There are many indications of the deep systemic crisis now confronting America and the world. The fact that Donald Trump was elected president when neither his party nor any of the elites wanted him is just one piece of evidence. The bizarre passivity from Democrats after their party’s colossal failure is another. These people who are loath to point out the extent of the Democrats’ disintegration do little else but repeat the many reasons they don’t like Trump. Increasingly they use Russophobia and what was once the language of the right wing to do it.

The crisis of legitimacy has turned the world upside down. People who call themselves progressives are engaged in a contest to see who can blame Russia when the failings come from their own leadership. This columnist witnessed participants in anti-Trump inaugural protests carrying signs attacking Vladimir Putin and blaming him for the election outcome.

The allegation of Russian interference in the elections is based on the flimsiest evidence. It is far more likely that an insiderngave the Democratic National Committee emails to Wikileaks. Trump’s call for dialogue with Russia is a reasonable one that should call progressives to question why they cling to the war party when they say they want peace. Instead they join in helping the Democrats to excuse their debacle. In so doing they support a very dangerous effort to expand American hegemony against another nuclear power.

Democrats are eager to embarrass themselves in the Russophobic frenzy. A California state legislator is sponsoring a bill that would require schools to teach children that the Russian government interfered in the election. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have joined in sinking to new depths of stupidity and uselessness.

Barbara Lee, the only member of Congress to vote against war in Afghanistan after the September 11^th attacks, is now among those pointing fingers at Russia. She opposed the Electoral College certification of Trump’s victory based on a belief in the findings of the “intelligence community.” This new phrase was chosen deliberately to make the institutions that deprive millions of people of their human rights seem more like a neighborhood block association. Her colleague Elijah Cummings was equally idiotic. “If we don’t respond now the Russians will attack us again.” It is sad to watch Maxine Waters, once among the most progressive members, as she blathers on that Putin and Trump “wrap their arms around each other” and are “in the bed together.” She says that Putin is responsible for “killing innocent children in Syria” when the United States instigated that humanitarian disaster and Russia may bring it to a close.

The orders from the discredited Democratic leadership are clear. Everyone parrots the same foolish words. All repeat that “seventeen intelligence agencies” confirm Russian interference and use the phrase “intelligence community” as if they were hypnotized cult members. Such is the degree of irrelevance now afflicting Democrats from the leadership down to the rank and file.

Democrats are no longer interested in action, demands or debate. They treat their party as if it is a religion to be worshipped and not as a political force that is supposed to deliver what they want. It is astounding that Hillary Clinton raised $1 billion and lost because she failed to gain an additional 77,000 votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Even more astounding is the fact that Democrats won’t call her or the rest of their leadership to account for their stunning and ignominious failure.

The years of marketing spin and acquiescence to Democratic Party corruption have brought the leadership and members to a new low. Having given up their power to the likes of Clinton, Obama and another Clinton, Democrats have rendered themselves mute. The Obama team’s famous marketing acumen turned into a poison. The era of being able to fool all of the people all of the time had ended but the Democratic Party persisted in thinking they could use the same thin gruel and win again.

Instead, a reality television star found a way to touch the nerve of millions of desperate people. If the Democrats acknowledged that most Americans have a yearly income of less than $31,000 or that national student loan debt totals an astronomical $1 trillion they may have seen Hillary Clinton inaugurated instead of Trump. But they failed and won’t admit it. Now their members have chosen to let them off the hook by spinning tall tales of Russian espionage. They no longer even pretend to care about the issues their constituents do, and that is why Hillary Clinton isn’t the new president.

The members of the CBC have now proven themselves to be the worst of the lot. Years of capitulation to corporate interests and to Barack Obama have killed black politics. The anti-Russia mutterings are proof of their irrelevance. But they should not just be ignored. They must be taken on and called out because they are most likely to fight our efforts at self-determination and revolutionary change. The best that can be said about their sad performance is that they have exposed themselves as dupes and traitors. It is always a good thing to see the truth, no matter how sad it may be.

As India saw the dawning of independence from British colonial rulers, there were princely states who refused to be part of the union, desiring rather to preserve their old dominions. This report uses confidential documents bequeathed to the author by his grandfather, who was a close aide of Jawaharlal Nehru, to describe one such rebellion, that by the Deccan Princes.

By Sandeep Bamzai*

Once India’s independence was announced, many of the smaller princely states sought to cobble up confederations for themselves. Chicanery and duplicity were widely prevalent at every level of the Princely States. As threat to their fiefdoms grew, these states pursued every possible strategy to defend their autonomy.

One such move came about in the Deccan, where eight of the 18 Princely States entered into a covenant to protect themselves not only against the British, but also the Indian National Congress. Under the guise of this covenant, they planned to create their own, sovereign government with a common executive, judiciary and customs boundaries, and to pool their resources, rights, and authorities for their collective goal. It was a unique gambit, one that sought the blessings of Mahatma Gandhi. This effort by the princes, however, met with stiff resistance from the people. The Deccan States’ Peoples’ representatives met under the presidency of H K Veerana Gowdh at Chitradurga on 16 November 1947, and thereafter presented their case before the Congress leadership in Delhi in an effort to thwart the princes’ designs.

Rise of the Deccan Rebellion

The plan of the princely states in the Deccan was simple but efficient: Eight of the 18 Deccan States entered into a covenant with the objective of forming a single state with a unitary government, which would have common executive, judiciary and customs boundaries. The abolition of separate boundaries was proposed, along with the sharing of resources, their individual rights, privileges, and authorities. It was an ingenious scheme to retain control and power, at a time when India was already independent. Opposing this, a memorandum was submitted by the Deccan States’ Peoples’ delegation to the Congress leadership on 1 December 1947. The situation was fluid, as all sorts of schemes and plans were being thought of by the princes. The Congress party—then standing in the throes of bloodletting from the partition of India–found itself grappling with plans like this one by the Deccan princes.

The provisions of the covenant primarily aimed at perpetuating the autocratic powers of the princes to the continued detriment of the rights and interests of the common people. The princes and their agents made frantic efforts to mobilise public opinion in their favour. They also tried to give a false impression to the Congress leadership that the scheme was democratic in nature and would protect the rights of the common people. The memorandum submitted by the Deccan States’ Peoples’ delegation to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and other senior Congress leaders  in December 1947 aimed to expose the hollowness of the scheme.

The 18 Deccan States were scattered in the six districts of Bombay Province—Belgaum, Dharwar, Bijapur, Sholapur, Satara and Poona. Of these six districts, four were in present-day Karnataka and two, in Maharashtra. These 18 States were not even geographically contiguous, and formed little islands in the Bombay province. The distance from the northern end to the southern end was nearly 400 miles, and between the easternmost and westernmost points, some 200 miles. But the total combined area of the 18 States was about 11,000 square miles, with a population of not more than 2,800,000 and revenues of 16,000,000 rupees.

Of these, the eight states that had come together to form a union had a total combined area of only 2,633 square miles, a population of 900,000, and with a meagre revenue of 3,900,000 rupees from territories consisting of 70 scattered tracts of land, big and small. Further, these states were not even linguistically nor culturally homogenous, and together, at best, formed two districts—the northern part, in Maharashtra and the southern part in Karnataka.

The effort of the Deccan princes was clearly going against established norm. The resolutions passed in the All India States’ Peoples’ Conferences (AISPC), first in Ludhiana in 1939 and then in Udaipur in 1946, and the Standing Committee meeting of the AISPC in June 1946 stated something different. The Ludhiana Resolution had said that States with revenue less than 5,000,000 rupees or a population of 2,000,000 may be maintained as autonomous units along with the Provinces. The Udaipur Resolution, on the other hand, considered it necessary that in the interest of efficient administration and maintenance of modern standards of social and economic welfare, only states or groups of states with a population of 5,000,000 and a revenue of 30,000,000 crore rupees and above should be given the status of units of a free and federal India. In furtherance of the Udaipur resolution, the Standing Committee in Delhi passed a resolution on smaller states requesting all regional councils to recommend schemes for the formation of units, keeping in view not only the “linguistic and cultural basis” but also geographical contiguity.

The Standing Committee, in the same resolution pointed out that, “most of the smaller States would inevitably be absorbed in large units of the federation which generally should be neighbouring provinces.” It also said that, “it may be feasible and desirable in certain cases to group together a number of small States which are contiguous in order to form federal units.” The eight states, which were proposing to form a union, were falling well short of these vital parameters. As this self-proclaimed union did not conform to any of the AISPC resolution requirements, efforts to overcome these hurdles began.

Seeking the Mahatma’s Blessing

One tactic adopted by the Deccan princes was to approach Mahatma Gandhi, first at Panchgani and then at Poona, to seek his blessings. Gandhiji told them that they should consider themselves to be the trustees and servants of their people and must think of a union only with the peoples’ consent and cooperation. He pointed out that they should have consulted their people at the outset, which would have led them to a drastically different proposal than the one they were submitting to him. Gandhi also insisted that the people should have control over their privy purses.

However, the princes persisted; among the posers for Gandhiji was that unless they formed a union, how could the individual states be expected to survive? The other issue that they raised was their desire to form a union without going through the formality of a Constitution Committee as they were anxious to give Swaraj to the people.

To the first question, Gandhi replied directly by saying that it was incumbent upon the princely states to become part of the Union of India to simply exist and survive. He had a more measured response to the second question.  He criticised their approach, saying that if they genuinely had the interests of their people at heart, then they should immediately grant full freedom to the people. In parallel, a Constitution could be drafted. He told them that they should give up the idea of a separate union and leave this task to the Constitution-making body. He advised them to meet with Jawaharlal Nehru, who was president of the AISPC. Gandhi was certain that Pandit Nehru could guide them appropriately.

Efforts to negotiate with Nehru began subsequently. In August 1946 the Raja of Phaltan wrote a letter to Nehru, seeking his advice. In his reply the following month, Nehru said that in the formation of a Union, the Deccan States must inevitably depend upon the popular reaction to the proposal. At the same time, it needed to be seen whether this union was an organic one or just an administrative arrangement put together by the various states.

Nehru wrote, “We have to first of all examine the whole background—geographical, linguistic, cultural—and then of course the most important the exact desire of the people concerned. Any step taken, even a right step without the consultation and concurrence of the people is likely to lead to their opposition and this might defeat any scheme…I understand that there is a considerable amount of opposition on behalf of the Praja Mandals and peoples’ organisations in some of the Deccan States to this proposal of a Union…None of the arguments advanced seem to have force. For instance, the Deccan States are rather spread out, are not contiguous, and areas are separated from one another with islands here and there. This obviously would come in the way of administrative and economic development.” He echoed Gandhi’s advice to them: The first step should be for each state to provide a responsible government.  He added that any limitation placed in the Constituent Assembly’s way will be highly undesirable and will simply irritate the people concerned.

The Failure of the Deccan Princes’ Plot

Despite the best efforts of the eight Deccan States to come together, popular opinion was against them. In Delhi, a last-ditch attempt was made on behalf of the princes, through a meeting held in January 1947 between the Princes’ representative, K V Godbole, and Shankar Rao Deo, S Nijalingappa, R R Diwakar and Pattabhi Seetharamiah. A 10-point agenda was drawn up following two meetings. The convening of a Constituent Assembly to draft a Constitution on the basis of these fundamental points was suggested. It was also agreed that a convention of the representatives of the people—like an earlier one in Sangli in December 1946—should be held to consider the proposals.

Eight of the 11 princes who participated in these Delhi talks ignored what had been agreed upon and entered into a covenant in October 1947. Given mounting pressure—buoyed further by populist opinion—a meeting was finally called under Dr Pattabhi Seetharamiah at Miraj, but the vehement opposition to the scheme and the draft Covenant, led to its abrupt dissolution. The next day, on 12 October 1947, the peoples’ representatives met at a conference in Lakshmeswar under the presidency of Mr Munuvalli, a member of India’s Constituent Assembly from the Deccan States (elected), and passed a resolution to the effect that the scheme was unacceptable as it was against the peoples’ interests. The Resolution also warned the Princes against any attempt to force it upon the people. By another resolution, the Conference set up a Council of Action to find ways and means of opposing what they called an ‘undemocratic’ attempt of the princes. The second day of November, 1947 was designated as a ‘Day of Protest’, with hundreds of meetings held simultaneously across the princely states.

By this time, the princes were desperate and wished to craft their union through any means, even resorting to subterfuge. A meeting, hastily convened using telegrams, was called for on 29 October 1947 at Miraj. B V Shikare, who presided over the meeting, presented only one option to everyone—that of accepting the Covenant. Those who protested were forced to leave. A Praja Parishad meeting on 4 November 1947 at Grudger followed, where a resolution was passed opposing the Princes and declaring that satyagraha should be pursued to resist their plot.

It is pertinent to understand the covenant at this stage and the reasons why it created a disturbance.  At the outset, it was simply an agreement among the princes themselves, with the common people of the states being completely excluded from the process. The Preamble to the Covenant professed to acknowledge that all powers and authority emanate from the people and that a sovereign body composed of the people would formulate the Constitution. However, Article 1 (2) of the Covenant effectively limited the sovereignty when it provided that, “subject to the covenant all power shall emanate from the people.” This sovereignty was adversely affected by Article 111, which declared the Covenant to be the supreme law of the State. Article VII created a ruling body called Rajmandal, which under clause 7 (2) and 15 was to control every action of the Rajpramukha, who was to act as their sole representative.

This agreement allowed the princes to bring people of several states, who owed allegiance to individual rulers, under their joint authority, however constitutionally limited. Whether this transfer of allegiance to a new body could be done without the peoples’ consent was the bigger question. Two administrative divisions – one of Kanarese speakers and the other of Marathi speakers – were to be formed. Any Covenant of this type, which hijacked the peoples’ wishes and rights was considered reactionary.

Constantly changing tack, the princes appeared adamant and were not easily thrown off by the rebuffs from the Nehru-led Congress leadership. On 16 August 1946, for instance, they prepared a comprehensive battle plan to deal with Nehru and Sardar Patel by laying down an agenda note. The note said: “With great respect and diffidence we venture to suggest that there has been a misunderstanding in Mahatma Gandhiji’s mind about the origin, object and operation of the proposed Union. No doubt the idea of forming Unions of States has got a fillip since the Cabinet Mission’s arrival, but there is a fundamental difference between the Deccan States Union and the other groupings. The main distinguishing feature is that our Union is two pronged – one enabling the group to become a unit in the Union of free India and the other giving a fully responsible Govt to people of the Union State, almost at one stroke. This latter aim is hardly discernible in other groups and even where it does, it can at the most be said in the embryo stage.”

