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

Saudi Arabia: King Salman Opens Key Projects In Alkhobar

0
0

Saudi Arabia’s Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman on Monday inaugurated a number of key development projects in Alkhobar in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province.

They include hospital developments with hundreds of new beds for patients as well as environment, water and agriculture projects.

Speaking on the occasion, the king said: “I am very pleased to be among you today to celebrate these projects that will serve our country and citizens.”

The king said that the Kingdom is blessed with security, tranquility and prosperity and that “our citizens come together as one.”

Health Minister Tawfiq Al-Rabiah highlighted health projects, which include a children and maternity hospital in Dammam with a capacity of 500 beds, Saud bin Jalawi Hospital in Al-Ahsa with a capacity of 300 beds, King Faisal General Hospital in Al-Ahsa with a capacity of 200 beds and Al-Omran General Hospital with a capacity of 100 beds.

King Salman and attendees later watched a visual presentation about the ministry’s programs. The king then inaugurated the health projects as well as environment, water and agriculture projects.

The Saudi Cabinet, chaired by King Salman at Al-Aziziyah Palace in Alkhobar Monday, condemned the recent deadly terrorist attacks in Turkey and Egypt.

The Cabinet also underlined the need to ensure more legitimacy and accountability in using social media networks, which will go a long way in curbing extremism and terrorism.

The Cabinet expressed sorrow over the explosion that killed and wounded several innocent people outside the governor’s office in the southern Turkish city of Adana.

In another incident, a bomb blast in the southeastern Turkish province of Sirnak killed at least two children and wounded several. Another target of terror was the Sinai in Egypt, where more than 12 soldiers were killed, reportedly by Daesh.

The Cabinet reaffirmed the Kingdom’s stand and solidarity with Egypt and Turkey in the fight against terrorism, expressing its sincere condolences and sympathy to the families of the victims and wishing a speedy recovery for the wounded.

At the outset of the Cabinet session, King Salman thanked Allah for “the development, growth and prosperity” of the Kingdom, especially the Eastern Province, stressing that “the nation is proceeding on right track to achieve prosperity for citizens and for the nation.”

King Salman briefed the Cabinet on the results of his meeting with the king of Sweden, the telephone call received from King Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa of Bahrain, and the invitation received from Bahrain to participate in the GCC summit.

Adel Al-Toraifi, minister of culture and information, said in a statement that the Cabinet commended various scientific and economic conferences hosted by the Kingdom during the past weeks. He also appreciated the first conference organized on the social media that called for legitimate control and use of the social networks “to fight extremism and terrorism.”

The Cabinet also underlined the Kingdom’s hosting of 14th International Arab Conference for Mineral Resources, and the accompanying exhibition under the theme “Arab Mineral Resources, Strategic Resources and Promising Investment Opportunities.”

The Cabinet lauded the signing of the pact for implementing a nutrition program to counter malnutrition in Hodeidah region of Yemen at a cost of $10 million.

The agreement was signed by KSRelief in Rome with the World Food Program that would address the risk of acute malnutrition for children under five. The Cabinet noted that emergency food aid is being provided for more than 464,000 beneficiaries in Hodeidah for the last six months.

The Cabinet commended the efforts that led to the arrest of a man who shot at soldiers in Tabuk, and seven other suspects in connection to the case. One soldier was killed in the shootout. The Cabinet also expressed its appreciation for “the high skills and the capabilities of security agencies that led to the foiling of several terror plots and plans.”


Head Impacts Lead To Brain Changes In High School Football Players

0
0

Brain imaging exams performed on high school football players after just one season revealed changes in both the gray and white matter that correlated with exposure to head impacts, according to a new study that will be presented today at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA).

“It’s important to understand the potential changes occurring in the brain related to youth contact sports,” said Elizabeth Moody Davenport, Ph.D., a postdoctoral researcher at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, who led this analysis. “We know that some professional football players suffer from a serious condition called chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE. We are attempting to find out when and how that process starts, so that we can keep sports a healthy activity for millions of children and adolescents.”

The study included 24 players from a high school football team in North Carolina, each of whom wore a helmet outfitted with the Head Impact Telemetry System (HITS) during all practices and games. The helmets are lined with six accelerometers, or sensors, that measure the magnitude, location and direction of a hit. Data from the helmets can be uploaded to a computer for analysis.

“We saw changes in these young players’ brains on both structural and functional imaging after a single season of football,” Dr. Davenport said.

In the study, each player underwent pre- and post-season imaging: a specialized MRI scan, from which diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) data were extracted to measure the brain’s white matter integrity, and a magnetoencephalography (MEG) scan, which records and analyzes the magnetic fields produced by brain waves. Diffusion imaging can measure the structural white matter changes in the brain, and MEG assesses changes in function.

“MEG can be used to measure delta waves in the brain, which are a type of distress signal,” Dr. Davenport said. “Delta waves represent slow wave activity that increases after brain injuries. The delta waves we saw came from the surface of the brain, while diffusion imaging is a measure of the white matter deeper in the brain.”

The research team calculated the change in imaging metrics between the pre- and post-season imaging exams. They measured abnormalities observed on diffusion imaging and abnormally increased delta wave activity on MEG. The imaging results were then combined with player-specific impact data from the HITS. None of the 24 players were diagnosed with a concussion during the study.

Players with greater head impact exposure had the greatest change in diffusion imaging and MEG metrics.

“Change in diffusion imaging metrics correlated most to linear acceleration, similar to the impact of a car crash,” Dr. Davenport said. “MEG changes correlated most to rotational impact, similar to a boxer’s punch. These results demonstrate that you need both imaging metrics to assess impact exposure because they correlate with very different biomechanical processes.”

Dr. Davenport said similar studies are being conducted this fall, and a consortium has been formed to continue the brain imaging research in youth contact sports across the country.

“Without a larger population that is closely followed in a longitudinal study, it is difficult to know the long-term effects of these changes,” she said. “We don’t know if the brain’s developmental trajectory is altered, or if the off-season time allows for the brain to return to normal.”

Bangladesh’s Stellar Role In International Peacekeeping – Analysis

0
0

By Amity Saha*

November 21 is celebrated as Armed Forces Day in Bangladesh. On this day in 1971, the members of the Army, Navy and Air force of the Bangladesh Liberation War forces carried out a joint operation against the Pakistan Army. This was almost eight months into the war of liberation after Bangladeshi independence was proclaimed on March 26, 1971.

Later, 93,000 personnel of the Pakistan Army surrendered to the allied forces of Bangladesh and India resulting in the independence of Bangladesh on December 16, 1971.

As the Bangladesh Liberation War gained vigour from the month of July, Bengali military personnel who were members of the Pakistan Army, Navy and Air Force forsook their respective units to join Bangladesh Armed Forces and formed themselves into regular units across the border in Indian territory primarily as a Land Force. Some Naval commandos also unfolded the Naval wing while a few pilots and airmen formed the air wing.

The joining of these forces resulted in large areas along the border being liberated with the passage of each day. November 21 bears special significance in the history of Bangladesh and is celebrated every year with due solemnity and grandeur to honour the sacrifices made by the members of the Bangladesh Armed forces — if not for their sacrifices, it would never have been possible to see an independent Bangladesh within the short span of time.

In 1988, Bangladesh began contributing troops to the United Nations’ peacekeeping efforts in areas of conflict across the world and the country’s contribution to UN peacekeeping is a story of glory and success. Today, Bangladesh can hold its head high in the global arena because of the Bangladeshi uniformed personnel having earned the gratitude of millions in far off lands. The vow taken by Bangladeshi peacekeepers for establishing peace and security emanates from the principles enshrined in the country’s Constitution.

The preamble of the Bangladeshi Constitution says: “…We may prosper in freedom and may make our full contribution towards international peace and co-operation in keeping with the progressive aspirations of mankind.”

Through 28 years of excellent peacekeeping, the footprints of Bangladeshi peacekeepers are now evident in almost all the troubled areas of the world — from Haiti to East Timor and from Lebanon to the Democratic Republic of Congo. They have endured through freezing European winter to the hot-humid weather of East Asia and arid deserts of Sahara and Mali.

A total of 141,923 Bangladeshi peacekeepers from Bangladesh Army, Navy, Air Force and Police have so far taken part in 54 peacekeeping missions in 40 countries. Bangladesh is one of the leading troop-contributing countries with 7,129 peacekeepers currently deployed in 12 missions.

Bangladesh is also proud of maintaining the position of the topmost troop-contributing country from 2010 to 2015. Besides, Bangladesh is also one of the leading contributors of female peacekeepers. One of the secrets of such triumph is that Bangladesh has always been laying emphasis on quality peacekeeping besides the head-count.

Bangladesh is proud of exhibiting outstanding competence of its peacekeepers in times of need, even in danger.

In 2007, Bangladeshi peacekeepers rescued all the UN employees of a UN Radio Centre at Juba, South Sudan, from the rebels without firing a single shot. This was apparently a difficult mission but was possible because of the courageousness, tactfulness, neutrality and acceptability of Bangladeshi Peacekeepers.

In April 2011, Bangladeshi peacekeepers faced the brunt of unruly anti-democratic Gbagbo militia in Ivory Coast who had detained local and foreign journalists in a hotel in Abidjan. Risking their own lives, the Bangladeshi peacekeepers tactically won over the militia, recaptured the hotel and rescued all journalists safely.

In the same year, Bangladeshi peacekeepers in Ivory Coast also came to the rescue of a vessel, loaded with passengers and having Deputy Mayor of Abidjan on board, which capsized and a bus that plunged into the Grand Bassam Canal.

In 2013, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina over phone and requested deployment of air assets in South Sudan. Bangladesh responded quickly by redeploying three MI-17 helicopters from the Democratic Republic of Congo to South Sudan.

All these are testament to Bangladeshi peacekeepers’ robust and firm commitment to the greater mission of peacekeeping.

Peacekeeping efforts have severely tested but not weakened Bangladesh’s determination. Bangladeshi Peacekeepers, working under complex and dangerous circumstances, have often endangered their own lives.

So far, 128 peacekeepers (as on March 28, 2016) have made the supreme sacrifice and 172 have sustained major injuries for the noble cause of peace.

One pays the deepest tribute to those peacekeepers who have laid down their lives or sustained injury for upholding Bangladesh’s commitment to world peace. Their commitment, contribution and supreme sacrifice have built up the image of Bangladesh as one of the front-runners in UN peacekeeping.

In recognition of this, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan commented about Bangladesh: “…A model member of the United Nations, providing leadership amongst the least developed countries … and contributing substantially to peacekeeping and humanitarian operations.”

Present UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has also expressed his deep admiration for Bangladesh. During a visit to South Sudan, he lauded Bangladeshi peacekeepers and said: “…My deep admiration and commendation for all the noble work the Bangladesh contingent has been making for peace and security in Sudan.”

*Amity Saha is a Research Assistant (International Affairs) at Bangladesh Institute of Law and International Affairs (BILIA). Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent to editor@spsindia.in

The Iranian ‘Maritime Police’ Project – OpEd

0
0

By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed*

Experienced in fighting proxy wars in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon, the Iranian leadership is aware of the important role the military plays in imposing Tehran’s foreign policy in the region and beyond.

At least this is what one can garner from hearing Iranian military Chief of Staff Mohammad Bagheri’s recent statements, which show that Tehran is entertaining the idea of gaining naval superiority by establishing bases in Syria and Yemen, convinced that “having naval bases in remote distances is not less than nuclear power. It is ten times more important and creates deterrence.”

Bagheri also said that Iran needs a fleet in the Indian Ocean that would be equal to the one stationed in the Gulf of Oman, and urged the navy to enhance its intelligence activities by working on satellite and cyber space technologies, as well as by developing naval drones.

Although it is doubtful that Iran has the means to effect such a costly naval expansion, it is obvious that Tehran has two main strategic goals: To strengthen its military power and flex its muscle beyond its borders, and revive the Shah’s old dream of becoming the Gulf’s policeman. Nowadays, however, Iran wants to be the region’s policeman from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea.

Such schemes are bound to increase tension in our already troubled region and push countries to resort to military power as a political tool. The Iranian chief of staff’s justification that the aim of this military objective is to counter piracy does not seem logical, knowing that Iran has limited maritime trade when compared to countries such as India, the Gulf, Egypt and others that use the maritime corridors in the Gulf waters. Moreover, piracy does not exist in the Sea of Oman and in the Mediterranean. It is not clear whether his statement is simply bragging or a reflection of the new Iranian strategy after it had to forego its nuclear project under Western pressure, which resulted in Tehran dropping it in return for the West lifting sanctions.

What is clear, though, is that the new Iranian design, followed the signing of the nuclear deal, is to gain military superiority, in total contradiction to the US administration’s declaration that the nuclear deal will open the Iranian market to its benefit.

The logical thing to believe is that talk about Iranian naval bases in the Mediterranean is an exaggeration, for European countries will not allow such a presence in their waters, particularly belonging to a state of whose activities they are suspicious.

Neither will Israel allow it. It once sent back an Iranian ship loaded with weapons on its way through Bab Al-Mandab. That was preceded by chases by the Israeli navy of Iranian ships that were heading to Sudan; one was even bombed.

In case Iran succeeds in maintaining the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria, it will not need to build a naval military base there, as it is already ruling the regime in Damascus as part of a deal that Assad will find difficult to get rid of. Iran gave two reasons for engaging in war in Syria: To protect Shiite shrines and to reciprocate the Assad regime’s gesture, for it stood with Iran in the war against Iraq in the 1980s. Neither reason is convincing in political relations.

Tehran considers controlling Syria the way it controls Iraq; in both cases, it hopes to secure its presence, influence and interests in the Arab world. Iran’s military operations in Iraq and Syria are proof that warfare is the new Iranian policy and that enhanced military capability is the main goal of its foreign policy.

Iran is trying to become a hegemon in the region, a dominant force that wishes to expand geographically, both on land and in the sea, after the West lifted its embargo and it opened up to international trade.

This can only mean one thing: That we should brace for heightened arms race and more military adventures in the region.

