By Jorge Valero

(EurActiv) — Few leaders from Europe’s largest countries and EU institutions will attend the elite gathering in Davos next week (17-20 January), despite the fact that the threat of populism is expected to be high on the agenda.

The World Economic Forum represents not only a unique opportunity to gauge global risks and challenges, but a chance to foresee transformations in the power balance among global players.

This year, the overarching theme is “Responsive and Responsible Leadership.”

The gathering, to take place in the Swiss Alps, will wrap up just hours before Donald Trump is sworn in as the 45th US president on 20 January.

During his campaign, the outspoken mogul championed less activism abroad and more protectionism in trade relations with third countries.

Against this backdrop, Chinese President Xi Jinping will attend the forum with a clear message to world leaders: Beijing is willing to take over as champion of globalisation and multilateralism.

The US retreat from global affairs, and the political instability in Europe, has created a vacuum on the global stage that Mr Xi is willing to fill. It will be the first time that a Chinese president will have attended the Davos forum.

But the US could still turn up with a strong delegation at this year’s edition, led by outgoing Vice-President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry, according to sources familiar with the agenda.

Trump would be represented by Anthony Scaramucci, a member of his transition team.

The US and China’s strong presence in Davos will contrast with a somewhat limited selection of Europe’s top brass.

So far, Theresa May (Britain), Mark Rutte (The Netherlands), Enda Kenny (Ireland), Stefan Löfven (Sweden), Xavier Bettel (Luxembourg), Charles Michel (Belgium) and Andrej Plenkovic (Croatia) are expected to travel to Davos.

The heads of the EU institutions are not expected to attend the summit.

The Commission will be represented by a dozen Commissioners, including five vice-presidents (except Jyrki Katainen).

Member states will be represented mainly by their finance ministers, including Wolfgang Schäuble (Germany), Michel Sapin (France), Pier Carlo Padoan (Italy) and Luis de Guindos (Spain).

Eurogroup President, and Dutch Minister of Finance, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, will be there too.

An estimated 50 heads of state or government and hundreds of top business people met at the forum last year.

The list of VIP participants for 2017 includes the heads of the IMF (Christine Lagarde), NATO (Jens Stoltenberg) and the OECD (Angel Gurría).

The leaders of Paraguay, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Pakistan, Ukraine, South Africa, Vietnam and Ivory Coast will also attend the forum.

Some of the figures expected to grab more media attention are the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, and the President of Colombia and winner of 2016 Nobel Peace Prize, Juan Manuel Santos.

The Davos forum brings together political leaders, CEOs and presidents of the largest multinationals, monarchs, and celebrities involved in social causes.

Next week, Shakira and Queen Rania of Jordan will be among the VIP delegation that will travel to the ski resort.

The euro area (EA19) seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate was 9.8% in November 2016, stable compared to October 2016 and down from 10.5% in November 2015, according to Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union.

This is the lowest rate recorded in the euro area since July 2009, according to Eurostat.

The EU28 unemployment rate was 8.3% in November 2016, down from 8.4% in October 2016 and from 9.0% in November 2015. This is the lowest rate recorded in the EU28 since February 2009.

The Pakistani government should urgently investigate the apparent abductions of four activists who campaign for human rights and religious freedom, Human Rights Watch said Monday. The four men, Salman Haider, a well-known poet and academic, and bloggers Waqas Goraya, Aasim Saeed, and Ahmad Raza Naseer, went missing or were taken away from different cities between January 4 and January 7, 2017.

All four men were vocal critics of militant religious groups and Pakistan’s military establishment, and used the internet to disseminate their views. Their near simultaneous disappearance and the government’s shutting down of their websites and blogs raises grave concerns of government involvement. While the Pakistani interior minister, Nisar Ali Khan, directed the police on January 7 to speed up efforts to locate Haider, whom the government says it is not holding, a broader effort is needed to uncover the whereabouts and well-being of all four men.

“The Pakistani government has an immediate obligation to locate the four missing human rights activists and act to ensure their safety,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “The nature of these apparent abductions puts the Nawaz Sharif government on notice that it can either be part of the solution or it will be held responsible for its role in the problem.”

Goraya, an anthropologist who blogged on issues of religious freedom, and Saeed, a blogger and an administrator of a Facebook page hosting progressive views critical of religious extremists and Pakistan’s security policies, were reported missing from Wapda Town, Lahore, on January 4.

Haider, a poet and professor at Fatima Jinnah Women University, went missing on the evening of January 6. His wife received a text message telling her to pick Salman’s car from Koral Chowk, Islamabad. The family has not heard from Salman or the abductors since.

On January 7, unidentified men took away Naseer, a blogger running a Facebook page broadcasting secular, progressive views, from his family’s shop in Sheikhupura, Punjab.

The government’s failure to provide information on the fate or whereabouts of a person taken into custody amounts to an enforced disappearance, which is a serious violation of international human rights law. “Disappearances” place individuals outside the protection of the law and make them more vulnerable to torture and other abuses.

After the four activists went missing, messages on social media have accused them of blasphemy and other crimes, heightening concerns for their safety.

Pakistani journalists and activists face an increasingly hostile climate due to harassment, threats, and violence from both state security forces and militant groups. In August 2016, the Pakistani government enacted a vague and overbroad cybercrimes law that threatens rights of privacy and freedom of expression. The law includes provisions that allow the government to censor online content, criminalize internet user activity, and access internet users’ data without judicial review.

Pakistan’s security establishment has a long history of intimidating critics. Pakistani and international human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, have extensively documented the intimidation, torture, enforced disappearances, and killings of activists and journalists. The Taliban and other armed groups have also threatened media outlets and targeted journalists and activists for their work.

In April 2015, prominent rights activist Sabeen Mahmud was killed by militants. The principal planner of her assassination later said that he killed her because, “she was generally promoting liberal, secular values.”

In May 2014, Rashid Rehman, a human rights activist and lawyer, was assassinated by militants in an apparent reprisal for his willingness to represent people charged under Pakistan’s blasphemy law.

In April 2014, unidentified gunmen attacked Hamid Mir, one of Pakistan’s most prominent television anchors in Karachi. Mir survived the attack, and Jang/Geo – his employer and the country’s largest media conglomerate – accused the director general of the government’s powerful Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) agency of involvement in the incident.

Saleem Shahzad, a reporter for the Hong Kong-based Asia Times Online and for Adnkronos International, the Italian news agency, disappeared from central Islamabad on the evening of May 29, 2011. Shahzad’s body, bearing visible signs of torture, was discovered two days later near Mandi Bahauddin, 80 miles southeast of the capital.

“The government needs to reduce the insecurity faced by journalists and activists, which has a severe chilling effect on their work,” Adams said. “This requires the government holding responsible the militants – and its own security agencies – that threaten and attack them.”

In the Name of the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

‘Indeed we belong to Allah and to Him do we indeed return.’

It is with deep regret and sorrow that I have received the news on the passing away of an old friend, a comrade and companion during the struggles of the Islamic movement, who was also a close colleague in the Islamic Republic of Iran over the last several years—His Eminence Hujatol Islam wal Muslimeen, Sheikh Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

The loss of a comrade, a companion with whom one has cooperated and felt close to for a full fifty-nine years, is difficult and overwhelming.

There were so many hardships and difficult moments we endured over the last decades. And there was so much sympathy and empathy we had towards one another in various eras that led us to accomplish efforts, practice patience, and take risks on this shared path.

His unique intelligence and friendliness throughout the years turned him into a reliable source of trust for all those who worked with him, particularly me.

At times, a difference of opinions and varying jurisprudences, during this long companionship, never managed to cut the ties of friendship between us; which first began in Beinul Haramain–in the holy Karbala. And the evil set forth by those who breathed temptation into the minds of people, who were trying hard over the last few years to exploit these theoretical differences, could not lead to any flaws in the deep, personal love he felt for this humble person.

He was a unique example among the first generation of fighters against the Shah’s oppression, one who suffered on this dangerous but prideful path.

Enduring years of incarceration and torture by the SAVAK, he resisted against all of these odds, then taking crucial responsibilities during the holy defense era, and later as chairman of the Islamic Consultative Assembly and the Assembly of Experts, are all golden pages in the varying life of this old fighter.

With the loss of Hashemi, I do not know any other figure with whom I have had so many shared experiences for so long, on the turbulent path of this historic era.

Now this elderly fighter is before God, for the divine calculation, with a record full of various endeavors and activities; and this is the destination in which all officials at the Islamic Republic will one day encounter.

I ask God for compassion, mercy and forgiveness towards him, from the depths of my heart, and I condole with his respected wife, children, brothers and other survivors.

May God forgive us and him!

By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed*

Amid negotiations to reach a political solution to end the Syrian war, Russia and Iran insist that President Bashar Assad stay in power. The two crucial allies pledged that he would remain president until the end of his tenure in office out of “respect for the constitution.” They also vowed to form a government that would include the opposition, and promised autonomy to provinces and governorates.

