“Success and Failure in the Insurance Exchanges,” a New England Journal of Medicine Perspective article released today, examines whether the financial struggles of some major insurers under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) reflect a policy failure that should be addressed via repeal or reform, or a mismatch of these firms’ capabilities and strategies to a newly created market.

The authors – Craig Garthwaite, Ph.D., Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, and John Graves, Ph.D., Vanderbilt University Medical Center- estimated that the number of insurers offering plans on the exchanges fell by nearly half between 2016 and 2017. Yet the authors also show that “patterns of market entry and exit are consistent with natural competitive pressures separating out firms best suited for success” in the ACA’s nascent markets.

As compared to competitors in the same geographic area, insurers leaving the ACA’s markets in 2017 offered plans with an “unappealing combination of smaller provider networks and higher premiums.” Those that remained, as well as those that entered the market in 2017, had more experience managing the health of low-income consumers in the Medicaid program.

“Anecdotal evidence supports the argument that the skills of particular insurers may not have been well suited to these marketplaces,” the authors wrote. “Many of the exiting firms … have primarily covered enrollees in the self-insured-employer market, in which insurers provide administrative services and are not primarily responsible for bearing actuarial risk or for developing products targeting low income consumers.”

Smaller and more focused insurers are earning profits in the new market and are “aggressively entering new geographic areas,” the authors reported.

“The objective in creating the insurance marketplaces was to facilitate competition among insurers, not to guarantee financial success,” said Graves, assistant professor of Health Policy in the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. “While we remain supportive of additional reforms to shore up the ACA’s marketplaces, we hope our results remind policymakers that highly publicized news of market exits is a poor and probably inaccurate signal of a failing market.”

“While national firms have complained loudly about their struggles in this marketplace, we note that no firm is guaranteed success in a new market,” Garthwaite said. “Our results show that firms with assets and capabilities that were amenable to the ACA marketplaces are those who remained, while those with skills best suited to other types of insurance markets exited. Far from a sign of failure, this is how competitive markets are intended to work.”

Morocco’s determination to expand its collaboration with African countries has been strengthened even more by King Mohammed VI previous visits to many African countries. Today’s Royal visit to South Sudan proves once again that strengthened economic and political ties will yield significant benefits for both countries.

King Mohammed VI two-day visit is the first since Morocco was readmitted to the African Union. The talks between King Mohammed VI and President Salva Kiir are expected to center on investment opportunities, especially in mining and agriculture.

Last month Morocco announced to establish a multi-specialty field hospital in Juba, the capital of the conflict-ridden east-central African nation, South Sudan.

Moroccan King Mohammed VI, who is currently on a state visit to the Republic of South Sudan, gave his instruction as part of a humanitarian mission for the people, an official statement said.

“This field hospital has a capacity of 30 beds that can be extended to 60. It comprises 20 specialist doctors, 18 nurses and will provide medical services in various specialties including pediatrics, internal medicine, surgery, cardiology, traumatology, dentistry, ophthalmology and ENT medicine,” said an official statement.”

According to a United Nations report, South Sudan is facing Africa’s largest displacement crisis as conflict between government and opposition forces entered fourth year in 2017. The report adds that South Sudan is one of the most logistically challenging countries in the world.

The Moroccan ministry statement added that the hospital will also have a medical laboratory and a pharmacy.

“This action is part of the pan-African humanitarian tradition of the Kingdom. It is also part of the active solidarity of Morocco with the brotherly people of the Republic of South Sudan,” a statement said.

According to UN refugee agency over 6.1 million South Sudanese need urgent humanitarian assistance as disease and escalation of violence among other reasons have triggered food insecurity.
Today King Mohammed VI and President of the Republic of South Sudan, Salva Kiir Mayardit, presided over the signing ceremony of nine bilateral agreements in different areas of cooperation between the two countries.

The Moroccan Press Agency MAP reported that the Moroccan Minister of Interior Mohamed Hassad, delivered a speech, in which he underlined that in accordance with the vision of King Mohammed VI concerning South-south cooperation and as part of the fraternal relations between Morocco and South Sudan “Morocco is committed to sharing its experience in terms of urbanization, and urban development, in order to support the building of a new capital city” of South Sudan.

“The achievement of this great project will require, firstly, the completion of technical and financial feasibility studies, which the Kingdom of Morocco has accepted to finance up to the amount of 5.1 million US dollars,” the minister said.

He added that the preliminary studies will focus on urbanization as well as on social, economic, and environmental aspects, noting that these studies will lead to a draft master plan and a technical and financial set up and an achievement calendar.

“Secondly, the Kingdom of Morocco will provide assistance to the Republic of South Sudan in the different phases of the project’s implementation, including the call for financial and technical partnerships, and the development of South Sudanese expertise and know-how,” Hassad noted.

He added that “as for governance, the Delegated Project Management will be given to the Company Al Omrane, on the Moroccan side, under the supervision of an Executive Committee, appointed by HM the King, the Committee will offer the required competencies for the success of the project.”

The signed agreements are meant to strengthen cooperation relations with countries of the continent and mirror the commitment of HM King Mohammed VI to consolidating South-South cooperation. They are:

-An agreement on the building of the new city of Ramciel, signed by Interior minister, Mohamed Hassad, Housing and Urban Policy minister, Nabil Benabdallah chairman of the management Board of Al Omrane Group, Badre Kanouni, and South Sudanese minister for the Presidency, Mayiik Ayii Deng.

-A general cooperation agreement, signed by Foreign minister, Salaheddine Mezouar, and minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of South Sudan, Deng Alor Kuol.

-An agreement on investment promotion and protection, signed by Economy and Finance minister, Mohamed Boussaid, and South Sudanese minister of Finance and Planning, Stephen Dhieu Dau.

-An agreement on avoidance of double taxation and the fight against tax evasion in respect of income tax, signed by Economy and Finance minister, Mohamed Boussaid, and South Sudanese minister of Finance and Planning, Stephen Dhieu Dau.

-A Memorandum of Understanding in the field of agriculture, signed by Agriculture and Fisheries minister, Aziz Akhannouch, and South Sudanese acting minister of Agriculture and Food Security, Kornelio Kon Ngu.

-A Memorandum of Understanding on industrial cooperation, signed by Industry, Trade, Investment and Digital Economy minister, Moulay Hafid El Alamy, and South Sudanese minister of Trade and Industry, Moses Hassan Ayet.

-A Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation in mines, signed by director general of the National Office of Hydrocarbons and Mines, Amina Benkhadra, and director general of South Sudan’s Mineral Development Directorate, Thongjang Awak Thongjang.

– A cooperation agreement in the field of vocational training, signed by director general of the Office of professional training and labor promotion, Larbi Bencheikh, director general of the Moroccan agency for international cooperation, Mohamed Methqal, and Juac Agok Anyar, an official at the ministry of General Education of South Sudan.

-A Memorandum of Understanding between the Moroccan employers’ association (CGEM) and South Sudan’s Business and Employers Federation (SSBEF), signed by CGEM chairwoman, Miriem Bensalah-Chaqroun, and SSBEF chairman, Ayii Duang Ayii.

The royal current visit to South Sudan reflects clearly King Mohammed VI’ vision for his country to continue to be present in Africa and reinforce south-south cooperation to contribute to the development of the continent. It is worth reminding that this vision for Africa is well illustrated in a statement he made during his visionary speech he delivered at the 28th summit of the African Union held in Addis Ababa on January 31th.

The King said : “It is time for Africa to benefit from Africa’s wealth. We must work to enable our land, after decades of looting, to enter an era of prosperity. Admittedly, colonialism is not the sole cause of Africa’s problems. However, its negative impact persists. For a long time, we have looked elsewhere to seek help in making a decision, a commitment. Is it not time for this tropism to be stopped? Is it not time to look towards our continent? To consider its cultural wealth, its human potential? Africa should be proud of its resources, its cultural heritage, its spiritual values, and the future should strongly support this natural pride.”

It wasn’t hard to see this coming. President Trump’s National Security Advisor, Gen. Michael Flynn, delivered a clear threat to the government of Iran Wednesday, ominously stating that “as of this day, we are officially putting Iran on notice.” What is less clear is the the General’s rationale for issuing the threat.

Flynn cites two justifications for bringing the US on war footing against Iran. Both are dubious. First, he blames Iran for a recent attack on a Saudi naval vessel carried out by Houthi forces in Yemen. According to Flynn, because the Houthis are backed by Iran — itself a specious claim — it is Iran that is actually responsible for the attack.

Even if it were true that the Houthis are Iranian proxies, this kind of guilt-by-association reasoning gets quite awkward when considering what some US-backed rebels in Syria have done with US-provided weapons and training. Like beheading young boys.

What Flynn fails to mention is that Saudi Arabia has been attacking neighboring Yemen since 2015, with US assistance, leaving tens of thousands killed and injured and the Middle East’s poorest country in the midst of devastating famine. Saudi Arabia’s war on Yemen was unprovoked, initiated only to force Riyadh’s preferred leader onto its southern neighbor. Under Flynn’s logic, it is perfectly fine for Saudi Arabia to initiate a genocidal war of aggression against another country. But the victim of the attack had better not fight back or the United States will blame yet a third country that has nothing to do with it.

And these are the experts?

The second reason for putting Iran at the top of Flynn’s hit list: Over the weekend Iran tested a medium-range ballistic missile which Flynn claims violates the P5+1 negotiated and UN-backed Iran nuclear deal. UN Security Council Resolution 2231 “calls on” Iran to not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, but this section has been interpreted as a request rather than a prohibition. There are no specific provisions in the nuclear deal that explicitly prevent Iran from testing a missile.

In fact, Iran has tested several ballistic missiles since the nuclear agreement was signed but this time the US reaction is far different. Iran has been “emboldened,” said General Flynn, by an Obama Administration that was “weak and ineffective” in its dealings with Iran. He went on to lament that Iran has not been “thankful to the United States for these agreements.”

Flynn’s subordinates have long complained of his aggressive style, including a demand after the 2012 Benghazi attack on a CIA facility that analysts find some link to Iran. This pressure to “stove-pipe” intelligence to suit a pre-determined policy is eerily reminiscent of the methods used to push the 2003 Iraq war. He was fired from his previous job as Defense Intelligence Agency chief for, reportedly, his extremely hostile views toward Iran.

Adding together President Trump’s call to the Saudi king, where they discussed Iran’s “destabilizing” actions, and a pre-emptive war authorization bill languishing in the US House, the current danger of a US strike on Iran is just an accident — or a false flag — away.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif underlined that Iran does not need others’ permission for reinforcing its defense capabilities.

Zarif made the remarks in his press conference with French counterpart Jean-Marc Ayrault on Monday.

In response to the question over the claims of some Western media and officials in regard to Iran’s recent ballistic missile tests, Zarif said after the implementation of JCPOA, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other parties participating in nuclear negotiations reaffirmed Iran’s commitment to its obligations according to the nuclear deal signed last year, however, the other sides, especially the US, unfortunately broke their promises.

To date, he added, we have managed to implement JCPOA to a large extent in spite of America’s sabotage, but some measures of the opposite side hinders full implementation of JCPOA.

Stating that all parties involved in the negotiations have acknowledged that Iran’s missile program has nothing to do with JCPOA, Zarif said France and US previous governments had officially approved the issue.

He also warned cautioned the US against politicizing the Islamic Republic’s legitimate efforts for reinforcing defense capabilities; we hope that the issue of Iran’s defense program does not turn into a pretext for political games.”

According to Resolution 2231, ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads are prohibited, Zarif pointed out, adding Iran has repeatedly made clear that none of its ballistic missiles is designed to carry nuclear warheads and are only capable of carrying conventional warheads to be used only in legitimate defense.

Zarif underlined that Iran has paid the highest costs for international terrorism and external aggressions; the Iranian people do not need others’ permission and are not dependent upon others to defend themselves, he emphasized.

