Egyptian authorities denied entry to the son of former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, a local security source said Saturday.

Omar bin Laden, a businessman, had arrived at Cairo International Airport late Friday aboard EgyptAir flight from Qatar.

“He was barred from entry after his name was found on a list of people banned from entering the country,” the source said anonymously because he was unauthorized to speak to media.

According to the source, he was deported to Turkey aboard an Istanbul-bound flight.

Original source

Behind almost every liberal crusade of the past several decades, from the blocking of voter ID law, coups, changing borders, voting districts, to the Syrian refugee crisis, there has been one man quietly pulling the puppet strings from the background: George Soros.  So imagine our complete shock when we discovered Soros to be the financing source behind Facebook’s “third-party fact checking” organization retained to flag, and thus eliminate, “fake news.”

Just yesterday, Facebook posted the following press release to their website detailing their plans to use a “third-party fact checking organization,” known as The Poynter Institute, to flag “fake news.”  The role of the “fact checkers” will be to review news stories and flag anything they deem to be “fake” so that it can be deprioritized on Facebook’s news feed.

Of course, that raises any number of questions including what will be deemed to be “fake news” (e.g. will dissenting opinions be deemed “fake”) and who exactly gets to oversee such a powerful position that basically has been given carte blanche to censor media outlets of their choosing?  Surely such an organization would have to be an extremely transparent, publicly funded, bi-partisan group, right?

Well, not so much apparently.  A quick review of Poynter’s website reveals that the organization is funded by the who’s who of leftist billionaires including George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and Ebay founder Pierre Omidyar’s Omidyar Network. Well that seem fairly bipartisan, right?

But don’t worry, Poynter would like to assure you that they’re committed to “nonpartisan and transparent fact-checking.”

Of course, as Fox News pointed out back in 2011, it was Poynter that taught a “journalism” class that urged journalists to downplay the threat of terrorist organizations by comparing death tolls of terrorist attacks to those associated with malaria and HIV/AIDS.

But to illustrate this point, the course references the number of people killed by various causes, implicitly suggesting journalists change the way they report on jihad-related deaths.

“Of the hundreds of murders that occur each day, journalists are far more likely to report on jihad-related incidents than other violence. As a result, news consumers have developed a skewed impression of the prevalence of jihad, relative to other forms of conflict. Context is essential in covering this global story in a way that does not amplify fears of jihad,” the course says.

The Poynter course estimates jihad groups have killed about 165,000 people over the past four decades, mostly in Iraq. It notes the biggest toll in the United States was the approximately 3,000 killed on Sept. 11, 2001.

“To give those numbers some context, the FBI reports that approximately 15,000 people in the U.S. are murdered each year. All around the world, more than half a million people are murdered annually, according to the World Health Organization,” the course says. “At its peak, jihad organizations have accounted for less than 2 percent of this toll — in most years, they account for well under 1 percent. (A half-million individuals die each year from nutritional deficiencies, more than 800,000 from malaria, and 2 million from HIV/AIDS.)”

Would that count as “advocating or taking a policy position” on an issue?

So congrats on choosing a “nonpartisan” fact checker, Mr. Zuckerberg. We eagerly await the creation of a competitive social media outlet, one that promotes truly free and independent thought, which you have surely just spawned with the creation of your new “department of censorship.”

After dying in suspicious circumstances in a Chinese prison, a prominent human rights activist has had his organs harvested, says his family.

Chinese officials said that veteran human rights activist, Peng Ming died in hospital after collapsing in Xianning Prison, Hubei Province.

Against his family’s will, the authorities forcibly and illegally removed his vital organs such as brain and heart, said Peng’s family according to U.S.-based rights group China Aid on Dec.12.

Earlier, China Aid said no death certificate had been issued to the family, which left his cause of death unclear.

Distrustful of the Chinese authorities, Peng’s family members demanded an autopsy by an “international, independent medical authority acceptable to the family.”

Peng, a Christian, had been imprisoned for life over his dissident activities.

Peng’s case comes in the wake of increasing reports about the Chinese state’s harvesting of organs from prisoners of conscience.

The numbers of organ transplants performed in China is estimated to be up to 100,000 per year and the main source of organs comes from prisoners of conscience stated a detailed report released in the U.S. on June 22.

Japan and South Korea are distinctive among developed countries for their gender inequality in managerial positions. This column looks at the ‘glass ceiling’ in the two countries. After controlling for age, education, and employment duration, between 70% and 80% of the gender disparity is unexplained in both countries, with women appearing to face greater inequality as they move up to more senior managerial positions.

By Yoosik Youm and Kazuo Yamaguchi*

Although Japan and South Korea are among the most developed countries in East Asia, it is well known that traditional gender role attitudes and behaviours still exist in both countries. According to International Labor Organization statistics for 2015, Japan and Korea showed the highest gender inequalities in the proportion of managerial positions among OECD countries (ILO 2015). Figure 1 reveals that Japan and Korea are distinctive among OECD countries as having the highest gender inequalities.

Figure 1 Odds of men vs. women in managerial positions among OECD countries

Source: Adapted from ILO 2015. Values not available data in specific years were coded as zero.

Depending on the sources of the disparity, the strategy for improving gender inequality should be quite different. If human capital, such as education and experience, is the basis of the inequality, we should launch policies to improve the accumulation of the human capital of women. However, if the source is not a human capital gap but a glass ceiling, we want to examine and change promotion practices in firms.

The existence of glass ceilings?

The glass ceiling phenomenon refers to an invisible ceiling blocking the entry of women into high-level positions in firms or organisations. There have been many empirical studies examining glass ceilings in various countries. For the US, many studies confirmed that gender inequality does not increase as women advance to more senior positions in a firm, and thus could not find the existence of a glass ceiling (Morgan 1998 Weinberger 2011 Wright et al. 1995). Since the findings of Morgan’s research in 1998 strongly suggested that the higher inequality among women in more senior positions (and thus among older women) resulted not from a glass ceiling but from cohort differences (i.e. higher gender inequality among older cohorts), many following studies have confirmed limited instances of a glass ceiling in the US. Weinberger (2011) concluded that the gender gap in earnings is determined by factors already present early on in careers. Also, Wright et al. (1995) found little evidence for the glass ceiling hypothesis – i.e. that barriers to promotions for women in authority hierarchies are greater than the ones they face in getting into hierarchies in the first place – in seven countries (the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, Sweden, Norway, and Japan).

However, more recent studies show possible support for the glass ceiling hypothesis in Europe. Albrecht et al. (2003) successfully showed that even after extensive controls for gender differences in age, education, sector, industry, and occupation, a glass ceiling effect was persistent to a considerable extent in Sweden. Also, a study examining 11 European countries using the European Community Household Panel from 1995 to 2001 found that the gender gap in earnings typically widened towards the top of the wage distribution, which strongly suggests the existence of a glass ceiling (Arulampalam et al. 2007). We do not have consistent evidence for European countries yet, but more recent data and studies tend to confirm the existence of glass ceilings in Europe.

Measuring the glass ceiling in Japan and South Korea

How about Japan or Korea? Wright’s et al.’s study in 1995, which examined the glass ceiling effect among seven countries including Japan, confirmed that gender inequality in workplace authority was highest in Japan. However, they could not test for the glass ceiling effect in Japan because there were no women in middle management positions or above among 823 Japanese respondents. There has been little research on a Korean glass ceiling using reliable data based on robust methods.

Our study tries to compare the extent of the glass ceiling in Japan and Korea based on a common statistical method (Youm and Yamaguchi 2016). First, we have to decide how to measure the glass ceiling. Previous studies have not all employed the same operational definition of a glass ceiling. For example, Barretto et al. (2009) examined the gender gap in only the most senior positions, while other researchers probed the slowing down of the entire career progress of typical working women (Padavic and Reskin 2002). Although the empirical criterion for more senior positions in organisations could be different, we believe the minimum proposition of the glass ceiling hypothesis is that after controlling for human capital factors, the gender gap becomes wider in more senior positions.

Also, in order to control for human capital such as age, educational level, and employment duration, we adopt the counter-factual decomposition method of DiNardo-Fortin-Lemieux (DFL) proposed in Yamaguchi (2016, 2017). We used the Occupational Wage Survey (OWS) to examine the glass ceiling in South Korea. The OWS is an annual business establishment survey conducted since 1970 by South Korea’s Ministry of Employment and Labor. We included multiple-year cross-sectional data over a 24-year period from 1990 to 2013 to examine the trend for a glass ceiling in Korea. The International Comparative Study of Work-Life Balance conducted by RIETI in 2009 was employed to examine the Japanese gender gap. Unlike the 20+ years of data for South Korea, we analysed one year of data of 2009 for Japan.

The glass ceiling in Japan and South Korea

In Japan, even after conducting a counter-factual treatment with age, education, and employment duration, the unexplained portion of gender disparity still remains at between 70% and 80% for 2009. Also, as we move from kakaricho (task unit supervisor) position to kacho (section head), we can see a roughly 10% bigger unexplained portion. Although we could not examine the bucho (department director) position since we do not have enough female bucho in the data, the current result implies a possible glass ceiling or pipe leaking even from the middle manager positions among regular worker in Japanese firms.

Figure 2 illustrates the trend for a glass ceiling in Korea over 24 years.

Figure 2. The trend of glass ceiling among regular workers in Korea from 1990 to 2013

Notes: * duration at the current workplace: five categories. a) < 1 year, b) >=1 year & < 3 years, c) >= 3 years & < 5 years, d) >=5 years & < 10 years, e) >= 10 years; ** educational level: four categories. a) junior high or lower, b) high school, c) vocational college, d) college or higher; *** age: seven categories. a) 19 or younger, b) 20 to 24, c) 25 to 29, d) 30 to 34, e) 35 to 39, f) 40 to 49, g) 50 or older; **** We included duration, education, age, duration by education, duration by age, and education by age for the covariates for counter-factual treatment.