Circulating this agenda note amongst themselves, the Deccan princes played on Gandhi’s angle for survival: “Mahatmaji suggests that villages should be made independent and self sufficient units. But it may be pointed out here that in the first place our constitution making body is free to frame the constitution on those lines if it chooses to do so and the proposed Union will not come in the way of their choice. On the contrary instead of such a system coming into vogue piece meal in different states at different times, it will be begun on a much bigger scale in the Union State. If this opportunity of starting full responsible government is allowed to dissipate itself, then not only will the States in this group suffer a setback, but the situation in other groups will become still more backward. This point therefore doesn’t merely have a local connect, but an all-India significance. If the Union is deemed to be harmful after a full consideration of the pros and cons, then there can be no question of its formation. But then the future of these States should be clearly marked out. Unless an urgent and decisive lead is given to this question, a stalemate, which has already set in to some degree, might reach its climax in these States which will be a natural outcome of a negative and drifting policy.”

The Rajasaheb of Aundh, with Appasaheb Pant as his prime minister, Shankarrao Deo and others had met Gandhiji earlier when he was in Panchgani. They prevailed upon Gandhiji to meet with the Deccan chiefs. When Gandhiji consented, the meeting took place on 28 July 1946, at the Servants of India Society’s Library Hall. Among those present were the Rajas of Aundh, Phaltan, Bhor, Miraj Senior, Jamkhandi and Kurundwad Senior, Appasaheb Pant and Mr Satwalekar from Aundh, Shire Kore, Sathe and Thombare from Sangli, the Dewan of Bhor, and representatives from Budhgaon and Ramdurg. Tatyasaheb N G Kelkar, Miraj lawyer and close associate of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Shankarrao Deo, who would become a member of the Constituent Assembly of India later in 1949, were also present as special invitees.

During this meeting, Gandhi praised the princes for seriously thinking in terms of India as a whole, rather than just of themselves and of protecting the privileges they derived for years from their paramountcy and the British. He argued that till a few years earlier, the princes felt that they would be safe only under the Paramountcy of the British Crown, and their acknowledgment of rapid changes taking place in an emerging India was a positive development. This was natural, according to Gandhi, as they were sons of the soil. He wanted the princes to first make a union with their own people and to act as their trustees. He was bold to take up this attitude, though his might have been a lonely voice. In his opinion, the princes—as servants and trustees of their people—had a role to play in this melding of the people with the rulers in the New India. Once they had done this, they would be in a better position to consider whether they wanted a union among themselves. Nonetheless, such a union would be different from the one they had originally conceived. Equally, Gandhi had a strong suspicion that the present proposal was a creation of the British rulers through their political agents. The argument being, that even as the British exit India, the princes could consolidate themselves as an alternative power centre through the union.

As was his wont, Gandhi argued his case beautifully, saying that a merger of India—the Princely States and the Provinces—was vital to its economic prosperity. In his opinion, this merger would have to be done transparently and truthfully so that no other power could impose itself on India in the future. When Gandhi finished speaking, a discussion followed with someone claiming – “Unless we unite, not a single State would have a survival value.” Gandhi’s cutting and swift reply to this was that he was “prepared to join issue with you on this, unless every village and every Prince becomes one, there will be no survival.” Aundh, he told them, was one of the smallest among them and yet with its experiment in purna Swaraj had far greater chances for survival. He ended by saying, “With the best intention in the world, you will not be able to achieve what you want, you are brought up in a different tradition, therefore I suggest you see Nehru about this.”

This game of hunter and quarry carried on, where the wily princes attempted to court the troika of Congress politicians—Gandhiji, Nehru and Patel—one by one, but all to no avail. The Congress leaders were keen on their machinations and succeeded in preventing their endgame of a confederation in the Deccan from fructifying.

About the Author

Sandeep Bamzai is Visiting Fellow at Observer Research Foundation (ORF), New Delhi. He is Editor-in-Chief of Financial Chronicle.

By Nile Gardiner, Ph.D. and Ted Bromund*

On January 27, just seven days after taking office, President Donald Trump will meet with British Prime Minister Theresa May in Washington. It will be the first visit to the White House by a foreign leader since Trump’s inauguration, and the meeting sends a clear signal that the Anglo–American alliance will be at the heart of strategic thinking in the new Trump Administration. The Special Relationship has been the world’s most powerful bilateral partnership for over 70 years and is fundamentally important to both Washington and London. It has played a vital role in the defense of the free world since World War Two and has been instrumental in advancing economic freedom across the globe.

May’s visit comes just seven months after the June 23, 2016, Brexit referendum in which the British people voted by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent to leave the European Union. The Brexit vote allows Britain to chart a new course as a sovereign, free nation, able to implement free trade agreements with countries across the world as soon as the United Kingdom exits the EU in 2019.

The prospect of a free trade agreement between the United States and the U.K., the world’s largest and fifth largest economies, respectively, will be central to the discussions between President Trump and Prime Minister May. Their talks will also focus on revitalizing the NATO alliance; the growing threat posed by Russia, Iran, and a host of Islamist terrorist groups, ranging from ISIS to al-Qaeda; and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

The Trump–May meeting is a valuable opportunity both to project robust U.S.–U.K. leadership on the world stage and to advance the Special Relationship. The following are five key recommendations for the White House and the Trump Administration as it prepares for the arrival of the British prime minister.

1. Move forward with a U.S.–U.K. free trade deal. The Trump Administration should make a U.S.–U.K. free trade deal a foreign policy priority. There is strong support on Capitol Hill for a free trade agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom, including the United Kingdom Trade Continuity Act introduced by Senators Mike Lee (R–UT) and Tom Cotton (R–AR). America has a huge economic stake in the United Kingdom. As the Congressional Research Service notes, there are $5 trillion of U.S. corporate assets in the U.K., representing 22 percent of total U.S. corporate overseas assets.[1] Britain is America’s largest foreign direct investor,[2] and roughly a million U.S. jobs depend on British companies based in America.President Trump should instruct the U.S. Trade Representative and the White House National Trade Council to fast-track the pursuit of a U.S.–U.K. trade pact by putting forward clear negotiating objectives, pursuant to congressional guidance, that will advance the Special Relationship between the two countries. The free trade deal should be implemented within 90 days of Britain’s leaving the EU.
2. Back Brexit and national sovereignty in Europe. Britain’s decision to leave the European Union should be viewed as a hugely positive development by the new Administration and offers tremendous opportunities for Britain and the United States to strengthen their partnership. President Trump has called the Brexit result “a great thing,” declaring on British soil the day after the June referendum that “basically they took back their country.”[3]A supranational European Union that stifles sovereignty and the freedom of European allies to act independently is not in America’s national interest, and the White House should not back the mantra of “ever closer union” across the Atlantic. It is in America’s interest to cultivate ties with key national capitals rather than lending its support to a crumbling European Project. A strong and enduring transatlantic alliance rests upon the bedrock principles of self-determination, economic freedom, and mutual defense.

   The new U.S. Administration should rethink American support for the EU and conduct a National Security Council–led study on how best to advance U.S. interests in Europe.

3. Project robust leadership on NATO. The NATO alliance remains vitally important to the defense of the West, even more so with the resurgence of Russian militarism and aggression under Vladimir Putin. The U.S. and U.K. are NATO’s biggest contributors and the backbone of the alliance. Washington and London must work together to reenergize NATO, calling on European allies to spend more on defense, while at the same time rebuilding their own militaries after years of defense cuts under Barack Obama and successive British prime ministers before Theresa May. The United States and Great Britain must send a clear signal to Moscow that any attempt to violate the sovereignty of NATO member states in the Baltics or Eastern Europe will be met with military force through the alliance’s Article V commitment.The Trump Administration should oppose any efforts by the European Union to create a competing EU defense identity or EU Army and should ensure that NATO retains its primacy over and the right of first refusal for all Europe-related defense matters.[4]
4. Advance U.S.–U.K. defense cooperation. The U.S. can buy the defense it needs more efficiently if it works as closely as possible with its best allies, and it has no better ally than Britain. It is prudent to buy American if that is the best and most efficient option, but America’s allies have good ideas and clever inventors too, and the United States owes it to its taxpayers and troops to develop with them when that is what makes sense. Above all, the U.S. should do more to ensure that, as is too often the case today, its own rules and procedures do not discourage its allies from buying American when they want to do so.Section 811 of the fiscal year (FY) 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), among other provisions, mandates a Defense Department study of ways to improve the integration of the U.S. defense industrial base, including Britain and Australia.

   The Trump Administration should commit to (1) energetically supporting and conducting the study mandated by the FY 2018 NDAA, (2) reducing barriers to the export of U.S. defense goods and services, and (3) to developing collaborative programs with Britain and Australia.

5. Strengthen borders and combat terrorism. It is all but impossible to protect the security of the British or American homelands without effective border controls. One essential part of Brexit is Britain’s recovery of its ability to control who enters Britain. The massive number of migrants to Europe only makes it more important that Britain exercise this right effectively, as Islamist terrorists have already hidden in migrant flows in order to reach Europe and commit attacks.On the other hand, the U.S. and Britain, as global leaders, do not want to—and cannot—close themselves off from the outside world. They should exercise the inherent sovereign right to effective border controls but also should work to make sure that those border controls do not impede lawful commerce.

   The Trump Administration should welcome Britain’s renewed ability to exercise border controls and, while working with it to improve border security, should seek to develop approaches, such as the rumored “passporting deal,” that make it easier for law-abiding businesses and individuals in each nation to work and invest in the other.[5]

   The Administration must also revitalize the Five Eyes initiative of cooperation among the senior border and immigration officials of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Revitalizing the Special Relationship

President Trump’s decision to bring back Sir Jacob Epstein’s bust of Sir Winston Churchill on the day he entered the Oval Office speaks volumes about the willingness of the new U.S. Administration to work closely with its British allies. After eight years of the Obama Administration’s lukewarm approach to Great Britain, the Trump presidency is in a strong position to revitalize the Special Relationship. It is a partnership that rests upon deep-seated cooperation in t defense, trade, intelligence, and a host of other areas stretching from educational exchange to the arts.

As Margaret Thatcher once remarked, “the special relationship does exist, it does count and it must continue, because the United States needs friends in the lonely task of world leadership.”[6] Its revival and renewal over the next four years will strengthen the security of the West, advance prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic, and enhance America’s ability to lead the free world.

*About the authors:
Nile Gardiner, PhD, is Director of and Ted R. Bromund, PhD, is Senior Research Fellow in Anglo–American Relations in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation.

Source:
This article was published by The Heritage Foundation

Notes:
[1] See Derek E. Mix, “The United Kingdom: Background and Relations with the United States,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress, April 29, 2015, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33105.pdf (accessed January 24, 2017).

[2] See Rudy Telles, Jr., “Foreign Direct Investment in the United States: Update to 2013 Report,” U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Office of the Chief Economist, ESA Issue Brief No. 02-16, June 20, 2016, http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/foreign-direct-investment-in-the-united-states-update-2016.pdf (accessed January 24, 2017).

[3] See Ashley Parker, “Donald Trump, in Scotland, Calls ‘Brexit’ Result ‘a Great Thing,’” The New York Times, June 24, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/us/politics/donald-trump-scotland.html?_r=2 (accessed January 24, 2017).

[4] See Luke Coffey and Nile Gardiner, “The United States Should Not Back a European Union Army,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4616, October 20, 2016, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/10/the-united-states-should-not-back-a-european-union-army.

[5] Christopher Hope and Ben Riley-Smith, “Donald Trump to Meet Theresa May Before Any Other Foreign Leader Since His Inauguration as New Deal Planned for Britain,” The Telegraph, January 22, 2017, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/21/donald-trump-plans-new-deal-britain-theresa-may-becomes-first/ (accessed January 24, 2017).

[6] Margaret Thatcher, “Speech to Foreign Relations Council of Chicago,” June 17, 1991, http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108275 (accessed January 24, 2017).

It was confirmed that Kuwait carried out the execution of a group of seven people, four men and three women, convicted for different criminal offenses. These are the first executions in Kuwait since 2013.

Although recognizing the serious nature of the crimes involved, the European Union said Wednesday it reiterates its opposition to the use of the death penalty in all circumstances without exception.

“Use of the death penalty represents an unacceptable denial of human dignity and integrity. Experience worldwide has demonstrated that it fails to act as a deterrent to crime. In addition it makes any miscarriage of justice – which can exist in any legal system – irreversible,” the spokesperson for the European Union External Affairs said in a statement, adding that the European Union hopes that Kuwait will return to its previous de facto moratorium on the death penalty.

By Giancarlo Elia Valori*

Many signals and food for thought have been provided by the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Parolin, in his very recent speech delivered at the World Economic Forum held in Davos, Switzerland.

Firstly, it should be noted that, this year, the Pope has sent the Secretary of State of the Holy See to represent the Vatican at the World Economic Forum, and not an eminent prelate – as in other Davos meetings – who was certainly authoritative and influential, but devoid of the political and institutional characteristics suited to represent the Pope officially.

If Europe “has lost its soul”, as stated by Cardinal Parolin in Davos – and this is obvious to everybody – we must go back to the spirit of the Founding Fathers of the European Community and later of the European Union.

This was the first issue raised by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, thus indicating that the Europe’s illness is political, economic, strategic and especially spiritual, precisely because it is global.

It is worth recalling that the Vatican Secretary of State does not currently speak of “Christian Europe” – which would have also been an obvious and reasonable argument for a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. Conversely Cardinal Parolin mentioned the spirit of the Founding Fathers, namely of the former Communist atheist, Altiero Spinelli, as well as of the Catholic Tridentine De Gasperi, or of Catholics such as Adenauer and Schuman.

In other words, the Church says to the “mighty and powerful of the world” gathered in Davos that the Word of Christ is one and one only and will lead to Salvation, but that the political horizon has its conceptual and practical autonomy which allows the union of Catholics, secular and reformed so as to rediscover the European soul.

This is also the meaning of Pope Francis’ words regarding Martin Luther and the Reformation.

A European Union not based on the recognition of a specific religion, but of a fact: the impossibility of reducing each person to his/her mere material dimension.

It is precisely the Catholic Church, represented by the Vatican Secretary of State, which is currently leading Europe’s transformation, as well as the reform of global economy and its now ineffective policy.

Hence no longer secret and occult Catholicism which must almost beg secularism’s pardon so as to continue to exist, but the fullest Glory of the Christian Testimony opening onto the whole world, thus becoming a reference point also for non-believers or for the followers of other faiths.

It is Truth that sets us free, as stated by the Evangelist John.

Hence it is by no mere coincidence that this happens during the Pontificate of a Pope coming from the Company of Jesus.

For Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the irrational – as well as irreligious – deviation, which is central in current times, is the reduction of religious life to an intimate, private and personal fact.

Religious faith is – and must be – the visible identity of believers and, most importantly, the leaven for all men.

It is the visibility of Faith which makes it alive and useful for all men.

This applies to all Faiths, vivified and defended by the current Catholic Church. The issue does not lie in pressing for “parochial” privileges, but rather in protecting every person, regardless of his/her spiritual story.