By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed*

For years we have failed to determine our interests from those of Iran, or to distinguish real issues from fake ones. As such, Tehran has long managed to exploit our causes — including those of Palestine, Arabs and Muslims — using them as bargaining chips to serve its interests. Many have realized this only recently after seeing its crimes in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain.

We will see Iran and its allies do the same again, and launch campaigns against the new US administration and other governments that stand against them. So we should not mix up facts and interests. Let Iran and its allies fight on their own this time. Why is US President Donald Trump running into these raucous confrontations? I think he is trying to build popularity in front of many adversaries in the media, the Democratic Party, Congress and others.

Trump responded to complaints by Americans that foreigners are overcrowding the country by deciding to build a wall on the border with Mexico to stop more than 700,000 from infiltrating the US annually. Terror concerns led him to issue a three-month travel and immigration ban on citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries plagued by anarchy and terrorism.

As labor unions oppose American companies opening factories outside the US, he pledged to impose fines on imported goods. Trump referred two major contracts, including one to build his presidential plane, for review in a bid to convince those who slam the government contracts that he is against corruption. He also blocked government aid to organizations that support abortions as there are pro-life conservatives.

We cannot brand Trump anti-Muslim as he is building a wall to block infiltration from Christian Mexicans. He pledged to deport illegal immigrants, who are estimated to be over 11 million, most of them non-Muslim. In addition, Trump’s ban targets only seven Muslim countries out of 57.

These seven nations are afflicted by conflict and weak central government. Most of the world’s countries hesitate to grant entry visas to citizens of these states, due to a lack of powerful central authorities to contact for security coordination.

Terrorism is not exclusive to these seven countries. It exists in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other Muslim states. Terror is even present in Western countries such as Belgium, France, Italy and others. Muslims in these countries have not been added to the ban list, because such countries have central governments and security agencies with which information can be exchanged to reduce risks.

Trump’s key battle is not with Muslims or Mexicans, but on the American street. He feels he should honor the pledges he made to his voters. Despite his persistence, however, he may not win the battles due to people’s protests and legal restrictions.

Anyway, it is an internal American affair.

The US appears to be the country that has benefited the most economically from immigrants, refugees, naturalized citizens and even illegal immigrants. The American experience of absorbing others and benefitting from immigrants has become an inspiration to many countries with economic aspirations.

It is normal that foreigners are rejected by the jobless and less fortunate in society. Domestic rejection of foreigners is a recurrent phenomenon in all societies due to factors such as growing competition for jobs and partisan campaigns, which promote such sentiment for electoral gain, as was the case with Trump.

The new enthusiastic president, no matter how great his powers, will not be able to prevent terrorism, deport all illegal residents or prevent infiltration from Mexico. But he will try to realize the biggest possible gains inside and outside the US. He will not win all his battles.

Perhaps Trump’s most significant decision has been not to cooperate with Iran, which will infuriate Tehran and drive it to unleash against him its puppets in Gaza, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and organizations that falsely operate under the slogan of Islam.

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

By Scott N. Romaniuk

In 1966, the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) agreed on the establishment of the Outer Space Treaty, which was based on the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, adopted several years prior. By 1967, the Russian Federation, The United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US) signed the Treaty, and it entered into force in October that same year.

For the past 50 years, the Outer Space Treaty has remained the backbone of space governance, providing the framework on international space law and numerous principles. However, the strength of that backbone, often defended by its long history, cannot be expected to cloak the reality of an unstable peace forever, nor should it.

The principles of the Outer Space Treaty range from (freedom of) exploration, non-national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, the diplomatic nature of astronauts, to damage liability and state avoidance of harmfully contaminating space and its celestial bodies. Fissures have revealed themselves over the course of the treaty’s lifespan, but have typically been brushed off as the test of time and instances have served to only strengthen the Treaty and deepen national support for it.

Much of the world’s states have signed on to the Treaty, recognizing its protocols, but the obvious problem is the application of those UN-backed conventions to states that chose not to sign-on. With state backing, the UN has demonstrated the complexity of policing many of the world’s conflict and conflict zones, mediating between hostile actors, and managing delicate peace agreements. How would the UN be equipped to govern in such cases up in outer space? The rules can be ignored by anyone, from states to transnational corporations (TNCs), with few measures in place to punish those actors for their transgressions.

For the past half a century the world has observed a mutual respect for the Treaty, with its signatories seemingly recognizing the importance and reach of its legal foundations. The reasons for this could be many. One less affecting reason may be both a lack of advanced technology necessitating Treaty-damaging exploitations of outer space and its bodies. Another might be found in the relationship between activities in outer space and those here on Earth. With the information age and the importance of security and defense-based communication, and information sharing, there could be greater prospects for violating the conventions of the Outer Space Treaty.

The idea that outer space has been used for peaceful purposes is deeply disingenuous. Indeed, the area just beyond Earth has served as an important region for facilitating potential hostile activity. While no actor has the ability to claim anything in space as its very own, this does not preclude the potential for conflict between two or more states in or over that area – mere presence alone is enough to necessitate a defensive or aggressive posture even if a claim of ownership over a particular has not been made.

Hostile encounters on Earth serve as a case in point for this, with numerous areas demarcated for mutual and peaceful purposes, in principle hostilities can break out at any time. With a lack of “space police” – though there is the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) – as well as declarations that space remains a no-claims area, the peace and security architecture of this area has and continues to remain delicate, held together by trust.

Although a number of past incidents demonstrate the resolve of nations to maintain peace in space, there have been attempts to lay celestial ownership. For example, the Bogotá Declaration in 1976 was a bold attempt to circumvent the Outer Space Treaty’s declaration that national appropriation cannot take place in outer space. In an attempt by eight states sharing the Equator to defy the no-appropriations rule, the Bogotá Declaration labeled Geostationary Orbit (GEO) a “natural resource” as opposed to a region of space. In an effort to extend the concept of nature and naturalness the attempt reverted to the jus cogens principle of international law.

Some of the declarations were indeed valid and accurately pointed to the advent of cosmic conflict, over which the UN and other regulating bodies remained generally sanguine.

Technology has begun to catch-up to state and non-state interests and aspirations in space. The possibility exists that human will soon return to the Moon and that footprints will be stamped on the surface of Mars. Exploratory ambitions in space will eventually converge with economic interests and possibilities of mining asteroids, and establishing more sophisticated defense and security measures thousands of miles above Earth’s surface. Thus, national appropriation in space is a dormant but certainly not a dead issue.

With just more than half of the international community affixed to the Outer Space Treaty, a large number of states have failed to latch on to its principles. The world’s rising powers like China have made clear demonstrations of their interest in “testing” the tautness of the Treaty, and the international community’s commitment to its preservation. China’s 2007 operation against its satellite – the Fengyun-1C (FY-1C) – by means of an anti-satellite (ASAT) device with a kinetic kill vehicle (KKV) payload launched from Xicheng Space Launch Center, sparked worldwide controversy with states calling this action aggressive in nature and more of a demonstration of military capacity, resolve, and Treaty defiance.

China’s actions were not interpreted as a violation of the Treaty because its weapons systems did not fall under the category of Weapons of Mass-Destruction (WMDs) though they can certainly be seen as having mass-effect due to the debris cloud generated from the procedure. The incident, which resulted in approximately 35,000+ fragments larger than one centimeter, raises questions about the impact of space junk and abilities to “escape” the layer of debris surrounding Earth.

Like other International Law shortcomings, its focus remains predominantly on nations rather than equally important and effective non-state actors. This is where the Outer Space Treaty requires a significant overhaul. Private companies are a viable way for governments to skirt around the conditions charted by the Treaty for appropriate activity in space. Even people, far from representing an entire country, have the potential to make claims in outer space, provided they have the financial capabilities or even (state) backing to engage in such ventures.

The United States’ (US) Space Act of 2015 has been called a fruitful step forward for space governance. However, despite a special clause stating that the US makes no claim over anything in outer space, the Act extends the boundaries of activity, and enhances the ambiguity of celestial activities by individuals and states that could work together. After establishing a significant presence in a particular area and subsequently developing those areas, back peddling on development or extrapolation projects would become increasingly difficult. In other words, undoing the work that inadvertently signals ownership over something could become a meteoric feat, depending on the circumstances.

The basis of the Outer Space Treaty is deserving of scrutiny because it was penned when both state and non-state capabilities failed to come close to undertaking the sort of ventures that press beyond conceivability today. The principle of establishing law in a region remains valid, and one that most states today will probably continue to support, however as witnessed in other geopolitical realms, international law cannot always keep pace with modern day challenges, including state and non-state political and economic interests that have the potential for resulting in violence conflict and war.

Without revamping the rules that were originally established to peacefully govern beyond Earth, one cannot ignore the possibility of an arms race potentially to the militarization of space or even real-life Star Wars taking place in the universe.

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

The research, published in the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) journal Bird Study, looked at the breeding populations of three species of large gull; Herring Gull, Great Black-backed Gull and Lesser Black-backed Gull on the Hebridean island of Canna, and the relationship between these gull populations and the fall in the quantity of fish landed in the nearby harbour of Mallaig.

Between 1985 and 2000 an annual average of 13,726 tonnes of fish was landed in Mallaig. However, between 2007 and 2014 this had fallen to 4,456 tonnes. This has apparently had a profound effect on the Canna gull population. The number of breeding pairs of Herring Gulls peaked at 1,525 in 1988, Great Black-backed Gulls reached 90 pairs around the same time and the highest number of Lesser Black-backed Gulls was recorded at 63 pairs.

At the latest count around 130 pairs of gulls bred on Canna in total, comprising of up to 95 pairs of Herring Gulls, 18 pairs of Great Black-backed Gulls and 13 pairs of Lesser Black-backed Gulls. This population decline has also been associated with low breeding success, with only a small number of chicks successfully fledging in more recent years.

Simon Foster, lead author on the paper, said, “The Canna seabird study is one of the longest running annual studies in the world. It is an enormous privilege to be part of the team of highly skilled, dedicated volunteers who have been collecting the data for over 48 years. This has allowed us to track the changing fortunes of seabirds. The gull data are interesting – if you look over a short time period you can see large changes, however over a longer period and using anecdotal information from the 1930s it becomes apparent that Canna gulls may be returning to more normal, albeit lower levels.”

Dr Viola Ross Smith, gull expert at the BTO, said, “Breeding gulls have a bad reputation, especially in urban areas. However, it is worth remembering that all these species are classed as Birds of Conservation Concern, and the Herring Gull is on the Red List. It therefore seems important to identify the causes of population decline in rural colonies such as Canna, and find ways to conserve the birds at these sites, especially since gulls that fail to breed successfully are known to seek breeding opportunities elsewhere, including in towns and cities”.

The trope of supporting the Democratic Party as the lesser of two evils has proven to be a huge failure. Barack Obama epitomized the foolishness of this political choice. As Black Agenda Report pointed out he was not less evil than Republican presidents. He was just the more effective evil. As the first black president and with the Democrats’ undeserved reputation as the party of justice and peace, he was able to get away with more evil doing than any other president in recent memory.

Donald Trump is just the opposite. He is openly evil and successfully appealed to 60 million voters in spite of, or in some cases, because of that fact. In little more than one week Trump has moved forward on his pledge to build a wall on the Mexican border, repeal the Affordable Care Act without replacing it, build the DAPL and Keystone XL pipelines, and ban immigration from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

His executive order banning citizens of Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, and Iraq from entering the United States generated immediate outrage and a swell of popular action. What went unnoticed is that citizens of these seven nations were first chosen for scrutiny and travel restrictions by Barack Obama.

Trump’s executive order only mentions Syria by name and includes other “countries of concern,” a term that is an Obama administration contrivance. Visa waivers no longer applied to people who visited any of these countries. Even persons with dual citizenships were subjected to these restrictions which amounted to nothing more than war by other means. All seven of these countries have at various times been subjected to American aggression. They have all been attacked with military action, proxy wars and sanctions. America makes countries unlivable and then tells fleeing victims that the door is shut.

