he day of charging cellphones with finger swipes and powering Bluetooth headsets simply by walking is now much closer.

Michigan State University engineering researchers have created a new way to harvest energy from human motion, using a film-like device that actually can be folded to create more power. With the low-cost device, known as a nanogenerator, the scientists successfully operated an LCD touch screen, a bank of 20 LED lights and a flexible keyboard, all with a simple touching or pressing motion and without the aid of a battery.

The groundbreaking findings, published in the journal Nano Energy, suggest “we’re on the path toward wearable devices powered by human motion,” said Nelson Sepulveda, associate professor of electrical and computer engineering and lead investigator of the project.

“What I foresee, relatively soon, is the capability of not having to charge your cell phone for an entire week, for example, because that energy will be produced by your movement,” said Sepulveda, whose research is funded by the National Science Foundation.

The innovative process starts with a silicone wafer, which is then fabricated with several layers, or thin sheets, of environmentally friendly substances including silver, polyimide and polypropylene ferroelectret. Ions are added so that each layer in the device contains charged particles. Electrical energy is created when the device is compressed by human motion, or mechanical energy.

The completed device is called a biocompatible ferroelectret nanogenerator, or FENG. The device is as thin as a sheet of paper and can be adapted to many applications and sizes. The device used to power the LED lights was palm-sized, for example, while the device used to power the touch screen was as small as a finger.

Advantages such as being lightweight, flexible, biocompatible, scalable, low-cost and robust could make FENG “a promising and alternative method in the field of mechanical-energy harvesting” for many autonomous electronics such as wireless headsets, cell phones and other touch-screen devices, the study says.

Remarkably, the device also becomes more powerful when folded.

“Each time you fold it you are increasing exponentially the amount of voltage you are creating,” Sepulveda said. “You can start with a large device, but when you fold it once, and again, and again, it’s now much smaller and has more energy. Now it may be small enough to put in a specially made heel of your shoe so it creates power each time your heel strikes the ground.”

Sepulveda and his team are developing technology that would transmit the power generated from the heel strike to, say, a wireless headset.

Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of Manila reminded Filipino Catholics not to abuse “God’s gift of human freedom” by making decisions that are against God’s teachings.

Speaking during the celebration of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception in Manila on Dec. 8, the prelate expressed sadness over how people use their freedom to turn away from God.

He said people keep making mistakes because of arrogance. “Instead of admitting mistakes with humility, we look for someone to blame,” said Cardinal Tagle.

In his homily, the Archbishop of Manila said in despite of man’s imperfection, God’s responded with love.

“For love will conquer sin. Love will conquer pride. Love will embrace even sin. God never surrenders,” he said.

Cardinal Tagle urged Filipino Catholics to follow the example of the Virgin Mary who “spread success, love and light” in a world of hate and evil.

“Let go those spreading evil and darkness. Let us learn from Mary,” said the cardinal.

Five years after boldly calling for the ouster of neighboring Syria’s president, the Turkish President Erdogan now faces tough choices: either continue with the hitherto futile effort to reshape Syria to his liking, which has resulted in serious national security headaches for Turkey in addition to a tsunami of refugees, or he can make a timely adjustment of ‘back-to-the-past’, i.e., to the pre-2011 pattern of good neighborly relations with Syria based on mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty and secure borders.

At the moment, however, the Turkish policy oscillates uncomfortably between the two approaches, resulting in sheer incoherence. Thus, whereas on the one hand the Turkish foreign ministry has been sending signals to Damascus regarding a new rapprochement, on the other hand Mr. Erdogan persists with his dream of regime change and utilizing the proxies, who are completely on the defensive and have clearly lost the initiative in Syria, to achieve this ‘mission impossible’. Should Erdogn continue on this bifurcated approach, then he risks losing the recently-gained peace with Russia and alienating Iran, which has strategic interests at stake in Syria.

Indeed, what can make of Erdogan’s recent bold statement that the purpose of Turkish presence in Syria is to topple the regime in Damascus? Perhaps this is news to Turkey’s own generals pushing Operation Euphrates Shield, launched in August, ostensibly to defeat the ISIS, push the Kurdish YPG (People’s Protection Units) east of the Euphrates and set up a buffer zone along its border. Perhaps Ergdoan is a little bit like Trump, who claims to know more than the generals.

But, in reality, with the continued advance of Syrian government forces in Aleppo, making it all but a fait accompli, the impressive advances of Damascus, backed by the trio of Russia, Iran, and Hizbollah, are tantamount to a ‘game changer’ that sooner or later Mr. Erdogan must reconcile himself with, unless he wants to risk Turkey’s national interests and act as a Saudi vessel; concerning the Saudis, even the Economist has agreed that after a whole year of bombast, the Saudis are on the retreat and can ill-afford, financially speaking, to bankroll a failed gambit in Syria.

Assuming that Aleppo will be recaptured by the central government in the near future and the foreign governments including Turkey who bankrolled the rebels refrain from their destructive policies and come to terms with Damascus, which must itself open up and be more inclusionary if it is to survive, then chances are we are on the cusp of a badly-needed peace and tranquility in war-torn Syria.

Of course, a great deal of leg work will be needed by Iran and Russia to assure the rest of the region and the world that they harbor no expansionist objectives by winning in Syria, and that they are committed to a genuine political transition in Syria promising the political integration of dissatisfied groups, otherwise the furnace of war will keep going, particularly if the Trump administration makes the fateful, and terribly wrong, decision of arming the Syrian rebels with anti-aircraft missiles, as pushed for by the US Congress. Arming al-Qadea affiliates with this weapons, which can be turned against US and its allies in the future, simply is insane and, yet, there are enough hawks in US Capital these days to reach this objective.

As for Mr. Erdogan, he ought to realize that a strong central government in Damascus is in fact that best guarantee for the country’s territorial integrity and lack of break-up along ethnic lines, and the sooner he comes to this conclusion, the better.

By Eleanor Rose

Closing arguments for the defence of Ratko Mladic began on Friday at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, with the wartime military commander’s lawyers arguing that the “unfortunate killings” of Bosniaks from Srebrenica were acts of “private revenge” over which the Bosnian Serb Army chief had no control.

On the charge of genocide in Srebrenica, in which more than 7,000 Bosniak men and boys were massacred by Bosnian Serb forces in July 1995, defence lawyer Branko Lukic said that there was no evidence that Mladic had ordered the deaths.

“As to the unfortunate killings that occurred in Srebrenica, the defence does not deny that some persons were killed in opportunistic and uncontrollable acts of private revenge by members of the MUP [interior ministry], by locals, and even by the renegade members of the VRS [Bosnian Serb Army] security organ,” said Lukic.

“These killings were not ordered by General Mladic, and were committed in direct violation of the orders of General Mladic who was recorded at several instances and by multiple persons as having decreed that all POWs [prisoners of war] would be exchanged with the other side,” he added.

Not all the Bosniaks from Srebrenica who died were civilians, said Lukic, claiming that 70 per cent of victims exhumed from mass graves were registered Bosnian Army soldiers.

The prosecution did not provide enough proof to back up the charge of genocide, added Mladic’s second defence lawyer, Dejan Ivetic, noting that the charge involves the intent to commit acts to destroy a group in whole or in part.

Ivetic argued that any evidence that went against the charge of genocide provided sufficient reasonable doubt for acquittal.

Mladic always insisted that the Bosnian Serb Army abide by the Geneva Conventions and the laws and customs of war, insisted Ivetic.

Mladic stands accused of the genocide of Bosniaks from Srebrenica in 1995, the persecution of Bosniaks and Croats throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina, which allegedly reached the scale of genocide in several other municipalities in 1992, terrorising the population of Sarajevo during the 44-month siege of the Bosnian capital, and taking UN peacekeepers hostage.

The defence argued that contrary to his image as the “butcher of Bosnia”, Mladic was not a monster, and attempted to instill “discipline, honour and courage” in his troops.

Far from being aggressors who pursued ethnic cleansing, Bosnian Serb forces were engaged in a defensive war against the threat of an Islamic fundamentalist “war machine” led by Bosniak wartime president Alija Izetbegovic, Lukic said.

He presented a video of Izetbegovic touring a unit of Islamic Mujahideen fighters who came to Bosnia to support his wartime government as it fought against Bosnian Serb forces commanded by Mladic.

Lukic then showed a video of what was claimed to be the same unit of fighters, beheading Serb fighters.

The gruesome clip showed a Mujahideen soldier with his foot on the severed heads of the fighters.

Lukic compared Izetbegovic’s forces to ISIS, and argued that the Bosnian Serb Army was outnumbered and ill-prepared; a “rag-tag army”.

He alleged that Izetbegovic had come to power “on a platform of Islamic fundamentalism” that advocated the superiority of Muslims over Serbs.

To accept the prosecution’s argument – that Mladic was a key part of the command apparatus that mounted a genocidal attempt to create an ethnically-pure Serb state – was to believe that Bosnian Serb forces acted in a vacuum, according to the defence, citing the mobilisation of Bosnian government forces and attacks on Bosnian Serbs by several armies including the Mujahideen, the Bosnian Army and Croat forces.

The defendant, according to Lukic, was facing a biased trial in which the prosecution tried to hold him responsible for crimes over which he had had no control and was being prosecuted “because he is General Mladic”.

“The non-Serbian members of the public have already convicted our client,” said Lukic, arguing that the trial had been prejudicial and tried to hold Mladic responsible for “all crimes ever committed by any Serb”.

The prosecution, said Lukic, had presented its case as if Mladic was “superhuman… all-knowing and all-powerful to control everything… and everyone” in Bosnia at the time.

On the charge of terrorising the population of Sarajevo, the defence contended that Serb forces were “constantly told by superiors to hold fire” while the Bosnian Army used citizens as human shields, placing troops in civilian buildings to shoot at the Serb forces around the city, said Lukic.

In municipalities alleged to have been ethnically cleansed by Mladic’s forces, Lukic said civilians left of their own accord due to lack of jobs, food and utilities.

The defence will continue to present closing statements on Monday and Tuesday, and the prosecution and defence will both have the opportunity to rebut each other’s closing arguments on December 15.

The verdict is expected next year.

(Civil.Ge) — The European Investment Bank (EIB) will allocate EUR 450 million to Georgia through three loan agreements, the EIB and Georgian Prime Minister’s Office said.

EUR 250 million will be allocated to finance new construction and upgrading of priority roads, EUR 100 million for the rehabilitation and upgrading of municipal infrastructure and a EUR 100 million intermediated loan to implement the projects of SMEs and midcap companies in the horticulture and wine sectors.

All the three agreements were signed on December 9 by Georgian Finance Minister Dimitri Kumsishvili and EIB Vice President Jan Vapaavuori.

Speaking at the government’s session later on the same day, PM Giorgi Kvirikashvili welcomed signing of the agreements as a high-level confirmation of “our partnership with the European Union.” According to the EIB, the loans are covered by the European Union’s comprehensive guarantee.

“Together with our European Commission partners, we will help to upgrade infrastructure in municipalities, extend the network and quality of roads important for better interconnectivity and trade opportunities of Georgia, as well as improved access to finance for companies operating in agriculture to support investments from the introduction of modern technologies from harvest to food production and marketing,” EIB Vice President Jan Vapaavuori said.

Virginia’s Constitution is three times as long as the U.S. Constitution (which is notably lacking any serious sections on oyster beds). Virginia’s Constitution has also been updated at least three times as much as the U.S. Constitution. But it is now long overdue.

The U.S. Constitution has been updated with 27 amendments and 0 serious revisions through conventions. Virginia’s Constitution has been amended many times including through five Constitutional conventions, held in 1830, 1851, 1864, 1870, and 1902. From 1776 to 1902 that’s one convention every 25 years. Now there hasn’t been one for 114 years.

I don’t want to revise the Virginia Constitution just for the heck of it, but because it is badly needed. There is much in the Virginia Constitution that needn’t be there at all, but that can be to our advantage if it facilitates opening the whole thing to desirable improvements. Some improvements are desirable because of the failure of the federal government to make them.

I wrote to my state legislators and governor asking that Virginia make voter registration automatic, the way some states have done. I was told that in Virginia this would require amending the Constitution. Unlike many other states, Virginia details voter registration processes in its Constitution. (One hopes it’s unnecessary to recall the ugly reasons why.) I’d amend the Constitution to make voter registration automatic, to delete the disenfranchisement of felons, and to delete the language permitting the creation of literacy tests for voting.

I’d delete a lot else that need not be enshrined in a Constitution, but I’d also add a lot that’s missing on the topic of voting rights and in many other areas.

Some general updates are obvious and easy: Add several missing categories to the forbidden reasons for discrimination (or take out the existing list and ban all discrimination). Change “men” to “people.” Delete the section creating marriage bigotry. Delete all promotion of religion from various sections including the section supposedly banning the establishment of religion.

