The narrative surrounding the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Syria is filled with despair and hopelessness. This is primarily due to a realization that despite overwhelming evidence of War Crimes in the country the situation cannot be referred to the ICC by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) given the existing geo-political realities pertaining to such a referral.

To contextualize the issue, the ICC can assume jurisdiction of a situation if either of the following three conditions materialize, firstly, the conflict pertains to a country that is a party of the Rome Statue (the statute establishing the ICC), secondly, the person to be prosecuted is a citizen of a State Party and lastly, the UNSC by a majority deciding to refer the case to the Court without a veto exercised by any of the P5 members.

Syria, the theater of the conflict is not a State Party to the Rome Statue, President Bashar Al Assad and a majority of the major actors (including non-state ones) involved in the conflict are not citizens of a State Party and lastly the UNSC due to strategic differences has no immediate plans to refer the case to the Court and has rejected such attempts in the past. However, it is submitted that calls for ICC’s intervention in Syria even with the full backing of the UNSC is premature without effectively addressing the following two issues requiring clarity in International Law.

Issue 1: Can an Incumbent Head of State and other top officials be arrested and Prosecuted for War Crimes as viewed in the context of Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir’s precedent?

As stated earlier, there appears to be little doubt that War Crimes have been committed in Syria. These crimes including but not limited to indiscriminate and reckless attack on civilians, bombing of residential areas, use of suspected chemical weapons, attacks on hospitals and other civil facilities and use of starvation as a method of in Syria have been well documented.

Most if not all of these grave violations are attributable to the Syrian Government headed by President Assad. However, it’s not clear how the President and other High level functionaries can be held accountable in light of existing international law principles. The referral of Sudan to the ICC by the UNSC Resolution 1593 in 2005 is significant in this context. Sudan’s referral to the ICC was unprecedented on five major counts.

Firstly, it was the first time that the UNSC unanimously voted to refer a situation to the ICC. Secondly, the subject of the arrest warrants subsequently issued by the ICC on the basis of the referral was the sitting President of the Country. Thirdly, Sudan was not a party to the Rome Statute and was forcibly referred to the court despite its staunch opposition. Fourthly, the wordings of the Resolution imposed seemingly binding obligations on other State Parties and lesser requirement on non-state parties including a binding obligation of Sudan itself. Fifthly, the subject of the warrant continues to be the President despite international calls for his arrest and ICC judgments faulting different State Parties in not fulfilling their obligation to the ICC by not arresting him.

While Article 27 of the ICC statute states that official capacity is irrelevant for prosecuting an individual, Article 98 stipulates that states in their obligation to the ICC cannot be compelled to violate their obligations under Customary international law pertaining to Sovereign immunity. The ICJ in the Arrest Warrant Case in 2000 asserted that high office holders of a country have customary international law immunity from arrest warrants issued by other countries even for War Crimes1.

Thus there appears to be a conflict between Articles 27 and 98 as regards the power of the ICC to indict and prosecute a Sovereign head of state. If read harmoniously, the best conclusion that can be drawn is since ICC is a treaty creation its obligations ought to prevail over customary obligations, meaning thereby that ICC signatories have an obligation to arrest a head of State since they implicitly agree to forfeit claims of Sovereign immunity while accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC.

However, since neither Sudan which was forcefully referred to the ICC by the UNSC nor Syria which has so far escaped referral to the ICC are members of the ICC both can claim immunity for their respective Presidents and officials in light of this scenario. Strangely enough a binding obligation under UNSC Resolution 1593 to co-operate with the ICC was put on Sudan- a Non State Party (despite Basheer being the head of state). Thus till a clarity on sovereign immunity for Presidents and other highly placed officials for War Crimes evokes an objective answer in International law contextualized with Basheer’s case it is preposterous to talk of hauling Syrian officials including President Assad to the ICC.

Issue 2: Can a non-state party have obligations towards the ICC?

With 124 members, around one-third of the international community refuses to accept the mandate of the ICC. Recent withdrawals from the ICC by certain African countries have stirred a debate on ICC’s institutional bias if not dented the credibility of the institution. Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties, 1969 impose an obligation, albeit vague, that states should refrain from acts that defeat the objects and purposes of a Treaty but this obligation is only on signatories.

According to Article 34, a treaty cannot create obligations for third states without their consent. The Rome Statue, in agreement with this philosophy obliges only member states with compulsory obligations. Even Resolution 1593 explicitly exempts non-state parties from obligations arising under the Resolution. Even if it’s argued that Sudan’s referral was under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and thus binding on all member states including Sudan (despite the express exemption of Non-state parties from obligations) it doesn’t explain the refusal/inability of many countries (including State Parties like Malawi, Chad, DRC and South Africa) to arrest Basheer during his visits and stopovers there amidst the curious requirement of Sudan being obliged to arrest Basheer despite his continued status as President of the country.

In pursuance to this breach of obligation, the ICC in a total of 11 findings held nations to be in “breach of obligation to co-operate” under Article 87 (7) of the Statute which requires compulsory co-operation from State Parties. These cases, post judgment were referred to the UNSC and ICC’s Assembly of State Parties (ASP) for further action which has not evoked a sufficiently strong response from the UNSC.

Thus where it’s increasingly getting difficult to compel a State party to ensure compliance with obligations arising under the Sudanese situation one wonders the utility of calling for a Syrian UNSC referral without broader institutional debate on existing scenarios.

However, there has been an argument that non-signatories to the ICC may have an obligation towards its mandate by virtue of Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, 1949 which imposes an important obligation “to respect and ensure respect” for international humanitarian law (IHL) obligations. The Geneva Conventions and their mandate today form an integral component of Customary International Law and are universally binding. Nations on their part have universally accepted and ratified the document.

While the nature of the conflict in Syria smacks of contempt towards the Geneva Convention, it is doubtful whether the compulsory obligation of the international community “to respect and ensure respect” to IHL under Article 1 can compel either the UNSC to refer Syria’s case to the ICC or even goad states to action to action beyond dutifully co-operating with the UNSC. Thus one can state that under existing principles of International Law, there exists no obligation on non-state parties either under Treaty Law or under Customary law mandating compliance with the ICC.

To conclude it can be stated the problems for the ICC in Syria extent beyond the need for P5 unanimity for referral and requires a broader debate on UNSC- ICC coordination on the question of Sovereign immunity and obligations of non-state parties towards the ICC.

*Abraham Joseph is Ph.D. candidate in International Criminal Law from NLSIU, Bangalore and Assistant Professor in Ansal School of Law, Ansal University, Gurgaon. He can be contacted at: aby234@gmail.com

References
1. http://www.ejiltalk.org/who-is-obliged-to-arrest-bashir/
2. http://www.crimesofwar.org/commentary/the-icc-bashir-and-the-immunity-of-heads-of-state/
3. https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_861_wenqi.pdf

By Saroj Mohanty*

India is cautiously optimistic about the trajectory of its relationship with the United States as billionaire businessman Donald Trump takes office as the country’s 45th President on Friday. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said he is looking forward to working with him closely to take the bilateral ties to “a new high”.

The positive outlook stems from the fact that there is bipartisan support for expanded and elevated relations with India as exemplified by the 16 long years of close partnership under the leadership of Republican George W Bush and Democrat Barack Obama. Moreover, Republican administrations have traditionally been better for India which is currently one of the fastest growing economies of the world. The Republican Policy Platform 2016 described India as a “geopolitical ally” and a “strategic trading partner”. Trump has said he would be “best of friends” with India and promised to boost intelligence sharing with New Delhi in its fight against terrorism.

Yet, there are huge concerns that India-US ties could face serious challenges in the days and weeks to come. Policy-makers and independent observers are circumspect about the likely turn of events and policy shifts that would occur under the Trump presidency, especially changes in approach to economic and trade issues.

This is because of the man himself and his declared domestic and foreign policy agenda which have brought in an element of uncertainty into future bilateral conversations and negotiation of mutual interests. The new Republican President is of “unknown quality” and it is not known how he would exercise the enormous power he would hold now. There are doubts whether his statements in the past about business opportunities with India would translate into benefits for India. There is anxiety as to what extent his campaign rhetoric would turn into policies, especially on trade, immigration and investment.

The concerns get accentuated when seen in the context of the global economic scene which has become cloudier after Brexit and the growing tide of protest against globalisation. Over the years, trade and technology have increased inequality, helping only those who have the skills and capital.

In fact, Trump’s main support base has been the less-skilled working class white males who have found their economic position declining over the years. This has changed the political dynamics of the Republican Party which, analysts point out, have traditionally attracted more educated and higher income voters and advocated free trade and liberal immigration. Today, Trump and advisors favour trade protectionism and curbs on immigration. Trump has warned companies against offshoring and threatened to slap 35 per cent tax if they fire their workers, move to another country and ship their products back to the US.

There are many sectors of the Indian economy which are likely to see troubled times ahead. The US is the biggest market for the Indian Information Technology industry, which is also the beneficiary of the visa system.

Trump has said in his first day in office he would ask the US Department of Labor to investigate the work visa programme. His administration is most likely to introduce changes in visa regulations and immigration process. Jeff Sessions, in his Senate affirmation hearing for Attorney General, said the Trump administration would push legislative reforms to curb H-1B visas for foreign workers.

India’s software exports would then certainly be affected if the US immigration policy becomes more restrictive as India has been the biggest beneficiary of H1B visas that allow companies to employ foreign workers for specialist jobs in science and technology. “We need to wait and see how things will happen there,” says Vishal Sikka, Chief Executive Officer of Infosys.

The US is also the most profitable market for Indian drug-makers. Trump has vowed to force US drug companies to produce at home and cut prices which along with healthcare costs figured high during the presidential election. Indian companies may face more regulatory inspections, beside stiff competition from the Big Pharma.

The US has not been an admirer of the World Trade Organisation and has gone ahead with plurilateral agreements instead of the multilateral approach. Trade experts say US would like “new Issues”’ like e-commerce, fisheries and investment in the formal agenda of the world body ahead of the ministerial meeting in Buenos Aires in December 2017.

Trump has so far trained his guns against China and the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership. There are now fears in some quarters that he could turn his gaze to the $30 billion-odd trade surplus that India enjoys with the US. Both countries also have differences over the issue of trade in services. The US has been asking for further liberalisation in India’s agriculture. It is also opposed to subsidies offered to the textile sector. It is unclear what would Trump’s India policy be on this.

Trump has suggested cracking down on multilateral tax offshoring. Investment flows to India could also be impacted if multinational companies chose to repatriate larger share of their income, says a report by Citi analysts.

Ahead of the inauguration of the new US administration, the Indian government has reached out to the Trump team. There are reports that members of the Indian diaspora and the business community having links with the new President have made contacts. In the days to follow, there would be opportunities for more bilateral engagements to clarify and thrash out issues.

Trump, a Wharton School of Business product, is expected to be far more transactional than previous US Presidents and would like to see what is put on the table. He is seen to bring in a style of governance that is an inalienable part of the corporate world which aims at effective deal-making. If his recent interview to the Wall Street Journal is any indication, he would use every available leverage to promote American interests.

After all, it is the same person who wrote the book “The Art of the Deal” some three decades ago. Prime Minister Modi has told his party colleagues that he is looking forward to meeting Trump at the earliest as it is important for sustaining the relationship which is helpful for India’s rise in a multi-polar Asia and the world. Till then, uncertainty is likely to reign high.

