.” But unlike Trump, he appealed to only one tenth of Americans.

Sure, there was free-trade skeptics among Republicans and Democrats, but the bipartisan majority still believed in free trade. While negotiated and signed by President George H.W. Bush, NAFTA became effective under President Bill Clinton in 1994.

By the early 2000s, President George W. Bush sought to extend the NAFTA. However, critics argued that the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) could split South America. So the initiative crumbled against opposition by Brazil and its progressive President Lula.

In the Obama era, Washington began to tout the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This initiative originated from a 2005 free trade agreement among just Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore. After 2010, Washington began talks for a significantly expanded, “high-standard” free trade agreement, which would reflect U.S. alliances in Asia and Latin America but exclude China.

While the original TPP was small but open, inclusive and had room for both US and China, the Obama plan sought to attract a dozen nations but grew secretive, exclusive and shunned China. Yet, it was an integral part of Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” which was intellectually formulated by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That vision is now history.

If the regional free trade agreements drafted by advanced economies were energized by the fall of the Berlin Wall in the late 1980s, their demise today is characterized by the Trump dream of a Wall against Mexico. Along with the TPP, Trump will seek to re-define the NAFTA and the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) pact with Europe.

Meanwhile, free trade initiatives will shift to emerging economies.

China energizes free trade vacuum in Asia Pacific

After the US presidential election, some of Obama’s TPP partners – including Japan and Mexico – pushed for a modified TPP agreement before Trump could tear up the agreement. Prime Minister Abe hoped to hedge between a revised TPP, a bilateral free trade deal with the US, and China-led talks at a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

But the RCEP is no alternative to either US- or China-led broad trade pacts. It reflects the interests of emerging ASEAN economies (and their trade partners in advanced economies), but has a slower implementation schedule and humbler goals.

Ever since the Trump triumph, apprehension has also spread across Latin America, which is struggling to prepare for the Fed’s impending rate hikes. In the past week or two, Mexican peso, Brazilian real and other Latin American currencies have already suffered heavy hits, which have been mirrored across the Pacific by the sell-off of Asian currencies.

Until recently, the U.S. pivot in the Asia Pacific has relied mainly on increasing security cooperation, whereas China’s focus is on economic development. Since 2013, President Xi Jinping has proactively pushed for broader economic ties with both emerging Asia and Latin America.

In Lima, Peruvian President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski said that, if the US pulls out, he would support an Asia-Pacific trade accord that includes China and Russia. Like Peru, even Australia is now moving behind the China-led Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP). Ironically, China’s initiative builds on a U.S. plan.

Chinese efforts, US plan

In 2006, C. Fred Bergsten, then chief an influential Washington think-tank, made a forceful statement in favor of the FTAAP, which he thought would represent the largest single liberalization in history. This initiative would be relatively open, inclusive and have room for both US and China. Indeed, Beijing’s push for an Asia-Pacific free trade area has been more active since fall 2014 when I predicted that, as a more inclusive and open plan, it had potential to achieve reflect real free trade in the region.

Oddly enough, the Obama Administration rejected the free-trade FTAAP for the geopolitical TPP, which China argued would have imposed a Cold-War like Iron Curtain on Asia Pacific by splitting the region between a US-dominated block and China’s allies.

Today, APEC’s membership has almost doubled to 21 countries, which account for almost 60% of the world economy, and nearly 50% of world trade. Beijing’s logic is persuasive: if you can make it in APEC, you can make it everywhere.

While the dream of free trade was born in the prosperous West, it will be completed in the emerging East.

This article was originally released by The World Financial Review on Nov 24, 2016

China’s Military Reforms: An Optimistic Take – Analysis

0
0

By Michael S. Chase and Jeffrey Engstrom*

China is implementing a sweeping reorganization of its military that has the potential to be the most important in the post-1949 history of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).1 Xi Jinping, who serves as China’s president, general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, and chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC), seeks to transform the PLA into a fully modernized and “informatized” fighting force capable of carrying out joint combat operations, conducting military operations other than war (MOOTW), and providing a powerful strategic deterrent to prevent challenges to China’s interests and constrain the decisions of potential adversaries. Scheduled for completion by 2020, the reforms aim to place the services on a more even footing in the traditionally army-dominated PLA and to enable the military to more effectively harness space, cyberspace, and electronic warfare capabilities. Simultaneously, Xi is looking to rein in PLA corruption and assert his control over the military.

Brief Overview of the Reforms

China unveiled the long-anticipated organizational reforms in a series of major announcements beginning on December 31, 2015, when it subordinated the ground force to an army service headquarters, raised the stature and role of the strategic missile force, and established a Strategic Support Force (SSF) to integrate space, cyber, and electronic warfare capabilities. On January 11, 2016, Xi announced “a dramatic breakthrough . . . in the reform of the military leadership and command system” that discarded the PLA’s four traditional general departments in favor of 15 new CMC functional departments.2 Next, the reorganization eliminated China’s seven military regions (MRs) and converted them into five theater commands. This part of the restructuring is intended to enhance the PLA’s readiness and strengthen its deterrence and warfighting capabilities. In addition, the CMC released a “guideline on deepening national defense and military reform,” which states that under the new system, the CMC is in charge of overall administration of the PLA, People’s Armed Police, militia, and reserves; the new joint war zone commands focus on combat preparedness, and the services are in charge of development (presumably of personnel and capabilities).

Likely Benefits of the Reforms

The reforms are likely to offer benefits in several areas, including achieving enhanced jointness, optimizing organizational structures for combat, and ensuring information dominance.

Achieving Enhanced Jointness. One important aspect of the reforms is that the ground force is becoming a real service. Historically, the PLA’s ground service component lacked a headquarters and instead dominated the entire military by controlling all four of the PLA’s general departments, which doubled as its de facto headquarters. Under the new system, however, the army will now possess its own headquarters—referred to as the PLA Army Leading Organ—and will be on par with the PLA’s naval, air, and newly formed strategic missile service.

The main goals in this respect appear to be to reduce army domination and improve the PLA’s jointness. To this end, giving the ground force its own headquarters appears to be an important step in the direction of positioning the PLA away from the dominance of army-centric thinking and leadership. It also emphasizes the contributions of other services, and, along with the reduction of 300,000 troops Xi announced in September 2015, it likely cuts fat and frees resources to build air force, rocket force, and navy capabilities.3 Another benefit of the ground force focusing more heavily on its own requirements rather than those of the entire PLA could be accelerating efforts to transform it into a leaner force more capable of carrying out joint combat operations and MOOTW.

Optimizing Organizational Structures for Combat. The second major benefit of the reforms derives from the elimination of MRs and their replacement with theater commands. The purpose of reorganizing the military regions into a smaller number of theater commands is to improve the PLA’s ability to prepare for and execute modern, high-intensity joint military operations. For many years, PLA officers have perceived the old MR-based command structure as outdated and not well suited to winning the kinds of conflicts they think the PLA may need to be prepared for in the future.

Theater commands now directly focus on the specific strategic directions determined by potential external threats. Instead of two MRs dealing with a hypothetical India conflict, there is now one. Instead of three MRs bordering Russia, there are now only two, and one shares only an approximately 30-mile border. In this way, the external threat environment arguably has shaped the development of the theaters in a profound way that never appeared to be a rationale for any of the previous and varied configurations of MRs since the founding of the PRC. Seams, however, still exist. The Sino-Vietnamese border region appears unchanged by this restructuring, with two theater commands replacing two military regions.

Transition from peacetime to wartime command will be easier. Under the former system, the MR commander was not necessarily the wartime theater commander. This individual would likely be appointed by the CMC and sanctioned to set up a theater that might span multiple MRs.4 Under the new system, the theater command for wartime is already stood up. The theater command is the “top joint operational commanding institution,” and therefore the theater commander is also the joint forces commander.5 The theater commander and his staff presumably are already keenly attuned to the particular threats in their command and, other than potential relocation to a wartime command post, are immediately ready to prosecute a conflict with forces currently existing within the theater command and those that may have been sent from other theater commands.

In addition, the theater command structure allows the PLA to truly implement the active defense strategy as a preemptive posture. The former system of enacting wartime theaters placed a premium on China either starting a conflict itself or anticipating conflict well before it occurred. Conflict or aggression that was either unforeseen or occurred with little lead time immediately placed China into a reactive and defensive posture. Early iterations of the People’s War strategy recognized China’s own limitations in its ability to fight technologically superior adversaries under these circumstances, tacitly accepting that potential invaders would necessarily encroach upon China’s territorial sovereignty. Though substantial military modernization efforts by the PLA over the last few decades had already rendered Maoist doctrine on this topic moot, the theater command structure provides the required organizational framework to enact an active defense posture.

Ensuring Information Dominance. A third major benefit could be realized if the creation of the Strategic Support Force—which is responsible for cyber, space, electronic warfare, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance—offers improved flexibility and responsiveness that enhance the PLA’s ability to fight multi-domain conflicts. This recognizes the need for such forces, places them within a clear command structure, and likely provides additional resources and intra-service stature (from a general staff department to a force).