But major revisions are in order as well. Look at this list of protected rights: “enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

Virginia executes people. One in 46 adults in Virginia is in prison, jail, parole, or probation. So much for life and liberty. Many Virginians have little or no means of acquiring and possessing property. And it’s hard to say we can obtain happiness and safety with environmental damage and danger as well as gun violence escalating. These existing elements of the Constitution need enactment and enforcement. Or they need stricter commitment in a revised Constitution. Similarly, the ban on standing armies isn’t sufficient to prevent the existence of the Virginia National Guard, and the ban on taking private property without compensation isn’t protecting anyone from oil pipelines or climate destruction or rising sea level.

But mostly the problem is the rights that are missing entirely or vaguely stated later in the Constitution. The U.S. approach of providing a safety net to the least well off simply is not working. The least well off don’t have political power. What works in other countries is to provide benefits to everyone, which almost everyone then supports. We need the right to a free top-quality education free of for-profit corruption and ridiculous tests from preschool through college. We need the right to free, bureaucracy-free, insurance-company-free, preventive universal single-payer healthcare. We need the right to a basic income for all. We need the right to a healthy and sustainable environment. The environment needs the right to health and sustainability. (Yes, giving rights to the environment makes at least as much sense as giving them to corporations — which should be explicitly barred — and is being done in modern Constitutions.)

The Virginia Constitution now reads: “Further, it shall be the Commonwealth’s policy to protect its atmosphere, lands, and waters from pollution, impairment, or destruction, for the benefit, enjoyment, and general welfare of the people of the Commonwealth.” But, of course, it is not the Commonwealth’s policy to do any such thing. This has to be made enforceable. Or it has to be enforced.

While the United States is the one nation on earth that has not joined the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Virginia should include the content of that treaty in its Constitution. It should do the same with the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It should also join the world in banning land mines, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, and nuclear weapons, and in establishing rights of migrant workers.

The section of the Virginia Constitution on the rights of the accused needs updating. There should be a right to videotape of all interrogations. There should be a right to competent legal representation. There should be a right not to be killed. There should be a ban on militarizing police and on the use of weaponized drones, as well as on the use in court of any evidence obtained by surveillance drones.

When it comes to election reforms, I would propose something like this:

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be protected free speech.

All elections for Governor and members of the Senate and General Assembly shall be entirely publicly financed. No political contributions shall be permitted to any federal candidate, from any other source, including the candidate. No political expenditures shall be permitted in support of any candidate, or in opposition to any candidate, from any other source, including the candidate. The legislature shall, by statute, provide limitations on the amounts and timing of the expenditures of such public funds and provide criminal penalties for any violation of this section.

State and local governments shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for state or local public office or any state or local ballot measure.

Citizens will be automatically registered to vote upon reaching the age of 18 or upon becoming citizens at an age above 18, and the right to vote shall not be taken away from them.

Votes shall be recorded on paper ballots, which shall be publicly counted at the polling place and reported to a central counting location, with the process repeated as many times as required to allow voters to make use of ranked-choice (instant runoff) voting.

Election day shall be a state holiday.

During a designated campaign period of no longer than six months, free air time shall be provided in equal measure to all candidates for state office on state or local television and radio stations, provided that each candidate has, during the previous year, received the supporting signatures of at least five percent of their potential voting-age constituents.

The same supporting signatures shall also place the candidate’s name on the ballot and require their invitation to participate in any public debate among the candidates for the same office.

The Virginia Constitution now states: “That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.”

I would give this concrete form in a right to create and vote on public initiatives to determine state policy, including the creation of Constitutional conventions and amendments.

A DARK wave is submerging democracies all over the Western world.

It started in Britain, a land we always saw as the mother of democracy, the homeland of a particularly sensible people. It voted in a plebiscite to leave the European Union, that landmark of human progress which arose out of the terrible ruins of World War II.

Why? No particular reason. Just for the heck of it.

Then came the US elections. The incredible happened: A nobody came from nowhere and was elected. A person devoid of any political experience, a bully, a habitual liar, an entertainer. Now he is the most powerful statesman on the planet, the “Leader of the free World”.

And now it is happening all over Europe. The far-far-right is making gains almost everywhere and threatens to get voted into power. Moderate Presidents and Prime Ministers resign or get kicked out. With the notable exception of Germany and Austria, which seem to have learned their lesson, fascism and populism are gaining ground all around.

Why, for God’s sake?

COUNTRIES ARE different from each other. Every local political scene is unique. So it is easy to find local reasons for the results of every local election and plebiscite.

But when the same thing is happening all over the place, in many countries and almost simultaneously, one is compelled to look for a common denominator, a reason that applies to all these diverse phenomena.

It is nationalism.

What we are witnessing now is a rebellion of nationalism against the trend towards a post-nationalist, regionalist and globalist world.

This trend has practical reasons. In most fields of human endeavor, larger and larger units are required.

Industries and financial institutions demand large units. The larger the unit, the more rational the economy. A country with a market of ten million cannot compete with a market of a billion people. Centuries ago, this trend compelled little regions like Bavaria or Catalonia to join national states like Germany and Spain.

Nowadays, the economic lives of billions is determined by anonymous, trans-national corporations, which reside nowhere and everywhere, far beyond the comprehension of ordinary people.

At the same time, the information revolution has created ever-larger communities of knowledge. Five hundred years ago, it was rare for a peasant in Europe to move beyond the next village. Travel was expensive, only aristocrats had horses, a carriage ride to the large town was out of reach for most people. For the same reason, it was impossible to move goods over long distances. People ate what could be grown locally. News traveled slowly, if at all.

Nowadays, wherever you live you hear about Austrian election results or a coup in Sudan within minutes. The world has become a village.

Almost everyone has an internet connection, he or she can converse with almost everyone else on the globe, while scientists in many places probe deep into the universe.

In this new world, the nation-state has become an empty shell, a flag, a rousing anthem, a football team, a stamp which is used less and less.

HOWEVER, THE end of the era of the nation-state has not put an end to nationalism. Far from it.

The human mind changes much slower than material circumstances. It limps at least three or four generations behind, clinging to outdated ideas and ideals, while political, economic and military realities race ahead.

Modern nationalism arose only some two or three centuries ago. It is a comparatively recent invention. Some believe that it was created by the French revolution. A notable historian argued that it was created by the Spanish settlers in South America, who wanted to get rid of Spanish imperialism and constitute themselves as independent nations.

Be that as it may, nationalism quickly became the dominant force in the world. By the end of World War I, it had broken up the old empires and created a dozen new nation-states. World War II finished the job.

The nation state stands on two legs: the material and the spiritual. The material need to create larger markets and defend them against other large markets was obvious. The spiritual need of belonging to a human group was less so.

Actually, this need is as old as the human race itself. People had to stick together to defend themselves against other people, they had to cooperate in hunting and planting. They lived in large families, then in tribes, then in kingdoms and republics. Social forms evolved and changed throughout the ages, until the modern nation superseded all other forms.

For most people, the need to belong to a nation is a profound psychological need. People create a national culture, often speak a national language. People are ready to die for their nation.

Great modern movements tried to overcome nationalism in favor of other ideologies. Communism was a prominent example. The proletariat has no fatherland. Yet in its hour of greatest danger, under the onslaught of super-nationalist fascism, the Soviet Union forsook the “Internationale” and adopted a national anthem, and Stalin proclaimed the Great Patriotic War. Later, the internationalist Soviet Union broke up and Russia reverted to pure nationalism, personified by Vladimir Putin.

I believe that what we are witnessing now is a world-wide reaction against supra-nationalism and globalism. People don’t want to be citizens of the world, nor, it seems, even Europeans or North Americans. A few idealists may march ahead, but ordinary people stick to their nation. They want to be Frenchmen, Poles or Hungarians.

This is a need that comes from below. The “elites”, the well educated and the rich may look further and embrace the new realities, but the “lower classes” everywhere cling to their national values. It’s the only thing they have to cling to. The proletariat has a fatherland. More than anyone else.

This is even more true in countries that have a sizable national minority. The “lowest” class of the dominant nation is the fiercest nationalist and even fascist political force. The polite term for this is “populism”.

IS ISRAEL following the same trend? You bet.

Indeed, Israelis can take pride in the fact that it happened here even before Brexit and Trump.

Israel is now firmly in the grip of a far-right, xenophobic, anti-peace, annexationist government, which includes thinly disguised fascists. Binyamin Netanyahu sometimes seems almost moderate compared to some of his allies and adherents.

Israel was created by Zionism, a revolutionary movement that survived many other 20th century revolutions. Zionism was a nationalist movement without a nation. Its founders had to invent a nation that did not exist before. It had to turn a dispersed, ethnic-religious community, that had survived for thousands of years in a changing world, into a modern nation. The founders of Zionism saw this as the only answer to anti-Semitism, which was the bastard daughter of modern European nationalism.

Even the name of this nation is debatable. Is it a Jewish nation? A Hebrew nation, as some of us preferred to call it? An Israeli nation? And where does that leave the millions of Jews, who would not dream of immigrating to Israel, or the 20% of Israeli citizens, who claim to belong to the Palestinian nation, which has (as of now) no state?

This shaky ideological ground has created a Jewish-Hebrew-Israeli nationalism that is stronger and fiercer than most.

NEITHER IN Israel nor anywhere else does a progressive, peace-loving movement have any chance of success, if it is conceived as antagonistic to nationalism.

I have believed so all my life. I have always defined myself as a nationalist. I believe that there is no basic contradiction between nationalism and internationalism. Indeed, inter-nationalism means, literally, cooperation between nations.

As an Israeli nationalist I believe in the rights of other peoples to cling to their own national values. This means first of all respect for the Palestinian people and their right to a national state of their own, side by side with Israel.

The Israeli peace movement must first of all assert their national credentials. Indeed, we are the true nationalists. We want Israel to flourish in peace and security, while the pseudo-nationalists who are in power now are leading us to disaster. Let’s not allow the fascists to steal nationalism from us.

Some prefer to call themselves “patriots”, rather than nationalists. But patria means fatherland. It means the same.

As Israeli nationalists, we must strive for the solidarity of all nations in our region, and join the march towards a world order where all nations can flourish.

I would advise all our sister movements throughout the world to do the same, and thus break the dark wave that threatens to submerge us all.

By N. Sathiya Moorthy*

In his November 8 address to the nation on demonetisation of higher denomination currencies, Prime Minister Narendra Modi mentioned terrorists circulating counterfeit notes in these denominations as part of their cross-border strategy. The Government, starting with the Prime Minister, have since begun campaigning even more for cashless transactions as a way to stamping out black money in a big way, even if only over time.

Combined together, the two issues may raise more questions for the Government to address than at the time of introducing demonetisation, if only to ensure that hiccups of the kind do not resurface. That is to say that cashless transaction should not become a victim of cross-border terrorists and their bosses, and the latter’s brothers elsewhere, to use cyber methods to wreck Indian economy even more than counterfeit currency may have done in the past.

Ahead of demonetisation, public sector State Bank of India (SBI) was reported to have been hit by ‘theft’ of credit/debit card data, of over three million customers. SBI reportedly has the largest network of branches, and the numbers would have gone up after the merger of some weak affiliated banks with the parent not very long ago. Though the Bank replaced the ‘stolen’ cards in double quick-time, some of the customer-apprehensions also got diluted, first owing to poor news coverage, and later through the ‘shock’ and secrecy surrounding demonetisation.

The ‘theft’ of bank-data of millions of customers is only a recent instance of how in this era of wire-transfers en route to an era of cashless transaction, customer-confidence could be shattered by an even more determined ‘data terrorist’ in the place of a ‘data thief’. Pranksters and hackers have always been at such mischief, but motivated, State-sponsored initiators of cross-border terrorism would find it all an opportunity, and also a challenge, to go at it with full and repeated vigour, if only to shatter India’s confidence, and also that of ordinary Indians in themselves.

It’s not unlikely in such scenarios and worse, cyber-terrorists could wantonly indulge in huge transfer of funds from someone’s account to that of so many others, without any being wiser to it. It can become even more embarrassing if in the light of such ‘unreported’ transactions of the side of the ‘impacted’ individual or corporate, departmental officials keen on proving the Government more correct than already, could launch tax proceedings on specific issues and concerns.

Ghost hoarders

Already, we are now faced with ‘ghost hoarders’, declaring 13,600 crores in one place, and Rs 2-lakh crores, elsewhere. This does not mean that the Government should slow down on either – encouraging cashless transaction on the one hand, and discouraging pranksters and ‘ghost-hoarders’, on the others. The SOP used to address issues of physical terrorism applies here too. That is to say, the security agencies have to get it right all the time, and ahead of the event. The terrorist has to get it right only once.

Tracking down an individual, instead of a group, could also become as much difficult in the case of cyber-terrorism as with acts of physical terrorism. ‘Lone wolf’ cyber-terrorists could even conduct dry-runs before launching a massive attack, and again no one might be wiser to it before the event. Reconstructing a terror-attack of whatever kind for education is one thing, but stalling one before the attack is entirely another.

Counterfeit terror

As PM Modi rightly pointed out in his demonetisation address, Pakistan-based terror groups and their ISI bosses have been indulging in circulating counterfeit currency across the country for a long time now. According to reports, the recent upswing in stone-throwing in the Kashmir Valley owe to the ready availability of counterfeit Indian currency in the hands of the local ‘motivators’ of those violent protests, targeting the security agencies.