*Saroj Mohanty is a Delhi-based researcher-writer. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent to editor@spsindia.in

By Jai Kumar Verma*

Pakistan pursues the policy of “strategic depth” whereby it wants to convert Afghanistan into a client state. Its Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), which controls several terrorist outfits in Afghanistan, enhances the terrorist activities when it feels that the Afghan government is not following its diktat or becoming close to India. ISI uses the Taliban to dislodge the lawful government and, if feasible, to establish a government of its predilection.

The ISI is heavily involved in distribution of arms, financial assistance, logistical and military assistance to the Afghan Taliban, and especially the Hekmatyar group, Haqqani network, Hezb-e-Islami and even Al Qaeda. These outfits constantly carry out terrorist activities, including killing of anti-Pakistan leaders, on Pakistan’s behest. ISI is also involved in drug smuggling and the money generated from this smuggling is used to finance the terror outfits.

Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, after becoming President of Afghanistan in September 2014, wanted to inculcate friendly relations with Pakistan even at the cost of India. He was aware that without Pakistani assistance, it is difficult, if not impossible, to curb insurgency in his country.

Ghani went out of the way and even visited Pakistan Army Headquarters at Rawalpindi to meet then Pakistan Army chief General Raheel Sharif and requested him to control various terrorist outfits which were carrying out terrorist activities in Afghanistan on the behest of ISI, but General Sharif refused to help the visiting President.

After being disillusioned from Pakistan, Ghani turned towards India and, as an old friend, India rendered all kinds of assistance, including training and supply of armaments. Ghani was so annoyed with Pakistan’s undiplomatic behaviour that he even snubbed Pakistan openly at the Heart of Asia conference in Amritsar for instigating cross-border terrorism. He also refused to accept an assistance of $500 million and mentioned that this money can be used in controlling terrorism.

As Ghani acted against the perceived interests of Pakistan, ISI-sponsored Afghan Taliban enhanced their terrorist activities. On January 10, Taliban carried out twin blasts in which more than 30 persons were killed and 70 others wounded. The blasts occurred near the Parliament building which was constructed by Indian assistance and was inaugurated by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in December 2015.

Taliban targeted a mini bus which was carrying the staff of Afghanistan’s prime intelligence agency National Directorate of Security (NDS). Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid immediately owned responsibility and boasted that the blasts were carried out according to their plan.

Taliban also claimed responsibility for another bomb blast that occurred in Helmand in a house used by NDS. In Helmand, seven people were killed and nine others were injured. In another bomb blast, at Kandahar, seven persons were killed and 18 others injured, including the Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates and the Governor of the province.

Taliban are also targeting politicians — Rahima Jami, a parliamentarian, was injured in the blasts on January 10 while politicians from Helmand and Bamiyan were also attacked.

Taliban also killed more than 30 Shias in a mosque in November.

Afghan security forces are not able to control the law and order situation despite the extended presence of about 10,000 American troops. Consequently, diverse terrorist outfits, especially the ISI-sponsored Taliban, Islamic State, Al Qaeda and several splinter terrorist outfits are gaining ground. The situation is precarious — not only for the region but for the whole world.

United States Central Command chief General Joseph L. Votel recently said the Afghan government controls only 60 per cent of the area while 10 per cent is controlled by Taliban and in the rest of the area fighting is going on.

Analysts claim that the total strength of terrorists in the country is about 45,000 out of which Taliban has 30,000 militants while the remaining are Pakistanis and of other nationalities. However, all of them are against Afghan and US troops and are killing about 40-50 Afghan security forces every day. In this maneer, Taliban are slowly but steadily gaining ground.

The recent statement of Michael T. Flynn, a retired Lt. General who will hold an important portfolio in the national security team of US President-elect Donald Trump, that chaos in Afghanistan would threaten the US is significant as it indicates that Washington will not abandon Kabul.

The Afghan government must chalk out a detailed plan to establish rule of law in the whole of the country. It will be difficult as Afghanistan is divided into various groups and leaders but first of all the Afghan government must resolve the internal strife between President Ghani and his Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, so that long-term internal as well as foreign policies can be formulated.

The Defence Minister of the country was appointed after inordinate delay due to the differences between Ghani and Abdullah.

Secondly, the government should launch a campaign highlighting that Taliban are not Islamic and they are simply working under instructions of Islamabad with ulterior motive of dislodging the lawful government. They are against the progress of the country — hence supporting them is against Islam and is anti-national.

India is a dependable friend and is willing to render assistance hence the present government must take its assistance in equipping and training the security agencies. India is also suffering from terrorism, especially cross-border terrorism, hence Indian security forces have expertise and infrastructure to deal with it. Though Afghan security personnel are getting training in India, they should enhance the number of trainees.

Also, Pakistan-trained terrorists use modern weapons hence Afghan security forces must possess better weaponry to counter them.

It is good that a small contingent of US-led NATO troops is still in the country for training and other purposes. Afghan security forces must utilise their services so that the professionalism in the security forces can be augmented.

No country can establish law and order without a powerful and motivated force. Hence, first of all, the security forces should recruit dedicated personnel and they should be trained and equipped with modern weapons and equipment. The high morale of the force is also significant so there should be no desertion. In the past, there was a high desertion rate in the security forces, and the deserters were escaping with the weapons which was harmful for the morale of the security forces.

Lastly, if Pakistan does not stop fomenting trouble in Afghanistan, Kabul should also consider abetting multifarious secessionist movements going on in Pakistan, particularly separatist movements in Balochistan and in Pakhtunkhwa.

*Jai Kumar Verma is a Delhi-based strategic analyst. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent to editor@spsindia.in

An article titled “Woman Killed by a Superbug Resistant to Every Available Antibiotic” by Helen Branswell reproduced from STAT  in Scientific American on January 13, this year is very scary. STAT is “a new national publication focused on finding and telling compelling stories about health, medicine, and scientific discovery”.

The alarming finding was that a woman in her 70s contracted a superbug which her physicians could not control by any of the 26 antibiotics available in USA. The infection spread throughout her body and she succumbed in spite of the best medical care.

According to the news story, the woman spent considerable time in India, where multi-drug-resistant bacteria are more common than they are in the US. She had broken her right big thighbone while she was in India a couple of years ago. She later developed a bone infection and was hospitalized many times in India in the two years that followed. Her last admission to a hospital in India was in June 2016.

After her return to USA, she was admitted to a hospital in Reno where the doctors discovered that she was infected with a bacterium, which commonly live in the gut. What was of great concern was the fact that these bacteria have developed resistance to the class of antibiotics called carbapenems — an important last-line of defense used when other antibiotics fail.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported the case.

The authors of the report noted that this case underscores the need for hospitals to ask incoming patients about foreign travel and about whether they had recently been hospitalized elsewhere.

The SLAT quoted CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden as saying that these carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae (CREs) are called “nightmare bacteria” because of the danger they pose for spreading antibiotic resistance.

Testing at the hospital revealed that she was resistant to 14 drugs, all the drug options the hospital had.

“A sample was sent to the CDC in Atlanta for further testing, which revealed that nothing available to US doctors would have cured this infection. Kallen admitted people in this field experience a sinking feeling when they’re faced with a superbug like this one,” the article reported. Dr. Alexander Kallen is a medical officer in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of health care quality promotion.

The woman received treatment in isolation. The staff that treated her followed strict infection control precautions to prevent spread of the superbug in the hospital.
We cannot dismiss the report, though it refers to only one patient. Those keen to know more about antibiotic resistance and related news can have it here.

Are we conscious of the impending doom? Is it not too late?

An article titled “Emerging antibiotic resistance in bacteria with special reference to India” is a review of the topic published in 2008. The article describes how the epidemiology of antibiotic resistance is dealt with. The article also highlights the implication of the wide use of antibiotics in animals. The anti biotic resistance may increase steadily and numbers of newer antibiotics may decrease. It would become increasingly difficult to treat infections.

An article describes the emergence of a new antibiotic resistance mechanism in India, Pakistan, and the UK. It is a molecular, biological, and epidemiological study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases published in 2010.

The WHO noted that the 2015 WHO multi-country survey revealed the widespread public misunderstanding in India about antibiotic usage and resistance.

“Three quarters (75%) of respondents think, incorrectly, that colds and flu can be treated with antibiotics; and only 58% know that they should stop taking antibiotics only when they finish the course as directed.

More than three quarters (76%) of respondents report having taken antibiotics within the past 6 months; 90% say they were prescribed or provided by a doctor or nurse.

While 75% agree that antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest problems in the world, 72% of respondents believe experts will solve the problem before it becomes too serious.”

A couple of years ago, I suffered from a urinary tract infection. A closer diagnosis revealed that I have already acquired resistance to over half a dozen common antibiotics. My physician could locate an effective antibiotic in time! I have been scrupulously cautious about the use of antibiotics. Obviously, that was not enough!

It seems that superbugs have already won. This shocking reality must wake us up from deep slumber. The WHO has provided complete information on drug resistance here. These booklets must be made compulsory reading material for all, particularly in the medical field.

Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States on Friday (February 20). His government is taking shape as the appointees for the cabinet and other high raking administrative positions have been announced.

For better or worse, Donald Trump will be a historic figure, who will have a major impact internationally. It is likely that every country, if not person, will be in one way or the other be affected by Trump policies. Some may benefit while others may lose. Sri Lanka is no exception. There will be implications.

Trump Formula

As soon the American presidential election results were confirmed some began to apply the American realities to Sri Lanka. Former Defense Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa also stated that Trump won because the American people are wary of career politicians and suggested that Sri Lankans should also consider the leaders from outside of the political establishments. Gotabaya Rajapaksa is not a career politician. In one of his tweets, Gotabaya also congratulated Trump’s message, “we will regain our nation.” Both these messages have deep meaning.

Some Sri Lankan politicians may be tempted to experiment with the Trump style of extreme nationalism in Sri Lanka. Trump strategically insulted and offended almost all minority groups in the United States and handsomely won. It is doubtful whether the formula will work in Sri Lanka given the demographic composition of the country. An extreme nationalist could win a presidential election only with Sinhala votes, as minorities will react with high levels of hostility. In Sri Lanka, one party or a charismatic leader getting about 70 percent of Sinhala votes in a presidential election is almost impossible. To a certain extent, Sri Lanka tried the Trump formula in 2015. It did not work.

In fact, the Trump formula did not work in the U.S either. He lost the popular vote at national level by about three million votes. So, he won on a technicality. Sri Lankan presidents are elected by popular vote at the national level. Fortunately, Sri Lanka has no electoral college.

Geneva Resolution

The immediate major impact of Trumps election probably will be on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution, which originally demanded an international investigation on the human rights violation allegedly committed during the last phase of the war.

Originally, the U.S supported the Rajapaksa government’s (final) war with the LTTE and turned a blind eye to the civilian casualties. Unexpectedly, Rajapaksa turned to China completely sidelining Washington. Meanwhile, Sri Lanka gain added significance due to the Obama administration’s desire to pivot to Asia. The United States sponsored Geneva (UNHRC) resolution on (against?) Sri Lanka helped the U.S to retain some control over Sri Lanka. Moreover, Hillary Clinton also played a pivotal role in the resolution due to her interest in human rights issues.

Now, the Obama administration is gone and Hillary is also gone. The end of the Obama era means that added significance offered to Asia in the American foreign policy will wean. America will pivot back to the Middle East and Europe. Trump does not have a broad worldview. As the president, he may expand his interest to Europe and the Middle East. American foreign policy, to a large extent, has already been “oil centric.” The oil factor in the foreign policy has been further compounded by the appointment of Rex Tillerson, former chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil oil and gas company. Therefore, Sri Lanka, a small and non-oil producing country is unlikely to figure anywhere in the Trump foreign policy schemes. In Asia, China and India will attract more attention.