Indeed, this may be the least surprising change, as the emphasis on information warfare has captured the attention of the PLA since at least the mid-1990s. The current conception of “winning informationized local wars” recognizes the centrality of information and the information domain as a battlefield in modern warfare. The creation of such forces is driven by the reality that national-level assets must perform many information functions in warfare. Furthermore, it would be unrealistic and unnecessary to recreate many of these functions and capabilities under each theater command. Lastly, many of the SSF’s capabilities in the cyber and space domains, if used, could be extremely escalatory. For all of these factors, the SSF appears to be directly (and appropriately) subordinate to the CMC rather than a theater command or service. However, it appears likely that units within the theaters will be under operational control of the theater commander.6

Success Likely Despite Expected Opposition

Xi’s anti-corruption campaign is part of an effort aimed at strengthening party (and his own) control over the PLA. When Xi assumed power in November 2012, he vowed to fight both “tigers” and “flies”—a reference to taking on corrupt leaders at the highest levels as well as lower level bureaucrats engaged in corrupt practices throughout the Chinese system, and the PLA would be no exception. The first shot over the bow came against the tigers. In 2014, Xi arrested a former CMC vice chairman, Xu Caihou, for participating in a “cash for ranks” scheme. After expelling Xu from the party, Xi followed up in 2015 with the arrest and purge of another former CMC vice chairman, Guo Boxiong, on similar charges. The arrests were unprecedented in that Xu and Guo were the two highest-ranking officers in China’s military when they served as CMC vice chairmen, and their arrests marked the first time the PLA’s highest-level retired officers faced corruption charges. As of early March 2016, Xi’s anti-corruption campaign had reportedly resulted in the arrest of at least 60 military officers, although the actual numbers could be higher.

Another reflection of Xi’s determination to strengthen his control came when he drew a direct line between the era of Mao Zedong and the present at a major meeting in November 2014. In commemoration of the 85th anniversary of the “Gutian Congress,” at which Mao first affirmed the “party’s absolute control over the military” in 1929, Xi convened 420 of his most senior officers to meet in the small town of Gutian in southeastern Fujian Province.7 This was believed to be the first time a PRC leader reconvened military leadership at Gutian since Mao’s famous meeting there—symbolism that was certainly not lost on the top brass. Prior reading material reportedly reaffirmed the unassailable and preeminent position the party has over the military. This set the stage for Xi to implicitly convey to all in attendance that they too could become victims of his anti-corruption campaign, just as General Xu had a few months earlier, if they refused to toe the line. Indeed, the anti-corruption campaign is probably the most important source of Xi’s power over the PLA.

Unanswered Questions

While the reorganization appears to offer a number of important benefits to the PLA, several important questions remain unanswered. These include:

  • What impact will the anti-corruption campaign have on military effectiveness? Specifically, is it weeding out the bad apples, or does it have a chilling effect on potentially dynamic senior officers that the PLA will need if it is to be successful in fighting and winning wars?
  • Will ground force personnel continue to dominate most of the top positions in the PLA even under the reforms, or will this change over the next several years as a result of future retirements and promotions under the reforms? For example, will a PLA Navy, PLA Air Force, or PLA Rocket Force officer serve in a position such as commander of one of the new theater commands or director of the new Joint Staff Department under the CMC?
  • Does the focus on the reorganization and changes such as reshuffling of former MR commanders to new theaters cast doubt on the PLA’s ability to prosecute conflict at its borders, at least in the short run?
  • Can the PLA ever move from a system of personal power bases/loyalty structures to one of a highly functional bureaucracy in which such dynamics matter very little or not at all?

Conclusion

Xi Jinping has ordered the PLA to embark on a sweeping reorganization aimed at transforming it into a leaner and more modern military that is more capable of carrying out joint operations. There are clear indications that Beijing expects some internal opposition to the reorganization, but Xi Jinping’s unprecedented anti-corruption campaign probably gives him the leverage he needs to overcome entrenched opposition. The reorganization will have a major impact on the PLA’s ability to prepare for and execute its main functions of strategic deterrence, combat operations, and MOOTW.

Importantly, despite some speculation to the contrary, Xi’s assertion of control over the military in the form of the anti-corruption campaign and organizational reforms is more likely to enhance than it is to impede the PLA’s ongoing modernization efforts. Part of Xi’s “China Dream” is to produce a strong military capable of deterring or, if necessary, taking on powerful potential adversaries, including even the United States.

Xi not only wants a PLA that demonstrates utmost loyalty to the party, but he also wants a far more competent and operationally capable PLA by 2020, one that is commensurate with China’s status as a major world power and capable of protecting China’s regional and global interests. If his aspirations are realized, Xi’s reformed PLA will soon be capable of posing an even more potent challenge to China’s neighbors and to U.S. objectives and strategy in the region.

*About the authors:
Dr. Michael S. Chase
is a Senior Political Scientist at RAND, Adjunct Professor in the School of Advanced and International Studies at The Johns Hopkins University, and Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University. Jeffrey Engstrom is a Senior Project Associate at RAND.

Source:
This article was published in the Joint Force Quarterly 83, which is published by the National Defense University.

Notes:
1 See, for example, Phillip C. Saunders and Joel Wuthnow, China’s Goldwater-Nichols? Assessing PLA Organizational Reforms, Strategic Forum 294 (Washington, DC: NDU Press, April 2016), available at <http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/stratforum/SF-294.pdf>; and Kenneth W. Allen, Dennis J. Blasko, and John F. Corbett, Jr., The PLA’s New Organizational Structure: What is Known, Unknown and Speculation (Part 1), China Brief 16, no. 3 (Washington, DC: The Jamestown Foundation, February 4, 2016).

2 Prior to the reorganization, these were the General Staff Department, General Political Department, General Logistics Department, and General Armaments Department. These new functional departments under the Central Military Committee (CMC) include the General Office, Joint Staff Department, Political Work Department, Logistic Support Department, Equipment Development Department, Training and Administration Department, National Defense Mobilization Department, Discipline Inspection Commission, Politics and Law Commission, Science and Technology Commission, Office for Strategic Planning, Office for Reform and Organizational Structure, Office for International Military Cooperation, Audit Office, and Agency for Offices Administration.

3 Evidence of this is having an immediate trickledown effect on the enrollment at the PLA’s military schools; one newspaper article reports that schools focusing on ground force competencies such as infantry and artillery will see a reduction in admission of 24 percent whereas aviation, missile, and naval schools will increase admissions by 14 percent. See “PLA Restructuring Changes Focus at Military Schools,” China Daily, April 28, 2016.

4 This individual could be a commander of one of the military regions adjacent to conflict as it was with Xu Shiyou and Li Desheng for the Southern and Northern Theaters, respectively, during the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War, or the CMC could appoint a senior general officer from another command entirely, as it did with Peng Dehuai during the Korean War.

5 “Spokesperson: PLA’s Theater Command Adjustment and Establishment Accomplished,” China Military Online, February 2, 2016.

6 Saunders and Wuthnow, 3.

7 James C. Mulvenon, “Hotel Gutian: We Haven’t Had That Spirit Here Since 1929,” China Leadership Monitor, no. 46 (Winter 2015).

What Executive Branch Actions Can President-Elect Trump ‘Undo’ On Day One? – Analysis

0
0

Throughout the campaign, Donald Trump suggested that, if elected, he would rescind significant pieces of the Obama Administration’s domestic policy. Now that President-elect Trump will assume the duties and powers of the presidency at noon on January 20, 2017, questions have been raised regarding what types of executive branch actions he can, in fact, unilaterally and immediately revoke. While the Constitution does not permit the President to single-handedly repeal or amend statutes, there is much that a new President can do to rapidly reverse the policies of a previous administration.

The process and expediency by which an executive action can be rescinded depends on the type of action in question and the existence of any statutorily or judicially imposed restraints. Generally, most executive actions can be broken down into three basic categories: executive orders, which are written directives issued by the President that govern the actions of executive branch officials and agencies; discretionary agency directives and guidance documents, which are agency policy or interpretive pronouncements that are not issued pursuant to formalized procedures and do not have the force and effect of law; and agency rules, which are issued pursuant to delegated authority from Congress—typically pursuant to notice and comment rulemaking procedures— and have the force and effect of law.

Executive Orders

The President can immediately revoke, modify, or supersede executive orders issued by a predecessor. In comparison to statutes and agency rules, executive orders generally can be issued quickly and without compliance with elaborate procedures or participation from other parties. The trade-off, however, for the expediency of an executive order is its inherent fragility, especially across administrations. An executive order may be as swiftly repealed as it was issued, and recent Presidents have traditionally exercised this prerogative. For example, both Presidents Obama and George W. Bush acted quickly to revoke executive orders issued by their predecessors that did not reflect their own policy goals.

Despite the attention paid to executive orders, not all policy initiatives emanating from the executive branch have been implemented via executive order during the Obama Administration. Some of the current Administration’s more contentious policies were instead implemented pursuant to discretionary agency directives and guidance documents.

Discretionary Agency Directives and Guidance Documents

A new President can also immediately direct the heads of executive branch agencies to withdraw discretionary directives and guidance documents that were issued by an executive agency during a previous administration. These pronouncements can generally be identified by the procedures, or lack thereof, employed by the agency prior to their issuance. For example, these directives—which would include agency policy statements, interpretive rules, guidance documents, letters, and press releases—are not issued pursuant to the notice and comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and thus generally lack the force and effect of law. Like executive orders, the expediency and ease with which discretionary agency directives and guidance documents are issued contributes to their lack of permanence. It is unlikely that an agency head would need to comply with many additional procedures in withdrawing these types of directives, and thus they can generally be withdrawn swiftly.

There are numerous examples of discretionary agency directives and guidance documents issued during the Obama Administration. These documents form the basis for policies such as the Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in immigration; the Department of Justice’s non-enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states that have legalized the drug; and the Department of Education’s interpretive guidance governing the application of civil rights laws to transgender individuals. All of these documents may be revoked by a new administration.