There was definitely a lull in the street activities following demonetisation but it has not obviously ended targeted terror attacks on Army camps and other high-value assets. Giving a fair assessment of the security details involved in the new denomination/series of high-value currency put in circulation since the PM’s declaration, counterfeit terrorists might have been unsettled to an extent, as were their Indian hoarder-counterparts.

However, security agencies, including those now involved more directly in currency security, have to be more active than ever, to ensure that there is no repeat – or, at least an early repeat. In the past again, the demonetised currency did carry a lot of security features, some of them irreplaceable or duplicated. Yet the acknowledged fact that counterfeit currency was in circulation in a big way implies that it could happen in the case of the new currencies – sooner or later.

It may not stop there. Though it’s imaginary up to a point, such efforts could become imaginative in the hands of India’s adversaries. Indians should not be surprised, if there is a series of seizures of hoarded new currency from across the country in the coming weeks and months. India’s adversaries might want to weaken the nation’s confidence just now, by resorting to such tactics. It could include tipping off and/or providing ‘actionable intelligence’ to the lower level police about hidden hoards of counterfeit currency.

Likewise, Government leaders have been talking about demonetisation helping to end Naxalite and other militant funding, going beyond cross-border terrorism. In this, State-level intelligence and police may have to look at the possibilities of Naxalites ‘threatening’ locals, big and small, to ‘white-wash’ the demonetised in their hands, including that they might have collected as ransom over decades. They should also look at the future possibilities of such militant groups returning to an era of fresh ‘abductions’ for ransom, and in ‘new currency’.

The question thus should be for the security agencies to frame plans to neutralise such possibilities through a series of checks and balances, and also interceptions, not only of communication but also of huge cash, if it became necessary. Beforehand, the people should also be educated as to what it all was meant for. Having acknowledged the need for demonetisation as a part of the Government’s determined drive against black money, people may cooperate even more, after all.

If in the process, such interceptions helped in reducing black-money transactions and hoarding (as has been happening during election-time over the past decade and more), it’s an additional boon in the nation’s fight against the ‘dark economy’. In this process, the Government has to ensure beforehand that the current efforts and future experimentation do not become a further source of corruption and harassment of the ordinary man – innocent or otherwise.

Subsidy populism

On the popular front, the PM has since hinted that all the black-money collected from demonetisation would be directly deposited in the bank accounts of the poor, at Rs 10,000-15,000 among the 25-million Jan Dhan account-holders. Such announcements raise expectations even before the Government has had the anticipated hoarded money in its hands. If nothing else, it could become as much a butt of political jokes as Modi’s pre-poll claims of 2014, to deposit Rs 15 lakhs into the accounts of every Indian, by bringing back all black money stacked away in foreign banks.

There is the larger economic question that involves the persistent efforts at the withdrawal of subsidies to the poor, or re-shaping them into direct cash subsidies to target groups. This has been the aim and formula since the economic reforms were ushered in. The Congress-UPA said it was ‘reforms with a human face’, and later related it to ‘aam aadhmi’. Modi has his own ‘Achae din’ slogan.

Yet, the Government should evaluate/re-evaluate the impact of such pumping in of hard cash back into the economy, without creating national assets, employment and re-deployable incomes. In a way, cutting down on subsidies was aimed at doing away with such ‘unproductive’ and ‘wasteful’ expenditure in a phased manner. Barring the Left and regional parties that did not hope to come to power anywhere in the foreseeable future, there was grudging national consensus on the issue – whether implemented or not.

An even more direct political evaluation of the cash-transfer subsidies from the immediate past could relate to the methods and moods of beneficiaries of PM Modi’s ‘Swachh Bharath’ programme, wherein the Government transferred Rs 12,000 per head, directly to Jan Dhan bank-accounts. It’s larger impact on the economy, GDP, GNP and the like also need to be looked into before the Government comes up with even more imaginative cash-transfer schemes.

Cashless transfers and attendant caution apart, the authorities, especially the Election Commission (EC), should revisit the conduct of political parties and their candidates over the past few years, to check if the Jan Dhan accounts were used, misused and abused for ‘direct transfer’ of money under their own ‘cash-for-vote’ kind of schemes. The social media was spiked with reports of the kind during various elections ever since UPA-II had launched the Jan Dhan scheme.

At the time, the Opposition BJP (too) had levelled the charge against the rulers of the day. Maybe, the sweeping BJP-NDA victory in the Lok Sabha polls meant that no one was really concerned about such ‘money transfers’, if any.

In subsequent Assembly elections in some States, more specific charges were doing the rounds. But the focus of the EC and its officers on the ground seemed focussed on cash-transfers and transportation, not cashless transactions, if any, for votes! Now that Income-Tax authorities have found ways and reasons to check individual Jan Dhan accounts to end ‘parking’ menace (involving large sums of other people’s black-money), the EC too could consider learning from their experience!

*The writer is a Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, Chennai Chapter

For years, conservatives have been telling us that a healthy business-friendly economy depends on low taxes, few regulations, and low wages. Are they right?

We’ve had an experiment going on here in the United States that provides an answer.

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

At the other end is California, featuring among the nation’s highest taxes, especially on the wealthy; lots of regulations, particularly when it comes to the environment; and high wages.

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

Actually, it’s just the opposite. For years now, Kansas’s rate of economic growth has been the worst in the nation. Last year its economy actually shrank.  Texas hasn’t been doing all that much better. Its rate of job growth has been below the national average. Retail sales are way down. The value of Texas exports has been dropping.

But what about so-called over-taxed, over-regulated, high-wage California? California leads the nation in the rate of economic growth — more than twice the national average. In other words, conservatives have it exactly backwards.

So why are Kansas and Texas doing so badly? And California so well?

Because taxes enable states to invest in their people – their education and skill-training, great research universities that spawn new industries and attract talented innovators and inventors worldwide, and modern infrastructure.

That’s why California is the world center of high-tech, entertainment, and venture capital.

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

California also provides services to a diverse population including many who are attracted to California because of its opportunities.

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

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

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

California is far from perfect. A housing shortage has been driving rents and home prices into the stratosphere. And roads are clogged. Much more needs to be done.

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

So the next time you hear a conservative say “low taxes, few regulations, and low wages are the keys to economic business-friendly success, just remember Kansas, Texas, and California.

The conservative formula is wrong.

By Joseph M. Ellis*

(FPRI) — When former Estonian Prime Minister Taavi Rõivas appeared on the The Daily Show with Trevor Noah in March 2016, the main topic of conversation was the country’s “e-Estonia” model. The model, well-known in Estonia, is aimed at creating more efficient processes by moving online many traditional “brick and mortar” activities such as voting. While the e-Estonia model might have seemed at first a novelty, it is now central to understanding modern Estonia. Beginning in the early 1980s, Soviet Estonia became the epicenter for technological advancement and software development in the USSR as well as being at the forefront of education policy. With the Soviet collapse in the early 1990s, Estonia moved quickly to take advantage of its technological prowess, and young politicians such as Mart Laar, who created Europe’s first flat tax, became intellectual leaders in Central and Eastern Europe. Estonia has been for some time a darling of foreign commentators from both the right and left. But recent political events in Estonia have dampened much of that optimism.

Two of the greatest champions for policy innovation in Estonia, Toomas Hendrik Ilves and Rõivas, were, at one time, two of the most powerful political figures in the country. Now, Ilves, the former president, has settled into retirement, and Rõivas’s coalition government has collapsed, ousting him as prime minister. This situation has created uncertainty within Estonia and coupled with the election of Donald Trump and his overtures toward Vladimir Putin, has made some Estonians rightly nervous. But the lessons learned from Estonia and the contributions it has made to Western society should not be overlooked.

Since regaining independence, Estonia has been at the cutting edge of innovation, encouraged in large part by what appears to be its political grand strategy: Estonia, its leaders decided, would be a country known for trying new things. In short, Estonia is going beyond simply experimenting with new policy ideas. The country has created an entire political culture centered on innovation highlighted by the “e-Estonia” model. In political science, we might call this a version of policy entrepreneurship. Estonia is “branding” itself an innovation hub.

Primary among these policy innovations was the adoption of a flat tax in 1994 becoming the first country in Europe to reject the traditional method of tax collection. While the flat tax is not an example of technological innovation, the tax was an important signal to the rest of the world that Estonia would now approach political and economic challenges by forging its own path. In subsequent years, Estonia became the first country to use “remote” voting via electronic means, including voting from home on a personal laptop via the internet in 2005 and successfully integrating SMS text-messaging codes to enable voting in 2011. Additionally, it was the first post-Soviet state to join the Eurozone in 2011 and the first country to teach HTML coding in its elementary schools in 2012. Estonia’s successes in educational policy, including math and science achievement, were recognized in a recent Atlantic article entitled “Is Estonia the New Finland?”  In addition to these “technological and educational firsts,” Estonia has been a leader of the “e-government” model. The premise of the government’s “e-Estonia” approach is that government business can be conducted more efficiently, more sustainably, and more democratically if it is done online. The model is possible because of Estonia’s unique national ID card, which “plugs” Estonians into a national database, making everything from paying taxes to voting accessible in an online environment. This identification card includes an encrypted chip which can be placed into a card reader – like a credit card reader – and then plugged into a laptop or desktop computer. Alternatively, there is also a digital ID pin, or Digi-ID, which can be inputted directly into a phone or tablet and then can be used to perform any electronic task. A Digi-ID can accomplish any task (paying taxes or a bus fare)  requiring only a digital signature, whereas a physical ID card is needed for any function that requires facial identification.

Innovation in Estonia has not been limited to the public sector. In the private sector, Estonians have emphasized technological and telecommunication innovation. The country was one of the first countries to have widespread and accessible Wi-Fi, supplied in cooperation with private businesses, including restaurants, bookstores, and coffee shops. Skype, the video communication program, is one of the most notable Estonian success stories. Estonian businesses developed the software that enabled Skype to flourish; many of Skype’s corporate offices are still located in Estonia.

The interplay between the public and private sector in creating an innovation environment in Estonia cannot be understated. Two examples demonstrate this point. First, in a recent interview with the Guardian, President Ilves remarked that because of Estonia’s small size and educational heritage, focusing government resources on technology made sense. Ilves saw a future for Estonia as a tech savvy, computer-driven society. As the Innovation Policy Platform, a website which tracks trends on innovation, noted about Estonia: “Over 2014-2020, the government has allocated $155 million for the Entrepreneurs’ Development Program and Innovation Voucher scheme, $87 million for various entrepreneurship schemes, and $12.7 million for innovation start-ups.”

Second, Estonia’s innovations are of clear relevance to developing greater online security measures. In 2007, the Estonian government faced a cyber-attack launched by Russian nationals living in Estonia and abroad. Following the attack, Estonia invested heavily in preventative measures meant to bolster online security. These efforts did not go unnoticed. In 2008, NATO established its Center for Cyber Defense in Tallinn. Estonia’s commitment to a widespread, active and safe online environment dates to the mid-1990s when the Tiger Leap Foundation (Tiigrihüpe in Estonian) was established. The foundation allotted money in the government budget to creating and improving computer networks throughout Estonia, especially as it pertained to education. Overall, internet safety, efficiency, and freedom are a prominent part of the modern Estonian story. Estonia’s online environment has been named by multiple publications and outlets as one of the freest and safest in the world, surpassing even the online environments of the United States and Western Europe.

How did Estonia, a relatively small country with minimal resources, achieve such success? The explanation for Estonia’s innovativeness is not straightforward. In many respects, Estonia seems an unlikely place for innovation. It had many problems to sort out from years of Soviet occupation, including revenue collection, welfare policy, security, and infrastructure. Second, its experience under Soviet control seriously hampered opportunities for innovation for 50 years. While Estonia was central to the USSR’s education and technology sphere, everyday Estonians could not always influence these strategies, policies, and frameworks, as orders still extended from Moscow outward. Third, Estonia is small and linguistically and culturally unique, initially cutting it off from the knowledge centers of Western Europe and the United States. Yet, Estonia today innovates. Why? There are several factors that have allowed it to become a policy trailblazer.

First, Estonia was unusually quick to “open” to the world after the fall of the Soviet Union. Not long after the fall, it welcomed Western intellectuals, business leaders, and policy experts. Estonia was neither a provincial backwater nor a fiercely nationalistic country that shunned outsiders. It became a magnet for ideas and visionaries from around the world. The influence of transnational ideas was (and remains) influential in Estonian political and economic dialogue. Second, Estoniais blessed with a successful neighbor—Finland. It shares a linguistic tradition with Estonia, and the country has inspired Estonians since the Soviet days when Estonians would angle satellites to pick up Western news coming from Helsinki.  The influence of Finland cannot be underestimated in the Estonian innovation story, given that Finland itself has its own innovation narrative. Anyone who has ever played Angry Birds can thank the developers at Finnish-based Rovio Entertainment.