*Abdulrahman Al-Rashed is a veteran journalist and internationally acclaimed columnist. He is the former general manager of Al Arabiya news channel and ex-editor in chief of Asharq Al-Awsat. Originally published in Asharq Al-Awsat

Trump Victory: Change For The Better Or Worse? – Analysis

0
0

By Simi Mehta*

The office of the US Presidency implies great power and responsibility in the realm of international politics, and the US presidential election is usually watched with great interest around the world. The presidential election of 2016 was regarded as unprecedented and highly consequential that was a testimony to a highly polarised campaign spread throughout the nomination process until the presidential debates that ended in the electors choosing Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States.

There was a near unity in the media, political experts and scholars in the country and abroad that predicted the victory of the Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. A major reason for this was based upon the character assassination of Donald Trump resulting from his derogatory remarks on women, Muslims, Latinos, immigrants, and persons with disabilities that were not altogether misplaced.

It was expected that the American society would unite against the dread that could be unleashed should Donald Trump be elected as US President. Noted American filmmaker Michael Moore had described him as a “wretched, ignorant, dangerous part-time clown and full-time sociopath”.

Trump’s victory has exposed some of the worst nightmares for a large section of the population and this article would seek to understand the reasons that secured him victory despite the widely acknowledged misdemeanours and brash exposition of his policy preferences.

1. Trump has shocked the psephologists. According to Noam Chomsky, Trump’s victory points to the moribund state of the US political system, that was propelled in part by rural and Rust Belt voters, especially former blue states of the mid-west: Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which bore the brunt of the neglect of the political establishment.

He clinched victory because he hit the bull’s eye when he accused former President Bill Clinton (and indirectly Hillary Clinton) as the reason for destroying the industrial states of the Upper Midwest by their support of NAFTA, that led to the closure of several industries and retrenchment of the local workforce there.

Taking a cue from this, Trump espoused a rejection of open global trade, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and promised to nullify American association with NAFTA. He vociferously attacked Hillary for her stance on the TPP (which itself kept changing during several campaigns and Presidential debates). Trump’s staunch promise to apply a 35 per cent tariff on the cars manufactured by the Ford Motor factory in Michigan, for instance, if it proceeded with the plans to relocate to Mexico, drew applause from the working class there which indeed translated into votes in his favour. He has advocated an economic plan that would slash tax rates for the wealthy like himself.

2. His election was a glimpse of the accumulated insecurities of the white-American-men. The rapid emergence of women-power in the US and around the world and their recognition as an equal in all domains of life, coupled with the legalisation of gay marriages by the Barack Obama administration, led to enhanced frustration of the white-American men, who were annoyed for the past 8 years of being ruled by a Black man and felt endangered at the very thought of being ruled by a female for the next 4 or probably 8 years. Thus, he successfully tapped into the deep distress and resentment among millions of white working- and middle-class Americans.

3. While the two candidates were common on the fact that they supported an issue on one instance and denied it on the other, the 30 years of public service that Hillary Clinton harped upon was understood to have generated distrust amongst the voters. When she was running for Democratic nomination against Obama in 2008, she vociferously opposed same sex marriage whereas in readying herself as the 2016 candidate, she welcomed the Supreme Court ruling that legalised gay marriages throughout the continental US.

Her fickle stand like this one became an instance of the narrative that reinforced the old way of politics that concentrated solely on getting elected, and hence was seen as being dishonest and untrustworthy. Trump, on the other hand, exhibited that to secure electoral victory, one need not necessarily identify oneself among the persons living under moderate circumstances, as against Hillary who repeatedly described her father’s humble beginnings as a wholesaler of drapery fabrics.

4. During the debates and campaigns, Trump fiercely condemned the global elite for promoting “open borders,” which have allowed immigrants to take jobs away from US workers and lowered their living standards. As the Republican nominee, he had specifically mentioned Mexicans and Muslims creating the major problems. He accused Mexicans of bringing crime, drugs, and rape to an otherwise peaceful law-abiding nation and Muslim immigrants of favouring “horrendous attacks by people believing in jihad, and (who) have no sense of reason or respect for human life”. Therefore, it does not come as a surprise that right- and far-right wing political parties across the world, including India, have voiced jubilation at Trump’s elections. It is apprehended that Trump’s election would promote hate and racism and be ethnically restrictive across the vast sections of the populations — American as well as foreign.

Pew Research data in July 2016 shows that women and men prioritised many of the same issues during the election, including concerns over the economy, terrorism, and health care. Gender was not considered to be an important issue or at most the gender norms and ideals were inextricably intertwined with economic and social realities.

Over the course of his campaign, Trump spoke about imprisoning Hillary Clinton for the hefty email error she goofed up on when she was Secretary of State, suing women who accused him of unwanted sexual advances, neutering the speaker of the House and revoking press freedoms. He has promised to deport millions of illegal and undocumented immigrants, nullify trade agreements like NAFTA, called for rapid increase in the use of fossil fuels, including coal; reject help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and, in general, sabotage international efforts to fight climate change.

This comes in sharp contrast with the findings of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (2016), which reported that the past five years were the hottest on record with noticeable rise in the sea-levels, rapid melting of glaciers and thereby reducing the cooling effect of polar ice reflection of solar rays and accelerating the grim effects of global warming.

Trump has denigrated US allies and condemned international alliances, such as NATO, that makes it spend billions of dollars to secure other countries’ sovereignty. His America-first approach promised to withdraw the United States into Fortress America and build walls along the Mexican border. During his campaign, he sought to make friends with Russian President Vladimir Putin despite the latter’s blatantly anti-American policy, repeatedly lashed out against China, suggested policies for the Middle East that ranged from uninformed (such as his promise to abort the US-Iran nuclear deal), erratic and unimplementable (taking oil away from the Islamic State).

In essence, the major reasons for Trump securing majority of the electoral college votes was a representation of the frustration of the people accumulating over the years against the centrist political order, where the previous governments tended to ignore the middle-class and the working class, primarily those without college education.

These grievances have been a response to an economic system that favours the rich, the fear of losing jobs to new immigrants, and — exhausted with the slow growth and stubborn inequality — long-term stress on the federal budget.

Trump’s victory has sent shock waves around the US and the world, but one must not forget the words of historian C. Vann Woodward who wrote in 1960 that “One must expect and even hope that there will be future upheavals to shock the seats of power and privilege and furnish the periodic therapy that seems necessary to the health of our democracy”.

The credibility of the US as a country committed to pluralism, multiculturalism, inclusiveness, opportunities for all and human rights, in other words, US’s soft power, has appeared to have suffered a serious blow. Recovering that reputation for enlightened leadership will be hard for President Trump, given the xenophobia of his rhetoric on the way to the White House.

While the Trump phenomenon has been largely characterised by his unpredictability, the 2016 US presidential elections revealed that the passionate support for Trump was inspired primarily by the belief that he represented change, while Hillary Clinton was perceived as the candidate who would perpetuate their distress. The “change” that Trump is likely to bring would be harmful or worse, but it is understandable that the consequences are not clear to the electorate who represented angry nationalism and antagonism to international engagement, free trade, making their country open and inclusive and paving the path to welcome immigrants.

(Simi Mehta is a Ph.D. candidate at the US Studies Division of the School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent to editor@spsindia.in)

UN Calls For More Sustainable Financing To End Gender Violence In Asia-Pacific

0
0

Investments in gender equality, and specifically those addressing violence against women, remain vastly insufficient in the region, highlighted United Nations representatives at the Asia-Pacific Commemoration of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women held in Bangkok Monday.

The regional commemoration was organized by the United Nations Regional Thematic Working Group on Gender Equality and Empowerment, co-chaired by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and UN Women.

Globally, 1 in 3 women has experienced violence in their lifetime. In some Asia-Pacific countries, up to 70 per cent have suffered physical or sexual violence at the hands of an intimate partner. Available studies in the region indicate that the costs of violence can range from 1 to 6 percent of a country’s GDP.

“The ripple effects of violence reach far beyond survivors and their children. Violence has tremendous costs, from greater health care and legal expenses to losses in productivity, impacting national budgets and overall socioeconomic development,” said UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of ESCAP Dr. Shamshad Akhtar in her opening statement.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development cannot succeed without ending violence against women and girls. Not only is it critical for achieving gender equality, it also has an impact on goals related to poverty, health, education, inequality, sustainable cities as well as peace and justice, to name but a few.

Dr. Akhtar stressed, “The Sustainable Development Goals constitute a potentially powerful violence prevention agenda. The ambition of the 2030 Agenda must be matched with an equally ambitious level of transformative financing means.”

“The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development gives us new tools to drive change. Its ambitious targets demand innovative solutions and new partnerships to mobilize resources, including from national governments, international development assistance, private businesses, foundations and individuals,” said Dr. Miwa Kato, UN Women Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.

Dr. Kato reiterated the gravity of violence against women and gaps in addressing it: “Every woman and girl who experience violence has the right to receive care and support, and to see justice served. Yet, in many countries, the laws are often lacking of, or not duly enforced. Too often, shelters, heath care and support services are either not available at all or of poor quality, while the criminal justice system is remote, inaccessible and even appears uninterested in meeting the needs of women.”

The commemoration included an interactive panel discussion which focused on the importance of gender-responsive budgeting as well as innovative means of financing from domestic, international, public and private sources to support efforts in preventing and ending violence against women and girls in the region.

The ‘UNiTE to End Violence against Women’, launched by United Nations Secretary-General Mr. Ban Ki-Moon in 2008, aspires to raise public awareness and increase political will and resources for the prevention and elimination of all forms of violence against women and girls across the world.

Hindu Group Urges Spanish Brewery To Withdraw Shiva-Kali-Ganesha-Hanuman Beers

0
0

An upset US-based Hindu group havs urged Ibosim BrewHouse microbrewery on the island of Ibiza in Spain to apologize and withdraw Shiva, Kali, Ganesha and Hanuman beers; calling these highly inappropriate.

“Shiva Session Black IPA”, “Kali Session IPA”, “Ganesha Double IPA” and “Hanuman Coffee IPA” beers carry the picture of respective Hindu deity. These are the products of Ibosim BrewHouse, which calls itself “The new temple of craft beer in Ibiza”.

Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada (USA) today, said that inappropriate usage of Hindu deities or concepts or symbols for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt the devotees.

Zed, who is president of Universal Society of Hinduism, indicated that Lord Shiva, goddess Kali, Lord Ganesha and Lord Hanuman were highly revered in Hinduism and they were meant to be worshipped in temples or home shrines and not to be used in selling beer for mercantile greed. Moreover, linking these deities with an alcoholic beverage was very disrespectful, Zed added.

Symbols of any faith, larger or smaller, should not be mishandled, Rajan Zed noted.

Claimed to be first microbrewery on the island of Ibiza, Ibosim BrewHouse produces various craft beers and claims “100% natural ingredients, without additives, unfiltered and natural carbonation”. Oscar Enguita and Carlos Guerrero are reportedly the founders.

The Catechism Of A Minister – Analysis

0
0

By Vijay Shankar*

The honourable Raksha Mantri was at a public book release function on 10 November 2016. Addressing the gathering, he suggested that India should not bind itself to a No First Use (NFU) nuclear policy; continuing in the same vein, he blathered,“…in strategic warfare, there is a need to be unpredictable(with the use of nuclear weapons) while being responsible… I ought to declare that I am a responsible nuclear power and will not use (nuclear weapons) irresponsibly.” Such mindless derogation of an existing developed and sophisticated policy must surely promise him a place in Pyongyang’s or even Islamabad’s nuclear establishment.

When Marshal Ferdinand Foch, one of the lesser meat-grinding generals of the First World War, was faced with strategic perplexity, he is said to have countered with a fundamental question: “de quoi s’agit-il?” – What is it all about? Indeed had the Minister Mr Parrikar, paused just a fraction to ask himself as to what it was all about, it may have revealed to him the woeful lack of discernment he possessed on the matter. And this coming from a key member of the Political Council of India’s Nuclear Command Authority can only make for a Dr Strangelovesque parody, if it were not serious.

Foundations of a Deterrent Relationship or ‘A Strategic Primer to Warfare’
The Clausewitzian understanding of warfare holds many truisms that remain relevant to the relationship between nations to this very day. Its significance lies in the manner in which a theory of total war is advanced from the abstract and then moderated by uncertainties, shaped by friction, and confounded by the paucity of predictive surety. His labours breathed life into the concept of ‘limited wars’, the nature of which was determined by symmetricity, available means, and limits on political purpose.

With the advent of nuclear arsenals, not only has the wheel come full circle and war in abstraction become a definite reality, but it also poses a peculiar dilemma to the strategist because nuclear weapons seek to obliterate what polity pursues to win; in which case, what purpose do such weapons of mass destruction serve? The answer is to be found in what may be termed as ‘limits to conflict’ and ‘coercive appeal’ – both settings solicit rationality of leadership. In such a frame of reference, nuclear forces, in fact, become politics and not just an extension of it. As a natural corollary, its unpredictable and irrational control is a negation of polity. The appeal is made at two distinct levels and is intended to keep the scope of an armed conflict to mutually tolerable bounds. Firstly, it urges leadership to constantly indulge in an ‘interest-benefit’ analysis, and secondly, it announces an unambiguous threat that beyond a certain threshold the antagonist would be made to suffer ‘more pain than gain.’ Nuclear forces today therefore are the ‘shadow face’ of warfare from where it scripts the perimeter and imposes cut-offs on the limits of the primary face as represented by conventional forces. This perspicacity lies at the core of India’s nuclear doctrine. To toy with it is reckless.

Lesson one, for the Mantri, may now be summarised by stating that in orthodox analysis of nuclear correlation, leaders are assumed to be rational and willing to engage in ‘interest-benefit’ calculations when contemplating a nuclear solution to a soured political relationship. The assumption of rationality is considered universal in terms of context and challenges and is largely a labour in mirror imaging. A deterrent relationship is premised on this assumption. From such a standpoint, the idea of ‘unpredictability’ is anathema.