Agency Rules and Regulations

Agency rules and regulations may also be repealed by a new administration; however, the repeal process can be time consuming and must comply with certain mandated procedures. The vast majority of agency “rulemakings” must comply with the APA’s notice and comment process, which requires an agency to provide the public with notice of a proposed rulemaking and a meaningful opportunity to comment on the rule (generally lasting 30 days or more). The APA explicitly defines rulemaking as “the agency process for formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” Thus, whether issuing a new rule, or amending or repealing an existing rule, agencies are typically required to engage in the same notice and comment process. The APA provides explicit exceptions to the notice and comment requirements, including when agencies can show “good cause” for why such procedures would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” At times, agencies have relied on this narrow good cause exception as justification for not engaging in notice and comment prior to repealing a rule; however, these arguments have typically been rejected by the courts.

In addition, an agency’s repeal of a rule may generally be challenged by an injured party and will be subject to the same standard of review as new rules, namely “arbitrary and capricious” review. Under this standard of review, a reviewing court will consider whether the agency has “examine[d] the relevant data and articulate[d] a satisfactory explanation for its action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Accordingly, the Supreme Court has established that “an agency changing its course by rescinding a rule is obligated to supply a reasoned analysis for the change ….” That “reasoned analysis” must be based on permissible factors and be reflected in evidence included within the rulemaking record.

In light of these principles, and in the absence of specific statutory requirements, it would appear that a new President can generally direct executive branch agencies to revoke existing rules. In implementing that direction, however, the agency will likely have to engage in the notice and comment process to effectuate the repeal, and, in the case of a challenge to the repeal, provide a “reasoned analysis” for its decision to repeal the rule. Reports suggest that that the Trump Administration may target any number of existing rules for repeal, including rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Labor, and Food and Drug Administration.

While the repeal of finalized rules may take time, recent Presidents have acted immediately to freeze agency actions on pending rules. As discussed here, these moratoriums generally apply to all pending rules that have not yet been published as final rules in the Federal Register. In addition, although administrative repeals may be subject to some procedural delay, Congress has the authority, either through the traditional legislative process or in some cases through the expedited procedures of the Congressional Review Act, to enact legislation that immediately terminates a rule.

Lastly, it should be noted that the President’s ability to compel agency action likely differs depending on whether the agency is a traditional executive branch agency or an independent agency. Although the President’s scope of authority over independent agencies is not completely clear, the President is generally viewed as lacking the direct authority to order an independent agency to repeal a rule or revoke a discretionary agency directive or guidance document. Over time, however, the President may be able to appoint members to head the independent agency that will be willing to implement his viewpoints.

Source:
This article was published as CRS Reports & Analysis: Legal Sidebar

The Rise And Rise Of Fidel Castro – OpEd

0
0

The revenues of Cuban state-run companies are used exclusively for the benefit of the people, to whom they belong. No thieves, no traitors, no interventionists! This time the revolution is for real.  Fidel Castro (1926-2016)

There are mixed reactions to the death of Cuban leader Fidel Castro who died on 25th November in Havana, Cuba. While Cuba is mourning the death of its revolutionary leader who was once quoted saying “I think that a man should not live beyond the age when he begins to deteriorate, when the flame that lighted the brightest moment of his life has weakened.” on the other hand the Cuban expatriates in Miami are celebrating.

Born on August 13, 1926, in Biran, Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz ruled the Republic of Cuba as Prime Minister from 1959-76 after ousting Batista, and then as President from 1976-2008. Castro was politically inclined towards the Marxist Leninist ideology and was a staunch nationalist; under his dispensation Cuba became a one party socialist state, with socialist reforms carried out on large scare and nationalization of the economy made mandatory, which included nationalization of business and trade. The leftist anti imperialist tendencies in Castro inspired revolutionaries like Argentine Ernesto Che Guevara to carry out movements against capitalist domination.

In the 1950’s when Castro was the President of the University Committee for Democracy in the Dominican Republic, he joined the strategic expedition that was planned to overthrow the right-wing military junta of Rafael Trujillo, a U.S. ally, in the Dominican Republic. Castro was the brain behind the group called “The Movement” which published the underground newspaper El Acusador. The group also armed and trained anti Batista recruits. Castro kept away from joining hands with the communist PSP as this step would serve to digress the political moderates from the main movement. Interestingly he was in close touch with his brother Raul Castro who was a PSP member.

In many ways Castro’s life story is an inspiring journey in itself. Between 1953-59 Castro was actively involved in the Cuban Revolution fighting for the overthrowing of Fulgencio Batista’s military junta. In July 1953 after the failed attack on the Monacada barracks Castro was arrested and put on trial and it is during this time that his famous “History will absolve me” speech inspired millions. Castro was sentenced to fifteen years in Model Prison on the Isla De Pinos.

In a surprising move in 1953 Castro was pardoned by Batista and Castro along with Raul fled to Mexico where he met Argentine Marxist Leninist revolutionary Guevara and convinced him yet again into carrying out attacks to overthrow Batista. The tussle continued and attacked by Batista’s forces, Castro, Raul and Guevara fled to Sierra Maestra where he trained his supporters who were now close to 200 in guerrilla warfare and carried out well coordinated attacks against Batista.

Batista with his conventional style of war couldn’t match up to Castro’s relentless guerrilla tactics and his secret MR-26-7 took control of most of the areas in Sierra Maesta, Oriente and Las Villas. Briefly, Dominican Republic leader Eulogio Cantillo officially took charge of Cuba but was arrested by Castro. Guevara who fought alongside Castro, became the Minister for Industry following the victory of the Cuban revolution. In 1966 Guevara established a guerrilla base in Bolivia. Guevara was later captured and killed in 1967.(The Motorcycle Diaries)

Castro stated that the revolution was a dictatorship of the exploited against the exploiters. He said, “A revolution is a struggle to the death between the future and the past; they talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America? I find capitalism repugnant. It is filthy, it is gross, it is alienating… because it causes war, hypocrisy and competition.”

Castro’s death has left a void in Cuba but his legacy will live on. History will absolve him as he rightly said. What Castro’s supporters saw as a great revolution his critics labelled as dictatorship. Castro stood against the US in the cold war era. The United States had cut ties with Cuba in 1961 amid rising Cold War tensions and imposed a strict economic embargo which largely remains in place more than half a century on.

In 2015 the US relationship with Cuba improved, largely as a result of Raul’s overtures and diplomacy was restored under President Obama’s rule in 2015 strengthening cooperative convergence with Cuba on key issues. By now, Castro was seriously ill and no longer handling affairs of state; he did not meet Obama during the landmark visit by the President, the first ever since 1928. Obama has said history would “record and judge the enormous impact” of Castro.

While detractors of Castro have largely ignored his presence in the last few years with his diminishing hold over Cuban politics, he remains a giant both as a revolutionary for his country, as well as for the Marxist Leninist ideology. In his lifetime he continued to be a thorn in the side of the US, and staunchly repudiated the capitalist ideology of the US and its western allies. And even though his ideology has seemingly died its own death, it will remain a challenge to the ills of capitalism and a reminder that all is not well with it either.

Diversification Visa, Or DV-Lottery For USA – OpEd

0
0

This is the official name of the US Green card lottery in English. If you wish to be doing the Google search, use these words. You will then find the US DV-lottary official site, asking you to upload your biometric photo first. Both your ears must be visible, head open, no glasses, no earrings. Then you are to respond to the questions on the screen. Do you have any criminal record? What is your education? Did you use drugs, narcotics in the past? Have you been deported from any country? Registration then is over. There is no charge for lottery application. There is no need for an intermediary firm to help.

Last weekend we were sitting in front of the computer to see what this was all about. We had internet page open. So we looked at it to understand what was going on. We looked for a place for ourselves, as if we have already won the lottery. The kids preferred California, Florida, whereas I preferred less populated places like Montana, Oregon, Wisconsin, Colorado, with plenty of natural resources, fewer populations. Educational health services are relatively better, and racism is relatively less.

The next morning I looked at Wikipedia information. The US is looking for a young population and diverse ethnic identities. They upfront eliminate applications from Britain, Bangladesh, Mexico, Vietnam, as such countries have already sent many immigrants earlier from the lottery list.

In 2013, from Turkey we had 1600+ lottery winners out of 170 thousand applications. Last year, we had 3000 lottery winners out of 300 thousand applications. This year they are expecting 500 thousand applications from Turkey. There are 6-7 million applications per year in the whole world. 100 thousand lottery winners comes out, half of them are eliminated due to various reasons, impossibilities. Eventually each year 50 thousand people can go. In other words, there is chance of 1% lottery in the world average. So there is no need to be overly optimistic.

There is no burden on the US budget due to this lottery. At the beginning, lottery organizers already make a pre-selection. Why should they accept people who are old, or at retirement age, or unable to speak English. Young, healthy, English speaking people are probably their first choice.

I looked at those who had won DV-lottery around my friends. Those winners are all in this category, all young, all educated people. We spend their education expenses here, we send those educated young bright people there.

Sad to say, we cannot create an environment to keep those trained people here in Turkey. Is this place where they will be immigrating any better than here? Social Security, proper health care coverage, I doubt it. Here, there is your friend circle, you have your dentist, your family doctor, your car mechanic, plumber, electrician. Good or bad, you have public transportation here. There are trains, subways, municipality transportations. In the US there is only car transportation, if you do not have a private car, you are miserable. Do they have democracy in the United States? Is it a paradise to live in? I do think that Europe’s democratic practice is much better.

When lottery results are announced, within a certain period of time those lottery winners are expected to sell all their properties here, accumulating all in cash, paying airplane tickets from their pocket and they will be going. They will have working and living permits in the USA. They then must live in the US for five uninterrupted years, they do not get out of the US for five-years, they must not get involved in any criminal offense, they even have to pay attention to not even to get traffic tickets. They get citizenship after five years. But all in all they are first generation immigrants.