Anyone would accept this tempting offer if it was the condition for peace. Assad remaining in power would not be a problem if there were guarantees to implement these pledges. However, there are two problems.

Firstly, nobody ever knew how he won the presidential election that was held amid this terrible war in mid-2014. Why would he give up power when he fully restores his rule and the opposition is disarmed?

Secondly, his tenure ends in 2021 — these four long years are more than enough to liquidate all opposition and semi-opposition forces. Russia’s proposal of Assad’s temporary stay is in fact a life sentence.

If the opposition accepts this, it will give up everything and accept to return to the status quo before the 2011 uprising. It must also realize that its demands and promises of forming a unity government, constitutional guarantees and independent laws for provinces would be to no avail.

If there are international guarantees — though it is almost impossible to believe — that the coming years will be a transitional phase for reconciliation and handing over power, I expect that moderate opposition forces would accept them because their aim is not to destroy the country, but rather peaceful change.

The uprising began peacefully and continued for several months with non-violent demonstrations, lifting banners and singing songs — all calling for peaceful transition. It was totally different from uprisings in Tunisia, Libya and even Egypt.

Speaking of “respect for the constitution,” which has not been respected by those who drafted it, and of the call to complete Assad’s presidential term, it is just a negotiating ploy to make it easy for the opposition to concede, save face and claim in the future that it gained key concessions.

Syrians know very well that acceptance of the regime remaining in power for four more years would mean the opposition abandoning them and all the promises made to them, with more than half a million Syrians sacrificed and millions displaced forever. This would also mean ending the moderate opposition and strengthening extremists who refuse negotiations and are just as bad as the regime.

The opposition has a big responsibility, and will be held accountable for the results of what it negotiates and what it will sign. No one would believe that the opposition was deceived, as the election idea was previously proposed.

The elections were conducted amid a devastating war, and Assad won 89 percent of the vote. Most of the killing and destruction occurred after the elections, in which the Assad regime claimed that more than 10 million citizens took part, while we know for a fact that it was impossible for more than 2 million to take part.

Now the ploy is repeated by conditioning Assad’s stay to end the war. Syrians would rather accept the division of their country. By doing so, Assad would be granted a state and guarantee the majority of votes from his community without the need to rig elections. Then every party would live happily in their own state without war or suppression.

However, this bad project of division has been rejected by Turkey, Iran and Iraq because they fear the consequences. Today they are negotiating on Syria, which is like a broken jar. They want to return it to its previous state after all this terrible murder and destruction. How come?

*Abdulrahman Al-Rashed is a veteran columnist. He is the former general manager of Al Arabiya News Channel, and former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published.

Turkey and United States have been close security partners for more than half a century. Their partnership was forged in the early days of Cold War and shaped by the Soviet threat. Stalin’s territorial demands after World War II, including demands for a base on the Straits and border adjustments at Turkey’s expense, were the driving force behind the establishment of the US’s security partnership with Turkey.

The World is divided into zones: the “heartland geopolitical area”,comprising much of Central Asia, and the “rimland geopolitical area” , which extends from Western Europe through the Arabian peninsula to the Asia coast. In the rimland, the most important waterways are located in the Middle East.

According to the World Island theory of Mackinder “who controls the rimland rules Eurasia, who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of world.” To that end, the enunciation of the Truman Doctrine on March 12, 1947 led to the expansion of U.S.. defense ties to Turkey and laid the ground work for Turkey’s eventual incorporation in NATO. Turkey’s strategic importance to the United States provided a bridge to the Arab world and served as a stabilizing force in the Middle East; hence, the continued access to Incirlik Airbase remains important factor for preserving U.S.. national interest in the Greater Middle East.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began construction of the Incirlik Airbase in the spring of 1951. The U.S. Air Force initially planned to use the base as an emergency staging ground and recovery site for medium and heavy bombers including more than 20 nukes. The Turkish General staff and the U.S. Air Force signed a joint-use agreement for the new airbase in 1954.

On 21 February 1955, the airbase was officially named Adana Air Base, with 7216th Air Base Squadron as the host unit. This base was renamed “Incirlik Air base” on 28 February 1958. Establishing Incirlik Airbase created an “advanced defense front” against the threat of potential Soviet incursion through the southern wing of Turkey. Another important reason for the creation of the southern wing was preservation of oil resources in Middle East and paving the way for the Alliance of Periphery to expand its sphere of influence by which the Turkish membership to NATO has pushed the alliance front further east and right after Israel gained independence from Britain, the Alliance of Periphery was formulated by Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion. The alliance called Israel — as secular democratic state in the Middle East — to develop a close strategic alliance with Turkey and the United States in order to counteract against pro-Soviet Arab regime. From the military and strategic point of view, military operations from NATO’s Incirlik Airbase are representing Pax-Americana or American super power to protect democracy, stability and oil resources in the Middle East.

In the case of the Suez Crisis in 1956, a massive retaliation strategy provided the upper hand to United States and other European NATO allies in terms of “rimland geopolitics”, thus preventing the Soviet Union from securing a foothold in Egypt. The Suez Crisis enhanced Israel’s military capability while guaranteeing the United States’ position as the major Western power broker in the Middle East.

All of this has also increased the importance of NATO’s Incirlik Airbase in Adana, Turkey. With the start of Lebanon Crisis in 1958, the U.S. Tactical Air Command Composite Strike Force, and the U.S. Air Force in Europe and supporting personnel were deployed to NATO’s Incirlik Airbase. The base was used by U.S.. Forces during the intervention into Lebanon later that summer. During the Cold War, the feeling that Turkey derived important benefits from its security relationship with the United States was widespread among the Turkish elite and general population alike.

NATO Incirlik Airbase was keeping the nuclear weapons as a political signal for alliance unity. Having nukes in Incirlik is a pride for Turkey and Ankara considers them as one of the “main benefits of being NATO.”

The United States has long had nuclear weapons in Turkey, most notably Jupiter missiles that President John F. Kennedy secretly withdrew from Incirlik Air Base following the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when Soviet Union and America climbed down from the brink of a nuclear confrontation. This was the first time concerns have been raised about providing nuclear umbrella to NATO nations. This perception began to change after the Cyprus crisis in 1963 -1964. The famous “ Johnson Letter” in which president Lyndon Johnson warned that the United States might not come to Turkey’s defense if Turkish intervention in Cyprus provoked a Soviet response –came as a shock to Turkey.

In this view, Turkish state-centric domestic policy in addition to the NATO’s flexible response strategy and 1973 Arab-Israeli War have further determined Turkish Middle East strategy which subsequently led to Turkey’s intervention as a guarantor on 20 July 1974 in conformity with its treaty rights and obligations. Israel has underpinned Turkey because of its interests laying with Turks for various historical, ideological and political reasons on basis of the peripheral alliance given the fact that insufficient support of United States to Israel during Yom Kippur War.

1990-1991 Gulf War had a profound impact on Turkish security perceptions such that many American officials tend to regard the war as a kind of “golden age” of U.S.-Turkish cooperation. By the end of the air phase of Operation Desert storm, Incirlik Airbase would have launched nearly 5000 sorties, pumped 30 million gallons of fuel and seen USAFE-F15 shoot down four Iraqi aircraft at a prize of zero coalition combat losses.

Incirlik again proved its value to security in the Middle East. The war as an opportunity to demonstrate Turkey’s continued strategic importance and cement closer defense ties to the United States. In addition the war marked a major escalation of Turkey’s Kurdish problem. The establishment of de-facto Kurdish entity in northern Iraq gave new impetus to Kurdish nationalism and provided a logistical base for attacks on Turkish territory by the terrorist group PKK.

At this point, Turkey looked for partners in the Middle East that could help to meet the growing security challenges from Iran, Iraq and Syria. Israel was the perfect choice, as it shared Turkey’s threat assessment and Israel was a strong pro-western democratic country with considerable relations with U.S. Moreover, Jerusalem could provide military technology that the West was reluctant to sell to Turkey, an important NATO ally, that would enable it to more effectively fight against PKK terrorism. Turkish-Israeli cooperation against terrorism has created maneuvering room in favor of the U.S. in the Middle East.

NATO’s Adana Incirlik Air Base was used for “The Operation Northern Watch” in January 1997 with the task to enforce the United Nations-sanctioned “no-fly zone” north of the 36th parallel in Iraq. On the other hand, close ties with the State of Israel have benefited Turkey in terms of fighting against PKK – the leader of the terrorist organization Ocalan’s 1998 expulsion from Syria and Damascus. During this time, a protocol was signed with Ankara in the southern Turkish city of Adana promising to cease Syria’s support to PKK. In the protocol, Pax-Adana was representing a regional balance.