We must give once again a soul to Europe, as said by the Vatican Secretary of State, because the material culture, the fact of forgetting ideal and spiritual roots, as well as the cheap materialism characterizing the current ideology, are not the solution, but the sign of the illness, which is the same for everyone, not only for believers.

A poor material ideology of the economy, for the first time ruling this world, such as the Devil, without the life-giving and invigorating vision of the first European Community, as that of its founders was.

Today the EU is experiencing a regulatory and legalizing obsession which cannot work and worsens the crisis of the European soul – and this is the essence of its political and organizational crisis.

Again in the vision outlined by Cardinal Parolin in Davos, the Catholic Church shows its soul in one way only – a way by which Pope John XXIII set great store, namely dialogue.

As reaffirmed by Cardinal Parolin in Davos, the Catholic Church never asks or requests any privilege for itself.

Quite the reverse. According to supporting data and evidence, he has reminded us that currently Christians are the most persecuted in the world, without forgetting – even in prayers – the martyrs of other faiths.

When the Church speaks – and, from now on, it will increasingly speak in public and throughout the world – it does so to defend the Holy Spirit and to make it become the essence of public life and everybody’s feelings, but never claiming small or great privileges or some primacy over the other faiths.

Cardinal Parolin was very clear in that regard, both in Davos and on other occasions.

We are now witnessing the attempt – which will probably be successful – to make the Catholic Church become the worldwide reference point for all those who want to improve the current situation.

Paradoxically, Pope Francis has been defined by the New York Times as “the leader of the world Left”, but there is a mistake in this terminology.

Today, in fact, also thanks to Cardinal Parolin’s words in Davos, the Church is proposing itself not to unite all the various “Lefts”, but precisely all men, even those who do not believe in Peter’s Discipleship.

As recalled by Cardinal Parolin in his speech delivered at the UN Summit for Refugees and Migrants on September 19, 2016, also with reference to the burning topic of migration, the real issue certainly lies in curbing the production and sale of weapons, but also in understanding that the human problems are man-made, not God-made. Hence men, not God, can solve them through dialogue.

Even in this case, it is exactly materialism that misleads into error, while recognizing men’s universal spirituality and sacredness is the starting point to experience dialogue with the other faiths and with all men.

The message conveyed by Secretary of State Parolin in one of his 2013 homilies springs to our mind: “We can walk as far as we want, we can build many things, but if we do not follow Jesus Christ, it does not work”.

And precisely when the Church becomes all men’s voice, it fully remains the Bride of Christ and not “a mere charitable and welfare-oriented non-governmental organization” – just to use Cardinal Parolin’s words.

Certainly it is by no mere coincidence that these statements are made by a Cardinal who has already had a long and brilliant diplomatic career and is currently still at the top of the decision-making process.

As already noted, the first aspect underlined by the Secretary of State in Davos is that, with Pope Francis, the Holy See’s diplomatic activity has increased significantly both in quantitative and qualitative terms.

After the enlightening Pontificate of Benedict XVI, who outlined the cultural, geopolitical and especially spiritual lines of the Catholicism of Globalization, with Pope Francis and Cardinal Parolin the Church is living the most dangerous, but exciting phase of its new global leadership and of a new geopolitical and strategic role, fully freed from the old and no longer existing shackles of the Cold War.

In the Catholic canton of Grisons Cardinal Parolin reminded us of the fact that Pope Francis is now universally recognized as a world leader – and this is a new fact, a Grace, for the Catholic Church.

As the Secretary of State recalled in Davos, the Vatican diplomacy has no worldly aims, such as power and hegemony, but it intends to reaffirm the spiritual nature of all men that – according to Saint Ignatius Loyola’s thinking – is a real fact and hence the foundation of dialogue between faiths and all men.

It is in this deeper and more spiritual sense that we can say that the aim of Vatican diplomacy is Peace.

Peace among all men, but also peace inside man and peace between faiths, that respect each other because – just to recall once again the themes dear to Cardinal Parolin – Catholics build in the world to follow Jesus Christ.

And fighting for peace among all men means eradicating all the man-made causes of wars and geopolitical crises.

“Building bridges, working for peace” is one of the three goals that Pope Francis has set for the Vatican diplomacy.

The first is to fight poverty, which is the source of all current evils and, above all, makes men lose their dignity and the perception of their spiritual nature.

Hence poverty in the material, but also in the spiritual sense: poor people always lose themselves and fall prey to political and economic evil, but even to the devil which, not surprisingly, is the “lord of this world”.

The second goal of Pope Francis’ diplomacy is to build bridges, as Cardinal Parolin said in Davos.

What does it mean? It simply means that what divides men was created by them, but what unites and allows to practice dialogue – as Pope John XXIII hoped for – always comes from God.

“Dialogue, dialogue, dialogue!” urges the Holy Father, recovering and following up the tradition of an extraordinary Pope such as John XXIII, whom I still remember with great emotion.

The third goal is to achieve peace in the world and I wish to recall that this is a political, but also a spiritual aim: Peace is the offspring of men’s reconquest of their souls and, hence, of the construction of reality when we give testimony to Jesus Christ, while respecting everybody.

Religious freedom, in particular, is one of the key points of the speech delivered by Cardinal Parolin in Davos.

Without religious freedom there is no freedom, because we do not recognize the spirituality of man, of all men.

When religious freedom is safeguarded, all the other “human rights” are automatically protected.

Nevertheless if we fight against the Church and all the other religions, we also destroy the long-standing secular tradition of the humanism of rights and the protection of each individual person.

We can add that, after all, it is completely contradictory to speak of “full freedom”, but not of religious freedom – as is the case with much contemporary culture – or even reaffirm traditional liberalism also and too often only in conflict with the rights of the Church and of the other Faiths.

Either freedom for everybody or no freedom at all – here logic, well before politics, defines and settles the issue.

And if we do not respect the person’s transcendent dimension – which is a fact – we cannot even protect his/her materiality, made up of choices and concrete rights.

As reiterated by the Vatican Secretary of State, the human being has always and anyway a transcendent dimension, which cannot be reduced to materiality. And the Church of Christ will always be in the forefront to defend the right of all men and faiths to speak freely.

As Cardinal Parolin stated, here the future of mankind will be defended.

And we can also add that in so doing we will preserve the prestige and the political and moral dignity of the Catholic Church itself, which speaks to everybody precisely because it follows Jesus Christ.

This is what we are currently witnessing in the long and complex negotiations between the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China.

It is exactly one of Cardinal Parolin’s diplomatic masterpieces and it is very likely for current tensions to be overcome with an agreement between the Vatican and the Chinese government which will enable the Holy See to choose a bishop among the 5-6 cardinals proposed directly by the Chinese political authorities.

This is the political and strategic sense of Peter’s Discipleship: as Jesus Christ has already ordered us, the civil power is Caesar, and it is free, autonomous and independent, because it does not regard Heaven, but Earth, which has its own laws that are also created by God, our Father.

And if it regards Heaven it is not a real power, as the Spirit of the Gospel does not regard Earth, does not make laws and does not create economic systems.

However it is exactly in the full and clear respect for “politicians’ autonomy and independence” that the current genuine aim of the Church as Bride of Christ lies and stands out, namely the supernatural nature of all men and, therefore, the absolute need for dialogue, as called for by Pope John XXIII.

About the author:
*Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “La Centrale Finanziaria Generale Spa”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group and member of the Ayan-Holding Board. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title of “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

By Saideh Saidi*

“Climate refuges” become popular in recent years due to massive outflows of displaced people across the globe. There is a forecast varied from 25 million to 1 billion environmental migrants by 2050 (UNIC 201). However, it is not a justifiable reason for many countries to give an asylum to applicants and only few countries like Sweden and Finland give partial protection based on humanitarian considerations to environmental migrants. Within the scope of this paper, I want to examine the role of climate hardship in regards to prolonged patterns of displacement in Afghanistan.

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a largely rugged mountainous terrain at the crossroads of Asia located in south-western Asia on the Iranian Plateau which belong to greater Middle East and Central Asia. It covers an area of 647,500 square kilometers. It is enveloped by Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan to the north, the Hindu Kush Mountains run from the eastern border with China and India on east, the longest stretching border is with Pakistan on the south with 2430 square kilometers and the long and porous boundary with Islamic Republic of Iran is roughly around 940 kilometers on the west.

Migration is a life event and mobility has been an essential part of Afghan history and Afghanistan has been the focus for greatest and most complex refugee crisis in the modern history and according to official reports 76 per cent have had some experience of displacement in their lifetime (ICRC 2009). Afghanistan was formally established as a state in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, is one of the poorest countries in the world and with decades of international and civil war, consecutive years of drought, prolonged political unrests and poverty which spread Afghan refugees all over the world. Afghan people have historically been moving, in group and in person, legally and illegally in the region and beyond.

Afghanistan is among those countries most threaten by climate change (UNDP 2016 It has a continental, an arid to semiarid climate which is characterized by steppe and desert and limited rainfall with cold winter and hot summers which led to several droughts over the years (Karimi 2014). Its climate characteristics contributed to more frequent natural disasters like flooding, drought and lack of water which is caused in a massive internally displaced people. Rural Afghans especially male member of the family have had to adapt their livelihood strategies to deal with the impact of natural disasters such as drought (Stigter & Monsutti 2005). It also caused massive increase in Kuchi (nomads) inside Afghanistan in search of basic livelihood. The large part of Afghanistan is subject to soil erosion. Nearly three quarters of the country is covered by mountains with little or no vegetation. No doubt Afghan topography and harsh climate condition greatly impact on prolonged out-migration and social mobility and internal displacement. Although UNHCR with a collaboration with other INGOs and public donors create temporary shelters for thousands of internally displaced people (IDPs), but it is not sufficient and is a great motivation for further outflows.

Number of IDPs increased significantly in 2016 to 1.2 million. According to latest reports, the western region (with 220,434 persons) and the southern region (with 223,278 persons) have the largest IDPs population in Afghanistan. It is noteworthy to understand Iran has a long-shared border with these two region which is an available destination for further emigration for many Afghan IDPs; therefore, a considerable share has crossed the border to Iran and Pakistan. In fact, the distance between borders posts make border control a difficult task and most of Afghan refugees all over the globe have been passed through Afghanistan’s border with these two countries. Iran is one of the main destination for millions of Afghans in the past four decades due to geographic proximity, religious, linguistic and cultural similarities. More than 950,000 legal immigrants and around 2 million undocumented Afghans reside in Iran which have an important impact on the Iranian society in terms of financial, social and cultural stability.

Many Afghan displaced because of their conflict ravaged and impoverished homeland to find a secure place to live. Definitive number of Afghans forced into displacement due to climate harsh situation in their homeland, such as the severity of the continuing of drought, water and food shortage, lack of shelter and health care. Therefore, displacement and movement both within and across the border is a livelihood strategy for many Afghans over the years and many Afghans (especially young men) heading to neighboring countries to work and earn money and send remittance to the remaining family members.

Disasters brought on by natural hazards continue to cause people to flee their homes and the number of climate displaced people in Afghanistan will inevitably rise which become a protracted issue in the coming years which need to coordinate long-term humanitarian responses both in Afghanistan and also host countries in order to implement and facilitate durable solutions.

* Saideh Saidi
PhD candidate in Ethnology and Cultural Studies, Bremen University, Germany

By J C Suresh

The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has welcomed the commutation of the prison sentence of Puerto Rican nationalist Oscar López Rivera, the world’s longest-serving political prisoner confined in a U.S. federal penitentiary since 1981.

Puerto Rico – Spanish for ‘Rich Port’ – is an “unincorporated territory” of the United States, located in the northeastern Caribbean Sea, with a population of about 3.4 million and San Juan as most populous city.

Rich history, tropical climate, diverse natural scenery, renowned traditional cuisine, and attractive tax incentives make the main island of Puerto Rico – and a number of smaller ones such as Mona, Culebra, and Vieques – a popular destination for travellers from around the world.

The decision to commute the sentence of López Rivera permitting his release in May was announced by President Barack Obama on January 17, three days before Donald Trump’s inauguration as 45th U.S. President.

The jubilation over the commutation – not a pardon – after López Rivera had served 35 years of a 70-year sentence cut across all political tendencies in Puerto Rico, from the socialist left to the Green-ish Independence Party to the centrist Popular Democratic Party to the increasingly hard-right Statehood Party.

The UN Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples said in a communiqué issued on January 24 that it “shares Puerto Rico’s joy over the release of independence leader Oscar López Rivera thanks to the united struggle and solidarity of the Puerto Rican people joined by various international personalities, including Pope Francis”.

The Special Committee on Decolonization had requested of the U.S. Government the release of López Rivera by its decisions on the question of Puerto Rico, approved by consensus on June 16, 2015 and June 16, 2016. The Special Committee transmitted the latter decision to the United States Mission to the United Nations in New York by communication No. 000627 of November 3, 2016.

The communiqué said: “As part of the annual consideration of the question of Puerto Rico, for almost 40 years the Special Committee has been continuously requesting the release of Puerto Rican independence activists serving sentences in United States prisons, while at the same time reaffirming the inalienable right of the Puerto Rican people to self-determination and independence, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), and the applicability of the fundamental principles of that resolution to the question of Puerto Rico.”

The communiqué added: “The Special Committee on Decolonization, in response to the general outcry of the Puerto Rican population, coupled with the requests of prominent personalities, was unceasing in its demand that justice be done in the case of Oscar López Rivera, who became the longest-serving political prisoner in the world. In that connection, the Special Committee trusts that the release of Oscar López Rivera will take place within the established time frame.”

In the light of this important decision of the U.S. Government, and in line with the need to guarantee the legitimate right of the Puerto Rican people to self-determination and the protection of their human rights, the Special Committee on Decolonization reiterated its unequivocal commitment to the fulfilment of its mandate with regard to the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.

Writing in ‘Jacobin’, Ed Morales stated: “The widespread support for someone like López Rivera, a former leader of the militant leftist group, the Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN), is a reflection of the colonial yoke that Puerto Ricans have suffered under for centuries.”

López Rivera had joined the FALN after working as a community organizer in Chicago and serving in Vietnam. The latter has been cited as a key element in his radicalization, writes Morales. “As the U.S. tried to inherit the burden and spoils of France’s occupation of Southeast Asia, he witnessed firsthand the colonial racism at work and connected it to the what he viewed as the internal colonialism hindering Puerto Ricans, other Latino groups, Asians, and African Americans in the United States.

“Political radicals of color like López Rivera saw antiracist struggle as part of a global confrontation with class-based imperialism and colonialism. Linking up with the FALN was a logical, if not inevitable, next step.”