Unlike Hillary, Trump is no big fan of good governance and human rights. He believes in torture, which is fashionably referred to as “enhanced interrogation techniques” in the American foreign policy and media lexicon. Trump has demonstrated consistent resolve against “terrorism” and stated that he wants to bomb ISIS to the stone-age. So far, he has not expressed any concern for civilian safety in war zones. Therefore, Trump will not view what happened in Sri Lanka during the last phase of the war as unacceptable. The Geneva resolution, or the demand for an international investigation, will not have the Trump administration’s backing. On the other hand, European states which worked with the U.S on the resolution believe in collaboration with the Sri Lankan government rather than using heavy handed tactics.

Trump also has an affinity for strong leaders. He has constantly criticized President Obama as a weak leader and praised President Puttin and Kim Jong Un. Hence, President Rajapaksa’s politics and policies may be attractive rather than something that disserves criticism. I am sure the present U.S government, while criticizing Rajapaksa government, would have tried to learn how it finished the LTTE off. Some of the tactics may be useful to Western governments to deal with difficult situations in the Middle East. Trump might drop the pretention and embrace the Sri Lanka model of conflict resolution openly.

Therefore, the probabilities are that the ascendancy of Trump means the death of the Geneva resolution and international investigation. What does this mean for the constitutional reform process currently in place?

Constitutional Reform

President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe have reiterated the importance of finding a solution to the ethnic conflict through constitutional reform. However, it would be naive to assume that there was no nexus between the Geneva resolution and the constitutional reform process. One of the unstated objectives of the reform process has been to mitigate the demand for an international investigation. The government has no leeway on this issue. The strategy worked. We witnessed the watering down of the Geneva resolution since this government came to power in 2015.

Now, since the Geneva process (or demand) will completely die away, one of the compulsions of the reform process will also disappear. In other words, the government does not need an effective reform program to ward of international pressure. The government also does not have any serious pressure domestically, especially from the Tamil polity. Hence, the success of constitutional reform in Sri Lanka depends entirely on the good will of the government and the Sinhala people. Are there benevolent majorities in this world?

Donald Trump has been sworn in as the 45th president of the United States. In his inaugural address, he has promised to give the government back to the people and put “only America first.”

“Today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, or from one party to another but we are transferring power from Washington, DC, to you the people,” said President Donald Trump in his inaugural speech on Friday, as it started to rain.

“Washington flourished but the people did not prosper in its wealth and the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories, their triumphs have not been your triumphs, and while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for our struggling families all across our land,” said Trump.

“Starting right here, and right now, this moment belongs to you!” added Trump to applause. “The United States of America is your country.”

“January 20th, 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.”

A statement met with loud applause and cheering.

“For many decades we have enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry, subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military. We have defended other nation’s border while refusing to defend our own,” Trump proffered while whistles and cheers erupted from the crowd. “We made other countries rich while the confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon. One by one the factories shuttered and left our shores without a thought for millions of millions of American workers left behind. The wealth of middle class Americans has been ripped from their homes and redistributed across the world. But that is the past but now we are only looking to the future.”

The remarks, which Trump previously said he wrote himself, reiterated many of his campaign promises.

“We are going to issue a new decree…from this day forward it is going to be only American first,” emphasized Trump.

“America will start winning again, like never before. We will bring back our jobs, we will bring back our border, we will bring our wealth, we will bring back our dreams,” said Trump.

“We do not seek to impose our way on life on anyone but as an example,” Trump said.

He then promised to unite the civilized world against radical terrorism, which we will eradicate.

We will rediscover our loyalty to each other.

” When America is united, America is totally unstoppable,” he said.

The speech lasted 16 minutes, about half as long as the average inaugural address.

By Dr. Savitri Vishwanathan*

Japan is a “distant neighbour”. Yet, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made Japan his first destination in his schedule of visits to East Asia. Even as Chief Minister of Gujarat, he had visited Japan and established personal rapport with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Abe was the first Japanese premier to be invited as chief guest at India’s Republic Day celebrations in January 2014 and Modi’s subsequent visit during the same year only indicates the continuation of the UPA’s policy. The goodwill visit of the Emperor and Empress of Japan in December 2013 also showed that India was given a place of honour in South Asia by Japan.

Can we say that India-Japan relations have gained momentum in the Modi era?

The huge mandate Modi obtained in the 2014 general elections raised his credibility that political stability will be maintained. The dynamic and decisive character of Modi increased the expectations in Japan of a great leap forward in relations.

In Modi’s first visit itself, the special strategic partnership was upgraded. In 2015, the fear of alienating China was set aside and Japan was invited to participate in the India-US Malabar naval exercises. Although India, Japan and the United States have been holding trilateral dialogues from 2011 itself, a further impetus was given during President Barrack Obama’s visit in January 2015. The joint statement affirmed the importance of safeguarding maritime security and ensuring freedom of navigation and overflights throughout the region, especially in the South China Sea. This indicated a break from the past.

In 2016, the conclusion of an agreement for cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy, which has been pending for many years, could be considered a landmark in India’s relations with Japan.

The next pending issue is the ShinMaywa US-2 amphibious plane deal with the Indian Navy. This deal will, it appears, be of strategic advantage for India in view of the fact that China has attained superiority over the US in the acquisition of nuclear- powered submarines. It is also well known that China has been expanding military activities not only in the East China Sea, South China Sea but also in the Indian Ocean.

With the US-2 amphibious planes, India could project a stronger presence in the Indian Ocean. The plane could also be used in rescue operations and for disaster management. For Japan, after her failure to export Soryu-class submarines to Australia, the effects of the conclusion of the US-2 deal will set a new mood for Japan-India defence cooperation

Terrorism has been a growing concern for Japan although there have been no terrorist attack on the soil of Japan. Japanese nationals have been killed in terror attacks in other countries. India is one of the four outside bases selected for its intelligence gathering unit to collect information on terrorist activities.

Trade and investments got a new fillip with Modi’s visit to Japan in 2014 itself. An unprecedented move was the establishment of a special management team in the PMO which had two Japanese nominees to facilitate investment proposals from Japan and evaluate projects.

India had signed a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with Japan in 2011 itself. India continues to be a major recipient of Japanese Official Development Assistance (ODA). Assuring the Japanese investors that he would improve the ease of doing business in India, Modi said there would be no “red tape” but that there will be a “red carpet” for Japanese investors.

The number of Japanese companies operating in India has increased from 627 in 2009 to 1,229 in 2016. Under “Make in India”, Japan has committed herself to increasing investments in India to $35 billion in the next five years. However, there is still a lot of scope for increase in bilateral trade,

Development, Modi’s mantra, has received much appreciation in Japan. The large infrastructure projects like improvement of roads in the Northeast and the Mumbai-Ahmedabad high-speed rail corridor project — for which Japan will not only undertake the building of the railroad but also transfer the most advanced technology of the high speed Shinkansen — have a particular significance.

Japan lost to China a Shinkansen project which she had offered to Indonesia. The successful conclusion of the agreement with India is a matter of great satisfaction for Japan. Secondly, Japan would be executing the project under ODA, which offers to India a longer term for repayment and a lower rate of interest. However unlike other projects under ODA, this will be a “tied aid” giving an advantage to Japan as all the equipment etc. will be imported from Japan giving a boost to the big industries in Japan and helping in the development of Japan’s economy,

Agreement for the improvement of roads in the Northeast has been done in spite of the ire it caused to China. Japan’s offer of assistance to India in the setting up of chemical and fertiliser units at the Iranian port of Chabahar has not been favourably viewed by China.

Apart from Japan assisting in the “Make in India” policy of Modi, she will also help in the upgradation of skills in the manufacturing sector. A programme of training 30,000 persons in 10 years has been planned. A Japan-India Institute for manufacturing will be set up in 2017. Centres will be established in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Karnataka.

The initiatives taken for the qualitative and quantitative increase in improvement of India-Japan economic cooperation have to be appreciated. In the 21st century, Japan is also paying greater attention to the big Indian market and the potential for development in India.

There has been a slight diversion of her interest from China. No doubt she has to compete with China and South Korea for her market and investments in India. Over the long years of her association with India, she has also started evaluating favourably the high level of skilled manpower in India. It is hoped that she will get over her hesitations about transfer of high level of technology to India. India can also absorb this and transfer it to other nations.

Japan, it is hoped, is moving away from the donor-donee syndrome and looks on her investments in India as mutually beneficial. The multiplier effect of the transfer of technology, which Japan herself experienced in her early modernisation days may be recalled.

The success of all inter-state projects depends on the understanding of the similarities and differences in the attitudes arising from different cultures.

First, it should be based on mutual respect for the cultures. Different historical backgrounds, social organisations have a definite influence on ways of thinking, inter-personal relations, etc.

Japan had a historical past of more than two centuries of isolation from the world and when she opened up first to the world, her policies were based on the premise that she had to fight against a hostile world for her own survival and also development to win a position of equality with the nations of the world. A country with very few resources concentrated on the development of her own human resource to carve out her place in the comity of nations.

This aspect was given the utmost priority even after her humiliating defeat in 1945, when she had to rebuild herself once again. While she attained perfection in this aspect, which gave her phenomenal success in developing the most advanced technologies, it is an uphill task for her while facing nations with multi-ethnicity, multi-languages, and multi-religions. She tends to impose her own modes of training, etc. on other cultures as well. Therefore, the success of any India-Japan project for cooperation will require an attempt to understand each other’s culture. The western concepts of modernization and western management techniques may not always apply in the case of Japan.

Japan has always stood first or second in the ranking of the most -liked nation in India. However, much greater effort is needed to understand each other’s perceptions. This alone will ensure minimum frictions while working together.

Japan does not pose a military threat to India. Nor is she wary of India’s development as a strong power in the region. Japan’s concept of Asia used to end with Burma (Myanmar). Now Japan wants India to be included as a nation of the Asia-Pacific region after having successfully promoted India to all the councils of ASEAN.

India moving closer to the US to protect her strategic interests removes all reservations Japan had in making India a partner in her own strategic and economic interest. Also, both India and Japan understand that they cannot give much assistance to each other on issues like India-Pakistan conflict in the case of India or the Northern Territories issue with Russia, in the case of Japan.

The fear of a future war in Asia and the nuclear allergy of the people of Japan, who have experienced the horrors of an atom bomb, might pose obstacles in Japan’s export of defence equipment and nuclear technology. However, India”s sincere efforts not to contribute to nuclear proliferation would bring the two nations closer. India and Japan promote and support each other in their claim to become a member of the UN Security Council to achieve their common objective of preserving peace in the world.

*Dr. Savitri Vishwanathan was Professor of Japanese Studies at University of Delhi. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent to editor@spsindia.in

By Ranjit Gupta*

All Arab countries have autocratic governments. Six years ago, in the winter of 2010-2011 a spontaneous and exhilarating surge of massive protest demonstrations involving hundreds of thousands of common people swept across the Arab world, swiftly and peacefully toppling long entrenched dictators in Tunisia and Egypt within weeks. This unexpected success inspired the people of Bahrain, Syria and Yemen also to demand fundamental economic and political reform. However, the euphoria has turned out to be a cruel mirage. Seeing fellow dictators ousted, rulers resorted to brutal suppression of these protests; many foreign countries, taking advantage of the unrest, intervened directly and through proxies to promote their own geopolitical interests and in the process unleashed an unprecedented bloodbath and urban devastation worse than in World War II.