In order to be a real US citizen, however, they should have been born in the USA.

After Donald Trump won the US elections in November 8, a large number of US citizens applied to the Canadian immigration website. The Canadian internet page collapsed. Would you like to live in a country run by Donald Trump? Consider this new situation as well. It is an ironic situation. There is sarcastic news that “Migration is starting backwards”. Canadian residence permit applications are under 26-month review. Canadians make jokes that they will be building a new wall between the United States to stop illegal immigration.

Having lived abroad for a long time earlier, being a long-time immigrant does not please me. I am getting old. It is not easy to rearrange things, to find a new job, get a job, build a new business to earn money, all is not so easy.
There is news in the local media that special passport coverage will be expanded. Special Passports do not have any meaning for most countries. Whether it is special or normal passport, there are no passport visa exemptions for USA, UK, Canada, Australia, China, Russia anyway. What will happen soon if foreign countries exempt visa exemption of all passports altogether?

The Russian market has not been opened yet, visa applications continue. Do not believe in the media news as prepared at the table without any backup proof.

Already after the US presidential elections, Obama and his team are going to leave public duty. Public duties do not last forever.

There are certain wear and tear times. Life is cruel. Human life has a limit. Everything ends one day, all ends are renewed.

It is unchanging the change itself. Someday everything will change.

Payback of everything, bonus, honor, reward and punishment are given and taken while living in this world.

You should not be discouraged in facing prevailing economic difficulties. We’re not going anywhere, we are not leaving. We had difficulties in this country in the past. We have suffered so much. We have worked, created jobs, money, property, wealth, we have established and run business.

Tough days will pass one day. We will make more production, generate more wealth. This country is ours. Stronger and richer Turkey is waiting for us. All will be created within Democracy and thanks to the Republic.

Does India Have A Foreign Policy? – OpEd

0
0

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s hard-line approach to project India as a superpower and as an upcoming power on global platform has received mixed reactions. The primary goal of any Indian establishment has been to maintain friendly relations with all the nations, cooperation on all grounds and even remaining non aligned with extreme ideology backed states.

Prime Minister Modi has been visiting nations across the globe to strengthen ties on all fronts including military partnerships. His “Make in India” programs to boost defence manufacturing in India and job creation was more than just a slogan or so believe many analysts. Indias first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his policies were directed towards projecting India as strong state post independence and till date the Congress Party holds on to ancient policies paying little heed to the changing dynamics of Indian Foreign Policy.

The concept of power plays a major role in the theoretical understanding of International Relations. It essentially means self reliance and freedom in deciding local and international matters or sovereignty so to speak. But India as a country is obsessed with hero worship. The Prime minister is not just an elected representative but the face of India hence sometimes policies dividing the nation go unnoticed as it happened in the recent demonetisation case.

India does not seem to have a blueprint of its foreign policy it seems. It focuses too much on the currents and undercurrents of politics and all stands maintained by the elites are directed towards immediate gains. The vision is lacking. The new buzz word is nuclear. In 1998 when India conducted nuclear tests it wanted to tell the world it’s no longer a weak state. Despite all efforts of Prime Minister Modi’s Indias ambition to become a superpower remains largely unrealised.

India’s focus on South Asia has shifted the fulcrum of superpower status inexorably towards its traditional adversary Pakistan. The fact that India has still not been able to get a permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council suggests the blueprint has to be made and made soon.

Pakistan our traditional adversary can be handled only through diplomatic pressures. Indian institutional mechanisms need to be restructured, remodelled, and reequipped in this era of asymmetric threats and changing battlefields. The digital platform is flooded with memes telling India what it should and should not so. British Prime Minister Thatcher had once said by giving publicity to troublemakers through the media we are making them more powerful. The war game in realpolitick is really dirty.

Indian diplomacy went haywire back in 1947, when Jawaharlal Nehru who had no idea about military strategy, war games and diplomatic policies was made the first prime minister of a newly independent and partitioned India. Diplomacy essentially is a process by which a state negotiates with another, putting national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity on top of the agenda. Let’s take a look at the cultural isolation and “Aman ki Asha” (Desire for peace) moves which India has crafted time and again to improve its ties with Pakistan. Budge not says the Pakistani devil, budge says the Indian Angel. The situation our current leaders are in is no less than that of Launcelot gobo, Shakespeare comic character who could not decide on what he wanted to do with life. Does India lack curiosity that questions or may question Pakistani motives? Can we declare war on a nation just on the basis of intuition and instinct?

The Indian establishment needs to articulate its diplomatic policies in such a manner that the impacts of these are felt globally. Pathankot and Uri have acted as catalysts yet again and yet again the matter will fade away given the short shelf life of news stories today. On 2nd October India celebrated the birth anniversary of the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi, who all his life advocated non violence and here we are issuing alerts in several parts of India fearing more Pathankot’s and Uri’s. Is it intelligence failure? Was the timing of the Uri attack in favour of the attackers? Again conjectures. The larger question is can non violent principles be used as tools to settle territorial disputes with Pakistan? Will the K issue always remain the bone of contention or will there be an end of history a Fukuyama like complacency.

India and Pakistan’s strategic and military footprints are getting larger and larger every day. With the dragon raising its head now, and the United States using India in South Asia as a strategic partner, as a counterweight to the dragon, geopolitics is getting murkier than it already is. Will no first use policy by India stop Pakistan from going nuclear? All the above conjectural statements remain open to subjective interpretation, but in my view strong measures do not mean or refer to violent measures. International pressure through organisations such as the United Nations which was put in place to save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war are already in place. India’s plan of action must be crystal. We cannot have the “Aman ki Asha” (Desire for Peace) if the grenade and bomb “tamasha” (drama) carries on endlessly.

Time is ripe but India’s on and off bumbling diplomatic, political and strategic policy towards Pakistan needs to be checked by men in uniform. They need to be included in the strategic decision making process. We cannot simply move our forces and pull them back at the whims and fancies of our ministers. This has a direct bearing on our national exchequer too. India cannot trust any other nation too because the rule of the game in geopolitics is that the “Might is always Right”


Fidel Castro, El Comandante, Is Dead – OpEd

0
0

Fidel Castro, the Cuban leader who led anti-imperialist revolution casting off U.S. hegemony and taking the liberated country to the path of communism, died on Friday at the age of 90.

While Havana and the rest of Cuba mourns for the death of their beloved revolutionary leader, the Cuban exiles in Miami’s Little Havana celebrates his death. For too long, the exiles in Miami had hoped for Fidel Castro’s death. They had chanted, “Free Cuba! Down with Castro. Down with tyranny!” They had seen him as a brutal dictator, a tyrant who banned free speech, freedom of assembly and a free press, abolished Christmas as an official holiday for nearly 30 years, and executed or jailed thousands of political opponents.

For nearly half a century, Fidel Castro had played an immense role in America’s political psyche. In the words of Karen DeYoung, “Even when his country ceased to be much of a policy concern — long after the memories of threatened nuclear attack and Third World adventurism had faded — Fidel Castro remained the nettlesome, living symbol of how a small island had thumbed its nose at the United States and survived.” (Washington Post, November 26, 2016)

Now Fidel Castro is dead. His younger brother Raul has been running the island nation of 11 million people for the last ten years after Fidel stepped aside in 2006 when a serious illness felled him.

Fidel, the son of a prosperous sugar planter, received his law degree at the University of Havana in 1950 and set up a practice in the capital city. Two years later, he ran for a seat in the Cuban congress on the ticket of the Ortodoxo Party, a reform group. His campaign was cut short on March 10, 1952, when Batista staged a coup and retook the presidency he first held in the 1940s. He and his revolutionary followers saw Batista as a U.S. stooge, and wanted to overthrow him from power. On July 26, 1953, he and many of his armed followers were captured in a failed assault on the Moncada barracks in Santiago de Cuba, and were put on trial. He was sentenced to 15 years but was released after less than two under an amnesty declared by Batista. He then moved to Mexico City, where he continued his work with a group calling itself the 26th of July Movement, commemorating the date of the Moncada assault, which became known as the opening salvo of the Cuban revolution.

On Dec. 2, 1956, Fidel Castro and 81 followers returned to Cuba from Mexico aboard a secondhand yacht called “Granma.” All but 12 in the landing party were killed or captured almost immediately. Fidel, his brother Raúl and an Argentine physician, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, escaped into the mountains and began organizing a guerrilla army.

Fidel Castro, the revolutionary who was destined to be his people’s savior, rolled into Havana on the afternoon of January 8, 1959 with 5,000 of his victorious rebels to receive a delirious welcome from the city’s populace. Batista had left the country on the eve of the New Year’s Day.

Amongst Fidel’s many intellectual supporters included famous writer Ernest Hemingway, a longtime resident of Cuba; authors Jean-Paul Sartre and Gabriel García Márquez; and Bob Dylan, the troubadour of the American counterculture, who recently won the Nobel Prize for literature.

In May 1959, Fidel Castro began confiscating privately owned agricultural land, including land owned by Americans. He nationalized the U.S. and British oil refineries and U.S.-owned banks, openly provoking the United States government. After President Dwight D. Eisenhower cut the American sugar quota from Cuba, Fidel Castro turned to the Soviet Union for economic aid and political support, further antagonizing the USA, and bringing in the Cold War to the Western Hemisphere.

He educated, fed and provided health care to his once highly impoverished people. Since the early 1960s, the United States government maintained a strict trade and diplomatic embargo against Cuba, hoping to drive Fidel Castro from power. It even tried to kill him and topple his regime since John F. Kennedy’s time. But all such moves, including the invasion by some 1,350 CIA-trained fighters in early 1961 at the Bay of Pigs, failed miserably.