Third, Estonia had a relatively smooth and peaceful democratic transition, something not true of many other post-Soviet states including Moldova, Belarus, and Ukraine. This peaceful transition was possible largely due to the absence of severe political and ideological cleavages in Estonia. This smooth transition enabled reformers both in the public and private sector to operate without excessive political conflict. Fourth, Estonia’s youthful political environment allowed politicians and bureaucrats to take chances with new ideas. In short, a new country such as Estonia does not have to deal with the kinds of entrenched interests and ideologies that exist in older and more mature countries such as those in Western Europe and the United States. Additionally, the general youthfulness of the Estonian political environment has enabled new ideas to foment: Mart Laar was 31 when he became Prime Minister, and Rõivas was 34, for example. This is not to say that there was a complete absence of political infighting in Estonia or that the legacy of socialist ideas disappeared with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Indeed, the political differences between powerful politicians such as the left-leaning Edgar Savisaar and right-leaning Mart Laar were obvious in the early 1990s, especially over issues like the flat tax. Broadly speaking, however, many of the innovation initiatives have received support across all political movements in Estonia.

Finally, in Estonia, innovation has led to more innovation. Estonia has inculcated a national culture of innovation. Citizens and government officials alike take pride in their international renown for being “first” or innovative. This “political self-awareness” continues to affect Estonian policymakers who do not fear being punished by voters for trying new things or taking risks.

The technical, educational, and political innovations of what Western journalists have referred to as “tiny Estonia” are becoming less and less of a secret. And yet, certain recent remarks coming from American politicians, like former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s comments regarding Estonia’s position as akin to a “suburb of St. Petersburg” very much discount what Estonia offers to Americans looking for a new political model. Ignoring the geopolitical implications of Gingrich’s comment, the inference is clear: Estonia is a generic, Russian territory with no global influence. Estonia’s innovation policies and experience tell a different story, one which is at once both interesting and laudable and worthy of serious consideration to emulate. Estonians should hope the administration of the President-Elect Trump sees it this way, too.

About the author:
*Joseph M. Ellis is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Wingate University in Wingate, North Carolina. He received his B.A. from Winthrop University and his M.A. and Ph.D from Temple University, all in the discipline of political science. His research interests include the Baltic States, Scandinavia, and Russia.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

By Conn Hallinan*

US President-elect Donald Trump’s off the cuff, chaotic approach to foreign policy had at least one thing going for it, even though it was more the feel of a blind pig rooting for acorns than a thought-out international initiative. In speaking with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the New York Times reported, Trump said he wanted “to address and find solutions” to Pakistan’s problems.

And what big problems they are.

Whether Trump understands exactly how dangerous the current tensions between Pakistan and India are, or if anything will come from the November 30 exchange between the two leaders, is anyone’s guess. But it’s more than the Obama administration has done over the past eight years, in spite of the outgoing president’s 2008 election promise to address the on-going crisis in Kashmir.

Right now that troubled land is the single most dangerous spot on the globe.

War, Famine, and Radiation

India and Pakistan have fought three wars over the disputed province in the past six decades and came within a hair’s breadth of a nuclear exchange in 1999. Both countries are on a crash program to produce nuclear weapons, and between them they have enough explosive power to not only kill more than 20 million of their own people, but also to devastate the world’s ozone layer and throw the Northern Hemisphere into a nuclear winter — with a catastrophic impact on agriculture worldwide.

According to studies done at Rutgers, the University of Colorado-Boulder, and the University of California-Los Angeles, if both countries detonated 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs, it would generate between 1 and 5 million tons of smoke. Within 10 days, that would drive temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere down to levels too cold for wheat production in much of Canada and Russia. The resulting 10 percent drop in rainfall — especially in Asian locales that rely monsoons — would exhaust worldwide food supplies, leading to the starvation of up to 100 million or more people.

Aside from the food crisis, a nuclear war in South Asia would destroy between 25 to 70 percent of the Northern Hemisphere’s ozone layer, resulting in a massive increase in dangerous ultraviolent radiation.

Cold Start, Hot War

Lest anyone think that the chances of such a war are slight, consider two recent developments.

One, a decision by Pakistan to deploy low-yield tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons and to give permission for local commanders to decide when to use them.

In an interview with the German newspaper Deutsche Welle, Gregory Koblentz of the Council on Foreign Relations warned that if a “commander of a forward-deployed nuclear armed unit finds himself in a ‘use it or lose it’ situation and about to be overrun, he might decided to launch his weapons.”

Pakistan’s current defense minister, Muhammad Asif, told Geo TV, “If anyone steps on our soil and if anyone’s designs are a threat to our security, we will not hesitate to use those [nuclear] weapons for our defense.”

Every few years the Pentagon “war games” a clash between Pakistan and India over Kashmir. Every game ends in a nuclear war.

The second dangerous development is the “Cold Start” strategy by India that would send Indian troops across the border to a depth of 30 kilometers in the advent of a terrorist attack like the 1999 Kargill incident in Kashmir, the 2001 terrorist attack on the Indian parliament, or the 2008 attack on Mumbai that killed 166 people.

Since the Indian army is more than twice the size of Pakistan’s, there would be little that Pakistanis could do to stop such an invasion other than using battlefield nukes. India would then be faced with either accepting defeat or responding.

India doesn’t currently have any tactical nukes, only high yield strategic weapons — many aimed at China — whose primary value is to destroy cities. Hence a decision by a Pakistani commander to use a tactical warhead would almost surely lead to a strategic response by India, setting off a full-scale nuclear exchange and the nightmare that would follow in its wake.

A Regional Arms Race

With so much at stake, why is no one but a Twitter-addicted foreign policy apprentice saying anything? What happened to President Obama’s follow through to his 2008 statement that the tensions over Kashmir “won’t be easy” to solve, but that doing so “is important”?

A strategy of pulling India into an alliance against China was dreamed up during the administration of George W. Bush, but it was Obama’s “Asia Pivot” that signed and sealed the deal. With it went a quid pro quo: If India would abandon its traditional neutrality, the Americans would turn a blind eye to Kashmir.

As a sweetener, the U.S. agreed to bypass the global nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow India to buy uranium on the world market, something New Delhi had been banned from doing since it detonated a nuclear bomb in 1974 using fuel it had cribbed from U.S.-supplied nuclear reactors. In any case, because neither India nor Pakistan is a party to the treaty, both should be barred from buying uranium. In India’s case, the U.S. has waived that restriction.

The so-called 1-2-3 Agreement requires India to use any nuclear fuel it purchases in its civilian reactors, but frees it up to use its meager domestic supplies on its nuclear weapons program. India has since built two enormous nuclear production sites at Challakere and near Mysore, where, rumor has it, it is producing a hydrogen bomb. Both sites are off limits to international inspectors.

In 2008, when the Obama administration indicated it was interested in pursuing the 1-2-3 Agreement, then Pakistani Foreign minister Khurshid Kusuni warned that the deal would undermine the Non-Proliferation Treaty and lead to a nuclear arms race in Asia. That is exactly what has come to pass. The only countries currently adding to their nuclear arsenals are Pakistan, India, China, and North Korea.

While Pakistan is still frozen out of buying uranium on the world market, it has sufficient domestic supplies to fuel an accelerated program to raise its warhead production. Pakistan is estimated to have between 110 and 130 warheads already, and it’s projected to have developed 200 by 2020, surpassing the United Kingdom.

India has between 110 and 120 nuclear weapons. Both countries have short, medium, and long-range missiles, submarine ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles, plus nuclear-capable aircraft that can target each other’s major urban areas.

A New Uprising in Kashmir

One problem in the current crisis is that both countries are essentially talking past one another.

Pakistan does have legitimate security concerns. It has fought and lost three wars with India over Kashmir since 1947, and it’s deeply paranoid about the size of the Indian army.

But India has been the victim of several major terrorist attacks that have Pakistan’s fingerprints all over them. The 1999 Kargill invasion lasted a month and killed hundreds of soldiers on both sides. Reportedly the Pakistanis were considering arming their missiles with nuclear warheads until the Clinton administration convinced them to stand down.

Pakistan’s military has long denied that it has any control over terrorist organizations based in Pakistan, but virtually all intelligence agencies agree that, with the exception of the country’s home-grown Taliban, that is not the case. The Pakistani army certainly knew about a recent attack on an Indian army base in Kashmir that killed 19 soldiers.

In the past, India responded to such attacks with quiet counterattacks of its own, but this time around the right-wing nationalist government of Narendra Modi announced that the Indian military had crossed the border and killed more than 30 militants. It was the first time that India publicly acknowledged a cross-border assault.

Meanwhile the Indian press has whipped up a nationalist fervor that has seen sports events between the two countries cancelled and a ban on using Pakistani actors in Indian films. The Pakistani press has been no less jingoistic.

In the meantime, the situation in Kashmir has gone from bad to worse. Early in the summer Indian security forces killed Burhan Wani, a popular leader of the Kashmir independence movement. Since then the province has essentially been paralyzed, with schools closed and massive demonstrations. Thousands of residents have been arrested, close to 100 killed, and hundreds of demonstrators wounded and blinded by the widespread use of birdshot by Indian security forces.

Indian rule in Kashmir has been singularly brutal. Between 50,000 and 80,000 people have died over the past six decades, and thousands of others have been “disappeared” by security forces. While in the past the Pakistani army aided the infiltration of terrorist groups to attack the Indian army, this time around the uprising is homegrown. Kashmiris are simply tired of military rule and a law which gives Indian security forces essentially carte blanche to terrorize the population.

Called the Special Powers Act — modeled after a British provision to suppress of Catholics in Northern Ireland and mirroring practices widely used by the Israelis in the Occupied Territories — the law allows Indian authorities to arrest and imprison people without charge and gives immunity to Indian security forces.

Avenues to Peace

As complex as the situation in Kashmir is, there are avenues to resolve it. A good start would be to suspend the Special Powers Act and send the Indian Army back to the barracks.

The crisis in Kashmir began when the Hindu ruler of the mostly Muslim region opted to join India when the countries were divided in 1947. At the time, the residents were promised that a UN-sponsored referendum would allow residents to choose India, Pakistan, or independence. That referendum has never been held.

Certainly the current situation cannot continue. Kashmir has almost 12 million people, and no army or security force — even one as large as India’s — can maintain a permanent occupation if the residents don’t want it. Instead of resorting to force, India should ratchet down its security forces and negotiate with Kashmiris for an interim increase in local autonomy.

But in the long run, the Kashmiris should have their referendum — and both India and Pakistan will have to accept the results.

What the world cannot afford is for the current tensions to spiral down into a military confrontation that could easily get out of hand. The U.S., through its aid to Pakistan — $860 million this year — has some leverage, but it cannot play a role if its ultimate goal is an alliance to contain China, a close ally of Pakistan.

Neither country would survive a nuclear war, and neither country should be spending its money on an arms race. Almost 30 percent of Indians live below the poverty line, as do 22 percent of Pakistanis. The $51 billion Indian defense budget and the $7 billion Pakistan spends could be put to far better use.

*Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedge.wordpress.com and middleempireseries.wordpress.com.

For the first time in the history of India’s armed forces, former Indian Air Force Chief S P Tyagi and two others were arrested by the central bureau of Investigation (CNI), which is investigating the Rs 3,600-crore AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter deal case. It is indeed a black day for the armed forces, which prides itself as a non-corrupt organization.

Investigators from Italy first alleged that the Tyagi brothers received bribes to swing the deal in favor of AgustaWestland, a wholly owned subsidiary of Finmeccanica, by tweaking technical requirements of the tender. Tyagi and others are to be produced before the court today.

CBI spokesperson Devpreet Singh said that it was alleged that the Chief of Air Staff (CAS) entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused persons and in 2005, conceded to change IAF’s consistent stand — that service ceiling of VVIP helicopters 6,000 metres was an inescapable operational necessity — and reduced the same to 4,500 metres. Such changes in operational requirements, Singh said, made the private company (AgustaWestland) eligible to participate in the request for proposal for VVIP helicopters.

The UPA government had signed a contract with AgustaWestland International Ltd (AWIL) in 2010 for supply of 12 AW 101 VVIP helicopters at an aggregated price of Rs 3726.96 crore. The government cancelled the deal in January 2014 “on grounds of breach of the pre-contract integrity pact and the agreement” by AWIL.

The CBI has alleged that Indians were paid bribes of Rs 362 crore to swing the deal in favor of AgustaWestland. In the probe it was found that bribes were allegedly paid through a complex web of companies and middlemen based in Italy, UK, Tunisia, Mauritius, Singapore, British Virgin Islands, Switzerland and the UAE. Letters rogatory were sent to these entities and, sources said, the BVI and Tunisia have “partially replied”. The Enforcement Directorate (ED), also investigating the case, also filed chargesheets against Khaitan and alleged middleman Christian Michel.

In 2014 the Italian court investigating the chopper scam had named former chief of the IAF, SP Tyagi in the scam, saying he was bribed by Finmeccanica to sign the deal with AgustaWestland. In 2015, however, Tyagi was acquitted by the Italian court, which said there was no corruption by Indian officials.