In light of historical facts, NATO Incirlik Airbase still preserves its valuable importance in the 21st century. When ISIL (Daesh) came out in Middle East in 2014, the United States launched Operation Inherent Resolve. As of 2015, the Turkish government agreed to open the Incirlik Airbase for U.S.-led coalition’s warplanes to hit locations of ISIS. The United States has deployed a dozen new warplanes to NATO’s Incirlik Airfield as part of its ongoing fight against ISIS. A-10 Thunderbolt ground attack planes have arrived in Incirlik in 2015 to replace F-16 jets as part of a regular rotation. The deployment of the A-10 Thunderbolt planes to Incirlik Airbase to fight against Daesh underscores the vital role of the aircraft. The U.S. and NATO have given full support to NATO member Turkey not only in words, but also in practice by reinforcing their military presence close to Syria and in Turkey’s strategic Incirlik Air Base in Adana

Russian expansion in the Middle East and Kurdish problem are still the main source of problem for Turkey and United States. Given the fact that United States passed through formidable election process dealing with domestic issues, the influence of Operation Inherent Resolve decreased.

It follows that Turkey filled the vacuum by starting Operation Euphrates Shield, an ongoing cross-border operation by the Turkish Military in the Syrian Civil War. Turkish ground forces have been fighting against ISIL since 24 August 2016. These operations created balance in the region until President elect-Donald Trump assumes office. Turkey which has ground forces in northern Syria and shares the burden of huge refugee crisis, Turkey shall insist on “no fly zones” for areas of liberated from the terrorist groups by the Turkish Army. This area would be safe haven for Turkish operations against Kurdish separatists and Turkey would block Kurdish-populated areas from access to the Mediterranean.

The United States is a great and important ally of Turkey and it should be noted that first grand achievement of Trump administration will be liberation of Mosul. Second accomplishment could be establishing control over northern Syria and that would definitely increase the importance of NATO’s Incirlik Airbase in 2017.

*Mehmet Bildik is a political scientist and Research Fellow on Military and Strategic Affairs. He is research assistant at the military and strategic affairs cyber security program of the The Institute for National Security Studies under the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He received his MA degree at Bucharest National School of Political Science and Public Administrative Studies, Security and Diplomacy Scholarship holder under the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This article appeared at Foreign Policy News.

A pivotal politician in Iran’s internal struggles for reform and the former president of the country, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani died in the Tajrish hospital after a heart attack. Hashemi was 82 years old.

His brother, Mohammad Hashemi confirmed the news adding that at 18:30 on 8 Jan 2017, Hashemi suffered a heart attack and was taken to the hospital.

Following Hashemi’s death crowds of people moved to the hospital. Crowds also gathered outside of Jamaran complex, the former house of Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Islamic republic whose grandson, Hassan, is supporter of Hashemi.

Photos of people in the streets of Tehran were published in social media and users expressed concern that they are seeing anti riot police in the streets of Tehran.

A Revolutionary Turned Politician

Iran’s Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani with newly elected Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, 1989. Photo Credit: Khamenei.ir, Wikipedia Commons.

Hashemi started out as a revolutionary coming to power after the 1979 revolution. Hashemi, his sons and his greater family were proponents of free market economy in Iran. His economic policies, paved the infrastructure for Iran’s current sphere of economic distress and accumulation of wealth by many government officials.

Hashemi coming from a wealthy agriculturalist family, was a political prisoner during the Mohammad Reza Shah’s reign in Iran.

A key figure of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and a trusted ally of both Ayatollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Hashemi played a supporting role in bringing the second leader of the Islamic Republic into power.

Hashemi served as the president of Iran after Khomeini death from 1989 to 1997 under the supreme leadership of Ali Khamenei.

The two men, Khamenei and Hashemi however grew apart after the reform movement became a political party in Iran in 1997. Hashemi was first attacked by the reform movement but later joined them favoring free market economy, cultural progress, dialogue with the West and global economic relations.

In a statement following Hashemi’s death, Khamenei calls him “an old friend” adding that: “in recent years those foul attempts to abuse and benefit from our differences in opinions could never tremble his [Hashemi’s] deep affection for me.”

His death comes at a time that the current reformist government of Hassan Rohani is under pressure from hardliners for negotiations over Iran’s nuclear ambitions with group p 5+1. Hardliners argue that Rohani administration made a bad deal.

Hashemi has been a supporter and ally of Rohani’s government and has served as a mediator, resolving the differences of the reformists with the hardliner factions and figures.

A Notorious Planner of Terror

Hashemi’s name is associated with a number of controversial international events, including the Iran–Contra affair scandal during the Reagan administration in the United States, in which secret arms sales to Iran was facilitated to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.

A number of terror plots outside of Iran against Islamic Republic enemies were conducted during Hashemi’s presidency. Including the Mykonos restaurant assassinations in 1992 in which Iranian-Kurdish opposition leaders were assassinated at the Greek restaurant in Berlin, Germany.

During the Mykonos assassination trials in Berlin, Hashemi’s name was recorded in court proceedings as a key figure. He was later convicted of the assignations by the German court.

Hashemi was a memoir writer; in his last volume of memoir published in Tehran, he acknowledges that Iranian officials including the minister of intelligence were involved with Shapour Bakhtiar’s murder in Paris. Bakhtiar was as Iranian politician who served as the last Prime Minister of Iran under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

On 6 Aug 1991, Bakhtiar and his assistant Soroush Katibeh were murdered by three assassins in Bakhtiar’s home in Paris. Hashemi writes in his memoir that Ali Fallahian, the ministry of intelligence at the time, informed him of Bakhtiar’s and Katibeh death in Paris prior to the news becoming public in the media.

Hashemi on 7 Aug 1991 writes: “Mr. Ali Fallahian informed me that Bakhtiar and one of his employees were killed in Paris at his house. No news of the event was broadcasted on international new until night time.”

The very next day on 8 Aug 1991 Hashemi adds: “The directors of ministry of intelligence came to visit. Mr. Fallahian delivered a comprehensive report and I – in an in-depth conversation – offered them justifications on fundamental issues. In the afternoon the news of the homicide of Bakhtiar and his assistant was published and found wide coverage […].”

During the reform area in Iran (1997-2005), Akbar Ganji, Iranian politician and former political prisoner, accused Hashemi of having a role in a series of murders conducted by IRI intelligence in which progressive Iranian intellectuals and opposition figures were targeted.

From Centers of Power to the Power of People

After serving two terms as president, Hashemi became the head of the Assembly of Experts in 2007. He was also the chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council of Iran; a non-electoral position.

Hashemi was however after political limelight and electoral legitimacy. Despite having the two above positions of power, Hashemi was after elections, seeking position as a member of parliament and again as the president of the country.

After the coming to power of Mohammad Khatami, Iran’s reformist president from 3 August 1997 to 3 August 2005, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani received a blow from the reformist factions and reformist media: they portrayed him as the corrupt godfather of power in Iran.

In the sixth parliamentary elections a group of reformist running for the parliament brought strong criticisms against Hashemi and he withdrew from participation in the Sixth Parliament.

He also ran for the 2005 presidential election against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a hardliner candidate, and lost.

Having lost his power games with the reformist he also lost his leverage with the hardliners and started to work his way through as a loner in Iranian politics but now becoming a vocal voice for progress and greater participation of people in real politics.

In 2009 presidential election, Hashemi and his family stood with the people who opposed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s presidency and argued that the elections were rigged.

After the 2009 disputed election, Hashemi’s voice for pragmatic politics, increase in political participation, importance of electoral bodies and his controversial idea about forming a supreme leadership council after the death of Khamenei, separated him from the current leader of Islamic republic.

He was to play a great role in the fight for succession after Khamenei’s death but he died before his old friend.

By Justin Burke*

As Russia prepared to celebrate Orthodox Christmas, Russian leader Vladimir Putin had many reasons to be pleased this holiday season. Russia, after all, has received an abundance of geopolitical gifts over the past year. But for all the bounty that Putin reaped, Ded Moroz did not deliver the New Year’s present that the Russian leader really needed – a vibrant economy.

In foreign affairs, Putin certainly had a very good year in 2016. Most notably, the Brexit vote and Donald Trump’s election as US president sowed uncertainty in the West, paving the way for Russia to assert its political interests and social agenda on a global scale. Things went so well that even Estonia – a Baltic state and NATO member that traditionally views Russia as a bogeyman – installed a coalition government in late November led by a Moscow-friendly prime minister.

The string of geopolitical successes, which includes Russia’s Syria gambit and a rapprochement with Turkey, makes it clear that Putin’s personal brand of illiberalism, dubbed sovereign democracy, is ascendant. Meanwhile, Western liberalism appears tired and in disarray, unable to adapt fast enough to the Digital Age, in which any dumbass with a smartphone can spread hate, lies and confusion.

But all is not well with Russia. Behind the façade of renewed greatness, there is a very soft underbelly – one that Putin has been ignoring during all his presidential terms and his stint as prime minister. While Putin’s Kremlin has focused in recent years on projecting Russian power abroad and advancing its concept of “traditional,” i.e. anti-liberal values, the Russian economy has been tanking.