As a true internationalist and revolutionary leader, Fidel Castro tried to export a Cuban-style revolution to countries across Latin America. His comrade, Che Guevara was killed leading an uprising in Bolivia in 1967.
In the mid-1970s, Fidel sent thousands of troops to wars in Angola, Mozambique and Ethiopia in support of Communist insurgents. In addition, Cuban military training missions and thousands of physicians and teachers operated in more than a dozen other countries – from West Africa to North Korea.

Among Fidel Castro’s more successful efforts were universal health care and the near-eradication of illiteracy throughout Cuba. Thousands of classrooms were built in rural areas, and the country’s literacy rate grew to more than 95 percent. There were more physicians and hospital beds per capita in Cuba than in the United States.

Much in common with other communist and repressive countries in our world, Fidel’s government conducted surveillance on anyone suspected of dissent. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Cubans – branded as “worms” and “scum” by Cuba’s government – simply left, most of them for the United States, flooding mainly into Florida and creating a politically influential bloc of anti-Castro Cuban Americans in Miami. Among those encouraged to leave were convicts, AIDS patients, the mentally ill and other “antisocial” elements deemed undesirable by Cuban officials.

Fidel Castro condemned President Bush Jr.’s “war on terrorism” saying that it could turn into a “struggle against ghosts they don’t know where to find.” History has proven him true on this issue.

The U.S. government housed suspected terrorists at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which had been in U.S. hands since 1903. Fidel Castro, who had long demanded that the base be returned to Cuban possession, refused to cash the checks the U.S. government sent each month as rent for Guantanamo.
Unlike many other third and fourth world leaders of our time, Fidel Castro did not create monuments to himself or lend his name to streets and buildings. Instead, he erected billboards carrying patriotic slogans of the revolution. Under his reign, Havana eventually became something of a Marxist Disneyland, which outlasted the fall of the Soviet Union and even Albania.

Fifty years of isolation could not put a dent in either Cuba’s communist system or the control of the Castro brothers. He remained a fiery apostle of revolution. His defiance of American power made him a beacon of resistance in Latin America and elsewhere.

“His legacy in Cuba and elsewhere has been a mixed record of social progress and abject poverty, of racial equality and political persecution, of medical advances and a degree of misery comparable to the conditions that existed in Cuba when he entered Havana as a victorious guerrilla commander in 1959,” writes Anthony DePalma of the New York Times.

After Raúl Castro assumed power, he embarked on a plan of economic liberalization that has arguably been more symbolic than substantial. Private enterprise is permitted in a few small segments, but the military-led government still controls as much as 80 percent of the economy.

In 2014, President Obama — the first U.S. president elected in the post-Fidel era — announced plans to restore full diplomatic relations with Havana. During a visit to Cuba in March 2016, Obama met Raúl Castro but made no effort to meet his brother.

Well, although Fidel Castro is dead. His death does not mean freedom for the Cuban people or justice for the political opponents he and his brother have jailed and persecuted. As noted by Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator (FL-Rep.), “The dictator has died, but the dictatorship has not.”

President Obama offered a bookend to one of Castro’s most famous lines — “History will absolve me!” Noting the “powerful emotions” Castro evoked and “countless ways” he had altered the course of lives and history, Obama said, “History will record and judge” his impact.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he was mourning “a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century.” “While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for ‘el Comandante,’ ” Trudeau’s statement said. [It should be noted here that despite the United States’ hostile history with Cuba, Canada has maintained its relationship with Cuba since the 18th century. Mexico and Canada were the only other countries in the Western Hemisphere to continue diplomatic relations with Cuba in the years after Fidel Castro took power in 1959.]

The Cuban government has decreed nine days of mourning for Fidel Castro – ‘el Comandante’, the revolutionary leader. His body was cremated on Saturday. A state funeral will follow on December 4, Cuban state media reported.

India: Curb Currency Circulation To Ensure Success Of Demonitization – OpEd

0
0

The Modi government has been receiving bouquets and brickbats ever since it announced demonetization of high value currency on November 8, 2016.

Doomsayers seem to be of the view that demonetization will result in fall in GDP growth and cause stress and anxiety for people due to cash shortage for atleast next one year. However, those supporting demonetization stress that this move is necessary and inevitable to restore the social and economic strength of India and defeat corrupt forces at all level.

The opposition political parties are caught unaware and are highly disturbed after hearing the announcement on demonetization, for whatever reasons . They paralysed the functioning of the parliament for several days and have gone to the extent of announcing national strike on 28th November as a mark of protest.

While the black money holders and those used to corrupt practices are pleased about the critical stand of the opposition parties, there appear to be overwhelming view amongst the common man that demonetization should succeed, so that their present sufferings due to widespread corrupt practices in government departments and other agencies like educational institutions, hospitals , real estate agencies etc. will stop.

Obviously, Modi government believes that India should rapidly move towards a cash less economy , which would be the only way to ultimately wipe out corrupt practices in the country.

The demonetization move of the government is a firm and definite step towards achieving the objective of cashless economy.

Generation of black money in the country during the last several years have happened due to several reasons including characterless administration and lack of sense of probity among the people themselves. Apart from these reasons, the huge increase in the circulation of currency have also caused increase in corrupt practices and consequent generation of black money.

Increase in currency circulation during the last few years is very steep as given below

As on March,2010 – Rs. 7,883 billion
As on March,2011 Rs. 9,358 billion
As on March,2012 Rs. 10,528 billion
As on March,2013 Rs. 11,648 billion
As on March,2014 Rs. 12,829 billion
As on March,2015 Rs. 14,284 billion
As on March,2016 Rs. 16,400 billion

While currency circulation has been steadily increasing year after year, the circulation increased by 11.4% by end March,2015 over the previous year and continue to increase until recently. India’s currency GDP ratio stands at 10.6% at the end of March, 2016, which is highest in the last sixteen years and also highest among BRICS nations.

Obviously, the governments in the past have been increasing the money circulation to meet the shortfall due to the deficit budget, as they have been announcing number of populist welfare measures such as Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) and others.

It is reported that around 20% of currency in circulation are black money generated due to tax evasion.

It is clear that this around 20% of the black money in circulation is the excess money supply , which is harming the economy . This excess money supply need to be removed from circulation.

With the strategy of Modi government to make every Indian to have bank account and ensure non cash transaction in a very big way in the coming years, the need for currency would get significantly reduced.

Modi government is now feverishly printing and releasing high value currency notes to replace the 85% of Indian currency in the form of high value notes that have been devalued and withdrawn.

Without succumbing to the pressure of political parties and business houses to increase the currency circulation in the market to the present level, Modi government should stand by it’s commitment to remonetize the country’s economy, for which the reduction in the currency circulation is a pre requisite.

Morocco’s Religious Diplomacy In Africa: Well-Timed Royal Initiative – OpEd

0
0

Morocco is continuing to promote its moderate version of Islam as a counterweight to the widening jihadist menace in sub Saharan Africa by training hundreds of imams from affected countries. Moreover, and in June 2016 King Mohammed VI chaired in the nation’s spiritual capital Fez the installation ceremony of the Higher Council of the recently set up Mohammed VI Foundation for African Islamic scholars. During that ceremony the King stated that ” I view the Mohammed VI Foundation for African Ulema as an institution for cooperation, for the exchange of experiences and for the Ulema to make concerted efforts to fulfill their duty and turn a spotlight on the true image of the pristine Islamic faith as well as on its open-minded values, which are based on moderation, tolerance and coexistence. The aim is to make sure those values help us promote security, stability and development in Africa.”

He added, “I am convinced the Foundation, through its branches in African countries, and together with other religious institutions, will play its role in disseminating enlightened religious precepts and in combating extremism, reclusiveness and terrorism – which our faith does not embrace in any way – but which are advocated by some clerics, in the name of Islam.”

Moroccan spiritual diplomacy has been very successful in West Africa due to the country’s historic Maliki School through Sufi channels and methods of reaching worshipers in the sub-Saharan region and West Africa. The Tijaniya sufi order widely operating in West Africa was founded in North Africa during the 18th century. Other Sufi orders – including the Qadiriyya and Chadiliya orders – soon followed, gaining large numbers of devotees who identified heavily with Morocco, where the tomb of Sheikh Ahmed Tijani, the founder of the Tijaniyyah order, is buried.

Sufism attracts more young Africans because of its tolerance, due to the easy interpretation that gives to the Qur’an, its rejection of fanaticism and its embrace of modernity. Young people are the principles of” beauty” and” humanity”. Sufism balanced lifestyle that allows them to enjoy arts, music and love without having to abandon their spiritual or religious obligations. Sufi orders exist throughout Morocco. They organize regular gatherings to pray, chant and debate timely topics of social and political, from the protection of the environment and social charity to the fight against drugs and the threat of terrorism.

Apparently Morocco’s religious authority – Imarat Lmouminin – is highly venerated by many Africans, whether in Mali, Senegal, Cote d’Ivoire… In all his trips in Africa, King Mohammed as Commander of the Faithful, receive all leaders of major Sufi orders. In all his trips in Africa, he provided thousands of copies of the Quran issued by the Mohammed VI Foundation for Holy Quran Publishing to be distributed mosques and other major Muslim institutions. In short, a credible and very successful spiritual diplomacy led by the King to promote a tolerant Islam that teaches respect, love to other religions and contribute efficiently to counter all extremist voices who unfortunately seem to gain ground in some countries in West Africa.