Three facts are revealed from the figure. First, the unexplained portion after a counter-factual treatment for human capital including age, duration of employment, and educational level, the range of unexplained gender inequality for managerial positions falls between 75% and 85%, except in 2007 when the portion was 62% (yellow line). This is corresponds somewhat to the Japanese unexplained portions, which are 70% for kakaricho and 80% for kacho. Since Korean managerial positions include bucho and higher, the numbers seem strikingly similar.

Second, as women reach higher positions in a firm – from kakaricho (grey line) to kacho (orange line) to bucho (blue line) – they face a higher unexplained portion, just like Japanese women. This fits the glass ceiling picture quite closely, although we do not have data for very senior managerial positions.

Although we have only one year of data for Japan and are thus not completely confident in the comparison, the extent of unexplained gender inequality seems to be strikingly similar in the two countries. Furthermore, in both countries, women seem to face greater inequality as they move up to more senior managerial positions (i.e. glass ceilings). Based on multiple cross-sectional data over 24 years, we can also conclude that the extent of the glass ceiling tends to remain the same in Korea. We suspect that this is not due to simple cohort differences as argued by Morgan (1998), but to an actual glass ceiling because our data ranges over 24 years and show little changes (i.e. little difference between cohorts).

Editors’ note: The main research on which this column is based appeared as a Discussion Paper of the Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI) of Japan.

*About the authors:
Yoosik Youm, Professor of Sociology, Yonsei University

Kazuo Yamaguchi, Ralph Lewis Professor of Sociology, University of Chicago

References:
Albrecht, J, A Bjorklund and S Vroman (2003). “Is there a glass ceiling in Sweden?” Journal of Labor Economics 21(1): 145-177.

Arulampalam, W, A L Boothand M L Bryan (2007). “Is there a glass ceiling over Europe? Exploring the gender pay gap across the wage distribution.” Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 60(2), 163-186.

Barreto, M E, M K Ryan and M T Schmitt (2009). “The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality.” American Psychological Association.

ILO (2015) “ILOSTAT Database“, ILO Department of Statistics (accessed 12.05.2016)

Morgan, L A (1998). “Glass-ceiling effect or cohort effect? A longitudinal study of the gender earnings gap for engineers, 1982 to 1989.” American Sociological Review, 479-493.

Padavic, I and B F Reskin (2002). Women and Men at Work. Pine Forge Press.

Weinberger, C J (2011). “In search of the glass ceiling: Gender and earnings growth among US college graduates in the 1990s.” Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 64(5), 949-980.

Wright, E O, J Baxter and G E Birkelund (1995). “The gender gap in workplace authority: A cross-national study.” American Sociological Review, 407-435.

Yamaguchi, K (2016), “Determinants of the Gender Gap in the Proportion of Managers among White-Collar Regular Workers in Japan.” Japan Labour Review 13(3): 7-31.

Yamaguchi, K (2017), “Decomposition Analysis of Segregation.” Sociological Methodology 47, forthcoming.

Youm, Y and K Yamaguchi (20I6), “Gender Gaps in Japan and Korea: A comparative study on the rates of promotions to managing positions,” RIETI Discussion Paper Series, 16-E-011

(EurActiv) — The European Central Bank must stick to its price stability mandate and not be swayed by politics, Germany’s top central banker said Friday (16 December), warning against extending loose monetary policy for too long.

“The impression must not be allowed to arise that central banks will step into the breach for politicians or that monetary policy is directed by electoral results,” Bundesbank head Jens Weidmann said in a Frankfurt speech.

Weidmann is a long-standing critic of the ECB’s quantitative easing programme, under which it buys tens of billions of euros of government and corporate bonds each month to pump cash into the economy.

ECB President Mario Draghi last week announced that bond-buying would be extended to the end of 2017 from its previous cut-off date at the end of March.

Opponents of the scheme say that it has allowed governments to shirk vital structural reforms in the years since the 2007 financial crisis.

With the ECB driving down the cost of borrowing, critics say, countries with rickety finances have been spared the discipline of the bond markets.

For now, fear among ECB policymakers that removing monetary support would endanger the economic recovery outweighs the voices calling for tighter policy.

Draghi pointed to the fact that “uncertainty prevails everywhere” in the 8 December press conference when he announced the latest QE extension.

2016 saw Britons vote to quit the European Union and protectionist rhetoric help to bestow a surprise victory in US presidential elections on Donald Trump, both prompting fears of future headwinds for the eurozone.

But Weidmann said Friday that “we can’t overburden monetary policy” with responding alone to such crises — and to the crisis of productivity growth afflicting the European economy.

“Politicians have the keys to more growth in their hands, not the central bank,” he said.

By Ashok Malik

In Parliament earlier this week, BJP veteran L.K. Advani lost his temper and expressed his anguish at the repeated disruption of the winter session. At one level, it was a cry from the heart of a long-term and distinguished parliamentarian who remembered a more civilised discourse in Sansad Bhawan. However, there was a certain irony to the lament.

In some senses, the current crisis of Parliament began in 2004, when the BJP old guard, Advani among them, responded to the defeat in the Lok Sabha election churlishly. There was a sense that Manmohan Singh was not a ‘proper’ Prime Minister and was leading an interloper regime. The BJP leadership at the time also seemed to believe the (first) UPA government would fall quickly.

This led to attempts at filibustering, calls to ‘boycott’ individual ministers and frequent walkouts. All of it only allowed the UPA government to continue unhindered with no qualitative opposition around. The consequences of this short-sighted BJP strategy — not limited to the Houses of Parliament — were seen in the result of the 2009 election.

Cooperation between the government and the opposition, now led by another generation in the BJP, was better and more meaningful during the second UPA rule. As the line went, the opposition had its say and the treasury had its way. Yet, as the Manmohan Singh government was engulfed in scandals and controversies, the mood hardened. When the Anna Hazare movement brought crowds to the streets, the opposition in Parliament seemed obliged to mirror, match and complete with the throng. The government was equally obstinate, and this ended up in a race to the bottom.

Session after session was ruined with little work being done. Arun Jaitley, as leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, presented a defence of disruption at a legitimate parliamentary tactic — an assessment that has come back to haunt him as Minister for Finance.

Since small-mindedness is a cross-party attribute in Indian politics, the Congress in opposition has been as cussed. Especially in the Rajya Sabha, where the government is in a minority, the Congress and congenitally volatile parties such as the Trinamool Congress and the Samajwadi Party have combined to make normal functioning impossible. It could be argued, of course, that even without the history of 2004-14, given the political threat that Narendra Modi poses to established political players in New Delhi and to the Nehru-Gandhi family in particular, the Congress would anyway have played spoiler in the House. From May 2014 itself, to have expected any reasonable cooperation from it, was foolhardy.

What is the solution, if there is any at all? Frankly, Parliament does not function (or non-function) and does not disrupt itself in isolation. It reflects a contemporary trend in democracy, not limited to India, where there is no peacetime and all politics is permanent war. In a traditional setting, the heat and dust of an election would lead to the quiet deal-making of parliamentary procedure and the calm of governance for at least two years before the next election cycle kicked in. These days, that luxury is just not available.

We live in an age of politics as event management and drama. Politicians have a fishbowl existence and are under constant scrutiny of media and social media, under pressure to perform, almost as actors, pushed to respond in a particular manner, whether by a journalist thrusting a microphone or an outraged supporter on Twitter demanding an immediate addressing of some new slight, imagined or otherwise.

This is a 24/7 phenomenon in politics today, and Parliament has become just another medium, just another platform for it. Lok Sabha or television studio or WhatsApp: There is no difference any longer. Politicians will perform for their audience.

It is often suggested that the live telecast of parliamentary proceedings, far from informing public debate on policy decision making, has pushed MPs to act or speak in a manner that sends the appropriate message to a mass audience outside, and always keeps the viewer in his or her drawing room in mind. Just as television has negated the gap between a ‘hall meeting’ and a ‘public meeting’ — between a politician addressing 100 lawyers or professors in a room and addressing a crowd of 200,000 in a rambunctious political rally, live telecast has ensured there is no distinction between what a politician says inside the house or outside.

This could have worked to make politicians more honest. Unfortunately it has caused them to be less measured.

Television and live telecast cannot be wished away in a democracy. Indeed, neither are they the only ones to blame. Politicians who disrupt the House and then rush out to the army of cameras, are not forced to vandalise parliamentary decorum and protocol — they are doing it willingly. Having said that, such precedents should have us treading carefully in the direction of televising committee meetings of Parliament.

Committee meetings have become what Parliament itself was meant to be — the location to soberly discuss legislation and policy changes, negotiate positions and arrive at a compromise in the best traditions of democracy. Since Parliament either doesn’t function or since MPs are too busy with grandstanding, this task has devolved on committees. Not that the proceedings of committees are sacrosanct either. While confidentiality is supposed to be maintained by participating MPs, committee members often brief friendly journalists after the meetings, plant news stories, and so on.

If television cameras are allowed into committee meetings, this process will become formalised and participating MPs will say only that which is ‘politically correct’. In the committee room itself, they will begin addressing the equivalent of public meetings. The real business of negotiating legislation will recede further and further into some inner chamber, where select senior leaders of major parties will meet and hammer out details. This will leave committee members to provide a rubber stamp and for Parliament itself to provide a rubber stamp on a rubber stamp.

Meanwhile, on Sansad Marg, the circus can continue.

This article originally appeared in The Pioneer.