The Trump team’s amateurishness turned the immigration ban into a public relations problem. They did not anticipate popular outcry, demonstrators converging on airports and lawsuits filed to protect people who just 24 hours earlier were legally able to enter the country. Some were freed in the ensuing chaos but others were detained or stranded and unable to enter the country. Federal judges ruled against it in a variety of ways and the acting attorney general finally declared that the Justice Department would not defend the executive order. Trump responded by firing her.

But these temporary setbacks should not be seen as a complete victory nor should they result in support for the Democrats. The ham fisted Donald Trump did what others have done before him. He benefited from policies enacted by predecessors and gave himself wider latitude to carry out human rights abuses. Bush claimed a right to indefinitely detain anyone he considered a terror suspect. Obama took this doctrine one step further. He claimed and acted upon a right to kill anyone he deemed a terror suspect. The NSEERS policy which subjected men from 25 countries to travel restrictions and extra scrutiny began with Bush but was continued under Obama for two years. Obama did not dismantle the program completely until he was on the verge of leaving office.

The response to this crisis must include an honest assessment of the Democratic Party and its role in creating it. The Democrats’ treachery and ineptitude which brought Trump to power has still not been discussed thoroughly and should be on the agenda for any and all discussions. Right wing Democrats like Cory Booker should not be let off the hook because they showed up at an airport making an obvious case for following immigration law. This same man turned his back on the wishes of his supporters and instead followed the dictates of his corporate backers when he thwarted a plan to bring cheaper drugs into the country. The politicians who put their thumbs on the scale for the unethical and incompetent Hillary Clinton also must explain themselves. This needed conversation cannot be lost in the effort to fight Trump.

No one should think that the Democratic Party will be able to capitalize on this situation or anything else Trump presents to them. One can also assume that his 60 million voters are quite happy with this decision and will applaud him for making it. There isn’t necessarily a downside for Trump in getting bad press when his would-be opponents are hapless and won’t admit that their implosion handed him the presidency.

It is a good thing that so many people rose up against presidential law breaking. But that presents yet another contradiction. This resistance will be valuable only if it results in mass action against the larger political system. Selective amnesia for Hillary Clinton or other Democrats will not do. Appeals to the phony clarion call for lesser evilism should not be the response to Trump administration policies.

It is good to fight for humane treatment of Syrians but their rights should be respected whether they are at an American airport or in Damascus. They leave their homeland because Obama administration policy destroyed their country in the frenzy for regime change and that must not be forgotten. The silence of Obama supporters during the commission of this war crime should not be forgotten either.

The ruling classes prefer Obamaesque evil over Trump’s for obvious reasons. They need a president who can commit wrongdoing with a smile, not with a sneer. We the people shouldn’t be fooled by either one. The story of the immigration executive order is a test case for progressives. Will they fight by returning to a discredited party or will they fight to create something new?

Democratic senators ought to reject every Trump appointee still awaiting confirmation. They must act like the Republicans do when they are out of power. Until the immigration executive order some Democrats, like progressive heroine Elizabeth Warren, were supporting some Trump nominees. The “going along to get along” must end. But so should support for the Democrats. People who raced to the airport to try to help their fellow human beings should look elsewhere and kill off the incompetent lesser evil for good.

Democrats owe their members more than just speaking up when Trump commits an illegal act. That is just a starting point. The Trump presidency is proof of the Democratic Party’s irrelevance. Its failure is proof that new politics are needed. Claims of lesser/greater evil must not rule the day. All of the evil must be excised no matter where it comes from.

Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts has proposed a tax of $2,000 per worker on businesses that do not offer health coverage to employees who become dependent on Medicaid. This makes him the second Republican governor of Massachusetts to buy into the notion that imposing taxes (or fines or penalties or fees) on individuals and businesses can force them to accept responsibility for government failure at getting health spending under control.

The reality is that the mandate merely camouflages significant growth of government spending. This has been the case in Massachusetts since Day One: Spending has grown out of control despite many failed efforts to bend the cost curve.

State and federal spending attributable to Massachusetts health reform almost doubled from $1.0 billion in 2006 to $1.9 billion in 2011. Hospitals’ emergency department use increased by 17 percent in the two years after the reform was implemented.

Insurers were crushed by skyrocketing claims. The state insurance commissioner refused 235 of 276 rate hikes for April 2010 and demanded that plans rebate premiums that had already been paid. Massachusetts’ health plans hemorrhaged cash, and a senior regulator described the situation as a “train wreck” (Robert Weisman, “State Acts to Oversee 3 Insurers, Boston Globe, June 11, 2010).

What these taxes and fines and penalties and growth in welfare really accomplish is feeding more unaccountable money into hospitals and other health services facilities. From January 2008 (the national high-water mark of employment before the Great Recession) through December 2016, Massachusetts added 302,000 nonfarm civilian jobs. However, 164,000 – more than half – are in education or health services, which grew 26 percent. Non-health jobs grew only five percent. This is surely way out of whack.

Hiking taxes on businesses to pay for a failed, decade-old state health reform that paved the way for Obamacare is not a good sign for Massachusetts’ ability to respond to Congress’ imminent repeal of Obamacare in favor of state-regulated insurance markets.

This article was published by The Beacon

The United States sits back after Russia asserts itself in the Syrian civil war by organizing a ceasefire and proposing a constitution.

By Dilip Hiro*

Nobody foresaw that a demand for the release of political prisoners by the residents of Deraa, a town in southern Syria, in March 2011 would lead to a major shift in the balance among world powers nearly six years later. But that is what happened with the successful conclusion of the Russian-orchestrated peace talks among the warring parties in Syria’s civil war in the Kazakh capital of Astana.

The notable absentee among the foreign participants was the United States, which declined the invitation, sending instead its ambassador to Kazakhstan as an observer. It was an unmistakable sign of the Kremlin upstaging Obama’s White House in the strategic Middle East. The conference in Astanasaw Turkey, a key member of NATO, abandoning the US and bonding with Russia to end the Syrian conflict – a development with the potential of upgrading Syria’s civil war as a landmark in global history.

For now, the Astana event enabled Russian President Vladimir Putin, a proud nationalist, to rebut robustly US President Barack Obama’s disdain for Russia voiced after Moscow’s February 2014 annexation of Crimea: “Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness.” By taking center stage at the Astana conference, with a NATO member as its ally, Russia showed that it was a superpower.

The Kremlin achieved this status in two stages: On 30 September 2015 it intervened militarily to shore up the falling regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.  And following the failed military coup against Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on 15 July 2016, Putin became the first foreign leader to telephone and congratulate the president.

The next month Erdoğan traveled to St. Petersburg to meet his “dear friend” Putin. Relations had soured after the Turks shot down a Russian warplane over northern Syria the previous November. Referring to the aborted coup in Turkey, Putin declared that “We are always categorically opposed to any attempts at anti-constitutional activity.” After three hours of talks, the two leaders agreed to mend their strained economic relations and, in a striking reversal, Erdoğan stopped calling on Moscow’s ally Assad to step down.  This meeting set the scene for an alignment between Russia and Turkey on Syria’s civil war where Turkey had been the foremost backer of the anti-Assad Syrian rebels.

A year earlier in August 2015, by all accounts, Assad was on the ropes, the morale of his dwindling army at rock bottom. Even support from Iran with arms and militia, and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, had proved insufficient to reverse his faltering hold on power, as confirmed recently by Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. The Assad regime would have fallen “within two or three weeks,” he said, had Moscow not intervened in September.

Responding to Assad’s desperate appeal for urgent assistance, the Kremlin’s military planners decided to fill the gaping security hole left by Syria’s collapsing air force, bolster air defenses, and augment the depleted arsenal of tanks and armored vehicles. For this, they turned one of Russia’s last footholds abroad, an airbase near the Mediterranean port of Latakia, into a forward operating base, and shipped warplanes, attack helicopters, tanks, artillery, armored personnel carriers and advanced S-400 surface-to-air missiles.

Russia’s intervention changed the calculus on the battleground and diplomatic front. Between October 2015 and July 2016, top officials from four Gulf monarchies traveled to Russia for talks with Putin: first Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman followed by Mohammed bin Zayed, deputy supreme commander of the United Arab Emirates’ military; the ruler of Qatar, Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani and King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain, which hosts the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet.

As for Turkey, Putin reassured Erdoğan that the territorial integrity of Syria will be maintained at all costs. That is, the Syrian Kurdish enclave that nationalist Kurds carved out in northeastern Syria, with the help of Washington for backing the Pentagon’s drive against Islamic State in the Syrian territory, will have to go at some point.

Erdoğan is obsessed about foiling aspirations of the Kurdish separatists and wants to ensure the semiautonomous Iraqi Kurdistan, the Kurdish majority southeastern Turkey, and the adjacent Kurdish enclave in Syria do not unify to create Greater Kurdistan – a dream of the region’s Kurds since the end of World War I.  His iron-fisted policy towards Kurds in Turkey has won him strong approval of the Nationalist Action Party. On 20 January it helped Erdoğan to garner more than 60 percent of the vote in Parliament required to change the constitution from parliamentary democracy to executive presidency, his long-term aspiration.

At the end of the Astana meeting, Russia, Turkey and Iran announced plans for a trilateral commission to monitor breaches of the ceasefire that came into effect on 29 December. Details of that organization are expected to be announced before the United Nations conference on Syria in Geneva on 8 February.

The Kremlin stressed that the Astana negotiations, attended by the Assad government and 14 Syrian rebel groups, were complementary to the UN process.   The presence of the UN’s special envoy on Syria, Staffan de Mistura, at the conference and his inclusion in the official photograph along with the representatives of Russia, Turkey, Iran and Kazakhstan underscored Russia’s new leading role.

The Astana conference materialized because of compromises by all.  Initially Moscow scorned Washington’s distinction between moderate and extremist rebels, thus agreeing with Assad’s assertion that any group raising arms against an internationally recognized government of Syria was to be treated as terrorists. Eventually Russia came around to distinguishing between extremist jihadist factions from non-jihadist ones. The sponsors of the Astana talks excluded not only ISIS and Jabhat Fateh al Sham, formerly known as al Nusra affiliated to al Qaeda but also the Syrian Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces which, according to Turkey, was associated with the Turkish Kurdistan Workers Party, listed as terrorist by Ankara and Washington. The ceasefire includes no moratorium on Syria, Russia and Iran regarding attacks on ISIS and Jabhat.

As for the Syria, the government dropped insistence that only political representatives of the rebel groups be allowed to attend the talks and accepted the presence of military commanders of opposition factions.

Facts on the ground had changed dramatically, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek told the World Economic Forum in Davos on 20 January:  “Turkey can no longer insist on a settlement without Assad.” In Astana, the rebels’ chief negotiator Muhammad Alloush recognized “The Russians have moved from a stage of being a party in the fighting and are now exerting efforts to become a guarantor [of a truce].”  On their part, the Russians unveiled their next move by handing the opposition delegation a position paper setting out a proposed constitution, including a path to new governing system, referendum and elections.

All in all, omens for progress at the UN’s February meeting in Geneva look promising. If so, Russia has pulled off a major coup reinserting itself as a peacemaker in the Middle East and reestablishing itself as a global power of consequence while the United States is in retreat.

*Dilip Hiro is the author of A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Middle East (Interlink Publishing Group, Northampton, MA). Read an excerpt. His latest book is The Age of Aspiration: Power, Wealth, and Conflict in Globalizing India (The New Press, New York). Read an excerpt

By Reggie Kramer*

(FPRI) — Bulgaria is a parliamentary representative republic, in which the president, elected by Bulgarian citizens, serves as the head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The President of Bulgaria is also responsible for determining and implementing the country’s foreign policy, including negotiating international treaties. The Prime Minister of Bulgaria serves as the head of government and is generally the leader of the party that wins the most votes in elections for the National Assembly, Bulgaria’s parliament. National Assembly members, including the prime minister, serve four year terms and are elected by party list in each of the country’s 28 administrative regions. The President may serve two five year terms, while there are no term limits for members of the National Assembly.