While López Rivera was never charged with or found guilty of direct involvement in any of the FALN’s violent acts – which included various bombings, some lethal, in New York and Chicago – he was convicted in 1981 of seditious conspiracy (essentially a thought crime) and sentenced to fifty-five years. He spent more than twelve of those years deprived of all human contact.

In 1999, López Rivera turned down a release deal from President Bill Clinton, because (a) it would have required him to serve an additional ten years and (b) it would have left some of his fellow FALN prisoners languishing in prison. (Clinton’s deal ultimately set free eleven of López Rivera’s co-defendants.)

“For the last twenty years, López Rivera and his remaining FALN comrades have renounced violence — a path borne out by other Puerto Rican militants like Dylcia Pagán and Elizam Escobar — making it easier to attract broad swaths of support from Puerto Ricans as well as high-profile supporters like Representative Luis Gutiérrez, Lin Manuel Miranda, San Juan mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz, LGBTQ activist Pedro Julio Serrano, and rapper René Pérez Joglar (Residente),” notes Morales.

By Guglielmo Piombini*

From the dawn of the earliest civilizations to our present days political power has shown, everywhere, a centralizing tendency. Power, in fact, tends toward perpetual expansion defeating or absorbing all weaker subjects that it encounters on the way. By feeding itself with its own victories, the strongest power always becomes stronger. This is the reason why historically, within the realm of politics, concentration of power has been the rule, while the dispersion of power the exception. During antiquity this self-feeding logic of power has nearly always prevailed. If one excludes those who have remained at a primitive stage of development, for thousands of years the great majority of people lived within vast centralized reigns, which were politically despotic and economically stagnant. The first empires arose in the land of Mesopotamia more than 6,000 years ago, and then extended to every other continent: The Sumerian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Macedonian, Roman, Byzantine, Russian, Arabian, Ottoman, Indian, Chinese, Mongol, Incas and Aztec. Among the few luminous exceptions that the ancient world provided were the mercantile cities of Phoenicia and the Polis of ancient Greece.

Even the West had an experience which was analogous to the societies of the ancient orient. Starting from the third century A.D. the political economy of the Roman Empire, which in the two preceding centuries had adopted a more laissez faire approach, became, due to the increasing pressures coming from its military engagements, always more bureaucratic and fiscally encroaching. If the empire would not have fallen it would have probably smothered for who-knows-how-many years — under its bureaucratic apparatus — the cultural and technological progress of Europe, just like those despotic regimes had been able to do in Asia.

The crumbling of the western part of the empire, however, offered the people of Europe the extraordinary opportunity of edifying a new civilization on the ashes of Rome. In this sense, the end of the old civilization, in light of how things were unfolding, was a lucky event for it freed the peoples of Europe from the despotic machine that had chained the economy and societies of the eastern world, thereby warding off a destiny of oppression and stagnation. Europe enjoyed then a lengthy period characterized by the absence of a centralized power: every attempt to reinstall an empire, beginning with Charlemagne and following with the Germanic emperors, failed. This lack of unity enabled extensive, small-scale experimentation and unleashed creative competition among hundreds of independent political entities.

Feudal Anarchy

The most visible trait of the feudal system, born out of the break-up of the empire, was the dispersion of public power. The feudal society was a society that lacked a central authority, and for this reason scholars do not hesitate to talk about “feudal anarchy.” The feudal society was, however, a military-aristocratic society, characterized by low intensity yet continuous conflicts between lords, and as such its spirit and institutions shared very few classical liberal or libertarian traits. In a system based on the subjugation of the peasant to the lord, on serfdom, on a closed economy and on a limited range of exchanges, it is not easy to find wide spaces of liberty. In spite of these facts, Feudalism offered, nonetheless, certain peculiar characteristics which in the long run would play a significant preparatory role for the development of Capitalism in Europe.

At first sight the difference between the powers of an imperial functionary and the authority of a feudal lord would seem minimal, since the governed face subjection in both cases. The differences however were noteworthy because the imperial functionary was only a small part of a huge centralized machine, while the feudal lord was at best a “little despot,” representative of a power which was largely autonomous, surrounded by many other lords with powers similar to his: each of whom was jealous of his own prerogatives. The Germanic heritage of feudalism had, in this way, introduced the idea of individual independence, and its implications were to be seen in the predominance of private property over public property, personal life over collective life, family over society.

The feudal system therefore contained within itself the seeds of its own evolution. Unlike the despotic system, feudalism was structured in a way that made the liberation of society and the economy possible. As a consequence, European society was able to liberate itself from the feudal grip, while the oriental societies, with the only exception of Japan, never managed to free themselves from the bureaucratic cage in which despotic power had enclosed them.

The Medieval Communes: Conceived in Liberty

The commune was born out of a private and voluntary association among citizens, based on the bond of an oath (in latin Conjuratio). The initiative of these citizens replaced, in fights that lasted even hundreds of years, the authority of the feudatory or Bishop. The liberation of the cities from the dominion of feudalism was the result of a general insurrection across Europe, of a real war declared by the inhabitants of the boroughs against their lords. In Italy, Spain, Germany, Flanders, Holland, France, England, the inhabitants began to fortify their own boroughs and in this way they subtracted themselves from the dominion of their lords, beginning to reconstruct society from the bottom up. In Italy the propitious opportunity that the cities were able to grasp was rendered possible by the long investiture contest between political and religious power. This conflict represented a turning point because the communal movement would not have been able to grow had there been no division and struggle between the Papacy and the Empire. Their rivalry created a favorable situation for the emancipation of the cities: the little David’s, the citizen’s militia, defeated the powerful Goliaths, the formidable institutions of the emperors and the lords. The sense of independence and the strength that the communes emanated prevented, after the 11th century, the growth of a political body able to concentrate power both at the national and supranational level. The law of escalating power — a rare historical fact indeed — had been challenged and defeated.

In this way some non-feudal islands — the free cities — emerged amidst a feudal sea. The cities became real oases of liberty as they enabled a marvellous process of emancipation of the exploited from the feudal dominion. “City air makes you free” was a dictum of German descent which was very diffused in the high middle ages precisely because the medieval city became an irresistible pole of attraction for serfs who wanted to escape from their lords, for merchants and artisans who wanted to trade and produce freely, and also for those impoverished knights who sought to improve their social conditions. The city offered protection, liberty, earning opportunities and a strong sense of belonging, strengthened by the permanent fight against the lords in which all inhabitants participated. These cities could then be referred to as the first fatherlands of the west, their patriotism being far more spontaneous than that established in the following centuries with the first nation-states, which was most frequently imposed from the top down.

Nothing of the kind had ever occurred in Europe just as in the rest of the world. Outside of Europe, in fact, cities were “bricked encampments” lacking any type of political or economic autonomy: merchants and artisans worked only to satisfy the needs of the governing classes. Marco Polo, during a visit to the middle kingdom, remained impressed from the fact that Chinese cities, unlike their multifarious counterparts in Europe, were all identical to one another and architecturally squared off. This structure served the governing class ideally for it favored the control of the center over the city: in Asia, accordingly, the peasant who escaped from the countryside had no opportunity of obtaining freedom by seeking refuge in the city (as instead was customary in the West) because the cities were bureaucratic entities, presided upon by the imperial army.

A Culture of Constitutionalism Aimed at the Limitation of Power

The communes were a magnificent expression of self-government. To put a break on the endemic internal conflicts (that, when compared to the complete immobility of Asian cities, were still a sign of vitality) which from time to time interrupted the peaceful environment, a culture of constitutionality developed in the independent cities of the middle ages: a culture aimed at curtailing political power. Continuous experimentation of new norms and protections followed in order to come up with the best method for defending the citizens from the tyrannical degeneration of the governments in charge.

The justified dissidence towards power was manifested in extremely strict rules, from which modern democracies would have a lot to learn. One of these institutional inventions was the figure of the Podestà, a sort of foreign manager (therefore disinterested in local interests) who served as an outside referee: a primus inter pares (first among equals) who was to assure the impartiality of good governance. The Podestà was really a sort of condominium manager who was responsible for his conduct in front of his citizens; this responsibility was often rendered at the end of the mandate, before the payment of his last installment. A real and proper trial was instituted on the way the Podestà had administrated the city: only in the case of absolution was he allowed to leave office with all of his conferred honors.

The power of the governors had to be limited and disciplined with written norms; public offices, were assigned in rotation between all those who enjoyed political rights; draws were successful instruments, largely used, in order to prevent the formation of political clienteles; to avoid the growth of an encroaching political apparatus with consolidated power, mandates were also generally brief, lasting a few months on average. In addition political offices were, by norm, not remunerated, mainly because their brief duration did not distract the leading authorities from their other day to day activities and works. In this way the Communes avoided the formation of permanent political and bureaucratic classes which have been authentic companions of Modern States up to the present. Another important institution that was present in the Communes was a rich and pluralistic network of social security services for the sick and the needy (charity institutions, hospitals, shelters and other type of religious confraternities) which were financed entirely by private citizens.

Communes: Cradles of Capitalism and of the Bourgeoisie

The cities were more importantly the central engines of the commercial revolution that realized on a local scale what the industrial revolution would realize at a national and continental level many centuries later. It was specifically in the northern cities of Italy where the most important commercial innovations arose: credit, banking, and contracts like the commenda — which could be said to be the ancestor of the modern joint-stock company. It was here that the transition from a closed and feudal economy — based on a limited and unsecured supply- to an economy of abundance was for the first time carried out.

The medieval city, born out of the economic development that took off between the tenth and the twelfth centuries was primarily an economic center, a center of production and exchange. Ancient cities like Rome, on the other hand, were primarily centers of consumption, not of production, and had no reason to claim any autonomy whatsoever: they had been founded by and for the state and as such they existed only for the scope of ruling, collecting taxes, running local administrations and lodging troops.

The inhabitants of the communes, on the contrary, began to orient themselves toward the economic means and not towards the political means because, unlike the subjects of the ancient cities, they did not have a great mass of slaves at their disposal whom they could use as working tools to cultivate their lands, as these great lands largely remained in the hands of the lords. In this way they were forced to earn a living from manufacturing and commercial activities, and by doing so they were able to enlarge the horizons of the market economy to a far larger extent than was ever deemed possible in the closed feudal world. The bourgeois was to be that heroic figure who for the first time, was able to multiply wealth: not with the violent methods of conquest or war, which had been in vogue since the beginning of times, but with the peaceful means of invention, work, production and exchange.

In no other place in Europe was the mercantile class able to reach a level of economic and political power comparable to that reached in the Italian cities. In no other place did a similarly vast section of the populace engage in mercantile activity. The communes and the maritime Republics were the birthplace of the bourgeoisie, a new class that would play a fundamental role in the historical evolution of Western Civilization. The bourgeoisie will in fact become the leading class of western society that will assure the progress of techniques, exchanges; the one that will express the most knowledgeable men of science and breed the inventors of new ingenuous processes. The European bourgeoisie will forge a free and dynamic civilization that will give the occident the supremacy in every field for many centuries to come, changing forever the history of the world.

A Wave of Vitality and Dynamism

The three centuries that followed the year 1000.A.D. are to be viewed as the most surprising of all European history. A continent worn-out from the regular incursions of Arabs, Vikings and Magyars, living amidst economic, cultural and demographic regression, demonstrated an unimaginable capacity of recovery. The communes and maritime Republics were the indisputable protagonists of the European expansion in these centuries, and their initiatives render great honor to the courageous spirit of their inhabitants. Under their governments the people of Europe enjoyed a period of great prosperity, superior even to the golden ages of Rome.

Especially the Italian cities appear, in the summaries and travel chronicles of the time, places full of marvel and beauty: flooded with every kind of merchandise and adorned with churches, buildings and streets. Notwithstanding epidemics, famines and wars, the European population under the communal system grew at an exponential rate. The communes competed with one another to construct cathedrals, buildings and medieval towers; to give birth to fountains, and to found schools and universities. Civilization during these centuries was able to ‘cross mountains and seas’ behind the wave of commercial activities. Europe, using a rhetorical image put forth by the great historian Will Durant, lived “its time of strapping youth.”

About the author:
*Guglielmo Piombini is an Italian journalist who has collaborated in various magazines and newspapers including Liberal, il Domenicale, and Elite.  His articles have also appeared at Ludwig von Mises Italia. Piombini is also the founder of Tramedoro: the online platform that provides a detailed overview of every major classic of the social sciences. Specializing in medieval institutions he is the author of the book “Prima dello Stato, il medioevo della liberta” (“Before the State: The Middle Ages Of Liberty”).

Source:
This article was published by The MISES Institute.

This year’s March for Life will take place at a time of unprecedented optimism. President Donald Trump’s leadership has emboldened the Congress and state lawmakers to fight for the rights of the unborn with greater resolve than ever before. The death industry has taken note and is none too happy.

The death industry, led by Planned Parenthood and NARAL, was a major presence at last week’s Women’s March on Washington. Their idea of women’s rights is fixated on abortion and lesbians (as well as those unsure what sex they are). Thus, they have little in common with most women.

President Trump will appoint a Supreme Court justice next week, one who is sure to understand that the most pressing civil rights of our time is the right to life. He has already signed an executive order reinstating the “Mexico City Policy”; it bans federal funding to international groups that perform abortions.

Two days ago, the House passed a bill introduced by Rep. Chris Smith ensuring that the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal abortion funding, will be made permanent, thus vitiating the need for annual reapproval; the bill now goes to the Senate for a vote. On January 12, Rep. Steve King introduced a House bill that would ban an abortion after the baby’s heartbeat is detected.

In the states, lawmakers are geared up like never before. Last year, Louisiana passed seven new laws restricting abortion. Texas introduced 17 new civil rights laws protecting children in the womb, and 2017 will see at least some of them enacted.

Kentucky just passed two pro-life laws, one of which bans abortions after 20 weeks. Just this month, lawmakers in Florida, New Mexico and Tennessee introduced bills that would also ban abortions after 20 weeks; New Jersey filed a similar bill last month. Moreover, Missouri legislators refiled 14 pro-life bills this month. And Iowa is considering a bill to defund Planned Parenthood.

The death industry is scared. Pictures of babies in their mother’s womb are becoming clearer all the time, convincing more Americans that abortion is the intentional taking of innocent human life. The clock is ticking, and the time is getting late to continue the delusion that abortion does not kill.

The election of Donald Trump has sent millions of people pouring out onto the streets to protest a man  they think is a racist, misogynist, xenophobic bully who will destroy US democracy in his quest to establish himself as supreme fascist ruler of the country.

Maybe they’re right. Maybe Trump is a fascist who will destroy America. But where were these people when Obama was bombing wedding parties in Kandahar, or training jihadist militants to fight in Syria, or abetting NATO’s destructive onslaught on Libya, or plunging Ukraine into fratricidal warfare, or collecting the phone records of innocent Americans, or deporting hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers, or force-feeding prisoners at Gitmo, or providing bombs and aircraft to the Saudis to continue their genocidal war against Yemen?