In March 2015, King Mohammed VI inaugurated the Mohammed VI Institute for the Training of Imams, Morchidines, and Morchidates in the capital, Rabat. The religious training center that aims to instill the values of Morocco’s open, moderate form of Islam, based on the Maliki rite and Sunni Sufism, in the next generation of Muslim religious leaders (imams) and preachers (morchidines and morchidates) from across the region and the world.

The new foundation (Mohammed VI Foundation for African Ulema) will be a key element in Morocco’s ongoing efforts to promote religious moderation and tolerance as a shield against extremism in the region. The spiritual ties between Morocco and many African Sub-Saharan countries are mirrored throughout history in the exchange of muslim scholars, saints and sufis who spared no effort to spread the genuine Islamic values of tolerance and moderation. This leading institution will be the most convenient forum where African Ulema can debate Islamic thought, unify and coordinate their efforts to disseminate the true value of Islam : tolerance, coexistence, peace and respect for other religions

The new foundation is therefore an additional link in the chain of moves initiated by Morocco to consolidate moderate Islam in among Muslim communities in the African continent and preserve Them from grips of extremism and radicalization that result only in havoc and chaos.

“Their task is to help and guide imams in mosques to preserve the fundamentals of Islam in Morocco, based on the Malikite rite, contrary to takfirism, which is constantly invading the minds of our young people,” the Moroccan Minister of Islamic Affairs Ahmed Toufiq has said.

In all his trips in Africa, King Mohammed VI makes sure to perform Friday prayers in the presence of hundreds of African Muslims and at the end of the prayers he donates thousands of copies of the Quran. Today, and on his official visit to Madagascar, he performed the Friday prayer at the Antananarivo Mosque. Then, the Sovereign donated a consignment of the holy Quran (Mushaf Al Mohammadi Acharif) to the parties in charge of religious affairs in Madagascar. The Sovereign handed copies of the Holy Quran to the representative of Malagasy senators and to the vice-president of the Malagasy Muslim Association.

The Quran copies, published by the Mohammed VI Foundation for Holy Quran Publication, will be distributed in the different mosques of Madagascar.

A well-timed Royal initiative that aims to disseminate the true values of Islam: tolerance, coexistence and true love contrasting starkly with radical “takfirist” ideology that brands non-practicing as infidels.

Clinton’s Triangulation And Why Working Class Voted For Trump – OpEd

0
0

By Dr. Arshad M. Khan*

This was the week of the Thanksgiving holiday in the US. For many in our increasingly unequal society it is not a happy holiday. Triangulation has been the byword for President Obama’s party — a kind of centrism embraced by Democrats who did the work of the Republicans in the economic sphere while adopting a left-leaning social agenda. The author of this … none other than recent presidential candidate Hillary’s husband Bill Clinton.

It decimated the working class but then, it was assumed, they had nowhere else to go but the Democratic party. NAFTA, bank deregulation in lockstep with the Republicans and the results: job losses, the mortgage crisis as banks gambled on mortgage paper and the ensuing loss of homes for those most vulnerable.

The total of manufacturing jobs in the US numbered around 18 million before NAFTA; within a half-dozen years after, they were sinking rapidly down to 12 million. In the postwar years (after WW II) 1 in 4 American workers had a manufacturing job; now it is less than 1 in 10.

So along came the second Bush. Had it been the middle ages, he would have been promptly named Bush the Mad, to distinguish him from his genteel father. Eight years, hundreds of thousands of unnecessary lives lost, an economic crisis thanks to Bill Clinton’s prior bank deregulation and the country was ready for ‘hope and change’. They got ‘more of the same’.

Who can blame them then? Along comes a pied piper by the name of Trump … he is going to bring jobs back, cancel TPP and NAFTA — though he is now soft-peddling the latter — put America first, and ‘make America great again’.

When election victories became more important to the Democrats than their working class core constituency, it was only a matter of time. Trump will be remembered for understanding this better than anyone else, better than his Republican rivals, certainly better than his opponent, who he blamed squarely for the troubles faced by the working class. Trump the Canny he would have been known as in the Middle Ages, and the canny generally win.

How things have changed in the US: In the 1970s, the area around Union Station (the principal train hub in Chicago) was a little shabby with old low-rise buildings spreading westwards. There was never a panhandler in sight or a homeless person. The country took care of its poor. Then came the Reagan revolution, cutting taxes and spending, followed not long after by Bill Clinton’s triangulation or rather strangulation of the poor through welfare reform. Yes, he balanced the budget as Hillary asserted often but on whose backs?

Go to the Union Station now and new gleaming high-rises meet the eye — all shiny glass and steel. But every street corner has beggars (panhandlers is the euphemism) and the numbers keep increasing. Then there are the pathetic homeless carrying all their belongings in plastic bags or shopping carts.

Whatever Trump does, it is not going to be easy to bring jobs back. Not only have these been shipped abroad but technology has changed. Robots on the shop floor are replacing humans, and robots don’t need breaks or sick leave or vacation time.

As for the panhandlers, heaven help them. The ‘more tax cuts’ mantra means less for them.

A common measure of civilization is how well a society looks after its weakest and most vulnerable. The new crop of leaders shows little promise in that regard.

About the author:
*Dr. Arshad M. Khan
is a former Professor based in the US. Educated at King’s College London, OSU and The University of Chicago, he has a multidisciplinary background that has frequently informed his research. Thus he headed the analysis of an innovation survey of Norway, and his work on SMEs published in major journals has been widely cited. He has for several decades also written for the press: These articles and occasional comments have appeared in print media such as The Dallas Morning News, Dawn (Pakistan), The Fort Worth Star Telegram, The Monitor, The Wall Street Journal and others. On the internet, he has written for Antiwar.com, Asia Times, Common Dreams, Counterpunch, Countercurrents, Dissident Voice, Eurasia Review and Modern Diplomacy among many. His work has been quoted in the U.S. Congress and published in its Congressional Record.

Source:
This article was published at Modern Diplomacy.

Is Jill Stein On Hillary Clinton’s Payroll? – OpEd

0
0

Over the past couple of days we’ve written numerous times about Jill Stein’s recount efforts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. And while it’s clear that Stein intends to move forward with recounts in all three states (she’s now up to $6.1mm in donations), what is unclear, and quite perplexing, is exactly why she’s pursuing these recounts in the first place.

Here are the potential justifications from Stein’s perspective, as we see them:

Personal self-interest? – Obviously, No. With less than 1% of the vote in WI, MI and PA, Stein obviously has no shot of winning any of the states in question.

Hopes of recount tipping states to Hillary? – No. Multiple experts and even Hillary campaign insiders have admitted that overturning election results with a margin of victory of several 1,000 votes is extremely unlikely. To win, Hillary would have to flip WI, MI and PA even though she trails by ~20k, ~12k and ~70k votes in each of those states, respectively…not going to happen.

Exposing voting machine hacking? – No. Even the Obama administration has confirmed the the election was “free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective” and that votes “accurately reflect the will of the American people.” By failing to present even a shred of evidence of vote tampering in her WI recount petition, instead choosing to focus on wild conspiracy theories, Stein effectively also admits that there was no “hacking” of voting machines.

Fundraising scam to get millions in donations from disaffected Hillary voters? – Maybe. As of right now, Stein has raised ~$6mm of the $7mm she says she needs to fund recount efforts. Assuming Stein goes through with recounts in all three states and her cost estimates are reasonably accurate then she won’t really have that much money left over to be added to the general Green Party coffers.

So, with no practical reason for forcing recounts, what exactly is Jill Stein up to?

One theory is that Stein is simply hoping to disrupt the electoral college process to push the 2016 election into the hands of Congress while drawing the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency into question.

As Edward Foley, an expert in election law at Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, pointed out to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, electors from around the country have to meet by December 19th to cast their electoral college votes. To the extent recounts in WI, MI and PA have not been completed by that time, which experts assign a high probability that they will not, there is a chance that the electoral votes from those three states wouldn’t be counted leaving neither candidate with the required electoral votes to win the presidency (electoral count would be Trump 260 versus Hillary 232).

If the electoral college process fails to select a President then the election would be left in the hands of Congress to decide. Given that the Senate and House are both controlled by Republicans, in theory they would then choose Trump/Pence, though in this election cycle nothing is a certainty. Moreover, even if Trump/Pence are chosen, the whole process of being appointed by Congress, combined with a loss of the popular vote, would then cast a dark shadow over their administration.

Wisconsin’s recount will likely begin late next week, once the state has tallied a cost estimate and received payment from Stein’s campaign, said Michael Haas, administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Political scientist Barry Burden, the director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said it would be extremely difficult to complete the recount on time – which is likely the goal of the recount to begin with.

“You may potentially have the state electoral votes at stake if it doesn’t get done by then,” said Haas.

A lawyer with Stein’s campaign has said it wants the recount done by hand. That would take longer and require a judge’s order, Haas said.

Perhaps the most important deadline is Dec. 19, when electors around the country must meet to cast their Electoral College votes, said Edward Foley, an expert in election law at Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University.

“That is a hard deadline and if a state were to miss that deadline, it would be technically in jeopardy of not having its electoral votes counted,” he said.

Of course, if this theory is even partially true then it’s extremely disturbing on a variety of levels. That a person with absolutely no standing. in terms of personal damages, and no presentation of credible evidence of wrongdoing could unilaterally disrupt a presidential election is not only a failure of Stein’s personal character but it’s a failure of our election rules and procedures that such reckless behavior would be permitted.

Kyrgyzstan: Departing President Lays Ground For Transition

0
0

This time next year, Kyrgyzstan should have a new president-elect. The coming election is shaping up to be a unique event in Central Asia in that, unlike contests in neighboring nations, it is still difficult to call.