Presidential elections in Bulgaria take place in two rounds. The two candidates receiving the most votes in the first round proceed to a second round, with the winner of that round declared the president. The outgoing president of Bulgaria is Rosen Plevneliev, an independent and a former member of Bulgaria’s Communist Party. He was elected in Bulgaria’s 2011 presidential election and was supported by GERB (English: Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria), a center-right, pro-European party. In May 2016, Plevneliev announced that he would not run for a second term as president for personal reasons, after the death of his son. During his tenure in office, Plevneliev was popular and considered a successful reformer.

The first round of voting in Bulgaria’s 2016 presidential election took place on November 6. Twenty-one candidates were listed on the first round ballot. Rumen Radev, an independent supported by the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), and Tsetska Tsacheva, a member of GERB, received the most votes and moved to the second round.Presidential elections in Bulgaria take place in two rounds. The two candidates receiving the most votes in the first round proceed to a second round, with the winner of that round declared the president. The outgoing president of Bulgaria is Rosen Plevneliev, an independent and a former member of Bulgaria’s Communist Party. He was elected in Bulgaria’s 2011 presidential election and was supported by GERB (English: Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria), a center-right, pro-European party. In May 2016, Plevneliev announced that he would not run for a second term as president for personal reasons, after the death of his son. During his tenure in office, Plevneliev was popular and considered a successful reformer.

Before entering the election, Tsacheva was a MP and the Speaker of the Bulgarian Parliament, a high position in the cabinet of GERB party leader and Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, from 2009 to early 2013 and again from October 2014 to the present. She was nominated by Borisov, apparently because of her relatively clean image compared to other senior GERB officials. The two other GERB politicians under consideration were Interior Minister Rumanya Bachvarova and Borisov’s deputy, Tsvetan Tsvetanov, but both had been tied to scandals. Bachvarova was allegedly involved in dealings with Turkey that led to a shortage of vaccines in Bulgaria, while Tsvetanov was tried for, but ultimately acquitted of, embezzling 50,000 Bulgarian levs from the budget of the Interior Ministry. Since her election to the Bulgarian Parliament, Tsacheva has kept a low profile, toeing the GERB party line. She ran on a pro-European platform, but promised that she would try to lift sanctions on Russia, which have raised prices in the Russian-energy-reliant Bulgarian economy. Her platform included pledges to limit the number of migrants and refugees crossing into the country from Turkey.

Rumen Radev, the former Commander of the Bulgarian Air Force, never demonstrated an interest in politics before entering the presidential race. Backed by the BSP, which has been described as “mildly Russophilic,” Radev has appeared at pro-Russian events, including one where the flags of the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) were torn apart. However, both Radev and the BSP distanced themselves from these actions. Radev has voiced support for Bulgaria’s membership in NATO and the EU and spoken of his pride in serving with NATO forces. His platform included promises to confirm friendship with Russia and to enforce European values, in addition to pledges to protect human rights, the environment, and the Bulgarian people. Like Tsacheva, he has called for an end to sanctions against Russia.

In the second round of voting, on November 13, 2016, Radev handily defeated Tsacheva, winning 59.35 percent of the vote to his opponent’s 36.17 percent. He is scheduled to take office as the President of Bulgaria in late January 2017. His Vice-President will be Iliana Iotova, a BSP Member of the European Parliament and former reporter and journalist, who had served as the BSP’s chief spin doctor before entering electoral politics.

Turmoil in the National Assembly

At present, GERB holds 83 seats in Parliament, in coalition with the Reformist Bloc’s (RB) 18 seats. The Patriotic Front, a nationalist, conservative, and Eurosceptic group which holds 17 seats, supports GERB, but is not in the coalition. BSP is the largest opposition party, followed by the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (DPS), which supports Turkish and Muslim minority rights. Also represented in the National Assembly are independents; the Russophilic, Eurosceptic, populist Attack party; the Russophilic, social democratic Alternative for Bulgarian Revival (ABV); and four conservative, pro-European renegade members of RB who call themselves Democrats for a Strong Bulgaria (DSB).

In response to his party’s loss, Borisov resigned as prime minister on November 16, and GERB returned its mandate to President Plevneliev, leaving the National Assembly without an official government. Plevneliev then offered the BSP a chance to form a government, which party leader Korneliya Ninova refused. This move was politically calculated: if no government can be formed, then Bulgaria will head to the polls again for early National Assembly elections. BSP believes it would increase its share of seats in the National Assembly in such an election, riding the momentum of President Radev’s victory. Plevneliev was expected to offer a mandate to the Reformist Bloc. On December 9, however, two days before the offer was to come, RB publicly decided against attempting to form a government. Plevneliev now has little choice but to call for a snap election and risk BSP assuming a mandate as the majority government of Bulgaria.

A snap election in 2017 would be the third time Bulgarians voted for National Assembly members within the typical four year term. Bulgaria’s last National Assembly elections were held in 2014, and, before that, in 2013. These elections speak to the political turmoil in the country. Whether or not one more election can resolve the turmoil remains to be seen. What is certain is that the recent presidential election further exacerbated it and undid two years of relative political stability.

Future Outlooks

Radev’s election seems to have been more a response to government corruption under GERB than an endorsement of a pro-Russian foreign policy. Bulgaria is perceived as the most corrupt country in the EU, according to Transparency International. A study conducted by the European Parliamentary Research Service found that Bulgaria, by some metrics, loses 22 percent of its annual GDP to corruption. The Study for Democracy, a Sofia-based think tank, finds that “the number of people participating in corruption is now the highest in 15 years.” The hope is that Radev, as a political outsider with no government or commercial ties (a result of his entire life being spent in the military), represents an opportunity for the country to do away with its corruption problems. All eyes will be on his actions with regard to corruption, which he will hopefully address immediately. His prospects for successfully combating Bulgaria’s corruption are limited, especially in the short term: without a parliamentary government, the chances of the National Assembly passing anti-corruption legislation are small, and, even if BSP wins a snap election, that party is as much a part of the establishment as GERB, and politics as usual would, in all likelihood, resume. Though the office commands much authority in the realms of rhetoric and foreign policy, the President of Bulgaria is fairly limited in what he can do about domestic issues.

Though various media outlets have described Radev’s win as a victory for Russian President Vladimir Putin, the situation is not so clear cut. Radev has a long history of engagement with the West—he worked with NATO forces during his time in Bulgaria’s Air Force, did postgraduate work in the United States, and advocated buying new aircraft from European companies, not repair parts from Russia. His positions on foreign policy are not dissimilar from Tsacheva’s. Both stressed the importance of Bulgaria’s membership in the EU and NATO, and both said that they would work towards the removal of sanctions against Russia. The latter pledge is economically, not ideologically, motivated, contrary to the reports that use it as evidence of Radev’s Russophilia. In all likelihood, Bulgaria’s foreign policy will change very little after Radev takes over the presidency. This policy direction will likely occur even if the BSP wins control of the government in snap elections in 2017: it was, in fact, a BSP-led coalition government that, in 2006, signed an agreement with the United States stationing American troops at Bulgarian military bases.

It is possible that President Radev will orient Bulgaria towards Russia, but it is more likely that he will play Russia and the West against each other. Bulgaria is reliant on both—NATO guarantees its security, and Russian oil keeps its economy ticking. Almost all of Bulgaria’s energy comes from Russia, and the country has made a significant amount of money charging transit fees on Russian oil and gas. Those revenues are threatened by Russia’s weighing of two pipeline proposals, one of which crosses Bulgaria (South Stream) and the other bypasses Bulgaria and crosses Turkey (Turkish Stream or Turkstream); Radev thus has an economic incentive to maintain good Russo-Bulgarian relations. Rather than risk the benefits of relationships with NATO and the EU on the one hand and Russia on the other, Radev will accept the continued involvement of both sides in Bulgaria. This situation could very well turn Bulgaria into a proxy battlefield for competing Western and Russian interests. The country’s geographical location gives NATO access to the strategically important Black Sea, while Russia sees Bulgaria, a fellow Slavic and Eastern Orthodox state and former Warsaw Pact member, as belonging to its “sphere of influence.”

Radev takes over during a time of uncertainty, in his own country and across the world. But he, with or without a BSP government in the National Assembly, is unlikely to usher in any dramatic changes in Bulgaria’s geopolitical position.

About the author:
*Reggie Kramer is a Research Intern with the Eurasia Program

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

By Deepak Kumar Nayak*

On January 12, 2017, two civilians, Ramesh Atala (27) and Manohar Atala (55), were killed by Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) cadres in Gadchiroli District. A Gadchiroli Police statement disclosed that the Maoists shot the victims claiming they were ‘police informers’.

On January 5, 2017, a surrendered Naxalite [Left Wing Extremist (LWE)] was allegedly killed by Maoist cadres at Kehakavi village in the Dhanora tehsil (revenue unit) of Gadchiroli District. The victim, Sukhram Lalchu Wadde (35), had surrendered before the Police in July 2016. According to the Police, the CPI-Maoist cadres were angry as Sukhram had turned himself in.

On the same day, Security Forces (SFs) killed the ‘deputy commander’ of Kasansur dalam (squad), Jyoti Gawade aka Sagobai Narsingh, in an encounter near Gyarapati of Gadchiroli District. According to reports, SFs had launched an operation on January 4, 2017, following information about the presence of Maoists in the area. SFs spotted Jyoti’s dalam members, following which a battled ensued in which she was killed. Other Maoist cadres, however, managed to escape.

As a result, at least four persons, including three civilians and one Maoist, have been killed in Maharashtra in LWE/CPI-Maoist-linked incidents in the current year (data till January 26, 2017), according to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP).

According to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (UMHA) data, at least 28 fatalities (16 civilians, three SF personnel and nine Maoists) were recorded in the state in 2016 (data till November 15) as against 20 fatalities (16 civilians, two SF personnel and two Maoists) in 2015, an increase of 40 per cent, which reversed the trend of declining fatalities in such violence recorded in the state since 2012. Maharashtra had accounted for 57 fatalities in 2011, 45 fatalities each in 2012 and 2013, and 38 in 2014.

More worryingly, at least 19 civilians were killed through 2016. [According to the UMHA data, at least 16 civilians were killed between January 1, 2016, and November 15, 2016. Another three civilians were killed between November 16, 2016, and December 31, 2016, according to the SATP database]. Three villagers, identified as Laccha Bande Madavi (36), Patali Doge Atram (36), and Talwarsha Kunjram, were killed by Naxalites in Aheri and Korchi tehsils of Gadchiroli District on the suspicion of being ‘police informers’ on December 29. The total number of civilian fatalities was 16 (UMHA data) through 2015 as well as in 2014. Fatalities in this category had stood at 13 in 2013, down from 27 in 2012. The highest number of civilian fatalities, 44, was registered in 2011 (UMHA data).

The surge in civilian fatalities coincides with an improvement in SFs’ success ratio against the Maoists on the ground. An analysis of fatalities in these two categories – the SFs and the Maoists – according to UMHA data available since 2003, shows that SFs in 2016 achieved a positive kill ratio in their fight against the Maoists in Maharashtra – at 1:3 (nine Maoists killed as against three SF personnel) – for the first time since 2013. Two SF personnel and two Maoists were killed in 2015 (kill ratio 1:1). With 12 SF personnel and 10 Maoists killed in 2014, the ratio was 1:1.2, in favour of the Maoists. In 2013, however, SFs had killed 26 Maoists while losing six of their own personnel, yielding a positive ratio of 1:4.3.