The disturbing economic reality is that Russia is more dependent on the export of natural resources than ever before in the post-Soviet age. Despite lagging prices, Russia in 2016 produced a record amount of oil (11.21 million barrels per day) and exported a record amount of natural gas (614.5 million cubic meters per day). At the same time, Russia’s industrial base is floundering, having difficulty producing goods, other than arms, that can compete in the global marketplace.

In other words, Russia has an economy these days that more resembles a colony than an imperial power.

Putin seems preoccupied with restoring Russia to what he sees as its rightful role as a global force, but his reluctance to carry out structural reforms at home is throttling the economy and having damaging social repercussions. He is pushing a growing number of Russians to the brink, or over the edge, of the poverty line.

State-controlled Russian media in recent weeks have tried to paint a rosy macroeconomic picture, with an array of experts contending that the worst of Russia’s economic woes, brought on by the crash of energy prices, are over. They go on to predict Russia will experience slight growth in 2017. “A positive trend has emerged,” Putin announced during his annual television address in late December.

According to the official TASS news agency, which cited Finance Ministry and Central Bank estimates for 2017, the Russian economy should grow at about a 1 percent rate, while inflation should slow to a 4 percent rate. The budget deficit for 2017 is projected to be about 3.2 percent of GDP, based on an average annual price of Urals crude oil of $40 per barrel.

Setting aside all this macro happy speak, the view from street level remains grim. The most alarming statistic, or at least what should be alarming for the Russian government, is the fact that Russians’ disposable income has declined for 25 straight months, shrinking by about 16 percent during the period. By comparison, during the Great Recession in the United States during the late 2000s, the longest stretch of declining disposable income lasted for seven straight months.

In November, the World Bank reported that 14.6 percent of Russia’s population (about 21.4 million people) had incomes below the national poverty line, as of the end of the first half of 2016. The report added, however, that the share of Russia’s population hovering dangerously close to the poverty line had reached 51 percent. Many had lost the “shared prosperity gains of recent years,” the World Bank report stated. Russia presently defines its poverty line as those earning less than 9,889 rubles per month (about $160).

Poverty statistics do not tell the whole story. The suffering is far more widespread. According to a report in November by Russia’s leading national research university, the Higher School of Economics, 41 percent of individuals surveyed reported not having enough money to afford food and clothes. Overall, 73 percent of the respondents reported having to cut spending on essential goods and services due to financial problems.

For most Russians, the economic picture is unlikely to get much better anytime soon. Russia’s Ministry of Economic Development forecast in November that disposable income would grow by 0.2 percent in 2017 and 0.5 percent in 2018. But even this measly growth prediction must be taken with a grain of salt. The ministry, after all, has a horrendous track record when it comes to forecasting: it predicted that disposable income in 2016 would decline at a 0.7 annual rate, when the actual annual rate turned out to be 5.6 percent.

In a bizarre twist, Putin seems to be banking on the United States, or more accurately the incoming Trump administration, to help rescue the Kremlin. In his annual New Year’s address, Putin expressed hope that bilateral relations could reach “a whole new level.”

“Acting in a constructive and pragmatic manner, [we] will be able to take real steps to restore the mechanisms of bilateral cooperation in various areas,” Putin said. If you take a moment to decode that statement, the translation would be: I expect the Trump administration will lift sanctions on Russia, and let me do as I please when it comes to Russian internal affairs, and not create any foreign policy headaches for me.

Putin clearly hopes to get a helping hand from Team Trump. Yet as a majority of American voters have already found out to their dismay, Trump is an expert at confounding expectations. Counting on Trump to act in a consistent and reliable manner is like expecting the Pope to convert to Islam.

Putin and his minions also seem to be optimistic that the price of oil will rise and stabilize, and thus give the state’s coffers a welcome infusion. But such optimism rests on a shaky foundation. Uncertainty is the byword – at least in the near and medium term.

And even if high energy prices, and a pliant Trump administration, do provide a boost to Russia’s financial fortunes, the ones who will gorge are the crony capitalists and the kleptocrats who serve as the foot-soldiers of the sovereign-democrat-in-chief. The masses will not get much nourishment from the leftovers.

The only solution to the challenge is structural reform. If Russia is ever to reach solid financial ground, and foster widespread prosperity, the economy needs to diversify to reduce its vulnerability to swings in energy and commodity prices, and the country’s labor market and welfare system need to be overhauled. Most importantly, property rights need to be secure: in particular, entrepreneurs and investors have to have confidence in the rule of law and believe that Russia’s judicial system can act as an independent arbiter of disputes.

The problem for Putin is that liberalizing the economy is at odds with his illiberal agenda. Structural reform would entail relinquishing a significant degree of political control over the economy, but any self-respecting sovereign democrat is constitutionally incapable of letting go. From Putin’s perspective, sovereign democracy should never be confused with the concept of popular sovereignty.

So what does it all mean? The Russian population’s capacity for suffering is the stuff of legend. And since Putin is the master of Russia’s media landscape, and has a vast state security system at his disposal, the danger to his rule from widespread popular discontent would seem minimal – at least when compared to what the situation would be if Russia had a genuine form of representative government.

But history shows that Russian suffering does have limits: in the early 1920s, for example, Lenin felt compelled to abandon War Communism and introduce the New Economic Policy. If living standards in the Putin era continue on their downward spiral, or even just stagnate, the population could lose faith in sovereign democracy, just like what happened in the early 1990s, when the chaos that accompanied the Soviet Union’s implosion shattered popular illusions about Western-style democracy.

Something to consider is that even sovereign democratic systems must hold elections, and Russia’s next presidential vote is scheduled for 2018. While the vote itself will not be free or fair, the process will provide an opportunity for the venting of any pent-up frustrations. Putin would do well to start addressing the question of the population’s plummeting living standards soon; otherwise, Russia could experience the kind of political surprise that rocked both the United States and the European Union in 2016.

That is not to say Putin, or his assignee, could be voted out of office in an election – such a preposterous notion does not compute in a sovereign democracy.

Yet there are other possibilities. While a successful revolution from below seems far-fetched, it is worth noting that over the course of the last three centuries of Russian history, two Romanov monarchs and two communist general secretaries have been taken down in palace coups.

If Putin is intent on maintaining the upper hand, both at home and abroad, he needs to remember the maxim minted by the American political strategist James Carville: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

*Justin Burke is the Managing Editor of EurasiaNet.

Six months have already gone by of President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration. The Southeast Asian region is left with questions as to what the future might hold when the Philippines takes the rotating chairmanship of ASEAN in 2017. Since President Duterte took office on June 30 of this year, he has issued, and his aides have retracted, several foreign policy pronouncements concerning the big powers in the region – China and the United States — that could impact on ASEAN.

His predecessor President Benigno Aquino III’s foreign policy approach was outspoken in its criticism of China, and the Aquino administration won a case against China that it filed with an international arbitral panel to defend Philippine entitlements in the South China Sea. President Duterte, on the other hand, appeared to take a whole U-turn by re-establishing amicable ties with China and distancing itself from the US, in order to pursue an “independent foreign policy”. It was during his visit to Beijing last October 18 to 21, that he announced the Philippines’ “separation” from the US in both military and economic terms. He also claimed that ‘US has lost’ and that the Philippines is now “realigning” with China.

ASEAN States Realigning

Prior to Duterte’s visit to China, Vietnam’s Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc had also visited Beijing in September in what could be seen as an effort to mend ties with Beijing after the arbitral tribunal’s July ruling of China’s nine-dash line as illegal.

Shortly after Duterte, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak also went to China on a 7-day official visit to strengthen ties, score a defense deal, and sign more economic agreements. Najib’s visit seemed to have been prompted by a massive corruption scandal which implicated him, and which resulted in the US Justice Department seizing more than $1 billion in U.S. assets purchased by Najib’s relatives and associates. Beyond this, Malaysia continues to explore what China has to offer as a rising, if not already risen, power. In his own meetings with China, Duterte received a whopping $24 billion in investment and loan pledges, while Najib signed business MOUs worth RM 143.64 billion (about $32 billion).

Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia are embroiled in a territorial dispute with China in the South China Sea. With the spate of visits, we could be seeing a geostrategic realignment of these ASEAN countries. Consequently, such actions may lead to a major shift in ASEAN’s big power relations from here onwards.

Philippine Role in ASEAN

During the Aquino administration, the Philippines had been the frontliner of all ASEAN claimant countries in the South China Sea against China. It was the most vocal in criticizing China for its actions, and took the boldest step ever of filing the arbitration case in 2013. The Philippines has been one of the long-standing and main security allies of the US in Southeast Asia, leading some to argue that despite being a weak state, Washington’s backing US provided Manila with more confidence to challenge Beijing. This has allowed other concerned ASEAN countries to ‘free-ride’ on the Philippines and ‘swim with the current’ in order to minimize their own risks while keeping China from being more aggressive and assertive in the South China Sea amidst its growing economic and military power.