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has praised Ghanaian authorities for efforts at conducting successful presidential and parliamentary elections, and the electorate for showing peace and maturity at the polls held on 7 December 2016.

In an official statement posted to the website, the ministry noted that “observers from the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States have recognized the election results as credible, as no serious violations that could have affected the expression of the people’s will were reported.”

And it concluded that “Moscow considers the national election in Ghana an important step by Ghana’s society on the path toward stable social and political development.”

The Electoral Commission has since declared Nana Akufo-Addo as elected president whose New Patriotic Party (NPP) earned about 54 percent of votes while the National Democratic Congress (NDC) got 44 percent. The New Patriotic Party (NPP) is a liberal democratic party and is one of the dominant parties in the national politics of the Republic of Ghana.

In the 7 December 2008 presidential elections, Nana Akufo-Addo received more votes than John Atta-Mills amassing 4,159,439 votes representing 49.13% of the total votes cast, placing him first, but not enough for the 50% needed for an outright victory.

It was the best-ever performance for a first-time presidential candidate since the beginning of Ghana’s 4th republic in 1992. In the run-off elections however, Mills ultimately received 4,521,032 votes, representing 50.23%, thus beating Nana Akufo-Addo.

Russian authorities have known the NPP for about a decade and have interacted with the leading party officials previously. John Kufuor, a leading NPP member and then President of the Republic of Ghana met with President Vladimir Putin at the 33rd Group of Eight (G8) summit held 6-8 June, 2007 at Kempinski Grand Hotel in Moscow.

That was followed by an official working visit by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Ghana, Nana Akufo-Addo, on 12 July 2007 on the invitation by Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov.

During the diplomatic discussion both ministers reached an understanding to raise trade and economic cooperation between the two countries. They further agreed on developing direct business contacts between Russia and Ghana.

Towards realizing this goal, Nana Akufo-Addo and Lavrov agreed to facilitate holding direct contacts between the Chambers of Commerce and Industry of both countries. Nana Akufo-Addo said that the Ghanaian side was preparing proposals concerning new projects which may become the object of joint development by companies in Ghana.

Russia is ready, using the existing potentials, to boost ties in various economic spheres with Ghana. And also some senior officials from the United Russia party, Federation Council (Senate) and State Duma (Lower Chamber of Parliamentarians) told me in separate interviews that they were ready to establish political and inter-parliamentary relations with the new government and the New Patriotic Party (NPP).

This is a chance to explore opportunities and ways to strengthen the party and consolidate the economic gains. In his campaign speech, Nana Akufo-Addo reiterated a plan to build industrial infrastructure under the plan “one district one factory” throughout the country. It has attracted a keen interest in the Eurasian region.

It can be assumed that Nana Akufo-Addo, with broad experience as former Foreign Affairs Minister and a staunch top politician of the NPP, will build a pragmatic relationship with Russian government, public institutions and the business organizations that could help transform the economy of Ghana.

Russia and Ghana have accumulated a valuable experience of mutual respect and trust for nearly 60 years of cooperation in their diplomatic relations. The relations have been described as very friendly and close.

The relations here refers to the bilateral relationship between the two countries, Ghana and Russia. Russia has an Embassy in Accra and Ghana has an Embassy in Moscow. Russia and Ghana will celebrate 60 years of the establishment of diplomatic relations in 2017.

A US-based Hindu group has welcomed reports of East Meadow School District (EMSD) in Westbury, New York adopting Diwali, most popular of their festivals, as an official holiday on the 2017-2018 school year calendar.

Nearby Syosset Central School District also reportedly recently declared Diwali as an official holiday.

Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada today, describing it as a step in the right direction, urged all other public school districts and private schools in New York State to do the same.

Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, pointed out that it would be a positive thing to do in view of presence of a substantial number of Hindu students at schools around the state, as it was important to meet the religious and spiritual needs of these pupils.

Rajan Zed indicated that schools should make efforts to accommodate the religious requirements of Hindu students and show respect to their faith by not conducting regular business and scheduling classes on Diwali. We did not want our students to be put at an unnecessary disadvantage for missing tests/examinations/papers, assignments, class work, etc., by taking a day-off to observe Diwali.

If schools had declared other religious holidays, why not Diwali, Zed asked. Holidays of all major religions should be honored and no one should be penalized for practicing their religion, Zed added

Rajan Zed suggested all New York State schools, both public and private, to seriously look into declaring Diwali as an official holiday, recognizing the intersection of spirituality and education. Zed noted that awareness about other religions thus created by such holidays like Diwali would make New York State students well-nurtured, well-balanced, and enlightened citizens of tomorrow.

Zed urged New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Education Department Board of Regents Chancellor Betty A. Rosa and New York State Commissioner of Education MaryEllen Elia; to work towards adding Diwali as an official holiday in all the 728 school districts, and persuading the private schools to follow.

Rajan Zed further said that Hinduism is rich in festivals and religious festivals are very dear and sacred to Hindus. Diwali, the festival of lights, aims at dispelling the darkness and lighting up the lives and symbolizes the victory of good over evil. Besides Hindus; Sikhs and Jains and some Buddhists also celebrate Diwali, which falls on October 19 in 2017.

Zed thanked EMSD Board of Education President Marcee Rubinstein and other Board members for supporting Diwali holiday. EMSD serves over 7,400 students in nine schools of East Meadow and Westbury communities of Long Island. Mission Statement of EMSD, formed in 1814, includes “Understand our cultural heritage”. Leon J. Campo is Superintendent of Schools.

By Gilbert Rozman*

(FPRI) — South Korea is marooned in perilous seas with its ship in more danger of careening off course than at any time since the end of the Cold War. The recent impeachment of President Park Geun-hye, leading to a possible late spring election of a new president, brings to the fore domestic troubles, while external ones are building, too. Given the vitality of its democracy—massive demonstrations conducted peacefully, transfers of power with grace, and impeachment with remarkable civility and the rule of law—the ship may be steadied for a time.

Also, given its remarkable record of economic growth, there may yet be a way to overcome the alarm that slow growth or stagnation cannot be avoided—caused by a slowdown and more competitiveness in China, a reduction in the labor force, and state-business relations in disrepute. But the underlying conditions—domestic and foreign—likely to be present in 2017 are far more serious than many anticipate. Below, I point to the conditions that will make it hard for Korea, its neighbors, and key partners to agree on a sustainable course in such a turbulent regional environment.

Let us consider what makes South Korea’s situation perilous. First, the symbols of a successful foreign policy, which largely managed to unite the country in 2015, hit a dead-end in 2016, and their revival appears to be highly problematic. Trustpolitik to North Korea ended with the North’s fourth nuclear test. The honeymoon with China came to a crashing halt with Xi Jinping’s refusal to even return phone calls after this test and, later, China’s outrage over the decision to join the United States in deploying Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). Park’s Eurasian initiative toward Russia suffered a similar fate when Vladimir Putin blamed South Korea for suspending the three-way cooperation with North Korea, specifically in the shipment of Russian coal via the North’s Rason port to South Korea and beyond. Seoul’s appeals to join a Northeast Asian Peace and Cooperation Initiative (NAPCI) likewise floundered, as, one after the other, countries found no prospect for a new multilateral organization to build trust.

Uniting Koreans against Japan over the comfort women issue was disavowed by Park Geun-hye in a December 28, 2015 deal with Japan, which the Korean people largely opposed. Finally, claims that US-ROK relations are better than ever have been exposed as superficial given deepening concerns about clashing agendas. With old directions cast aside, there is no new navigational aid for Park’s successor regime.

Park’s foreign policy had raised expectations excessively. She urged citizens to plan for the “bonanza” of reunification, while the North Korean threat was intensifying. Many Koreans talked about the opportunities of being a “middle power” when diplomatic options were narrowing in a more polarized region. Yet, the legacy of the Sunshine Policy from 1998 to 2008 endured, as she tried to find a middle road between it and the Lee Myung-bak era (2008-2013) retreat to reinforcing the U.S. alliance and eyeing “Global Korea” as if the regional environment could be brushed aside. This failure led Park to fall back on the U.S. alliance plus agreeing to U.S.-led trilateralism with Japan in security, which progressives are resisting in favor of some earlier foreign policy initiatives.

Second, Park’s impeachment is not just the repudiation of one leader caught in a seedy scandal, but the impugning of the nexus of executive power, state-business relations, and restricted, unfair social mobility. Turning to the harshest critics of these conditions increases the prospects of idealistic responses with uncertain results at home and, more clearly, a negative foreign policy impact. Nostalgia for the Sunshine Policy among progressives, who are favored to return to power, defies new realities. Even if Ban Ki-moon were to overcome the odds and win the election—perhaps by joining with the People’s Party—a softer policy could follow toward North Korea, straining ties with the United States and Japan. Yet, the most serious damage would come from the progressives upending a decade of close coordination with the United States at a time of U.S. determination to cut short the threat of nuclear attack from North Korea regardless of South Korean intentions.

Third, the incoming Trump administration poses new risks for the nation.  It has long been understood that the worse Sino-U.S. relations are, the worse it is for South Korea. Trump’s targeting of China makes any aspirations to keep good relations with both sides less tenable. Sino-U.S. relations have reached a point where Seoul no longer has the luxury of envisioning itself as a bridge between the two or a state capable of staying aloof from clashes, such as in the South China Sea or over Taiwan. Trump’s contempt for diplomacy as usual and multilateralism also threatens delicate balancing acts critical to managing relations in East Asia. If, as many expect, Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo cozies up to Trump and seizes the opportunity to boost Japan’s military posture—including offensive missiles— South Korean opposition would put it on a collision course with the United States. There are other concerns. Would Trump be willing to cut a deal with North Korea, curtailing its capacity to strike the United States at the expense of South Korean security? How would a deal between Trump and Putin affect South Korea, given Putin’s opposition to THAAD and inclination to boost North Korea? At a time when Abe is rushing to solidify ties to Washington, Seoul stays mired in crisis with little chance to prepare for Trump.