Early indications suggest outgoing President Almazbek Atambayev will do whatever possible to ensure the new leader does not come from rival stock.

Despite repeatedly pledging that he will not hold political office after his single term expires, few doubt that Atambayev is eager to ensure a safe retirement in a country renowned for its turbulent politics. Critics fear his administration may exercise undue influence over the 2017 presidential election, precisely in order to achieve such an end.

Central Asia’s only single-term head of state has cut an increasingly paranoid figure in recent times, railing against even moderate criticism as the country prepares for a December 11 referendum on controversial constitutional changes that look certain to boost the present ruling circle.

“Society is afraid he is trying out the same behind-the-curtains maneuvers tested by [first President Askar] Akayev and [second President Kurmanbek] Bakiyev just before they were overthrown,” said Osmonakun Ibraimov, who served as foreign minister under Akayev.

“In the twilight of his presidency, Atambayev trusts only his immediate circle — bodyguards, drivers and so on,” Ibraimov told EurasiaNet.org. “I think he is overcome by fears he will be betrayed by someone, some mythical general perhaps.”

Atambayev’s apparent sense of insecurity was evident in the promotion to interior minister of Ulan Israilov, a former member of his personal security detail. Another former bodyguard serves as deputy head of the powerful State Committee for National Security, or GKNB, while his former chauffeur is rumored to wield significant covert influence in the parliament.

These hints of cronyism have fed concerns that the transition may be bumpy.

Some observers believe that influential advisors and others in Atambayev’s inner circle want to find a way to preserve their prerogatives and perks, thus fueling speculation the administration may throw its weight behind a loyalist candidate in 2017.

Names bandied in the media include current Prime Minister Sooronbai Jeenbekov, a southerner whose position would be strengthened by the pending constitutional changes. Jeenbekov’s brother and former parliament speaker, Asylbek, is another name that is often mentioned in the press. Both belong to Atambayev’s Social Democratic Party of Kyrgyzstan.

Sapar Isakov, the administration’s silver-tongued, baby-faced foreign relations chief, who media erroneously predicted would be parachuted into the deputy prime minister position in a recent cabinet shakeup, is another talked-up hopeful.

“The list goes on,” said Azamat Tynaev, a former journalist who now works as a media consultant. “But any candidate from inside this system would face a key challenge in a popular vote, since they have worked all this time in Atambayev’s shadow. People see them as functionaries, or may not know them at all.”

While acknowledging that “administrative resources” — ranging from glowing state media coverage to pressure on opposition candidates and persuasion of government officials to vote a certain way — could help such a figure, Tynaev said he believes that two self-promoting, oligarchical former prime ministers from the north of the country stand a better chance.

“[Omurbek Babanov] and [Temir] Sariyev were proper prime ministers in the sense they were very visible. Sariyev in particular always gave the impression he was everywhere at once,” Tynaev told EurasiaNet.org. Sariyev may have also earned support from Russia, given his prominent role in steering Kyrgyzstan’s entry into the Moscow-dominated Eurasian Economic Union.

The referendum next month, which Atambayev has presented as vital for the country’s democratic development, could prove a bellwether for the prospects of political stability in the build-up to the 2017 vote.

Only 15 MPs in the parliament voted against the law allowing the referendum to take place. At least five of those have been targeted in anti-corruption cases by authorities.

While a “no” vote could be disastrous for Atambayev’s allies, the far more likely “yes” outcome would give his 38-seat SDPK party a near-veto over future governments, thanks to an amendment requiring super-majorities rather than simple majorities to register a vote of no-confidence in the cabinet.

That single amendment would simultaneously consolidate the power of the current government and provide SDPK an incentive to remain united post-Atambayev, a factor that could be seen as a significant insurance policy for him.

If only things were that simple in Kyrgyz politics.

Only recently, the actions of a rogue party member – a former journalist Atambayev co-opted as his press secretary before moving sideways into the parliament last year – will likely provide cause for sleepless nights. Janar Akayev, who is popular among the young, social media-savvy urban types, launched a withering attack on Atambayev during a parliamentary session earlier this month, and has since spoken out in defense of the MPs facing anti-graft investigations.

When Atambayev countered by publicly assailing him on November 4 and reminding him that the party had funded his parliamentary election campaign, Akayev responded with a gnomic Facebook post later the same day. “A khan who never sees the true way is doomed to vanish,” Akayev wrote in the November 4 post, which was liked by over a thousand people. “But the one who sees the road ahead is immortal.”

Ohio State University Shooter Killed, 7 Injured

0
0

(RFE/RL) — Media reports in the United States say a suspected shooter on the campus of Ohio State University has been killed after shooting at least seven people.

The university’s emergency management department alerted students early on November 28 by sending a message on Twitter that said “Active shooter on campus. Run Hide Fight.”

“Run, hide, fight” has become a standard warning notice at U.S. campuses for active shooter situations.

It means: Run, evacuate if possible; hide, get silently out of view; or fight, as a last resort, taking action to disrupt or incapacitate the shooter if your life is in imminent danger.

Initial reports on November 28 said seven shooting victims were taken to a hospital and that one was in critical condition.

With nearly 60,000 students at its main campus in the city of Columbus, Ohio State University is one of the largest universities in the United States.


US Defense Chief Says Islamic State’s Days In Mosul Are Numbered

0
0

By Lisa Ferdinando

Iraqi forces, bolstered by the international coalition, are making significant gains toward defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Mosul, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Monday.

“I’m encouraged by Iraq’s determination in the face of the difficult fight,” Carter said. “I’m confident that ISIL’s days in Mosul are numbered.”

The defense chief spoke at the start of a meeting with French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, at the Daughters of the American Revolution Constitution Hall, a National Historic Landmark building.

Topics of the bilateral meeting, he said, include the global fight against terrorism, as well as enhancing the already strong U.S.-French military alliance. Also on the agenda was the signing of a joint statement of intent that provides the framework for enhancing U.S.-French defense cooperation more broadly, he said.

The two were also discussing expanding cooperation in cyber and space, and signing an arrangement for military space cooperation, Carter said.

“These steps combined serve testament to our longstanding partnership,” he said.

France’s ‘Strong Military Contributions’

Carter applauded the French contributions in the fight against ISIL.

“I’d like to thank France especially for its strong military contributions to the campaign, including once again extending the tour of the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle,” Carter said.

“In Mosul, Iraqi Security Forces with the help of the United States and France and the rest of our global coalition are nearing the isolation of the city and they continue their deliberate advance into the city,” he said.

ISIL Under Pressure on ‘All Fronts’

Carter said he, Le Drian and other coalition members developed a plan last year with their Iraqi partners. That effort, according to Carter, is progressing according to plan. The battle for Mosul began in mid-October.

In Syria, local forces supported by the coalition began a push earlier this month to take back the city of Raqqa. Those forces are making notable progress, Carter remarked.

“Meanwhile in Syria, our local partners are now just 20 kilometers from Raqqa, as isolation of ISIL’s so-called capital continues,” he said.

“The reality is that ISIL finds itself under pressure on all fronts simultaneously — and that’s exactly what we planned for, as we discuss next steps today in our effort to deliver ISIL the lasting defeat it deserves,” Carter said.

This month marked the anniversary of terrorist attacks in France that killed 130 people, Carter noted. They were “barbaric attacks that were more than an assault on France — they were also assault on our common human dignity,” he said.

“In the year since, the United States and France have stood resolute together and against terror in Paris, in Iraq, and Syria and elsewhere around the world where we’ve been called upon,” he said.

Le Drian thanked Carter for his unwavering support, saying the U.S. defense chief has been by his side ever since January 2015, when the first of the recent terrorist attacks occurred with 12 people killed at the offices of the satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine.

“Our relationship was strengthened in adversity,” Le Drian said, adding, “I wanted to thank him personally at this very special time.”

Bullying Rates Remain Higher For Children With Disabilities

0
0

More than 22 percent of children ages 12-18 say they have been bullied in school within the last month; a significant portion of those children have disabilities. However, little research exists on how bullying rates for individual children change over time.

Now, a University of Missouri researcher and bullying expert has determined that children with disabilities are victimized by bullying at a much higher rate over time than their peers without disabilities. The study also revealed that this discrepancy in victimization and bullying perpetration rates remains consistent as children age. Chad Rose, an assistant professor of special education in the MU College of Education, says this indicates that children with disabilities are not developing adequate social skills to combat bullying as they mature.

“This study points out the necessity for special education programs to teach appropriate response skills to children with disabilities,” Rose said. “Schools need to further develop these programs by tailoring social development goals for each individual student to ensure they are learning the social skills that will help them prevent bullying from occurring. Prior research has shown that children with disabilities, when bullied, may react aggressively when they lack appropriate response skills. Teaching these students how to communicate more effectively with their peers and with teachers can help them react to bullying in more positive ways, as well as prevent it from occurring at all.”

Over the course of three years, more than 6,500 children from grades 3-12 were surveyed about their experiences with bullying; 16 percent of the children surveyed had disabilities, specifically learning disabilities, emotional disabilities and autism spectrum disorders. Rose and Nicholas Gage, an assistant professor from the University of Florida, found that bullying rates across the board peaked in third grade, were reduced drastically in middle school and then rose again during high school. However, while mirroring this trend, bullying rates for children with disabilities remained consistently higher than those without disabilities.

“Studying how individual children are victimized by bullying over time has revealed that children with disabilities are not learning how to effectively respond to victimization,” Rose said. “As children continued to mature, we expected to see that they would slowly develop social skills that would help them combat victimization and close the gap with children without disabilities, but that was not the case. Their rates of bullying victimization remained consistently higher, which shows that current intervention approaches are not effectively preparing these children who are most at-risk for bullying involvement.”