The net result has been that instead of the passionately hoped for new political and economic dawn, the people of Syria and Yemen are going through the darkest ever period in their modern history. West Asia has become deeply polarised due to a particularly noxious sectarian feud and a power struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran. This is being chillingly exhibited in the blood soaked, exceedingly destructive developments in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. A vicious war has broken out within Islam. Muslims are killing other Muslims in an orgy of fanaticism with unprecedented ferocity. Radical Islam and terrorism in the name of Islam have become rampant and are creating mayhem even beyond the region.

All this was epitomised in the emergence of the Islamic State (IS) and its “Caliphate” in Iraq and Syria in June 2014 with its capital at Raqqa, Syria. Actions and policies of Turkey (which has been proactive); Saudi Arabia; the brazenly sectarian (mis)governance of Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq; policy omissions and commissions of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the US have been the main contributors to the advent and rise of this anachronistic phenomenon. At the peak of its power, the Islamic State controlled 40 per cent of Iraq and over 50 per cent of Syria; it is now less than 10 per cent in Iraq and less than 25 per cent in Syria.

To a very considerable extent, this success is due to the US led coalition conducting almost 10,500 air attacks against it from August 2014 till the end of 2016 in Iraq and just over 6000 from September 2014 in Syria. Russia too has carried out a large number of air attacks against the IS in Syria since October 2015. A full-scale assault to recapture Mosul, the last significant city that the IS controls in Iraq is currently underway as also efforts to recapture the IS capital, Raqqa.

But the third outcome is perhaps the most startling. The US, the world’s most powerful country after World War II, has been the architect and guarantor of security and stability in West Asia since then. Despite continuing to be the world’s leading economic and military power, continuing to have a strong military presence in the region, with its regional allies armed to the teeth with the latest state-of-the-art US equipment, the end of 2016 finds Washington in the rather bizarre and completely unfamiliar and unimaginable situation of being virtually marginalised in meaningfully influencing the shape of the emerging strategic landscape of the strategically vital West Asian region. This is not because other players have edged the US out but an almost inevitable consequence of outgoing US President Barack Obama’s very deliberately adopted (and trenchantly criticised both within and outside the US; but this author views it as statesmanlike for the longer term) retrenchment approach and refusal to get militarily involved in new conflicts in West Asia. The vacuum has been filled by Russia, which has emerged as the new power broker in West Asia with Iran becoming the most influential regional power.

SYRIA

Credible estimates suggest almost 500,000 people have died in the many wars raging in Syria since March 2011; approximately 5 million people have fled the country and over 6.5 million people are internally displaced, cumulatively comprising over half the total Syrian population in 2011. The utterly devastating destruction of housing and infrastructure in its cities has left Syria a completely broken country where normalcy will not return, if ever, for decades.

Robust Russian military intervention since September 2015 in favour of Assad, and Iran’s consistently growing support and commitment to Assad – compelled by evolving circumstances; the steadily dwindling support for rebels from Turkey; Gulf Sunni States and the West; Assad’s finally taking full control over the psychologically and strategically vital Aleppo, Syria’s largest city and erstwhile commercial and financial centre, enabled by a ceasefire and evacuation of rebels brokered by Turkey and Russia; the focus of all major players increasingly shifting towards defeating the Islamic State – are all factors that have ensured that Assad can no longer be overthrown by military means.

In August 2016, Turkey launched operation Euphrates Shield, which envisages the creation of a Turkish military controlled ‘safe haven’ of over 5000 square kilometres of territory inside Syria to prevent any possibility of the Kurds creating an unbroken corridor under their control extending across the entire Syrian-Turkish border. In the closing weeks of 2016, a rather improbable and opportunistic alliance emerged consisting of Iran, Russia and Turkey, which has taken control of efforts to bring about peace in Syria, with the US and European countries being deliberately excluded from its meetings.

Prognosis:

The multiple ongoing wars in Syria between Assad and Salafi/Jihadi/al Qaeda affiliated rebels; between Assad and other ‘moderate’ rebels; between Assad and the IS; between the IS and other rebels; between the al Qaeda affiliated rebels and other rebels; between various foreign countries and the IS; Turkey’s war against the Kurds scaled up by operation Euphrates Shield, etc., will continue but the intensity of these different wars will diminish significantly except for the war against the IS, which will be ratcheted up, as well as the Turkish war against the Kurds. Assad will remain in power.

There will be serious and sincere Russia driven efforts for ceasefires and peace talks. Given US President-elect Donald Trump’s warm feelings for Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin, a strategic partnership between the two in Syria is likely to fructify. This will boost the possibilities of moving forward towards ending the mayhem in Syria though collaterally working to Assad’s advantage. Russia and Iran will continue to be the dominant political foreign influence in Syria.

Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been a particularly destabilising element in West Asia since the advent of the so-called Arab spring; and his frequent policy flip-flops suggest that Turkey will remain a spoiler rather than a constructive factor. Operation Euphrates Shield could cause new complications in Syria.

YEMEN

The inability of the former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, a Shia but a protégé of the Sunni Saudi Arabia since 1991, to control the Arab Spring related unrest led to his ouster in the Saudi manipulated Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) “mediation” in November 2011. In February 2012, he was replaced by Vice President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, a Sunni, from Yemen’s south. Hadi’s inept and ineffective governance and his equally incompetent leadership of the military enabled the Houthis to take control of Sana’a in September 2014. Saleh opportunistically announced an alliance with the Houthis in March 2015 after his residence was attacked by Saudi planes. Despite eviction from office, given Saleh’s still enormous influence over the army, a significant part of the country (including Aden, albeit briefly) came under Houthi/Saleh control. Despite the relentless Saudi offensive, Houthis and their allies continue to maintain their hold over Sana’a, a significant part of the northern highlands, much of the coastal areas, and the important city of Taiz.

Justifying these developments as Iran posing an existential threat, Saudi Arabia, without any credible basis whatsoever, launched operation Decisive Storm on 15 March 2015, in alliance with a few GCC and other Sunni Arab countries. In a complete reversal of traditional under the radar foreign policy, this new muscular approach was initiated by the extremely ambitious, brash and completely inexperienced new Saudi Defence Minister, Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, the favourite son of the new Saudi King, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. Heavy and indiscriminate aerial bombing has devastated Yemen, the poorest Arab country, causing approximately 10,000 deaths; displacement of 1.5 million people; and unimaginable destruction in its cities and infrastructure, leaving 86 per cent of its population in need of urgent and sustained humanitarian assistance.

Two side-effects of all these developments have been the very considerable enhancement of the influence and power of al Qaeda in Yemen and the ingress of the IS.

Prognosis:

Saudi Arabia cannot win this war and this realisation will finally sink in. The drain on Saudi resources will pinch ever more. The international community will finally be compelled to start pressurising Saudi Arabia to end this war. The unnatural and opportunistic alliance between Saleh and the Houthis will begin to crumble. Multi-pronged efforts will be initiated to organise ceasefires to enable humanitarian aid for the Yemeni people. As a result of all this, the intensity of the Saudi assault and internal civil war are likely to abate, setting the stage hopefully for a stop to all hostilities in 2018.

ISLAMIC STATE

Prognosis:

The IS as a territorial entity will almost certainly be militarily defeated before 2017 ends though small isolated pockets controlled by IS fighters will remain. The new IS tactics of carrying out high visibility high casualty attacks in Europe, Turkey, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., would likely escalate. However, the ideology that inspired and underpinned the IS will remain to trouble West Asia and the world for a considerable time to come.

* Ranjit Gupta
Distinguished Fellow and Columnist, IPCS; former Indian Ambassador to Yemen and Oman; and former Member, National Security Advisory Board (NSAB), India

Chief Justice Roberts, President Carter, President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama, fellow Americans, and people of the world: thank you.

We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people.

Together, we will determine the course of America and the world for years to come.

We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done.

Every four years, we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power, and we are grateful to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition. They have been magnificent.

Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.

Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.

Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.

Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.

It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.

This is your day. This is your celebration.

And this, the United States of America, is your country.

What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.

January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.

The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.

Everyone is listening to you now.

You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before.

At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.

Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves.

These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public.

But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.

This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.

We are one nation – and their pain is our pain.  Their dreams are our dreams; and their success will be our success.  We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny.

The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.

For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry;

Subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military;

We’ve defended other nation’s borders while refusing to defend our own;

And spent trillions of dollars overseas while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.

We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon.

One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind.

The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world.

But that is the past. And now we are looking only to the future.

We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power.

From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.

From this moment on, it’s going to be America First.

Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.

We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs.  Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.

I will fight for you with every breath in my body – and I will never, ever let you down.

America will start winning again, winning like never before.

We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders.  We will bring back our wealth.  And we will bring back our dreams.

We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation.

We will get our people off of welfare and back to work – rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor.

We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and Hire American.

We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.

We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.

We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones – and unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.

At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.

When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.

The Bible tells us, “how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.”

We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.

When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.

There should be no fear – we are protected, and we will always be protected.

We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement and, most importantly, we are protected by God.

Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger.

In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving.

We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action – constantly complaining but never doing anything about it.

The time for empty talk is over.

Now arrives the hour of action.

Do not let anyone tell you it cannot be done.  No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America.

We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again.

We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the Earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.

A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions.

It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag.

And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.

So to all Americans, in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, and from ocean to ocean, hear these words:

You will never be ignored again.

Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams, will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.

Together, We Will Make America Strong Again.

We Will Make America Wealthy Again.

We Will Make America Proud Again.

We Will Make America Safe Again.

And, Yes, Together, We Will Make America Great Again. Thank you, God Bless You, And God Bless America.

This is a dark day for parents, teachers, and children across America.

As one president and his family, worthy of emulation, exit the White House, a man enters office about whom the best we can hope is that through his example he exerts as little influence as possible.

Of this much we can be reasonably sure: anyone who cites Donald Trump as the justification for their behavior most likely just did something that common decency could not otherwise justify.

In a recent interview Trump was asked whether he had any heroes and he responded by saying, “I don’t like the concept of heroes, the concept of heroes is never great,” and it makes sense that this would be the view of a man who never tires of telling everyone about his own greatness.

How could Trump express admiration for another person without implicitly calling into question his own capacities? How could he admit he looked up to anyone without placing himself in a position of inferiority?

Although on the question of heroes, Trump initially directs a nod of respect towards his father — “I’ve learnt a lot from my father … I learnt a lot about negotiation” — he immediately goes on to cast doubt on the foundation of learning.

What makes someone a great negotiator, or great salesman, or great politician is their “natural ability.” This, according to Trump, is “much more important” than experience.

No doubt this explains why Trump claims he advises himself and has little patience for intelligence briefings.

Now apply this philosophy to an education system. Schools would less be places of learning than warehouses for scouting talent. Pick out the few with natural ability and discard the rest.

Apply this to a country and the job of government becomes to brush away all unnecessary obstacles to success (regulations) so that those with natural ability are given free rein to shape our world as they see fit.

And in order to disguise the worst form of elitism as somehow serving the common good, repeatedly and loudly declare that all is done in the service of the nation.