In ASEAN, the Philippines was also the main member-state campaigning for the regional organization to unite and call out China for actions affecting ASEAN claimants. Should the Philippines under Duterte shift Philippine foreign policy and begin cozying up to China, no one will fill its role as ASEAN’s most assertive claimant and China critic. As a result, it will be harder for other ASEAN countries to mount an effective challenge against China and in turn, those countries that were formerly critical of China would also recalibrate their own foreign policies to accommodate the regional power.

As Prashanth Parameswaran puts it, “If the Philippines suddenly adopts a much softer line on China and the South China Sea, it could see other Southeast Asian states also adopt a softer line, either because this is in line with their own traditional preference to downplay the issue or because they find it diplomatically difficult to get ahead of ASEAN’s most-forward-leaning claimant.”

2017 chairmanship of ASEAN will prove to be challenging as it will put the Philippines in a position where it could steer the whole ASEAN on various issues affecting the region, including the South China Sea disputes and big power dynamics in Southeast Asia.

Big Power Relations

The Philippines’ relationship with the US has seen much confusion since Duterte took over. Washington is a long-time ally of the country and arguably the top security partner of many states in the Southeast Asian region. The US has been helping the Philippines boost its military capability through various efforts such as capacity-building programs, joint exercises, and weapons training. Moreover, it has been a major provider of arms to the Philippines. However, criticisms by the Obama government’s officials on his War on Drugs provoked Duterte to threaten to abrogate security agreements and to kick US troops out of the Philippines.

More recently, Donald Trump’s win in the recently-concluded US presidential elections may again have changed the tides. Duterte was reportedly the first among world leaders to have congratulated Trump. In early December, a seven-minute phone call took place between the two which was described by an aide as ‘very engaging.’ The two leaders invited each other to visit their countries.

Could Philippines-US relations get back on track following Trump’s election? The return to the normal state of relations could be a blow to Beijing if it hopes to steer the Philippines and the rest of ASEAN away from American influence. Trump’s election further adds to the uncertainty of the future.

In 2017, the world may be seeing a new phase of power relations as China will continue to court countries through its economic might and tempting offers like the Belt and Road Initiative and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The Philippines under Duterte could cast its lot with China, or it could continue to play a crucial role in US rebalance to Asia. More likely, it will hedge between the two big powers inasmuch as Duterte is more open to dealing with the US under Trump. US foreign policy under Trump, however, is yet to unfold as he only takes the helm of the US government in January 2017.

Where the Southeast Asian region is headed in relation to the big powers is still unknown, but major developments in early 2017 will likely give us a glimpse of the interesting times ahead.

This article was published at APPFI

A Canadian judge in Hamilton, Ontario, has been suspended after wearing a Donald Trump hat on the day after Trump’s victory in the US presidential election. The judge, Bernd Zabel, reportedly made explicit pro-Trump comments in court. Both actions violate a judge’s obligation to be politically neutral.

The court announced on December 21 that Zabel would not be assigned cases until further notice. In mid-November, Zabel apologized for the hat, calling it a “lapse in judgment,” and “a breach of the principles of judicial office. This gesture was not intended in any way as a political statement or endorsement of any political views, and, in particular, the views and comments of Donald Trump. I very much regret that it has been taken as such,” said Zabel.

“What I did was wrong,” he told The Globe and Mail. “I wish to apologize for my misguided attempt to mark a moment in history by humor in the courtroom following the surprising result in the United States election.” Many have cried foul on Zabel’s apology, based on public comments he made. “Brief appearance with the hat. Pissed off the rest of the judges because they all voted for Hillary… I was the only Trump supporter up there, but that’s OK.” How a Canadian judge could vote in an American election, Zabel did not reveal.

Hamilton city councillor Matthew Green has called for Zabel to be removed from the bench, believing that Zabel’s actions undo a quarter century of steadfast service. “Given the divisive nature of the recent American election with its clear racism, sexism, and xenophobia, this alarming display by a [sic] Ontario Court Justice only serves to underscore the distrust many Canadians feel in our own so-called ‘Justice system’,” tweeted Green. “If I was [sic] a person convicted by this man I’d be quickly filing for appeal.”

A later comment from Green read that, “this Judge was using the power of his bench to promote a political agenda. One that is founded in bigotry, misogyny, antisemitism [sic], Islamophobia, abelism [sic] and of which has NO place in our Canadian judiciary.” Some suggest that it is not that Zabel is making a political statement that has caused the councillor to demand his disbarment, but explicitly because Zabel is a Trump supporter. Fortunately for Zabel, Ontario Chief Justice Lise Maisonneuve opted for the less severe punishment of a suspension. Michael Lacy, with Canada’s Criminal Lawyers’ Association said that a transparent investigation of Zabel’s decisions, to find out whether politics drove them, will be conducted soon. “The core of our judiciary in Canada is that judges be independent and objective, that they not be politically partisan in any way,” said Lacy.

Zabel is a judge with the Ontario Court of Justice, the provincial court of Canada’s largest province, appointed to the bench in 1990. Previous notable decisions include refusing to imprison an 80-year-old woman who assisted her Alzheimer’s-ridden husband in committing suicide in 2003, tripling the attorney-recommended sentence of a convicted child molestor in 2011, and ruling that a man threatening to “roll another man’s turban down the street” did not constitute a hate crime in 2012.

Lebanese President Michel Aoun arrived Monday in Saudi Arabia on his first foreign official trip since taking office in November.

Riyadh Governor Prince Faisal bin Bandar bin Abdulaziz received Aoun and his accompanying delegation at the King Khaled International Airport.

The president’s delegation is formed of eight ministers, including Foreign Affairs Minister Gebran Bassil, Interior Minister Nouhad al-Machnouq, Defense Minister Yaacoub al-Sarraf, Finance Minister Ali Hassan Khalil, Economy and Trade Minister Raed Khoury, Information Minister Melhem Riachi, Education Minister Marwan Hamadeh, State Minister Pierre Raffoul, as well as former Minister Elias Bou Saab.

Sources from the Presidential Palace told Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper that Aoun is pinning high hopes on the visit, which aims at reviving ties between the two countries, especially on the political and economic levels.

Former President Amin Gemayel said he hoped that Aoun’s visit to Riyadh would bolster relations between the two countries, highlighting the important role assumed by Saudi Arabia in supporting Lebanon on the economic level and before Arab and international organizations.

Aoun had received an official invitation to visit the Kingdom from the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Salman bin Abdulaziz.
blank

In remarks on Monday ahead of his trip to Riyadh, Aoun stressed the importance of dialogue between countries concerned with crises in the region.

Aoun voiced hope that the crisis in Syria would be resolved peacefully and politically because refugees would consequently be allowed to return to Syria and rebuild it.

Aoun received Monday a French parliamentary delegation headed by MP Thierry Mariani. During the meeting, Aoun said: “The cycle of political life in Lebanon started in a good manner after ending the presidential vacuum and forming a new government.”

He also hoped that amelioration in situation would entail all sectors.

Following his visit to Riyadh, Aoun will head to Doha on Wednesday to meet the invitation of Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.

By Paula Astih, original source

Hazardous levels of domoic acid, a natural toxin that accumulates in shellfish, have been linked to warmer ocean conditions in waters off Oregon and Washington for the first time by a NOAA-supported research team led by Oregon State University scientists.

Domoic acid, produced by certain types of marine algae, can accumulate in shellfish, fish and other marine animals. Consuming enough of the toxin can be harmful or even fatal. Public health agencies and seafood managers closely monitor toxin levels and impose harvest closures where necessary to ensure that seafood remains safe to eat.

NOAA is supporting research and new tools to help seafood industry managers stay ahead of harmful algae events that are increasing in frequency, intensity and scope.

“We describe a completely new method to understanding and predicting toxic outbreaks on a large scale, linking domoic acid concentrations in shellfish to ocean conditions caused by warm water phases of natural climate event cycles like Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and El Nino,” said Morgaine McKibben from Oregon State University, the lead author of the newly published, NOAA-supported research findings in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Using extensive time series of biological, chemical, and physical data, this study also created a climate-based risk analysis model which predicts where and when domoic acid in shellfish will likely exceed regulatory thresholds. The researchers will make this model freely available to support fisheries management decisions in Oregon, Washington and California.

“Commercial and recreational shellfish fisheries along the West Coast are a multi-million dollar industry,” said NOAA harmful algal bloom program manager Marc Suddleson. “Improving our ability to accurately predict algal toxin levels in shellfish supports timely and targeted fishery closures or openings, essential to avoiding economic disruption and safeguarding public health.”

In 2015, domoic acid-related closures led to a decline in value of nearly $100 million for the West Coast Dungeness crab fishery according to the Fisheries of the U.S. Report 2015.

“This study will help us determine if the increased climate-ocean variability we expect will lead to more widespread outbreaks like the West Coast-wide domoic acid event of 2015-16,” said co-author Bill Peterson, NOAA Fisheries. “If so, we’ll likely see increased domoic acid effects throughout the ocean food web.” For example, domoic acid events have been linked to mass deaths of marine mammals, like sea lions, sea otters, dolphins and whales.