Rose says that many schools have devoted less and less time over the years to teaching social skills to all students, in exchange for increased focus on common core subjects and standardized test preparation. He says schools should refocus some of their efforts on teaching important social skills, especially to children with disabilities.

Japan: Catholics, Lutherans To Mark Reformation Anniversary In Nagasaki

0
0

The Japan Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Japan have agreed to mark the 500th anniversary of the Reformation on Nov.23 next year at Urakami Cathedral in Nagasaki, one of the oldest churches in Japan.

Archbishop Mitsuaki Takami of Nagasaki and Reverend Joji Oshiba, vice president of the Japan Evangelical Lutheran Church, met German President Joachim Gauck at the cathedral on Nov. 18 and presented a letter asking for cooperation for the event.

On that same day, Gauck, a former Lutheran pastor in East Germany, visited the 26 Martyrs Museum and the Nagasaki Peace Park.

Next year is also the 150th anniversary of the last and most extensive persecution of Christians in Japan, which took place in Urakami.

Taiwan: Bishops Voice Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Bill

0
0

By Francis Kuo

The Catholic bishops’ conference in Taiwan has issued a statement stating the church’s stance against a bill that would allow same-sex marriage and asked churchgoers on the island to pray and fast for the cause.

“The amendments to the civil law will overturn the traditional monogamous marriage system, resulting in changes in the appellation of parents and grandparents, family ethics, moral values. Its impact on family morality and social order is huge,” the bishops said.

“The bill has not been thoroughly discussed in society. There are shortcomings in the amendment procedure while the consequences have not been carefully assessed. Pushing it hastily might lead to more complicated social problems,” they added.

Taiwan has long been on the forefront of LGBT equality rights in Asia with some 80,000 people attending the gay pride event in October. But not all sections of society are happy.

About 20,000 Christians protested in front of the legislative Yuan on Nov. 17 as the same-sex marriage bill entered its second reading. They were angry that the bill was tabled in the Yuan without forewarning.

They were also irked at President Tsai Ing-wen who reportedly told some lawmakers that “she never heard of any opposition against same-sex marriage from the church.”

The protesters, organized by “Taiwan Family,” an amalgamation of different pressure groups, demanded 30 public hearings and a referendum.

Lawmakers were forced to suspend the second reading of the bill but they only agreed to two public hearings on Nov. 24 and Dec. 1 before the Judicial and Legal Committee restarts the procedure, noting that there have been a number of public hearings on the same topic in the past years.

All eight bishops in seven dioceses in Taiwan signed the statement on Nov. 22. They declared they have the duty to safeguard morality and uphold church teachings.

The bishops also appealed to all parishes to encourage Catholics to hold the Adoration of the Eucharist and to fast and pray for the marriage system, state policy and well-being of people.

On Nov. 22, a group of young Catholics initiated a survey, asking fellow youth to share their views on same-sex marriage. However, the organizer refused to disclose the results, noting that it is for the bishops’ internal reference.

Taiwanese-Canadian commentator Gloria Hu dismissed charges of “immorality” in an article for Thinking Taiwan claiming that “ultraconservative groups [like the International House of Prayer] seek to foist their morality on others, on issues ranging from family structure to the content of school curricula and access to contraceptive measures.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” but adds, however, that gay persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.”

Marriage between same-sex couples is not legally recognized in Taiwan and LGBT activists say legal recognition of same-sex couples is necessary to enjoy rights such as property inheritance rights and hospital visitation rights afforded to others.

Rohingyas: The Nowhere People Whom Myanmar Disowns – Analysis

0
0

By Mohammad Kamal Hosen*

With great hope to bring about an immense socio-political change by breaking the shackles of military rule, the people of Myanmar were at last able to express their opinion freely and fairly in the November 8, 2015 general elections to have the National League for Democracy (NLD), a pro-democracy political party under Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, take over the country’s administration.

The free and fair elections kindled a hope for the people that Suu Kyi, as a peace activist, would be able to show some dynamism in forming specific guidelines to bring under control the country’s much talked about ethnic violence.

One year after the national elections, the change that Suu Kyi could bring into the situation is only intensifying the communal violence and tension. Her deafening silence on the Rohingya issue has bred heavy international criticism but only to make her even more silent. She has, during this one year, completely failed to produce and sustain any peace among her country’s communities.

How could a peace and pro-democracy activist, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, make her voice even meeker when she is faced with the question of humanity and peace?

A question that leads one to dig much deeper into finding a suitable answer. That’s perhaps the task of researchers. What I intend here is to have an inquiry into what actually she has done for her country since 2015, other than the global promulgation of a political party under a democratic guise even in the UN General Assembly.

She protested in favour of democracy and suffered house arrest for 15 long years. But her indifference, in fact neglect, to the Rohingya crisis has saddened the whole world. She carefully averted the term Rohingya in her debut address as Myanmar’s national leader before the UN General Assembly, to imply in the country’s hate propaganda that Rohingyas are not their people, although historically they are.

It’s notable here that Bangla literature in its medieval age was significantly indebted to the Arakan Royal Court where the prolific poet Alaol produced the notable Padmavati, Satimayana-Lor-Chandrani, Saptapaykar, Saifulmuluk Badiuzzaman, and Sikandarnama.

Myanmar has for long refused to recognise the Rohingyas and absorb them into its ‘mainstream’ population only because they are ethnically Muslims, and because they speak in Rohingya, an Indo-European language related to Bengali and so they are mistakenly presumed to be illegal Bengali migrants. In the process, they have been stripped of citizen rights—their place of living (to be only deported to ghettos, temporary shelters for displaced Rohingyas), their means of livelihood, their movement — not a political one but the mere act of moving — their speech and opinions and their socio-politico-economic involvement in the country’s mainstream.

They are restricted from giving birth to more than two children, only to become extinct from the land in course of time. It is often reported by the international media that the Myanmar military runs hunting operations in the ghettos by fits and starts in the name of sorting out ‘Islamist militants’. Though the government says it goes after terrorists, the Myanmar security forces have been accused of conducting a violent, heavy-handed response that’s targeting Rohingyas alone.

We have heard about cases of arbitrary arrests, rape, torture, looting by Burmese soldiers and allegations of extrajudicial killings. We can unhesitatingly echo former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, who chairs the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, that violence “is plunging the State into renewed instability and creating new displacement”.

A Theravada Buddhist, although internationally known as a figure of patience, Suu Kyi could not rise above the kiddle of religious bigotry. Look how she showed anger and irritation when she was interviewed by a BBC journalist Mishal Husain, a Muslim in religious belief, in 2013—“No one told me that I was to be interviewed by a Muslim.”

Suu Kyi’s disappointment “might be caused by the question asked by Husain on the hardships experienced by Muslims in Myanmar. Suu Kyi was also asked to condemn the anti-Muslims and those who acted violently against the Muslims that led the Rohingyas to leave Myanmar” (Popham, Peter, Journalist for The Independent, The Lady and The Generals – Aung San Suu Kyi and Burma’s Struggle for Freedom, 2016).

Don’t democracy and human rights teach us to respect differences in beliefs and celebrate brotherhood and sisterhood? Whatever the religion, shouldn’t Suu Kyi and all of us respect each other and not discriminate against other human beings? Who could answer why she is acting like this?

This might be answered in two ways—first, because she has religious hatred for Muslims or second, perhaps she is still afraid of the country’s military because it seems the military runs the state under the shadow of a democratic existence in power that is NLD. If that is not the case, NLD could not defend the military onslaught being carried out in Rakhine state by brazenly issuing statements of utter rejection against any sort of allegation of thwarted human rights.

Her role regarding the treatment of the ethnic minority has very well posed a serious question mark of her right to retain the Nobel Prize.

On our part, opportunities are rarely availed to discover the in-depth picture of the happenings, for the Myanmar government is limiting access to and the information flow from the region. In fact, Northern Rakhine State has been turned into an information black hole.

The United Nations must urge the Myanmar government to assist it to independently investigate human rights violations there. The world body can create pressure, to a great extent, on the government to allow independent monitors and aid workers into the still-reclusive region.

It should make the country understand the essentiality, as a member of the UN, of putting in place human rights, and of instilling peace and order in the region. The country should be held accountable for conducting heavy assaults, worth naming genocide, which it has perpetrated for years.

Here, the role of the UN can be put into question regarding giving the Rohingyas back their civil rights as Burmese citizens, instead of one-sided urging to Bangladesh to open up its gates to flood into the already population-laden country.

Yes, Bangladesh should show empathy, which we are globally committed to, for the displaced populations of some millions. We should follow the example of the European countries so that no Aylan Kurdi lies on the shore dead.

But how could a small country like Bangladesh alone bear the weighty burden on its shoulder while there are big neighbours like India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, China? All of them are strategically hushed. We should provide asylum to those who are displaced, but who will guarantee that they will be taken back once the situation comes under control? Moreover, Myanmar is not a war-torn country. The things being perpetrated are its very own creation to drive its Muslim minority citizens out to the nearest countries.

Let’s follow UN advice. What will happen then? They will mix with the local people and will somehow manage Bangladeshi passports, thanks to the incapacity of our local administration, and then will never go back to their country. This is what exactly Myanmar has planned for.

Therefore, Bangladesh should be given guarantees by the UN, which should be done with much urgency with Myanmar’s consent, for those people won’t survive many days floating in the sea, that these people will be taken back to their country of origin once a settlement is done.

*Kamal Hosen is a journalist with The Daily Observer, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent to editor@spsindia.in

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images