The fact that Donald Trump was sworn in as a president with lower approval ratings than any other in modern history might seem to indicate that even though he can now claim that title, “most powerful man in the world,” he does not in fact represent America — that he has arrived in Washington as an impostor. Indeed, the roles played by Russia and the FBI make it clear that Trump didn’t win the election by virtue of his natural ability.

Yet Trump’s candidacy was not a fabrication — it was a product of his own ambition and unrestrained grandiosity. And much as many Americans may now wish to disavow this president, he does in fact represent America by representing this country and its culture of confused values at its worst — through its celebration of celebrity; through its admiration of wealth; through its devaluation of decency; and through its lack of appreciation for the virtue of learning and the cultivation of wisdom.

By S. Binodkumar Singh*

The Awami League (AL)-led government in Bangladesh, which came to power on January 6, 2009, has consolidated its secular commitments through 2016, reining in Islamist extremist groups and targeting the Left Wing Extremist (LWE) movement in the country.

A total of 74 Islamist terrorists were killed and another 1,227 were arrested across Bangladesh in different raids during 2016. Prominent among those killed were the ‘national operations commander’ of Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) Abdullah aka Noman (35); ‘Dhaka regional commander’ of JMB Kamal aka Hiran (30); ‘military and IT trainer’ of Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT) Shariful aka Arif; Neo-JMB leader and mastermind of Gulshan attack Tamim Ahmed Chowdhury aka Shaykh Abu Ibrahim Al Hanif aka Amir (30); JMB ‘military commander’ for the northern region Khaled Hasan aka Badar Mama (30); Neo-JMB ‘military commander’ Murad aka Jahangir Alam aka Omar; and JMB ‘regional commander’ Tulu Mollah (33). In comparison, 31 Islamist terrorists were killed in 2015 and 22 in 2014.

Eighteen LWE-linked fatalities were recorded, all of terrorists, in 2016. These included four Purbo Banglar Communist Party (PBCP) ‘regional leaders’ Anwar Hossain (40), Al Amin Hossain (35), Asadul Islam Fakir (39) and Mozaffar Sana (40); one Gano Bahini ‘regional leader’ Amirul Islam; nine PBCP cadres; three Gono Mukti Fauj (GMF, ‘People’s Freedom Army’) cadres; and one Biplobi Communist Party (BCP) cadre. Similarly, there were 17 LWE fatalities, all of terrorists, in 2015; and 16, all of terrorists, in 2014.

Meanwhile, a total of 14 LW extremists, including BCP ‘regional leader’ Badsha Mallik (45), eight PBCP cadres, four BCP cadres and one Sarbohara Party cadre, were arrested through 2016. There were 10 such arrests in 2015 and 20 in 2014.

The War Crimes (WC) Trials, which began on March 25, 2010, have thus far indicted 74 leaders, including 44 from Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI); 12 from the Muslim League (ML); five from Nezam-e-Islami (NeI); four from Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP); two each from the Jatiya Party (JP) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP); four former Razakar members; and one former Al-Badr member.

Verdicts have been delivered against 51 accused, including 29 death penalties and 22 life sentences. So far, six of the 29 people who were awarded the death sentence have been hanged. 12 others are absconding and another 11 cases are currently pending with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, out of 22 persons who were awarded life sentences, four persons have already died serving their sentence. Eleven others are absconding and another seven are lodged in various jails of the country.

Disturbingly, however, on December 8, 2016, Lieutenant Colonel Anwar Latif Khan, Additional Director General (Operations) of the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), noted: “The terrorist organisations are facing a severe manpower shortage after they lost some high-profile terrorist leaders and trained members during special drives in the previous months. The terrorist outfits want to regain their striking power by hiring new faces, the sources said when they were asked about the recent incidents of going missing by some youths (sic).”

Further, on December 19, 2016, Mohamad Shafiqul Islam, Deputy Inspector of General (DIG), Chittagong Range, warned that “After the attack on Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka, the old JMB, which was the follower of Bangla Bhai (Siddique ul-Islam), has become active again. We are keeping an eye on their activities. Most of the JMB members who carried out bomb blasts in 63 Districts are out of jail. We have launched a hunt for the terrorists who were named in the charge-sheet in the bomb blasts case.”

Moreover, there is the threat of increasing radicalisation, as significant numbers of youth appear to be attracted to the movements of global jihad. Research conducted by East West University, Dhaka, concluded, on November 21, 2016, that one in every 10 university students in Bangladesh supports terrorism. The study found that more than half (51.7 percent) of those students who support terrorism were from well-off families. In terms of age groups, 54.7 percent of those who share such radical ideas were aged between 18 and 25 years.

Similarly, Non-Government Organisation (NGO) Shopner Desh, which conducted a preliminary research project on the impact of militancy, disclosed, on December 20, 2016, that most rural students believe terrorist propaganda. Some 20-25 per cent of Districts in Bangladesh were at risk of terrorist activities and the tendency is significant among students of village- and rural-level educational institutes, where some 26 per cent of students have received offers to join terrorist activities, the new study revealed. The study also found that 87 per cent of rural students who received such offers think that terrorist activities are justified.

Worried about the increasing number of women taking up the extremist cause, law enforcement agencies disclosed, on December 25, 2016, that several woman terrorists were active in Bangladesh. Most of them were members of JMB, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and Neo-JMB. Although law enforcement agency members failed to determine the number of women involved in extremist activities, recent operations in different parts of the country expose the increasing number of women terrorists in these groups. At least 20 women have been arrested on terrorism charges from different areas of the country. According to sources, the terrorist groups pair up a female and a male member, who identify themselves as husband and wife, a pattern spoken of as the ‘couple module’.

Remarkably, on July 26, 2016, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina issued a 19-point directive to the Deputy Commissioners (DCs) across the country to discharge their duties more carefully and strictly in maintaining peace, law and order and stability by eliminating militancy, terrorism and communalism, and ensuring that people are not harassed and deprived while receiving government services.

Further, on October 8, 2016, Hasina declared: “Our Government has always taken stern action against terrorism and militancy and would continue to curb the twin demons with an iron hand… There would be no place for terrorism and militancy on Bangladesh’s soil.”

Reaffirming her firm stance against extremism, Hasina noted on December 29, 2016: “All will have to remain alert, mobilise public opinion and wage a social movement against terrorism and extremism so that no one can choose such wrong path anymore. We want peace and there will be no development without peace. Terrorism and extremism are not the path of Islam… Islam is the path of peace and there is no place for terrorism and extremism in it.”

Indeed, the AL-led government’s achievements on the counter-terrorism and internal security fronts through 2016 have been remarkable. Nevertheless, the Gulshan café siege has stung the government and law enforcement agencies to take the issue of extremism even more seriously and to declare an all-out war against terrorism. After the attack, law enforcers conducted pre-emptive strikes at a number of terrorist dens, recovered arms, ammunition and explosives and thus prevented further terror incidents.

However, the menace is far from over, as terrorist recruitment continues, and new strategies are devised to launch further attacks, creating a significant threat to development and social stability. Given the sheer depth of radicalisation in Bangladesh, this is not a problem that is going to go away anytime soon despite the exemplary efforts and determination of the Sheikh Hasina regime.

*S. Binodkumar Singh is Research Associate at the Institute for Conflict Management, New Delhi. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent to editor@spsindia.in

On Wednesday, I watched the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions (HELP) Committee’s courtesy hearing for Representative Tom Price, MD, whom President-elect Trump has nominated to be the next United States Secretary of Health & Human Services. As a game of “gotcha,” the hearing played out predictably.

However, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) stood out for asking a pointless “question” (actually a statement), which was conspicuous because it was based on an error. As he has done many times, Senator Sanders made the false claim that health care is a right in Canada and other countries outside the United States. According to Mr. Sanders, this is a unique stain on the United States.

With respect to Canada, it is simply and plainly not true that health care is a “right.” By “not true” I do not refer to the fact that an American standard of health care is not available to ordinary Canadians (due to long waiting times), but that those who enforce Canada’s single-payer system have insisted in court no such right exists.

The claim was made in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in February 2009, in the case known as Cambie Surgical Center et al. v. Medical Services Commission et al. Cambie Surgical Center offered orthopedic surgery outside the single-payer system for private payment. The Medical Services Commission is the agency which operates the provincial single-payer system.

Contrary to Senator Sanders’ claim, it was the private clinic which asserted a legal claim that its patients had a right to pay for surgery. It was the government agency which denied it. Don’t believe me. Read it on page 5 of the agency’s statement to the court: “there is no freestanding constitutional right to health care.”

This article was published by The Beacon.

By Colin Dueck*

(FPRI) — Last week, President-elect Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, underwent Senate confirmation hearings.  Venues like The Washington Post were predictably critical, especially on the issue of human rights.  But the critics seem to be missing the bigger picture.  A genuinely tough-minded Republican foreign policy realism isn’t part of the problem with American diplomacy today.  It’s part of the solution.

Here is what Tillerson said on various foreign policy and security issues, in a little more detail:

• On Russia, he described that country as an “adversary,” denounced its invasion of Ukraine as an “illegal action,” and said the US should have pushed back harder against it by providing lethal weapons to Ukraine: “What the Russian leadership would have understood is a powerful response.” Tillerson would neither rule out nor commit beforehand to new economic sanctions against Moscow, but agreed it’s a “fair assumption” Putin authorized hacks against the Democratic National Committee, and said he looked forward to working with the Senate “particularly on the construct of new sanctions” against Russian aggression.  His recommendation for now was: “I would leave things in the status quo so we are able to convey this can go either way.”  As he put it with regard to US-Russia relations, “we’re not likely to ever be friends.”  But he called for “open, frank dialogue” with Moscow, at least to “bring down the temperature.”

• On China, Tillerson said that it should be denied access to artificially constructed islands, and he condemned Beijing’s maritime assertions in the South China Sea as “akin to Russia’s taking of Crimea. It’s taking of territory that others lay claim to….And again, the failure of a response has allowed them just to keep pushing the envelope.”

• On Iran, Tillerson expressed deep suspicion regarding Tehran’s nuclear intentions, and recommended a comprehensive review of the 2015 arms control deal. He called for much tougher enforcement of the deal’s provisions, but without a preset promise to immediately withdraw from the deal altogether.

• On Cuba, Tillerson agreed to support a continuing US travel ban on the existing regime, in opposition to the current administration, but would not commit to reversing Obama’s actions beyond that.

• With regard to key US allies, Tillerson repeatedly indicated that America must fulfill its alliance commitments. He declared straight opposition to any notion that Japan and South Korea should be abandoned to acquire their own nuclear weapons.  For Mexico, he expressed nothing but respect, calling it a “longstanding neighbor and friend of this country.”  And he made very clear his support for America’s NATO allies, saying they were right to be alarmed by Russian aggression.

• With regard to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, Tillerson said plainly: “I do not oppose TPP.”

• On the issue of a national registry for American Muslims, he said: “I do not support targeting any particular group,” adding that good relations with the Muslim world “is part of winning the war other than on the battlefield.”

• On the issue of global warming, Tillerson said “the risk of climate change does exist and the consequences of it could be serious enough that actions should be taken.” But he clarified that he does not view it as an imminent national security threat.

One may disagree with any specific policy position.  But altogether, Tillerson’s answers were well within the range of mainstream, center-right, traditional Republican foreign policy convictions, and he presented them calmly and well.  His instincts appear relatively hawkish, compared to Obama’s, without being senselessly belligerent.

Perhaps the most interesting exchanges between Tillerson and numerous senators, including Marco Rubio (R-FL), had to with the issue of human rights overseas.  Tillerson was pressed more than once to offer sweeping condemnations of other regimes — both allied and otherwise — on the basis of their human rights practices, but he repeatedly demurred from doing so.  This was significant.

Altogether, Tillerson’s hearing suggested several things.  First, he naturally wants to keep some specific policy options open, especially at the very start of a new administration.  Second, he understands that as in any administration, when it comes to foreign policy the president will ultimately be the one in charge.  Third, and usefully mixed with that understanding, he clearly has his own policy views, which sometimes differ from those of the president-elect’s campaign-season statements, for example on a US Muslim ban, TPP, nuclear proliferation, Russia, or the continued utility of America’s alliances overseas.

So, is there a way to characterize his international policy views overall?  I believe there is.

Tillerson is a practical business executive, not a theorist.  But even over the course of last week’s hearing, his answers revealed hints of a distinct foreign policy perspective worth describing.  It is what author Walter Russell Mead calls the Hamiltonian perspective.  Recall that Mead identifies four main strains or subcultures in US foreign policy, which he traces to Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Woodrow Wilson.  The Jeffersonian strain emphasizes peace, domestic liberties, and non-intervention overseas.  The Wilsonian strain emphasizes the global promotion of democracy and human rights.  The Jacksonian strain emphasizes national autonomy against external threats.  And the Hamiltonian strain emphasizes realpolitik, American economic interests, shrewd diplomacy, and an active role for the United States as a major world power.

In an earlier iteration of the Republican Party, from Dwight Eisenhower to George H.W. Bush, the Hamiltonian strain played a central part in encouraging a series of successful foreign policy presidencies.  Ronald Reagan combined that strain with Jacksonian and Wilsonian elements to create a remarkably effective endgame strategy against the Soviet Union.  After September 11, 2001, George W. Bush tried to apply assertively Wilsonian assumptions to the Arab world, with less of the intended effect.  Bush’s intentions were honorable, and he had numerous underappreciated successes, including on counter-terrorism.  Yet the Republican Party has been wrestling with his legacy ever since.  Donald Trump’s surge in the 2016 GOP primaries may be interpreted partly as a delayed internal reaction to that legacy.  Indeed Trump ran for and won the presidency of the United States on the most undiluted Jacksonian platform of any candidate in living memory.  The question moving forward is whether that platform can now be combined with other necessary elements into a successful hybrid foreign policy approach.  This is where Hamiltonians like Tillerson come in.

The urgent need today, after eight years of Barack Obama, is not exactly the rebirth of crusading Wilsonian assumptions.  Nor is the American public demanding it.  The chief problem with Obama’s foreign policy was never an inadequate stress on human rights.  Rather, the chief problem with Obama’s foreign policy was his inability to integrate human rights into a robust overall strategy counteracting numerous competitors and adversaries overseas.  This included a failure to plainly distinguish between allies and adversaries, supporting the former, while pushing back against the latter.  In other words, Obama was not insufficiently idealistic abroad.  He was insufficiently strong.  Jacksonians understood that much.

Still, if this new Jacksonian administration is going to succeed internationally, what’s truly needed now is a dose of Hamiltonian sensibility.  Tillerson can help provide it.  This means ideas, policies, and personnel committed to US alliances, international trade, foreign economic tools, skillful diplomacy, robust intelligence capabilities, and a certain comfort level with the institutions of American power.

No US Secretary of State can, should, or will completely abandon the Wilsonian emphasis on human rights overseas.  That was Marco Rubio’s point, and he’s represented it with articulate fluency throughout his years in the US Senate.  Still, human rights are one concern among several — such as US national security interests, including counter-terrorism — where tradeoffs do sometimes exist, and it is perfectly reasonable and necessary to face up to those tradeoffs.  Ethical scolding unsupported by material weight has not produced great results under Obama, geopolitically.  Moreover, socio-political transformation in other countries is sometimes harder than idealists expect.  At least, that is the realist position, and it’s hardly less qualified or informed than the Wilsonian one.  The true challenge is striking the right balance, case by case.  Tillerson put this very well under questioning:

“I share the same values that you share and want the same things for people the world over in terms of freedoms.  But I’m also clear-eyed and realistic in terms of dealing in cultures.  These are centuries-long cultural differences.  It doesn’t mean we can’t affect them to change….Quite simply, we are the only global superpower with the means and the moral compass capable of shaping the world for good.”

I’d suggest that statement reveals precisely the right balance and sensibility.  And it is striking that figures as diverse as Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, Robert Gates, Condi Rice, and George W. Bush now combine in recommending Tillerson for State.

Tillerson looks to bring a welcome steadiness, executive experience, integrity and prudence to the conduct of foreign policy in this new administration.  It’s clear he believes in a strong, active role for the United States overseas, including US alliances, diplomacy, and trade.  He evidently favors negotiation from strength, combined with restored military deterrence to counteract serious competitors such as Iran, China – and Russia.  As he told the assembled senators, specifically in relation to Vladimir Putin: “I’m advocating for responses that will deter and prevent further expansion of a bad actor’s behavior.”  Under the current circumstances, this hard-nosed mentality is exactly what’s needed.

I hope the Senate confirms him.

About the author:
*Colin Dueck is a Professor in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, and a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Even before Donald Trump was sworn in as US President, it appears that a major segment of US media has taken a stand and have already made up their mind to become pledged critics of Trump.

A section of the US media representing the American Press Corps, White House journalists, in an open letter to then President-elect Donald Trump said that it is the reporters and not him who will set the rules and decide what to serve the readers.

Whither fair journalistic practice?

Of course, the journalists can write whatever they want, but should they also not care about the need for ethical, honest and fair journalistic practices, where a journalist remains neutral and does not have a preconceived view? It is well known that major section of US media carried out a vigorous campaign during the Presidential election to ensure that Trump would be defeated. They also released several pre-poll opinion surveys prominently indicating that Trump would be decisively defeated. Abusive slogans were coined against Trump to create a sense of hatred among the people. All this did not work.

Now, just before the swearing in, the media reported that one million people would attend the swearing in ceremony of Donald Trump and of this one million people, at least 25% of them would be there to express their displeasure against his swearing in and would raise their voice against him. Obviously, the media personnel want to raise a phobia that Donald Trump is very unpopular in USA.

Why is the media unwilling to recognize the verdict of the people?

What is particularly shocking is that a section of US media refuses to recognize that Trump has won an election conducted democratically as per the established practices and majority of Americans voted for him. This is very unacceptable stand of the US media.

During the Presidential election, many people who have no particular political leanings suspected that US media has some vested interest in defeating Trump and due to such misgivings, the US media lost its credibility to some extent.

However, many thought that after the conclusion of the election, the media would take an objective and neutral stand and reclaim its image as a progressive and non partisan entity. Unfortunately, this is not happening.

Why not give time for the new President before judging?

It is a general accepted principle and tradition that in all democratic countries that when a new party would come to power and a new President would take over after the conclusion of the election, the new team would be provided one hundred days of time to find their feet and work out their plans. During this hundred days period , even the worst critics would not be critical and would exercise caution in making adverse observations. Why is the US media not following this healthy practice in the case of Donald Trump ?

It is known that the pre-election observations made by the contestants in the Presidential election would not be the guidelines for them in conducting the affairs after getting elected except for the basic policies and programs. When a new President assumes office, he may come to know several aspects and information which may not have been available to him before getting into the office. In such circumstances, the newly elected President is bound to change his perspectives and priorities and remodify his approach, in the light of facts placed before him. Why does a section of US media would not think that Trump may modify some of his views after assuming office ?

It is unfortunate that Donald Trump is being subjected to such level of scathing criticism even before he would assume office and start functioning. In the process, media loses more than Donald Trump.

Conflict would be counter productive

It is neither good for media nor for Trump to have an attitude of confrontation with each other. If such confrontation would persist, it would not do good for America and only frustrate the people.

One only hopes that some sense will prevail among US media personnel and they will become more constructive and responsible in airing their views.
Of course, they can set their own rules but let it not be based on prejudices and unprofessional journalistic approach.

By Md. Muddassir Quamar*

The fifth India-Arab Partnership Conference (IAPC) was held in Muscat on December 14-15, 2016 on the theme “Partnership towards Innovation and Cooperation in IT” and was attended by Ministers and business delegates from 20 Arab League countries and India.

The biannual partnership conference was first held in 2008 to explore the opportunities for promoting business and enhancing flow of investments from both sides and has since emerged as a flagship biannual event for exploring business opportunities for public and private sectors from India and the Arab countries. It has gradually acquired greater significance and become bigger both in its scale and participation with nearly 500 delegates attending this time.

The first two conferences were held in New Delhi (April 2008 and August 2010) and laid the framework for reinvigorating trade between India and the Arab countries. The third IAPC was held in Abu Dhabi in May 2012 and the fourth in New Delhi (November 2014) and focused on accelerating efforts towards investments and finding more business opportunities.

Inaugurating the fourth IAPC, India’s Minister of State for Commerce and Industry Nirmala Sitharaman emphasised the significance of investments from Arab countries in India saying “the Indian growth story would be incomplete without the participation of friends like the Arab League”.

In the latest IAPC, India was represented by a large delegation with business leaders from various sectors and government officials led by Minister of State for External Affairs M.J. Akbar attending the conference. Akbar in his speech highlighted the need for governments to become facilitators for people to explore opportunities and tap potentials and “to find one another”.

Emphasising the need for “reform of conventional behavior and thinking”, Akbar underlined the initiatives taken by the Indian government to remove hurdles in creating a conducive environment for business.

The minister said: “India is preparing itself for transformation… through sweeping changes in regulatory and administrative reforms” including a single pan-India taxation system — Goods and Services Tax — that will be in place from the 2017-18 financial year and a liberalised FDI regime with even the defence sector opened.

He said India, recognising the problem faced by foreign investors in taking clearances from various agencies, is working towards “streamlining of clearances” and reducing the time required for pre-requisites such as IPR application, Trade Mark registration and environmental clearances through a single window — Invest India Authority.

Akbar observed that India-Arab partnership has extraordinary potential as India has “the talent at every level of human resource needed for the new economy” and the Gulf countries have the wealth that “can be profitably invested in India’s burgeoning infrastructure sector”.

The focus is on attracting investments and facilitating business by convincing Gulf investors to try the Indian market. So far, India has not attracted the expected amount of investments and Gulf investors, though looking to invest abroad, remain suspicious of the infamous ‘slow’ and ‘corrupt’ Indian system which the government is trying to iron out.

To build confidence among Gulf investors, India would be required to walk that extra mile which Prime Minister Narendra Modi is trying to do through sustained political engagements and smoothening the trouble spots in the system to attract investments from Gulf countries and improve bilateral trade and commerce.

*Md. Muddassir Quamar is Associate Fellow at the Institute of Defence Studies & Analyses, New Delhi. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent to editor@spsindia.in

The Women’s March on Washington is a misnomer: it will include many others who claim to be neither a man nor a woman, yet were born either male or female. It is also a misnomer to say, as the organizers claim, that the march is about uniting “our vibrant and diverse communities”: the event seeks to divide, not unite.

Some critics are calling this an anti-Trump rally. They, too, are mistaken. It is a protest against the American people who voted for Donald Trump. In short, it is a protest against democracy.

As with all activist events, this one is guided by “isms.” The two principal ideological strains are libertinism and anti-Catholicism: the protesters want a sexual free-for-all (minus the lethal diseases), and they want to attack Catholicism for not affirming it.

With regard to religion, the march’s organizers say the event is being held to support “diverse religious faiths particularly Muslim.” Happy to know that Muslims are given priority over the Zoroastrians, though it is not certain whether any will march with the “LGBTQIA” contingency (“Q” stands for “Queer”; not sure who the “I” and “A” folks are).

Among the many sponsors of the march are the following organizations; a sample of their contributions to anti-Catholicism is included:

Amnesty International: In 2015, it sponsored an anti-Catholic video, laced with obscenities, attacking the Catholic Church in Ireland for its opposition to abortion.

Center for Reproductive Rights: In 2011, when the bishops opposed a bill promoting abortion, it fell back on an old anti-Catholic trope, accusing them of “enforcing religious dogma” on the American people.

Feminist Majority Foundation: In 2005, it opposed elevating Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court because that would mean too many Catholics on the bench.

Human Rights Campaign: It has consistently labeled every conflict between religious liberty and gay rights as an attack by the bishops on gays, not as an exercise of the First Amendment.

Human Rights Watch: It labels as “obstructionist” the right of the Holy See to oppose abortion laws, and has attacked Filipino bishops for merely stating the Church’s position on contraception and abortion.

MoveOn.org: Heavily funded by George Soros and his Open Society Foundations, it has supported virtually every phony, anti-Catholic “Catholic” group, such as Catholics for Choice and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

NARAL: Founded with the express purpose of lying about, and smearing, the Catholic Church, it continues to assault Catholicism whenever the abortion issue is in the news.

National Organization for Women: It frequently accuses the bishops of a “War on Women” for simply voicing their objections to abortion.

PEN: Ostensibly a “free speech” organization, it has condemned the free speech rights of Catholics (e.g. the Catholic League) for opposing anti-Catholic bigotry, trying to silence them.

Planned Parenthood: Founded by an extreme anti-Catholic, Margaret Sanger, it has been fomenting anti-Catholicism for 100 years.

In addition to these 10 anti-Catholic sponsors, the Women’s March on Washington is drawing the support of activists who have nothing to do with women’s rights (e.g., Americans United for Separation of Church and State), but who are nonetheless long-time Catholic bashers (which explains their enthusiasm).

Finally, Hollywood will be well represented, as is only fitting: the event celebrates reckless sex, and is heavily populated by Catholic haters. Samantha Bee is just one of hundreds who will be there.

She earned her stripes most recently on her January 18, 2017 show when she made a crack about “brave strong women” and “dildos.” The segment featured a photo of a priest with a homosexual standing next to him. How do I know the guy is gay? If you saw the picture, you wouldn’t have to ask.

Standing before a sea of humanity — people of all ages and races, stretching out from the Lincoln Monument back as far as the Capitol building– a sea vaster than any demonstration in the history of the nation’s capital, the unkempt white-haired senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, a self-described independent socialist maverick who decided to take his oath of office on the steps where Martin Luther King once spoke, instead of the traditional spot at the Capitol building, called out to the American people to join him in “taking back our country from the smug, self-satisfied rich and the corporations that have been pretending to be persons!”

“We are engaged in a struggle to undo decades of government policies that were designed to benefit the one percent,” said the man who has upended centuries of two-party duopoly by winning the presidency in a landslide on the Green Party ticket in a sweep that handed control of both House and Senate to a Democratic Party that was at the same time relegated to a humiliating third place finish in the presidential race.

“The election is over,” President Sanders declared. “But the American people’s fight is just beginning! I call on all those who voted for my opponents, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, to join with the 75 million who elected me in taking back this country from the special interests, from the wealthy for whom nothing is ever enough, from the corporations that see themselves as global enterprises, not as part of the fabric of this nation and its society, and from those who would trample on the weak in order to raise themselves a notch above the rest.”

Sanders went on to announce a list of priority measures he intends to present to the new Congress on this, his first day in office, the first being a bill to establish a new Department of Peace, whose secretary, he said, would henceforth sit in on all discussions of foreign affairs in order to “insure that peaceful options for resolving differences will always be put on the table.” Other measures going to Congress on day one of Sanders‘ presidency, he said, would include:

* Establishment of a commission, headed up by his nominee for Secretary of Health and Welfare Jill Stein, charged with drawing up, over the next six months, a plan for replacing the costly and complex Affordable Care Act with an expanded and enhanced Medicare program that would cover all Americans, not just the elderly. The new president, a long-time advocate of a national single-payer health care system similar to Canada’s, said his plan would cost less than health care does now because it would do away with the need for Medicaid for the poor, with the need for employer-funded insurance plans and their huge premiums, and with the Veterans administration hospital system, since everyone would be receiving Medicare. He promised that such a system would allow the federal government to bargain for lower prices for all health care and medicines. “We are declaring that as of today, health care in America is a right of citizenship, and we are saying if every other developed country in the world can deliver affordable healthcare to all its citizens, then so can America!” said the new president to thunderous applause.

* Establishment of a $15/hr federal minimum wage, linked to the consumer price index, to become effective as soon as a bill reaches his desk, and a “card-check” measure giving unions the right to demand recognition by an employer after simply turning in to the National Labor Relations Board cards signed by a majority of workers, without having to go through a lengthy and endlessly delayed formal election process. Sanders said that bill would also make labor law violations by employers subject to triple damages, similar to insider trading violations, instead of simply requiring payment of back wages. Said Sanders, “A person who works full-time at a job should be able to earn enough to support a family. It’s that simple,” he said. “Companies should not be subsidizing their payroll costs by forcing their workers to rely on taxpayer-funded assistance programs like welfare and food stamps! No more!”

* Appointment of a commission to develop a plan not just to fully fund Social Security benefits through the next 75 years, but to expand benefits so that they replace 60% of income at retirement for those individuals earning less than $60,000 a year, and for couples earning less than $100,000 a year. “This would be in line with what European countries, do,” the new president declared, again to thunderous applause that rocked the capital.

Calling for an end to reliance on carbon-based fuels, to combat the urgent threat of catastrophic climate change, President Sanders announced a bill to train and subsidize the employment of an army of well-drillers and home heating retro-fitters to install geo-thermal and heat-pump systems in existing and in all new homes and public buildings where geologically viable, and a program restoring federal tax subsidies for the installation of solar power panels and/or wind generators on residential homes, with a goal of quickly and substantially reducing the need for oil and gas for heating and cooling, and for centralized electric power generation. “For the sake of ourselves and for generations to come here and around the world, we can and we will massively reduce America’s carbon footprint, beginning today,” declared the new president. “There is no longer any time to wait or to debate about what to do about climate change.”

A” jubilee” forgiveness of all undergraduate college debt borrowed and owed to the federal government up to and including the current spring term, and establishment of program to encourage all states, beginning next fall, to provide free tuition at state-owned and funded two- and four-year colleges to in-state students from families earning less than $150,000 a year. “The loan forgiveness program will be a trillion-dollar economic stimulus,” said Sanders, “freeing currently indebted graduates to buy homes, cars, and computers and to move forward with their careers, for young entrepreneurs to take out start-up loans, and freeing their parents from having to support them or help them repay those loans.” He said public colleges would have to “figure out how to change their model to operate in service to the young people” whose families’ taxes had built those state institutions, instead of continually jacking up tuition and fees. “Maybe they’ll have to lose a lot of management positions,” he said, “and cut senior management salaries down to what most faculty earn.” To encourage the change, he said the federal government would not provide subsidized loans for use at public colleges that didn’t meet the proposed free-tuition guidelines.

* On foreign policy, which had not been a major topic during the campaign, Sanders vowed to work towards more friendly relations with Russia and China and to get the US out of the “regime change” business. To help calm the waters in the Middle East, he also vowed to initiate “serious peace negotiations” between Israel and the Palestinians, aimed at early creation of a “viable Palestinian state.” The nation’s first Jewish president warned that the Israeli government would have to reverse the illegal settlements that have for years been encroaching on Palestinian territory on the West Bank and said the US would cease providing generous military assistance to Israel as long as the Israeli government refused to do so.

Thanking Merrick Garland, outgoing President Obama’s unsuccessful nominee for the late Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court, for making the frustrating and unsuccessful effort to overcome Republican intransigence about approving any Obama nominee, Sanders announced that he would be nominating Susan Herman, current president of the American Civil Liberties Union, to that vacant seat on the High Court.

Sanders stunned pollsters, pundits and the nation’s political elite when, following Hillary Clinton’s nomination as the Democratic Party’s nominee at the party’s July convention, and following massive demonstrations in Philadelphia, Washington and other major cities across the country by millions of his supporters calling on him to run as an independent candidate for president, he accepted an offer by Green Party leader and presumptive Green nominee for president Dr. Jill Stein, to run as the party’s candidate in her stead. Sanders agreed to the offer, and chose as his vice-presidential running mate California Rep. Barbara Lee. Long a hero of anti-war Americans for her staunch opposition to the initial Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001 that launched the War on Terror, her vote against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and her opposition earlier to the Clinton administration’s bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Lee put peace and anti-militarism squarely at the center of the Sander’s campaign.

Sanders said at the time that the disclosure, by Wikileaks, of emails from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign showing that the party establishment had actively worked to subvert the primaries, combined with the structural unfairness of having some 800 unelected Super-delegates whose votes had been bought in advance by the Clinton campaign, convinced him that the primaries had been fatally corrupted and the nomination stolen from him, leaving him free to ignore his earlier promise to support Clinton if she became the nominee.

His ensuing and unprecedentedly successful third-party campaign, funded fully by public funds and small donations, electrified the country, drawing support from independent and even Republican Trump supporters — particularly white working-class Americans — as well as sparking huge turnouts among black and hispanic voters and normally hard-core Democratic voters, all drawn to the Sanders ticket by his promise to raise the minimum wage to $15, to revisit and either revise or cancel all trade treaties, to bust up the big banks and to end corporate control of Washington. The Green Party, already on the ballot in 26 states, was, by Election Day, able to have the Sanders ticket listed on the ballot in 46 states, allowing Sanders to win landslides in both the popular and the Electoral College vote.

Although he campaigned aggressively against both Trump and Clinton, candidate Sanders worked hard to back Democratic Congressional candidates, helping to achieve a number of upset victories, including in traditionally red states in the south and midwest. As a result, he enters the White House backed by solid majorities in both chambers of Congress and carrying a mandate for dramatic change not seen since Franklin Roosevelt’s big sweep in 1932.

While only two Green Party candidates for Congress won election in November (both in California), a number of successful candidates for House and Senate who ran as Democrats, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) Russ Feingold {D-WI), and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), announced after Election Day that they were switching their party affiliations to Green, though all said they would continue caucusing with Democrats in the new Congress for purposes of committee assignments and strategy on promoting the Sanders agenda.

Acknowledging in his address that he anticipated push-back from hard-core conservatives and Trump Republicans in Congress, particularly on his appointments to the federal courts and to cabinet posts and regulatory agencies (Republicans still have enough votes to conduct filibusters and place holds on nominations), Sanders told the inaugural throng on the National Mall, which spilled out onto side streets, requiring the installation of makeshift speaker systems on lampposts, “I want you all to be prepared to come back here and make yourselves very familiar to the members of this new Congress whenever we run into roadblocks. This mall — and the halls of Congress — are your property! They are here so you can be here whenever you feel you need to be, and I promise you will be able to stay put, with tents and with the necessary amenities and without any opposition from park police, whenever you feel it necessary!”

After the cheering and applause had finally subsided, Sanders added, “…or when I put out a call saying I need your help down here!” That kicked off a sustained cheering that morphed into a chant of “Revolution! Revolution!”

It was not your normal inaugural address to be sure!

Sanders ended his speech with a bow to the inaugural address of a former upstart President, John F. Kennedy.

“Ask not what this country can do for you,” he said. “Ask what you, the American people, working together and for the good of all, can do for yourselves and for this great nation.”

AUTHOR’S NOTE: While this article is a fantasy, there are several parts that are rooted in reality, including these two facts: Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein did offer to surrender her spot at the head of the Green ticket to Sanders if he wanted it, and those polls that continued to include Sanders in them during the general election campaign consistently showed him trouncing Trump right through election day. It could have happened had Sanders chosen to run as a Green.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), which President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress have vowed to repeal, was crafted to overcome two basic problems in the provision of health care in the United States. First, the costs are incredibly skewed, with just 10 percent of patients accounting for almost two thirds of the nation’s healthcare spending. The other problem is asymmetric information: Patients have far more knowledge about the state of their own health than insurers do. This means that the people with the largest costs are the ones most likely to sign up for insurance. These two problems make it impossible to get to universal coverage under a purely market-based system.

The problem with the skewing of health care costs is that while most people’s health spending is relatively limited, it remains very expensive to provide care for the costliest 10 percent. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projects that per capita spending on health care in the US will average $10,800 in 2017. But the cost for the most expensive 10 percent of patients will average $54,000 per person, compared to an average of just $6,000 for everyone else. The cost for the healthiest 50 percent of patients averages under $700 per person.

Covering the least costly 90 percent of patients is manageable, but the cost of covering the least healthy 10 percent is exorbitant. Very few people could afford to pay $54,000 a year for an individual insurance policy. Furthermore, if insurers were to set their premiums in accordance with overall averages, they could anticipate a skewed patient pool. The more healthy half of the population, with average costs of less than $700 a year, would either limit their insurance to catastrophic plans that only cover very expensive medical care, or go without insurance altogether.

This would leave insurers with a less healthy pool of patients, the treatment costs for which would drive them to raise their premiums. This leads to a death spiral of rising premiums and fewer insurees or, alternatively, a situation where insurers deny coverage to patients with pre-existing conditions. Either way, the people who most need insurance will be unable to get it.

The ACA gets around this problem by requiring that everyone buy insurance — a mandate that allows people with serious health problems to get insurance at a reasonably affordable price. Since many people cannot afford an insurance policy even if it’s based on average costs, the ACA also provided subsidies to low and moderate income people. It pays for the subsidies primarily through a tax on the wealthiest households, those with incomes over $200,000.

Thus far, the ACA has actually worked better than expected in most respects. The number of uninsured actually dropped somewhat more than had been projected, despite the fact that a number of states controlled by Republican governors and/or legislatures opted not to expand Medicaid as had been required in the measure passed by Congress. The cost of the program has also been less than projected as health care cost growth has slowed sharply in recent years. The ACA likely contributed to slower cost growth, although that slowdown preceded the ACA, so other factors are clearly involved.

Insofar as the ACA has run into problems, those have been attributable to too few healthy people in the health care exchanges, and too little competition among insurers. Many commentators have wrongly blamed the problem in the exchanges on a failure of young healthy people to sign up for insurance. This is not the cause of the problem, since more people are getting insured than had been projected. The reason fewer healthy people are showing up on the exchanges is that fewer employers dropped insurance than had been projected. The problem this for the exchanges is that people who get insurance through an employer mostly work at full-time jobs, and people who are able to work at full-time jobs are healthier than the population as whole. By continuing to provide insurance for their workers despite the ACA, employers are effectively keeping healthy people out of the exchanges.

The other problem with the exchanges has been limited competition, as many insurers have dropped out after the first few years. The loss of competition has meant higher prices. This could have been addressed in part by offering a public plan through Medicare or Medicaid, as President Obama had originally proposed. Obama dropped this part of the plan in the face of opposition from the insurance industry, but reinstating it would increase competition in the exchanges.

A report from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that the 400 richest households would get a tax cut averaging $7 million a year. CBO puts the total tax savings to the wealthy from eliminating these ACA taxes at $35 billion a year over the next decade.

The repeal of the ACA would also end the labor-market benefits of Obamacare. With workers no longer dependent on employers for insurance, there has been a jump of 2.4 million in the number of people choosing to work part-time. These new part-timers have been disproportionately young parents and workers slightly too young to qualify for Medicare.

One way to make insurance more affordable would be to reduce the costs of the health care system as a whole. Americans pay twice as much per person as people in other wealthy countries, with few obvious benefits in terms of outcomes. But such cost cutting would mean reducing the incomes of drug companies, doctors, and insurance companies — the big winners under the current system. It seems unlikely the Republicans will go this route. They are more likely to restore a version of the pre-ACA situation, in which many more people are uninsured and most workers know that their insurance is only as secure as their job.

This article was originally published by the Institute for New Economic Thinking and reprinted with permission.

New evidence involving the ancient poop of some of the huge and astonishing creatures that once roamed Australia indicates the primary cause of their extinction around 45,000 years ago was likely a result of humans, not climate change.

Led by Monash University in Victoria, Australia and the University of Colorado Boulder, the team used information from a sediment core drilled in the Indian Ocean off the coast of southwest Australia to help reconstruct past climate and ecosystems on the continent. The core contains chronological layers of material blown and washed into the ocean, including dust, pollen, ash and spores from a fungus called Sporormiella that thrived on the dung of plant-eating mammals, said CU Boulder Professor Gifford Miller.

Miller, who participated in the study led by Sander van der Kaars of Monash University, said the sediment core allowed scientists to look back in time, in this case more than 150,000 years, spanning Earth’s last full glacial cycle. Fungal spores from plant-eating mammal dung were abundant in the sediment core layers from 150,000 years ago to about 45,000 years ago, when they went into a nosedive, said Miller, a professor in the Department of Geological Sciences.

“The abundance of these spores is good evidence for a lot of large mammals on the southwestern Australian landscape up until about 45,000 years ago,” he said. “Then, in a window of time lasting just a few thousand years, the megafauna population collapsed.”

A paper on the subject was published online Jan. 20 in Nature Communications.

The Australian collection of megafauna some 50,000 years ago included 1,000-pound kangaroos, 2-ton wombats, 25-foot-long lizards, 400-pound flightless birds, 300-pound marsupial lions and Volkswagen-sized tortoises. More than 85 percent of Australia’s mammals, birds and reptiles weighing over 100 pounds went extinct shortly after the arrival of the first humans, said Miller.

The ocean sediment core showed the southwest is one of the few regions on the Australian continent that had dense forests both 45,000 years ago and today, making it a hotbed for biodiversity, said Miller, also associate director of CU Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research.

“It’s a region with some of the earliest evidence of humans on the continent, and where we would expect a lot of animals to have lived,” Miller said. “Because of the density of trees and shrubs, it could have been one of their last holdouts some 45,000 years ago. There is no evidence of significant climate change during the time of the megafauna extinction.”

Scientists have been debating the causes of the Australian megafauna extinctions for decades. Some claim the animals could not have survived changes in climate, including a shift some 70,000 years ago when much of the southwestern Australia landscape went from a wooded eucalyptus tree environment to an arid, sparsely vegetated landscape.

Others have suggested the animals were hunted to extinction by Australia’s earliest immigrants who had colonized most of the continent by 50,000 years ago, or a combination of overhunting and climate change, said Miller.

Miller said the extinction may have been caused by “imperceptible overkill.” A 2006 study by Australian researchers indicates that even low-intensity hunting of Australian megafauna – like the killing of one juvenile mammal per person per decade – could have resulted in the extinction of a species in just a few hundred years.

“The results of this study are of significant interest across the archaeological and Earth science communities and to the general public who remain fascinated by the menagerie of now extinct giant animals that roamed the planet – and the cause of their extinction – as our own species began its persistent colonization of Earth,” said van der Kaars.

In 2016 Miller used burned eggshells of the 400-pound bird, Genyornis, as the first direct evidence that humans actually preyed on the Australian megafauna.

The new study also included Research Professor Scott Lehman of INSTAAR. The study was funded in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation and the German Research Foundation.

During Brexit negotiations, the UK will seek to remain in the mainstream of the European market, but reserves the option to reinvent itself should that access not be forthcoming, said Philip Hammond, Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom.

“I very much hope the outcome will be a high degree of reciprocal access between the UK market and the European Union market,” said Hammond. But “if we were to be, by some catastrophe, closed off from those markets, we would have to reinvent ourselves … to remain competitive in the world,” he said, adding: “We’ve reinvented ourselves before.” This leaves open the option of lowering the UK corporate tax rate, currently targeted at 17%, to attract greater investment.

Hammond was speaking at the 47th World Economic Forum Annual Meeting meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

Turning to the question of London’s position as a key centre for global capital markets, Jes Staley, Chief Executive Officer of Barclays, United Kingdom, said it would be “incredibly simplistic and wrong” to think that London’s status depends on a few banks. The ecosystem of supporting financial and legal services in the City is complex and critically important, but “it won’t be affected by a few thousand jobs moving here or there.” Staley voiced continuing confidence in the City but added that maintaining the free flow of capital is vital. “It’s very important that we don’t … create barriers that inhibit capital flows around the world,” he said, adding that he believes the UK-EU negotations will not curtail the freedom of those flows.

On the issue of immigration, Ngaire Woods, Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford, said her institution is fighting the world’s best universities to attract the top talent. If the message coming out of the UK is that it is not welcoming to immigrants, “we’re smashing our own kneecaps.” This message was echoed by Staley, who said the competitiveness of his business depends on being able to attract the best people for the job from around the world.

In response, Hammond said the political debate on migration during the referendum was not about skilled labour, but about the effects of large-scale unskilled migration driving down wages and taking jobs away from the low-skilled indigenous population. While the UK cannot accept the principle of free movement of people within the EU, “that is not the same as saying we want to close the doors,” he said. Hammond emphasized that “we still want to attract the brightest and best from around the world. We need them and we will go on welcoming them.” The UK has already proposed that the 3.2 million EU nationals living in UK should have the right to remain, as long as UK nationals living in the EU enjoy the same status.

Panellists were less positive about the impact of Brexit on the European Union itself. The financial crisis split the EU in two, with creditors in the North and debtors in the South dealing a blow to the bloc’s political solidarity, argued Ngaire Woods. “The integration project simply isn’t going to continue,” she said. Political parties facing elections in Germany, France and the Netherlands will have to show their citizens that they are in control. “We will see a core continuing with integration and a wider group still part of the EU but going their own way, as Hungary and Poland already are,” said Woods.

“I don’t disagree,” replied Mario Monti, President of Bocconi University and ex-Prime Minister of Italy. He said it is both likely and desirable that the EU’s structures should evolve, adding: “I see nothing wrong with a two-speed or three-speed Europe.” He also raised the spectre of British contagion leading to the disintegration of the EU and warned member states not to compete with each other to grant special status to the United Kingdom, saying it would be “organized suicide for the EU.”

Finally, commenting on today’s inauguration of Donald Trump, Hammond said, “The change of administration in the US has probably introduced an even bigger piece of uncertainty for the European Union” than Brexit. In particular, the eastern members of the EU are acutely focused on the challenge posed by Russia. “Anything that changes the settled status quo of a Europe that lives under a protective US umbrella … is going to play into the dynamics of the European Union,” he said.