While the trend is erratic, over all Maoist arrests have risen. UMHA data indicates that at least six Maoists were arrested in 2016 (up to November 15) adding to 20 arrested through 2015; 18 in 2014; and 38 in 2013. In one such incident on September 17, 2016, Ranu Usendi, a Maoist ‘commander’, was arrested from his village Javeli in Raigad District, where he had come to attend a family programme. Ranu had joined the rebel movement in 2005. In another incident on May 23, 2016, Lakhan aka Mohan, carrying a bounty of INR 30,000 on his head and wanted in connection with a 2008 case wherein a group of 10 Maoists had set two bamboo laden trucks on fire, was arrested from Gondiya District.

In addition, at least 45 LWEs gave up arms in 2016 (up to November 15), as against 25 in the corresponding period of 2015. Total surrenders through 2015 stood at 29. There were 43 surrenders in 2014 and 53 in 2013. While mounting SF pressure is one of the major reasons behind these surrenders, another is the past success of the official surrender policy, which the Maharashtra Government has extended up to August 28, 2017. The latest surrender policy carries a cash reward of up to INR 500,000.

The adverse situation faced by the Maoists has resulted in a decline of activities on the ground. Maharashtra registered 66 Maoist-linked incidents in 2016 (up to November 15, UMHA data), as against 55 such incidents in the corresponding period of 2015. No incidents were recorded in 2015 thereafter. At their peak, Maharashtra, had accounted for 154 such incidents in 2009. Similarly, Maoists were involved in attacking economic targets on just two occasions through 2016, as compared to seven such attacks in 2015, four in 2014, and six in 2013. Most recently, Jyoti, the Maoist ‘deputy commander,’ killed on January 5, 2017, had allegedly led the arson attack on December 23, 2016, in which 76 trucks, three J.C. Bamford (JCB) Excavators and one motorcycle were burnt by the Maoists at the Surjagarh mines in Gadchiroli District. According to the Gadchiroli Police, around 500 rebels had stormed the site and assaulted an unspecified number of truck drivers and labourers, kept them confined, and set ablaze the trucks and earthmovers. The Surjagarh mines are one of the biggest iron-ore mines in the District.

Despite significant gains, the Maoist threat persists. Gadchiroli District, which according to the SATP database recorded all the 26 fatalities of 2016, and all 17 fatalities in 2015, continues to remain the epicenter of Maoist violence in the State. Two other Districts of Maharashtra – Chandrapur and Gondiya – though they did not register a single fatality in 2016 and 2015 (SATP data), continue to be listed among the 106 Naxal-affected Districts by UMHA. Significantly, Gadchiroli shares borders with both Chandrapur and Gondiya, as well as with Bhandra (all in Maharashtra). More worryingly, it shares borders with four Districts of Chhattisgarh [Bijapur, Kanker, Narayanpur and Rajnandgaon] and two Districts of Telangana [Adilabad and Karimnagar], all Maoist-afflicted. Three of these four districts in Chhattisgarh (excluding Rajnandgaon) form part of the Bastar Division, one of the worst Maoist affected regions in the country. Further, Gadchiroli has a 75.96 per cent forest cover, making the task of locating and neutralising Maoist hideouts quite difficult.

The CPI-Maoist in Maharashtra had issued a ‘hit list’ of 37 persons, including senior Police officers and ‘police informers’, vowing to eliminate them in 2016. Accordingly, the Maoists had detailed units of ‘Company-10’, trained to kill with precision, from Chhattisgarh. An intelligence note claimed, “This [the latest hit list] is a matter of serious concern for the State (Maharashtra), even as inputs show new strategies are being adopted to attract youth with fresh vigour.” It is not clear how many on the list have been killed.

Meanwhile, according to Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) 2016 data (as on January 1, 2016), though Maharashtra’s Police-population ratio, at 147.3 per 100,000, is significantly higher than the national average of 137.11, it remains substantially lower than the minimum of 220/100,000 ratio regarded as desirable for ‘peacetime policing’. Further, the State has 176,044 Policemen, as against a sanctioned strength of 191,143, leaving 7.89 per cent of sanctioned posts vacant. The Police/Area Ratio (number of Policemen per 100 square kilometers) for Maharashtra is 57.21, as against the sanctioned strength of 62.12. The all-India ratio is 54.69, as against a sanction of 72.03 per 100 square kilometres.

The Maharashtra Police requires far more personnel, as well as a substantially larger allocation of other resources, to deal effectively with the challenge of the Maoist insurgency. Regretfully, on January 22, 2017, Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) (Special Operations), Bipin Bihari, acknowledged, “With only 15 outdated night vision cameras, which are seldom of any use, we were reduced to conducting night operations merely banking on ground experience, making the force vulnerable.” Moreover, at the level of Police leadership, according to the UMHA data on the shortage of IPS officers, there is a 20.52 per cent deficiency in the number of IPS officers in position (as of January 1, 2016) in the State.

Both the central and state Governments have failed to address these issues and deficits. Despite this, SFs have managed to secure relative peace in the State. Whether this is sustainable, however, will depend on political sagacity, a commodity often in short supply.

* Deepak Kumar Nayak
Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management

Under unremitting pressure from the regional bloc ECOWAS, the African Union and the UN, Gambian strongman Yahya Jammeh fled into exile in Equatorial Guinea. There are credible allegations of serious human rights violations against him, covering his 22 years in power. Jammeh can run but cannot hide. Everything possible must be done to bring him to justice.

By Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua*

The ultimatum by ECOWAS to Yahya Jammeh to leave The Gambia by noon local time on January 20, 2017 or face a forceful removal or arrest is interesting to note. The Chairman of the ECOWAS Commission, Marcel Alain de Souza, is quoted as saying that “If by midday, he [Mr Jammeh] doesn’t agree to leave The Gambia under the banner of President Conde, we really will intervene militarily.”

The main reason Jammeh wanted to stick to power was to avoid possible prosecution for the numerous heinous human rights violations which he is alleged to have committed which, if proven, would constitute crimes against humanity. It is the same reason (fear of prosecution) which forced him out of the country on Saturday, 21 January 2017.

This view is confirmed by his statement of January 11 2017 in which he is quoted as having appointed a national mediator to meet “all parties to resolve any mistrust and issues” and draft an amnesty bill to ensure there was “no witch-hunt so that we can restore a climate of confidence and security.”

It is to avoid such scenarios that the framers of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), in their wisdom, provided in the Statute and endorsed the position that for certain acts which violate jus cogens norms, sitting heads of state should be brought before the ICC to face justice if their state is unable or unwilling to try them.

Jammeh’s human rights record

The litany of violations Jammeh is alleged to have committed is well-documentd by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN Human Rights Council and many other bodies. They cover violations of the right to self-determination of the people of The Gambia (on two occasions – how he came to power through unconstitutional means and how he attempted to cling to power, also through unconstitutional means).

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights issued 5 resolutions against Jammeh on his poor human rights record. In one of such (Resolution 134), the Commission summarized the state of human rights in The Gambia by referring to the “routine allegations of unlawful arrests and detentions, torture in detention, unfair trials, extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances by State Security Forces, which target human rights defenders, journalists, and all persons suspected of involvement in the attempted coup to overthrow the Government of The Gambia.” It also requested for the immediate and unconditional release of Chief Ebrima Manneh, Kanyie Kanyiba and all prisoners of conscience.

This resolution was issued in support of the 5th June 2008 judgement of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice which had ordered the release of Chief Ebrima Manneh from unlawful detention and the payment of the damages awarded by the Court.

The legality of granting refuge, immunity, impunity to rights violators

ECOWAS’s decision had been pre-empted by Nigeria’s Lower House of Assembly which voted on Thursday, January 12, 2017 to offer Jammeh asylum if he stepped down. While he initially declined that offer, ECOWAS and the AU piled pressure on him to accept that or face forceful removal from office and arrest.

However, that decision is in violation of international law, which includes AU and ECOWAS laws. First, according to Article 1(F) of the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, a person is not entitled to be granted refugee status if,

(a) He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

(c) He has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations

While this provision seems to indicate that the person should have already been convicted of the crime, the AU position is different. Article 5 of the 1969 OAU Convention Governing Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa,

“The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom the country of asylum has serious reasons for considering that:

(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

(c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the Organization of African Unity;

(d) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations” [Emphasis added].

One may further argue that the particular country of refuge may not have such “serious reasons” to consider that Jammeh has committed any of these crimes. However, to take such a stance will be in violation of the AU Constitutive Act which provides that the organization shall function in accordance with the following principles, which include “respect for the sanctity of human life, condemnation and rejection of impunity  …  and subversive activities; and, “condemnation   and   rejection   of unconstitutional   changes   of governments.”

It is also important to refer to the High Court of Nigeria case of Egbuna v Taylor, Anyaele v Taylor, brought against Charles Taylor in 2004 while he was in exile in Nigeria, which technically ruled against the Nigerian government and the AU. The applicants instituted the action to determine whether they could seek judicial review, in a domestic court, of an executive decision granting asylum to a person indicted by an international tribunal, arguing that Taylor had been wrongly granted asylum in Nigeria. The court rejected the argument of Nigeria that the act of granting asylum was a diplomatic issue and not one for the applicants. This is a very important decision which should guide any country that would want to grant asylum to Jammeh.

The legal obligations that will be violated if Jammeh is granted refuge anywhere include the non-recognition of refugee status to persons in violation of international crimes and also the duty not to grant amnesty in relation to crimes that are contrary to jus cogens norms.

Therefore, any state that would purport to give asylum to Jammeh should reckon that that decision will come back to haunt it because, like the Habre case, the victims will not keep silent.

The best option for Jammeh?

The Gambia is a State Party to the ICC. Therefore, it is expected of it to try Jammeh for possible crimes against humanity within its domestic courts. If it proves unwilling or unable to try him, then under the complementarity rule, jurisdiction will be transferred to the ICC to do the same.

For that matter, President Adama Barrow may have suggested a soft landing for Jammeh when he proposed the setting up of a truth and reconciliation commission. Yet, even in that case, as was in Sierra Leone, there are some serious crimes which cannot be swept under the carpet and for which the perpetrators should be made to face full justice, internally or externally.

What is clear at this point is that Jammeh will face justice for the crimes he is alleged to have committed, possibly alongside some other Ministers of State and the Chief of Defence Staff. But the question then is, will Jammeh be better off facing the music within The Gambia or outside? It is the author’s view that it would have been better for Jammeh to stay within and negotiate for a softer landing.

The likely scenarios when outside The Gambia is that he will be subjected to a Hissene Habre-style Special Chambers trial as recommended by the Committee of Eminent Jurists of the AU, or he will be taken to the ICC. One thing which is sure is that he will not enjoy amnesty or immunity, as it happened to other leaders like Idi Amin (Uganda) or Haile Mariam (Ethiopia) who is alleged to be still in hiding in Zimbabwe. Times have changed.

It is also important to note that the ACDEG provides in rticle 25(5) thereof that “Perpetrators of unconstitutional change of government may also be tried before the competent court of the Union.”  Therefore, Jammeh can run but he cannot hide.

The lesson for all African leaders is to respect human rights, the rule of law and democratic principles while in power in order to enjoy life in dignity and in respect after leaving office.

* Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Law, University of Ghana, Legon where he teaches Public International Law and International Human Rights Law. He can be reached at kappiagyeiatua@ug.edu.gh

(EurActiv) — The British government on Thursday (2 February) presented its Brexit strategy to parliament, publishing 12 objectives that it believes will secure “a new, positive and constructive partnership” with the EU.

Brexit Minister David Davis unveiled the white paper to the House of Commons, a day after MPs there approved the first stage of a bill empowering Prime Minister Theresa May to start pulling Britain out of the European Union.

May insisted that the government did “not approach these negotiations expecting failure, but anticipating success” in the foreword to the paper, entitled “The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union”.

She called on both sides of the debate to move on from the bitter referendum campaign and aftermath of the shock 23 June vote.