Thus far it will be noted that the working of a deterrent relationship is less than perfect; while theoretically it attempts to arrive at a state where the level of understanding is such that the protagonists know where tolerance thresholds lie and that rationality is the basic premise that drives the relationship. On the part of the ‘deterree’, there is rationality in the conviction of disproportionate risks of hostile action; and on the part of the ‘deterrer’, rationality of purpose and transparency in confirming the reality of the risks involved in a manner that strategic miscalculations are avoided. The exceptional feature of this transaction is that the roles are reversible, provided it is in the common interest to maintain stability in the relationship. However, reality is far from this surmise. For rationality itself is conditioned by human behaviour and a liberal sprinkling of all the elements of power, including wealth, geography, values, strategic culture, dynamism, history etc. This leaves the relationship riddled with deep suspicions that provides the incentive for overkill and for covert programmes. Under the circumstances, it is a ‘nuclear armed peace’ that holds. Half-baked declarations such as those that sent quivers down the air waves on 10 November only serve to further confound the problem.

Lesson two is that the quest for a stable nuclear deterrent relationship begins by putting in place measures and structures that remove suspicion and bring about transparency. This is much easier said than done. It is also equally clear that any confidence-building measure that does not target these two factors condemns the relationship.

The Problem

The real problem with the possession of a nuclear arsenal is to find ‘goof-proof’ means to convince decision-makers that no conceivable advantage can be achieved from a nuclear exchange; for as long as one side believes that there is some value to be had through the use of nuclear weapons, uncertainties and imponderables creep in that sets into motion a chain reaction that aggravates and raises the degree of risk of a catastrophe.

Military planners are more than familiar with the fact that risk assessment is an imperative in the generation of a strategic plan. Its evolution is marked by persistent motivation to not only eliminate uncertainties and bring about balance in the ‘objectives-resources-means’ equation but also to ensure that the benefits that accrue far outweigh hazards. However, the abiding conundrum is that the nature of warfare is in opposition to such precision. And, in the nuclear arena, it must be noted that strategic imbalance is intrinsic to the ‘objectives-resources-means’ relationship. For, from the very start, the equation is irrevocably in a state of unstable equilibrium activated by the fact that whatever nuclear means are used, it sets into motion an uncontrollable chain reaction of nuclear escalation that will invariably obliterate the very objectives that were sought to be attained.

Lesson three is the reality of nuclear weapons. Its value lies in its non-usage; its aim is to deter nuclear war; its futility is in attempting to use it to attain political goals.

The Razor’s Edge

Nuclear weapons have put the world on a razor’s edge, in part because of the inability to control the manner in which political events and technology are driving nuclear weapons policies. While technology invites covertness; the lethality, precision, stealth and time compression that it has wrought demands transparency, demarcation between custodian and controller, and central control, if at all the risks of an exchange are to be averted and the stability of a deterrent relationship assured. The development of tactical nuclear weapons only serves to enhance the fragility of the relationship as control is easily lost. A whimsical approach consequently enlarges the vulnerabilities of a deterrent correlation.

Lesson four is that escalation control of a nuclear exchange lacks conviction, and to conventionalise the weapon’s use has to be abhorred. Nuclear weapons do not provide answers to low intensity conflicts. So, also, to suggest that conventional principles of war such as surprise or deception apply, is ludicrous. Besides, policy must remain sensitive to the multilateral nature of contemporary nuclear dynamics. The bottom-line: capricious and erratic behaviour in crafting a nuclear posture increases the perils of unintended use.

Indian Nuclear Doctrine and an Abiding Counsel

The genesis of India’s nuclear doctrine is rooted in three guiding canons; primarily, the nation would not be the first to use nuclear weapons; secondly, that nuclear first use would invite an assured massive retaliation; and thirdly, India would develop a credible minimum arsenal. There was a fourth equally important unwritten faith and that was, under no condition would the weapon be conventionalised. The last principle, it is significant to note, was advanced in the wake of the Cold War and yet remained oddly divorced from the one absurd tenet that characterised that war, that is, the belief that a nuclear war was not only fightable, but was also winnable. This last precept has currently been universally debunked.

The doctrine is distinctive for it identified, with as much clarity as no similar document by any nuclear weapons state had done in the past, the role, purpose and relationship between controller and custodian in realising the overall nuclear strategy of the nation. There remains the unwavering belief that nuclear weapons are, primarily, political weapons of war avoidance rather than devices of war-fighting. Indeed, reviews of the nuclear doctrine is a cyclic phenomenon that is influenced by current geopolitics and challenges that are perceived to prejudice the status-quo. In fact, over the last decade, two such reviews have scrutinised India’s doctrine for relevance and efficacy. Both reviews were neither public nor were they a wool-gathering exercise. They were conducted objectively and by those in the know; the outcome (Mantri must note): no substantial changes to the doctrine.

* Vijay Shankar
Former Commander-in-Chief, Strategic Forces Command of India


India: It’s Not Just About Demonetisation Of 500 And 1000 Bank Notes – OpEd

0
0

By Satya Sagar*

The abrupt demonetisation of 500 and 1000 rupee notes by the Narendra Modi regime is a drastic move that is staggering in its scale, ambition and repercussions. The only other figures in modern history one can think of, devious or stupid enough to attempt something similar, are the likes of Marcos, Suharto, Idi Amin and Pol Pot.

For all its audacity however, the decision could go down also as the grandest of blunders made by anyone in Indian political history. Poorly planned and implemented it is likely to prove disastrous not only for the country’s economy but – ironically enough – for the BJP’s own electoral fortunes.

The abolition of the two currency notes – that make up 86% of all cash in circulation in the Indian economy – has affected almost every family in the second most populous nation on the planet. The harassment of the common citizen – particularly from the ranks of the urban and rural poor-through denial of access to income, savings and livelihood will not be forgotten anytime soon.

The Modi government’s supporters have termed demonetisation a ‘surgical strike’ against black money, calling it a ‘bold’, ‘necessary’ and ‘well intentioned’ step. A more rabid section of his fans see all complaints as coming from those who benefited from black money, mainly the BJP’s political opponents. The Prime Minister himself has called upon the nation to ‘make sacrifices’ and put up with hardship for 50 days in this battle against corruption.

However, growing consensus among economists both within and outside the country is that demonetisation is a foolish measure and will hurt the Indian economy badly – especially farmers, small businesses, labour and anyone part of the country’s informal sector – and operates on a daily basis through cash transaction. The informal sector constitutes over 30% of the Indian economy in value and 2% in terms of workforce employed.

Since the drastic policy was announced on November 8, all these have come to a complete standstill, leaving millions without livelihood or means to buy basic goods. As one respected economist has pointed out demonetisation may have permanently damaged India’s informal sector.

A severe deflation is predicted over the next six months to a year or even longer, as spending power disappears or goes down for millions of Indians and businesses shut down. There is also the concern that, with government issued currency losing credibility through demonetisation, more and more people will keep their money in unproductive but safe assets like gold and property.

So, why would the government take such a high risk step? What was Mr Modi really trying to do when he announced a measure that directly affects almost every single family in the second most populous nation on the planet? Who are the real beneficiaries of this drastic policy? Will it really stop black money from circulating in the economy and end corruption from the country?

Despite all this propaganda it is quite clear now that demonetisation has nothing really to do with black money, that constitutes a sizeable 20% of the Indian economy, of which only 6% is hoarded in cash, the rest being stashed away in gold, real estate and foreign accounts. If the government was serious about hurting the beneficiaries of black money they would have started by prosecuting those who keep such ill-gotten wealth in non-cash assets.

Also, given the large-scale collusion of the Indian political class and bureaucracy in corruption the Modi regime should have first gone after its own ministers and government officials (particularly from the tax and revenue collection departments) to set a public example.

At its core, demonetisation is essentially an an attempt at economic and social engineering – on behalf of corporate banking and financial elites – the new paymasters Modi genuflects to after having ditched the small and medium mercantile lobbies the BJP represented for long. The Indian middle-classes, both real and aspirational, are rooting for the policy as they see a consolidation of their own power and future benefits in it.

With one stone, the policy’s architects have tried to slaughter many birds: recapitalise public banks burdened with bad loans; lend out new deposits to cronies in the corporate sector; enrich new entrants into the digital banking business, give the government extra funds to spend on its pet projects and steal a march over political rivals.

a) Rebooting troubled Indian banks: The bad loans or Non Performing Assets (NPAs) in the Indian banking sector, stood at nearly 6 lakh crore rupees by end of March 2016. Over 90 per cent of this is on the books of public-sector banks, with the State Bank of India accounting for the highest amount. Even this sum, stunning as it may be, is considered a gross underestimation and if loans that face the risk of being declared NPAs are also taken into account, theoverall stressed advances of Indian banks will double.

A bulk of the NPAs are in turn due to default on interest payments by the corporate sector, which has been milking the banking system through its political patrons.

The increase in deposits of banks expected due to the crackdown on black money is expected to help banks get into better health, lower interest rates and enable them to resume lending to Indian businesses again. In other words, demonetisation is a way of saving many Indian public sector banks while also providing corporates with fresh loans, a very dubious strategy given those in power seem to have no real will to recover money from their defaulter cronies.

b) Increasing the government’s cash flow: One of the justifications being given now for demonetisation is that an estimated Rs.16 lakh crores circulating in the Indian economy as cash, mostly in the form of 500 and 1000 rupee notes, will all get accounted for as they will be forced to go through the banking system. Assuming that a significant portion of the cash held in high denomination notes is ‘black money’ – it is argued that a significant percentage of this black money will not come back at all due to fear of penalties and prosecution and becomes useless.

This will reduce the overall liability of the Reserve Bank of India by anywhere between 2-4 lakh crore rupees, providing a windfall to the state exchequer. This calculation has been challenged by several economists but even if it were right, the moot question is what the government plans to spend all this extra money on, given its extremely poor record of spending on health, education and infrastructure for the welfare of the population? What is the guarantee that it will not all end up in the pockets of ruling party politicians and their businessmen friends?

c) Boosting the digital cash economy: In July this year a new study by Google and Boston Consulting Group predicted an exponential increase in digital payments, estimated to grow by 10 times to touch US$500 billion by 2020 – or around 15% of the Indian GDP by that time. A bulk of these payments, the study said, will be micro-transactions, with over 50% of person-to-merchant business expected to be under100.

The biggest barrier to this prediction coming true however is supposed to be the fact that a vast majority of Indians prefer to use cash over digital money. Cash, as a percentage of total consumer payments in India, is around 98%, compared with 55% in the US and 48% in the UK, according to report by Payments Council of India released in 2015.

In one sweeping stroke, the Modi regime has changed all that and through demonetisation is about to force millions of Indians into the waiting arms of around a dozen private ‘payment banks’ given licences to operate by the Reserve Bank of India in 2015. Among the big non-banking sector corporate grabbing these licenses are Reliance Industries, Airtel, Aditya Birla group, Vodafone, Paytm and Tech Mahindra. The fact that Paytm saw more than five-fold rise in overall traffic in less than 18 hours of the demonetization is an indication that ‘achche din’ have really arrived for the BJP’s cronies in the new banking sector.

Ironically (or maybe not so ironically) the total black money stored in digital form in foreign banks and in benami names in domestic banks and in shares, bonds and other financial instruments is much bigger than that in hard cash. In the absence of a honest political ruling class, bureaucracy or police the shift to a digital economy will only make it easier to store black money while making companies in the banking sector rich.

d) Cutting political opponents to size: Apart from all these dubious motives behind demonetisation there seems to be something even more devious at work. There are serious allegations of a scam–that BJP insiders changed their hoards of black money into white in various ways in the run up to the new policy. While these charges need further investigation, the Indian media has already reported a suspicious surge in bank deposits in the months just prior to demonetisaion and even produced evidence of the BJP’s West Bengal unit depositing large sums of cash into its account just hours before the announcement was made. Given the widespread use of black money in cash by all political parties during elections demonetisation is calculated to hit the BJP’s opponents in the upcoming Punjab and Uttar Pradesh elections. Public discontent over the policy could however negate any such gains.

Looking at the demonetisation policy from a more long-term political perspective the portents under the current regime are scary. What Narendra Modi is really proving is that he is capable of playing a very high-risk game in order to boost his own stature, ram through policies that benefit his corporate cronies and care two hoots for the welfare of the Indian masses (despite being a chaiwallah’s son himself!). It is a display of high confidence, even arrogance, on part of the BJP ‘strongman’ that is extraordinary even by his previous record and standards.

The other point to note is that the Indian right wing, represented by the BJP and the Sangh Parivar, is not at all hesitatnt about turning the entire country or even the Indian Constitution upside down in pursuit of whatever objectives they deem worthwhile. In that sense the idea of ‘revolution’ or overthrow of the state and current social order, rhetorically championed for long by leftists, is being implemented in practice by the right-wing. The Sangh Parivar has become the only effective insurrectionary force in the country today – with truly frightening possibilities in future, including a political emergency to accompany the financial one.

This is not to say at all they will necessarily succeed in their plans. Fortunately for Indian democracy, those espousing fascist control also seem to be cocksure and foolish – as undoubtedly Modi and his men have been with the demonetisation decision –a truly spectacular self-goal on their part.

With public anger against the policy growing steadily this is perhaps the right time for opponents of the Parivar’s various, draconian gameplans to get their act together and mobilise the Indian people. How seriously they carry out this mission will determine whether it is the Parivar or its opponents who finally go out of circulation –like the recently abolished currencies.

*Satya Sagar is a journalist and public health worker who can be reached sagarnama@gmail.com. This article first appeared in JUST International-Movement for a Just World. It is being republished with due permission. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily of those of IDN-INPS.

Some Lessons For A Less-Cash Economy – Analysis

0
0

By Ashok Malik

Through much of this year, and particularly after the demonetisation announcement of November 8, the digital economy and Internet-based commerce have been much in the news. The Prime Minister has spoken of the mobile phone becoming a virtual bank or a wallet for the individual and allowing him or her to transact at numerous points in the journey to what is called a less-cash economy.

The digital frontier is an ambitious one. It is potentially borderless and can work across national boundaries. Yet, it is regulated by national or even sub-national rules. This paradox is not unknown. About 12 years ago, this writer had attended an Internet conference where an eBay official had explained the company’s attempts to negotiate tax laws in the United States.

Which state would collect taxes in case of a transaction where the seller was in state A, the buyer (and payer) in state B, and where the deal was taking place and authorised by an eBay platform located in state C? This became an issue of fiscal contention in a federal system such as that of the US. In India, the arrival of the GST — while welcome for the most part — is going to cause similar confusion and battles in terms of e-commerce companies and e-marketplaces, which have a national, cross-state footprint.