Where were they?

They were asleep, weren’t they? Because liberals always sleep when their man is in office,  particularly if their man is a smooth-talking cosmopolitan snake-charmer like Obama who croons about personal freedom and democracy while unleashing the most unspeakable violence on civilians across the Middle East and Central Asia.

The United States has been at war for eight straight years under Obama, and during that time, there hasn’t been one sizable antiwar march, demonstration or protest. Nothing. No one seems to care when an articulate bi-racial mandarin kills mostly people of color, but when a brash and outspoken real estate magnate takes over the reigns of power, then ‘watch out’ because here come the protestors, all three million of them!

Can we agree that there is at least the appearance of hypocrisy here?

Indeed. Analyst Jon Reynolds summed it up perfectly over at the Black Agenda Report. He said:

“If Hillary had won, the drone strikes would have continued. The wars would have continued. The spying would continue. Whistleblowers would continue being prosecuted and hunted down. And minorities would continue bearing the brunt of these policies, both in the US and across the world. The difference is that in such a scenario, Democrats, if the last eight years are any indication, would remain silent — as they did under Obama — offering bare minimum concern and vilifying anyone attacking their beloved president as some sort of hater. Cities across the US would remain free of protests, and for another 4-8 years, Democrats would continue doing absolutely nothing to end the same horrifying policies now promoted by a Republican.” (“Delusions Shattered“, Jon Reynolds, The Black Agenda Report)

He’s right, isn’t he? How many of the 800,000 protesters who marched on Sunday would have flown to Washington to express their contempt for would-be President Hillary Clinton?

Zero, I’d wager, and yet it’s Hillary who wanted to implement the no-fly zones in Syria that would have put Washington in direct confrontation with Moscow, just like it was Hillary who wanted to teach Putin a-thing-or-two in Ukraine.  But is that what the people want? Would people prefer to be led into World War 3 by a bonefide champion of liberal values than concede the post to a brassy billionaire who wants to find common ground on fighting ISIS with his Russian counterpart?

It seems like a no-brainer to me. And it’s not like we don’t know who is responsible for the killing in Syria either. We do.

Barack Obama and his coterie of bloodthirsty friends in the political establishment are entirely responsible. These are the people who funded, armed and trained the Salafist maniacs that have decimated the country and created millions of refugees that are now tearing apart the EU. That’s right, the spillover from America’s not-so-covert operation is ripping the EU to shreds. It’s just another unfortunate side-effect of Obama’s bloody Syrian debacle.  As journalist Margaret Kimberly says in a recent post at The Black Agenda Report: “All of the casualties, the sieges, the hunger and the frantic search for refuge can be placed at America’s feet.”

Amen, to that.  All the violence can be traced back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, home of Barack Hussein Obama, Nobel peace prize winner. What a joke. Here’s how analyst Solomon Comissiong sums it up in another article at the BAR:

“Supporters of Barack Obama, and liberals in general, are disingenuous frauds. They had no issues protesting the likes of the amoral warmongering George W. Bush or the racist xenophobe, Donald J. Trump, however when it comes to Barack Obama they can find no reason to protest his mass murdering escapades. Obama supporters were recently nostalgic and teary eyed after he gave his last major speech as president of the United States, yet can find little reason to shed tears over the masses of civilians who were destroyed directly as a result of Obama’s policies. Where were the emotions and tears when men, women and children were getting blown to bits by USA drone attacks, indiscriminate air strikes and bombs?…Those who protested the racist and xenophobic Trump, but not Obama or Clinton, are nothing more that disingenuous frauds and amoral cowards.”  (“As Obama Exits the White House, Never Forget His Destructive Imperialist Legacy“, Solomon Comissiong, Black Agenda Report)

Let’s be honest, Obama got a pass from his supporters strictly because of appearances; because he looked and sounded like a thoroughly reasonable bloke who only acted on the loftiest of principles. Obama was hailed as a moral giant, a political rock star, a leader among leaders. But it was all fake, all make-up and glitz behind which operated the vicious national security state extending its tentacles around the world, toppling regimes wherever it went, and leaving anarchy and destruction in its wake. Isn’t this Obama’s real legacy when you strip away the sweeping hand gestures and pompous rhetoric?

Of course it is. But Trump won’t have that advantage, will he? Trump is not a public relations invention upon which heartsick liberals pin their highest hopes. Trump is Trump warts and all, the proverbial bull in the china shop. That’s not to say Trump won’t be a lousy president. Judging by the Wall Street cutthroats and hard-edged military men he’s surrounded himself with,  he probably will be. But the American people are no longer asleep, so there’s going to be limits to what he can hope to achieve.

So the question is: How should one approach the Trump presidency?  Should we denounce him as a fascist before he ever sets foot in the Oval Office?  Should we deny his “legitimacy” even though he was elected via a process we have honored for over 200 years?  Should we launch impeachment proceedings before he’s done anything that would warrant his removal from office?

Veteran journalist Robert Parry answers this question in a recent piece at Consortium News. Here’s what he said:

“The current danger for Democrats and progressives is that – by bashing everything that Trump says and does – they will further alienate the white working-class voters who became his base and will push away anti-war activists.

There is a risk that the Left will trade places with the Right on the question of war and peace, with Democrats and progressives associating themselves with Hillary Clinton’s support for “endless war” in the Middle East, the political machinations of the CIA, and a New Cold War with Russia, essentially moving into an alliance with the Military (and Intelligence) Industrial Complex.

Many populists already view the national Democrats as elitists disdainful of the working class, promoters of harmful “free trade” deals, and internationalists represented by the billionaires at the glitzy annual confab in Davos, Switzerland.

If — in a rush to demonize and impeach President Trump — Democrats and progressives solidify support for wars of choice in the Middle East, a New Cold War with Russia and a Davos-style elitism, they could further alienate many people who might otherwise be their allies.

In other words, selectivity in opposing and criticizing Trump – where he rightly deserves it – rather than opportunism in rejecting everything that Trump says might make more sense. A movement built entirely on destroying Trump could drop Democrats and progressives into some politically destructive traps.” (“Selectivity in Trashing Trump“, Robert Parry, Consortium News)

Right on, Bob. A very reasonable approach to a very thorny situation.

Bravo!

The European Council, led by the Maltese presidency, reached a preliminary political agreement on Thursday with the European Parliament on a draft regulation defining the specifications of fishing vessels.

The new rules repeal and recast Council regulation No 2930/86 in line with the European Union’s commitment to simplify and clarify EU law in order to make it clearer and easier to understand.

Hon. Roderick Galdes, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries, and Animal rights welcomed the agreement and said that, “such an early agreement under the Maltese Presidency, the first of the year, confirms Malta’s commitment to the fisheries sector and is a demonstration of our determination to bring forward better regulation.”

The new regulation keeps the content of its 1986 predecessor, which was amended several times, but brings it up to date and adapts it to the current legal framework. It also grants the Commission additional powers to bring the requirements for determining continuous engine power in line with technical developments and possible changes in the international ISO standards.

The agreement still needs to be approved by the Council’s Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper). After formal endorsement by the Council, the new legislation will be submitted to the European Parliament for a vote at first reading and to the Council for final adoption.

Exporting Spanish companies improved their prospects of increasing sales abroad in the fourth quarter of 2016. This is reflected in the Synthetic Index of Export Activity (ISAE), which rose by 4.7 points over the third quarter to 21.1 points. The Short-term Survey on Exports also reflects that the index increased slightly compared with the same quarter of 2015 (20.9 points).

The ISAE summarizes the information provided by the companies surveyed regarding the performance of their order backlog in the reference quarter and the outlook at three and 12 months. This index may move within a range of -100 to +100. Positive values indicate a better perception of actual and/or expected export activity. It is a balance index; that is to say, it is based on the difference between companies who expect an upward trend and those that expect a downward trend.

In this case, the ISAE gives a result of 15.4 for the present quarter (8.2 in the third quarter), 23.7 for the prospect at three months (24 points in the third quarter), and 38.8 for the 12-month prospect (36.1 in the third quarter). Prospects for the present quarter and for the next 12 months have improved while the three-month prospect has worsened slightly.

Export prices and commercial profit margin show a slightly positive trend compared with the previous quarter according to the perception of Spanish companies. In both cases, the percentage of those expecting an upward trend has grown while the percentage of those who say the trend is stable or downward has shrunk in the fourth quarter of 2016.

Factors in export activity

The three most mentioned factors as a positive influence are the performance of external demand (43%), right-sized human resources (25.9%), and competition in terms of quality (23.3%). And the factors most mentioned as a negative influence are international price competition (52.8%), raw material prices (41.4%), and oil prices (31.8%).

In terms of the trend in the hiring of personnel for export activities, stability continues to be the most commonly aired opinion. The indices are positive in all cases and show little change from the previous quarter. The score for the export-related job creation index for the quarter (7.6) is up by 1.4 points, while the score for expectation to hire in the next three months is up by nearly one point (7.9), while for the next 12 months it is down by nearly one point (14.3).

By export areas, the balance index score has improved over the third quarter of 2016 for all destinations barring North America (12.9) and Oceania (zero). Something similar occurs with export prospects at three months, although in this case the index is only worse for Oceania.

The export destinations for the next 12 months with the best prospects are: France (46%) and Germany (39.8%). These are followed by the UK (24.1%), Italy (22.5%), Portugal (21.3%), the USA (21.2%), Mexico (12.2%), Morocco (11.3%) and Poland (10.4%).

By Bruce Edward Walker*

Former Wyoming Republican Sen. Alan Simpson announced his support this week for a 28^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would overturn Citizens United. According to Simpson, the version of the 28^th Amendment he backs would set “reasonable limits on election spending, reform pay-to-play politics, and secure human liberty and equal representation rather than turn our government over to a global corporate marketplace.”

It was in 2010 that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decided Citizens United by a 5-4 vote. The decision overturned most campaign finance provisions of the bipartisan McCain-Feingold Act. Kimberley Strassel, in her 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech, depicts Sen. John McCain’s co-sponsorship of the bill as the Arizona Republican’s public penance for his political embarrassment as one of five senators snared in the Savings and Loan corruption imbroglio. As one of the “Keating Five,” McCain was accused of improper intervention on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association in 1987.

Rather than admit personal responsibility for his ethical misstep, surmises Strassel, McCain blamed a system he attempted to remedy with unwieldy campaign finance regulations. President George W. Bush, a Republican, signed the bill into law. From the moment McCain-Feingold was passed in 2002, it was attacked as un-Constitutional. The deathblow was Citizens United, which was a watershed for free speech even though it neglected to defang McCain-Feingold donor disclosure requirements.

Historically, Democrats wanted campaign spending limits while Republicans championed donor transparency, with both parties occasionally flip-flopping on the issues.

On both the spending limits question, and transparency, we have a ways to go. Hillary Clinton and her supporters spent a record $1.2 billion on her losing presidential campaign — twice as much as the winner, Donald Trump, according to news reports. So, Sen. Simpson is on to something. But do we need to suppress free political speech under the guise of protecting the populace from corporate money and bad policies? And with a constitutional amendment?

Obviously, Republicans and Democrats equally deserve a share of the blame.

But it’s too true that the political left have been the chief offenders since 2010 as evidenced by such progressive activist groups as As You Sow and the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. Each year, these nominally religious organizations file shareholder resolutions seeking public reporting and disclosure of corporate donations and lobbying expenditures. What this has to do with religious faith is anyone’s guess, but it seems quite telling that many of these resolutions are co-sponsored by public-sector unions.

Post-Citizens United, the left doubled down on free-speech efforts in a manner that makes even the most outrageous claims about McCarthyism seem banal by comparison. In her book, Strassel hopscotches through these efforts adroitly beginning with the targeting of Tea Party groups by the Internal Revenue Service team led by Lois Lerner.

Okay, let’s assume certain readers concur with the overall vilification of the Tea Party as a bunch of “hobbits” – as Sen. McCain labeled them – who enjoy playing dress-up in Revolutionary War costumes, and the same certain readers further believe the IRS was justified in slow-walking tax-exempt status for groups opposing the Obama administration agenda. Fair enough. But what if the shoe was on a different foot and, furthermore, that foot stepped in a direction that readers can agree was a historic advancement for all Americans?

For example, as Strassel deftly relates, the NAACP refusal to turn over membership and donor lists during the 1956 bus boycotts in Montgomery, Alabama. Imagine what might’ve happened had the NAACP rolled over when Alabama Attorney General John M. Patterson and segregationist Judge Walter B. Jones issued an injunction against the organization. As Strassel notes:

Patterson wanted to do more than just put a halt to NAACP activities. He wanted to expose the group, target it, send the message that any black who continued to support it – openly or otherwise – was at risk. So he also filed a request that the court require the NAACP to hand over all its records – including a list of its members, its donors, its property ownership, and its bank statements….

[NAACP General Counsel Robert L. Carter] knew an NAACP member and donor list would be, in the hands of segregationists, at best a blacklist, at worst a kill list. His organization could not and would not ever comply.

Fast forward 60 years to 2016, and witness the same tactics attempted against the Acton Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Heartland Institute and a myriad of other free-market think tanks named in a subpoena from state attorneys general seeking ExxonMobil donation information, correspondence, funding and work related to challenging claims for catastrophic climate change from the past 20 years. Clearly, this was an attempt to force these groups into silence through intimidation.

When it’s too late to intimidate, it’s never too late to retaliate. Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigned after it was discovered he donated $1,000 of his own money to a California ballot initiative banning same-sex marriages. Other resignations included Scott Eckern, artistic director of Sacramentos’s California Musical Theatre ($1,000) and Richard Raddon, director of the Los Angeles Film Festival ($1,500). Margie Christoffersen ($100) witnessed the boycott and trashing of the restaurant that she managed and her mother owned. As Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas warned in 2010:

I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in “core political speech, the primary object of First Amendment protection.”

Just last week, amicus briefs were filed with the U.S. Supreme Court related to Independence Institute vs. FEC. At issue is the Federal Election Commission’s demand for the Colorado-based Independence Institute’s donor information after the think tank ran an advertisement urging readers to contact their legislators in support of a sentencing reform bill.

Donors possess any number of reasons for desiring anonymity for their political activities, including freely yet privately expressing their respective religious beliefs in the public sphere without any threat of retaliation. Strassel’s Intimidation Game is perhaps the best casebook explaining why demanding donor transparency is far worse than McCarthyism.

For all the deserved and undeserved derision heaped upon Cold Warrior Sen. Joseph McCarthy for his tactics in the 1950s, the political landscape has been chock-a-block with the same tactics ever since, especially when it comes to spending on political campaigns.

About the author:
*Bruce Edward Walker, a Michigan-based writer, writes frequently on the arts and other topics for the Acton Institute.