The scene is set for a stormy start to the next Korean presidency. Just as China has targeted Taiwan for signs of a shift in U.S.-Taiwan relations, it, too, has threatened South Korea for allowing the Obama administration to install THAAD and is poised to put more economic pressure on the South. Should a new president decide to revoke the “comfort women” agreement and the more recent General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) intelligence-sharing pact with Japan, the animosity in Japan toward Korea would be inflamed and U.S. anger at the impact on security in Northeast Asia would easily exceed the response in 2014-15 to Seoul dragging its feet in overcoming the impasse with Japan. Add North Korea to the mix—with its watchful readiness to seize any opportunity to widen divisions between South Korea and other countries—and the prospects for trouble only grow.

Conclusion

There is considerable danger that a confluence of events will strain the U.S.-ROK relationship, not only echoing what transpired in 2001-04, but to an even greater degree. Conditions in East Asia today leave little room for strategic missteps. As South Korean politics drift to the left with a renewed desire for balanced diplomacy and new overtures to North Korea and China in addition to more distance from Japan, Trump will likely put more pressure on Seoul to tighten the alliance and double down on policy shifts in 2016, which progressives oppose. Progressives would be inclined to cancel the deployment of THAAD, catering to China’s demands, while Washington would be ready to view that as not only failing to carry their burden of defense, but also as blatant disregard of U.S. defensive needs. The seeds of sharp alliance discord would be sown.

A new South Korean government in 2017 would face countervailing pressures that make paralysis a likely outcome. It could not revert to progressive policies since the conditions have radically changed, notably the North Korean threat and the Sino-U.S. relationship. The foreign policy of 2013-15 has left an untenable legacy, as all of its foreign policy initiatives collapsed in 2016. If Trump intensified pressure on North Korea and strove to tighten alliances in East Asia in the face of China, such a move could paralyze the South Korean elite and public with little prospect of responding in unison. Changes in policy in 2016—stressing sanctions and deterrence toward North Korea, letting U.S.-led trilateralism guide a more cooperative security policy with Japan, and setting idealistic goals aside as U.S. ties were reinforced—could become a foundation for the next president’s foreign policy if another conservative is victorious (but even that is in doubt). More likely, the collapse of support for Park and the return of the progressives as the leading force shaping policy discourse have eroded that foundation. The likely result is a serious rift with the one ally essential for defense against North Korea and unrealizable aspirations for a more autonomous direction in foreign policy, dividing South Koreans and resulting in disorientation on what policies should be chosen.

What should the Trump administration do in the face of these grim prospects for its vital ally in managing North Korea and in maintaining regional security in Northeast Asia? It should start by acknowledging the expertise and overall success of recent U.S. diplomacy in improving ROK-Japan relations and working with Park to transition to a new foreign policy strategy in 2016. This sensitive time for South Korea warrants doubling down on cautious diplomacy, not shifting to unilateral pressure dismissing the accumulated knowledge of specialists in various parts of the government. Also, the new U.S. administration should prioritize the North Korean threat, making clear to Seoul at the earliest opportunity that close coordination can be sustained only if neither ally surprises the other with any abrupt policy shift. In this context, it would be helpful to appreciate that U.S. policy toward China—presumed to be independent of the Korean Peninsula—would likely reverberate in China’s stance toward the North and in South Korean attitudes and policies toward the United States. Interconnected policy consequences will put a premium on expertise in U.S. policy management with South Korea, making relations with it more difficult over the coming year than with any other U.S. ally or partner in East Asia unless some surprising turn of events were to occur.

About the author:
*Gilbert Rozman, Senior Fellow with FPRI’s Asia Program, is Musgrave Professor of Sociology at Princeton University.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

Venezuela’s highest denomination banknote has ceased to be legal tender, in a move that has caused cash chaos and long queues at banks, BBC News reports.

Protests against the move led to looting in parts of the country, with shops attacked and roads blocked.

Some cash machines on Thursday, December 15 were still issuing the old 100-bolivar notes, hours before they expired.

President Nicolas Maduro said new higher-denomination bills would be fully distributed in January.

He has closed the borders with Brazil and Colombia until Sunday to stop “mafias” hoarding the currency abroad.

Anger over the move led to skirmishes in six cities on Friday, the Associated Press reported the authorities as saying, with 32 people being taken into custody and one injured.

The sense of frustration has been compounded because there has been no official explanation as to why bank branches throughout Venezuela do not yet appear to have the larger denomination bank notes intended to replace 100-bolivar notes.

The opposition argues the currency initiative is another sign that President Maduro is ruining the economy and must be ousted.

But President Maduro praised Venezuelans for their understanding in a televised address on Thursday.

He said the new bills were already being distributed and would be fully circulated in January. However, the replacement bills have yet to be seen in the streets.

He also extended the border closure with Colombia and Brazil – in place since Tuesday – by another 72 hours.

Central Bank data suggests there are more than six billion 100-bolivar notes in circulation, making up almost half of all currency.

Buying almost anything with cash means a dangerous exercise carting around hundreds or thousands of bank notes in a country where robbery and violent crime is rife, BBC said.

President Maduro has blamed currency speculators and gangsters in neighbouring Colombia for inflation that has reached 500%.

Economic experts, however, say the measure to take the note out of circulation will have little positive effect on the country’s chronic economic and political problems.

If you would be Minister of Health, then it is expected that you should have a graduate degree from a leading University Medical School. Similarly if you would be Minister of Justice, you should have a Law degree plus many years of practice in courts. An Engineer is not expected nor preferred to be a minister of Justice nor in Public Health. Such assignments can be possible theoretically but not desired or expected.

Foreign Ministers are preferred to be graduates of International Politics of reputable universities, with further postgraduate degrees in the same field with multi language capabilities. Our former FM was a perfect choice due to his extraordinary university career. Likewise, our former Minister in charge of Treasury is another good choice with his graduate GPA 4:00 from METU Industrial engineering department which was further reinforced with MBA degree from a reputable USA Business school.

On the other hand, anyone can be chosen as Minister of Energy and Natural Resources in our country. Reputable names of our political environment with post graduate degrees from Ankara University Department of Political Science are assigned as Ministers of Energy in the past. No one asks “Why? Are they capable?”

Even a lawyer was chosen as a Minister of Energy for three consecutive terms. During his term, we had arbitration disputes, and we paid the consequences costly. During their period, they learnt energy business, but it is proved that this is a very costly education on job.

One of our former Energy Minister had post graduate degree from METU Metallurgy Department. He knew metals, mining, metallurgy, and he had time to consume six years learn energy business in detail during his management.

Your writer strongly advises that Minister of Energy should have an engineering degree. He should also speak a foreign language, preferably English, furthermore his knowledge in Russian, Farsi, Arabic, and/or French is a plus. It is also preferable that he had post graduate degree in international politics, and international commercial law.

The most important item is that he should have taken undergraduate course on Thermodynamics and passed with top grade.

Our former Energy Minister is also a graduate of Istanbul Technical University and had Graduate degree from EE department, and he had compulsory Thermodynamics courses during his undergraduate years for sure.

Energy Ministry is a public institution to serve but not a school nor a university. Any public employee, at all levels should have had sufficient graduate education. We should not reeducate the newcomers that “volt” is not “watt”, there is no such expression as “teravolt”, and “Megabyte” is not “Mega-Watt”.

We should not teach them the differences between power plants, CFB, IGCC, nor details of Kyoto- Paris- Marrakesh protocols on global warming, climate change. They should know that Nuclear Power plants are essentially thermal power plants with one cycle more in heat balance diagrams.

They should know that our country had no chance, no finance, no capability to build her own thermal power plants but all small East European countries did. Now Far East companies appeared to build new imported coal firing thermal power plants on our shores at a fraction of international markets turnkey basis, complete with basic design, fabrication, outsourcing the key equipment, site construction, site installation, and even long-term operation. Far East companies (China, Korean, Taiwanese) can not supply thermal power plants to developed countries, since they can not meet stiff norms, standards, laws and regulations of the buyer countries, despite of their ultra cheap prices. So cheap price is not the final solution.

One should know that we could not have our own nuclear power plant for last 40 years, since we could not build our own thermal power plants during the same period under our own engineering capability.

While we have unemployment complaints, how come we tolerate Far East companies bringing their own employees, mostly convicts/ soldiers, at minimum labor cost. It is not possible in Europe, Northern America, Russia, in Arab Countries.

European countries require the foreign contractors to pay the minimum wage in European standards to their employees. That makes the competition fair. Our name is in the reference list of Far East contractors along with the least developed countries such as Sri Lanka / Bangladesh / Pakistan / Laos / Vietnam / Malaysia / Indonesia/ Central Africa / Sudan / Yemen. That is a real embarrassment if not an honor to be in those lists.

If you can handle the basic design engineering and can do your own outsourcing, make the site construction in-house, use your local capabilities for site installation and external piping, under the prevailing international market figures, you can reduce your overall investment cost by about 25-30%.

Far East companies deliver technical drawing in their own language except the simple title block. Our engineers can not read them. Investors do not want to take operation risk. The new tendency is in making long-term operation contracts with the original contractors. So local employment will be limited to the security posts at the main entrance of the plant.

European Trade unions protect the rights of their members. They also protect the local employment capabilities with requirements to meet their national standards, norms, regulations. Their political parties are very sensitive in these issues since they can not risk upsetting their voters; otherwise they pay the consequence heavily.