The IAF had urged the defence ministry to purchase helicopters capable of flying in high-altitude areas like Siachen and Tiger Hill. After careful evaluation of the AW101, it was ascertained that it was not capable of flying at 6,000 metres above sea level. The alleged middleman in the deal, Guido Haschke, revealed that while AW101 did not meet the technical requirements of the IAF, the deal was signed after Haschke tweaked the contract with the help of his Indian contacts.

The Milan court also took note of conversations between the three middlemen — Carlos Gerosa, Christian Michel and Guildo Haschke — who mention a ‘Mrs Gandhi’ as being the driving force behind the VIP, and her close aides Ahmed Patel and Pranab Mukherjee. In a letter dated 15 March, 2008, Christian Michel wrote to Peter Hulet, the then head of India region sales and liaison for AgustaWestland, saying, “Dear Peter, since Mrs Gandhi is the driving force behind the VIP, she will no longer fly with MI8. Mrs Gandhi and her closest advisers are the aim of the High Commissioner, senior adviser Prime Minister Manmohan Singh obviously the main figure, then there’s Ahmed Patel Secretary.”

The UPA government had then denied all allegations and had claimed it had nothing to hide.

AgustaWestland allegedly paid €30 million in bribes, of which €20 million was routed through Haschke and Carlo Gerosa. A CBI report that came in later said that prior to Tyagi’s appointment as Air Force chief, the IAF had “vehemently opposed” lowering of the altitude requirement. This changed after Tyagi came into the picture and the IAF conceded to reduce altitude requirements, allowing AgustaWestland to re-enter the bidding process.

The Indian armed forces has prided itself in being a non-corrupt organization serving the nation. The arrest of a former Air Force Chief is a big black spot on the armed forces.

With input From agencies

At least 13 people were reportedly killed, and several dozens more injured in two separate blasts which allegedly targeted Turkish security forces in the vicinity of Besiktas stadium in Istanbul.

The explosion killed at least 13 people, Reuters reported, citing security sources. Meanwhile Al Jazeera reported at least 15 casualties.

Meanwhile, Turkish channel NTV said that at least 70 people had been wounded and are now being treated at city hospitals.

According to the Interior Minister, Suleyman Soylu, two separate explosions happened, one outside the stadium and another one near Macka Park. Turkish broadcaster NTV cited the minister as saying that one of the blasts was a suicide bomb. The blast outside the stadium happened at around 10:30pm local time, more than an hour after the end of the match.

The blast likely targeted a riot police bus, the minister said.

“It is thought that it was a car bomb at a point where our special police forces were located, right after the match at the exit where Bursaspor fans left, after the fans departed,” the Guardian quoted Soylu as saying.

Turkish Transport Minister Ahmet Arslan called the explosion outside the stadium a “terrorist” act. He expressed his condolences to the victims’ families on Twitter.

“Two explosions happened Saturday after a football match,” Alaattin Kilic, a reporter from Istanbul, told RT. “The attacks targeted a police bus as it was leaving the stadium after [a] … security job.”

Police, according to the reporter, immediately intervened with water cannon to extinguish the fires caused by the explosion. Rescue units are currently working at the scene, Kilic stressed.

Meanwhile, two witnesses told Reuters they heard two blasts outside the Vodafone Arena.

“It was like hell. The flames went all the way up to the sky. I was drinking tea at the cafe next to the mosque,” said Omer Yilmiz, who works as a cleaner at the nearby Dolmabahce mosque.

“People ducked under the tables, women began crying. Football fans drinking tea at the cafe sought shelter, it was horrible,” he told Reuters.

Coalition warplanes targeted and killed terrorist Boubaker al-Hakim in Raqqa, Syria, Nov. 26, Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said in a Defense Department statement issued Saturday.

Al-Hakim, a Tunisian, was an Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant leader and longtime terrorist with deep ties to French and Tunisian jihadist elements, Cook said in the statement.

The deceased terrorist is also suspected of involvement in the 2013 terror attacks against Tunisian political leadership, Cook added.

Al-Hakim’s death degrades ISIL’s ability to conduct further attacks in the West and denies ISIL a veteran extremist with extensive ties, Cook said in the statement.
Cook said the coalition will continue to track and eliminate ISIL terrorists who threaten the United States and its allies.

Speaking this week with host Kennedy at Fox Business, US House Member Thomas Massie (R-KY) insisted that Donald Trump’s performance as president should be judged according to whether Trump adheres to the nonaggression principle that Massie describes as “the heart of libertarian principles.” Massie proceeded in the interview to define briefly the nonaggression principle as that “you don’t attack somebody if they don’t attack you.”

Massie volunteered that the thing he is most optimistic about with Trump having won the presidency “is we’re not going to war with Russia.” Massie continued that such a war may have been in the future if Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton had won the election. Further, Massie expressed optimism regarding some of Trump’s Cabinet choices, saying, “I wouldn’t call any of them libertarian yet, but, on the spectrum of smaller government or bigger government, I personally know some of them and they’re definitely small-government-type people.”

Referencing Trump’s 2016 Republican National Convention speech, Massie also said it “sort of warmed my heart” when Trump “took a swipe at the World Trade Organization.” Massie elaborated that “libertarians are for sovereignty and sovereign nations, and we don’t think we should subject US citizens to world government.”

Watch here the complete interview, including Massie’s comments regarding a report suggesting Trump may appoint Massie to be either the secretary of energy or the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP):

Massie is a member of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Advisory Board.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

President-elect Donald Trump has announced he will nominate retired Marine General James Mattis to be the 26th secretary of defense.

By Heidi M. Peters*

The US Secretary of Defense, who has authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense, is a civilian appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Section 113 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code provides that “[a] person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.” Such statutory qualification provisions are created by law, and thus may also be waived—or temporarily suspended for the benefit of a specific individual—by law on a case-by-case basis.

Since the establishment of the position of Secretary of Defense by the National Security Act of 1947, CRS has been able to identify one instance of Congress acting to waive this provision. Enacted on September 18, 1950, at the special request of President Truman during a time of war, P.L. 81-788 authorized the waiver of certain statutory requirements otherwise prohibiting General of the Army George C. Marshall from serving as the Secretary of Defense.

National Security Act of 1947 and Recent Changes

The principle of civilian control of the military places ultimate authority over the U.S. armed services in the hands of civilian leadership, with civilian responsibility and control of the military balanced between the executive and legislative branches of the government. The National Security Act of 1947 directed the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to position a civilian Secretary of Defense at the head of a newly unified national military establishment.

As enacted, Section 202 of the National Security Act of 1947 stipulated that a person “who has within ten years been on active duty as a commissioned officer in a Regular component of the armed services shall not be eligible for appointment as Secretary of Defense.” This provision emerged from conference negotiations in July 1947—while both the House and Senate bills required the Secretary of Defense to be a civilian appointed by the President, the House bill specified that the Secretary of Defense “shall not have held a commission in a Regular component of the armed services.” Historic congressional documentation is silent on the specifics of the conference committee’s rationale in reaching this compromise; however, historians and observers—including statements made by Members of Congress during congressional consideration of P.L. 81-788 in 1950—have tended to interpret this statutory mandate as ensuring an unambiguous break between an individual’s active duty military career and service as a civilian Secretary of Defense.

In 2007, Section 903 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-181) reduced the time delay between an individual’s retirement from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of the armed services and eligibility for service as Secretary of Defense from 10 to 7 years.

Appointment of General George Marshall as Secretary of Defense in 1950

On September 13, 1950, President Harry Truman forwarded a legislative proposal to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees that sought to authorize General of the Army George C. Marshall to serve as Secretary of Defense.

While the measure had the support of many Members, it encountered significant and, at times, heated opposition by other Members, both at the committee and floor levels in each chamber. Supporters of the bill contended that the crisis of the ongoing Korean War justified making an exception to the relevant statutes for General Marshall, who was viewed as uniquely qualified for the position. Opponents of the measure asserted that the principle of civilian control over the military superseded all other considerations, including General Marshall’s personal qualifications and the pressure of external circumstances.

As enacted, P.L. 81-788 temporarily suspended certain requirements associated with two statutory provisions specifically and only for General Marshall’s nomination. These requirements would have either automatically made General Marshall ineligible for nomination due to an insufficient period of time elapsing between his military service and appointment as Secretary of Defense, or would have forced him to relinquish his commission as an active duty Army officer in order to serve as Secretary of Defense.

P.L. 81-788 also included a nonbinding section outlining congressional intent in providing Truman with the authority to nominate General Marshall:

It is hereby expressed as the intent of the Congress that the authority granted by this Act is not to be construed as approval by the Congress of continuing appointments of military men to the office of Secretary of Defense in the future. It is hereby expressed as the sense of the Congress that after General Marshall leaves the office of Secretary of Defense, no additional appointments of military men to that office shall be approved.

Following a September 19, 1950, confirmation hearing, the Senate voted to confirm General Marshall’s nomination to the office of Secretary of Defense on September 20, 1950, by a vote of 57-11, with 28 Senators not voting.

About the author:
* Heidi M. Peters, Research Librarian (hpeters@crs.loc.gov

Source:
This article was published by CRS as CRS INSIGHT IN10613 (PDF).

Mexico is one of the largest producers of petroleum and other liquids in the world. Mexico is also the fourth-largest producer in the Americas after the United States, Canada, and Brazil, and an important partner in U.S. energy trade. In 2015, Mexico accounted for 688,000 barrels per day (b/d), or 9%, of U.S. crude oil imports.

Mexico’s oil production has steadily decreased since 2005 as a result of natural production declines from Cantarell and other large offshore fields. In August 2014 in an effort to address the declines of its domestic oil production, the Mexican government enacted constitutional reforms that ended the 75-year monopoly of Petroleós Mexicanos (PEMEX), the state-owned oil company.

The role of the petroleum sector as a component of Mexico’s economy has decreased significantly in recent years as a result of tax reform, the drop in oil prices, and diversification of the Mexican economy.¹ The oil sector generated only 6% of the country’s export earnings in 2015, down from about 30% in 2009, according to Mexico’s central bank.² The 2015 federal budget was based on Mexican crude oil being valued at $79 per barrel (/b), although Mexican Maya crude oil averaged about $46/b in 2015.³ However, Mexico regularly hedges a price for their oil production, and in 2015 the country secured a price of $76.40/b, thus earning a windfall profit of $6.4 billion.⁴ The price for 2016 oil exports was hedged at $49/b and the 2017 price at $42/b, while the proposed 2017 federal budget will assume crude oil prices to average $35/b in 2017.⁵

Mexico’s total energy consumption in 2015 (Figure 2) consisted mostly of petroleum (46%), followed by natural gas (40%). Natural gas is increasingly replacing oil in electric power generation. Projected increases in natural gas consumption are resulting in plans to many new pipelines to import natural gas from the United States. All other fuel types contribute relatively small amounts to Mexico’s overall energy mix, although the country also has set goals for increased renewable energy generation capacity.

Petroleum and other liquids

Mexico’s oil production has declined over the past decade, as has the country’s position as a net oil exporter to the United States.

Mexico produced an average of 2.6 million barrels per day (b/d) of petroleum and other liquids in 2015 (Figure 3). Crude oil accounted for 2.3 million b/d, or 86%, of total output, with the remainder attributed to lease condensate, natural gas liquids, and refinery processing gain. Mexico’s total oil production has declined substantially, falling 32% from its peak in 2004. Notably, crude oil production in 2015 was at its lowest level since 1981 and has continued to decline in 2016. Mexico is a significant crude oil exporter, the third largest in the Americas, but the country is a net importer of refined petroleum products. The United States, is the destination for most of Mexico’s crude oil exports and the source of most of its refined product imports.

Sector organization and reforms

Mexico nationalized its oil sector in 1938, and PEMEX was created as the sole oil operator in the country. PEMEX is the largest company in Mexico and one of the largest oil companies in the world. Mexico’s energy sector is regulated by the Secretaría de Energía (SENER). The Comisión Nacional de Hidrocarburos (CNH) serves as the governing body for exploration and production of hydrocarbons.

After years of declining production, Mexico instituted significant energy reforms. In December 2013, the Mexican government enacted constitutional reforms ending PEMEX’s monopoly on the oil and natural gas sector and opening the industry to greater foreign investment. The reforms allow for new contract models for exploration and production including: licenses, production-sharing, profit-sharing, and service contracts. Previously, foreign firms were only allowed to participate in service contracts where companies were paid for services and were not allowed shares or profits derived from the hydrocarbon resources.

PEMEX remains state-owned, but is being given more budgetary and administrative autonomy and will have to compete for bids with other firms on new projects. As stipulated by the reforms, PEMEX was allowed first refusal on developing Mexican resources before private companies began bidding. This phase was known as Round Zero and resulted in PEMEX being awarded the right to develop 83% of Mexico’s proved and probable oil reserves and 21% of total prospective resources.⁶ The reforms also call for expanding the regulatory authorities of SENER and CNH, and for creating a new environmental protection agency, the Agencia de Seguridad, Energía y Ambiente (ASEA).

In 2015, the Mexican government held the three auction phases as part of Round One, offering onshore and offshore blocks for exploration and production to private investors. Low crude oil prices and the auction rules led to disappointing results in the first auction.⁷ Subsequent phases of Round One were more successful after auction rules were adjusted to promote more bidding on the offerings. The fourth auction phase of Round One will occur in December 2016 and includes the lucrative deepwater blocks, which are expected to draw more attention from the major international oil companies. Round Two of auctions commenced in July 2016, offering 15 shallow water blocks in the Gulf of Mexico, followed by 12 onshore blocks.⁸ Bids for phase one of Round Two are due in March 2017.

Reserves

According to the Oil & Gas Journal (OGJ), Mexico had 9.7 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of the end of 2015.⁹ Most reserves consist of heavy crude oil varieties, with the largest concentration occurring offshore of the southern part of the country, particularly the Campeche Basin. There are also sizable reserves in onshore basins in the northern parts of Mexico.

Exploration and production

Most of Mexico’s oil production occurs off the eastern coast of the Bay of Campeche in the Gulf of Mexico, near the states of Veracruz, Tabasco, and Campeche (Figure 4). The two main production centers in the area are Cantarell and Ku-Maloob-Zaap (KMZ). In total, approximately 1.7 million b/d—or three-quarters—of Mexico’s crude oil is produced offshore in the Bay of Campeche. Because of the concentration of Mexico’s oil production offshore, tropical storms or hurricanes passing through the area can disrupt oil operations.

Offshore: Nearly half of Mexico’s oil production comes from two offshore fields in the northeastern region of the Bay of Campeche—Ku-Maloob-Zaap (KMZ) and Cantarell (Figure 5). Another important source of oil production is southwest in the same bay, offshore the state of Tabasco. Most of the oil produced at KMZ and Cantarell is heavy and marketed as Maya blend (API specific gravity of 21 to 22 degrees), while the oil produced offshore Tabasco is a lighter grade.

Cantarell was once one of the largest oil fields in the world, but its output has been declining significantly for a decade. Production at Cantarell began in 1979 but stagnated as a result of falling reservoir pressure. In 1997, PEMEX developed a plan to reverse the field’s decline by injecting nitrogen into the reservoir to maintain pressure, which was successful for a few years. However, production rapidly declined beginning in 2005—initially at extremely rapid rates, and more gradually in recent years. In 2015, Cantarell produced an average of 228,000 b/d of crude oil. This level was about 90% below the peak production level of 2.1 million b/d reached in 2004 and 29% lower than the year before.¹⁰ As production at the field declined, so has its relative contribution to Mexico’s oil sector. Cantarell accounted for just 9% of Mexico’s total crude oil production in 2015, compared with 63% in 2004.¹¹

KMZ, which is adjacent to Cantarell, has emerged as Mexico’s most prolific oil field. Crude oil production nearly tripled between 2004 and 2013, when it reached 864,000 b/d. PEMEX used a nitrogen reinjection program similar to the one used at Cantarell. PEMEX hopes to increase output over the next few years, in part through the development of the anticipated Ayatsil field coming online in 2019. However, views differ about whether the KMZ complex has already reached peak production.

Mexico’s other offshore oil production center is in the southwest in the Bay of Campeche, near the state of Tabasco. In that bay, the Abkatun-Pol-Chuc and Litoral de Tabasco projects, each consisting of several small fields, accounted for a combined average 633,000 b/d of oil production in 2015.¹² The production trajectories of the two oil field complexes differ considerably. Output from Litoral de Tabasco has increased from less than 200,000 b/d in 2008 to 363,000 b/d in May 2016, offsetting some of the declines at Cantarell. Litoral de Tabasco also includes the promising Tsimin and Xux discoveries. Production from Abkatun-Pol-Chuc, on the other hand, has declined considerably from peak levels achieved in the mid-1990s, when output exceeded 700,000 b/d. Production from Abkatun-Pol-Chuc in 2015 averaged less than 300,000 b/d.¹³

In July 2016, SENER announced a tender for a private company to operate a joint-venture with PEMEX to develop the Trion light oil field. The agreement, also known as a farm out, represented the first time PEMEX had offered a production share to private companies.¹⁴

Mexico is believed to possess considerable hydrocarbon resources in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico that have not yet been developed. PEMEX has been drilling deepwater exploratory wells since 2006, making its first significant find in the Perdido Fold Belt, near the U.S. maritime border, in August 2012. In February 2012, the United States and Mexico signed a Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement concerning the development of oil and natural gas reservoirs that extend across their maritime border.¹⁵ The agreement established a cooperative process and legal framework for safely managing and jointly developing transboundary reserves, and ended the moratorium on exploration and production in the transboundary area.

Onshore: Onshore fields account for roughly 25% of Mexico’s total crude oil production. Most of this production is of light or extra-light crude oil from the southern part of the country. The largest oilfield in the south of Mexico is Samaria-Luna, which produced about 145,000 b/d in 2015.¹⁶

The most notable onshore prospect in the north is the Aceite Terciario del Golfo (ATG) project, better known as Chicontepec, which is located northeast of Mexico City. At one point, Chicontepec was expected to produce nearly 1 million b/d, however, the production averaged only 42,000 b/d in 2015, a decline from the peak of 69,000 b/d in 2012.¹⁷ PEMEX was once heavily invested in Chicontepec and promoted it as a potentially significant source of future production. However, after the energy reforms were implemented, PEMEX allowed some of its Chicontepec interests to be included with the bid auction rounds, rather than committing to develop the ATG alone.¹⁸

Mexico has significant shale resources in the Burgos basin near the northern border with the United States, which is similar in geology to the Eagle Ford shale in south Texas. Mexico ranks 8th in the world in shale oil reserves, with 13.1 billion barrels of technically recoverable resources.¹⁹.

Figure 4. Mexico’s oil and natural gas fields. Source: Bentek Energy a unit of Platts

Trade

Crude oil exports: Mexican authorities reported that the country exported 1.17 million b/d of crude oil in 2015, a figure that continues to decline.²⁰ The United States received approximately 59% of Mexico’s crude oil exports, which arrived by tanker.²¹ Most Mexican crude oil exports to the United States are Maya blend. Mexico retains most of the output from its lighter crude streams (Isthmus and Olmeca) for domestic consumption. The United States is likely to attract the bulk of Mexico’s oil exports because of the proximity of the two countries and the operation of sophisticated U.S. Gulf Coast refineries capable of processing heavier Maya crudes.

Mexico is typically among the top exporters of crude oil to the United States (Figure 6). In 2015, the United States imported 688,000 b/d of crude oil from Mexico, behind Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Mexico’s crude oil exports to the United States rose steadily through the 1980s and 1990s, and peaked in 2004 at 1.6 million b/d. U.S. crude oil imports from Mexico have generally declined since 2006, reflecting Mexico’s steady drop in crude oil production and rising domestic fuel demand, along with dramatic increases in U.S. production in recent years.

Refined petroleum product trade

Despite its status as a large crude oil exporter, Mexico is a net importer of refined petroleum products. According to PEMEX, Mexico imported 740,000 b/d of refined petroleum products in 2015, of which 58% was gasoline, and most of the remainder was diesel and liquefied petroleum gases (LPG).²² Mexico was the destination for 50% of U.S. exports of motor gasoline in 2015 (Figure 7).²³

In 2015, Mexico exported 195,000 b/d of refined petroleum products.²⁴ The United States imported 70,000 b/d of that export total, most of which was residual fuel oil, naphtha, and pentanes plus (Figure 8). As with crude oil, U.S. imports of refined petroleum products from Mexico have declined in recent years, from a high of 132,000 b/d in 2010.

Pipelines and export terminals

PEMEX operates an extensive petroleum pipeline network in Mexico that connects major production centers with domestic refineries and export terminals (Figure 9). According to PEMEX, this network consists of pipelines spanning more than 3,000 miles, with the largest concentration occurring in southern Mexico.

Theft of oil from Mexican pipelines often results in environmental damage or occasional explosions. According to PEMEX, there were 4,125 illegal fuel taps in 2014, an increase of 44% from the previous year.²⁵ Sinaloa and Veracruz have been cited as the states most affected by theft in recent years.²⁶

Most of its exports are shipped by tanker from three export terminals on the Gulf Coast in the southern part of the country: Cayo Arcas, Dos Bocas, and the Pajaritos terminal at the port of Coatzacoalcos. Another export terminal is on the Pacific Coast at Salina Cruz.

Figure 9. Mexico – Downstream Infrastructure Map. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

Downstream

Mexico’s total oil consumption remained relatively steady over the past decade, averaging about 1.7 million b/d in 2015. According to Mexican government data, gasoline accounted for roughly 46% of the country’s petroleum product sales in 2015, and diesel accounted for another 23%.²⁷

Mexico’s six refineries, all operated by PEMEX, had a total refining capacity of 1.54 million b/d as of the end of 2015.²⁸ According to PEMEX, refinery output was 1.27 million b/d in 2015, a 9% decline from 2014.²⁹ PEMEX also controls 50% of the 334,000 b/d Deer Park refinery in Texas.

Mexico hopes to reduce its imports of refined products by improving domestic refining capacity and the output quality. In February 2012, PEMEX awarded a contract for the design of a new refinery at Tula, but in December 2014 the company opted for a $4.6 billion expansion of the existing facility. Gasoline and diesel production will increase from 140,000 b/d to 300,000 b/d at Tula when it is completed in 2018.³⁰ Despite this and other expansions, analysts contend that Mexico does not have a natural competitive advantage in refining, given the country’s close proximity to a sophisticated U.S. refining center. Some analysts feel that it would be more productive to apply PEMEX’s limited capital to the upstream sector.

Natural gas

Mexico is a net importer of natural gas, mostly via pipeline from the United States, and its natural gas demand is rising because of expanding power generation capacity.

Mexico has considerable natural gas resources, but its production is modest relative to other North American countries (see Liquid Fuels and Natural Gas in the Americas). The development of Mexico’s shale gas resources is proceeding slowly, while consumption is projected to increase 31% from 2015 to 2029.³¹ Mexico’s import needs are rising as domestic production stagnates and as demand increases, particularly in the electricity sector. Consequently, Mexico will rely on increased pipeline imports of natural gas from the United States and liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from other countries.

Reserves

According to the Oil & Gas Journal, Mexico had 15.3 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of proved natural gas reserves at the end of 2015.³² Although the southern region of the country contains the largest share of proved reserves, the Burgos region in the north has the potential to be the center of growth in future reserves. This region contains 343 Tcf of technically recoverable shale gas resources.³³ Mexico’s shale gas resources could support increased natural gas reserves and production. According to EIA’s assessment of world shale gas resources, Mexico has an estimated 545 Tcf of technically recoverable shale gas resources—the sixth largest of any country examined in the study. The figure of technically recoverable shale gas resources is far smaller than the total resource base because of the geologic complexity and discontinuity of Mexico’s onshore shale zone. While most of Mexico’s shale gas resources are in the northeast and east-central regions of the country, the Burgos Basin, which accounts for most of Mexico’s technically recoverable shale gas resources, is considered to be Mexico’s most promising prospect for natural gas production in the future.

Sector organization

Before the energy reforms of 2013, PEMEX retained a monopoly on natural gas exploration, but the government allowed private participation in nonassociated gas exploration and production. The Mexican government opened the downstream natural gas sector to private operators in 1995, although no single company may participate in more than one downstream function (transportation, storage, or distribution). The Comisión Reguladora de Energía (CRE) was created to monitor the sector.

The newly enacted energy reforms allow for greater outside investment in exploration, production, and other activities in the natural gas sector. The reforms allow for new exploration and production contract models: licenses, production-sharing, profit-sharing, and service contracts. PEMEX will remain state-owned, but it will be given more budgetary and administrative autonomy and will have to compete for bids with other firms on new projects. The reforms also call for expanding the regulatory authorities of SENER and CNH, and for creating a new environmental protection agency, the (ASEA).

As the energy reforms were implemented, Round Zero was held where PEMEX was allowed to submit bids to retain resources before offering them in public auction. PEMEX was awarded 100% of their bids, representing 83% of Mexico’s overall reserves.³⁴

Exploration and production

Mexico produced an estimated 1.4 Tcf of dry natural gas in 2015, a modest decline from the year before (Figure 10). Part of the decline is in response to the higher price of crude oil relative to the price of natural gas, which encouraged PEMEX to favor development of oil.

PEMEX reports that natural gas flaring in the first half of 2016 averaged 562 million cubic feet per day.³⁵ PEMEX and government agencies have prioritized a reduction in natural gas flaring for economic and environmental reasons. Efforts to improve the ability to capture, process, and transport associated natural gas production, particularly at Cantarell, have been effective, and natural gas utilization rates have recently increased.

The geographic distribution of Mexico’s marketed natural gas production is slightly different and more dispersed than it is for oil. According to statistics from PEMEX, nearly three-quarters of Mexico’s natural gas production is from associated oil fields.³⁶ Unlike in the oil sector, the onshore (Samaria-Luna) and offshore fields of Tabasco yield more natural gas than Cantarell or KMZ. More than two-thirds of the country’s nonassociated natural gas production occurrs in the Burgos Basin in the northern part of the country. Most of the remaining production is from nonassociated fields in Veracruz.

Mexico has taken preliminary steps to explore for and produce shale gas, but the country lags behind the United States considerably in terms of the development of its shale gas and tight oil potential. PEMEX produced its first shale gas in early 2011 from an exploratory well in northern Mexico. Later that year, the government announced a discovery in the same region, which could significantly increase the country’s proved natural gas reserves. PEMEX announced in early 2014 that it planned on drilling 10 shale test wells, bringing Mexico’s total to 175, a small figure compared with the more than 27,000 wells drilled across the border in Texas in 2014.³⁷ Although PEMEX has allocated a small share of its budget to shale gas development, the sector is unlikely to grow rapidly without improvement in PEMEX’s financial situation, technical abilities, and terms for investors. However, new rules set by the energy reforms could allow entry of foreign firms to develop Mexico’s shale gas resources.

Trade

Pipeline imports from the United States: Mexico is a net importer of natural gas, with most imports arriving via pipeline from the United States (Figure 11). In 2015, Mexico imported an average of 2.9 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas from the United States, an increase of more than 200% from 2010.³⁸ In April 2016, monthly imports from the United States set another record when they reached 3.4 Bcf/d, following the upward trend in recent years. U.S. natural gas exports to Mexico accounted for 59% of total U.S. natural gas exports in 2015 and were approximately 81% of Mexico’s natural gas imports in 2015.

Mexico is constructing dozens of new natural gas-fired power plants across the country to meet increasing electricity demand. To fuel these new power plants, many natural gas pipelines are being constructed to import larger amounts of natural gas from the United States. Projects to increase natural gas pipeline capacity are underway across the northern part of Mexico, with capacity expected to exceed 7 Bcf/d by 2020.³⁹

Liquefied natural gas

Because of pipeline constraints, Mexico has to meet some of its natural gas demand with liquefied natural gas (LNG). The country imported 251 Bcf of LNG in 2015.⁴⁰ LNG imports were 24% of total natural gas imports in 2015, a steep decline from 46% in 2014.⁴¹ With pipeline capacity expansions underway, LNG imports are expected to continue declining because cheaper natural gas from the United States via pipeline will displace more expensive LNG imports and could possibly lead to LNG exports from Mexico.

Electricity

Mexico is investing in new power plants to increase electricity generation capacity and to transition to natural gas as the main fuel source.

According to SENER, Mexico had 68 gigawatts (GW) of installed generation capacity in 2015.⁴² The country generated an estimated 310 billion kilowatthours (kWh) of electric power in 2015, an increase of 21% from a decade ago.⁴³ Power plants using fossil fuels provided 72% of Mexico’s electricity capacity and 80% of Mexico’s electricity generation (Figure 12) in 2015.

In 2013 the National Energy Strategy outlined by SENER and the Works and Investment Program of the Electricity Sector (POISE) set up by Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE) set a goal to generate 35% of electricity from nonfossil sources by 2024.⁴⁴ During the 2016 American Leaders Summit, which consists of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, all parties agreed on a goal of 50% nonfossil electricity generation across North America by 2025.⁴⁵ According SENER, nonfossil electricity generation accounted for 20% of Mexico’s electricity supply in 2015.⁴⁶

The electricity trade began in 1905 between remote border towns in the United States and Mexico. Privately-owned utilities on both sides of the border helped meet one another’s electricity demand with a few cross-border, low-voltage lines.⁴⁷ Over the years, both countries developed highly regulated and structured electricity sectors, and major and minor cross-border transmission lines were constructed. For a variety of technical and market reasons, U.S.-Mexico electricity trade has remained small compared to the electricity trade between the U.S. and Canada.⁴⁸ Existing electrical interconnections between Mexico and the United States are relatively limited in capacity and are operationally constrained by nonsynchronous cross-border ties, except in the Southern California-Baja California region where new renewable energy projects are coming online and supplying power across the border.⁴⁹

Mexico has been a modest exporter of electricity to the United States since 1990. In 2014, Mexico exported 7.1 billion kWh to the United States, or 11% of total electricity imports.⁵⁰ Electricity sales from Mexico to the United States could increase as the U.S. Department of Energy issued a Presidential Permit in 2012 for construction of a transmission line across the U.S.-Mexico border. The transmission line began commercial use in 2015 and has supplied electricity from Baja California to the southern California market. Mexico also exports smaller amounts of electricity to Belize and Guatemala.

Sector organization

As a result of the recent energy reforms, Mexico is transforming its electricity sector. The state-owned Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE) is still the dominant player in the generation sector, controlling most of the country’s installed generating capacity. After CFE absorbed Luz y Fuerza del Centro in 2009, CFE became the only supplier of retail electricity, although private companies may sell into the wholesale market. The Comisión Reguladora de Energía (CRE) has principal regulatory oversight of the electricity sector, and the Centro Nacional de Control de Energía (CENACE) serves as the grid operator.

The Public Electricity Service Act of 1975 established exclusive federal responsibility over the electricity industry through CFE, but amendments to Mexican law in 1992 partially opened electricity generation to the private sector. Private participation in electricity generation is permitted in certain categories, including construction and operation of private plants for self-supply, cogeneration, small production (under 30 MW), and import/export. Any company seeking to establish private electricity generating capacity or to begin importing and/or exporting electric power must obtain a permit from CRE. As of 2015, independent generators—Productores Independientes de Energía (PIE)—held about 13 GW of generation capacity, or 24% of total capacity, consisting mostly of combined-cycle, natural gas-fired turbines.⁵²

In March 2016, Mexico held the first long-term auction for the development of new electricity generation. Eleven companies were awarded contracts to develop a total of 2.8 gigawatts of new solar and wind generation capacity.⁵³ The second electric power auction resulted in 23 companies being awarded contracts to develop 2.9 GW of electricity. The results were announced on September 28, 2016.⁵⁴

Mexico’s national transmission grid, which is operated by CFE, includes more than 35,906 miles of mostly high- and medium-voltage lines, which cross along three main areas along the U.S.-Mexico border (Figure 13).⁵⁵

Figure 13. Electric transmission crosses U.S.-Mexico border in only a few areas. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

Fossil fuels

Power plants using fossil fuels provide most of Mexico’s electricity generation. Although petroleum products were the leading fuels in Mexico’s electric generation mix, natural gas used for electricity generation has risen rapidly in the past decade as price and availability have made it a more economic fuel source.

Coal consumption in Mexico has leveled out as natural gas consumption increases (Figure 14). Coal represents only 7% of total electricity generation.⁵⁶ Mexico is a net importer of coal, supplying about 80% of its coal demand domestically.

Nuclear

Mexico has one nuclear power plant, Laguna Verde, in Veracruz. The Laguna Verde power plant, which includes two CFE-operated boiling water reactors with a combined generating capacity of 1,510 MW, accounted for 4% of Mexico’s total electricity generation in 2015.⁵⁷ Current operation licenses for the reactors expire in 2020 and 2025, but they are expected to receive extensions.⁵⁸ There are plans to expand Mexico’s nuclear generation capacity by building additional plants; three nuclear power plants are planned and scheduled for operation by 2026, 2027, and 2028.

Renewables

Mexico had 16,406 MW of total renewable energy installed capacity as of 2015, predominantly in hydroelectric, wind, and geothermal capacity.⁶⁰ Mexico invested $4 billion in the renewable energy sector in 2015, more than double the amount invested in 2014.⁶¹

The largest source of renewable power generation is hydroelectric power (Figure 15). Mexico had 12,489 MW of hydroelectric capacity in 2015, which accounted for 18% of the country’s total installed electrical capacity.⁶² Hydroelectricity supplied about 10% of Mexico’s total electricity generation in 2015.⁶³ The largest hydroelectric plant in the country is the 2,400 MW Manuel Moreno Torres, at the Chicoasén dam in Chiapas. In the same river basin as the Chicoasén dam, the Malpaso and Angostura dams have capacities of 1,080 MW and 900 MW of power, respectively.⁶⁴ Another major hydroelectric project, the 750-megawatt La Yesca facility, was completed in November 2012. These larger hydroelectric projects are supplemented by smaller hydroelectric facilities (categorized as lower than 30 MW each) that are being developed by both CFE and the private sector. In 2015, there were 3,000 MW of hydroelectric projects under development, which demonstrates the continuing importance of hydroelectricity in Mexico.⁶⁵

Nonhydro renewables such as wind, geothermal, and solar PV, represented 5% of Mexico’s electricity generation in 2015.⁶⁶ According to SENER, Mexico has 926 MW of geothermal capacity, making the country fifth in terms of global geothermal capacity.⁶⁷ The largest of these geothermal plants is the 720 MW Cerro Prieto Geothermal field in Baja California, the key component of Mexican geothermal generation.⁶⁸ In 2015, Azufres III phase 1 became operational with a capacity of 53 MW. Phase 2 at the Azufres III site will add another 25 MW in capacity by June 2018. The Los Humeros III plant is expected to come online in November 2016 and add 25 MW of capacity.⁶⁹

Solar power has received significant attention in northern Mexico, where the first large-scale solar power project, Aura Solar I, began operations in 2013 with a capacity of 39 MW.⁷⁰ Other solar projects have broken ground, and more proposals are being considered as the cost to generate power using solar begins to compete with natural gas. The electric power auction held in March 2016 awarded contracts for 12 new solar parks.⁷¹

Several wind projects are in development in Mexico’s Baja California and in southern Mexico to boost Mexico’s wind generation capacity from 3 GW in 2015 to 15 GW by 2022.⁷² Approximately 90% of the current wind generation capacity is located in Oaxaca, where the Isthmus of Tehuantepec has especially favorable wind resources and has been a focus of government efforts to increase wind capacity.⁷³ From 2010 to 2013, the Oaxaca region experienced a near 667% increase in wind generation capacity with the additions of five major projects (Oaxaca I,II, III, and IV, and La Venta III), bringing Oaxaca’s wind generation capacity to 1,751 MW.⁷⁴ Continuing the momentum, the Oaxaca region expects an additional 2.5 GW to being operational between 2017 and 2018.⁷⁵ In Baja California, Sempra U.S. Gas & Power is developing the 156 MW Energía Sierra Juarez 1(ESJ) wind farm. Electricity from the wind farm will be exported to the United States on a new transmission line, powering an estimated 65,000 homes in San Diego County, California.⁷⁶ ESJ became commercially operational in 2015 with a potential total capacity of more than 1.2 GW.⁷⁷ With these developments, Mexico is poised to become one of the world’s fastest-growing wind energy producers.

Notes:

• Data presented in the text are the most recent available as of December 9, 2016.
• Data are EIA estimates unless otherwise noted.

Endnotes:

By Iqbal Jassat*

Recent changes effected within parts of South Africa’s mainstream media, may be interpreted differently by consumers. Some may use the glass of water test and come to contrasting positions: half full or half empty.

This after all is the nature of the media beast. It’s newsroom and editorial desks either reflects the demographics of this country’s diverse population, or not, or at best attempts to inject changes urged by demands of transformation.

Any independent observer will in any event be able to confirm that the dynamics of change, especially in a country which was fed an apartheid-laden diet, will remain in a flux. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the battle playing out in the courts and the corridors of power within the SABC.

Though its a far cry from the time when the Human Rights Commission (HRC) investigated racism in the media, it could be argued that the resistance to change by the then white-controlled conservative media, has had an adverse effect.

For instance if willingness to transform media had been embraced by accepting and enforcing the recommendations made by the HRC, we would have seen less tensions today.

If media is understood to function as a purveyor of news and information, it’s heartbeat will always remain content and how its coloured. South Africa after all remains trapped in racism. Packaging of content will always remain contentious no matter how hard journalists try to be balanced and objective.

The case of Palestine is instructive, for it relates to our own historic struggle against apartheid. The expectation by Israel’s lobby in South Africa that media will retain its disgraced previous habit of suppressing critique of settler-colonial practices is a fanciful misplaced hope.

Just as Eurocentric content has justifiably receded, so too has the era of uncritical acceptance of Israel’s policies. Yet if we lend an ear to media practitioners, the lobby’s demand seems to be precisely this: lay off Israel or face our wrath!

Content is driven by news-worthiness. Its colour may not be aesthetically pleasing to the lobby, but does it mean that media’s independence to report and comment be held to ransom? Censorship, which was a hallmark of apartheid, is, alongside robust investigative reporting, a key element in the transformation campaign.

Freedom of the media is subject to limits as embodied in the constitution. Not the arbitrary decisions by media owners to suppress information as dictated to by commercial interests. That pro-Israel pressure groups enjoy support from corporate giants, allows them enormous financial leverage to influence content.

If people are freaked out by the drama playing out at SABC, surely they ought to be equally outraged by the disproportionate power wielded by Israel’s fan club. Both remain impediments in the ongoing struggle to free media from abuse of power.

Investigative reports have in contrast to censorship, laid bare the extent of corruption and maladministration in the public sector. The vigor whereby probes are conducted to expose the rot that has beset government circles, best describes the ability by media to function independently.

But why not the same determination to go after thugs operating in the private sector? Do corporate captains enjoy a degree of immunity? If so is it due to the leverage they possess in terms of adspend?

Consumers may not be privy to boardroom antics and decisions which impact on journalists’ ability to report without fear. But they certainly are able to read between the lines.

Paradoxes apart, the twist and turns in mainstream media’s landscape cannot be divorced from the power of social media. It has a special utility in addition to empowering ordinary people to share as well as access information. Though hoax sites proliferate and seek to confuse or distort, similar patterns by individual journalists allied to faceless intelligence agencies, do function within mainstream media.

As in the case of Palestine where Israel’s hasbara agents act as pressure groups, so too in the case of Islamophobia, where so-called “terror experts” have abused media space to ferment anti-Muslim hate. They have twinned by converging their interests to roll back advances made thus far by protagonists of media freedom.

For South Africa and the West in general, the ultimate barometer to gauge how free media is, will be the question of Palestine.

*Iqbal Jassat is an executive at the Media Review Network in Johannesburg, South Africa. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

The New Year will bring elections for Albania and its people, meanwhile Mr. Edi Rama and his confidants have allocated large sums of money and plan to feast a large number of staffers in the Prime Minister’s office at the expense of Albania’s taxpayers.

In 2017, his last year in office, Mr. Rama and his associates are expected to continue with their luxurious life (at home and abroad), while their fellow countrymen are living in the worst conditions ever experienced in the last twenty six years of their transitional democracy system.

As the Albanian Parliament approved the National Budget for 2017, it supplied many more suitcases – in addition to the millions of euros generated by massive marijuana farming from Vermosh to Konispol – filled with the money paid by Albania’s taxpayers, to Mr. Edi Rama and his corrupt ministers, who have stashed their wealth abroad and continue to be ranked as Europe’s richest oligarchs.

According to an estimate conducted last year by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Mr. Rama has amassed a net worth of over US$200 million, an amount that has certainly and proportionately grown during the third year of his term as Prime Minister considering that he receives at least twenty percent as a commission from the total amount of every public project that is executed by his trusted private companies who acquire public bids in the sectors of: infrastructure development, public works, health services and information technology.

According to Panama Papers and other reliable sources, Mr. Rama’s wealth is deposited in international banking accounts established by his family circle and close associates that work together on sustainable development projects in Albania and who have been deeply involved with the Venezuelan economist Ricardo Hausmann, projects that have had little to no impact on the lives of average Albanians. Mr. Anastas Angjeli, Edi Rama’s close associate, Albanian MP and a Former Minister of Public Finances, drives a brand new Audi A8 in the streets of Tirana. Moreover, Mr. Taulant Balla, another member of Albanian Parliament, is responsible for employment opportunities in the current Albanian Government; he has established a fee of two thousand euros to be paid beforehand by every candidate who aspires to be a public servant. On the other hand, Mr. Genti Gazheli, Mr. Edi Rama’s envoy to the Republic of Turkey, has a tarnished record from his service in Albania’s border Customs Agency, a time when he would reportedly hide large sums of money  whenever he had an opportunity to allow large shipments of commodities to enter Albanian territory, thus avoiding payment of taxes by his random ‘clients’.

In 2017, the Prime Minister’s office will see the faces of 641 new employees, meanwhile in the National Assembly there are only 405 staffers who help organize the daily activities for 140 Members of Parliament, including its Speaker and three Deputy Speakers. The Prime Minister’s office has more employees than: the Ministry of Economy (with over 580 employees); Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (with less than 440 employees); the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (with 506 employees including its diplomatic missions abroad); the Ministry of Integration (composed by 113 employees).

While Mr. Rama’s number of staff members will reach over 640, the Albanian President’s support staff does not exceed seventy six; moreover the Prime Minister’s annual budget is over 27.6 million euros and the President’s Budget is barely 1.5 million euros.

The luxurious lifestyle of Albania’s Prime Minister is not only based on the large number of servants that are in his courtyard, he will enjoy large sums of money to be spent over the new fiscal year, almost 28 million euros, an amount that is equal to the salary of 1,200 Albanian retirees or the equivalent of ten thousand university scholarships abroad. Every employee in the Prime Minister’s Office will spend approximately 43 thousand euros per year (or 3,600 euros/month) said in other words, every staffer in Mr. Rama’s cabinet will cost Albanian taxpayers an equal amount that is needed to pay twenty retirement salaries every month.

Moreover, Mr. Rama has plans to spend over one million euros to rent luxurious cars, an amount that is equivalent to twenty vehicles (latest generation) from Mercedes Benz; for their government offices there will be spent an additional 6.6 million euros in furniture, remodeling and other maintenance expenses.

The interaction between Mr. Rama’s Government and Albanian Citizens is as chilling as ever before; it is a testimony of Tirana’s attitude towards handling the nation’s overwhelming poverty, a behavior that violates the well-known concept of Charles Horton Cooley, “the Looking Glass Self,” while suggesting that Albanians represent a glass that is viewed by Tirana’s administration and the latter reacts according to the conduct of its constituents. On Mr. Rama’s glamorous level of personal expenses we see that his constituents’ persistent responses are meaningless let alone being a source of reflection and humbleness.

The author is solely responsible for the opinions expressed in this article.

Taiwan is a densely populated island where traffic, especially in urban areas, is intense and scooters are the top mode of vehicular transport. There are 15 million registered scooters in Taiwan, which is nearly one scooter for every adult person in a population of 23.5 million people, and 7,730,000 cars.

Moreover, the city of Taipei, the island’s metropolis, is located in a basin which traps all the air pollution produced by petrol engine emissions. Fortunately, the dwellers of Taipei City and New Taipei City have a choice about whether to bestride a scooter, drive a car or use public transport. In fact, public transportation in greater Taipei is efficient and ubiquitous with excellent Mass Rapid Transport (MRT) and bus systems affording easy and fast urban mobility.

East Asia is at the forefront in creating efficient and effective public transit and, like other nodal cities in the region, Taipei and New Taipei City are – out of both necessity and vision – leading the way to a paradigm of sustainable and decarbonized mass mobility by implementing technologically enhanced and environmentally smart transport strategies combining green urban governance with economic growth. Public capital such as railways and metro lines stimulate the economy, and the case for mass transport infrastructures can be made also in terms of inter-linked social and environmental benefits.

On the other hand, the out-turn of underinvesting in public transportation infrastructure would be grave. For this reason, high-speed, light rail and metro rail projects all have priority-status in Taiwan, which is particularly keen on exploiting the mass transit capacities of metro networks to reduce congestion and pollution in highly-populated areas, foster economic resilience and function as a catalyst for urban renewal. The island has two operative metro systems, respectively in Taipei and Kaohsiung, and more are being constructed and planned.

Taipei Metro, Taiwan’s first MRT, began operations in 1996. Presently, it consists of 117 stations and 5 main routes, operating on 131.1 kilometers of revenue track. The system, which in 2016 carried an average of 2 million passengers per day, is globally regarded as an ideal model for mass transit every city should emulate. The MRT is remarkably punctual and immaculately clean, abides by the strictest efficiency and safety standards, and boasts a customer satisfaction rating of 94 percent. As such, it greatly contributes to Taipei’s infrastructural prestige and is an essential vector of Taiwan’s soft power.

Given the insular character of Taiwan, Taipei is the gateway for most of international arrivals. Once in Taipei, visitors normally take at least a ride on the MRT, and usually become enthusiastic users of the system. The Taipei Metro experience, therefore, shapes the international image and narrative about Taiwan. The MRT is as much iconic as the Taipei 101 skyscraper in representing Taiwan as a modern, vibrant and affluent society: a glimpse of what is possible when ambitious planning and engineering prowess meet.

The soft-power dimension of the MRT is particularly important in consideration of Taiwan’s peculiar international status. Vis-à-vis the relentless efforts of the People’s Republic of China to isolate Taiwan and deny its statehood and separate identity, pursuing infrastructural virtuosity is an effective way of boosting the island’s limited international profile. The world-wide visibility that Taipei’s metro system bestows on Taiwan is therefore of pivotal importance for keeping it on the map and projecting a positive global image of its society.

In addition, the MRT also serves the purpose of reminding the people of Taiwan about what they can achieve collectively and separately from the Mainland. It is a marker of Taiwanese identity. One wonder every Taiwanese takes pride in and the international community admires.

Taipei Metro strives for the highest, but it is not perfect though. One of its points of weakness is the relatively small number and scope of destinations. For this reason, the system has more lines under construction. Notably, from March 2017, the Taoyuan International Airport MRT, a rapid transit system connecting Taipei City and Taipei Taoyuan International Airport, will begin commercial operations. Given that Taoyuan Airport is Taiwan’s main hub, an MRT line integrating it into Taipei’s mass mobility network is of strategic consequence. It will be the fourth metro system in Asia to allow passengers to stop directly at an international airport, becoming a first-contact and image-building infrastructure for visitors to the island. Signally, a dedicated MRT station already caters to travelers to and from Songshan Airport, Taipei’s other air terminal, which is located downtown.

For the sake of maintaining and seeking excellence in the expansion process of the MRT, procuring and utilizing the best engineering and technology available in the market is imperative. Hence Taiwan, over the years, has been consistently forging partnerships with international industrial manufacturers for realizing its rapid transit infrastructure and equipping it with the safest and most advanced rolling stock.

This was the case in 2009, when Taipei’s Department of Rapid Transit Systems awarded a €334 million turnkey contract for the first section of the Taipei Metro Circular Line – stretching from Wugu Industrial District to Dapinglin – to a consortium of two Italian companies: Ansaldo STS and AnsaldoBreda (now Hitachi Rail Italy). The former received a €220 million order for E&M equipment and radio signaling technology. The latter secured a €114 million deal to supply 17 driverless four-car trains. The Taipei Metro Circular Line is an elevated, medium-capacity rapid transit which will further enmesh Taipei and New Taipei City in the MRT system and synergize their industrial and technology parks. It is currently under construction with the first 15.4 km-long section – 73.45 of which is already in place – scheduled to open along 14 stations in late 2018.

Why two Italian suppliers? Simply put, because Italy is a powerhouse of railway technology. Italian companies have been successfully operating for decades all over the world in the railway construction industry and in solutions for control and management of railroad traffic. In many sectors, Italy is a synonym of style. When it comes to the railway business, it is also signifies total quality.

Having those two Italian actors playing a key role in the evolution of Taiwan’s mass rapid transport was thus an informed and forward-looking decision. The two firms are twin global beacons of the industry operating in five continents: in Copenhagen as in Miami; from the plains of Holland to the sands of Saudi Arabia. In Taiwan, they intend to become strong and dedicated long-term partners to the local market. In the words of Maurizio Manfellotto, CEO and President of Hitachi Rail Italy, “Taiwan is strategic for my company.”

Hitachi Rail Italy is a company specialized in the manufacture of technologically advanced rolling stock. Before 2015 it was known as AnsaldoBreda, the most important Italian brand in the rail and metro sector, with more than 160 years of history. Acquisition by Hitachi has made the company strategically and operationally even more global-oriented, while keeping its roots firmly anchored in Italy. The driverless train for the Circular Line – developed at a highly automatized workshop in the Italian city of Reggio Calabria – is a product of the mating of a venerable manufacturing tradition with top-level rolling stock technology. In late November this year, the first of the 17 trains arrived to Taipei from Italy for static testing on the line. The four-car piece of engineering is 68.5-meter long, has a slick aluminium alloy bodyshell, a 650-people capacity, and can operate at maximum speed of 80 km/h.

The trains are due for delivery by late 2018, in time for the commissioning of the first section of the Circular Line. Mr. Manfellotto, reached on the phone, guaranteed that the machines will be handed-over punctually. “Together with the rolling stock, Hitachi Rail Italy will also transfer valuable know-how and bring highly-qualified jobs to Taiwan. In fact, apart from the prototype, the trains will be made jointly with Taiwanese partners,” he said. “Taiwan ranks high in our industrial strategy. It does so not only because it is a growing market for all our products, but also because our Taiwanese institutional interlocutors have always behaved with the utmost competence and fairness. This has encouraged us to continue increasing our commitment to Taiwan,” he added.

If the big picture is considered, the activities of Hitachi Rail Italy in Taipei exemplify the intensifying trade relations between Taiwan and Italy. Italy is now Taiwan’s fifth-largest trade partner in the EU, just behind Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and France, with two-way trade reaching US$4.13 billion in 2014. In December 2015, with the aim of facilitating their economic exchange, the two sides signed an agreement on avoidance of mutual taxation. Railway technology – together with precision engineering, industrial machinery, lifestyle goods and gastronomy – is increasingly becoming a high-profile ambassador of Made in Italy in the island.

Indeed, international companies like Hitachi Rail Italy, or brave Italian entrepreneurs venturing in Asia, are modern-day Marco Polos and Matteo Riccis weaving robust and lasting ties between East and West. Taipei Metro customers riding on safe, efficient and comfortable Italian trains will be a strong reminder of how economic and technology partnership – even more than political interaction – can shape and promote friendly and fruitful relations between two societies travelling full speed on the train of globalization.

* Fabrizio Bozzato, Associate Researcher, Center for Advanced Technology, Tamkang University, Taiwan