Source:
This article was published by the Acton Institute

By Malcolm Cook, Leo Suryadinata, Mustafa Izzuddin and Le Hong Hiep*

Over six days in January 2017, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe travelled over 18,000 kilometres visiting the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam and Australia – Southeast Asia’s three most populous countries and Japan’s most important security partner after the United States. The timing and itinerary of the whirlwind tour reflect many shared anxieties about the Donald Trump presidency; Japan’s mounting concern over China’s challenge to its leading economic position in Southeast Asia; and Abe’s efforts to leverage on these concerns to enhance Japan’s regional leadership.1

For the last two decades, Japan’s grand strategy has centred on supporting the Asia-Pacific security order led by a United States in relative decline and at war in the Middle East, and countering an emboldened Beijing’s efforts to replace this with an Asian security order led by China. The Trump presidency throws into greater question US commitment to maintaining its leading strategic position in the Asia-Pacific and the means by which it may seek to do this. Southeast Asian countries, particularly Indonesia under President Jokowi and the Philippines under President Rodrigo Duterte, have become major beneficiaries of Beijing’s infrastructure diplomacy, raising the potential for China to replace Japan as their major infrastructure and development partner.

This joint perspective will look at what Abe’s visit to each of the countries tells us about their interest in enhancing relations with Japan. It is kept in mind that a commonality of interests between states is distinct from a convergence of interests, even if both do support closer cooperation.

JANUARY 12-13: THE PHILIPPINES

By Malcolm Cook

The Philippines stop was the first. Philippine foreign and security policy under Duterte has been aggravating Japanese concerns about Southeast Asian support for the current US-led security order and of China displacing Japan economically in the region. From 2013 to 2016, President Aquino and Prime Minister Abe went about successfully forging a close personal relationship, and the Aquino administration’s grand strategy underpinned a strong commonality of interests with Japan. The sharp changes to Philippine foreign and security rhetoric and policy that have come with Duterte raise questions about the future relationship between the US’ major ally in Northeast Asia and in Southeast Asia.

Yet, as with Duterte’s visit to Japan in October 2016, Japan-Philippine relations were enhanced due to the common and converging interests of both parties. Duterte, citing the Bible, referred to Japan as “a friend that is closer than a brother”2 and invited Abe, the first foreign leader to visit the Philippines since Duterte came to power in June 2016, to breakfast at the Duterte residence in Davao City.

On the economic front, Prime Minister Abe, who brought a heavy-hitting business delegation with him, announced a five-year 1 trillion yen ($8.8 billion) aid and investment package focussed on the Duterte administration’s ambitious infrastructure programme. This is one of the largest aid packages ever assembled by Japan for a single country and at least matches in dollar terms the infrastructure commitments made by China during Duterte’s visit to China in October 2016. This new Japanese package in combination with the Japanese commitments made in October 2016, and to the Aquino administration should maintain Japan’s position as the Philippines’ most important infrastructure and development partner, or at least until China decides to up the ante again in the ongoing infrastructure battle between the two Northeast Asian neighbours. Duterte has already announced plans to attend the One Belt One Road summit in China in May.3

On the security front, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs briefed journalists that the two leaders agreed about the necessity and benefit of continued US commitment to the region and that territorial and maritime rights disputes should be resolved through the rule of law.4 On the Japanese side, Abe can play a reassuring bridging and replacement role between the United States and Duterte. In turn, Duterte can reassure Japan and the broader region that Philippine foreign and security policy has not swung away from supporting the current regional order and toward China as much as many fear.

Backing this up, during the visit it was announced that Japan will participate in the annual US-Philippine Balikatan exercise, reaffirming that the largest and most important US- Philippine military exercise will not be cancelled this year but rather expanded to include the Philippines’ second most important security partner.5 Three days after the Abe visit, the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs announced that it had filed a diplomatic protest with China over the militarization of China’s recently constructed artificial islands within the Philippine exclusive economic zone.6

JANUARY 13-15: AUSTRALIA

By Malcolm Cook

Australia was the only leg of the Abe regional tour beyond Southeast Asia. The inclusion of Australia reflected the importance of Japan and Australia’s shared Southeast Asian concerns, and of the sustained and broad deepening of Australia-Japan security relations that had taken place over the last two decades. Japan and Australia are frequently referred to as the “northern” and “southern” anchors of the US alliance system in East Asia, and more broadly the US-led regional security order. Southeast Asia accounts for much of what lies between these anchors.

Abe’s visit down under had four important takeaways for Southeast Asia:

• Both prime ministers reaffirmed their country’s continued strong support for the US- led regional security order and the US role in East Asia. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull stated that “for both of our nations, the United States remains the cornerstone of our strategic and security arrangements. Our respective Alliance, Alliance of the United States are as relevant and important today as they have ever been. We will work closely with the incoming Administration as we have been to advance the region’s interests, and our shared goals.”7
• Their joint statement restated that the TPP is an “indispensable priority because of the significant economic and strategic benefits it offers’’, with both leaders committing to cooperating together to push for the early enactment of the agreement.8
• The two leaders focussed on the South China Sea and North Korea as their two pressing security concerns. Both reaffirmed that the disputes should be dealt with in accordance with international law including UNCLOS. The new Trump administration could well pressure Australia and Japan to become more actively involved in pushing back against China in the South China Sea.9
• Canberra and Tokyo enhanced the ability of their militaries to work more closely with each other. The two leaders signed a revised logistics agreement that permits Japan to provide ammunition to Australia during exercises and operations involving the two militaries.10 The previous agreement was limited to the transfer of equipment related to humanitarian and disaster relief operations. They also committed to the early conclusion of a legal agreement to facilitate future bilateral military visits and exercises.

Abe and Turnbull reaffirmed in word and action their common interest in supporting the US-led regional security order and US presence in the region. This aimed at reasserting certainty in a period of unquestioned uncertainty.

JANUARY 15-16: INDONESIA

By Leo Suryadinata and Mustafa Izzuddin

At first glance, Shinzo Abe’s visit to Indonesia had a clear economic purpose as he brought with him a delegation of 30 prominent businessmen. Japan is a leading foreign investor in Indonesia, with investments reaching US$4.5 billion in the first nine months of 2016.11 Bilateral trade increased to reach US$24 billion in the first ten months of 2016.12 According to Coordinating Maritime Affairs Minister Luhut Pandjaitan, who held Japan up as an “ideal model for infrastructural development”13, Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo and Prime Minister Abe were to discuss four major strategic projects, namely the Patimban port, the Jakarta-Surabaya rail project, the East Natuna oil and gas block, and chemical and fertilizer projects.14

On closer inspection, however, Abe’s Indonesia visit was more strategic than economic. He was mainly concerned with security matters, in contrast to Jokowi who was primarily concerned with economic benefits. With the exception of the Parimban port project, remarks made at the joint press conference after the closed-door meeting were rather anodyne, with both leaders merely stressing continued bilateral economic cooperation.

But what was telling from the press conference was Abe saying that Japan attaches huge importance to maintaining a rules-based order in the South China Sea by resolving disputes peacefully in accordance with international law.15 In this regard, he pledged for Japan to cooperate with Indonesia on maritime security, not least vis-à-vis the Natunas. In reality, however, this is likely to be rejected altogether as Jokowi would be reluctant to draw a foreign country into patrolling Indonesian waters.

Cooperating with Japan on maritime security in the South China Sea could also generate consternation in Beijing, something that Indonesia prefers to avoid, given the enhanced bilateral economic engagement in Sino-Indonesian relations. Perhaps a less controversial development would be for Japan to enhance its maritime cooperation with member countries of the Indian Ocean Rim Association, currently chaired by Indonesia.16

No mention was made of Abe’s “Indo-Pacific Strategy” at the press conference, although the proposal was reported to have been discussed in the closed-door meeting. The proposal seeks to promote “cooperation among Japan, ASEAN countries, the US, Australia and India.”17 This proposal was described by The Jakarta Post as the “Japanese vision of OBOR.”18

The Indonesian media appeared lacking in enthusiasm over Abe’s visit, perhaps because most projects involving Japan were pledges more than concrete undertakings. The Jakarta Post’s editorial expressed disappointment with Abe’s visit and called on Japan to open up its markets to Indonesian agricultural and fishery products, and to “cheap but quality workers”. The editorial also attributed the sluggishness in Japan’s relations with Indonesia to Jakarta “tilting towards China”.19

At the same time, the editorial stated the following: “With Indonesia to a certain extent showing hostility to rising China, Japan is among the few countries that can play a deterrent role vis-à-vis the world’s second-largest economy.”20 Japan can thus help Indonesia limit its reliance on China. Engagement with Japan would also be more acceptable to the Indonesian public.

JANUARY 16-17: VIETNAM

By Le Hong Hiep

Vietnam was the last stop on Shinzo Abe’s tour, but Hanoi is in no way less important than other Southeast Asian countries to his regional strategy. Indeed, four years ago, after returning to the Prime Minister position, Vietnam was the first foreign country Abe visited. Under his stewardship, bilateral relations have been continuously strengthened, driven by strong mutual trust and increasingly convergent national interests in terms of economics and strategy.

Unlike most of the major relationships of both these countries, bilateral ties between the two have generally been problem-free and carry no historical baggage.21 By 2016, Japan had become the largest source of Official Development Assistance (ODA), the second largest foreign investor, the third largest source of tourist arrivals, and the fourth largest trade partner of Vietnam.22 As both countries are members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), bilateral economic ties will be further strengthened should the agreement survive the current anti-globalization backlash in the United States. Both leaders have publicly reaffirmed their commitment to the TPP with Prime Minister Phuc assuring Abe that Vietnam is taking steps to ratify the TPP.23

During his visit, Abe pledged to provide Vietnam with 123 billion yen (US$1.05 billion) in ODA in the fiscal year 2016, which will be used, among other things, for beefing up Vietnam’s maritime security, improving the country’s responses to climate change, and upgrading the sewage systems of a number of Vietnamese cities. The two sides also signed several loan agreements under which Japan will provide funding for a Vietnamese power plant and the Economic Management and Competitiveness Credit (EMCC) programme that aims to improve Vietnam’s business environment.
While economic cooperation featured high in the agenda of Abe’s visit, the most meaningful contribution of the visit to the development of bilateral ties is perhaps the deepening strategic dimension that it represents.

Specifically, during the visit, Prime Minister Abe announced that Japan would provide Vietnam with six more patrol boats worth US$338 million in addition to the other six that Tokyo pledged to Hanoi in 2014. Japan is reportedly going to sell two advanced radar-based satellites to Vietnam, which are to be delivered in 2017 and 2018 through Japanese ODA.24 Meanwhile, Hanoi is also said to be considering the purchase of second-hand P-3C surveillance anti-submarine aircraft from Tokyo.25

The bilateral focus on maritime security underlines the two countries’ shared concerns about recent shifts in the regional maritime landscape, especially China’s increasingly dominant naval power and its growing assertiveness in maritime disputes. As Japan and Vietnam face Chinese pressures in the East and South China Sea, respectively, strategic cooperation to deal with Beijing has naturally become an urgent need for both sides, and it is this maritime strategic imperative that has sailed their defence cooperation forward in recent years.

At a press conference during the visit, Abe stressed the two countries’ common maritime interests by referring rhetorically to the water of the Red River in northern Vietnam flowing into the South China Sea and the East China Sea which connects with the Tokyo Bay. “Nothing can obstruct the free passage along this route. Japan and Vietnam are two neighbours connected by the free ocean,” he said. He added that the four countries that he visited during the trip were important neighbours of Japan who together share the free Pacific Ocean and fundamental values, and that “the principles of maritime security and safety, and freedom of navigation are very important and the law must be fully obeyed”.26 Although no specific country was mentioned, China’s recent maritime assertiveness seems to be the main background of Abe’s remarks.

In sum, Prime Minister Abe’s visit to Hanoi has further strengthened the comprehensive and virtually problem-free relationship between the two countries, which has been built on strong mutual trust and increasingly convergent strategic interests. As such, Vietnam continues to be a key partner in Japan’s security strategy that seeks to “normalize” and strengthen Tokyo’s international security role against the backdrop of a rising China that has already generated seismic shifts in the regional strategic landscape.

JAPAN’S WEIGHT ON THE BALANCE

Southeast Asian states, to maximize their own strategic autonomy, have long sought to balance their relations with major powers and to make sure that no major power is dominant in the region. Japan under Abe is proactively seeking to strengthen economic and security relations in the region in order to counteract rising Chinese influence and the fear of declining US influence.

Abe’s recent trip reaffirms a commonality of interests on this front between Japan and Australia, and converging interests between Japan and the Philippines and Vietnam. Messages out of Indonesia, as is often the case, are more mixed.

Prime Minister Abe’s strong and recently reinforced political position domestically27 and Japan’s rising strategic anxiety suggest more such trips to Southeast Asia are likely. How receptive Southeast Asian states and ASEAN are to Japan’s proactive diplomacy will inform us how these states are faring in balancing their relations with major powers under current circumstances or if these circumstances preclude such a balance.

*About the authors:
Leo Suryadinata is Visiting Senior Fellow, Malcolm Cook Senior Fellow and Le Hong Hiep and Mustafa Izzuddin Fellows at ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute.