Another example is that of app-based taxi aggregators like Uber and Ola. For the purposes of a less-cash economy, these are notable because they bring drivers and transactions in the informal sector into the formal one. Cash payments and incomes that have thus far been only estimated can now be authoritatively recorded as payments — from passenger to app-based aggregator and from the aggregator company to taxi driver — are conducted through the banking system.

Since app-based aggregation is a technological innovation obviously the law has to catch up with it. Yet, given local transport is a state subject in India and state governments have responsibility for regulation in their jurisdictions, this has led to a multiplicity of state laws for app-based aggregators and for public transport as a whole. Policies, regulations and draft regulations, for app-based aggregators have so far been released by governments in Karnataka, Maharashtra, Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, Chandigarh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

In the short run, this is understandable and unavoidable. In the medium run, states should ideally learn from each other and move towards a common set of “best practices”. The alternative — 36 very different sets of rules across 29 states and seven Union territories — is a recipe for confusion and would make it that much more difficult for large companies with a national presence to do business. Potentially, and in an extreme situation, they could also inhibit the consumer as he or she moves from state to state.

What does the taxi aggregator regulatory landscape look like currently, from the eight jurisdictional examples before us? Of these, in one respect at least, the Maharashtra draft is a leader — probably a global trend-setter — in that it has proposed not just a standalone aggregator policy but situated it within a wider transport policy that encompasses everything from black-and-yellow cabs to premium vehicles available under the umbrella of radio taxis.

Resultantly the gig economy, with its “easy come-easy go” approach for practitioners, drivers and so on, has been brought within the ambit of regional and old-economy norms. For instance, like the black-and-yellow cab drivers, Mumbai’s aggregator cab drivers are now expected to have domiciled in Maharashtra for 20 years. The Karnataka (in effect Bengaluru city) regulations require a state residency of two years. Delhi, Haryana and Tamil Nadu, among other states, have no such requirement at all. As an aside, a college student who has just moved from another state and who wants to moonlight as an Ola or Uber driver can do so in Delhi but not in Mumbai, but that’s another story.

On setting fares too there are significant differences. In Kerala and Chandigarh, the fare is set by the government. In Karnataka, the maximum fare is set by the government. Then one comes to licence fees. Karnataka wants the cab aggregator to pay a licence fee of `50,000. Kerala and Rajasthan want it to pay a licence fee of `100,000. Rajasthan wants a bank guarantee of `1 million. In the case of Maharashtra there is an unusually high demand of `5 million as security deposit per 1,000 vehicles. So if a cab aggregator has 1,001 cabs running under its label, it has to deposit `10 million.

Maharashtra is also unique in imposing a “permit fee”. For cabs of engine capacity under 1,400cc, the permit fee is Rs 25,000. For cabs with engine capacity above 1,400cc the permit fee is Rs 261,000. The differential and the specific figure of Rs 261,000 have a history. The lower band is a concession to black-and-yellow tax unions, which are politically powerful in Mumbai. The upper band represents fees radio taxi operators — which have political influence of their own — had to pay a few years ago, when they were set up. App-based aggregators are being saddled with a last-arrival disadvantage. It effect, this disincentives new taxi owner-drivers who want to enter the market.

There are other singularities. The Haryana regulations want a maximum of 250 vehicles per licence. Maharashtra wants a minimum of 1,000 cars per licence. The West Bengal regulations want a CCTV camera inside an app-based cab to ensure passenger safety. There is no such demand on other types of taxis. If this is a safety measure, shouldn’t it be uniform?

What is the purpose of this comparison? It is to point out that while formalising the shared economy, with an impetus to digital payments, is one of the motivations as well as goals of demonetisation it is not going to be easy to achieve. It requires a reimagining of bureaucratic regulations and a buy-in from both Union and state governments. That process, that very evangelism, is now incumbent upon the Prime Minister.

This article originally appeared in The Asian Age.

French Presidency Elections: Fillon Conservative Candidate – OpEd

0
0

Following on the presidency elections in the US, now it’s a NATO ally — and a European country with a Socialist background — France that is on its way to elect its next president.

France is going through the electoral process with what is known as the primacy for choosing the party candidates for the presidency. Conservative candidate Francois Fillon has won the primary in next year’s French presidential election after his rival Alain Juppe admitted defeat. In most countries the primary is not necessary as each party chooses directly its candidate for the election fight.

With virtually all the results counted, Fillon won Sunday’s run-off (primary) with nearly 67% of the vote. Alain Juppe, the more moderate candidate, congratulated Fillon on his “large victory” and pledged to support him in his bid to become president. Juppe appeared in front of his own, determined supporters, to concede the contest. He gave a small smile to the crowds chanting his name and told them he was ending the contest as he began it: “A free man, who didn’t betray who he was or what he thought.” Juppe, also a former prime minister and regarded as more moderate, had initially been seen as the favourite to win the race, but struggled against Fillon’s strong performances in the primary debates.

Meanwhile, Emmanuel Macron, the 38-year-old former economy minister and protege of Hollande, has already announced plans to stand in the presidential election as a centrist independent. Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that he would not rule out running against Hollande in the primary, telling the Journal du Dimanche he wanted to dispel the idea “that the left has no chance” of retaining power.

A former prime minister under Sarkozy, the 62-year-old is a Catholic who is seen as a traditionalist on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Fillon had been widely expected to win the race, after securing 44% of the vote in the first round a week ago that saw former President Nicolas Sarkozy knocked out. He is proposing dramatic economic reforms that include slashing 500,000 public jobs, ending the 35-hour week, raising the retirement age and scrapping the wealth tax.

Now the spotlight falls on the Socialist party and whether the deeply unpopular President Francois Hollande will stand again in his party’s primaries in January. He is expected to announce his decision in the coming days.

Francois Fillon

Francois Fillon was the man to beat going into this run-off vote, and his team knew it. Shortly after polls closed, they were already celebrating at his party headquarters, as the first partial results came in. Within hours, it was confirmed. Fillon had won two-thirds of the vote; a stunning victory for the candidate once seen as the ‘third man’ in the contest.

Fillon promised to build a fairer society, saying France wants “truth and it wants action”. He is likely to face a Socialist candidate and the far-right’s Marine Le Pen in next April’s election.

How can a man, whose hobbies include motor-racing, mountaineering and the bullfight be so impassive, impeccable and grave? That is the central mystery behind France’s possible president-to-be, Francois Fillon.

Detractors say that behind the mask of taciturnity lies a retiring personality ill-suited for the task of head-of-state. Fillon, they say, is one of nature’s lieutenants, a born second-in-command, a would-be leader without the guts to lead. Far from it, reply his supporters. If the former prime minister is reserved, they say, that is because he has a rich interior life – and personal convictions that do not need the reflected affirmation of the media machine. And his path to the top may have been slow. But along the journey he has acquired a wealth of experience. The bid for the presidency, they say, comes from a man finally ready to assume the responsibilities of the office.

Fillon’s political career has certainly been a long one. It was in 1981, aged 27, that he was first elected as a member of parliament, becoming the National Assembly’s youngest member. His party was the Gaullist RPR of Jacques Chirac. Gaullism features a strong centralized state with conservative and nationalist policies.

Fillon’s parents, a history professor mother and lawyer father, were also Gaullists, and he was brought up in comfortable circumstances near the western city of Le Mans.He studied journalism and then law. In 1974 he met his future wife Penelope Clarke. She is Welsh and they have five children, the last born in 2001. They live near Le Mans, in the Sarthe department which remains Fillon’s powerbase.

Fillon’s first ministerial post, higher education, came in 1993 under Prime Minister Edouard Balladur. He went on to hold five other cabinet posts, before serving as prime minister for five years until 2012 under Nicolas Sarkozy.

If the former prime minister is reserved, they say, that is because he has a rich interior life – and personal convictions that do not need the reflected affirmation of the media machine. And his path to the top may have been slow. But along the journey he has acquired a wealth of experience. The bid for the presidency, they say, comes from a man finally ready to assume the responsibilities of the office.

For nearly all of this time, Fillon was identified with the movement known as “social Gaullism”.

Francois Fillon’s French sang-froid and radicalism

Whoever seeks to caricature Fillon as an emotionless masochist must accept that that is at best only part of the picture. This is a man who fell in love with motor-racing as a child when the Austin Healey team stayed in his village during the Le Mans 24-hour race. He could have become a professional driver. He says he has “always had a problem with authority” and as a boy was briefly expelled from school for leading a demonstration against a teacher. He despises politicians who “think of nothing but politics day and night: they are obsessed and unbalanced”. Among his other hobbies are mountaineering and piloting drones. His friend and ally, former minister Roselyine Bachelot, admits the frigid exterior. But she says: “Under the ice there is fire.”

How can a man, whose hobbies include motor-racing, mountaineering and the bullfight be so impassive, impeccable and grave? That is the central mystery behind France’s possible president-to-be, Francois Fillon. His friend and mentor was the late Philippe Seguin, who believed in strong state intervention in the economy and society. Fillon also shared Seguin’s Euroscepticism, and in 1992 both men voted against the Maastricht Treaty that ushered in the euro.

Later as social affairs minister under Jacques Chirac, Fillon had the image of an honest dealer prepared to put in the hours during long negotiations with trade unions.

All of which sits rather oddly, some would say, with the policies of Francois Fillon the presidential candidate, which are avowedly those of a radical economic liberal. In speech after speech in recent weeks, Fillon has spoken in cataclysmic terms of France’s “broken” social model, and the need for drastic cuts in state spending. “Sometimes you need to tear the whole thing down,” he says.

For Gaspard Koenig, of the free-market think tank Generation Libre, the explanation is that since leaving office in 2012. Fillon underwent “a Damascene conversion”. “He spent the last three years travelling up and down the country. He came to see the exasperation of ordinary people and how they wanted more than anything to get the state off their backs,” he says.

Fillon’s “virage liberal” (liberal U-turn) is a bold strategy in a country where fans of Margaret Thatcher, as he says he is, are not exactly thick on the ground.

And as his opponents seek to portray Fillon as a dangerous right-winger, another weapon will also be to hand: his Catholicism. He is a practicing Catholic. He is personally opposed to abortion, but says he would never seek to repeal the law. Nor would he seek to ban adoption by gay male couples – though he wants the law changed so that a child can trace its birth mother.

For the left, these are signs of worrying ambiguity on matters that are central to a progressive society. The left-wing newspaper Liberation headlined last week on fears of a return of clerical power. But it is not just left-wingers who see a link between Fillon’s Catholicism, his character, and his policies. For Henri Guaino, a former Sarkozy adviser, Fillon “believes in redemption through pain, the idea that you need to suffer in order to be saved. He believes the country has lived too luxuriously for too long. “So now it needs to make sacrifices. It’s like a purge.”

The same Catholic conviction could explain Fillon’s famous taciturnity, a refusal to be ruffled, that can come across as either old-world courtesy or a cold reluctance to engage. And it might also shed light on one of the big questions over his career: why for five years as prime minister he suffered the constant humiliations inflicted by his boss, the man he came to loathe, Nicolas Sarkozy.

Obviously, Fillon is a born fighter in his own way but refused to choose the Socialist path which is dominant in French politics. .

Observation

Primary in a party is only a first part of presidential battle and many hurdles must be overcome within the party and with the opponent. . Francois Fillon has taken the conservative ticket in next year’s French presidential election by a landslide at party primaries. With nearly all the ballots counted, he had won 66.5% to 33.5% for his run-off rival, Alain Juppe. He has promised to build a fairer society, saying France wanted “truth and… action”.

The job for Fillon now is to unite his party after this unprecedented primary battle, and prepare to take on the governing Socialist party – and the far-right leader Marine Le Pen – in presidential elections next year. A new opinion poll suggests he would easily beat the far right’s Marine Le Pen in the actual election. That is only a suggestion and not the real outcome which will be ready only next year by which time the scenario might change as well.

Today the names of political parties do not in fact show character or nature or policies of the party – they are just mere names for identification of individual parties as they compete for power.

Neither communist nor socialist nor republican or democratic or any other name mean anything. In USA, for instance, the Democratic Party has done exactly what the Republican Party has done in terms of terror wars and promoting national energy interests in Mideast.

The Socialist Party in France, notwithstanding its government for too long intermittently, has not achieved any Socialist system of governance or promoted genuinely socialist societal life. Many Socialists and Communists have no ideas about what they stand for.

Elections in the western countries are essentially for the rich and wealthy lords and common people have no place in the poll arena except that they can vote and choose the most wealthiest candidate for the top government job.

The French presidency poll is far away, but Paris is feeling the heat already.

Nepal: Political Corruption, Bureaucrats And Legal Authority – OpEd

0
0

The impeachment issue of Lok Man Singh Karki, who is currently suspended as chief of the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), has brought Nepal’s politics to the boil once again. He has been accused of running a ‘parallel government’ and of abusing his powers. The divisions among individuals, politicians and civil society on this issue seem deep and naturally the consequences will be huge and far-reaching. Unexpectedly, parliamentarians from both the governing CPN Maoist Centre and the main opposition CPN-UML registered the impeachment motion at the Parliament Secretariat, and debate on the impeachment motion against this chief of the antigraft body started a few weeks ago at the House.

I strongly believe that an impeachment process against any public authority for misuse of their power and conduct is no more than an ordinary political and constitutional function of the state. It is just one aspect of implementing a constitutional and legal provision. I wonder why on earth the whole nation is becoming so excited about it at this time? Many questions need to be raised here today: Why is there so much division among us on such a national issue? If seems as though the ghost of Lok Man is hunting everybody in the country including all senior politicians, members of civil society and the media. Why are we making a mountain out of a molehill? Who on earth actually is Lok Man? I wonder, too, what will happen to his political corruption cases against many leaders and individuals in the post-Lok Man era? I wish to provide some suggestions and innovations for change in this article.

Firstly, the impeachment process is going to be one of the first to be experienced by us both as a nation and a country. Despite the huge divisions among us on the issue, however, I suggest that we must take the impeachment motion as a collective and common project aimed at achieving greater justice and improving our political and social system. I strongly believe that justice must be the end. Our aim should be to establish the culture of a law-abiding society. While punishing anyone, existing laws and the provisions of the constitution must be the basis. Serving the rule of law and achieving constitutionalism must be the end. We must do what the law says instead of being influenced by individuals, leaders or politicians and so- called media rumours. We must follow legally, politically and constitutionally appropriate methods for deciding the individual’s case.