“After all the division and discord, the country is coming together,” she said. “The referendum was divisive at times. And those divisions have taken time to heal.

“The victors have the responsibility to act magnanimously. The losers have the responsibility to respect the legitimacy of the outcome. And the country comes together,” she said.

The document confirmed that Britain would be leaving the EU’s single market in order to control immigration, but Davis said the government would seek a “bold and ambitious free trade agreement” and “a new positive and constructive partnership”.

Davis stressed that it was the government’s “firm view that it’s in the UK’s interest for the European Union to succeed”.

Opposition Brexit Minister Keir Starmer criticised the government for releasing the 77-page document minutes before the debate in parliament, and called on Davis to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in Britain.

Davis said Britain would not be “throwing any people out” as a result of Brexit, but that he needed similar assurances from EU leaders over the fate of British residents on the continent.

MPs on Wednesday approved a bill that would allow the government to trigger Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty and formally begin two years of exit negotiations, by a margin of 498 to 114.

It was the first Brexit-related vote in the House of Commons, coming after more than 17 hours of debate, with a second and final vote in the lower house set for next week before expected approval by the House of Lords next month.

By Kristy Siegfried*

The European Union has been touting a faulty figure for migration reduction through key transit country Niger as it looks to expand a policy of giving more development aid to African nations if they crack down on people smuggling and migrants, IRIN can exclusively reveal.

When the International Organization for Migration released figures in early December showing a dramatic drop in the numbers of migrants transiting through northern Niger to reach Europe the previous month, EU officials seized on them as evidence that its strategy of partnering with African countries to curb irregular migration was working.

On the back of EU funding specifically for the purpose, IOM has been monitoring the movements of migrants through Niger since February. Between then and the end of November 2016, the agency recorded more than 417,000 migrants transiting through northern Niger en route to Algeria and Libya, with movement peaking during the summer months.

In November, IOM raised eyebrows when it reported that just 1,525 migrants had been recorded moving north towards the borders – a massive drop compared to 12,600 the month before.

Days later, the figures had been included in a progress report on the Partnership Framework with Third Countries, an EU strategy for securing African countries’ cooperation in tackling irregular migration. A press release also cited them noting that “results in priority countries are taking shape, including first decreases in migratory flows”.

Except the 1,525 was wrong. A “technical problem” with a database had produced the incorrect figure, according to Monica Chiriac, a spokeswoman for IOM’s Niger office. In fact, IOM had recorded nearly 11,500 migrants heading for the Libyan and Algerian borders in November, a figure that only represented a small drop compared to October.

The EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, has been using the incorrect figure to promote the success of the bloc’s policies as it looks to sign agreements linking aid to migration controls with five African countries – Niger, Nigeria, Mali, Senegal, and Ethiopia.

A deal, now signed with Niger, involves 610 million euros in development aid, some of which, according to the EU, is not tied to migration cooperation.

Critics say the EU policies largely serve only to push migrants to take more difficult and dangerous routes. They are urging Brussels to propose more legal pathways for refugees and economic migrants.

With arrivals to Italy via Libya and the Central Mediterranean remaining at high levels towards the end of last year, experts and even MEPs had expressed scepticism about the Niger figures. But the EU has continued to refer to them as it pushes ahead on similar cooperation deals.

“There was indeed a mistake in the November report (technical problem with the database update which only reconciled later on). The numbers in the December report are the correct ones. The EU is aware and have since rectified,” Chiriac wrote in an emailed response to an IRIN query.

However, no recent public statements or press releases from the EU have acknowledged the error.

As recently as last Wednesday, the EU issued another press release citing developments in Niger as evidence the Partnership Framework is showing how “effective cooperation can have impact on the flows towards the Mediterranean”.

And a joint communication to the European Parliament and the European Council the same day went further and was still quoting the incorrect figure.

“The work taken forward with Niger under the Partnership Framework should be fully exploited to slow down flows through the southern Libyan border. The number of persons leaving Niger to attempt the dangerous crossing of the Sahara has fallen from over 70,000 in May 2016 to around 1,500 in November 31,” it said.

“This successful model, which has been proven to reduce numbers, should be replicated with other regional partners, notably Mali, Chad, Egypt, Algeria and Sudan, as well as in other countries covered by the Khartoum and Rabat processes.”

In an email to IRIN, an EU spokesperson described the failure to use the correct, updated figure in recent publications as “regrettable” and added that “While we are looking into this internally, this does not change the fact that the Partnership Framework approach is yielding results and that the approach can impact the flows towards the Central Mediterranean.”

*Kristy Siegfried, Migration Editor for IRIN.

US Department of Defense will ask for additional funds in 2017 to step up operations against Islamic State and to improve battle readiness, while planning for sweeping reforms to improve efficiency, says a memo from the new Pentagon chief.

The memo from Defense Secretary James Mattis was date-stamped January 31 and made public on Thursday. It is intended as guidance for complying with President Donald Trump’s January 27 memorandum ordering the rebuilding of the US armed forces.

An amendment to the 2017 military budget request will seek additional funding to address “urgent warfighting readiness shortfalls” and “new requirements driven by acceleration of the campaign against ISIS,” (Islamic state, also known as ISIL or Daesh) the memo said. The amendment will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by March 1.

While the amendment will “include offsets from lower priority programs where appropriate,” the amount requested will be a net increase over the fiscal year 2017 figure approved by the previous administration, according to the memo.

Also in line with the presidential decree, the military budget for the fiscal year 2018 will “focus on pressing programmatic shortfalls.” It is due to the OMB by May 1.

The most intriguing part of the memo refers to the 2019-2023 Defense Program, which “must improve how the Department does business,” Mattis wrote.

“We owe it to every US citizen to build a military that is as effective and efficient as possible,” the defense secretary added. In that respect, the defense program will include an “ambitious reform agenda” with “horizontal integration across DOD components to improve efficiency and take advantage of economies of scale.”

While Mattis did not specify any programs that might find themselves on the chopping block, Trump has been a vocal critic of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and its estimated lifetime price tag of $1.5 trillion.

A 2015 report commissioned by the Obama administration found that a quarter of the Pentagon’s budget was spent on more than a million bureaucrats, and suggested reforms that would save $125 billion. However, Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work, who commissioned the report, eventually decided to dismiss much of its recommendations as “unrealistic.”

Mattis, a retired US Marine Corps general, was the first Trump administration official to receive Senate approval. Because he retired in 2013, he required a special waiver from Congress to be eligible for the post.

Well, good morning, all. We apologize for being late. It seemed that this year’s prayer breakfast, people felt the need to pray a little longer. (Laughter.) But I certainly welcomed them all, so – thank you for such a warm reception. And it’s a pleasure to be here, obviously. I’ve been anxious to be here, and I’m so pleased to have my wife, Renda, of more than 30 years. And she has been just steadfast through this process, encouraging me on and reminding me what this is really all about. And so thank you. (Applause.)

I also want to thank Acting Secretary Tom Shannon, who has just been superb through this entire process. And Tom, thank you so much. (Applause.) It was truly and indeed an honor that Tom joined us in the Oval Office last night for my swearing-in, and I appreciated that he was there.

Obviously, I also want to recognize and thank all of you here at headquarters of our State Department, the staff and partners around the world, who have faithfully performed your duties regardless of who was in charge. It was so important. I know many of you have assisted ambassadors and other officials during the Senate confirmation process, and indeed some of you have been through it yourself. Having just come through it for the first time, I can assure you the Senate still takes it as serious as ever, they’re as energetic as ever, they’re as thorough as ever – but we’re here. (Laughter and applause.)

So in the days and weeks ahead we’re going to have plenty of opportunity to discuss in more detail the goals, the priorities, and the strategic direction for our organization. But for now I really want to take a few minutes to communicate my high regard for the men and women of the State Department and share with you some principles for all of us to live by as we pursue our shared mission.

The individuals who comprise this department are among the finest public servants in the world. Many of you serve our nation abroad and have served our nation abroad. State Department staffers in the field are not just conduits for policies and plans; you are our emissaries of our nation and the ideals we stand for. When people see you, they see America.

When I wake up each morning, the very first thing I ask myself is: Are all of our people safe? The safety of every single member of our State Department family, regardless of where he or she is posted, is not just a priority for me. It’s a core value, and it will become a core value of this department. (Applause.) This means the State Department family here in the U.S. and all those agencies serving under chief of missions abroad, including Civil Service; Foreign Service officers and specialists; locally engaged staff of host country and third-country nationals; interns, fellows, support contractors and implementing partners; and not least of all, the family members who support us at home and in our service to our country overseas.

The Foreign Service is not the only component of the State Department. The Civil Service workforce at the State Department plays an indispensable role in all we achieve, and we cannot attain success without the mission-critical services that you provide.

Though we often live in a world of headlines, working outside of the public eye does not make you any less essential to our operations. Your dedication, your intelligence, and your sound judgment are the brick and mortar elements of all we do. We all depend on your good work, and I know it will continue.

One of the great – (applause) – one of the great challenges and thrills for the State Department staff is deciding how to confront changing conditions in every corner of the world. And I encourage all of you to use your natural and well-developed skills to adapt to changes here at home as well.

I know this was a hotly contested election and we do not all feel the same way about the outcome. Each of us is entitled to the expression of our political beliefs, but we cannot let our personal convictions overwhelm our ability to work as one team. Let us be understanding with each other about the times we live in as we focus our energies on our departmental goals.

As Secretary, I will deploy the talent and resources of the State Department in the most efficient ways possible. That may entail making some changes to how things are traditionally done in this department. Change for the sake of change can be counterproductive, and that will never be my approach.

But we cannot sustain ineffective traditions over optimal outcomes. I will gather information on what processes should be reformed, and do my part to make sure we are functioning in the most productive and efficient way possible.

Regardless of the circumstances shaping our country or our department, we must all remain focused on the mission at hand before us. I remind you that our undertakings are larger than ourselves or our personal careers.

Our duty is to faithfully represent our nation in the arena of foreign affairs. If we stay focused on the work before us, I promise I will work to ensure you achieve your own personal success and your professional satisfaction in what you are doing.

For every individual who works at the State Department, I ask that we adopt a few core principles.

First, I believe that any organization runs best when all of its members embrace accountability. From the mailroom to the boardroom, every member of a team has a job to do. I know nobody will always be perfect, and that certainly includes me. But I ask that everyone strive for excellence and assume responsibility for their actions and their decisions.

The New England Patriots have signs posted all over their team facilities that simply say, “Do your job.” It is a brief message, but one with profound importance. If we all do our jobs and embrace a willingness to be held accountable for our performance, we work better as a unit and move closer to attaining our goals. It’s worked pretty well for the Patriots over the years, as I must admit. (Laughter.)

Secondly, I want us to be honest with one another. We’re on the same team. We share the same mission. Honesty will undergird our foreign policy, and we’ll start by making it the basis of how we interact with each other.

Lastly, we’re going to treat each other with respect. No one will tolerate disrespect of anyone. Before we are employees of the State Department, we are human beings first. Let us extend respect to each other, especially when we may disagree.

What I ask of you and what I demand of myself – I will embrace accountability, honesty, and respect no less than anyone.

Before President Trump called me, I thought I would be entering retirement this spring after four decades of business experience. (Laughter.) Renda and I were ready to head off to the ranch and enjoy our grandchildren. But when I came back from my first meeting with President Trump and he asked me to do this, Renda said, “You didn’t know it, but you’ve been in a 41-year training program for this job.” (Laughter and applause.) So despite our own dreams, she said, “You’re supposed to do this.”

Well, my first day is here. I’m on the job. Hi, I’m the new guy. (Applause.)

As such, I will depend on the expertise of this institution. There are over 75,000 members of the State Department workforce, both Foreign and Civil Service employees, with an average of over 11 years of service in the department. I have 25 minutes. (Laughter.) You have accumulated knowledge and experience that cannot be replicated anywhere else. Your wisdom, your work ethic and patriotism, is as important as ever. And as your Secretary, I will be proud to draw upon all these qualities in my decision-making.