“Advance warning of when domoic acid levels are likely to exceed our public health thresholds in shellfish is extremely helpful,” said Matt Hunter co-author of the paper with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. “Agencies like mine can use this model to anticipate domoic acid risks and prepare for periods of more intensive monitoring and testing, helping to better inform our decisions and ensure the safety of harvested crab and shellfish.”

Findings reported by McKibben and her co-authors resulted from their involvement in the NOAA funded Monitoring Oregon Coastal Harmful Algae project (2007-2012). This research was conducted by scientists with NOAA, the University of Oregon, Oregon State University, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, with funding from NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB) Research Program.

The provision of long-term care in the U.S. has shifted from what was once a predominantly institutionally based system of care to one in which recipients can increasingly receive a range of both medical and supportive services at home and in the community, according to the latest edition of The Gerontological Society of America’s Public Policy & Aging Report (PP&AR). Further, individuals have gained the increased ability to choose how, where, and from whom they receive these services.

Today, almost 850,000 Americans direct their own care through 270 long-term services and support (LTSS) programs that are generally heralded by those on both sides of the political spectrum. Self-direction is the umbrella term applied to an approach to the delivery of LTSS in which those eligible receive cash payments in place of traditionally delivered services. With these payments, they can decide how best to meet their support needs.

Studies show that self-directed care programs can improve participant well-being, care quality, and cost containment. And as the PP&AR notes, this unique policy innovation become a reality through the promotion, design, implementation, and assessment of a cadre of experts and thought-leaders.

“Self- or participant-directed care has been a model of successful public policy development and implementation — a movement coming from the grass roots and developed through the combined efforts of federal and state governments, philanthropic organizations, professional and advocacy organizations, and committed social and health care researchers,” states PP&AR Editor-in-Chief Robert B. Hudson, PhD, in the issue’s introduction.

The new publication explores the evolution of the self-directed care movement in LTSS, as told by many of the principals who helped to shape and grow it. It examines many of the implementation challenges as self-direction moved from a controlled experiment to a national option, as well as the major changes in the environment that have shaped its development.

Among the expert authors is Kevin Mahoney, PhD, who is currently the director of the National Resource Center for Participant-Directed Services.

“It has been nearly ten years since a major journal devoted a full issue to participant self-direction in long-term supports and services. A lot has happened in that time. It is appropriate that this attention comes as a new administration and Congress debate future directions and priorities.”

A total of seven articles are included, starting with a look at the evolution of participant-directed care in home and community-based services in the U.S. and a review of recent trends in demand and availability. The issue also documents changes in federal legislation, regulation, and practice that have encouraged the growth of self-directed LTSS. Another piece makes international comparisons between programs in Australia, England, Germany, the Netherlands, and the U.S. — and highlights significant differences in terms of eligibility, policy, and process between the approaches taken in each of the countries. The final article focuses on where the field of participant- directed care is likely to go next from its current status in the American health care system.

By Osama Al-Sharif*

Barack Obama’s presidency is in its waning days, and the US and the rest of the world are bracing for the unknown under a man who has befuddled his allies even before his foes. Donald Trump will take over a sharply divided country, and will immediately face foreign policy challenges where off-the-cuff and oversimplified solutions will not do.

It is fair to say that the world, and much of the US, is disappointed with Obama. His charisma and optimistic promises for a better world enthralled millions of people from all regions and backgrounds. But even Obama, the prudent leader and intellectual with a quasi-philosophical approach to issues, overestimated his personal appeal and the power and influence of the US.

Obama leaves a different world than the one he inherited: Bitterly divided as underlined by the rise of populist movements in Europe and at home, vulnerable to global terrorism and extremism, economically weaker, uncertain over the future, and entangled by regional crises — especially in the Middle East — with global social, cultural and political ramifications.

Yet Obama managed to pursue a course that put America’s immediate interests first. He fulfilled a promise to drastically cut back US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, avoided getting trapped further in dishevelled conflicts — especially in Syria — following the messy outcome of NATO’s intervention in Libya, and while failing to deliver on his promise to secure an independent Palestine by the end of his term, he tried to stay on the right side of history by condemning Jewish settlement activities and supporting the two-state solution.

His success in concluding the Iran nuclear deal will be viewed more favorably by his successor, although his utter failure in checking Iran’s regional expansion will debunk that deal’s credibility.

On Russia, Obama appears to have underestimated President Vladimir Putin’s determination to oversee Moscow’s resurgence as a regional player — especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia — and as a global power broker, Syria being the obvious example.
Domestically, Obama’s biggest achievement was mending the US economy and saving the American auto industry. He was a classic Democratic president, although many will debate his failure to narrow the gap between rich and poor, and to understand the depth of the socio-economic crisis that ripped America’s heartland and gave rise to Trump’s populism.

For the Middle East, Obama’s presidency was particularly disappointing for different reasons. Conservative Arab governments believe he initiated America’s untidy withdrawal from the region, allowing Iran to inflate its influence in Iraq and Syria and meddle in the internal affairs of Gulf states and Yemen.

His reluctance to adopt a clear and decisive strategy on Syria has frustrated Washington’s allies, including Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Even in the war against Daesh, many believe the Obama administration could have done more to avert its phenomenal territorial spread in Syria and Iraq.

For Israel, even though he signed the largest-ever military aid package, Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu projected Obama as misled on Iran and on Israeli settlements. Equally frustrated with Obama is Egypt’s current regime, which faults Washington for facilitating the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power after the Jan. 25 revolution that toppled trusted ally President Hosni Mubarak.

Trump, who has denounced many of Obama’s Middle East policies, may soon discover that there is no easy way to chart a markedly variant course on many issues. His pro-Israel stand, which will immediately translate into a major departure from decades-long US policy on East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements, provides no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It will certainly complicate the conflict, and trigger major battles at the UN, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other fora.

His vow to swiftly crush Daesh will soon be tested on the ground. Military victories will bring no end to religious extremism and the gaping Sunni-Shiite divide, which is being pushed by radical Iranian leaders.

In Syria, Trump may well support Putin’s recent initiatives to seal a negotiated political deal. However, his administration will have to find ways to assure US regional allies, including Israel and Turkey, that Iran’s permanent presence in Syria will be checked or even reversed.

Trump will be pressed by his national security team to maintain or beef up the US military presence in the Arabian Gulf to ward off Iran’s rising threat. Again, this will test Washington’s relations with its Gulf allies.

Obama has left a complicated Middle Eastern inheritance to his successor, and Trump’s quick and often rudimentary response to evolving crises in this region will send mixed and contradictory messages to both allies and foes.

The biggest test will be the shape and context of US leadership abroad, and whether Trump will opt for a return to an interventionist approach or lean toward an isolationist path. Obama’s reserved approach to global affairs will soon give way to a more incoherent, and in many cases impulsive, one.

*Osama Al-Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman.

The United States strongly condemned the terrorist attack on Parliamentary buildings in Kabul Tuesday that killed at least 38 Afghans and wounded more than 70.

“An attack on Parliamentary facilities and lawmakers is clearly an assault on Afghanistan’s efforts to build democratic institutions,” said US NSC Spokesperson Ned Price.

Price also condemn the terrorist attack today in Kandahar that killed at least seven people and wounded 18, including the United Arab Emirates’ Ambassador to Afghanistan and several Emirati diplomatic personnel, and the suicide bomb attack in southern Helmand province today that killed at least seven Afghans, including both civilian and military personnel.

“We commend the Afghan police and other security forces who bravely responded to these attacks, and fully support Afghan efforts to bring those responsible to justice,” Price said, adding, “The United States stands with the people and Government of Afghanistan as we work together to build a more secure, stable, and prosperous Afghanistan.”

(RFE/RL) — Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on January 10 appointed Chrystia Freeland, a critic of Russia who has been sanctioned by Moscow, as the country’s new top diplomat.

Freeland, who is of Ukrainian descent, has been a harsh critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Moscow barred Freeland from entering Russia in 2014 as part of a series of retaliatory sanctions against Canada in response to Ottawa’s blacklisting of many Russian officials to punish the country for its annexation of Crimea.

Freeland tweeted afterward: “It’s an honor to be on Putin’s sanction list.” In 2015, she wrote an article for Quartz magazine entitled “My Ukraine, and Putin’s big lie.”

Trudeau in announcing Freeland’s appointment as Foreign Affairs Minister, sidestepped a question from reporters over whether her rocky relationship with Russia would have an impact.

Freeland, who once lived in Moscow during her career as a financial correspondent, said whether she will be able to travel to Russia as foreign minister was not up to her.

“That’s a question for Moscow,” she said. “I am a very strong supporter of our government’s view that it is important to engage with all countries around the world, very much including Russia.”

By Sandip Kumar Mishra*

2017 is set to be a consequential year for the East Asia in general and Japan-China contests in particular. Growing assertive postures of Beijing and Tokyo would continue in 2017 and it is likely that Japan-China contestations in the region would be more direct and scary. Both countries have been extremely uncompromising under the leaderships of Japan’s Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, and China’s President, Xi Jinping. Both have been incrementally crossing the mutual permissible lines and the trend portends further worsening. There are concerns that in 2017, both with further test the policy of ‘offence’.

In the past few months, there have been significant developments, which point in this direction. Chinese coastal guards have significantly increased their patrolling near the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea. In 2016, China also submitted over 50 applications to the Sub-Committee on Undersea Feature Names (SCUFN), part of the Monaco-based International Hydrographic Organization, to give Chinese names to underwater topographic features that had Japanese or other non-Chinese names. These applications were double in number than those submitted in 2015. Although 34 Chinese names were rejected, the move shows Beijing’s intent. Over the past six years, China has successfully gotten 76 names approved. It also must be underlined that in 2013, China unilaterally declared the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea and there are allegations that it has gradually been becoming stricter in its implementation.

Japan also keenly observes Chinese behavior pertaining to South China Sea, Indian Ocean, One-Belt One-Road (OBOR), Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) as well as its fierce opposition of the installations of the US Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) system in the East Asia. On most platforms of bilateral and multilateral exchanges, the Chinese approach has been overtly non-compromising. China has been flexing its muscles at the East Asian Summit, ASEAN, and the ASEAN+3, ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), among others, which makes Japan concerned.

Similarly, Japan too has been equally uncompromising in its approach. Tokyo increased its military budget again, which is the fifth consecutive increase in a row and its latest defence paper openly mentions islands’ security and the East China Sea as the main contexts of the increase. Japan’s procurement of naval ships and submarines are the main focus of the defence expenditure; and this was done evidently bearing China in mind. In early December 2016, two Japanese F-15 fighter jets allegedly interfered in the training of Chinese Air Force in the Western Pacific, which irked Beijing.

Japan also has a plan to establish an organisation of the Japanese Coast Guard, which would help Southeast Asian countries ‘improve maritime safety’ and the organisation is slated to become operational from April 2017. In the more recent move, Japan added the name Taiwan to its de facto embassy in Taipei on 28 December 2016, which will certainly annoy China. Actually, China may read Japanese overtures to Taiwan as part of Tokyo and Washington’s joint plan because the President-elect of the US, Donald Trump, has also shown a glimpse of his intent to review the status quo of the US’ ‘one China Policy’. Trump received a phone call from the Taiwan’s President, Tsai Ing-wen, and justified his conversation strongly. China would consider it a Tokyo-Washington joint plan to alter Taiwan’s status in their diplomacy.

On 29 December 2016, Japan’s Defense Minister Tomomi Inada visited Yasukuni shrine to again emphasise Japan’s intent of non-compromise. Furthermore, in early January 2017, the defense minister had visited the NATO headquarters to deepen NATO-Japan defence cooperation and along with the Japan’s Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, participated in the two-plus-two talks with France on security issues in the East China Sea and the region. Japan has also been trying to placate Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin; and during his visit to Japan in mid-December 2016, Tokyo assured many economic concessions to Moscow. Observers connect Japan’s extra efforts to improve relations with Russia with the Japanese efforts to isolate China in regional politics.

Although, there are uncertainties over the Trump’s approach towards Japan, Abe’s special meeting with the US president-elect in December 2016 indicates that the US commitment to Japanese security would continue. It is also because even though Trump has few reservations about Japan’s ‘free-ride’, he is overtly challenging China and for that, he needs Japan’s support.

Overall, the contestation between Japan and China is getting more intense, and if neither party carried out a course correction in 2017, it may reach a critical point. Incremental quantitative changes are likely to bring qualitative transformation in the Japan-China bilateral this year. The course may be otherwise, if the following three variables intervene in the process: huge economic exchanges between the two countries; a decrease in Washington’s support to an aggressive Japan; and constructive intervention of concerned middle powers of the Asia-Pacific.

* Sandip Kumar Mishra
Associate Professor, Centre for East Asian Studies, School of International Studies, JNU, & Visiting Fellow, IPCS

The CPEC may be a bilateral endeavour, but New Delhi cannot ignore its spillover effects on regional governance and regime creation in South Asia.

By Arun Mohan Sukumar

Beyond sketching out the broad considerations, India’s foreign policy planners are yet to study the impact of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) on South Asia’s politics. New Delhi’s reaction to the CPEC could be divided into two groups: one believes the CPEC serves China’s singular agenda of extending its strategic footprint to Gwadar and beyond, and undermining the chokehold of the Malacca Strait that currently serves as the lifeline for Beijing’s global commerce. Another section believes, with good reason, that many CPEC projects are simply not viable enough to sustain the interest of Chinese investors in the long run. Either outcome may materialise, but the CPEC is an important enough project whose economic and strategic consequences require methodical assessment. Three aspects of the CPEC in particular stand out as relevant questions for India to consider:

• Will economic cooperation through the CPEC lead to regional military architectures in South Asia?
• How will the US respond to the CPEC – will the Trump administration offer counter-benefits to Pakistan or other regional actors to blunt China’s overtures?
• Will Beijing see the CPEC as a case study for regime creation in Asia? That is, use it as a template to create and influence investment and trade standards in the region?

The CPEC may be a bilateral endeavour, but New Delhi cannot ignore its spillover effects on regional governance. The inequities in the China-Pakistan relationship and the nature of proposed Chinese investment in the CPEC merit a comparison with the Marshall Plan, the most successful foreign assistance project of the 20th century. Analysts in India and Pakistan have expressed bewilderment at Pakistan borrowing from Chinese banks to pay for Chinese projects in the corridor, but Beijing is simply taking a leaf out of the US playbook. The Marshall Plan – known formally as the European Recovery Plan — involved the US extending lines of credit and assistance for Western European economies ravaged by the Second World War. Credited with restoring stability in Europe, one needs to look no further than the then US undersecretary of state Dean Acheson’s words to gauge the real goals of the Marshall Plan. In May 1947, Acheson laid out the objectives of the recovery project in a speech at Cleveland so:

“Our [US] exports of goods and services to the world during the current year, 1947, are estimated to total 16 billion dollars […] In return for the commodities and services which we expect to furnish the world this year, we estimate we will receive commodities and services from abroad to the value of 8 billion dollars. […] The differences between the value of the goods and services which foreign countries must buy from the United States this year and the value of goods and services they are able to supply to us this year will therefore amount to the huge sum of about 8 billion dollars.
How are foreigners going to get the US dollars necessary to cover this huge difference? [This is one] of the most important questions in international relations today.”

In 1947, the US needed to finance and create captive markets that would continue buying American goods while offering their own services (cheap labour, highly skilled professionals) to the US in return. China today is looking to move its assembly lines outside the country, create cheaper supply chains and limit its economic externalities (such as environmental pollution) at home. Then, as is the case today with the 2008 recession, the global economy had slowed down after two devastating wars. The US, like China, was facing an export glut.

In many Marshall Plan projects, moreover, the strategic interests of the US government were at odds with that of its private sector. The case of oil is illustrative. Soon after the Second World War, oil prices shot through the roof. With Russian influence over Eastern Europe limiting their access to energy resources, Western European countries turned to the US for help. The US government, which saw the Marshall Plan as critical to staving off communism in the continent, sought to ensure Europe’s access to oil at low prices. US oil companies, which controlled the lion’s share of global oil supply, strongly resisted this move but eventually gave in to many of their government’s demands. In that case, the situation worked itself out since recipients of Marshall Plan aid used US dollars to buy US oil-refining equipment, with an eye on cheaper crude oil. But the episode highlights the important lesson that financial viability – often used to dismiss the China Pakistan Economic Corridor – is not necessarily the sole determinant of the CPEC’s future. Beijing’s strategic relationship with Islamabad, and its continuing quest to underwrite strategic parity between India and Pakistan in South Asia, will certainly contribute to the CPEC’s longevity.

Spillover effects of CPEC

But what of the unintended or spillover consequences of the CPEC on security in South Asia? Here too, the Marshall Plan is instructive. Two years after the Economic Recovery Plan was formally announced by secretary of state George Marshall during his 1947 commencement address at Harvard, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) came into effect. The trans-Atlantic military alliance had been in the making for a while and the Marshall Plan by itself did not contribute to NATO’s creation. But the plan freed up European coffers for rearmament and militarisation, acting as an “indirect economic subsidy”. In fact, US President Harry Truman then expressly linked military support to Europe and the Marshall Plan, adopting a no-questions-asked policy to recipient NATO countries, who could then channel national budgets for defence spending.

The lines blurred between the Marshall Plan and the strategic environment in which it operated. If the CPEC’s future will be determined by China-Pakistan ties, Indian policy planners should also be wary of the corridor’s impact on the bilateral relationship. If China begins to guarantee the security of major projects along the corridor, would that free up Pakistan’s budget and resources to target defence spending elsewhere? Support from Iran and Afghanistan would be indispensable to the CPEC’s stability – will Beijing create an informal, four-way grouping aimed at securing CPEC currently, but aimed at adopting a bigger role in the years to come? New Delhi has just not visualised the regional impact of the CPEC, wishing it away as a bilateral enterprise. In cash-starved South and West Asia, the economic corridor will be closely tailed by smaller countries too see if similar projects can be replicated elsewhere.

China, US and Pakistan

Will the CPEC grow into a large enough project to invite the US’s attention? If so, what will be the consequences for South Asia? Historians generally agree that the Marshall Plan and NATO directly contributed to the Cold War, triggering a series of alliances and counter-alliances across the globe led by the US and Russia. During this process, smaller countries often played off the major powers against each other, using their insecurities to buy weapons and aid. No doubt, the US is keeping a close watch on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. But before Washington D.C. gets involved in the CPEC debate, New Delhi should modulate its entry. India and the US should begin serious conversations on the CPEC and its role as a force multiplier for China’s strategic footprint in South Asia. Pakistan is unlikely to play the US off against China – its relations with both countries have evolved somewhat independently after US President Richard Nixon’s 1972 visit to Beijing – but the Trump administration may yet be convinced of stronger ties with Islamabad to ward off pervasive Chinese influence.

And finally, India should observe the potential impact that the CPEC may have on regime creation in Asia. If China is unencumbered by financial viability – at least in the short and medium term – many countries will perceive Beijing to be more interested in strategic ties than purely economic arrangements. To attract ‘quick and dirty’ investment, therefore, autocratic regimes in Asia will invite strategic linkages with China. Indeed, the newly announced Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Bank is a sign that China itself seems to be convinced of the interdependence between military and economic regimes. This churning in economic and strategic architectures in Asia is a natural consequence of China’s rise and the US’s recession from the region, but CPEC will be a litmus test to see whether Beijing can balance both.

India, therefore, cannot sustain its single-minded strategy of isolating Pakistan when it has clearly not had the desired effect on China and other regional players. For now, the CPEC seems to be on course for completing some of its milestones, and India would be ill-advised to rely on the false comfort that profits alone will drive China’s business with Pakistan. Understanding the CPEC’s regional impact and mitigating its negative effects will require a comprehensive strategy from New Delhi that goes beyond the India-Pakistan narrative.

This article was published under thewire.in

A new study published  in Journal of Experimental Psychology: General has found that people fail to notice that white people are white.

Peter Hegarty from the University of Surrey developed a celebrity guessing game in which participants were shown one of two groups of actors; Colin Firth, Kate Winslet and Jim Carey or Halle Berry, Morgan Freeman and Eddie Murphy. Players in the game made a series of guesses at what these actors had in common and generated the names of more actors to see whether they were right.

Participants tried to guess the common ‘rule’ that these celebrities share and won the game when they did.

The study found that:

• In one test, 90% of participants successfully guessed that the actors Eddie Murphy, Halle Berry and Morgan Freeman were all black, and on average did so in less than 7 minutes. In contrast, only 25% of participants successfully guessed that Jim Carey, Kate Winslet, and Colin Firth were white before the 20 minutes of the game were up.
• Across the three tests, participants who were white and not white experienced the same amount of difficulty in identifying the common ‘rule’ that all three white actors were white.
• Participants were most likely to guess the rule for white actors if they were told that a black actor did not share what the other actors had in common.
• When presented with one white actor and three black actors and asked what made the white actor unusual among the group, less than 5% of participants mentioned the fact that the actor was white.

“Everyone knows Hollywood actors are mostly white and that being white is the norm among film stars,” said Professor Peter Hegarty from the University of Surrey.

“This study clearly shows one consequence of this; the failure to notice that white actors are white. Also, the guessing game is based on a process that psychologists have used to model how scientists formulate and test scientific theories for over fifty years. To the extent that this model is accurate, then these results suggest why scientists might be much quicker to label something common to black people as race-related, than something common to white people.”

Russian scientists from the National University of Science and Technology MISiS, MIPT, and Prokhorov General Physics Institute (GPI) of the Russian Academy of Sciences have compared the effectiveness of several techniques of remote water temperature detection based on laser spectroscopy and evaluated various approaches to spectral profile interpretation. The paper detailing the study was published in Optics Letters.

The researchers examined four data processing techniques drawing on the relevant analyses in prior publications. The technique which the authors themselves previously proposed, developed and obtained a patent for proved to be precise up to 0.15 degrees Celsius. The research findings will support further development of sea surface temperature remote sensing solutions, enabling scientists to keep track of thermal energy flows in hard-to-reach areas such as the Arctic region, where average temperatures are rising approximately twice as fast as they are elsewhere on the planet.

In their study, the scientists focused on Raman spectroscopy, which is based on the phenomenon of Raman scattering discovered in the 1920s. It involves the interaction of a medium with a light wave: The scattered light is modulated by the molecular vibrations of the medium, resulting in the wavelengths of some of the photons being shifted; in other words, some of the scattered light changes its color. Raman scattering and, by extension, the field of Raman spectroscopy were named after Sir C. V. Raman, an Indian physicist who was awarded a Nobel Prize for the discovery of this effect. Interestingly, Russian scientific literature tends to refer to the same phenomenon as “combination scattering,” a term coined to emphasize its independent discovery by Soviet researchers.

“With the climate changing so rapidly, remote sensing of water temperature is a priority, but the radiometry techniques currently in use are only precise up to about a half degree. Raman spectroscopy enables measurements with a much greater precision,” claims Mikhail Grishin, one of the authors of the study, a Ph.D. student at MIPT, and a researcher at the Laser Spectroscopy Laboratory of the Wave Research Center at GPI.

The experiment carried out by the scientists involved probing water with a pulsed laser and using a spectrometer to analyze the light that was scattered back. Depending on the temperature of the water, its characteristic OH stretching vibrations spectral band was variably transformed. The scientists needed to find out whether it is possible to establish a clear relationship between water temperature and one of the spectral band parameters.

The scientists examined the temperature dependence of several spectral band parameters (aka metrics), viz., certain parts of the area below the graph (see Fig. 1), differential spectra (the result of subtraction of two spectra), and the location of the peak of the curve fitting the band spectrum. Although it proved possible to establish a relationship between water temperature and each of the abovementioned metrics, the estimated temperature measurement accuracy of the respective techniques varied. Statistical analysis of experimental data showed that temperature dependence was most pronounced when the wavelength that corresponds to the peak of the curve fitting the band spectrum was used as a metric. The scientists were granted a patent for the corresponding approach to spectral profile interpretation by the Russian patent office.

Seawater temperatures in the Arctic are currently monitored using a range of techniques including direct measurements made by weather buoys and merchant or research vessels. However, to track the temperature dynamics of sea surface water in real time and over vast areas, it is necessary to make aerial observations using sensing equipment installed on aircraft or satellites, which irradiates the water with a laser and collects the scattered light. A spatial resolution of less than one kilometer enables researchers to create very detailed temperature maps which can be used to monitor the transfer of heat by ocean currents, predict how fast Arctic ice is going to melt, and make a global climate change forecast. As unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) become better, remote sensing equipment should also be improved to be more precise, lightweight, compact, and energy-efficient. The scientists are developing both the software and the laser-detector system.

Vasily Lednev, one of the authors of the study, a leading expert at the Department of Certification and Analytical Control of NUST MISiS, told us how he sees the future of this research: “One of the main hurdles faced in remote sensing of the sea surface is the necessity to calibrate equipment and verify satellite measurement results against contact measurements of seawater parameters (temperature, chlorophyll concentration, etc.). The development and design of compact autonomous lidar (laser radar) systems which can be mounted on UAVs will enable us to obtain detailed sea charts featuring a range of water parameters. These lidar systems are also of immediate interest to the study of hard-to-reach and dangerous objects like icebergs or ice shelves.”

The average annual changes in the temperature of the world’s oceans tend to be very small. It is currently heating up by a mere tenth of a degree every ten years, whereas seasonal temperature variations can amount to several degrees. This means that an error of just half of a degree will cause a significant drop in precision of the overall picture of temperature dynamics that we get. In the case of seasonal measurements, the uncertainty can reach 20 percent or more, while long-term climate trends may remain unidentified due to the measurement error.

The remote-sensing thermometers currently in use operate in the microwave spectral range. Raman scattering spectrometry has a significant advantage over microwave radiometry in that the probing laser radiation falls into the visible (blue-green) part of the spectrum. Unlike microwave radiation, to which water is almost completely opaque, visible light can penetrate a layer of water that is 1-10 meters thick. With microwave sensing, the data is only available for the 30-micron-thick surface layer whose temperature is significantly affected by the cold Arctic winds. This gives rise to an error, which is almost entirely avoided in measurements based on Raman scattering. To correct errors of this kind, satellite-based microwave radiometers need to be calibrated against ground-based measurements. By contrast, Raman spectrometry does not face this obstacle and can produce useful data independently from contact observations.