If local trade unions can not voice on these issues, then it becomes the responsibility of Chambers of Engineers to speak up on behalf of local engineering for employment protection.

When we review the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports, other than flora and fauna and all that unnecessary details, we read that the investment would create so many numbers of local employments. You feel happy that our countrymen will have employment; we shall have so many families and their dependents to get money to survive.

When we complete the EIA report, and accept their application, we find ourselves that the investor places the final order to a Far East originated cheap design/ cheap supplier/ cheap contractor, and that cheap contractor brings thousands of employees (or convicts/ soldiers) to our land. That power plant supply has also short lifespan due to poor material consumed during project, just to survive in the temporary acceptance period.

We should have continuous monitoring of Environmental Impact Assessment conditions during all phases of the project as well as periodical inspections during operation. That is very serious issue. We have now unnecessary number of license applications for construction imported coal firing new thermal power plants.

Do we have capability to have all of them on our beautiful shores?? Do we need them all?? How will they control their stack emissions, CO2 emissions, fly-ash dust emissions, slug disposal? To what standards, EU or Local? Shouldn’t we have some reasonable limitations in numbers and capacities? Should we approve them all?

Energy is a very serious business. It is vital for the people. We should take very seriously all those regulating procedures starting from licensing, continued in financing, tendering, environmental controls, construction and long-term operations. We need qualified, experienced, highly educated public staff to monitor all these serious activities. Honestly speaking, if your writer were your Editor in a leading Newspaper on nationwide circulation, he would have never allowed any columnist to write an article if he had not got any education in Thermodynamics in his/her undergrad university education.

Kazakhstan is a young and energetic nation that turned 25 on Dec. 16. It is a Eurasian country, 90 percent of the territory of which lies in Asia, 10 percent in Europe and is located in Central Asia. This oil-rich country with a vast territory (2.7 million square kilometers) has had many success stories in a short span of time, one of which has an Indonesian angle.

In 1997, Indonesian business tycoon Hashim Djojohadikusumo, the brother of Gerindra Party leader Prabowo Subianto, bought an oil field in Kazakhstan for US$88 million, in partnership with Canadian investors. The chief of Arsari business group, which has interests in paper, palm oil, mining and logistics, suffered heavy losses during the Asian financial crisis in 1998. But his luck changed in 2007.

According to the China Daily Asia, Hashim made the biggest deal in his life in 2007 when he sold his Kazakhstan oil field to the China CITIC group for $1.9 billion.

Like Hashim many investors have invested heavily in Kazakhstan.

“Our country has so far attracted more than $300 billion of foreign investment in just less than 25 years,” Kazakhstan Ambassador to Indonesia Askhat Orazbay said recently during a reception to celebrate his country’s 25th independence anniversary in Jakarta.

This huge investment has come from China, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the UK and the US and many others.

Kazakhstan is a leading exporter of oil and gas, uranium, chromium, lead, zinc, manganese, copper, gold, wheat, textiles and livestock. It is one of the main suppliers of oil and gas to Europe. Its current production is around 1.5 million barrels per day. Kazakhstan is the world’s sixth-biggest source of minerals. Of the 110 chemical elements listed in Mendeleev’s periodic table, 99 of them are available in this Central Asian state.

Kazakhstan became an independent country on Dec. 16, 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

With a population of only 18 million people, Kazakhstan has accomplished many significant achievements in a wide range of fields, including in economics, politics and global peace during the last 25 years and has transformed itself into a dynamic Asian nation. In the beginning, many doubted the ability of independent Kazakhstan to stand on its own.

“In 1991, some observers doubted our ability to survive as a sovereign nation, given our multi-ethnic population, our diversity of religions, and a challenging legacy of nuclear weapons and infrastructure. But we have turned this challenge into an opportunity – and over a quarter of a century have made the journey from a country with no footprint on the political map to a stable nation and a respected member of the international community,” wrote Kazakhstan Foreign Minister Erlan Idrissov recently on the The Huffington Post website.

On the economic front, Kazakhstan’s journey has been astonishing. In 1992, its GDP was a mere $25 billion but today, according to Ambassador Orazbay, it is worth $231.9 billion. In power purchase parity terms, Kazakhstan’s GDP in 2015 was $429.16 billion. Now it is a high middle-income country with a per-capita income of $10,500.

Many developing countries like Indonesia can learn a lot from Kazkhstan’s success story. For example, Kazakhstan has successfully reduced its poverty rate from 47 percent in 2001 to 3 percent in 2013.

Kazakhstan has cleverly utilized the billions of dollars it has received from the windfall profits of its oil and gas industry for the benefit of its people by establishing a sovereign wealth fund. Now this fund, called Samruk-Kazyna, is worth $100 billion.

This fund has helped Kazakhstan a lot in weathering the impact of low oil prices. During the period of 2000 to 2013, Kazakhstan enjoyed, on average, a cracking economic growth rate of 8 percent. Only during the last two years has it suffered some severe setbacks due to the sudden slump in oil prices.

Under the able leadership of President Nursultan Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan has positioned itself to become a developed country in the near future. It has set an ambitious target of becoming one of the top-30 economies in the world by 2050, a huge leap from its economy’s present ranking of 43rd.

It has also acquired a higher position on the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Index.

“This year Kazakhstan increased its ranking to 35th place from the 41st place in 2015 in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business ranking,” Orazbay said.

In another significant milestone in its history, Kazakhstan will be hosting the World Expo 2017 in the capital Astana from June 10 to Sept.17.

“The expo’s theme will address global energy-related challenges and problems. The expo will be very important as it will deal with solutions to tackle climate change, an issue that is high on the agenda of many nations, including Indonesia and Kazakhstan,” Orazbay said.

About 105 countries and 17 international organizations will take part in the exhibition, which will attract more than 1 million visitors. It is the first time for a small former member of the Soviet Union to organize such a huge expo.

Beginning on Jan. 1, 2017, Kazakhstan will officially become a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). It defeated Thailand, Southeast Asia’s second-largest economy, to get the UNSC seat for the Asia-Pacific region. It will retain this position for two years.

“Our progress is, perhaps, best signified by our recent election to join the UN Security Council as a non-permanent member for 2017-2018. Kazakhstan, the first country from Central Asia to sit on the UN Security Council, will use its experience to promote fighting terrorism and extremism, stabilizing our regional neighbor Afghanistan, as well as strengthening nuclear non-proliferation and security,” Idrissov said.

“Our election is an important sign of the trust the international community places in Kazakhstan to be a firm advocate for peace, stability and justice in the world”.
This small state, which is a world leader in the movement to ban nuclear weapons, played a big role in designing the Universal Declaration for the Achievement of a Nuclear-Weapons-Free World, which has been supported by 35 countries. The UN General Assembly adopted it on Dec. 7, 2015.

Another of President Nazarbayev’s major initiatives is to promote religious tolerance. For this, he has launched the process called the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia. Astana has also hosted the triennial Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions.

Kazakhstan has stamped its mark on sports, science, education, technology, arts and many other aspects of global life. It is very clear from all these achievements that Kazakhstan is a country that intends to continue to punch well above its weight to achieve its goals in the future.

“The people of Kazakhstan can be proud. Our country has achieved a great deal in a short time. But we remain ambitious to build on what has been achieved at home and to step up our role in promoting peace and prosperity globally,” Idrissov said.

By Saeed Davar*

Turkey must be considered a country of change and its incumbent President Recep Tayyip Erdogan can be considered as Turkey’s Charles de Gaulle.

Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the biggest change that came about in its wake was the emergence of the modern Turkey. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk founded a new government and defined a new political structure for Turkey, which has managed to sway the real power up to the present time. Even a politician like incumbent President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is afraid of a serious face-off with Ataturk’s theories and this fear arises from the fact that almost half of people as well as the country’s key institutions still consider Ataturk as the father of their republic and are loyal to him.

At present, it seems that history is repeating itself from another angle and new changes are in the offing in Turkey. Since discussions started about the necessity of amending the country’s constitution, the political atmosphere in the country has been affected by special expectations. Erdogan is a resilient, ambitious and power-oriented politician though his capacity for taking criticism in the country’s political arena is limited.

The draft constitution proposed by Erdogan is similar to a model of the French or American constitutions and political structures, though it is more like the French model of constitution. In the new constitution, the Turkish president has vast powers and can have a deputy and also appoint some key officials of the judiciary.

In addition, he will have the power to appoint chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff and the intelligence apparatus as well as chancellors of universities and senior state officials as a result of which he would not have to go through the parliament and get the positive vote of lawmakers for this purpose.

This is a form of presidential system whose terms were first used by Maurice Duverger in 1978 to describe the French Fifth Republic. The main feature of this system was the vast powers delegated to the president, who was elected by the people. This form of government is currently in place in Portugal, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Romania and Algeria.

Now the question is: Will the prime minister come from an opposition party if the president enjoys parliamentary minority?

Of course, I believe that nobody should look for a well-defined prime minister in such a system. At the present time, it seems that Erdogan is eyeing this system in order to boost his power. The main goal of Erdogan is to create a basic foundation and fortify the pillars of the ruling Justice and Development Party’s power in order to guarantee the party’s presence in major power institutions for several decades to come and even long after he is gone. In doing so, Erdogan is sure that there would be no second Erdogan within the ranks of the Justice and Development Party in whom the party and its supporters would be able to put the same degree of trust that they currently put in Erdogan.

Enforcement of this law will pave the way for Erdogan to remain at the apex of the power pyramid up to 2029. In this way, the Justice and Development Party will remain in power for 30 years and the way would be cleared for later leaders of the party to snatch the power in the country.