I ask that you join me in upholding high standards of ethics and professionalism, committing to personal accountability and honesty, and respecting your colleagues. There will undoubtably be times of victory, but there will also be many times of difficulty. Let’s go forward as a team through all of it. Let’s make the American people proud of what we do in this building and beyond.

Inscribed on the walls in this lobby are the names of fallen Foreign Service personnel, who, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, gave their last full measure of devotion. They died in service of causes far greater than themselves. As we move forward in a new era, it is important to honor the sacrifices of those who have come before us, and reflect on the legacy that we inherit.

In closing, I am honored to be serving alongside each of you as I serve our nation as the Secretary of State. So now I am going to take a moment and pay my respects to those individuals that are memorialized on this wall, and then I look forward to making the rounds and greeting you personally. It may take me a few days. (Laughter.) But in all sincerity, I do hope to have the opportunity to shake the hand of every one of you that’s here. Thank you so much. (Applause.)

Trump Traumatic Disorder has been making its away across the Atlantic, numbing British officials, activists and commentators on one vital point: Should President Donald J. Trump be able to see the Queen on an official state visit?

A good of deal of this was sparked by Trump’s executive order banning travel from seven Muslim majority states. On a daily basis, academics feature on BBC Radio 4 speaking about how travelling to the United States, notably with a Muslim name, is now a disturbing improbability. Internally they are wounded; externally, they are outraged.

The UK Home Secretary has also been full of advice for Trump, suggesting that his travel ban was a rich gift to the Islamic State, a “propaganda opportunity” born from wrongheaded and divisive thinking.

Before the Home Affairs Committee, Rudd claimed that the order did not, on the face of it, amount to a “Muslim ban” per se, but the Islamic State would “use any opportunity they can to make difficulties, to create the environment they want to radicalise people, to bring them over to their side. So it is a propaganda opportunity for them, potentially.”[1]

To US Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, Rudd was also unhappy, shooting off a message of disapproval at the ban, citing “difficulties and the response that was taking place in London and across the country.”

In a very British way, one often coated with a hypocritical varnish, a ban, or downgrade of Trump’s visit is being debated amongst a range of other possibilities. Should it, for instance, be downgraded from dizzy formal state visit with state banquet to something less? Previous US presidents have tended to visit usually within months of the inauguration, but the idea of a State visit is deemed a plush, serious affair.

In Britain’s glorious past and current present of courting blood hungry dictators, sadistic beasts and mindless buffoons, it should hardly register a comment. State interests, notably from those states with an imperial pedigree, have seen all manner of flexibility triumph over principle. Money, strategic interests and geopolitics all talk the most loudly at a state banquet.

But Trump’s ability to rile even in his absence, to shock even as a shadow of menace, is fast becoming the stuff of legend. He is generating an absurd premise: that he, as a politician, is singular and should, therefore, be treated accordingly.

This cult of perverse exceptionality should be discouraged. A whirl through previous state visits in history should suffice to do this, starting with the post-colonial cast of characters Britain so enthusiastically backed as puppets for its waning cause. In 1973, the murderous Mobutu Sese Seko, president of Zaire, received the state treatment. His resume was deemed suitable in one way: his halt of any possible Soviet influence during the Cold War.

Zimbabwe’s seemingly immoveable post-independence leader, Robert Mugabe, now deemed a maniacal, destructive pariah, was accepted as a royal guest in 1994. It was also an occasion to award him a knighthood, one he was stripped of in 2008. It was all so appropriate: a leader celebrated for being trained and nourished in the British tradition, and one who used it to throw grenades back at the scorned imperial mother.

Strategic interests have always mattered, though influence exerted during these vists could be exaggerated. The visit by Indonesia’s President Suharto (1979), whose hands were caked in the blood of internal repression, was awkward at best. The visit by Japan’s Emperor Hirohito in 1971 was even frostier, marked by silent crowds and turned backs from former prisoners of war.

While generally being an overflowing font of nonsense, UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson at least had a point in saying that the record suggested that Trump could pass muster. If the Queen could host in all seriousness Robert Mugabe and Romania’s infamous, megalomaniacal Nicolai Ceauşescu, then the UK could “probably cope” with Trump.

Johnson’s refusal to attack Trump in the Commons conformed to a long held policy not to berate the United States, and certainly not its president. Besides, he had received assurances from Trump’s inner circle that the travel ban would not affect British citizens.

This is the sort of event to be recognised for what it is: ceremonial concealment, false posturing, a ridiculous effort in the modern era for Britain to exert “soft power”. It is also soft power that falls significantly flat at points, notably when it comes to visiting French Presidents. From Charles de Gaulle’s 1960 state visit onwards, the banquet has been a battle ground of gastronomic resentment and mistreatment.

What seems unusual was Prime Minister Theresa May’s moment of weakness, the lap dog’s enthusiasm for wanting to seem enthusiastic about an imperial master. “Theresa the Appeaser,” chided Mike Gapes, Labour MP for Ilford South. On her visit to Washington, the British leader seemed to ignore the tradition that Her Majesty’s Government usually waits before dolling out the full blooded invitation. Caution and prudent assessment of the leader’s unfolding record should take place.

As Lord Ricketts, permanent secretary at the Foreign Office from 2006 to 2010 explained in a letter to The Times, “It would have been far wiser to wait to see what sort of president he would turn out to be before advising the Queen to invite him. Now the Queen is put in a very difficult position.” Far better, in other words, to have runs on the board, whether elected or as a dictator, before being given the royal Britannic treatment. The Queen will generally tolerate any old thing.

Besides, delighted Simon Tisdall in The Guardian, the two million signatories of the online petition calling for the invitation to be rescinded should also “take comfort from suggestions that state visits can carry the kiss of political, if not mortal, death.”[2] Witness all those royals who are now nothing more than historical murmurs: the Shah of Iran in 1959, banished by the mullahs; or King Mohammed Zahir Shah of Afghanistan (1971), his family erased by history. Visit, suggested Tisdall in rather sinister tone, and be damned.

Notes:

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38814346

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/30/donald-trump-state-visit-uk-controversial-tradition

The recent impounding of the nine Singapore Terrex armoured personnel carriers was widely perceived as a proxy pressure tactic not just against Singapore but also other parties that stand in the way of China’s interests. The issue is a test for Singapore’s foreign policy and external security.

By Alan Chong and David Han Guo Xiong*

News of the impounding of nine Singapore Armed Forces’ (SAF) Terrex armoured personnel carriers on 23 November 2016 had been received with mounting disbelief by Singaporean and foreign news media outside China. In their turn, Chinese media, especially The Global Times, in tandem with the Chinese foreign ministry, led the charge in criticising Singapore’s relations with Taiwan and its negative impact on

Beijing’s preferred One-China policy.

In historical terms, these conflicting opinions are not abnormal. The seizure of undeclared military cargo on merchant ships hint at subterfuge by either the consignee or consignor. On 24 January 2017, nearly two months after the seizure, the Terrexes were released by Hong Kong amidst unspecified hints that improper documentation on the part of Singapore and the shipping company APL were liable for legal action. Although no legal actions have since been taken, the seriousness of the incident in the normal conduct of foreign policy is evident.

History of Seizure of Military Assets

Throughout contemporary times, the seizure of military assets both in ports and on the high seas has served either as the prelude to war or the casus belli itself. Witness President Kennedy’s naval quarantine of October 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. There were also cases of weapons shipped from neutral ports under third party shipping registrations to belligerent states during both World Wars.

Debates raged as to whether neutral merchantmen were liable to be searched, impounded or sunk by combatant navies. On the heels of the War on Terror, the US implemented the Container Security Initiative involving its maritime allies to thwart the shipping of illegal explosives into its ports.

Lessons Learned

There are two important lessons that this episode offers to both Singaporeans and concerned world opinion: the risks of diplomatic engagement and the need for precautions.

The first lesson is that the Sino-Singapore relationship was obviously tested. China’s concerns over Singapore’s relations with Taiwan in the military realm is hardly surprising as China has consistently been adamant about its One-China policy, in which Taiwan is viewed as a renegade province. China’s actions, however, convey strong signals that Singapore should acknowledge China’s national interests, without any direct confrontation between the two countries which could rupture bilateral ties.

The fact that the APL container vessel was first detected with its cargo of Terrex vehicles in the port of Xiamen in China and subsequently allowed to proceed to Hong Kong implied that a deliberate foreign policy manoeuvre was afoot. A seizure in Xiamen would have been tantamount to a direct confrontation by China against Singapore. Xiamen officials tipped off Hong Kong customs – a territory designated as a Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) – who then proceeded to seize the vehicles under the charge of improper declarations in the cargo manifest.

The location of the seizure was symbolic in the staging of the incident. Notwithstanding the fact that China possesses ultimate sovereignty over Hong Kong, the HKSAR is still ostensibly an autonomous region even if it is for window dressing. It would appear that the Chinese authorities had allowed Hong Kong a free hand to decide whether to impound the armoured vehicles, thus avoiding the scenario that the impounding was openly ordered by the Chinese authorities. This train of events allowed China to ‘naturally expose’ the symbolism of the SAF vehicles incorrectly transiting its territory after training exercises in Taiwan.

Alternative Interpretations and International Law

The back and forth of Chinese press editorials also reveal many alternative interpretations of the incident. One interpretation reads Beijing’s attempt to remind Hongkongers of China’s sovereignty over the territory, especially at a time when domestic unrest has been brewing in Hong Kong over China’s handling of the island’s legislative affairs. Beijing also wanted to signal that Taiwan-Singapore ties could not remain special if Taiwan wished to head down the road towards independence from the

‘One-China’ position.

Additionally, some observers believe that the seizure could be an act to pressure Singapore to concede to China’s position on the South China Sea dispute. As China’s stature in the region has risen over the years, it is no surprise that it would seek recognition of its political ascent in Asia. The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew had always warned that engaging with the great powers would carry unknown risks especially when they leaned hard on a small state to yield to their interests.

Lee’s strategy was always to balance the stakes each great power would have in maintaining the Republic’s territorial integrity and prosperity. Additionally, he warned his countrymen to stand on principle and patiently wait out the crisis through sincere diplomatic efforts.

This is where international law will always be a vital linchpin of Singapore’s approach towards the great powers. Nation-states do not fight all the time despite claiming that their respective sovereignties acknowledge no authority higher than their own governments. This is because they see the practical benefit of reciprocal observance of the proverbial ‘rules of the road’ that make peaceful and productive exchanges possible.

China and Singapore – and Taiwan and ASEAN for that matter – have a great deal to gain economically if political disputes are reined in. This is why on 9 January 2017, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen revealed that Singapore’s prime minister had written to his Hong Kong counterpart to seek the release of the Terrexes.

The Need for Precaution

The second lesson concerns taking one’s own precautions. As Singapore’s foreign minister Vivian Balakrishnan rightly pointed out early on, Singapore has to be always clear and transparent about its foreign policy positions. The Republic has always espoused a One-China policy vis-à-vis the Taiwan Straits issue, and enjoys a multifaceted win-win relationship with China.

Simultaneously, it is open knowledge that Singapore signed a military training agreement with Taiwan in 1975 merely to facilitate military exercises outside land scarce Singapore. This allows the country’s foreign policy to show quiet resolve in the face of provocation by propaganda.

Equally important is the point made by Minister Ng about the need to comprehensively review how the SAF’s military equipment is being transported overseas. Outsourcing of military logistics by the SAF to private firms began in selective areas some years ago and the trend is set to intensify. But the Terrex affair has rightly raised a red flag.

How politically secure are commercial logistics companies when they are vulnerable to third party pressures at transit points? Perhaps there is a case to be made to revert to the practice of transporting military equipment on warships or government protected transport vessels. These measures are definitely within Singapore’s control given its official obsession with maintaining supply security as a global port.