Neither Parliament nor a court of law should be influenced by rumours. Mr Lok Man is accused of having misused his power in targeting innocent businessmen, politicians, and lawyers while silencing critics and others. He is accused of acting as a “king” in the new republic. But this can only be decided according to existing laws through a valid court of law or by the parliament – whatever the available democratic, legal and moral processes in the country. The norms and values of the rule of law, our constitutional parameters and our traditions and customs must be protected. Keeping the rule of law alive must be the aim of punishing Lok Man if found guilty. The law as a tool must be the supreme authority and guideline.

Secondly, I strongly believe that the newly tabled impeachment process against Karki must follow a normal political and legal course. Parliament must regard this as their normal duty. Because of this, other major functions of the state that lie ahead such as state rebuilding, the transitional justice process, implementing the new constitution and holding future local elections must not be distracted. The impeachment motion should be seen as part and parcel of the implementation of our new constitution itself.

It must be seen as part of the process of making individuals, who serve on constitutional organs, accountable to the law, the constitution and the people.

The impeachment motion must also be seen as a process of making history, establishing a way for the future should similar cases arise. It must not be taken lightly. Through this we must be able to convey the message to the general public that under our democratic system, no leader, politician or member of any other constitutional organ, including the judiciary, is above the constitution.

Thirdly, and most importantly, critics have argued that the impeachment motion was tabled against Lok Man by politicians seeking to cover up their own corrupt activities because Lok Man was threatening them? Not long ago, these were the same leaders who had no objection – despite a huge public outcry – to appointing him as chief of the CIAA. The whole nation knows that our present PM Prachanda proposed him as chief, Dr Bhattarai praised him as a clean and able individual, and KP Oli, leader of CPN-UML, defended the cause. Where does this place the moral authority of our politicians? Where were their ethics at that time? What then suddenly forces them to take this drastic action today? Are these leaders really sincere towards the people, the nation and our laws? I believe that the individuals who appointed Lok Man in the first place must answer to the people. Their actions and omissions should be investigated properly and they should be brought to account.

Today, it appears that most leaders of our political parties are acting as if the sky is about to fall down. It appears that some leaders and some individuals of so-called civil society are fearful because of one individual. Why are they afraid? Is it because they are all corrupt in some way or other? Have they really done anything wrong? Did Lok Man devise a plot against them, against their corrupt activities? Only the future will reveal the truth, and our people will certainly demand that truth.

The whole country seems to be running after one individual? Why? I suggest that the impeachment process against Karki must not result from revenge being taken by any political bosses. It will be regrettable if the tabled impeachment motion was an outcome of fear. If that is so, the purpose of the whole justice system will have failed and the purpose of having a state and a government will become meaningless.

In a constitutional democracy, the authority of the law, its fairness and its essence of justice must prevail.

Finally, the Lok Man case represents the true face of our political system. It is an attitude that has become our social system. His case represents a style of how this country is run by our politicians, bureaucrats and others. It represents a system of manipulation, failure and domination. Who is not corrupt in this country including the politicians, civil servants, judges and members of the armed forces? Are there any institutions in this country that can be regarded as being fair and clean?

I believe that the impeachment motion at the House must be seen as an opportunity to reform all our public offices, including the constitutional organs. All must be made more law-abiding, transparent and accountable. This must be the lesson to be learnt for us from the Lok Man impeachment process. As the struggle for power has a tendency to become barbaric, I strongly believe that appointing Lok Man as chief of the CIAA a few years ago was part of a power struggle between the political forces.

Today’s case is nothing but a negative consequence of the excessive political bhagbanda between the political parties. Power, money and muscles have made our politicians blind. Public offices and institutions, including the judiciary, are already ruined by extreme political interference. This practice must be stopped and only able, moral and publicly acceptable individuals must be appointed to run such important public offices in the future

The cases of corruption raised by the CIAA, while Lok Man was its chief, against politicians, civil servants, businessmen and individuals from society at large must continue under investigation even after the departure of Lok Man. The struggle to establish a corruption-free society must be our prime social and political objective. Those found guilty must be brought to justice and punished whoever they are and whatever their rankings and status in the country. If Lok Man himself is found guilty of misconduct, as claimed, he deserves punishment as per the law. We common people will eagerly be watching post-Lok Man the development of the political corruption cases that he raised against politicians. The true face and intention of our politicians may then be formally revealed.

Nepal And Bhutan: Delimited By Neighbors – OpEd

0
0

Nepal and Bhutan, the two Himalayan landlocked countries are in hitches to uphold stable relationships with their two giant neighbors; India has strong presence and dominance in these countries compared to China.

The history of the Indian meddlesome in these countries started after the treaty of 1949 with Bhutan and treaty of 1950 with Nepal. Thereafter these countries have done several treaties and agreements with India, but the people, especially in Nepal have a sensitivity that most of the treaties and agreements were not in favor of them, Nepal was always losing.

China is fully aware of the importance of India for these countries due to its difficult mountainous terrain. However, it is trying to enter in these countries and it is not in a position to completely ignore Indian interloping.

Indian strategy
The Himalayas are considered to be great supportive barriers for the security of India and its defense forces asleep comfortably because of strong Himalayan barriers and saves billions of spending for the safekeeping of the northern border.

It is not hidden that as a big brother India always wanted its northern neighbors to be dependent only on it and closeness with China is not allowed them. If these small countries are seen being near to China, India had the policy to crush them to bring in line. It always had a despotic policy in dealing with weak neighbors and underrates them by misusing their leaders to support its interests.

During 2013, India had withdrawn its subsidy on kerosene and cooking gas to Bhutan. Due to a sharp rise in fuel prices, the ruling party defeated in general election, which aimed at apparently punishing then Bhutan prime minister who met his Chinese counterpart in Brazil’s capital Rio de Janeiro and imported 20 buses from China.

More or less, India is applying similar methods also to Nepal. It is constantly trying to punish Nepal for being near to China by signing several agreements and for opening more highways across the Himalayas. During the border blockade of 2015, it used tactics of fuel weapon by cutting its supply to Nepal. Thereafter, K. P. Sharma Oli led government compelled to resign and a new government formed under Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachand’.

Chinese soft diplomacy
Nepal has a diplomatic and friendly relationship with China, connected with highways, and Chinese investment, trade, and tourists are in increasing trend in Nepal. “Arniko Highway” is the first road built by China connecting Nepal with China. The road was built in the 1960s by initiation of then late King Mahendra of Nepal.

China is also interested starting diplomatic relations with Bhutan, but Thimphu discerns that without the approval of India such a move could be disastrous.

As an attempt to gain support in Bhutan, China has recently positioned its normal “soft diplomacy.” The Chinese circus artists, acrobats, and footballers went to Bhutan, and some Bhutanese students received scholarships to study in China. Chinese tourists number in Bhutan are increasing, last year, the figure was 9,399, or 19 percent of the total. The Bhutanese side is also interested in tourism, religion, and culture and agriculture cooperation with China.

Last year, Nepal and China relationship was in high point after 1960’s “Aarniko” highway construction. Nepal signed nine agreements including trade transit agreement with China during the visit of then Nepalese Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. China agreed to provide its seaport and highways to facilitate Nepal transit trade and also interested to supply petroleum products to it. China is also expanding its railway network near Nepal border by 2020 to enter South Asia through Nepal. However, the stability and long-lasting relationship between Nepal and China depend on the circumstances and the will of leaderships in Nepal.

Conclusion
Nepalese people have a feeling that India, by hook or by crook, is always trying to bring Nepal on the similar track of Bhutan, whether by blocking the border points or by compelling to sign the unequal treaty, agreements. Moreover, the postponement of a visit of Chinese President to Nepal and Nepal’s noninterest to implement agreements done with China supposed to be a product of Indian influences.

It has been tough to Nepal and Bhutan to come out of Indian grip and initiate equal distance relationships with India and China. After the eviction of Nepali speaking population from Bhutan, the remaining single ruling populations are in strong support of India. People in Nepal are divided, the hill population and original Madhesis always oppose the Indian interference; while the Indian political immigrants in Nepal arrived after the treaty of 1950, support it. On the one hand, these immigrants in Nepal are continuously forcing the state to scrape many provisions of citizenship provisions of the constitution to enable them to acquire top political positions and on the other hand their demand for all Madhesh two states are also very chancy from national unity and sovereignty point of view. This is going to be never-ending problems even if all the demands are being fulfilled; new actors and new issues would emerge to destabilize it.

Moreover, majority Nepalese people have also an impression that the Indian intention seems to make it economically weaker. Just for example in economic side, India initiated mega projects like the postal highway, oil pipeline, hydropower, ICPs and railway, which are uncertain and lagging behind Chinese assisted projects like ring road expansion, regional international airports, dry port, northern highways, hydropower and investments in Nepal. India seems to be more interested in supporting petty projects directly financed by its embassy in Nepal.

Not only economically but it is making politically weaker and more dependent Nepal. For example, some contents of recent Nepal-India Joint statement have been a subject of new controversy and criticism in Nepal. Oppositions cite it as treason and damage the nation’s non-aligned and neutral foreign policy; especially point 11 of the joint statement states, “The two Prime Ministers believe their two countries hold similar views on major international issues….”. Regarding this point, they say that it gives a similar sense as Bhutan agreed under the 1949 treaty “to be guided by the advice of the Government of India in regard to its external relations.”

Bhutan’s almost complete support to India policy’ gained some advantages in its economic field, especially in the hydropower sector. However, Nepal’s relation with both China and India is in doldrum position, using China India cards according to its convenience, which has been outdated. Nepal may lose the confidence of both the neighbors if balanced relationships are not maintained; it could be perilous for its foreign relationships and stability.


*Hari Prasad Shrestha
is a former Undersecretary, Ministry of Finance Nepal and was associated with United Nations Development Programs in Africa. He is a writer of a book- The Violent Nile: a Novella on East Africa.

 

Trading With Political Connections During The Crisis

0
0

Analyzing the stock market trades of more than 7,000 insiders in the banking industry reveals a pattern that, in some respects, surprised four professors — Alan D. Jagolinzer, David F. Larcker, Gaizka Ormazabal and Daniel J. Taylor. The four, who were together at Stanford University as the financial crisis unfolded, decided to research how corporate insiders (that is, company officers and directors) traded leading up to and during the market turmoil of 2007-9.

Thanks to the filing requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), anyone can see when a company officer or director trades in the company’s shares. As described in the professors’ working paper, titled “Political Connections and the Informativeness of Insider Trades,” an analysis of trading data reveals that, around the height of the crisis, insiders with political connections at key banking regulatory agencies gained financial benefits to the tune of 8.89 percent. Specifically, these gains came from anticipating the multibillion-dollar bailout known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) rolled out in October 2008 and again in early 2009.

The authors describe their results as “both economically and statistically significant.”

Crisis and Bailout

The financial crisis of 2007-9 was the worst since the Great Depression and today still casts a long shadow over a weak recovery. In the midst of the turmoil that threatened the collapse of large financial institutions, U.S. congressional leaders met with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke to hash out a rescue plan. The result was TARP, a plan to purchase $250 billion worth of toxic assets and equity from a “broad array of financial institutions” including “too-big-to-fail” banks. Eventually, a total of 707 financial institutions benefited from hundreds of billions in the bailout, between October 2008 and June 2009. In total, TARP created between $86 billion and $108 billion in value.

Who You Know

IESE’s Ormazabal and fellow researchers from Stanford, Wharton and the University of Colorado wondered how industry insiders traded up to and during the crisis. Because the TARP’s bailout was a market-moving event, they wondered if insiders who had rubbed elbows with TARP’s creators traded differently. The SEC data that are publicly available show not only which banking insiders traded their companies’ shares, but also point to which insiders served on boards or worked with key banking regulators and government officials — including those at the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Treasury and Congress. Here the study looked at whether there was at least one board member with current or previous work experience at TARP-connected agencies. If so, all of that bank’s insiders were considered “politically connected.”

In the end, they examined 497 publicly traded financial institutions between 2005 and 2011. In particular, they wanted to contrast how bankers traded in the years leading up to the crisis, during the financial crisis bailout period, and after the crisis. Running a final sample of several cross-sectional tests, they looked at 7,301 corporate insiders across the institutions in the study.

Catching Wind of the Bailout

On the aggregate, the results clearly show that bankers with political connections traded differently, presumably anticipating that some sort of bailout would occur. In the 30-day period prior to the announcement, they bought much more intensely than before and much more than their colleagues who did not work at banks with board-level political connections (as seen in the public databases).

“During the period TARP funds were dispersed, we find the predictive ability of insiders’ trades for future performance is greater than during any other period in our sample,” they write. The authors also find that “the information advantage of politically connected insiders is conditional on receiving TARP money — and is concentrated entirely among politically connected insiders in banks that received TARP.”

Political Connections and the Difference in Future Returns
politicalconnections_bankingindex_en

Source: Figure 3, page 41 of the working paper.

Several specific findings support these conclusions:

  • A change in trading pattern, especially just before the bailout: Political insiders tended to be net sellers before the crisis (i.e., they sold more stock than the bought). They became net buyers during the crisis, with their bullishness peaking in the 30 days leading up to the TARP infusion. During these 30 days, 74 percent of their transactions were purchases.
  • Insiders benefited from significant price increases because of the bailout: The difference in one-month-ahead returns between purchases and sales of politically connected insiders is 8.89 percent during the period when funds were dispersed.
  • Insiders benefited significantly more than outsiders: The value of sales by insiders with political connections is $4.5 billion versus $1.6 million for those who didn’t have political connections.

Insider Trading?

Whether or not the political insiders acted illegally, however, is unclear. Insider trading cases are notoriously difficult to prove in court. Hunches, hints and outright information is hard to untangle. “Our analysis casts suspicion on trades of politically connected insiders during the crisis, especially those that occurred in close proximity to TARP infusion announcements,” they write. “It is likely to be the case that the trades we study fall into a legal gray area.”

Networks Key to Trading Decisions

In sum, politically connected bankers bought intensely in anticipation of the multibillion-dollar bailout, predicting price increases, and sold those shares for a significant benefit.