On the other hand, Erdogan could only think about a fundamental faceoff with Ataturk’s legacy and expect victory in the course of a long time, but to do this, he would need to change the ideals of the republic. I am sure that it is not possible to weaken Ataturk’s ideas in a substantial manner unless strategic thinking of those politicians, who are active behind the scenes changes. Through amendments in the constitution, Erdogan could have the post of interim executive president immediately following the referendum if new changes in the constitution are approved. Following the referendum, a presidential poll will be held according to a schedule and at the end of Erdogan’s current term in office in 2019.

According to the current limitations considered for presidential elections on the basis of Turkey’s constitution, if Erdogan wins the 2019 election, he will remain in power until 2024. The important point, however, is that according to amendments proposed for the establishment of a presidential system, if those amendments are approved, the current term of Erdogan in office will not be counted and the count for his presidential terms will start in 2019.

As a result, he will be able to run for two more five-year terms from 2019 and practically stay in power up to 2029. Available evidence shows that Devlet Bahceli, the chairman of the Nationalist Movement Party, has agreed to these amendments.

Therefore, if 60 percent of lawmakers vote for the changes in the constitution, the relevant referendum will be held in the summer of 2017, but if two-thirds of lawmakers uphold the changes, no more voting at the parliament would be needed.

I believe that this system will increase the share of parties from the country’s power pyramid and, therefore, it can be made subject to a political, and of course, legal deal, so that, Turkey’s new political system would become something similar to that of France or the United States. A president arising out of parties will either succeed or come under criticism due to plans his party will offer for domestic and foreign affairs and this issue will affect the fate of the president’s party as well.

According to this model, rotational presidency will be institutionalized in Turkey. Of course, to the extent that the president’s party plans become successful, it would be more possible for the person belonging to that party to become president, though not for more than two terms. Following proposed amendments, Turkish parties may not be able to directly enter the presidential cycle and would not be able to enter the election, but they will still have the chance to play a more limited role in that cycle.

If participation in the national movement continues, some parties may be willing to accept these changes and this issue will further strengthen the standing of the Justice and Development Party. I believe that just in the same way that Erdogan can focus on national issues of Turkey and get the positive views of his country’s grey wolves, he is also able to get the votes of the people’s republic through calculated measures on Ataturk’s theories.

* Saeed Davar
International Analyst

Senior adviser Ali Akbar Velayati to Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said that orders to Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and AEOI Head Ali Akbar Salehi in response to the renewal of the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) by the US were the first, but not the last measures to be taken by Iran.

Velayati made the comments at press conference of the 10th meeting of the Islamic Awakening Supreme Council on Wednesday morning in Tehran.

According to Velayati, a member of the JCPOA Supervisory Committee, Rohani’s recent order to Iran’s Zarif and Salehi to take proper measures against the violation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), “Iran took part in nuclear talks in line with international regulations and on the basis of JCPOA provisions, Iran had agreed to halt nuclear activities for a specified period and Americans, in turn, had promised to prevent extension of sanctions against Iran.”

Velayati deemed the US actions as blatant violation of JCPOA maintaining that all parties possess the right to make complaints and Iran would take steps as needed.

Velayati said Iran would never consent to American sanctions and the US would be the main loser at the end of the day: “Rohani’s orders to the two senior Iranian officials marked Iran’s first reactions though they will not be our final step.”

Source: Edited from content from Mehr News Agency.

By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

VMRO DPMNE leader and former prime minister Nikola Gruevski on Saturday savaged the work of Macedonia’s election commission, the DIK, after it accepted a complaint about the recent general election result filed by an opposition party.

Speaking on Saturday evening in front of party supporters massed for a third day in front of the electoral commission’s headquarters, Gruevski read out a proclamation which began by accusing the DIK of reaching “unlawful decisions” whose aim was to cheat the will of the people.

“The work of the DIK has turned into parody. We have information that foreign representatives are interfering with [the work of] some DIK members [to commit] electoral engineering. Some DIK members are not independent,” Gruevski said.

He added that his party would not participate in any possible election reruns in some areas.

Gruevski delivered his uncompromising response after the DIK accepted one out of eight electoral complaints filed by the opposition BESA party and after it rejected seven filed by the main opposition Social Democratic Union, SDSM.

The DIK is still mulling the last SDSM complaint which, if accepted, could have an impact on the outcome of the poll and could even out the number of MPs that the main ruling and opposition parties won in last Sunday’s vote.

According to preliminary unofficial results, VMRO DPMNE won 51 of the 120 seats in parliament and the SDSM won 49.

Gruevski went on to say that his party was withdrawing from the format of party meetings between the four strongest parties being mediated by foreign representatives or ambassadors, which has been used in the past two years of political crisis in the country. It appeared to signal an end to the EU-mediated “Przino agreement”, which established the format.

“Some ambassadors have begun to interfere in [Macedonia’s] internal affairs too much. That has to end. Some ambassadors have to stop doing that. We demand that they stay within the frameworks of their diplomatic mandates,” Gruevski said.

He also said his party would no longer accept any solutions towards overcoming the political crisis which were “not standard” practice in EU countries.

Gruevski then held out a threat to civil sector bodies and NGOs that receive funds from abroad, saying his party would “fight for the de-Soros-isation of the country”, referring to organisations actually or allegedly funded by billionaire financier George Soros.

In the past few days, VMRO DPMNE politicians and prominent supporters have heated up the crowds gathered in front of the DIK building, accusing the SDSM of plotting “treason”.

One speaker warned of re-enacting in Macedonia a “Night of Long Knives”, referring to events in Nazi Germany in 1934 when the Hiter regime carried out a series of political extrajudicial executions to consolidate Hitler’s absolute power.

Pro-government supporters have also published the home addresses of opposition activists in the so-called “colourful revolution” movement on social networks, with warning notices reading, “Get ready, we are coming”.

Some have been carrying banners reading “Baily Out”, referring to US Ambassador Jess Baily whom they accuse of interfering in the work of the DIK, which he denies.

Last Sunday’s elections have clearly failed to resolve a prolonged political crisis that began last year when the SDSM released wiretaps that it said showed Gruevski’s government had illegally wiretapped over 20,000 people, among other alleged crimes.

Gruevski, who took power in 2006 and resigned as prime minister earlier this year under an EU-brokered accord reached last summer, claims unnamed foreign intelligence services “fabricated” the wiretapping tapes and gave them to the SDSM to destabilise the country.

The ruling party claims that the frequent anti-government protests staged in the past two years dubbed the “colorful revolution” are part of the same scenario.
– See more at: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/macedonia-s-gruevski-gives-threatening-speech-12-17-2016#sthash.KhehkoFe.dpuf

In a surprise upset for incumbent President John Dramani Mahama, Ghanaian voters turned out strongly for opposition candidate Nana Akufo-Addo, whose campaign for the presidency gave hope to thousands of jobless.

While Akufo-Addo bagged 54% of the vote, Mahama took 44% on December 7. It was the first time in Ghana that an opposition candidate defeated an incumbent President at the ballot box – a reason strong enough for outgoing United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to congratulate Akufo-Addo on his election as President of Ghana.

Ban thanked outgoing President John Dramani Mahama for his role in defusing tensions and preserving peace during the election period. According to a statement issued by his office on December 9, Ban reiterated UN’s commitment to continue assisting the Government of Ghana in consolidating democratic and development achievements.

Ban also congratulated the people of the African nation, who turned out in large numbers to participate in the presidential and parliamentary elections on December 7, and commended the country’s Electoral Commission for successfully organizing the elections.

“There must be jobs in our country,” opposition candidate Akufo-Addo declared. “That means big investments in viable industries and boosting our agriculture productivity,” adding that he was also committed to delivering on a pledge, made five years ago, to ensure that all Ghanaians would have access to free secondary education.

“The lack of jobs, which is the case under (the Mahama) government, poses a threat to the future stability of our country,” he warned against the backdrop that Ghana’s underemployment rate is 33% with 69% of the working population in low wage, insecure and informal jobs, according to the online news site Ghanaweb.

According to the World Bank, some 48 percent of the youth between 15-24 years have no jobs. In a press interview, Akufo-Addo stressed that jobs for this sector would get top priority as rising youth unemployment was a “betrayal of future generations and would create problems down the road”.

Unemployment is also higher among women, according to the Bank. Agriculture, the backbone of Ghana’s economy, recorded the lowest average growth rate at 3.9 per cent annually over a period of two decades from 1993 to 2013.

The crisis in employment has been called “an unemployment time bomb” which has forced hundreds of high school graduates to leave the country for better work opportunities.

In a move to build back industry, Akufo-Addo pledged to build one factory in each of Ghana’s 216 districts. He vowed to build a dam in every village to support agriculture.

Along with jobs, the president-elect promised to attack corruption with the appointment of an independent prosecutor. Transparency International has ranked Ghana as second most corrupt African country, after South Africa.

President-elect Akufo-Addo, who will be sworn in on January 7 after a short transition period, comes from a prominent Ghanaian royal and political family. His maternal grandfather was Nana Sir Ofori Atta, King of Akyem Abuakwa, one of the largest and wealthiest kingdoms of the then Gold Coast Colony.

His father was a Chief Justice, President of Ghana (1970-1972) and member of the “Big Six” who, along with Kwame Nkrumah, spearheaded the transition from colony to independence.

Seventy-two year old Akufo-Addo’s own political career spans more than four decades. Active in political movements in his early 30s, he criticized the military government of the time that overthrew Nkrumah and his government when Nkrumah was abroad with Zhou Enlai in the People’s Republic of China, on a fruitless mission to Hanoi in Vietnam to help end the Vietnam War.

The coup took place on February 24, 1966. A series of alternating military and civilian governments from 1966 to 1981 ended with the ascension to power of Flight Lieutenant Jerry John Rawlings of the Provisional National Defense Council (PNDC) in 1981. These changes resulted in the suspension of the Constitution of Ghana in 1981, and the banning of political parties in Ghana.

A new Constitution of Ghana restoring multi-party system politics was promulgated in Ghanaian presidential election, 1992; Rawlings was elected as president of Ghana then, and again in Ghanaian general election, 1996.

Winning the 2000 Ghanaian elections, John Agyekum Kufuor of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) was sworn into office as president of Ghana on January 7, 2001, and attained the presidency again in the 2004 Ghanaian elections, thus also serving two term of office term limit as president of Ghana and thus marking the first time under the fourth republic of Ghana that power had been transferred from one legitimately elected head of state and head of government to another.

Kufuor was succeeded to the presidency of the Republic of Ghana by John Atta Mills of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) following the Ghanaian presidential election, 2008 and John Atta Mills was inaugurated as the third president of the fourth republic of Ghana and eleventh president of Ghana on January 7, 2009, prior to John Atta Mills being succeeded as president of Ghana by then vice-president of Ghana John Dramani Mahama on July 24, 2012.

Following the Ghanaian presidential election, 2012 John Dramani Mahama became supreme commander-in-chief, and he was inaugurated as the 4th President of the Fourth Republic of Ghana and 12th President of Ghana on January 7, 2013 to serve a one term of office of four-year term length as supreme commander-in-chief and president of Ghana until January 7, 2017, and securing Ghana’s status as a stable democracy.

Note: This article has availed of Wikipedia to sum up the history of Ghana’s return to democracy and political stability.

Ashraf Ghani, the president of Afghanistan has repeatedly slammed Pakistan for harboring terrorist groups. Pointing to Sartaj Aziz, advisor to the prime minister of Pakistan on foreign affairs, Ashraf Ghani asked Pakistan to utilize the amount of a $500 million pledge in aid to tackle extremism inside their own country, while speaking at the sixth ministerial conference of the Heart of Asia – Istanbul Process in the northern Indian city of Amritsar.

Besides, while addressing youth in Kabul, Ghani affirmed, “We want dignified relations with our neighbors, not charity.”

Afghanistan and Pakistan have been constantly at loggerheads since the birth of the later in 1947. However, on the eve of his inauguration, Afghan president Ashraf Ghani maintained that his country is in an undeclared war from the neighboring Pakistan through the last decades and insisted on bringing it to its logical end.

Therefore, he went to Pakistan and met Pakistani leaders both civilians and military figures, but in vain.

Ghani elaborated to Pakistani officials in Islamabad and Rawalpindi that Afghanistan can be a helpful neighbor in addressing regional and mutual threats if Islamabad proves to cooperate in bringing peace in war-shattered country. This opened a new chapter of optimism for a harmonious neighborly coexistence. As of Afghanistan’s goodwill to normalize relations with Pakistan, Ghani allowed a group of Afghan National Army cadets to attend 14-month military training in Pakistan Military Academy as it was bulked previously by President Hamid Karzai.

Additionally, Ghani suspended much-delayed request of Indian weaponry that was initiated by his predecessor. By this, Ghani has halted a more than decade-long improvement in Afghan-Indo ties. Ghani’s provocative measures towards Pakistan welcomed by world’s major powers including China, an all-weather friend of Pakistan, US and the EU, but it had a serious backfire inside the country. His approaching policy to Pakistan caused that his political opponents labeled him as a traitor who tries to sell out the country to Pakistan. However, President Ashraf Ghani insisted that his country is engaged in an undeclared war with Pakistan and this needs to be resolved by hook or by crook.

Things changed rapidly in favor of his political opponents in Afghanistan. As a flashpoint in a flip flop relation, Kabul witnessed deathly attacks that caused more than 50 deaths and 300 injured in August 2015 and the relation with Pakistan became disillusioned and resentful as Taliban claimed responsibility for the attacks – except the one took place in Shah Shahid area in the south of Kabul city. The incidents sabotaged the efforts before it burgeoned.

Ghani accused Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism inside his country and took steps to resume ties with India. An already waiting India, welcomed him and in addition to accepting the military assistance wish list to some extent as at the first step gifted four Mi-25 combat helicopters to Afghan Air Force, India promised $1 billion in aid to the Afghan government and more humanitarian assistance during Ashraf Ghani’s trip to Delhi in September 2016. The face winning phase of his relation with Pakistan came to an end and accusation phase has surfaced.

Encouraged and persuaded by the United States, China and Pakistan, Ghani attended the fifth Heart of Asia conference in Islamabad on Dec 09th, 2015 in dismal, though a bonhomie for resuscitated relations between the two countries emerged and shortened the schism between Kabul and Islamabad as Pakistan promised to drag Taliban on negotiation table as did in Murree on July 7th, 2015. But the facts proved quite different as president Ghani termed in Amritsar at sixth Heart of Asia conference, “Last year, Afghanistan suffered the highest number of civilian causalities and military-related deaths in the world. This is unacceptable. It can be avoided.”

In fact, military generals in Rawalpindi has a subversive perception toward Afghanistan. Afghan officials and some western diplomats claim that Pakistani military apparatus provide sanctuaries for Taliban and other terrorist outlets in their country and they are trained, mobilized and dispatched by them into Afghanistan as recently, Ashraf Ghani quoted Mullah Rahmatullah Kakazada, one of the high ranked figures in the Taliban movement who recently said; if they did not have sanctuary in Pakistan, they would not last a month.

Nevertheless, appointing Qamar Javed Bajwa who was not a potential candidate, as the Chief of Army Staff by Nawaz Sharif Pakistan’s PM, it is hoped that the schism between military apparatus and civil government of Pakistan shortened, so a general consensus should be made on fight against extremism and terrorism inside and outside Pakistan whole handedly.

On the other hand, the time is ripe to drag the Afghan Taliban to negotiation table otherwise the opportunity will be missed by Pakistan as the insurgent group is seeking new friends such as Russia and Iran who can better bargain on them with the Afghan government and The United States for their own purposes. Therefore, it belongs to Pakistan to bargain on Taliban and play its significant role in Afghan Peace Process or she should continue lurking aimlessly in the abyss of war diplomacy which the result might be international isolation.

Last but not least, keeping in mind the core and strategic challenges of Pakistan such as their dire need for energy, water, transit and of course “international isolation”, Ashraf Ghani calls for a long lasting Cobden-Chevalier Treaty type agreement between the two nations, so together to achieve common goals.

*Nassir Ahmad Taraki lives in Kabul. He is a university lecturer and writes on current affairs. He can be followed on twitter @NassirTaraki

Are you terrified of “fake news”? Don’t worry, the elites are doing something to combat it!

As anyone active on the Internet is aware, there have been increasing calls for social media companies (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) to address the mostly manufactured crisis of “fake news” making its way onto people’s computer screens. The mainstream media, which finds itself increasingly viewed as untrustworthy by the American public, has latched on to the idea that the relatively free flow of ideas and opinions on the Internet actually poses a threat to our well-being.

As could be expected, political leaders jumped in early on this attack on independent media. In October, President Obama urged Americans to avoid independent news sources and stick with the mainstream, urging a kind of filter for information. He told an audience in Pittsburgh:

There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard. … The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.

Hillary Clinton, after losing the election, sounded even more bitter about non-mainstream media sources, warning the Senate about the, “epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year.”

To Hillary, it was personal: independent media could be deadly. Said the defeated candidate earlier this month:

This isn’t about politics or partisanship. Lives are at risk — lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It’s a danger that must be addressed, and addressed quickly.

Lives are at risk! It was only a matter of time before some of these social media behemoths embraced the requests of the elites they most identify with. Yesterday, Facebook announced that it was going to employ a variety of “fact-checking” organizations to make sure no “fake news” made it onto people’s Facebook news feeds. So Facebook will be using Snopes, PolitiFact, Factcheck.org, ABC News, and the Associated Press, among others, to check its members’ postings and label them as “fake news” if these organizations determine them to be so.

One problem: these organizations themselves are among the biggest purveyors of real fake news! PolitiFact has a whole website dedicated to exposing the organization’s biases. The popular site Snopes is in fact run by a husband and wife out of their home in California. Neither have any background in research or investigative techniques — they just use Google to make their determinations. As for AP and ABC News — they are mainstream media outlets with no clean hands when it comes to propagating fake stories. In fact the Associated Press has a long history of coordinating with governments to produce fake news.

Political fact checking is not a science. On the contrary, more often than not it carries with it all the biases of any hyper-partisan organization.

Never fear. A group of selfless and unbiased philanthropists have stepped forward to offer millions of dollars to assist these “fact-checkers” in their efforts to ferret out and disappear anything they determine to be “fake news.” It seems rather curious, however, that these donors are all in fact in one way or other completely beholden to Hillary Clinton and the left-interventionists of the Democratic Party.

Who are they? George Soros, otherwise known as Hillary’s sugar daddy. EBay founder Pierre Omidyar who’s given more than $30 million to the Clintons and their charities. Google — “in like Flynn” for Hillary. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And the commie/neocon National Endowment for Democracy (which, as a government-funded entity, will be using our own money to censor news it deems harmful to us).

These are the people who will decide what you will see on Facebook. Are you happy to be thusly protected?

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

By Dr. Matthew Crosston*

The current America media coverage in the West on the Russian-hacking scandal has largely been used to further portray President-elect Donald Trump as either an oblivious ignoramus (granted, this is not the only issue used to try to portray the President-elect in such a light) or as some oddly recalcitrant Russian patsy, being used and manipulated by a strategically superior Vladimir Putin. Part of this motivation is clearly rooted in a still bitterly disappointed progressive movement that clings to the hope some piece of information can emerge before January 20th that might derail the inauguration.

Since the possibility of recounts, voter fraud, and other such shenanigans seemed to wither and die on the vine before they could gain any real momentum, the Russian-hacking scandal is now the du jour focus for the anti-Trump brigade. Since largely domestic procedural complaints failed, perhaps an international espionage illegitimacy angle will work? The reality is this will not work and for several important reasons. It seems that mainstream media isn’t interested in covering these reasons but the larger global community should be cognizant of them.

1. The relative insignificance of the information released through hacks

It has been rather odd to see how a fact that was hugely trumpeted by progressives during the campaign is now being largely shoved under the media rug, as it were: that just about all of the massive trove of emails released by Wikileaks contained either self-evident ‘duh’ moments (the Democratic National Committee felt it needed to support Hillary over Bernie in order to have a better chance in the national election? This is news-worthy or a surprise to anyone?) or were mind-numbingly boring (exactly how many Podesta emails must we read to know that Podesta really wasn’t all that important in the election campaign?). The interesting bait-and-switch being performed now in mainstream media is that the public is being told to not focus on the content of the hacks but simply on the process: that a foreign nation allegedly engineered the release is what needs to be criminalized and anyone who benefited from it should be nullified. Creative, most certainly, but not legitimate to nullify the election because no one will be able to explicitly and quantifiably show the impact any alleged Russian hacking had on actual voter turnout. Without that crucial evidentiary connection the trail simply goes dormant.

2.The crucial aspects of Hillary’s poor performance in key-Democratic areas cannot be truly tied to Russian-hacking

Three crucial states that Hillary ultimately lost were Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Inside each were three key democratic stronghold cities: Detroit, Philadelphia, and Miami. Hillary handily beat Trump in all three, mostly by percentages in the high teens. A prominent victory for sure in most races. The problem, of course, is that Obama four years earlier had taken those three cities over Romney by percentages as high as EIGHTY, a truly astounding figure. This trouncing helped Obama carry those three crucial states in 2012. Hillary’s relatively modest wins there were not enough to overcome Trump’s state dominance outside of those metropolitan centers. No one can show or prove that the largely urban minority populations of Detroit, Philadelphia, and Miami were demotivated to go vote for Hillary because of Wikileaks. This is because that demotivation was not instigated by the Russians but by the relatively uninspiring and indifferent attitude of the Clinton campaign. It was so confident it was going to easily capture these areas, based on the resounding victories of Obama beforehand, that it basically just bypassed them on the campaign trail again and again. This clearly proved to be a huge mistake but it had nothing at all to do with Russians engineering a Trump presidency. Thus in some ways Russian hacking is now being used to cover over fundamental strategic missteps in the Democratic campaign.

3.The overall poor turnout on both sides of the electorate places blame in other places

While Trump did indeed command a healthy electoral college victory, he did in fact lose the popular vote. This enrages many progressives (even though they went through this exact scenario 16 years ago, when Gore lost a much closer electoral college race, but won the overall popular vote against Bush) and allows them to not pay as much attention to the eternal vexation of American politics: that a mature and stable democracy seems to never motivate its voting population to participate beyond 50%. So, taking half of half, as it were, means once again America is putting into the Oval Office a person who was explicitly affirmed by barely 25% of the public. This undermines the accusation that any Russian hacking campaign was crucially impactful in the election results: it needs to be shown that the hacks either inspired Trump voters to go out or depressed Clinton voters from showing up. In real terms, as in recent Presidential elections, the electorate overall stayed remarkably and uninspiringly consistent in terms of poor participation. Thus, it is legitimate to argue Russian hacking had relatively little influence.

4.The disagreement now emerging from within the American Intelligence Community about what it all means still misses a basic point of fact

The CIA has been the agency within US Intelligence (there are 17 overall within the American system) that has spear-headed both the analysis of the alleged Russian hacking and the conclusions to be made from it. CIA analysts have continuously stated the ‘evidence’ leading back to Russian-based hacking efforts is overwhelming. While Trump still somewhat clumsily misplays this fact by trying to stubbornly deny any such evidence at all, people need to realize that the more important question is not one of process but intent. Amazingly, it seems significant players within the US Intelligence Community are starting to unknowingly or begrudgingly agree with Trump.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has maintained that the main problem in the hacking analysis is that no one has the ability to peer into the mindset of the actual actors who did the hacking. Therefore, the ability to know the true intent of the hacking is impossible to ascertain. The FBI, which usually conducts its analyses based on the higher threshold of building an actual legal case before an American court, has first agreed with the ODNI but then, receiving some criticism, has said it agrees with the overall conclusion of the CIA. This will get a lot of new press in the West but it won’t hide the fact that the FBI would NOT want to go to court with what the CIA has shown so far as ‘proof of electoral results tampering.’

There is a huge difference between being co-conspirators to undermine the institutions of American democracy and engineer an illegitimate result and simply wanting to embarrass the candidate who has spent half a dozen years publicly proclaiming anti-Russian policies and sentiments (something Hillary has done with ample media evidence to prove it). Given the shock of most media outlets during election night it is hard to imagine Russian sources were more in tune with the pulse of the American people. Which means they thought Hillary was going to win just like everybody else. Which means the hacking, if anything, was not about electing Trump pre-election but embarrassing Clinton post-election. And while that is still certainly unsavory it also does not add up to anything more than what every politically-motivated campaign ad was trying to do to each candidate all throughout the election campaign for two years.

Unfortunately, the present media circus surrounding the hacking scandal has dripped into the true corridors of power within Washington, as both the Senate and House of Representatives are demanding deeper investigations. But these investigations are going to do nothing but reveal the very astute and important divergence presently separating the US Intelligence Community: no one is ever going to be able to ‘prove’ in a legal sense that Russia explicitly compromised the American presidential election. What it did was largely akin to very powerful and well-financed PAC (political action committee) campaigns fueling anti-Clinton rumors and disinformation. But that reality is something that epitomizes nearly every election campaign at every level within American today. Just look at the recent fervor to root out ‘fake news.’ For those who analyze foreign policy closely, it is not surprising that Russia would prefer a President Trump over a President Clinton. But that does not mean the Trump Presidency now exists solely or exclusively because of Russian interference. It doesn’t. And progressives need to realize this manufactured bogeyman is not going to help them move forward as a party or strategize better in future elections.

About the author:
*Dr. Matthew Crosston is Vice Chairman of Modern Diplomacy and member of the Editorial Board at the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

Cancer has a major impact on mental and physical wellbeing, researchers report at the ESMO Asia 2016 Congress in Singapore.

Results from a Malaysian study (1) of 1,362 patients found more than four in five survivors were suffering from anxiety and a similar number had depression a year after diagnosis.

Lead author Shridevi Subramaniam, a research officer at the National Clinical Research Center, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said: “We urgently need new ways of supporting cancer survivors and addressing wider aspects of wellbeing.

“Instead of just focusing on clinical outcome, doctors must focus equally on quality of life for cancer patients especially psychologically, financially and socially.”

Researchers included Malaysian patients from the ACTION study (ASEAN Cost in Oncology Study) and nearly a third (33%) had breast cancer. They filled in questionnaires to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Anxiety and depression levels were also included in the survey.

A patient’s satisfaction with their physical health and mental wellbeing- or health-related quality of life — is an important end result in cancer care. But the study showed that patients’ mental and physical wellbeing was low overall 12 months after diagnosis. The more advanced the cancer, the lower the HRQoL.

The type of cancer was also a factor because disease severity differs. Women with reproductive system cancers, for example, had higher wellbeing scores than lymphoma patients. This could be explained by the fact that lymphoma is often aggressive and progresses quickly while reproductive system cancers, such as cervical, can spread slowly over a number of years. “The key message is to focus more on supporting patients throughout their whole cancer ‘journey’ especially in their lives after treatment,” added Subramanian.

Young pay high mental and social ‘cost’ for cancer diagnosis

Cancer also has a significant impact on the lives and wellbeing of adolescents and young adults, as reported in a separate ongoing study (2).

Researchers set out to identify the extent of wellbeing issues and other problems in this group who not only are at major milestones in their lives but also do not expect to develop the disease. The study included patients who were newly diagnosed with cancer (n=56) and with an average age of 28. They completed a survey including questions on occupation and lifestyle, and were also asked about problems around physical symptoms, mental wellbeing and financial issues

Results showed more than a third (37%) were suffering distress at diagnosis of cancer. Nearly half identified the top cause as treatment decisions, followed by family health issues, sleep and worry.

Senior author Associate Professor Alexandre Chan, Department of Pharmacy, National University of Singapore and Specialist Pharmacist, National Cancer Center, Singapore, said: “The young differ from older people because they don’t expect to be ill, and certainly not with cancer. They’re also at a stage when they’re facing many social responsibilities and family burdens. “That’s why they need effective supportive care and help in managing the physical, psychological and emotional side-effects that come with both cancer diagnosis and treatment.”

Commenting on these studies, Ravindran Kanesvaran, assistant professor, Duke-NUS Medical School, and Consultant Medical Oncologist, National Cancer Center, Singapore, said: “There is a critical need to find ways of addressing the high levels of distress among cancer survivors in general as highlighted by the Malaysian study.

“The psycho-social impact of cancer on adolescents and young adults also clearly needs further evaluation. This is to assess the impact on quality of life at the time of diagnosis as well as throughout and after treatment.

“What’s required are specific interventions to meet the needs of this age group, as well as specially tailored survivorship programmes and supportive care.

“While it’s not surprising that the young adult cancer population has a higher risk of suicide, conducting studies like this help us find new ways to address this issue effectively.”