Looking back on the episode, Singaporeans should therefore not have been perplexed by the Terrex episode. China has changed and Singapore must now exercise care so that its actions cannot be seized upon by its detractors as unfriendly acts vis-à-vis Chinese foreign policy. When the unexpected occurs, it is important for calm contemplation to prevail. Emotion and megaphone diplomacy through media outlets are unwise.

*Alan Chong is Associate Professor in the Centre for Multilateralism Studies and David Han a Research Analyst in the Malaysia Programme of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

By Mitch Rogers*

On January 18, 2017, twelve Democratic congresspersons from the U.S. House of Representatives signed a letter addressed to the Ambassador of Brazil to the United States, Sergio Silva do Amaral. The letter expressed “deep concern regarding the current state of democracy and human rights in Brazil,” continuing on to accuse the political factions behind last year’s impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff of protecting corrupt politicians, passing hugely unpopular policies, and attacking political opponents. [i] Specifically, the letter suggests that former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has been unjustly targeted by both media outlets and judge Sergio Moro due to his continuous political popularity and leadership of Brazil’s Workers’ Party (PT). On January 13, a similar letter was signed in the United Kingdom by various members of Parliament and distributed via the Guardian.[ii]

The letter refers to ongoing persecution against Lula, which began early last year. On March 4, 2016, Lula was detained and questioned by police on charges of corruption. Given there was no reason to believe that the former president would not have gone in for questioning peacefully, many interpreted the “unnecessarily spectacular,” highly-publicized, and forced deposition as a political attack to discredit Lula.[iii]

A week later, São Paulo prosecutors presented weak evidence for charges of money laundering in an attempt to produce a warrant to justify Lula’s “preventative arrest.”[iv] According to the prosecutors, Lula had not properly declared his ownership of a luxury penthouse at a beach resort in Guarajá, São Paulo. Lula maintained that neither he nor his family held any such ownership in the renovated properties. According to the investigators, if Lula was listed as an owner, it would have constituted a financial favor “in exchange for political benefit.”[v] The investigation has since been closed, and Lula and his family have been cleared of those charges.[vi]

Despite his forced deposition and allegations of political misdeeds, Lula persists as one of the most popular politicians in Brazil. He remains the figurehead for the left-wing Workers’ Party (PT), carrying them to the presidential palace in 2003 with his own election and keeping the party in power in 2010, when his protégé, Dilma Rousseff, was herself elected. In 2018, he will once again be eligible to run for president, which he has said he plans to do “if necessary.”[vii] PT party leader Rui Falcão offered an early endorsement of Lula, saying “[He] does not need to be nominated. He is our permanent candidate for president.”[viii] Lula is seen as the keystone to the PT, holding up and uniting the party, which faced massive challenges in 2016 after the impeachment of Rousseff, landslide losses in local elections in October, and its implication in the Petrobras scandal.[ix] Under Brazil’s Ficha Limpa or “Clean Sheet” law, if Lula is convicted, he will be unable to run for office for eight years, virtually destroying the PT’s chances of realizing any political gains in 2018.[x] (Current President Michel Temer is barred from running for reelection in 2018 due to this law.)[xi]

Justice Is Not Blind

Those who see the accusations against Lula as political sabotage invariably put the blame on one man: Sergio Moro. Moro, who for the past two years has been the judge spearheading the Operation Car Wash investigations, has topped several prominent magazines’ lists of most important people, including coming in at number 13 on Fortune’s “World’s Greatest Leaders” list.[xii] In spite of such accolades, however, Moro’s actions have often been less than admirable. He has consistently ventured too far into the political thicket to prosecute the PT while turning a blind eye towards the malfeasance of members of the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB). While Moro has no substantiated personal connections with the party, he has spoken at PSDB events, and his wife has worked closely with PSDB politicians.[xiii] He was the judge who authorized the raid on Lula’s offices and his forced detainment without establishing any formal charges.[xiv]

On March 16, 2016, Moro again exceeded his jurisdiction as a federal judge and illegally released to the public a private conversation between Lula and Rousseff, which further damaged Lula’s reputation.[xv] At a meeting held by the Landless Workers Movement (MST) on January 11, 2017, Lula addressed his various political antagonists, saying, “if Moro wants to become a candidate, that’s great… Everyone has that right. Join a party and go on the streets and ask for votes. What you cannot do is want to be a president by causing a coup with a stroke of a pen.”[xvi]

Last October, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) accepted a petition filed by Lula’s defense team the previous July to investigate potential violations of Lula’s rights as a result of Moro’s conduct in office.[xvii] According to the petition, the aggressive persecution of Lula “violated Lula’s right to privacy, his right not to be detained arbitrarily and his presumption of innocence.”[xviii] Moro himself will be put under scrutiny by the UNHRC for his alleged illegal and inappropriate actions, possibly tainting the magazine-cover heroics and glamour surrounding him.

Brazil’s Persecuted Presidents as Precedents

Brazil appears to have a recurring problem with ousters of left-wing politicians and parties. Seemingly every twenty to thirty years during the twentieth-century, left-leaning presidents have been deposed whenever political elites felt their personal or business interests were being threatened. President Getúlio Vargas, nicknamed “the father of the poor,” was extremely popular among voters in the decades between the 1940s and 1950s, despite his initial position as an authoritarian dictator. His power, however, ebbed as much as it flowed: in 1945, Vargas stepped down from his post due to political pressures, and, after being popularly and freely elected president again in 1950, committed suicide in 1954 in order to avoid facing another ouster by his opposition.[xix]

In 1964, President João Goulart, commonly known as “Jango,” was deposed by a military coup d’état which installed a military dictatorship that lasted until 1985. Goulart, elected in 1961, instituted major progressive reforms throughout the country. By 1964, conservative civil factions as well as the military feared that Brazil was developing into a communist state, and executed a military coup to oust Goulart. Two decades of military-led dictatorship ensued, which censored speech and expression, violated human rights, and persecuted political dissidents.

Most recently, on August 31, 2016, President Dilma Rousseff was impeached after a 61 to 20 Senate vote. Rousseff had been temporarily removed from office the previous May; the impeachment in August made the removal permanent.[xx] Rousseff’s vice president, Michel Temer of the center-right Brazilian Democratic Movement Party, had been serving as interim president; upon Rousseff’s dismissal, Temer assumed the presidency and is slated to serve until the end of Rousseff’s elected term in 2018. As the New York Times noted, “unlike many of the politicians who led the charge to oust her, Ms. Rousseff, 68, remains a rare breed in Brazil: a prominent leader who has not been accused of illegally enriching herself.”[xxi] At most, her alleged misdeeds amounted to minor charges unworthy of impeachment, thus raising suspicions of political targeting and defamation.[xxii]

Lula is considered the first truly leftist president to be elected in the post-dictatorship era, and his future is beginning to mirror the fates of those progressive presidents before him. Seen in this context, the illegal removal of Rousseff and the political persecution of Lula seem to be an extension of what the congressional letter called Brazil’s “not-so-distant authoritarian past.”[xxiii]

Protecting the Future of the Brazilian Political Process

While Brazilians have long waited for a thorough investigation of Brazil’s historically endemic corruption, the political persecution that current investigations have unearthed is undeniably prejudicial. What began as a campaign to rout the illicit and unethical schemes out of Brazilian business and politics has gone astray, instead launching pointed attacks on a popular– if threatening– political party. While some PT-affiliated individuals may be guilty of wrongdoing, it is highly questionable that one party should be prosecuted almost to the point of political extinction, while many other parties receive relatively light scrutiny. In order for Brazil to truly be rid of its pernicious and lingering corruption, crimes must be investigated and prosecuted equally across the board, regardless of political affiliation or past status.

*Mitch Rogers, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Additional editorial support provided by Aline Piva, Brandon Capece, Kate Terán, Kayla Whitlock, Research Fellows and Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

[i] Representative John Conyers. “Prominent Members of U.S. Congress Call on Brazil to Protect Rights of Political Opponents.” Press release, 18 January 2017. https://conyers.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/prominent-members-us-congress-call-brazil-protect-rights-political

[ii] “Standing in solidarity with Brazil’s Lula.” The Guardian, 13 January 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/13/standing-in-solidarity-with-brazils-lula

[iii] “United Nations to Analyze Investigation Against Lula.” plus55, 27 October 2016. http://plus55.com/brazil-politics/news/2016/10/united-nations-lula-investigation

[iv] Galvao, Arnaldo. “State Prosecutor Seeks Preventative Arrest of Lula.” Bloomberg, 10 March 2016. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-10/state-prosecutor-seeks-preventative-arrest-of-lula-papers-say

[v] “Brazil prosecutors request arrest of ex-President Lula.” BBC, 11 March 2016. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35781257

[vi] “PF conclui relatório e indicia dona de triplex no Guarajá.” Folha de São Paulo, 18 August 2016. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2016/08/1804661-pf-conclui-relatorio-e-indicia-dona-de-triplex-no-guaruja.shtml

[vii] Moreira, João Almeida. “Lula já aquece motores para candidature em 2018.” Diário de Notícias, 23 January 2017. http://www.dn.pt/mundo/interior/lula-ja-aquece-motores-para-candidatura-em-2018-5621646.html

[viii] “Brazil’s Workers Party backs Lula for president despite corruption trial.” Reuters, 12 January 2017. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brazil-politics-lula-idUKKBN1512TN

[ix] D’Agostino, Rosanne. “PSDB e PSD crescem em número de prefeituras; PT encolhe.” Globo, 2 October 2016. http://g1.globo.com/politica/eleicoes/2016/blog/eleicao-2016-em-numeros/post/psdb-e-psd-crescem-em-n-de-prefeituras-pt-encolhe.html

[x] Reuters, “Brazil’s Workers Party backs Lula for president despite corruption trial.”

[xi] Canário, Pedro. “TRE de São Paulo confirma: Michel Temer está inelegível por oito anos.” Consultor Jurídico, 2 June 2016. http://www.conjur.com.br/2016-jun-02/temer-inelegivel-oito-anos-segundo-tre-sao-paulo

[xii] Fortune. 2016. “World’s Greatest Leaders.” Accessed 31 January 2017. http://fortune.com/worlds-greatest-leaders/sergio-moro-13/

[xiii] Cancella, Emanuel. “Sérgio Moro, um juiz a serviço da TV Globo e do PSDB.” Cart Maior, 18 June 2015. http://cartamaior.com.br/?/Editoria/Politica/Sergio-Moro-um-juiz-a-servico-da-TV-Globo-e-do-PSDB/4/33770

[xiv] Valle, Sabrina. “Tapes That Could Topple Rousseff Draw Fire on Brazil Judge.” Bloomberg, 18 March 2016. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-18/tapes-that-could-topple-rousseff-draw-fire-on-brazilian-judge

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Pitombo, João Pedro. “Lula defende eleição em 2017 e diz ‘nós voltaremos’ em ato do MST.” Folha de São Paulo, 11 January 2017. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2017/01/1848911-lula-defende-eleicao-em-2017-e-diz-nos-voltaremos-em-ato-do-mst.shtml (Translated by Mitch Rogers and Aline Piva)

[xvii] “UN Accepts Petition Stating Brazil Judge Violated Lula’s Rights.” Telesur, 26 October 2016. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/UN-Accepts-Petition-Stating-Brazil-Judge-Violated-Lulas-Rights-20161026-0020.html

[xviii] Ibid.

[xix] Poppino, Rollie E. “Getúlio Vargas.” Encyclopedia Brittanica, 5 May 2008. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Getulio-Vargas

[xx] Romero, Simon. “Dilma Rousseff Is Ousted as Brazil’s President in Impeachment Vote.” New York Times, 31 August 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/americas/brazil-dilma-rousseff-impeached-removed-president.html

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Ibid.

[xxiii] Representative John Conyers, “Prominent Members of U.S. Congress Call on Brazil to Protect Rights of Political Opponents.”