Source:
This article was published by ISEAS as ISEAS Perspective: Issue 2017 No. 5 (PDF)

Notes:
1 Lisa Murray, “Japan’s Shinzo Abe to visit Australia and cement regional ties amid Trump fears,” Australian Financial Review, 12 January 2017, http://www.afr.com/news/policy/foreign- affairs/japans-shinzo-abe-to-visit-australia-and-cement-regional-ties-amid-trump-fears-20170112- gtq62t
2 President Duterte also used this depiction of Japan during his October 2016 state visit to Japan, “Closer than a brother”, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 28 October 2016, http://opinion.inquirer.net/98773/closer-than-a-brother
3 Paterno Esmaquel II, “Duterte to visit China again in May – report,” Rappler, 20 January 2017, http://www.rappler.com/nation/158889-duterte-visit-china-may
4 “Abe, Duterte agree US has role in regional peace,” Bangkok Post, 13 January 2017, http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/1179661/abe-duterte-agree-on-us-role
5 Leila B. Salaverria, “Japan to join PH-US military exercises,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 14 January 2017, https://globalnation.inquirer.net/151630/japan-join-ph-us-military-exercises
6 Patricia Lourdes Viray, “Yasay: Note verbale sent to China after intel verification,” Philippine Star, 16 January 2016, http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/01/17/1663541/yasay-note- verbale-sent-china-after-intel-verification
7 https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2017-01-14/joint-press-statement-his-excellency-mr-shinzo-abe- prime-minister-japan
8 Sid Maher, “Turnbull and Abe agree to deepen defence ties and push for Trans-Pacific Partnership”, The Australian, 14 January 2017, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/turnbull-and-abe-agree-to-deepen-defence-ties-and- push-for-transpacific-partnership/news-story/85c14fdbc3611bd7807c89a0353f561d
9 Henry Belot, “South China Sea: Paul Keating says Rex Tillerson threatening to involve Australia in war”, ABC News, 13 Janaury 2017, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-13/paul-keating- accuses-us-of-threatening-australia-with-war/8181160
10 Japan is planning to sign a similar agreement with the United Kingdom, Ryo Aibari, “SDF to supply ammo to Britain: 1st pact with European power”, The Asahi Shimbun, 19 January 2017, http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201701190043.html
11 “Indonesia, Japan pledge to step up cooperation”, Xinhua, 15 January 2017, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-01/15/c_135984348.htm
12 Saifulbahri Ismail, “ Indonesia, Japan, discuss high-speed rail project”, Channel NewsAsia, 16 January 2017, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/indonesia-japan-discuss-high- speed-rail-project/3440758.html
13 Viriya P. Singgih, “Indonesia sees Japan as model for infrastructure development”, The Jakarta Post, 15 January 2017, http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/01/15/indonesia-sees-japan-as- model-for-infrastructure-development.html
14 Anton Hermansyah and Farida Susanty, “Indonesia to discuss four strategic projects with Japanese PM”, The Jakarta Post, 12 January 2017, http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/01/12/indonesia-to-discuss-four-strategic-projects- with-japanese-pm.html
15 “Abe pledges fresh security-related aid to Vietnam”, The Japan Times, 16 January 2017, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/01/16/national/politics-diplomacy/abe-jokowi-unite- south-china-sea-disputes-plan-two-plus-two-meeting/
16 http://www.kemenkeu.go.id/en/Berita/indonesia-japan-strengthen-cooperation-various-fields 17 Tama Salim and Fedina Sundaryani, “Abe offers RI Indo-Pacific Strategy”, The Jakarta Post, http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/01/16/abe-offers-ri-indo-pacific-strategy.html
18 Ibid.
19 “PM Abe’s visit”, The Jakarta Post, 17 January 2017, http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/01/17/pm-abe-s-visit.html 20 Ibid.
21 This is despite the fact that up to 2 million Vietnamese died of starvation in 1945 due to the Japanese occupation. Japan established relations with Vietnam in 1973, but bilateral ties only flourished after Vietnam opened up the economy and embarked on the “diversification and multilateralization” of its foreign relations in the late 1980s. Since then, economic interests have been a key driver of bilateral ties.
22 “Việt Nam muốn Nhật Bản trở thành nhà đầu tư lớn nhất” [Vietnam wants Japan to become its largest foreign investor], Phap luat Viet Nam, 18 January 2017, http://baophapluat.vn/thoi-su/viet- nam-muon-nhat-ban-tro-thanh-nha-dau-tu-lon-nhat-315939.html
23 Yuta Uebayashi, “Japan, Vietnam to cooperate on TPP,” Nikkei Asian Review, 17 January 2017, http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Japan-Vietnam-to-cooperate-on- TPP
24 “Japan gets first int’l customer for advanced Earth observation satellite”, Mainichi, 17 September 2016 http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160917/p2a/00m/0na/016000c
25 “Vietnam looks to Japan for anti-submarine aircraft”, VnExpress, 28 June 2016, http://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/vietnam-looks-to-japan-for-anti-submarine-aircraft- 3427050.html
26 “Japanese PM calls for respect for rule of law to safeguard freedom of navigation”, Vietnam Breaking News, 17 January 2017, https://www.vietnambreakingnews.com/2017/01/japanese-pm- calls-for-respect-for-rule-of-law-to-safeguard-freedom-of-navigation/
27 “PM Abe’s dominance in LDP highlighted by speedy move to extend term limit”, Mainichi Shimbun, 27 October 2016, http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20161027/p2a/00m/0na/005000c

By Cherrie Bucknor

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released Thursday data on union membership for 2016.[1] Using that report, and additional analysis of the raw data, this paper presents trends in union membership from 1983 to 2016.

In 2016, the share of workers who were members of a union decreased 0.4 percentage point to 10.7 percent (see Table 1), continuing a downward trend that has occurred since at least the early 1980s, when directly comparable data became available (see Figure 1).

Table 1: Union Membership and Coverage Rates, 2015-2016

Figure 1: Union Membership Rates, 1983-2016

In addition to a 0.4 percentage-point drop in membership rate, there were also 240,000 less union workers in 2016 than in 2015 (see Table 2).

Table 2: Union Members and Workers Covered by a Union Contract, 2015-2016

Public and Private Sector

Union membership in the private sector fell by 119,000 and the membership rate fell 0.3 percentage point to 6.4 percent. There was a slightly larger decrease in union membership in the public sector (down 121,000), corresponding to a 0.8 percentage-point drop in the public sector membership rate to 34.4 percent.

Although public sector workers are more likely than their private sector counterparts to be union members, there remain more private-sector union members (7.4 million) than public-sector union members (7.1 million).

Since the early 1980s, the union membership rate in the private sector has declined steadily, while the membership rate in the public sector has been much more stable (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Union Membership Rate, Public and Private Sectors, 1983-2016

Gender

In 2016, the gender gap in union membership continued to narrow (see Figure 3). The union membership rate for women fell 0.4 percentage point to 10.2 percent and the rate for men fell 0.3 percentage point to 11.2 percent. The number of female union members fell by 166,000 and the number of male union members fell by 75,000. Women also accounted for 45.8 percent of the union workforce in 2016, down from 46.2 percent in 2015.

Figure 3: Union Membership Rate, By Gender, 1983-2016

Age

Union membership rates continue to decline for most age groups (see Figure 4). Generally, union membership rates are higher for each successive age group, with the lone exception being the 65 and older age group. In 2016, the membership rate of workers ages 16 to 24 remained flat at 4.4 percent. Workers ages 25 to 34 had a membership rate of 9.2 percent, 0.5 percentage point less than in 2015. Workers ages 35 to 44 also experienced a drop in membership rate from 12.3 percent in 2015 to 12.0 percent in 2016. Workers in both the 45 to 54 and 55 to 64 age groups had a union membership rate of 13.3 percent. For workers ages 45 to 54, this represented a 0.3 percentage-point drop from 2015, and for workers ages 55 to 64, this represented a 1.0 percentage-point decline. The membership rate of workers ages 65 and older rose 0.1 percentage point to 9.6 percent in 2016.

Figure 4: Union Membership Rate, By Age, 1983-2016

Race and Ethnicity

In 2016, union membership rates decreased in every racial/ethnic group. Asian workers saw the greatest decrease in membership rate (down 0.8 percentage point to 9.0 percent), followed by Hispanics (down 0.6 percentage point to 8.8 percent), Blacks (down 0.6 percentage point to 13.0 percent), and whites (down 0.3 percentage point to 10.5 percent).

Using a different, but consistent measure of race and ethnicity, Figure 5 displays union membership rates from 1989 to 2016.[2]

Figure 5: Union Membership Rate, By Race/Ethnicity, 1989-2016

Education

The BLS Union Members report does not publish union data by education level. Using the raw Current Population Survey (CPS) data, Figure 6 shows trends in union membership by education level from 1983 to 2016. Union membership rates rise as education level increases, therefore workers with an advanced degree are the most likely to be union members. In 2016, their membership rate decreased 0.9 percentage point to 16.0 percent. The membership rate for workers with a bachelor’s degree fell 0.5 percentage point to 10.4 percent. Workers with some college but no degree and those with a high school degree all saw their membership rates decrease 0.3 percentage point to 10.6 percent and 9.9 percent, respectively. Workers with less than a high school degree had a union membership rate of 5.4 percent in 2016, the same as in 2015.

Figure 6: Union Membership Rate, By Education, 1983-2016

Nativity

Figure 7 uses the raw CPS data to show the trends in unionization for native- and foreign-born workers since 1994. In 2016, native workers (11.2 percent) remained more likely than their foreign-born peers (8.2 percent) to be union members.

Figure 7: Union Membership Rate, By Nativity, 1994-2016

States

The states with the five highest union membership rates were: New York (23.6 percent), Hawaii (19.9 percent), Alaska (18.5 percent), Connecticut (17.5 percent), and Washington (17.4 percent). The states with the five lowest rates were: South Carolina (1.6 percent), North Carolina (3.0 percent), Georgia and Arkansas (tied at 3.9 percent), and Texas (4.0 percent) (see Table 3).

Table 3: Union Membership Rate and Union Members, By State, 2015-2016

The five states with the most union members were: California (2.6 million), New York (1.9 million), Illinois (812,000), Pennsylvania (685,000), and New Jersey (644,000). The states with the five fewest union members were: Wyoming (16,000), South Dakota and North Dakota (tied at 20,000), South Carolina (32,000), and the District of Columbia and Vermont (tied at 32,000).

About the author:
*Cherrie Bucknor is a Research Associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, D.C.

References:
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2017. “Union Members 2016.” Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf.

Notes:
[1] See: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2017).

[2] The race/ethnicity categories in Figure 5 differ from the categories that appear in the BLS Union Members report and those from Table 1 of this report. The categories in Figure 5 are mutually exclusive. Hispanics are not included in the white, Black, or Asian categories and are counted only in the Hispanic category. The BLS includes Hispanics in the data for white, Black, and Asian categories as well as in the separate Hispanic category.

The market regulator in the Netherlands has accidentally published a list of companies in which George Soros held short positions.

Hedge funds take short positions on assets when they expect their price to fall, in effect betting against the stock.

Hundreds of the billionaire investor’s short positions dating back to 2012 were made public on the regulator’s website, due to “human error,” according to the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM).

The short positions, bets on a stock declining, were “between 0.2 percent and 0.5 percent,” of shares outstanding in the companies shorted, said an AFM spokesman.

Earlier this week, the website revealed Soros bet against Dutch ING Group, taking a short position of 0.3 percent in it in June 2016. The leaked information was quickly erased once the error was discovered.

The watchdog also unveiled the secretive Medallion Fund, run by Renaissance Technologies for its employees, shorted a number of small cap Dutch stocks. The fund made an annualized return of over 70 percent in the 20 years from 1994 to 2014.

“On the afternoon of Tuesday 24 January, after the close of the market, the AFM inadvertently published a list on its website that included net short positions of less than 0.5 percent instead of publishing the daily list of net short positions of 0.5 percent and higher,” the AFM said in a statement on its website.

“The AFM corrected this mistake and posted the correct list of net short positions of 0.5 percent and higher on the morning of Wednesday, 25 January. We regret this error,” the watchdog added.

Short trading commonly involves borrowing the stock of a company from an investor, selling it and then buying it back at a later date for a lower price, making a profit out of the difference.

Under EU regulations, hedge funds are obliged to disclose to the public short positions of over 0.5 percent in a particular company’s stock, while positions of over 0.2 percent must be disclosed only to the domestic markets regulator, updated for each additional 0.1 percent.

(RFE/RL) — The White House says U.S. President Donald Trump is calling for a 20 percent tax on imports from Mexico to pay for his proposed southern border wall.

The announcement by the White House on January 26 came hours after Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto said he would not travel to the United States to meet with Trump amid rising diplomatic tensions over Trump’s plan to build a wall on the border and force Mexico to pay for it.

Pena Nieto announced on Twitter on January 26 that his office had informed the White House that he would not attend the meeting with Trump that was planned for January 31 in Washington.

Earlier on January 26, Trump said on Twitter that “it would be better” for Pena Nieto to cancel the upcoming meeting “if Mexico is unwilling to pay” for building the wall along the entire southern border of the United States.

Pena Nieto’s Twitter response said: “Mexico reiterates its willingness to work with the United States to reach accords that favor both nations.”

Trump said later on January 26 that the decision to cancel the meeting was mutual.

He said “Unless Mexico is going to treat the United States fairly, with respect, such a meeting would be fruitless, and I want to go a different route. I have no choice.”

The White House then announced his intention to impose a 20 percent import tax on goods from Mexico.

On January 25, Trump ordered officials to begin to “plan, design, and construct a physical wall” along the 3,200-kilometer U.S.-Mexican border.

Trump vowed during the presidential election campaign that he would make Mexico pay for the wall – something that Mexico’s leaders insist will not happen.

China’s rapid nuclear expansion program is expected to account for nearly three-quarters of the global increase in nuclear generation by 2035, according to the latest Energy Outlook from oil and gas giant BP.

BP says that while the world economy will almost double between 2015 and 2035, energy demand will increase by only around 30%. Energy consumption, it says, is expected to grow less quickly than in the past: 1.3% per year in the 2015-2035 period, compared with annual growth of 2.2% in 1995-2015.

The latest Energy Outlook expects oil, gas and coal to remain the dominant sources of energy, accounting for more than three-quarters of total global energy supplies in 2035, down from 85% in 2015.

Almost two-thirds of the increase in global energy consumption over the 2015-2035 period is used for power generation, BP says. As a result, the share of energy used for power generation rises from 42% in 2015 to 47% by 2035.

In BP’s base case, carbon emissions from energy use increase by about 13% between 2015 and 2035. This, it says, is far in excess of the International Energy Agency’s 450 Scenario which suggests carbon emissions need to fall by around 30% by 2035 to have a good chance of achieving the goals set out in the Paris climate change agreement. However, BP notes emissions are projected to grow at less than one-third of the rate seen in the past 20 years. This, it says, would be the slowest rate of emissions growth for any 20 year period since BP’s records began in 1965.

Nuclear power generation is expected to grow 2.3% per annum, with its share of primary energy consumption over the 2015-2035 period set to increase from 4% to 5%, BP says.

BP sees nuclear generating capacity in Europe declining as older plants are gradually decommissioned and there is little new investment. It expects the EU’s nuclear power generation to be 30% lower by 2035 than in 2015. Japan is assumed to restart some of its reactors gradually by 2025, but does not recover to pre-Fukushima levels. However, China’s nuclear generating capacity is expected to grow 11% per annum by 2035, accounting for almost three-quarters of the global increase in nuclear generation.

Renewable energy sources are expected to account for 40% of the growth in power generation, leading to an increase in their share of global power from 7% in 2015 to nearly 20% by 2035.

BP chief executive Bob Dudley said, “The global energy landscape is changing. Traditional centres of demand are being overtaken by fast-growing emerging markets. The energy mix is shifting, driven by technological improvements and environmental concerns.”

He said a central feature of this energy transition is the continued gradual decarbonisation of the fuel mix. “Rapid improvements in the competitiveness of renewable energy mean that increases in renewables, together with nuclear and hydro energy, provide around half of the increase in global energy out to 2035.”

The World Nuclear Association has developed its own vision for the future of electricity, referred to as Harmony. This is based on the International Energy Agency’s 2-degree scenario which aims to avoid the most damaging consequences of climate change and requires a large increase in nuclear energy. Harmony envisages a diverse mix of low-carbon generating technologies deployed in such a manner that the benefits of each are maximised while the negative impacts are minimised. The Association’s target for nuclear energy is to provide 25% of electricity in 2050, requiring roughly 1000 GWe of new nuclear capacity to be constructed.