“Collectively, our findings suggest that political connections provided corporate insiders with an important information advantage during the financial crisis, that a significant portion of this advantage related to knowledge about government intervention, and that some insiders traded to exploit this advantage,” the co-authors write.

Tracking the trading data, and using algorithms to link variables and find statistically significant relationships, help expose the hidden connections that benefit some, but not all.

Methodology, Very Briefly

The data come from a comprehensive sample of all open market purchases and sales by insiders (i.e., corporate officers and directors) at 497 publicly traded financial institutions between 2005 and 2011. The co-authors measure insiders’ political connections based on whether at least one board member has current or previous work experience at the Federal Reserve, a bank regulator (e.g., FDIC, Office of Thrift Supervision or Office of the Comptroller of the Currency), Treasury or Congress. They measure the “informativeness” of insider trades based on their predictive ability for future performance.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts Is A Former Treasury Secretary Who Actually Cares – OpEd

0
0

Here’s an idea – how about appointing a US Treasury Secretary who actually cares for the ultimate welfare of the American People and the United States of America for a change, as opposed to using his position as a “revolving door” a la the cadre of treasonous “America-last” gaggle of premeditated criminals merely taking a leave of absence from their full-time jobs at Goldman Sachs and Covington & Burling LLP?

The American economy and its engineered 2008 crash wrought by such “financial luminaries” as Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Gene Sperling, Hank Paulson, Tim Geithner, and others, has left a lasting effect, if not almost the total destruction of, the American Economy.

Much has been written about how the above cabal literally, beginning with when they were working under the Bill Clinton presidency, forced and coerced Mr Clinton to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, which was the barrier separating risky investment bank behavior from “mom and pop” checking accounts and savings, thus essentially imbuing these massive financial institutions to proceed unfettered towards the shark-infested waters of bad deals, risky investments, speculative spending, and other crazy financial stunts, for “high-risk/high-yield” Pyramid and Ponzi schemes more akin to a night at a seedy Las Vegas casino, rather than what should supposedly have been judicious, well-planned, and risk-averse behavior on behalf of these banking behemoths.

Simultaneously, these same organized criminals used the Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) headed up by then chief Andrew Cuomo to put enormous pressure on such loan entities as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower and reduce the credit requirements to purchase a million dollar home, so that every burger flipper across America could buy a financial and un-payable “albatross” around their neck, and when the Federal Reserve eventually removed cash liquidity from the markets, all of these new “homeowners” literally found themselves on a merry-go-round that suddenly stopped, with their monthly mortgage payments coming due, but no jobs or cash to pay them, thus resulting in tens of millions of massive housing defaults across the country.

Even more sickeningly, Goldman Sachs and others only a few years earlier created a “reverse credit swap derivative,” betting on the ultimate failure within the housing market, again earning countless billions when this inevitable “housing bubble” burst.

Are these the same kind of people we want back in the United States Treasury, engineering our “economic recovery?”

These bankers, unfettered by the protections guaranteed by Glass-Steagall, could feel confident that even if their bad investments went completely and totally south, that they would eventually be bailed out by none other than the American taxpayer – and that’s exactly what happened.

But what about a former Assistant US Treasury Secretary, who previously was appointed by, and served under, one of the greatest U.S. Presidents of all time, Ronald Reagan, and who was actually instrumental in pulling America out of the quagmire of idiotic and out of control government spending, a lazy un-stimulated economy, and the general malaise of the 1970s “disco economy” manned and presided over by Democrat President Jimmy Carter?

That individual is none other than the great Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, hero to the 300 million strong American people, personal mentor to hundreds of thousands, and demonstrated enemy of the Oligarchy/Plutocracy Deep State Elite, the latter of whom have been shown the proverbial “door” by the American people in their overwhelming support of President-Elect Donald J. Trump.

The American People were able to hoist Donald Trump to the presidency even in the face of the overwhelming “cheating mechanisms” of the Deep State Oligarch Elite with their complete and total brainwashing control of the Mainstream Media, the awesome buying power of the international bankers, the co-opting of the vast majority of our legislative (senate and congress)/judiciary/executive branches, the “black bag/covert operations/color revolutions” of Deep State agent provocateurs such as George Soros who previously used to only direct his regime change operations against foreign governments rather than fomenting “purple” revolutions here at home?

Dr Paul Craig Roberts has been critical of the United States Department of the Treasury and the U.S. financial regulatory authorities – particularly of the actions of the Federal Reserve System – from former Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke’s terms to current Chairwoman Janet Yellen via quantitative easing policies and low interest rates, the latter of which he has argued (due to his view that official government data is biased) are actually negative interest rates.

One only has to peruse the countless and brilliantly incisive books and articles penned by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts over the past few decades, and especially within the past few years, freely available on the internet and in hard book format, to clearly and easily discern just what this man stands for, what his expertise is, how much he loves the United States of America, how much he values peace and the avoidance of “stupid foreign wars,” his support, hope for, and measured loyalty to the incoming Donald Trump Administration (for Trump, “loyalty is key”), his overall and general distrust for the U.S. Government and the awesome power it yields, his suspicion over the latest du jour “terrorist attacks” all over the world which he, as do the vast majority of Americans, believe are nothing but “false flags” designed to keep Americans and the rest of the global populace afraid and compliant, ever ready to sacrifice and un-yieldingly relinquish even more of their God-given human rights, civil liberties, and constitutional protections for the sake of “state-sanctioned security” from the fabricated “boogeymen” of the Western/Saudi/Israeli/Turkish Intelligence Services known as ISIS or Al Qaeda.

His written works have also addressed and criticized outsourcing, economic deregulation, privatization of social services, Wall Street finance fraud and lax enforcement of environmental protection laws, as well as been a vocal opponent of taxing social-security payments, holding that this amounts to a “tax on a tax” or privatizing social-security believing this would create an opportunity for speculators to play with and lose the hard-earned savings of retirees.

There could be no better ally of the American People (and the Donald Trump administration) within the United States Treasury than Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, as he would be “our man within the US Treasury,” and would take control and design the much anticipated economic recovery, so badly needed by the citizenry.

He has already done it before, successfully, under the Reagan Administration, and he could easily and handily do it again under Trump.

Dr Paul Craig Roberts was born on April 3, 1939, and is often times described as an American economist, journalist, blogger and former civil servant.

He reached the height of his government career when he became the United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Reagan in 1981.

In office he and his staff successfully combated the stagflation (price-inflation and stagnation) then plaguing the American Economy.

Tighter monetary policy was used to restrain inflation, in addition lower marginal tax rates were used to increase the rewards to work and investment.

In recognition, he was awarded the US Treasury’s Meritorious Service Award for “outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy.”

Dr Paul Craig Roberts has also been a huge supporter of common human decency, both in the United States and abroad, as a supporter of the human rights of the population of the West Bank, and he has criticized Israel’s policies and harsh actions against the Palestinians as well as speaking out against what he calls the Israel Lobby’s malign influence within US politics and academia.

Dr. Roberts is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology (B.S. in Industrial Engineering) and holds a PhD from the University of Virginia.

He was a postgraduate at the University of California, Berkeley, and at Merton College, Oxford University.

From 1975 to 1978, Roberts served on congressional staff. As economic counsel to Congressman Jack Kemp, he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill (which became the “Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981″). He played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy.

Due to his influential 1978 article on tax burden for Harper’s Magazine while economic counsel to Senator Orrin Hatch, the Wall Street Journal editor Robert L. Bartley offered him an editorial slot.

He wrote for the WSJ until 1980.

He was a senior fellow in political economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, then part of Georgetown University.

From early 1981 to January 1982, Roberts served as assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy, wherein President Ronald Reagan and Treasury Secretary Donald Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department’s Meritorious Service Award for “outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy.”

After his time in government he turned to journalism, holding positions of editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, columnist for Business Week, and the Scripps Howard News Service as well as contributing editor to Harper’s Magazine.

In addition to numerous guest and visiting-professorships at US universities, he was professor of business administration and professor of economics at George Mason University and was the inaugural William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at Georgetown University, serving for 12 years.

From 1993 to 1996, he was a Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute.

He also was a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

This is another thing Donald Trump and Dr Paul Craig Roberts have in common – they are both former “insiders” who turned against the Establishment as an overwhelming gesture of heroic self-sacrifice to the American people, rather than continuing to “play the game” in order to keep enriching their own pockets at the expense of the American People and the United States.

Dr Roberts also has the great love and respect of foreign nations, governments, and dignitaries as did other previous and legendary US Government/Statesmen luminaries in centuries past, as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson – in 1987 the French government recognized him as “the artisan of a renewal in economic science and policy after half a century of state interventionism,” and inducted him into the Legion of Honor on March 20, 1987.

The French Minister of Economics and Finance, Edouard Balladur, came to the US from France to present the medal to Roberts.

In 1992, Roberts received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism from the free-market American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists in the United States.

In 2015, the Mexican Press Club awarded Dr. Roberts its International Award For Excellence In Journalism in recognition of his lifelong commitment to truth and unbiased-reporting in exposing the inner workings of the global economic power-structure.

Dr Paul Craig Roberts has written that “true conservatives” were the “first victims” of the neo-cons of the Bush administration.

He has criticized the Bush tax cuts, believing they “were nothing but a greedy grab” and were “not necessary policy adjustments but rewards to the mega-rich who underwrite political careers and provide grants to economic departments and think tanks,” however, also stating that “they are not a significant cause of today’s inequality.”

Of the 9/11 Commission Report, Dr Paul Craig Roberts wrote in 2006, “One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations.” (see Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report).

He has asserted there is a large “energy deficit” in the official account of the collapse of the three WTC buildings, and this deficit remains unexplained.

This is yet another, out of thousands, of common ground similarities currently shared by President-Elect Donald Trump and Dr Roberts – truly a government partnership/marriage made in heaven.

Roberts commented on the “scientific impossibility” of the official explanation for the events on 9/11, as did Donald Trump in a television interview when the Towers first went down in 2001.

On August 18, 2006, he wrote: “I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to ‘pancake’ at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false…. Since the damning incontrovertible fact has not been investigated, speculation and ‘conspiracy theories’ have filled the void.”

He has written or co-written 12 books, contributed chapters to numerous books, and published many articles in scholarly journals.

Dr Paul Craig Roberts, like President-Elect Donald Trump, has ultimate intestinal fortitude, as is evident by his countless papers, treatises, books, and articles, where he demonstrates an All-American fearlessness coupled with ingenuity, brilliance, common-sense, and stalwartness totally absent in our treasury departments over the past few decades.

President-Elect Donald Trump should give due consideration and thought to Dr Paul Craig Roberts to be United States Secretary of the Treasury, a living legend who is truly a testament to everything that is, and always has been, Great about America.

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


The Rohingyas Are Dying: Is International Community Listening? – OpEd

0
0

The International community especially the United Nations needs to focus on the increasing atrocities on Rohingya Muslims who are fleeing to Bangladesh from Myanmar to save their lives.

Surprisingly there are very little media reports on the plight of the Rohingyas and the United Nations is too busy dealing with ISIS and other economic exercises and leadership changes. The democratic face of Myanmar Aung San Suu Kyi made some statements but it had little effect.

Who are the Rohingyas?

Rohingyas are Rohingyas and not Burmese. However historically there is no mention of Rohingyas anywhere. The fact that they speak Bengali, they are fleeing to Bangladesh to seek refuge. The Rohingyas are considered illegal migrants in Myanmar hence the ethnic cleansing is going on. Citizenship rights are a major issue but the Burmese government could not tackle the increasing migration of the Rohingyas from time to time.

The Burmese authorities say ethnic cleansing is required as the Rohingyas are responsible for murder arson rape and loot of the Rakhine people. But there needs to be a reality check.

A United Nations official was recently quoted saying that Myanmar’s western Arakan State has been witness to Burmese authorities carrying out a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims with military atrocities continuing in the garb of combating Islamic militants in the region. Thousands of Rohingya Muslims are fleeing the country and entering into Bangladesh to save their clan from getting extinct.

The alleged charges against the Burmese army are very serious – Rape, mass slaughter, burning entire villages and loot, all extremely serious human rights violations. However Bangladesh has not labelled the Rohingyas as refugees and the Bangladeshi establishment is drafting policies to stop the Rohingyas from entering their borders. The Rohingyas are considered to be illegal immigrants by Bangladesh and there is serious resistance to the Rohingyas mixing with the extant Bangladesh demography.

The 1.1 million Rohingyas are viewed as one of the worlds’s most persecuted minorities. Thousands of Rohingya Muslims have been crossing the border for decades to seek refuge in one of several refugee camps near Cox’s Bazaar, a major population centre. However moves to staunch the flow of these migrants continue by the Bangladesh government.

The Rakhine region has been on military lockdown since Oct. 9, when nine border police guards were killed in what appear to have been coordinated attacks on three security posts.In a surprising turn of events it is observed that not much coverage is seen on the torture of Rohingya Muslims by the Burmese authorities who have labelled them as jihadists. Serious humanitarian crisis faces the Rohingyas who are denied food and medical aid in the conflict torn zone. The Rohingyas are forced to live in camps in unimaginable conditions.

Aung San Suu Kyi who is considered as the democratic face of Myanmar, has made few statements on the crisis. This is indicative of the tenuous hold on a semblance of democracy that she is maintaining. It is an acknowledged fact that the transition to a democratic set up has been more lip service than anything else, and Suu Kyi is well aware of how quickly things could revert to the earlier military ‘junta’ that ruled over Myanmar for decades and still maintain a stranglehold over politics in the country.

The military still controls the key Ministries of Home Affairs, Border Affairs and Defence with activists like Suu Kyi playing minor roles in decision making processes. Owing her well known public persona, it is convenient to keep her as the facade for international interactions such as those with President Obama. This gives a tinge of legitimacy to the state of affairs in Myanmar today, which was under crippling sanctions by the international community during the rule of the military junta.

In a world torn by conflicts perceived as much more serious and apocalyptic, it seems the plight of the Rohingya Muslims has taken a back burner. While it may be worth more TRPs to cover Iraq and Syria and the fight against the Islamic State, it may well be remembered that highlighting the case of the downtrodden also remains an important facet of media reporting. It is in effect a word of caution to the powers that control the media.

From Nixon To Trump: Why Have Iranian Politicians Favored Republican US Presidents? – Analysis

0
0

By Sergei Barseghian

In 2004, I asked Hassan Rouhani, then the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, whose victory in the US presidential election would benefit Iran in the US presidential race: the Democrat or the Republican candidate? Rouhani’s response was that Iran has seen more mischief under the Democrats. Later, he complemented his response in an interview with Iran’s state TV where he said: “We do not prefer the Democrats to win. Historically, Democrats have caused more harm to Iran than the Republicans. In the Bush era, in spite of harsh baseless slogans against Iran, he never actually took any perilous measure against Iran.” George Bush’s rival in the 2004 presidential race was John Kerry, the same Secretary of State whom Rouhani has seen among the undersigned in the nuclear deal.

Months earlier, George Bush had signaled that he was ready to resolve all differences with Iran holus-bolus. Mohamed ElBaradei, former IAEA director-general, delivered the message to Rouhani in a visit on April 06, 2014, saying on behalf of Bush that he wanted leader-to-leader talks not only on the nuclear issue, but also on pretty much everything else. In his memoir, ElBaradei recalls that in a later meeting with Bush in Washington, he had brought with him a written message from Hassan Rouhani, on behalf of the Iranian regime, saying that Iran was ready to enter into dialogue with the United States on all issues, including both Iran’s nuclear program and broader matters of regional security. “The message was on a single sheet of paper, without a letterhead or signature, as it had been delivered to me. I handed the note to Bush, explaining its origin, and told him how important I felt it was for the United States to initiate a dialogue with Iran”.

“I’d like to talk leader to leader,” Bush responded, “but I’m not sure that Iran’s leader is ready to engage.” He was referring to Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader. “I think he is bent on the destruction of Israel.”

On one of ElBaradei’s Washington visits, after the Board of Governors’ meeting in June 2004, Condoleezza Rice, national security advisor in Bush’s first administration, Board of Governors summit in June 2004.

Two years later, the Democrats won the Congress election and I once again asked Hassan Rouhani, then an Assembly of Experts candidate, in an exclusive interview with Etemad Melli newspaper, his opinion. “I do not believe that a Democrats’ win in the US could be in our interest. On the recent US presidential race, I said the Democrats are more detrimental than the Republicans, because more US sanctions against Iran have been adopted under the Democrats but no new sanctions has been imposed on us in the Bush administration. The Democrats have a softer, more legal-oriented tone compared with the Republicans. The Republicans are quicker to resort to military options, but the Democrats hesitate more. Even if the Democrats win in the US, the possibility of military threats will not be ruled out. Political and economic pressures will increase because of more coordination between Europe and the US,” he replied.

Ten years later, Rouhani branded the US presidential race as a choice for the lesser of two evils. As on one side stood a pro-JCPOA Democrat and on the other was a Republican con, an optimistic guess is he meant Hillary Clinton by lesser.

Ayatollah Khamenei was the only world leader who, at the peak of polls seeing Clinton as the victor, found Trump more welcome. “The one more outspoken was more welcomed by people,” he said, speaking of the US presidential candidates. By saying after the US election that “we are neither bemoaning nor celebrating because the results make no difference to us,” he actually endorsed what the Chairman of Iran’s Expediency Council Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani had told Arman daily two days earlier. “The two parties are not different for us. They are both following US policies. Ms. Clinton also had differences with Obama over the nuclear deal and thought there were too many concessions. After all, they will do as they want. We are not much concerned. Of course, it sounds, from what occurred during the campaigns, that Trump is a dangerous figure, not abiding by principles.”

Four years earlier, Iran Foreign Ministry spokesperson had stated that it made no difference who took office in the US, new or known, in what seemed a carbon copy of what the Shah’s Foreign Minister Ardeshir Zahedi has said forty years ago: “We had nothing to do with US parties under Truman, then Eisenhower, followed by Johnson, Kennedy, Nixon and Ford. It made no difference for us if the president-elect was a Democrat or a Republican. We engaged with a government named the United States of America.”

Nixon

Nevertheless, does the historical tendency of Iranians confirm those claims? Has Iran’s taste for Republicans changed? History denies. While heading Iran’s diplomatic mission in the US, Ardeshir Zahedi himself had twice gambled on a Republican win, and lost both. The first was when he poured down the Iranian embassy’s money into the Republican camp, in the hope that winning comes the candidate, whose office hosted 1953 Iranian coup d’état meetings, and was the first American guest during the prime ministry of his father Fazlollah Zahedi. Richard Nixon lost, only to keep his chances for eight years later, when he became the President. However, just like the popular candidate and later the assassinated president, Nixon could not hold office in his second term and resigned after the Watergate scandal. Ardeshir Zahedi had intimate ties with Nixon. Nixon was the greatest of the six US presidents he had known, Zahedi said after his death. It was under Nixon that Iran was called the “gendarme of the Persian Gulf”.

The Republican slant on the part of Shah and his son-in-law, Zahedi, did not please Kennedy and he discharged Iran’s ambassador as soon as he took office. In 1961, after two years residing in the US, Zahedi returned home to a Tehran whose Prime Minister was Ali Amini, former Iran ambassador to Washington, rumored to be chosen by Shah under pressure from Kennedy. The Pahlavis’ evidence was a dinner shared by the two, their wives, and a journalist during which Kennedy had sought Amini’s opinion on the Eisenhower doctrine. Amini never saw Kennedy again until he returned to Iran. However, Shah never changed his mind that Amini was imposed on him by Kennedy, until 1979.

Carter, a copy of Kennedy

The next year, when Shah sent Zahedi back to the Iranian embassy in Washington, he once again donated $120 m in aid to Nixon’s vice lest a second Kennedy could rise. “If Carter becomes president he will probably adopt a policy like Kennedy’s, so we’d rather have Gerald Ford win,” he had secretly informed Royal Court Minister Asadollah Alam. To the latter too, Jimmy Carter was an “inexperienced foal just like Kennedy”. Shah lost the second bet too and the Americans voted for the man commonly called in Shah’s court as an “inexperienced peasant”, “peanut duffer” “more populists than Mosaddegh”. Alam’s “these foals should be tied in a stable”, gives one the gist of Iran’s idea of the Carter administration.

The wave of Carter’s presidency reached even reached Iran’s prisons. As a political prisoner, Ghassem Sarhaddizadeh says SAVAK stopped its tortures and even provided the prisoners with the luxury of metal forks and spoons when Carter took office. Prisoners could even watch TV and have newspapers every day.

The message Washington Post renowned journalist Joseph Kraft brought in to Shah repeated Kennedy’s demand: “Iran’s ambassador in Washington should be dismissed. He is openly a support of the previous [US] administration and has made the embassy look almost like a Playboy club”. Nonetheless, Zahedi remained in Washington until January 1979.

A great consensus on Reagan

The desire to help Republicans rise to office proved abortive despite efforts made by the Iranian embassy in Washington, but was realized three years later when the US embassy in Tehran was stormed. It was curious for Cater that the fate of the super power’s presidential race was decided not in Chicago or New York, but in Tehran. Der Spiegel wrote of era long gone when the US could decide who was in power in Iran. In 1980, an Ayatollah in Tehran could determine the fate of US presidential race instead.

The curious thing for Carter was that Ayatollah Khomeini reproached him for backing the Shah while Shah himself saw Carter responsible for his ouster. “Carter’s was the same as Muawiyah’s logic,” said Iran’s first supreme leader, referring to a Sunni caliph, notoriously hated in Shiite Islam. As Hamilton Jordan, White House Chief of Staff under Carter put it, the key to the US presidential race was in the hand of those across the world whose decisions and actions could not be predicted until the last minute.

It was only days before the US presidential election in 1980 that Iran announced four conditions for the release of embassy hostages: return of Shah’s assets, commitment to stop intervention in Iran’s affairs, release of Iran’s assets in the US, and withdrawal of US’ anti-Iran claims. The then State Secretary Edmund Muskie hastily agreed with the second provision: Washington recognized Iran’s independence. However, Americans proceeded with caution vis-à-vis the other three conditions. Ayatollah Mohammad Mousavi Khoeiniha, spiritual leader of the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line, occupiers of the US embassy, said the hostages could fly home on the eve of the US presidential election, if the US agreed with the conditions. The flight did not happen then, but on January 20, 1981, just as transition from Carter to the Republican Reagan was taking place. If the hostages will be released before the election, he would not be surprised since Iranian could well prefer Carter to him, Reagan had commented earlier. The revolutionaries in Iran preferred the opposite choice however, so much so that Gary Sick, Brzezinski’s assistant in the U.S. National Security Council, wrote the Iranians had deliberately postponed the release in order to pave the way for Carter’s defeat. In his book, October Surprise, Sick writes of an agreement between Iranians and Reagan to protract the issue. The claim found evidence in remarks and positions demonstrated in Tehran: “We are in no hurry to release the hostages,” or “we do not intend to help Jimmy Carter in his campaign”.

The revolutionaries were not much univocal, either. Masoumeh [formerly Niloufar] Ebtekar, one of the occupiers now head of Iran’s Department of Environment, has her own account.

“Iran’s incumbent president Abolhassan Banisadr had reiterated in cabinet meetings that he preferred Democrats to remain in power … whereas most Iranian elites and officials disagreed. Basically, both American parties were seen as steadfast secular capitalists on a national level and imperialists on an international one … we were convinced that Banisadr was actively trying to make deals with those around Carter while another group perhaps preferred to play Reagan cards.”

The lawmakers, authorized by the founder of the revolution Ayatollah Khomeini to decide the fate of the hostages, were divided too. A group believed that if they did not help the Democrats and Carter, the Republican candidate Ronald Reagan who had radical stances would win and it was necessary to prevent his rise to power. On the other hand, a group of the MPs, often the younger generation, feverishly disagreed with any push for Carter’s reelection, being on the belief that there was no difference between Democrats and Republicans in their confrontation with the Islamic Revolution.

The issue was brought to a closed parliamentary session. Ebrahim Yazdi, Kazem Sami, Ahmad Sadr Haj Seyyed Javadi, Hashem Sabbaghian, Mohammad-Ali Hadi Najafabadi, and even Mohammad Montazeri and Parliament Speaker Hashemi Rafsanjani believed that an urgent final vote for the Algeria Accords (between Tehran and Washington) was needed to prevent Reagan’s presidency. Young opponent MP Manouchehr Mottaki, later Iran’s Foreign Minister under Ahmadinejad went behind the lectern, expressing pleasure that for the first time in history of the US election, Iran could influence the results. Drawing on the Supreme Leader’s remarks, that Carter was a bad president for the United States, he started addressing his colleagues:

“Imam [Khomeini] also said that Carter should consider a job other than presidency. Dear representatives! These remarks are clear. Mr. Carter should not be elected and this does not mean someone else has been endorsed. Mr. Carter’s policy on the Islamic Revolution must be defeated.”

On Thursday, November 06, 1980, the last parliamentary session before the US election was supposed to pass the Algeria statement, 27 young parliamentarians made an obstruction for the first time. The parliament lost majority and the investigation of the Algeria Accords was postponed to the next week, which was too late as Reagan was elected. The key to the White House remained with Republicans for 12 years, eight years with Reagan and four years with his vice George H. W. Bush, until arrival of the Democrat Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton

Iran’s first official response after Clinton’s presidency came from Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati. “In the history of the Islamic Revolution, we have seen the ruling of Democrats and Republicans over America and there has been no substantial difference in their policies toward Iran. At any rate, Iran does not want a resumption of ties with the US,” he said. The gist of the Iranian traditional rights’ opinion on the victory of the Democrat candidate had been revealed a few days earlier in Resalat daily’s editorial, penned by Mohammad Sarafraz who later became the director of Iran’s state broadcasting, IRIB.

“Clinton, the new US president, owes his victory to the Zionists and the country’s mainstream decision-making authorities. Instead of leading the world, he wishes to lead America … Democrats are more inclined toward indirect intervention in other countries’ affairs, more so using human rights as a pretext. It means we should expect US’ policeman behavior to go on decline but that does not signify an end to its interventions in other countries.”

A secret channel for reconciliation between Iran and the US was blocked with Clinton’s presidency. August 02, 1992, Hossein Mousavian, Iran’s ambassador to Bonn, informed sitting president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani of German Chancellor Helmut Kohl’s interestedness to mediate between Iran and the US. Twenty days later, Rafsanjani announced Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s negative response due to suspicion towards US’ intentions. Five days later, Mousavian was informed through German Vice-Chancellor Bernard Schmidbauer of President Bush’s efforts to improve relations with Iran. Two months later, Bush lost the election. And two months after Clinton’s inauguration Mousavian heard from Schmidbauer the US was not prepared for Iran’s peacemaking initiatives. The new US president had asked Kohl to cease ties with Iran. President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani corresponded through his brother Mohammad Hashemi with German Chancellor on September 10, 1993, once again suggesting an end to two decades of hostility between Iran and the US. ‘I will speak willfully with President Clinton again. I neither represent nor advocate you nor the United States, but will give the message to Washington and European leaders. I told Washington quite clearly that tension between Iran and the United States should be reduced,’ Kohl promised. ‘Why should not the US be prepared while Iran is?’

Three months later however, Director General of the Office of the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Rudolf Dolzer informed Iran of US’ reluctance to cooperate with Germany over détente with Iran, calling Iran’s failure to recognize Israel as the main obstacle for the reconciliation.

Bush the junior

In the competition between Clinton’s VP Al Gore and George W. Bush, there was much hope in Tehran that oil-hungry Republicans’ win could soothe the sanctions imposed during the Democrats’ tenure. Iran’s first official response to Bush’s victory came from Iran’s foreign ministry Kamal Kharazi. “In recent years, nothing has changed in the relations between Iran and the US. Improvements in the relations between Iran and the US depends on the new US president and his willingness for mutual ties”. As Mousavian puts it, a common belief in Iran was that they would experience another pragmatist called Bush and there was a possibility for détente in his presidential time. At the time, Reformists who pursued relations with the US dominated Iran’s parliament and executive branch. However, neither Iran’s expression of grief for 9/11 terrorist attacks nor its collaboration with the US to defeat Taliban, did not prevent Bush from incorporating it in the notorious Axis of Evil. Bush the son put the last nail in the coffin of US-Iran relations, as Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said. Khatami told the diplomat Hossein Mousavian that any improvement in relations was off the agenda, at least during his tenure.

In the 2004 presidential race, John Kerry challenged Bush’s reelection. With Rouhani’s response to the question I asked during a presser, Associated Press had come to the conclusion that the Islamic Republic was backing George Bush. Even Kerry’s proposition that Iran could have its nuclear fuel cycle was not much welcome in Tehran on the grounds that it was ‘part of US’ presidential campaigns’. In his first debate with his Republican rival, Kerry accused Bush of having no strategy on Iran, failing to curb the country’s nuclear activities through diplomacy or sanctions. He called the Europeans’ engagement in nuclear talks with Iran as a sign of US’ weak diplomacy. “In order for the sanctions to be effective, we should have been working with the British, French and Germans and other countries. And that’s the difference between the president and me,” Kerry said. Kerry’s idea to join nuclear talks with Iran was realized 9 years later, where he negotiated and made a deal with Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif as Barack Obama’s State Secretary.

Obama

Iran’s ex-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could not wait for end of the race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain in 2008 to make his prediction. “I find it unlikely that the apparatus behind the White House let Obama to step in,” he predicted. He later explained: “I did not support Obama, I just announced a piece of news that they will not allow Obama’s presidency. We have intelligence from within the US that they will not let him become President even if everyone voted [for him]”. His prediction was wrong but he congratulated Obama in an unprecedented move. “I congratulate you on having gained the majority of the votes of those who took part in the election,” he wrote. Even more surprising than the letter itself was the elaboration that came from Ahmadinejad’s advisor Hamid Mowlana:

“Mr. Ahmadinejad has sent a letter to a man elected by the people of America, not the American President. It is important and the difference between the two should be clarified for the people so that they do not think Iran’s president has sent the US president a letter of congratulation. [Iranian] People may think a man elected by [American] people is considered the president the day after the election but they should know that Obama has seventy days to go before he becomes the president and the situation will be different then,” he explained.

Ahmadinejad’s letter remained unanswered. Obama, instead, wrote to the Supreme Leader almost a month before Iran’s 2009 presidential election, asking him to help Washington start a new chapter in Iran-US relations. The letter went public during the Supreme Leader’s July 20 Tehran Friday prayers sermon following demonstrations against the presidential elections in Iran. “The US president was quoted as saying that they were waiting for the day [Iranian] people would pour into the streets. On the other hand, they write letters, expressing interest in relations, showing respect for the Islamic Republic. Which one should we believe?”

Ahmadinejad administration once again activated the German channel a year before Obama’s first term would end. Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, Ahmadinejad’s bureau chief, asked Chancellor Angela Merkel’s advisor on foreign and political security affairs Christopher Huesgen to inform Washington of Iran’s readiness to resume ties with the US. Mashaei had even said Iran was ready to help Obama’s reelection. In response, Americans advised the Germans to avoid engagement in the issue.

Iran’s official stance was that it made no difference for Iran if Obama remained or Republican Mitt Romney replaced him in the Oval Office. “In the short run, Obama’s presidency is better for Iran because he will not threaten to start a war but in the long run, Romney could act in the interest of Iran,” said hardliner Ansar Hezbollah’s Hossein Allah-Karam.

“Mad Donald”

Kayhan daily that had announced Obama’s reelection in 2012 with the headline “Mr. Change”, branded Trump’s win over Hillary Clinton the “Victory of a Madman over a Liar”. In his editorial, the newspaper’s editor-in-chief Hossein Shariatmadari asked Trump to rid Iran of the nuclear agreement, the JCPOA, but predicted that he will be wiser than that to tear down a document completely prepared in the interest of the United State.

At the back of Iranians’ minds lies a hypothesis that the Democrats are better able to make a global consensus against Iran and major sanctions have been imposed under their terms in office. However, both US presidents who extended a hand of friendship toward Iran after the revolution were Democrats. Khatami refused to face Bill Clinton and shake hands with him on the sidelines of the 1999 UN General Assembly; his bodyguard had to do this instead, but Obama’s hand remained extended for such a long time that it finally shook the hands of Mohammad-Javad Zarif on the sidelines of a UN General Assembly.

* This piece was originally published on Tarikh-e Irani [Iranian History], our sister website.

Source: Iranian Diplomacy

Montenegro: Unsolved Bomb Blasts Threaten Security

0
0

By Dusica Tomovic

Concerns have been raised by Montenegro’s civil sector, the opposition and security experts about the deteriorating security situation in the country after several towns were hit by bomb blasts over the past few months.

Targets included the cars or flats of senior police officers and bars and restaurants owned by businessmen reportedly close to former Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic.

Last weekend, police reported four powerful explosions in a residential part of the capital Podgorica and in the towns of Bar and Cetinje, which caused no injuries but alarmed locals and caused significant damage.

Security expert and former member of the country’s parliamentary security committee, Zoran Miljanic, warned that the security situation was getting worse and it was only matter of time before innocent people would be injured or killed.

Miljanic told BIRN that in most cases, clashes between rival drug gangs were behind the bomb attacks across the country, but he said believes that some cases have a deeper political background, alleging links between organised crime groups and parts of the security sector.

Local media reported on Monday that property owned by the company Bemax, which has been rumoured to be linked to a former minister, was targeted in the explosion in Podgorica on Saturday.

A cafe in Podgorica owned by the same company, which has regularly hosted Djukanovic and top state officials as guests, was destroyed in another bomb attack last summer. No suspects have been named or arrested so far.

In the latest attack in the coastal town of Bar on Sunday, a blast has destroyed the gravestones of alleged members of a drug gang who were killed last year, which according to experts points to a showdown between criminal gangs.

This was the second attack on the same cemetery in the past few months. In June, a bomb was set off at the grave of Luka Djurovic, who was killed in 2013, and was identified by Montenegrin police as a drug gang kingpin in Bar.

In 2015, a car bomb was set off in front of the home of the police chief in Bar, Milos Radulovic. a few months later, a blast destroyed part of the family home of top intelligence officer Dusko Gulubovic in Podgorica.

A few months later, a blast destroyed part of the family home of top intelligence officer Dusko Gulubovic in Podgorica.

As in the previous explosions, police have never released any information about that attack and no suspects have been arrested.

Miljanic recalled the situation in the Montenegrin resort of Kotor at the beginning of the year, when it was hit by severe violence related to clashes between drug clans.

Five people have been killed since early 2015 in apparent clashes between the rival Skaljari and Kavac clans, named after neighbourhoods in Kotor, and a bomb blast killed two alleged members of drug gangs in September.

The opposition and the NGO sector has warned for years about what they claim is the police and prosecution’s inadequate response in Kotor, alleging that criminal groups have their own people in security institutions in Montenegro.

Miljanic suggested that such allegations were confirmed in Kotor after the arrest in September of a senior police officer who is suspected of revealing confidential information to drug gangs.

“This is yet more proof that Montenegro’s security services are not free of members with dubious pasts. During the last two decades, the security services even hired people from Interpol warrants,” Miljanic said.

The opposition also believes that the current political crisis in the country is contributing to the increase in violence, and has warned that the drug cartel clashes threaten people’s safety and the country’s stability.

One of the leaders of the main opposition Democratic Front, Nebojsa Medojevic, said that after long-serving Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic gave way to his successor, Dusko Markovic, a former intelligence chief, the established balance of power could collapse as different groups struggle for influence.

“Two bomb attacks in Podgorica and one Bar in less than a day, that was the announcement of the chaos into which Montenegro could enter under the leadership of the ruling Democratic Party of Socialists,” said Medojevic.

He insisted that the source of all problems with organised crime in Montenegro was at “the political level”.
– See more at: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/serious-of-blasts-threaten-montenegro-s-security-11-28-2016#sthash.eGQtKXzX.dpuf

Georgia: New Government Wins Confidence Vote

0
0

(Civil.Ge) — Georgia’s Parliament confirmed late on November 26 the new government led by Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili and its program with 110 votes to 19.

The cabinet, where 18 ministers have remained after the portfolio of the State Minister for Diaspora Issues was folded under the Foreign Ministry in the new cabinet, has reshuffled slightly.

Kumsishvili, former economy minister, became new Finance Minister. He retained the post of the first deputy prime minister in the new government.

Kakha Kaladze returned to the Energy Ministry following a 2.5 month pause. He quit this post to run in the October parliamentary elections through GDDG’s party list.

Giorgi Gakharia, former business ombudsman, who was elected in the Parliament through GDDG’s party list, was appointed as new Minister of Economy.

Zurab Alavidze, former head of the Strategic Project Coordination Department of the Government’s Administration, became new minister for regional development and infrastructure.

Victor Dolidze, former lawmaker, was appointed as the State Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration. Dolidze, who is diplomat and politician, quit opposition Free Democrats party after its defeat in the parliamentary elections.

Other ministers with two women among them have retained their posts in the cabinet:

  • Minister of Foreign Affairs – Mikheil Janelidze;
  • Minister of Defense – Levan Izoria;
  • Minister of Internal Affairs – Giorgi Mgebrishvili;
  • Minister for Labor, Healthcare and Social Affairs – Davit Sergeenko;
  • Minister of Justice – Tea Tsulukiani;
  • Minister of Education and Science – Aleksandre Jejelava;
  • Minister of Agriculture – Levan Davitashvili;
  • Minister in charge of penitentiary system – Kakha Kakhishvili;
  • Minister in charge of IDPs issues – Sozar Subari;
  • Minister of Environmental Protection – Gigla Agulashvili;
  • Minister of Culture and Monument Protection – Mikheil Giorgadze;
  • Minister of Sports and Youth Affairs – Tariel Khechikashvili;
  • State Minister for Reconciliation and Civic Equality – Ketevan Tsikhelashvili.

Before the government’s confirmation after two days of hearings, PM Kvirikashvili presented to lawmakers on Saturday a four-year governmental program titled “Freedom, Rapid Development, Welfare” and answered the questions from lawmakers. Ministerial candidates were also responding to questions together with him that was a new format for the government’s confirmation.

In his opening remarks PM Kvirikashvili said that he considers the parliamentary majority not as “a privilege”, but as “an accountability and possibility” “to receive decisions that are so important for the country” through consolidation and broad consensus between various groups, including parliamentary and non-parliamentary opposition.

He also spoke about a four-point plan, which has become the basis for the governmental program and which envisages promotion of education, development of spatial planning concept, acceleration of economic growth  and taking concrete steps for public governance reform. On promoting good governance, the PM mentioned planned “Business House” in Tbilisi, a one-stop-shop for businesses, modeled after already existing Public Service Halls, where citizens get multiple services from various state agencies under the single roof. He first raised this issue in December, when he was confirmed as the Prime Minister for the first time, but this promise has yet to be fulfilled.

Kvirikashvili also said that the reform known as the third wave of judicial reforms will be implemented in the new future. Previous Parliament went into its summer recess without adopting this package of bills. The Prime Minister also pledged to continue reforms in law enforcement agencies.

On foreign policy, PM Kvirikashvili said that the country’s further integration into EU and NATO will be his government’s “top priority” and he expressed hope that visa liberalisation process with EU will be finalized in the near future. Along with the plans to continue strategic cooperation with the United States and regional countries, the Prime Minister stressed the importance of pursuing “de-escalation” policy with Russia in order “to minimize the risks” and “create preconditions for long-lasting solution of problems.”

Along with continuation of de-occupation and non-recognition policy, Kvirikashvili said, the government plans to take “more courageous steps towards reconciliation” with Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region – he did not elaborate the details, but said that “we should do our utmost to create preconditions for political settlement of conflicts through improving people-to-people contacts.”

“National consensus is needed to implement such ambitious plan,” PM Kvirikashvili said. “My government and I will do our best to make political process as much constructive as possible.”

Following debates MP Giga Bokeria, one of the leaders of the opposition National Movement, said that he agrees with Kvirikashvili who says that “there should be civil accord between the winner and the loser following elections”, but “it matters how you win.”

“When you win through violence and intimidation, then accord becomes weaker. Moreover, if you have constitutional majority, money and a billionaire is behind you, when you control almost the entire judiciary, when you want to silence the only TV channel [Rustavi 2], which criticizes you and want to put it in the billionaire’s hands, it does not promote civil accord, but paves the way for huge civil discord,” he said.

“The government, which actually has no power and no authority, will not receive our support, because you are the Prime Minister, who serves one person,” Nika Melia, leader of the National Movement’s faction, said. Like other UNM members, Melia also mentioned ex-PM Bidzina Ivanishvili’s “informal rule” for multiple times.

Like the National Movement, lawmakers from Alliance of Patriots also voted against and walked out of the Parliament chamber before the end of lengthy discussions.

Before walking out, leader of Alliance of Patriots, Vice Speaker Irma Inashvili slammed PM Kvirikashvili for his stance towards her party.

“This is not the way to establish the idyll,” Inashvili said and called on the lawmakers from the parliamentary majority group for “self-criticism” because, as she put it, she saw some signs of “political narcissism.”

Parliamentary Chairman Irakli Kobakhidze called on lawmakers to reduce “radicalism” and move to a constructive regime.”

Colombia: Plane Carrying Brazilian Football Team Crashes, Initial Reports 6 Survivors

0
0

A plane carrying Brazil’s Chapecoense football team has crashed in Colombia. Only six of the 81 passengers have reportedly survived.

Sputnik reported that six people survived the crash, citing José María Córdova International Airport in Rionegro, where the plane was traveling to.

Mi Oriente reported that fatalities had occurred, but did not provide figures.

At least 10 people were initially injured and evacuated from the scene, the commander of La Union fire department said.

A press release from aviation authorities said the plane likely crashed due to electrical failure.

However, the mayor of the municipality of La Ceja, Elkin Ospina, previously said it appeared the aircraft ran out of gas, El Universo reported.

The plane, operated by Venezuelan airline Lamia, was reportedly carrying 72 passengers and nine crew members.

The country’s civil aviation authority has set up a unified command post at the airport, El Universo reported.

The mayor of nearby Medellín said the city’s hospital network has been alerted and officials from the Administration Department of Disaster Risk Management have been sent to the site.

Access to the crash site can only be reached by land due to current weather conditions, the airport wrote on Twitter.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images