Pakistan on Tuesday, January 24,  successfully test-fired its second indiginously-developed nuclear-capable missile Ababeel, capable of engaging multiple targets with high precision with a range of 2,200 km — bringing many Indian cities within its striking range. The test firing comes two weeks after the launch of the submarine-fired Babar III, that Indian side military analysts as usual dubbed as “fake”.

Pakistan’s military said it has successfully conducted the flight test of surface-to-surface nuclear-capable missile ‘Ababeel’. Ababeel is capable of delivering multiple warheads using Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) technology, Army spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor said in a statement. “The test flight was aimed at validating various design and technical parameters of the weapon system,” he said. Ghafoor said: “The development of the Ababeel weapon system was aimed at ensuring survivability of Pakistan’s ballistic missiles in the growing regional Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) environment and has the capability to engage multiple targets with high precision, defeating the enemy’s hostile radars.”

The missile has a maximum range of 1,367 miles, and is capable of carrying multiple warheads using the Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle technology. According to Inter Service Public Relations, the media arm of Pakistan’s military, the test was conducted to validate the weapon’s abilities.

On January 8, Pakistan conducted its first successful test fire of submarine launched cruise missile Babur III having a range of 450 km. The missile was fired from an underwater, mobile platform and hit its target with precise accuracy.

The Babur weapons system incorporates advanced aerodynamics and avionics that can strike targets both at land and sea with high accuracy, according to ISPR. It has been described as a low flying, terrain hugging missile, which carries certain stealth features and is capable of carrying various types of warheads.

ISPR adds the missile will be a powerful deterrent for the country. Ababeel can be armed with nuclear weapons, and engage multiple targets while overcoming enemy radars.

High-ranking Pakistani government officials praised the flight test as a landmark achievement for the country’s military.

Pakistan’s demonstration follows its nuclear-capable Babur-III launch on Jan. 9, and a number of test-firings conducted by its neighbor India, which have contributed to escalating tensions between the historically hostile nations.

India’s Defense Research and Development organization test-fired its Agni IV ballistic missile on Jan. 4, and launched its guided Pinaka Rocket Mark-II on Jan. 12.

Indian military prowess

This development comes just weeks after the neighboring rival India ill-focused on Muslim neighbors, successfully test-fired the nuclear-capable Babur-3, its first Submarine-Launched Cruise Missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead up to 450 kms. In an apparent reference to India, the release said, “The development of the Ababeel weapon system was aimed at ensuring survivability of Pakistan’s ballistic missiles in the growing regional Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) environment.”

India considers itself the super power of the SA region having first obtained nukes threatening the regional nations, especially Pakistan and Bangladesh. .

Referring to India’s test of its nuclear-capable Agni-IV missile on January 2, Pakistan had also cautioned members of MTCR that introduction of destabilizing systems such as “missile defence programs” and “inter-continental ballistic missiles” in South Asia pose a “risk” to regional stability.

A country’s non-proliferation record is one of the key criteria to join MTCR.

Like India Pakistan has also intensified its efforts to join the exclusive club of countries, controlling exports in missile technology, since India joined the elite grouping last year as its 35th member.

Notably, India was successful in joining MTCR, ahead of Pakistan’s all-weather ally China, whose application is pending since 2004. However, experts say that Pakistan’s controversial record in nuclear proliferation and absence of its patron China inside the club are major obstacles in Islamabad becoming a formal member of MTCR. India has reason to celebrate with semi-explosives all over the country just as it does when it wins a cricket match after fixing it in its favor. .

Pakistan has cautioned members of MTCR that introduction of “destabilizing systems” like “missile defence programm” and “inter-continental ballistic missiles” in South Asia pose a “risk” to regional stability, in an apparent reference to India. Pakistan’s “serious concerns” over the introduction of such systems in South Asia were expressed to a delegation of Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), a 35-member elite grouping that includes India and controls export in high-end missile technologies, a Foreign Office (FO) statement said. “Pakistan highlighted the risks posed to regional peace and stability due to the introduction of destabilizing systems such as missile defence programmes and inter-continental ballistic missiles,” the FO statement said.

India is the only country in South Asia having successfully tested inter-continental ballistic missiles. “Pakistan was, however, committed to avoiding any kind of arms race in South Asia,” it said, adding that Pakistan’s proposal on establishing Strategic Restraint Regime (SRR) in South Asia which covers nuclear and missile restraint remains on the table. “Pakistan believes that progress on this proposal (SRR) through meaningful dialogue can promote peace and stability in the region,” it said.

Concerned about regular rissole tests in India and Pakistan and their seemingly never ending conflict over Kashmir, the United States also weighed down on Pakistan’s test of Babur-3 missile urging it to ‘exercise restraint regarding the use and testing of their nuclear capabilities’. “We continue to urge all states with nuclear weapons to exercise restraint regarding nuclear and missile capability testing and use, and we encourage efforts to promote confidence building and stability with respect to those capabilities,” former US state department spokesperson John Kirby had said.

Highlighting Pakistan’s non-proliferation credentials, Additional Secretary, FO, Tasneem Aslam told the MTCR that Pakistan has always remained in the “forefront to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction” and has “always followed international standards while delivering weapons”. Aslam also briefed the delegation led by Ham Sang-Wook, the current MTCR Chair, about the administrative, legislative and regulatory measures taken by Islamabad for the establishment of a robust command and control system, an effective and comprehensive export control regime, and the steps taken to improve physical security at all levels. “Pakistan’s export control regime is at par with the best international standards and its national control lists encompass the items and technologies controlled by the MTCR,” Aslam said.

Pakistani diplomacy

Pakistani diplomacy is indeed commendable. On the eve of test firing, Pakistan released 218 Indian fishermen who had allegedly strayed into its waters. Despite a thaw in bilateral ties, Pakistan has now released 439 Indian fishermen as a “goodwill gesture” in the last 10 days.  The 218 fishermen were freed from Malir jail on instructions from the interior ministry as a goodwill gesture, jail superintendent Hasan Sehto said.

This is the second batch of Indian fishermen released from Pakistan jails since relations between the two countries became tense after the September terror attack on an Indian Army base in Uri for which India has blamed Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed organization.

On December 25, the Pakistan government had freed 220 Indian fishermen who were in jail for more than a year as goodwill gesture after Prime Minister Narendra Modi greeted counterpart Nawaz Sharif on his birthday.

The Indian fishermen who were released will be handed over to Indian officials at the Wagah border. He said that around 110 more Indian fishermen remain in Landhi jail in Karachi.

Last March, the Pakistan government had released 87 Indian fishermen who had been languishing in jail in Karachi for the last two and half years.

Fishermen are being increasingly used as useful foreign tension tools by India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka in the troubled Indian Ocean/Arabian waters further complicating the regional tensions being generated by nuclearized South Asian powers India and Pakistan over Kashmir issue.

Pakistan and India frequently arrest each others’ fishermen for violating the territorial boundary. Poor fishermen from both countries routinely find themselves arrested for illegal fishing as there is no clear demarcation of the boundaries between the two countries in the Arabian sea near Sir Creek and lack of technology has made life difficult for the fishermen of both countries.

Last Friday, Pakistan maritime security agency arrested 66 Indian fishermen for illegally fishing in Pakistan’s territorial waters. Fishermen from both countries end up languishing in jails for years even after serving their sentences and their only hope of getting released is through ‘goodwill’ steps.

Pakistan released 220 Indian fishermen in December as a goodwill gesture aimed at easing tensions with its neighbour and pawing way for good neighborly relations to resolve the vexed Kashmir issue in favor of Kashmiris to regain sovereignty from occupation nations.

Sri Lankan atrocities

Meanwhile, India and Sri Lanka with strained relations over Lankan army’s war crimes against the minority Tamil community during the Rajapksha era – agreed to release fishermen in each others’ custody, a joint statement said on Monday, a move that is likely to ease tensions between the countries which have held fishermen captive for crossing territorial waters.

After ministerial level talks in Colombo, Sri Lanka reiterated its demand to end the practice of bottom trawling, a technique that involves sweeping the sea bed for fish, and India gave assurances that it would gradually phase it out.

Critics oppose the method because the catch is indiscriminate and could wipe out entire fishing species, making areas unsustainable for fishing.

It was not immediately clear from the statement issued by the two governments and published on the website of the Indian ministry of external affairs how many fishermen were being held by either side, or for how long they had been detained.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea states that fishermen who cross territorial waters can be warned and fined but not arrested. But India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka do exactly that, clearly violating all sea laws. They expect their respective “protectors” on the UNSC would shield their crimes.

And, they are not entirely wrong. Veto members seems to enjoy their power to gain fortunes form these countries, among other such “troubled’ nations. No surprise, India is deadly focused on a possible UN veto handle to control the world with its corporate lords that sponsor joint cricket exercises.

While India and Pakistan continue to test missiles to retain the parts of Jammu Kashmir under their respective control, Sri Lanka does not testifiers missiles in the absence of any such Indo-Pakistan problems. However, Sri Lanka is scared of India more than Pakistan with which it does not have any close sea links to fight territorial claims.

By Emanuel L. Paparella, Ph.D.

“Hitler was first elected, and then he destroyed his people” –Pope Francis

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” –Abraham Lincoln

The two above mentioned quotes in some way complement and explain each other. What the Pope is implying is what Lincoln prophesized; misguided people may vote for the monsters they have created and ultimately for their own downfall and destruction.

The question arises: has Lincoln’s prophecy been fulfilled with the election of Donald Trump? Are we in the process of destroying ourselves, just as it happened with the Roman Empire which began the process of self-destruction with the installment of deranged emperors such as Caligula or Nero?

Only five days after the inauguration on the 20th of January 2017, it has become apparent to any observant spectator that Trump has already recreated the corruption of Tammany Hall in the 1800s and early 1900 when cronyism dominated this nefarious group of New York politicians whose only aim was that of satisfying their personal ambitions through any actions, legal or illegal. That was especially true under Tweed in 1858 when corruption in the form of kickbacks from public works programs invaded practically every aspect of city and state governance.

Imperceptibly but inexorably democracy is being replaced by an oligarchy of corrupt politicians aiming at control of the people and putting profits before people. With the Trump presidency the US is now at risk of becoming a plutocracy catering to the rich, the only ones to enjoy the freedoms and rights guaranteed for all by the Constitution.

Trump has a shining example in Putin who has managed to become just about the richest man in Russia and whose net wealth is at least 10 times that of Trump. That may go a long way in explaining the affinity and admiration the two men feel for each other. The problem of course is that a plutocracy cannot exist without a fascist government equipped with a propaganda machine where the truth is what the government says it is and alternate facts can be dished out any time the government is scrutinized and criticized by the media.

On the day of his presidential inauguration, it’s already clear how Donald Trump will govern. We’ve seen his Cabinet appointees, and watched some of their confirmation hearings and they are very revealing. Now we’ve got a first glimpse of his budget ideas. What they predict is a veritable orgy of conflicts of interest, looting and corruption ending in violation of the Constitution and an unmitigated disaster.

Trump has already instituted policies designed to repeal the first amendment. He has proudly declared that he has a running war with the press. And he made such declaration in front of the wall memorializing CIA members who died in their line of duty and blaming the press for his communication difficulties with the agency.

Some in the press are still deluding themselves with the notion that our constitutional provisions of checks and balances among the various branches of government will ultimately save the day and correct this abnormal situation. Others are not so sanguine and are afraid that we might have seen our last free election. Next time around the election will not only be rigged but will be decided before any voting occurs.

Let’s examine Trump’s budget plan first. During the campaign, he flirted with left-leaning fiscal ideas, saying he wouldn’t cut Social Security and Medicare. But thus far he is going in the exact opposite direction, albeit his populism, as a way of deceiving the middle class which he has exploited and manipulated his whole life, remains strong.

Last year the Republican Study Committee came up with an ultra-conservative plan to slash federal spending by $8.6 trillion over 10 years. But Trump’s initial budget has cuts of $10.5 trillion. The details aren’t worked out yet, but it is becoming more and more obvious that that all manner of government agencies would be gored or killed off altogether and that foxes have been placed in charge of chicken coops. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities would be eliminated. They are considered unnecessary frosting on the cake. Barbaric times call for barbaric solutions. Several offices designed to help minorities would be gone. Research and scientific spending would be sharply rolled back and several agencies dedicated to climate change and renewable research would be simply abolished. Seventy five per cent of government environmental regulations are scheduled for elimination. Who needs a livable environment if we have jobs and economic prosperity. That too seems to be considered frosting on the cake.

The scale of these proposed cuts is simply staggering. The military, debt payments, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid account for three quarters of the federal budget. It is literally impossible to get that scale of cuts without cutting deeply into some of those programs. And when you dig into the budget proposed by the Heritage Foundation, which the Trump plan is based on, it turns out everything but defense is getting slashed — Social Security by 8 percent, Medicare by 41 percent, all domestic discretionary spending by 41 percent, and Medicaid by 47 percent. And with Republicans in charge of most state governments, huge austerity at the state level can also be expected.

The rationalization for these cuts is that they are about cutting the deficit, but in reality they are about making budget headroom for large tax cuts on the rich, the so called top 1 per centers. The outrageous lie is apparent by the choice of cabined officials; a good number of them are millionaires or billionaires, or people who have spent their careers undermining the very departments to which they have been appointed (Sessions, Perry, Puzder), and then there are those, like Tillerson who like Trump are clueless about the nature of public service, or De Vos who fits in all three categories.

Private industry will be in charge of the state and it will be called “business as usual.” In the book The Wrecking Crew Thomas Frank elucidates how corruption is usually a logical product of a misguided approach to government. When the very idea of quality government is treated with scorn declaring government incompetent and inefficient, and the normative principles are greed, private industry, markets, to which all human society is subordinated, the predictable result is a Frankenstein monster who eventually turns around and destroys the very people who created it. But the worst, I am afraid, is still to come. Buckle your seat-belts.

About the author:
Professor Emanuel L. Paparella has earned a Ph.D. in Italian Humanism, with a dissertation on the philosopher of history Giambattista Vico, from Yale University. He is a scholar interested in current relevant philosophical, political and cultural issues; the author of numerous essays and books on the EU cultural identity among which A New Europe in search of its Soul, and Europa: An Idea and a Journey. Presently he teaches philosophy and humanities at Barry University, Miami, Florida. He is a prolific writer and has written hundreds of essays for both traditional academic and on-line magazines among which Metanexus and Ovi. One of his current works in progress is a book dealing with the issue of cultural identity within the phenomenon of “the neo-immigrant” exhibited by an international global economy strong on positivism and utilitarianism and weak on humanism and ideals.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy