Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73639 articles
Browse latest View live

New Pop-Up Strategy Inspired By Cuts, Not Folds

$
0
0

Origami-inspired materials use folds in materials to embed powerful functionality. However, all that folding can be pretty labor intensive. Now, researchers at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) are drawing material inspiration from another ancient Japanese paper craft — kirigami.

Kirigami relies on cuts, rather than folds, to change the structure and function of materials.

In a new paper published in Physical Review Letters, SEAS researchers demonstrate how a thin, perforated sheet can be transformed into a foldable 3D structure by simply stretching the cut material.

“We find that applying sufficiently large amounts of stretching buckling is triggered and results in the formation of a 3D structure comprising a well-organized pattern of mountains and valleys, very similar to popular origami folds such as the Miura-ori,” said Ahmad Rafsanjani, a postdoctoral fellow at SEAS and first author of the paper.

The team found that if the material is stretched more, the temporary deformations become permanent folds. The team also found that the pop-up pattern and resulting mechanical properties of the material can be controlled by varying the orientation of the cuts.

“This study shows a robust pop-up strategy to manufacture complex morphable structures out of completely flat perforated sheets,” said Bertoldi.


New Nano Approach Could Cut Dose Of Leading HIV Treatment In Half

$
0
0

Successful results of a University of Liverpool-led trial that utilised nanotechnology to improve drug therapies for HIV patients has been presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) in Seattle, a leading annual conference of HIV research, clinical practice and progress.

The healthy volunteer trial, conducted by the collaborative nanomedicine research programme led by Pharmacologist Professor Andrew Owen and Materials Chemist Professor Steve Rannard, and in collaboration with the St Stephen’s AIDS Trust at the Chelsea & Westminster Hospital in London, examined the use of nanotechnology to improve the delivery of drugs to HIV patients. The results were from two trials which are the first to use orally dosed nanomedicine to enable HIV therapy optimisation.

Manipulation of matter

Nanotechnology is the manipulation of matter on an atomic, molecular, and supramolecular scale. Nanomedicine is the application of nanotechnology to the prevention and treatment of disease in the human body. By developing smaller pills that are better for patients and less expensive to manufacture, this evolving discipline has the potential to dramatically change medical science and is already having an impact in a number of clinically used therapies and diagnostics worldwide.

Currently, the treatment of HIV requires daily oral dosing of HIV drugs, and chronic oral dosing has significant complications that arise from the high pill burden experienced by many patients across populations with varying conditions leading to non-adherence to therapies.

Developing new therapies

Recent evaluation of HIV patient groups have shown a willingness to switch to nanomedicine alternatives if benefits can be shown. Research efforts by the Liverpool team have focused on the development of new oral therapies, using Solid Drug Nanoparticle (SDN) technology which can improve drug absorption into the body, reducing both the dose and the cost per dose and enabling existing healthcare budgets to treat more patients.

The trial results confirmed the potential for a 50 percent dose reduction while maintaining therapeutic exposure, using a novel approach to formulation of two drugs: efavirenz (EFV) and, lopinavir (LPV). EFV is the current WHO-recommended preferred regimen, with 70% of adult patients on first-line taking an EFV-based HIV treatment regimen in low- and middle-income countries.

The trial is connected to the University’s ongoing work as part of the multinational consortium OPTIMIZE, a global partnership working to accelerate access to simpler, safer and more affordable HIV treatment. Funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, OPTIMIZE is led by the Wits Reproductive Health & HIV Institute in Johannesburg, South Africa, and includes the interdisciplinary Liverpool team, Columbia University, Mylan Laboratories and the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP). OPTIMIZE is supported by key partners including UNITAID and the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC).

Potential applications

Benny Kottiri, USAID’s Office of HIV/AIDS Research Division Chief, said: “The potential applications for HIV treatment are incredibly promising. By aligning efforts, these integrated investments offer the potential to reduce the doses required to control the HIV virus even further, resulting in real benefits globally. This would enable the costs of therapy to be reduced which is particularly beneficial for resource-limited countries where the burden of disease is highest.”

Victory For May As UK’s Labour Suffers Historic Defeat

$
0
0

Britain’s main opposition Labour Party defeated UKIP’s leader in a Brexit bastion, but in a second by-election suffered a landmark defeat to Prime Minister Theresa May’s governing Conservatives on Friday (24 February).

The results saw the Brexit-championing UK Independence Party fail to capitalise on the June referendum vote to leave the European Union.

But while Labour celebrated fending off UKIP’s bid to replace them in their traditional post-industrial heartlands, the historic loss elsewhere of a seat to the Conservatives was a big blow to their prospects in the 2020 general election.

In Thursday’s two parliamentary by-elections, Labour clung on to its Stoke-on-Trent Central seat, in the British city that registered the highest vote for leaving the EU.

Labour’s Gareth Snell took 37% of the vote, beating new UKIP leader Paul Nuttall who garnered 25%. In a town where voter apathy runs deep, turnout stood at 38%.

Both parties had ploughed huge resources into the contest in west central England, which had been pitched as make-or-break for both sides.

Nuttall insisted the defeat did not mark the end of UKIP.

“This seat was 72 on our target list. There’s a lot more to come from us,” he said. “There are other issues beyond Brexit.”

But Labour’s relief at retaining Stoke-on-Trent Central could not mask the impact of their loss of the rural seat of Copeland on the northwest English coast.

Historic swing to the Conservatives

Conservative Trudy Harrison hailed a “truly historic event” after winning the by-election with 44% to 37% percent for Labour’s Gillian Troughton.

It was the first time a governing party has taken an opposition-held seat in a by-election since 1982.

Many jobs in the constituency depend on the Sellafield nuclear processing facility, and veteran leftist Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s strong anti-nuclear stance may have damaged the party’s fortunes.

“Labour’s victory in Stoke is a decisive rejection of UKIP’s politics,” Corbyn wrote on Twitter.

“But our message was not enough to win through in Copeland. To win power to rebuild and transform Britain, Labour will go further to reconnect with voters and break with the failed political consensus.”

Labour is deeply divided on Corbyn’s leadership and on accepting Brexit, which was strongly supported in its heartlands but was opposed by its MPs.

Nationwide opinion polls keep May’s centre-right Conservatives 18 points ahead and bookmakers lengthened the odds on Labour winning the 2020 general election after the Copeland defeat.

Simon Usherwood, a politics reader at the University of Surrey, told AFP the results showed Labour was in a “bad place”.

‘Great moment for May’

“For UKIP, it’s not the end of the party; it looks like a missed opportunity,” he said.

“It shows that support for Brexit doesn’t automatically translate into support for UKIP. This is a great moment for Theresa May,” he added.

“Her two main challenging parties have both suffered setbacks, their party leaders look compromised, she got another MP to increase her majority and she didn’t have to get her hands dirty.”

The by-election results leave the Conservatives with a working majority of 16 in parliament’s 650-seat lower House of Commons.

Spain And Argentina Agree To Further Develop Strategic Partnership

$
0
0

After meeting with the President of the Republic of Argentina, Mauricio Macri, the Prime Minister of Spain, Mariano Rajoy, said that relations between the two countries “have regained their traditional strength” following the State visit by the Argentine leader. He also committed to making “every effort” to ensure an agreement is reached between the European Union and MERCOSUR.

At the joint press conference with Mariano Rajoy and Mauricio Macri after their meeting at Moncloa Palace, the Spanish Prime Minister underlined the historic ties that exist between the two nations. Mariano Rajoy recalled that almost 500,000 Spaniards now live in Argentina (many of them in Buenos Aires) and that, similarly, “many Argentineans have come to Spain”, which has contributed to the progress by both countries.

Rajoy said that, with the State visit by Mauricio Macri to Spain, bilateral relations can be described as “wonderful” as they “regain their traditional strength following a few difficult years”. The President of Argentina met with senior Spanish officials and gave a formal address to Parliament.

The meeting at Moncloa Palace lead to the signing of an Action Plan to Enhance the Strategic Partnership between Spain and Argentina. From the content of this document, Mariano Rajoy highlighted a series of institutional partnership mechanisms at international forums. “On this and every other issue, Argentina and Spain can work together in the best interests of both parties”, he said.

This added boost for the Strategic Partnership, which was agreed in 2005, seeks “strengthened dialogue” on such issues as human rights, services for the respective emigrant communities and consular relations, multi-lateral and bi-regional coordination, economic and trade cooperation (including science, technology and innovation), sector cooperation and Antarctic cooperation.

The two leaders signed a joint declaration, which is joined by a dozen or so bilateral agreements in such fields as talent mobility, the recognition of qualifications and certificates, cultural cooperation and cyber-security.

Rajoy explained that, at his meeting with the President of Argentina, they discussed the respective internal political situations in Spain and Argentina.

Rajoy referred to the “ambitious reformist policy” that Mauricio Macri is currently implementing, which includes such decisions as one to eliminate export duties and update tariffs. Forecasts on the Argentine economy for this year “are much better”, said Mariano Rajoy, who underlined the benefits of that policy for investments and for the Spanish companies “that have always maintained a commitment” to the country.

Mariano Rajoy said that the Government of Spain also had to undertake structural reforms and reduce the public deficit. “At the beginning, there might have been people who did not understand it. However, history always shows – in very little time in the case of Spain – that when things are taken seriously and when what needs to be done is actually done, the results eventually work in favour of the general public”.

Sirisena: Religious Way Of Life Essential For Better Society – Statement

$
0
0

The prime expectation and the noble vision of all religions is to promote spiritual and moral well-being of humankind. All their religious rituals and celebrations recall those core values of religious teachings.

These religious ceremonies, that are being held to dispel the darkness of ignorance and conceit with the light of knowledge, love and peace help tremendously for the human beings to live with sustenance of human dignity in the contemporary world of new technology.

Religions provide great relief to the people in today’s competitive world. The religious way of life, which is more towards the spiritual awakening, can be considered as an essential ingredient for building a better society.

Hindu devotees world over including Sri Lankan Hindus celebrate the ‘Maha Shiva Rathri’ with the objective of enhancing their spiritual discipline.

I wish all Hindu devotees who celebrate the ‘Maha Shiva Rathri Day,’ expressing their gratitude to Lord Shiva by fasting and keeping a night-long vigil at temples, may achieve their aspirations.

J&K: Need For An Urgent Review – Analysis

$
0
0

By Ashok Bhan*

Indian Army Chief Gen Bipin Rawat has rightly shown his serious concern regarding the developing situation in the Kashmir valley where interference of separatists’ supporters is jeopardising the implementation of collateral-damage-free counter-insurgency operations. These protests have led to losses of lives of security force (SF) personnel and even escape of terrorists – both of which were avoidable. On 12 and 14 February 2017, eight terrorists were killed in three encounters that were  based on specific information regarding the presence of the former in residential houses at Nagbal Frisal (Kulgam), Hajan (Bandipora) and Handwara; but these operations also led to the deaths of two civilians and six SF personnel, including a Major in the Indian Army, and injuries to over a dozen SF personnel (including a Commanding Officer of the CRPF). In these encounters, locals are learnt to have gathered in large numbers and alerted the hiding terrorists, and even pelted stones at the SFs, resulting in unusually large casualties on the SF side.

This is not the first time that SF personnel have lost lives fighting terrorists in such numbers. The difference is that in the past, generally, such high numbers of casualties occurred in explosions, suicide attacks, ambushes and hit-and-run incidents in crowded places – always initiated by the terrorists. This time, as well as in most other cases in the recent past, the losses of lives took place during information-based operations wherein the troops had had time to plan and go well prepared. The locals’ large scale support for the terrorists during these operations is a cause for concern. The Army Chief has appropriately voiced his concern and has warned those attacking SFs during anti-militancy operations of tough action. There are reports of the state government issuing prohibitory orders in a three kilometre belt surrounding an operation site to keep the protestors away from the line of fire.

Security Related Trends

Between January 1990 and December 2016, 5630 SF personnel (including 983 Jammu and Kashmir Police personnel, 486 Special Police Officers and 131 Village Defence Committee members) lost their lives in the ongoing armed conflict. As per the J&K State CID statistics, over 27 years, one SF member has lost his/her life for nearly four terrorists killed (see table below). In the initial years (1990-98) the terrorists were present in large numbers and operations were carried out unhindered, resulting in proportionately fewer losses of SF personnel. During its Kargil misadventure and thereafter (1999-2003), Pakistan inducted hardened foreign mercenaries; and the state witnessed a spate of suicide attacks leading to higher casualties on the SF side, with one soldier’s life lost for every three terrorists killed. Thereafter, in the decade spanning 2003-12, a steady ratio of 3.5:1 was witnessed. In the past four years (2013-16) one SF personnel’s life was lost for every two terrorists killed.

This is indicative, in addition to other evidence, of the drift in the situation on ground, and must be noted with seriousness.

TABLE 1

Ratio between terrorists killed in encounters and lives lost by SF personnel (including J&K police) at different stages of armed conflict in Jammu and Kashmir
A.
Period [1990-1998 (nine years)]: Terrorists Killed (9734); SF Casualties (1825); Ratio of Terrorists to SF Casualties (5.3:1)
B.
Period [1999-2002 (four years)]: Terrorists Killed (6329); SF Casualties (2041); Ratio of Terrorists to SF Casualties (3.1:1)
C.
Period [1999-2002 (four years)]: Terrorists Killed (5432); SF Casualties (1543); Ratio of Terrorists to SF Casualties (3.5:1)
D.
Period [2013-2016 (four years)]: Terrorists Killed (435); SF Casualties (221); Ratio of Terrorists to SF Casualties (2.0:1)
E.

Period [1990-2016 (twenty-seven years)]: Terrorists Killed (21930); SF Casualties (5630); Ratio of Terrorists to SF Casualties (3.9:1)

The increase in casualties in the recent times can be partly attributed to fewer numbers of terrorists being spread over a large area, making counter-insurgency operations tedious and man power intensive. Additionally, fresh induction of locals in militant ranks, better training, increased infiltration, ceasefire violations by Pakistan, and increase in local support for terrorists have all contributed to this situation over the past four years. Despite India’s best efforts, Pakistan is not keen on resumption of dialogue and there exists a lull in the engagement with the separatist groups. Meanwhile, Pakistan is exploiting its support base in the Valley to the fullest extent. The 2016 agitation that followed the killing of militant commander Burhan Wani has increased local support for militants and separatists. There are reports of separatists’ plans to resume protests and agitations after winter ends.

There is a disconnect between the elected representatives and their constituents, particularly in the Kashmir valley, and alienation has increased. Mainstream politicians, instead of reaching out to the people, are busy indulging in army-bashing at every opportunity. This is demoralising for the SFs and encourages hostile elements to lay impediments to the former’s operational duties. Barring the chief minister, all other Valley based leaders are maintaining a studied silence, expecting the SFs to magically bring peace. Meanwhile, the agitating separatists construe this silence as support.

It is a tight rope walk for the SFs in such a hostile environment. People-friendly measures to avoid collateral damage and operating with hands tied behind will mean more casualties and demoralisation for the troops and the police. Conversely, harsher measures will further alienate the people. While the SFs must carry out their mandated responsibility of flushing out terrorists, other players cannot ignore their role of reaching out to the people and other stake holders any further. The fact of the matter is that isolating Pakistan or avoiding separatists has not helped India’s cause in Kashmir. The wait-and-watch approach has not yielded any positive results.

The peace process in Jammu and Kashmir faces a serious challenge that cannot be met by security forces alone. The Army Chief has voiced his concern and has appropriately reflected on his mandated area of responsibility. The political leadership at the Centre and in the State will have to urgently review the situation and take appropriate initiatives to ease the law and order situation on the ground to prevent recurrence and escalation of the violence and protests of 2016.

*Ashok Bhan
Distinguished Fellow, IPCS; Former Director General of Police, J&K; former Member, National Security Advisory Board, India

Barcelona Launches Major Football Academy In China

$
0
0

Ronaldinho launched a Barcelona academy for about 1,000 students in China on Friday, February 24 as the world’s most populous nation pursues its grand ambitions in the world’s most popular sport, AFP reports.

The Barcelona and Brazil great and club president Josep Maria Bartomeu met children and toured the site at the Mission Hills golf complex on Hainan island, which will have seven pitches when it opens later this year.

The academy, which will also serve as a training centre for China’s national team and top clubs, is one of tens of thousands of facilities expected in the coming years as China strives to become a football superpower.

“We know Barcelona FC works very well with kids, with high-level professionals that are coming to work here,” Ronaldinho said. “I believe they will help a lot and Chinese football is going to learn a lot.”

The new facility will be the biggest of Barcelona’s 20-plus academies around the world, and the first directly managed by club staff.

It is still dwarfed by the Evergrande Football School in Guangdong, which has links with Barcelona’s Spanish rivals Real Madrid and more than 2,000 students, making it the world’s biggest academy.

But Mission Hills vice-chairman Tenniel Chu told AFP in November that the Barcelona academy will eventually grow to 30 pitches, alongside an international school with a capacity of 5,000.

China, whose national team is wallowing at 86th in the world rankings, plans to have 50,000 academies and football-focused schools by 2025, the education ministry said this week.

“Probably it will be the (biggest) project of football in the world,” Bartomeu said, referring to the new academy.

“I think China needs… what Mission Hills is doing in Hainan, and for China it’s going to be a new step for the growth in football.

“For me, the temperature, the ambience, the people, and mainly the terrain of this island are going to be something unique for… the development of football in China.”

Mission Hills already operates the world’s two biggest golf resorts in Guangdong and Hainan, along with a Boris Becker tennis academy.

Despite its 1.3 billion population, China punches well below its weight in football, reaching the World Cup only once in its history — in 2002, when the team lost all three group games without scoring a goal.

But under President Xi Jinping, a football fan, China has ambitions of hosting and even winning the World Cup, triggering a rush of Chinese investment in foreign clubs, players, coaches and media rights.

Alongside the academy in Hainan, Barcelona will also open a 7,000-square-metre (75,000 square feet) ‘Barcelona Experience’ centre, featuring exhibits and merchandise for sale.

Some football experts have cast doubt on the efficiency of academies, saying the sport’s key skills are best learned organically.

Is EU To Believe Mike Pence Or Steve Bannon? – Analysis

$
0
0

By Emanuel L. Paparella, Ph.D.*

Afew days ago, on February 20, in Brussels, Belgium, the capital of the EU, vice-president Mike Pence reassured the NATO- EU allies of the US commitment to the Atlantic Alliance.

Almost at the same time, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s chief ideologue and strategist in the White House, delivered an anti-EU message to the German ambassador to the US, which was subsequently echoed at Trump’s rallies in South Carolina and Florida, wherein a preference for disunity in the EU was expressed. That is to say, the EU is perceived as broken up and the US would prefer to conduct relations with European nations one-on-one.

Bannon’s world-view based on alarming historical theories of clash of civilizations, is that the future of Europe will be characterized by strong nationalist and populist movements. Enter Madame Le Pen.

Be that as it may, one cannot but wonder if we are dealing with schizophrenia, or derangement, or some other aberration. After all, Trump has never repudiated his sympathetic remarks about Brexit and his branding the EU “basically a vehicle for Germany.”

It is no wonder that some leaders in the EU are rather skeptical about those reassurances. They consider the likes of Pence or McCain sycophants sent around the world to clean up the messes of their boss, mere pooper scoopers of sorts. Or is it worse? Are they complicit in deception? One wonders about that too.

An essential component of reason, with which all rational beings are endowed, is that logically a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. Aristotle, the father of the art of logic called it “the principle of non-contradiction.” But somehow, within the walls of the present White House they seem to believe that such a rational feat is possible.

While Aristotle would probably consider it a sign of irrationality leading to chaos, Donald Trump in “The Art of the Deal” seems to believe that it is possible for something to be and not to be at the same time. Logic does not apply to business deals.

But perhaps President Lincoln had it on target when he asserted that one can fool some of the people all the times, and all of the people some of the times, but one cannot fool all the people all the times.

Lincoln also made it a point to remind people that a house divided against itself cannot long stand.

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

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy


Warring In The Oncology Ward – OpEd

$
0
0

The nurse from Kerala, with a smile nearing smugness, tests the temperature of her patient. “Give me that!” she says.  The plastic wonder is passed along to her.  Her fat fingers grab the thermometer.  The patient is there, wired, strapped, connected to a device that acts as a medical Global Positional System, tied into contraption that feeds him morsels through tubes.

“Telemetry,” he says, intrigued by the nature of the word.  The device lies cuddled in a pocket.  Any movement, any cardiac disruption, will be relayed to Central Command.  This is suitable terminology: everything about the nature of disease, including the most dangerous ones, suggests military struggle, internecine conflict.  We are told that the human race is in a war against cancer, one of the most remarkable of diseases. But we are only at war because, secretly, we all wish to be immortal.  Absent this moral dimension, we are either dead or alive.

This is not a war that humans can win for one simple reason: we are living too long. Our bodies eventually breed our downfall.  But the machinery is there to fight, to attempt, vainly, to cheat the wasting efforts of a condition that makes Attila the Hun look like a toddler in search of a spade.

Our refusal to die in quiet acceptance suggests an onset of other condition: cellular, depraved, the unseen inserting themselves like combatants into our skin, goring, gnawing, nibbling and incising. We are mortal, they seem to say, and remind us that there is no Holy Grail, no sweet water that will drag us, lingeringly, into another hundred years.  We are, in other words, being killed for our durability, our obsession to see the sun rise, have the next glass of wine, or sigh in post-coital bliss.

Cancer, and its lethally enthusiastic friends, is combated in the command centre known as the oncology ward.  That ward is located in the broader hospital apparatus, a detestable place where illness reigns as god king, and the maggot queen fronts up with disdain, striking at a moment’s notice. Everything here suggests battle, warfare, campaigns, fought in dry, near dehydrating conditions. There are struggles, and being in such a ward exhausts, deprives, drawing the heart beat.

The hospital, in short, mortgages your life, places you in a form of emotional, and sometimes economic bondage. It suspends life, it quarries resources of depression, and it suspends the routine of the living. Visitors to the oncology ward start looking like ventriloquists for the un-dead, gaunt, haggard.  They become mirrors of disease and enervation.

The theatre of operations in an oncology ward seem much like preparations before a gas attack at Ypres during the First World War: wipe, wash, clean hands before engagement.  (There, it was gas masks.)  “Germs kill!” goes the sign at the entrance point.  Enemies are unseen; they thrive in the subterranean field of invisibility – to our naked eye. They may strike, your unwashed hand being an unwitting carrier for the next assault, the next disabling attack.  You, in other words, may be responsible. Collaborators, recoil in guilt.

This moral dimension of disease is important, supplying needed ammunition for false causes. Mother Teresa of Calcutta (formerly of Skopje, Macedonia), saw the necessary good (for herself) in people crippled by terminal disease. For one, they deserved it, fallen creatures who had done something terrible in order to make others thrive.  She crowed religiously, and felt that riding them to the graves with her charity did good for both herself and the broader enterprise. Disease sells; disease, like greed, is a golden good, currency, a thriving industry. Pharmaceutical companies would agree.

If we are then to see the patient on the bed as both victim and warrior, we understand better the plight of the relative, the friend, or even acquaintance who has been attacked by the Disease.  The patient is not merely battling its ravaging affects, but the fluttering curers who bustle with enthusiasm, or treat the patient with disdain.

Nursers may fuss; doctors prognosticate with resigned inevitability.  “You have anywhere from one year to ten.”  Some do it better than others, sugar coating, brushing, lying.  Wars against cancer require deception, masking futility.  In this battle, there is only one ultimate winner: death.  Death on a skeletally constructed throne, with a grin so broad you could build upon it.

Cancer is itself a remarkable entity, the truest of insurgents, the most wondrously adapted of killers.  You can only admire it, even as you blink through the cascading tears and sob your way trough the latest biographical detail of its achievements. You can only admire it with a degree of terror: it will either kill you, your friends or a family member.

What, then, is the patient in an oncology ward (a mere example) supposed to do? For one, he protests. He demands. He wishes for the bed pan. He wishes to be cleaned after his bladder goes on holiday, unable to locate the edge of the toilet rim. (“Is he toxic?,” asks a pregnant nurse, fearing the post-chemotherapy effect on the patient.)  He wants head phones, and wishes that they be firm, even “psychedelic” in their properties.

He asks for the leather bag to be relocated from one side of the bed to the other. He requests a fresh pair of loud socks stocked in the hospital, but likes the intimacy of home.  Therefore, the pair is washed at home.  Who receives these requests? The wife, the lover, the partner, and, in some cases, the offspring, desperately hoping to note all the demands. (“You made an old man very happy today….”)

These requests reflect, perhaps, a throbbing sign of life, pulsating away in defiance: you demand, and so you live. You are stubborn, and so, you will be able to pull through, passing the barbed wire of the cancer demons, gaining victory. The signs, in that sense, are good.

Much of his behaviour, if it is irritating, is a reminder that he was doing that before.  Before we become ill, we were a composite of emotions, and tics, blithely continuing, unaware, towards a destination that features decomposition, worms or the oven of cremation. We had our demands, and our perversions.  Most of all, we had a certain number of treasured, or reviled eccentricities. These are the signatures that matter, the signs that count.

In illness, we replicate, if in more theatrical style sometimes, what we did in health.  It is fitting: he is looking firm, well on this day in February, though wishes to find the optimum point on the bed where sleep will arrive as a soothing servant, with a cooling drink.

That drink is noisily clear in his imagination: robust ice cubes from a set of Scandinavian ice trays, a slice of tart lemon, tonic water, and a decent – or indecent – surge of gin.  As the evening settles, the cold cuts, crackers, a busy dry red that teases the palate with flirtatious promise, then coffee and calvados. All the time, there is family chatter. And Goethe; and Kant.

Back in the oncology ward with a jolt.  Back to the sterility, the white sheets, the hospital clothing, the smell of caged hygiene.  His eyes are not milky, dissolving in a pool – they emit a grey calm today, though stubborn. There is only one thing to fear: will the tenacity kick in?  Will that brute force of will come charging through the ranks, a body deprived of red blood cells readying himself for the grand leukaemia knock out?  Nurse Kerala interrupts with abrupt authority to take the blood pressure. The war continues.

Trumponomics And The S&P 500 – Analysis

$
0
0

The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States will profoundly affect the US and world economies. This column argues that the stock market has already identified winners and losers among companies and industries. It finds, for example, that investors expect US firms paying high taxes to be relative winners from the Trump presidency, and firms with substantial foreign involvement to be relative losers.

By Alexander Wagner, Richard Zeckhauser and Alexandre Ziegler*

The election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th president of the United States of America on 8 November 2016 surprised most observers. Analysts and the media have commented extensively on the economic and political implications of this election. To our knowledge, however, no academic study has so far investigated which industries and firms will benefit and which will suffer under the new administration. Assessing the winners and losers from the election is interesting because there were large differences in the policies favoured by the candidates in at least four economically important areas: government spending (and the size of the deficit), taxation, trade policy, and regulation.

The election surprise and overall market reactions

On the morning of the election, Trump’s chances were 17% on Betfair, and 28% on 538Silver. With the exception of the Mexican peso, the price changes of most assets following the election were the opposite of what had been forecast in the event of a Trump victory. In a study of asset price moves during the first Presidential debate on 26 September 2016, Wolfers and Zitzewitz (2016) found a strong positive relationship between the odds of Clinton winning on Betfair and the returns on all major US equity index futures. While stock index futures fell sharply on election night as the outcome of the election became known, stock markets rose on the day following the election, and rallied strongly during the rest of the year.

Why analysing company stock reactions is helpful

It is impossible to diagnose the reasons for an overall movement in the stock market, as there is just one observation. Financial markets can, however, be used to infer market interpretations of relative gainers and losers in the wake of big events. Specifically, if the market responds optimally to a surprise the change in the market price of any asset, it will reflect both the difference in its expected discounted payoff between the two possible outcomes, and the pre-event probability of the outcome. Asset price changes capture current expectations about how a company will perform (Schwert 1981).

Capitalising on this insight, our new paper  investigates the differential performance of the S&P 500 stocks to determine which factors produced relative winners and relative losers among companies when the stock market moved sharply upward after the election (Wagner et al. 2017). These results shed some light on how expectations about policy – particularly taxation, trade policy, and regulation – affected individual firms.

All assessments of industries or companies reported below, and in the paper, are relative not absolute assessments. Given that the stock market overall was up, many of the relative losers actually gained in price. They just didn’t gain as much as the relative winners.

Winners and laggards among industries

Figure 1 shows relative performance of different industries from the election to the end of the year. Heavy industry (which Trump has promised to resurrect) and financial firms (which he has said he would deregulate) performed comparatively well. At the other end of the spectrum, healthcare, medical equipment, and pharmaceuticals lost dramatically (due to the expectation that Obamacare would be dismantled, or at least significantly altered). Textile and apparel firms also performed comparatively poorly, reflecting their large dependence on imports, which Trump vowed to strongly discourage through renegotiated trade treaties and tariffs. Business supplies and shipping containers also lost, probably reflecting his tough stance on trade. Even after controlling for the rally in the broad market, several low-beta industries (beer, tobacco, food products, and utilities) were among the losers, while cyclical industries tended to be winners. Presumably, expectations of higher growth induced investors to rotate from low-risk to high-beta industries.

The cumulative abnormal returns for several industries from the election to year-end differ substantially from the immediate response after the election. In Figure 1 they are shown in dark grey. For example, apparel and textiles, which are the worst performers during the overall period, dropped only modestly on the day after the election. In contrast, markets seem to have been initially over-optimistic about prospects for the steel industry (which had been one of the hot-spots in the campaign), and they barely reacted at the outset to the prospect of deregulation of the financial industry. There are various explanations for this delayed-reaction phenomenon. Most plausibly, the market’s assessment about the strength or likelihood of some of the incoming administration’s future policies changed after the election, or took more time to be incorporated into prices because processing the information on these policies was more difficult.

Figure 1 Median abnormal returns among S&P 500 firms after the election, by Fama-French 30 industries

Growth and corporate taxes

Turning to policy areas, we find evidence that growth prospects, and expectations of a corporate tax cut, were viewed positively by the stock market. If the market believes that Trump is good for the aggregate economy, companies that are more strongly exposed to the (US) economy (‘high beta’) will do better. Investors flocked to high-beta equities after the election.

While the details of the administration’s tax plan remain hazy, it is clear that President Trump wants to cut corporate taxes, currently at 35%. Had Hillary Clinton won the election, corporate taxes might have been trimmed, but not cut to the level that Trump has proposed (15%). The analysis reveals that companies currently paying higher taxes performed much better after the election surprise. Figure 2 illustrates this using binned scatter plots. Here, stocks were sorted into 20 equal-sized bins by their cash-effective tax rate. We then computed the average abnormal stock return in each of the bins. A substantial portion of the overall reaction was already reflected in stock prices on the first day.

Figure 2 Binned scatter plot of cash-effective tax rate against abnormal returns of S&P 500 firms from 9 November to 31 December 2016 (top panel) and abnormal returns on 9 November  2016 (bottom panel)

Foreign operations

How did the market vote on predominantly domestic stocks compared to those substantially oriented to the world economy?

There are several expectations about policy that suggest that stocks with a domestic focus should have performed better. First, market participants may simply have higher expectations for US growth versus foreign growth. Second, domestic stocks are less at risk of trade wars that bring retaliation by other countries. Third, Trump’s infrastructure plan would naturally benefit domestically-focused firms. Fourth, Trump’s expansionist fiscal policies, particularly severe cuts in taxes, should foster inflation. Domestic profits would increase; exports would be hurt. On the other hand, the VAT-flavour of the Republican tax plan may help make US companies more competitive abroad. If so, that would relatively favour internationally oriented stocks.

The stock market’s reactions clearly imply negative expectations of the anticipated policy impact on internationally-oriented firms, as Figure 3 shows. Interestingly, the negative relationship between foreign revenue and stock returns was strong not only on the day following the election, but persisted until the end of the year. Potentially the two effects underlie the observed returns. The first – faster US GDP growth – was recognised early by markets, while the second – negative spillover effects from more restrictive trade policies – needed some time to be incorporated into prices.

Figure 3 Binned scatter plot of Percent foreign revenues against abnormal returns of S&P 500 firms from 9 November to 31 December 2016 (top panel) and abnormal returns on 9 November 2016 (bottom panel)

Looking ahead

As expected, company stock reactions to the election reflect expected benefits and costs for shareholders. Investors clearly expect US corporate taxes to be cut dramatically (resulting in relative advantages for companies that had been paying high taxes). Similarly, companies with high interest expenses suffered, for two possible reasons: deductions lose value when taxes are slashed, and some Trump/Republican plans threaten interest deductibility.

The market reflected shareholder beliefs that the proposal to make capital investments immediately deductible may not survive, or may not be consequential. Given Trump’s public opinions on tariffs and trade restrictions, and the potential for retaliation, investors turned US companies with significant non-US revenues into relative losers.

It is important to emphasise that these responses were based on conjecture. Investors will have a lot of new information as the Trump presidency progresses. Elements of the short-term expectations about policies and their effects on company fortunes, whether for the day after the election or the seven weeks that followed, may flip when the policies are actually implemented. Whatever our politics, we can predict one thing with confidence about the initial days of the Trump presidency: there will be significant policy surprises, and significant changes in company stock prices, in the near and not-so-near term.

*About the authors:
Alexander Wagner,
Associate Professor of Finance, Swiss Finance Institute; CEPR Research Fellow; ECGI Research Associate

Richard Zeckhauser, Frank P. Ramsey Professor of Political Economy at the Kennedy School, Harvard University.

Alexandre Ziegler, Director, Center for Portfolio Management, University of Zurich

References:
Schwert, G W (1981), “Using financial data to measure effects of regulation”, The Journal of Law and Economics 24, 121-158

Wagner, A F, R J Zeckhauser and A Ziegler (2017), “Company stock reactions to the 2016 election shock: Trump, taxes and trade“, Working paper.

Wolfers, J and E Zitzewitz (2016), “What do financial markets think of the 2016 election?“,  Working paper.

Pakistan: Water Crisis And The Indus Water Treaty – Analysis

$
0
0

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

It is well known that Pakistan is one of the most “water stressed” countries of the world. Currently its per capita annual water capability is 1017 cubic metres- that is perilously close to a threshold of 1000 cubic metres. Back in 2009, it was 1500 cubic metres.

Water is one source that cannot be generated but can only be preserved. With its near total dependence on the glacial waters supplemented by not so bountiful precipitation, Pakistan faces a grim future in water management. This has been brought out by the UNDP in the Development Advocate- Pakistan of Vol. 3- December 2016. The contributors to this issue are mainly Pakistan water Management experts and not outsiders.

It was therefore no wonder that many in Pakistan both at the official, technical and media level reacted with alarm with a flurry of articles in the media with furious accusations against India, when the Indian Prime Minister soon after the “Uri Attack” declared that the Indus Water treaty of 1960 will be reviewed. There was no mention of annulment of the treaty as such- a treaty that had stood the test of many conflicts but the mere mention of a review of the treaty and the Indian Prime Minister’s remarks that blood and water cannot go together has rattled Pakistan.

Put simply, if only India observes the treaty in letter and spirit in fully utilising the waters allotted to it, Pakistan will be in serious trouble. This would need some explanation.

The Indus Water Treaty is unique in that the division of waters between India and Pakistan is not of waters as such but the division of the rivers. Of these the western rivers- the Indus, Jhelum and the Chenab are for the exclusive use of Pakistan and the eastern rivers- Ravi, Beas and Sutlej are meant for use by India.

The treaty in its annexures acknowledged certain rights of Pakistan farmers to use the eastern rivers and similarly the Indian side can use a certain quantity of the western waters.

Though the Indian side is allowed to use 20 percent of the western rivers, it has hardly used more than 4 percent of the waters of the western rivers and more importantly Indian farmers have not fully utilised even the waters of eastern rivers either, thus letting the waters flow freely into Pakistan. Ironic that Indian Punjab would let go waters to Pakistan than share some with their own brethren in Haryana.

The Indus Treaty does not permit India to build storage dams on the rivers meant for Pakistan but allowed to make limited use for power generation. This would mean “run of the river schemes” which would still need some limited storage. The Baglihar project as well as two other projects, the Kishenganga and the Satle which have been objected to by Pakistan and seeking the World Bank Help for arbitration are all “run of the river schemes”, fully justified in the treaty.

The Baglihar project that was objected to by Pakistan was examined in detail earlier by a neutral expert. He had suggested a reduction of the dam’s height by 1.5 metres but did not object to the right of India to construct dams- a point that has been lost sight of by Pakistan and its media. The neutral expert did not even call the issue as one of a “dispute” but one of “differences.”

The Kishenganga project is a run of the river scheme located at Bandipur in J & K with a projected capacity of 330 MW. This case was once taken earlier by Pakistan to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague. The PCA ruled that India can divert a minimum quantity of water for power generation and upheld India’s right to divert the Western Waters meant for Pakistan in a “non consumptive” manner. It also added that a minimum amount of water should be retained in the river to maintain the domestic environment downstream in Pakistan where another project- the same river being called Neelum is being built.

The Indus Treaty clearly lays down the procedure for settling disputes between the parties- firstly the issue has to be discussed bilaterally at the commission level- then go for a neutral expert to examine the case to be appointed and later by the World Bank if both approach the Bank jointly. Then comes arbitration if both parties approach the World Bank or if the issue is not heading towards any resolution.

India’s contention was that the objections raised by Pakistan are technical in nature and can be resolved bilaterally. Pakistan has now gone for arbitration of the two projects- the Kishenganga and the Satle Projects.

The World Bank in its wisdom tried to please both the parties- by going for arbitration and in appointing a neutral expert- a contradictory move that pleased neither. India has strongly objected to World Banks’s initiative for “arbitration” where the differences are only technical.

Pakistan had also approached the Obama administration and now is getting China involved as part of “water security” in the CPEC project of China. It is to be noted that neither the US nor China has any locus standi in the disputes arising out of the Indus Water Treaty. Even the World Bank comes in not as a guarantor but as a “facilitator.”

We now go back to the UNDP publication that gives a clear and succinct situational analysis of the water sector of Pakistan. A few points that need to be highlighted.

  • The Indus Water Treaty has failed to address two issues namely- the division of shortages in the dry years between India and Pakistan and the cumulative impact of storages on the flows of Chenab River into Pakistan.
  • While water availability is restricted with the current population at 190 million (2016), an increase of 14.2 percent of water will be required by 2025 when the population would increase to 217 million. The demand would also increase with higher demand for multiple water uses.
  • The storage capacity of waters for Pakistan is only for 30 days compared to say the Colorado river which is 900 days.
  • Glaciers constitute a huge reservoir of fresh water to the area. The river flows are highly variable and give rise to water crisis frequently.
  • Ninety two percent of the country is semi-arid to arid.
  • Pakistan has been negligent in conducting a sound analysis and delays in presenting cases to the Indus Water Commission or World Bank have caused the issue to hang loose and remain unaddressed.
  • Water has been highly politicised in Pakistan and there is an extreme deficit of trust among the provinces. (Sadly it is true in India too)

Most of the points are internal except the suggestion that India should share the deficit of the western rivers with Pakistan during lean season. This goes against the very concept of the Indus Water Treaty that foresaw such controversial problems that would arise when waters are to be shared and not the rivers. The present arrangement is the best and it is for Pakistan to find alternate means to manage its resources rather than asking India to share its “poverty.” And why should India- as the Prime Minister of India has pointed out- when Blood and Water do not go together.

Sea Change Awaits Trump In Thailand – Analysis

$
0
0

US ally Thailand, improving ties with China, may not be eager to help with regional crises like the South China Sea.

By Benjamin Zawacki*

A month after his inauguration, Donald Trump has not publicly mentioned Thailand. Yet in a looming foreign policy crisis over the South China Sea, the seeds of which the president partly inherited and has partly sowed, the kingdom is poised to play an outsized and oppositional role.

China has territorial disputes over the South China Sea with five Southeast Asian nations and a sixth with Taiwan. In July 2016, a UN maritime tribunal ruled China’s means of demarcating territory unlawful. Beijing’s defiance notwithstanding, this ruling put most of China’s claims on shaky legal ground, to say nothing of its 3,000 acres of artificial islands constructed since 2013.

As candidate, Trump used the presidential debates to deliver an economic indictment against China – manufacturing threat, currency manipulator, climate-change propagandist – and announced plans to increase the US Navy’s fleet from 272 to 350 ships. If the China claims were aimed at viewers and votes, the naval announcement was more likely heard in Beijing.

Following the election, Trump raised the stakes by taking a congratulatory phone call from Taiwan’s president, and his nominee for secretary of state said the US should block Chinese naval access to the South China Sea’s disputed islands. Four days into the administration, Trump’s press secretary vowed to defend such islands in “international waters and not part of China proper,” words his defense secretary later walked back.

The phone call not only seemed to upend four decades of US policy, but was publicly justified by Trump with reference to equally sensitive weapons sales to Taiwan. Blocking Chinese access, likewise contradicting longstanding US adherence to freedom of navigation, would discredit the main justification for American ships in the South China Sea as well. It would also be unlawful. Often seen as separate issues, Taiwan in fact marks the northernmost point of the South China Sea, thereby linking Beijing’s One China policy with its new littoral irredentism. And while Trump’s affirmation of One China on a call with China’s president was welcomed by Beijing, he also assigned to his National Security Council an advisor who last year predicted, “We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years.”

The Chinese, having described both Taiwan and South China Sea as “core national interests” against which the United States would indeed have to “wage war,” are stirred.

To be fair, Trump is forced to play catchup. The Obama administration did not so much “pivot” to Asia as manage a shuffle. Introduced in 2009 and detailed by Hillary Clinton two years later, the pivot – already a decade past due – was virtually dead on arrival. The underwhelming transfer of 2,500 marines to Western Australia, begun five years ago, remains incomplete. In that sense, a recent pledge by the US ambassador to Thailand of “continuity” in bilateral relations, presumably intended to reassure his hosts, was more cause for resignation.

Trump cannot be expected to simply embrace the policy of his chief opponent. But his moves thus far, replacing the noncommittal with the cavalier, both advance a regional crisis and place the US at further geopolitical disadvantage if it comes.

Despite being both a bilateral and multilateral US treaty ally, as well as holding major non-NATO status, Thailand has hardly factored into Washington’s regional strategy. Clinton devoted a single sentence to Thailand in her lengthy articulation of the “pivot,” while Obama’s visit to the kingdom in 2012 was long on pledges and short on follow-up.  Thailand’s 2014 coup d’etat was both a result of declining US influence in the country and the cause of historical lows since. A self-defeating law compelled the Americans to suspend their main program for training and educating the Thai military, alongside a paltry cut of $3.5 million in military aid.

In contrast, the People’s Republic of China has been slowly supplanting the US in Thailand since the Asian financial crisis 20 years ago. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra welcomed and accelerated China’s regional rise for six years starting in 2001. His flagship Asia Cooperation Dialogue gave pride of place to Beijing and pointedly excluded Washington.  More importantly, since his overthrow, Thaksin’s opponents and nominees alike have maintained his pro-China orientation.

In just the three years under his sister Yingluck’s government ending in 2014, Thailand saw China become its leading trading partner and second largest source of foreign investment. The latter had sat at a mere 1 percent in 2006. China’s premier became the first foreign national to address Thailand’s parliament, while joint naval and marine exercises were added to Sino-Thai army drills begun under Thaksin. China also built a submarine dock and training facility on Thailand’s eastern shore, and increased shipments of dual-use oil and rubber up the Mekong River.

Critically, these efforts were pursuant to a bilateral strategic partnership, originally signed by Thaksin but repeatedly expanded through 2016. Under the current military government, the first joint air force exercises between the two countries took place in 2015. This year’s defense budget includes the purchase of three Chinese submarines and the first of 10 tanks to be purchased from China by 2020. In January, Thailand announced intentions to develop a joint weapons and defense industry to facilitate increased procurement of Chinese arms.

If Thai objectives are political and financial, China’s are coldly geopolitical. Thailand separates the narrow Straits of Malacca from the contentious South China Sea. Through the straits passes one-third of global trade and two-thirds of all oil and liquefied natural gas, and even higher percentages of what China exports and consumes. The South China Sea is also believed to be resource-rich. That the US secretary of state is a former ExxonMobil executive has no doubt caught Beijing’s attention.

The problem for China is that the US Navy’s Seventh Fleet effectively controls the Straits of Malacca, compromising China’s primary maritime access to the Andaman Sea, Bay of Bengal, Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea. In a crisis, China’s ability to move ships and supplies could be stymied. Thailand’s narrow Isthmus of Kra, however, also separating the Gulf of Thailand and the South China Sea on the east from the waters on the west, holds the key to bypassing the straits.

In May 2015, China and Thailand reportedly signed a memorandum of understanding on the construction of a long-discussed canal across the isthmus, a project in which the US has shown no interest since the 1970s. While both sides issued denials, the report followed a sharp rise in canal-related activity under both Thaksin and Yingluck. In January 2016, a member of Thailand’s royal Privy Council wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Prayuth, advocating new feasibility studies. Last month, Prayuth remarked that a canal should be debated by future governments.

Since Thaksin came to power, Thailand has strictly adhered to the One China policy: Taiwan, Tibet, the Falungong, Uyghur “separatists.” And as the only nation in Southeast Asia that can claim membership of both its mainland and maritime regions, Thailand is a non-claimant in the South China Sea. In a crisis over either issue, thus involving the United States, Thailand is ripe to tip China’s way.

Treaty obligations might prevail in actual armed conflict, but in any matter leading up to violence, these would make little difference and may be too late. The Philippines, the other US treaty ally in Southeast Asia, took the claims case against China to the international maritime tribunal. By the time of the decision, however, a new right-wing president had come to power – and promptly shelved the victory, announced a “breakup” with the United States, and pledged cooperation with an emboldened China.

Thailand can no longer be counted on, and won’t remain off Trump’s radar for long.

*Benjamin Zawacki is author of the forthcoming book, Thailand: Shifting Ground Between the US and a Rising China (Zed Books / University of Chicago Press, August 2017)

Iran Beats US In Wrestling Cup Final

$
0
0

As the US and Iran wrangle over sanctions and missile tests, their athletes grappled in the ring on Friday in wrestling’s Freestyle World Cup final, with the Iranians emerging victorious.

Iran won the tournament in five out of eight weight categories following three days of bouts in the Kurdish-majority city of Kermanshah.

Iranian wrestlers won the first four lightweight categories, but local fans were shocked when Iranians then lost the next three rounds.

That piled the pressure on Komeil Ghasemi as he faced a showdown with American Nick Gwiazdowski in the final 125-kilo (275-pound) weight class.

Ghasemi won the round five nil to deliver the Islamic republic the winner’s prize — a steel cup on a golden sphere.

Last year’s competition saw Iran beat a Russian team to claim the title on US soil.

This year’s event was overshadowed by political tensions between Tehran and Washington, which have spiked since President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

The American team’s 13 wrestlers were initially denied visas to compete following Trump’s ban on travellers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iran.

But they were subsequently allowed to travel after the ban was halted by a US federal court.

“I’m very thankful for the warm reception we received today and even more grateful that this trip was made possible,” wrote two-time world champion and Olympic gold medallist Jordan Burroughs on Instagram.

“We are very happy to be here in Iran and ready to compete!” he added, under an image showing him surrounded by Iranian wrestling fans wielding cellphones at the airport.

The overturning of Trump’s executive order also allowed Iran to send most of its teenage archery team to compete in the United States last week.

Tensions between the two countries escalated after Iran tested a ballistic missile last month and Washington responded with a raft of new sanctions against individuals and groups linked to its weapons programme.

Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani have also traded barbs after the US leader said this month he was putting Tehran “on notice” after the missile launch.

Wrestling is a popular sport in Iran, and local media reported fans queueing outside the stadium for tickets to the final bouts.

“So much love and respect for USA and wrestling here in Kermanshah, Iran,” wrote another wrestler, Richard Perry, on Instagram.

“Don’t believe everything you hear or read in the media. Wrestling transcends!!”

 

*Source: Al-Monitor

‘Encouraging Initial Successes’ For Western Mosul, Says DoD Official

$
0
0

By Lisa Ferdinando

Iraqi forces, backed by coalition strikes, are making gains in efforts to liberate western Mosul from Islamic State of Iraq and Syria terrorists, Defense Department spokesman Navy Capt. Jeff Davis told reporters at the Pentagon Friday.

“The [Iraqis] have captured villages to the west of Mosul and they have penetrated the formal city limits from the south,” he said, adding, “We’ve seen some encouraging initial successes.”

About 75 percent of the Ghazlani military base southwest of Mosul has been secured, he said. In addition, Iraqi forces have a “strong foothold” on liberating the Mosul airport, Davis said. The Iraqis have cleared terrain to the south and west of Mosul, he said, gaining 24 square miles within the last day, for a total of 100 square miles since the offensive began five days ago.

The captain pointed out the total territory gained since Oct. 17, when the battle for Mosul began, is about 1,500 square miles. That figure includes recently cleared eastern Mosul, he said.

Tough Fight Expected

Resistance around western Mosul is “moderate,” Davis said, with the terrorists using improvised explosive devices and indirect fire to “harass and slow down” Iraqi forces. The terrorists have pulled back into west Mosul, he said, noting that the coalition expects a “very challenging fight,” since ISIS is entrenched in the area.

“That’s dense urban terrain, more dense than what we saw in east Mosul in a place where they are well-dug in,” the captain said.

Meanwhile, Iraqi forces continue defensive holding operations in eastern Mosul, he said, and the coalition continues to hit ISIS targets around Mosul. In the past 24 hours, Davis said, coalition forces conducted six strikes in a total of 80 engagements. Targets included ISIS tactical units, mortar systems, rocket launchers, anti-air artillery systems, fighting positions, vehicles and weapons caches, he said.

Syria Update

Coalition efforts are ongoing to support efforts to isolate the Syrian city of Raqqa, and operations for the city of Bab, Davis said.

Bab “does appear to be largely liberated,” he said, explaining the Turkish military and vetted Syrian opposition forces are conducting operations in the vicinity of the city.

Yesterday, the 112th day of operations to isolate Raqqa, Syrian Arab coalition forces conducted offensive operations northeast of that key city, Davis said.

Those efforts resulted in the clearing of large swaths of terrain along two axes and the taking of 67 square miles, he said, along with the liberation of several villages.

30-Day Plan to the President

The Pentagon will meet Monday’s deadline for the 30-day review that President Donald J. Trump ordered about the plan to fight ISIS, Davis said.

As the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, highlighted Thursday, the review is a “whole of government plan that deals holistically with ISIS,” he said.

Davis described the plan as a “framework for a broader plan.” However, he said, details of the strategy will remain private, explaining it is a “plan to attack an enemy and I don’t think we’re going to want to telegraph too much of it.”

G20 German Presidency To Focus On Sustainable Development – Analysis

$
0
0

By Jutta Wolf

‘Shaping an interconnected world’ is the slogan Germany has chosen for its Presidency of the Group of Twenty (G20) summit of heads of state and government on July 7-8 in the port city of Hamburg. It is based on three thematic pillars: building resilience, improving sustainability, and assuming responsibility.

The German Economic Cooperation Ministry (BMZ) has contributed to defining the German G20 agenda, as all three pillars are closely related to development cooperation.

Building resilience relates to financial services for small and medium-sized enterprises, and sustainable supply chains (innovative financing models, improvement of the general environment, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises) such as the textile sector.

Improving sustainability implies implementation of the 2030 Agenda, digital education for girls (#eSkills4Girls), renewable energy for Africa, and addressing climate change and environmental risks (climate insurance, climate finance, implementation of Nationally Determined Contributions), marine conservation, preventing pandemics, and strengthening health systems.

Responsibility relates to partnership with Africa, food security, agricultural innovation and youth employment, financial services for disadvantaged population groups with a focus on displaced people, and equity in taxation.

This agenda is particularly important because G20 is comprised of 19 countries plus the European Union. The countries are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

The G20 countries produce around 80 percent of global economic output in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) adjusted for purchasing power parity. In 2015, China’s GDP was around 19.7 billion international dollars when adjusted for purchasing power parity. This makes China the largest economy in the world, followed by the United States, India and Japan. Germany was in fifth place, at 3.9 billion international dollars.

G20 countries account for three‑quarters of global trade. China, the United States, Germany and Japan are the four largest exporting countries in the world. Of the 20 countries with the largest volume of exports worldwide, 15 are members of the G20.

Around two‑thirds of the global population live in the G20 member countries. China, the country with the largest population in the world, has approximately 1.38 billion inhabitants, closely followed by India, which has a population of 1.3 billon. The United States, Indonesia and Brazil are next in the list. Germany is in seventeenth place.

G20 was set up in 1999 in response to the global economic and financial crisis. It has now started to increasingly address the development of answers to other global challenges as well.

At their summit in Seoul in 2010, G20 heads of state and government agreed on a global development strategy that focuses on inclusive economic growth as the centrepiece of global poverty reduction. Ever since, development policy has been a topic in its own right on the agenda of the G20 process.

As part of Germany’s G20 Presidency, the BMZ is advancing the ‘GreenInvest’ dialogue platform in order to engage developing countries in the mainstreaming and mobilisation of green finance. A first consultation of developing countries under the GreenInvest platform was held in Singapore on January 9-10 with participants from some 25 developing countries.

BMZ Parliamentary State Secretary, Thomas Silberhorn said: “Within the German development cooperation, we are placing a strong emphasis on supporting our partners in building local financial systems and framework conditions to mobilize and shift private investments towards a sustainable future. GreenInvest is an excellent vehicle to advance our joint understanding and setting the stage for scaled-up action on green finance.”

UN Environment has been selected to develop and manage GreenInvest, building on its extended experience in advancing sustainable finance. UN Environment’s co-Director of the Inquiry into Design Options for a Sustainable Financial System, Simon Zadek said: “UN Environment welcomes the opportunity through its involvement in GreenInvest to highlight the innovations by, and accelerate the flow of green finance in developing countries.”

GreenInvest seeks to ensure that developing countries will have a voice in the evolution of green finance initiatives and practices across the global financial system. It is based on an initiative launched during Mexico’s G20 Presidency in 2012 and will feed into the newly established Sustainability Working Group under Germany’s G20 Presidency. It complements other green finance work streams under Germany’s G20 Presidency including the Green Finance Study Group in the Finance Track.


Trump And Israeli Settlements Expansion – Analysis

$
0
0

By Gautam Sen*

US President Donald Trump voiced mild criticism of the Israeli government’s expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, at a dinner with a Jewish magnate on February 08, 2017. Thereafter on February 15, 2017, during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s official visit to Washington, Trump mildly rebuked Israel for expanding its settlements and advised that a compromise was necessary. More significantly, while not ruling out a two-state solution, Trump declared that he would be happy with any solution (a one-state or a two-state) that was acceptable to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Analysts note that this is the first time the US has not explicitly supported a two-state solution.

The Netanyahu Government however is proceeding ahead with the expansion of settlements in the West Bank. There are presently more than 125 such settlements and nearly 100 outposts with approximately 400,000 Israelis residing in these enclaves. If the settlements are to be subsumed within Israel as part of a future agreement, the Palestinians would be left with a diminished territory for fulfillment of their socio-economic and political aspirations.

The settlement policy has assumed a new dimension of late, because, it will be executed henceforth within the statutory framework of the Regulation Law recently enacted by Israel’s Knesset. Despite continuous efforts of the international community and even after the adoption of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2334 in December 2016, enjoining on Israel to freeze and roll back its settlements, the Palestine Authority (PA) headed by Mahmoud Abbas has not been able to do much to stall their settlement drive. The Arab countries, excepting perhaps Jordan, have many pressing issues on hand involving their immediate security and economic concerns and are not in a position to actively engage in support of the Palestinian cause. Now, with Trump’s reformulation of the US policy on Palestinian statehood, imponderables arise on whether Israel’s settlement drive can be checked at all through international pressure.

The White House press secretary had observed on February 02, 2017 that the US Government does not believe that the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, whereas the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond the current border may not be helpful to achieving peace between Israel and Palestine. Trump’s advocacy of restraint on Israel’s settlement policy, prior to apparently abandoning the two-state approach on Palestine, seems to be in line with the above-cited White House press statement.

The Trump administration’s position appears to be similar to the stand taken by former President George W. Bush in 2004 when, as a consequence of the Bush-Sharon dialogue, Israel was to limit the growth of settlements and remove unauthorised settlements, but the latter was not obligated to return to borders drawn up as per the armistice of 1949. Nikki Haley, the US permanent representative to the UN, has however observed that there is no question of abandoning the two-state policy though attempts are on within her government for an out-of-the-box solution.

Netanyahu meanwhile is on a politically shaky ground domestically, owing to rumblings within his right wing Likud Party-led coalition government. Avigdor Liberman (present defence minister) and his Yisrael Beiteinu party joined the ruling coalition a few months back and mounted pressure for a more aggressive posture on Palestine. Netanyahu therefore cannot be seen to be abandoning or conceding on the present expansive settlement policy propagated by the hardliners within his political combine, particularly after the passing of the Regulation Law.

The Law incidentally enables the consolidation of settlements by obliterating the distinction between those that were aggressively set up like Itama — deep in the West Bank and Ma’ale Adumin — a commuter settlement on the suburb of Jerusalem. It therefore legitimises usurpation of territory not abutting the original state of Israel but far beyond. Netanyahu is also aware that the Law which sanctifies the settlement policy may not survive for long and may be overturned by the Israeli Supreme Court on grounds of inequity and on the premise that it is technically outside the Israeli constitutional ambit. He has to therefore derive the maximum mileage from the existing settlement policy and the Law within a short span of time. The Israeli premier has also perforce to extract the most favourable outcome from the Trump administration.

The Trump administration may not be oblivious to the possibility of escalation of tensions between the Israelis and the Palestinians as a result of continuing settlements policy.
It is possible that the US president will keep in view the broader US interests in West Asia — where negative repercussions of the US policies vis-à-vis Palestine cannot be ruled out. Unlike the Barack Obama administration, Trump will not allow any formal condemnation of Israel in international fora like the UNSC. His government is also likely to maintain and upgrade the US-Israel economic and defence ties. It is in the US interest however not to encourage Israeli policies that could possibly lead to further radicalisation of Palestinians in the West Bank and those in Gaza, by elements like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other similar outfits.

Given the above, Trump may continue to exert some restraining influence on Israel’s settlement policy, at least in the short term. A significant check on Israel’s aggressive settlement policy in the near future may de facto arise from within its polity, i.e. from its legal institutions and moderate political and social groups. Reinforcing these efforts can only be possible if Trump realises the futility of promoting a single state of Israel with a restive Palestinian populace within. This would only increase the prospects of greater radicalisation of large segments of the latter and those in the peripheral regions, which would be against the US interests.

*The author is a commentator on international affairs and a retired IDAS officer who has served in senior positions of Government of India and a State Government. The views expressed are the author’s own. Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://idsa.in/idsacomments/trump-and-israeli-settlements-expansion_gsen_220217

Islamic State Sets Sights On Egypt’s Christians

$
0
0

A Coptic Christian was shot dead on Thursday and his house set on fire in Egypt’s North Sinai, a stronghold of the Daesh group, security officials and medics said.

It was the third death this week linked to extremists in violence against the minority community.

The 40-year-old man was shot in the neck at his home in El-Arish, the provincial capital of restive North Sinai.

His death comes a day after two Coptic Christians, a father and his son, were found murdered behind a school in El-Arish.

Daesh, which has mostly targeted Egypt’s security forces since the army overthrew Islamist president Mohamed Morsi in 2013, warned on Sunday it would set its sights on the country’s Christians.

On December 11, the extremists claimed a suicide bombing during a service in a Coptic church in Cairo, killing 29 people.

Copts, who make up about 10 percent of Egypt’s 90-million population, say they are sidelined both in the education system and state institutions, and are often targeted by extremists.

Original source

Robert Reich: Boycotting Trump – OpEd

$
0
0

Both Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus, among other retailers, have dropped Trump brands, both Ivanka’s and her father’s. Their decisions came amid calls for a boycott against retailers that carry Trump products.

Macy’s dropped Donald Trump’s clothing line early in his campaign after he called Mexican immigrants “killers” and “rapists.“ Now Macy’s is under increasing pressure to drop Ivanka’s as well.

Travis Kalanick, Uber’s CEO, quit Trump’s economic advisory council after he was pressured by consumers and employees. That came after Trump’s Muslim ban and #deleteuber went viral.

Keep the pressure on. Let’s make it unprofitable to work with Trump. Boycott Trump. Reject companies that do business with Trump. Boycott companies whose CEOs collaborate with Trump.

You need to be both a political activist and a consumer activist.

Go to www.grabyourwallet.org for a complete list of companies to boycott.

Artificial Intelligence: ‘Frankenstein’ Or Capitalist Money Machine – OpEd

$
0
0

The Financial Times’ Special Report (2/16/2017) published a four-page spread on the ‘use and possible dangers of artificial intelligence (AI)’. Unlike the usual trash journalists who serve as Washington’s megaphones on the editorial pages and political columns, the Special Report is a thoughtful essay that raises many important issues, even as it is fundamentally flawed.

The writer, Richard Walters, cites several major problems accompanying AI from ‘public anxieties, to inequalities and job insecurity’. Walters pleads with those he calls the ‘controllers of autonomous systems’ to heed social and ‘political frictions’ or face societal ‘disruption’. Experts and journalists, discussing the long-term, large-scale destruction of the working class and service jobs, claim that AI can be ameliorated through management and social engineering.

This essay will proceed to raise fundamental issues, questions leading to an alternative approach to AI relying on class analysis. We will reject the specter of AI as a ‘Frankenstein’ by identifying the social forces, which finance, design and direct AI and which benefit from its negative social impact.

Basic Questions: Demystifying AI

The best and the worst of the experts reporting on AI assert that it is an autonomous system, devoid of any link to the class structure within which it operates. Their version of technological determinism, above and beyond the needs and demands of capitalists, has fits neatly with the corporate ideology of the trash journalists and pundits.

The fundamental questions that must be raised include: 1) ‘AI’, for whom?; 2) How are the productivity gains of AI to be distributed between capital and labor? 3) How are work time, income and pensions distributed between the owners of technology and the labor force?; and 4) What kinds of socio-economic activity does AI serve?

‘Artificial Intelligence’ and related technological innovations are financed, designed, controlled and ultimately applied by the major corporations and financial institutions in order to reduce the cost of labor and to enhance profits and competitiveness between capitalist rivals.

AI and similar capitalist technological changes, along with the overseas relocation of information technology and manufacturing production are the principal destroyers of workers’ employment and living standards in the US.

AI technology, alongside vast spending for imperial wars and military procurement, multi-billion dollar bank-bailouts and the promotion of finance-over-productive capital represent the forces driving down wages, salaries, living standards, pensions and, lately, life expectancy for the marginalized working class and rural population.

The innovators and promoters of AI, whether individuals or small groups, seek capitalist support to finance, market and ‘acquire’ their ‘discoveries’. In fact, the entire industry has been built upon large-scale, tax-funded public research centers and university laboratories, which have paid for the buildings as well as the scientists’ and professors’ salaries.

Most of IT and AI related profits are distributed among the military-industrial complex, the chemical agro-industrial monopolies and the transport and consumer goods manufacturing elites. While garbage journalists and experts cite ‘AI’s contribution to health, education and social services, they forget to clarify that these ‘innovations’ are controlled by private health corporations, private ‘charter’ schools and public sector education elites intent on increasing profits, lowering teachers’ salaries, slashing programs and undermining student learning. The dismal, fragmented and mal-distributed state of healthcare and education in the United States are never seriously discussed because they put the lie to the absurd claims made about the benefits of AI and IT for the broader population.

Far from being ‘autonomous’ and subject to abstract ‘controllers’, AI, IT and high technology serve to concentrate wealth, power and profits for multiple sectors of the ruling class who determine how such technologies will be used.

The financiers of AI and their partners direct the scientists, engineers and marketers. The garbage journalists are paid to proclaim the arrival of ‘history-making’ innovations. The media describe AI as ‘machine learning, a form of advanced pattern recognition technology to make judgments by analyzing large amounts of data (which) could supplement human thought’ (FT Special Report 2/17/2017).

Contrary to the above-mentioned assumptions, the ‘judgments’ are made by the ruling class, using parameters and metrics determined by the elite, deciding on what kinds of ‘patterns are to be recognized’ in order that they can derive the kind of information they need to enhance profits, make war, maximize killing and engineering massive layoffs of workers. In a word, class assumptions dictate AI, IT and the use of these innovations.

Conclusion: Alternatives

If class determines AI, and in present-day America that means the ruling class, then only changes in the class structure can pose different questions and answers to our originally stated problems. Only by sharpening the class struggle, which changes who rules the banks, factories and social institutions, will new assumptions direct AI and IT and other innovations.

Only workers, professionals and scientists, who replace the prioritizing of profits with meeting social needs, can produce an AI that lowers the retirement age, increases national health care, facilitates workers’ decision making, distributes high quality education and information to the citizenry, reduces inequalities and shifts earnings from capital to labor.

DR Congo: UN Envoy Condemns Attacks On Catholic Facilities

$
0
0

The United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the National Episcopal Conference of Congo, known as CENCO have called for an immediate end to the spate of violent attacks against Catholic facilities in several parts of the country.

The UN Organization Stabilization Mission (MONUSCO) and CENCO, along with the Apostolic Nunciature said they are “deeply concerned” about recent attacks on parishes and other Catholic facilities. According to the Mission, the attacks were particularly violent in the provinces of Kinshasa, Haut-Katanga, Kasaï-Central and Kasaï-Oriental.

MONUSCO chief Maman Sidikou, Monsignor Marcel Utembi, Archbishop of Kisangani and President of CENCO, and Monsignor Luis Mariano Montemayor, Apostolic Nuncio in the DRC, “strongly condemned” the violence, which they noted are punishable in Congolese criminal law.

They also reiterated that “places of worship belong to all, and as such, are supposed to be apolitical; Churches are also places of contemplation for the people and must be respected and protected. By attacking them, their perpetrators and/or sponsors are harming a common good of all Congolese.”

Urging the immediate cessation of these “deplorable acts,” MONUSCO, CENCO and the Apostolic Nunciature called on Congolese political actors to condemn them “just as firmly,” in order to frustrate any attempt to manipulate the implementation of the comprehensive and inclusive political agreement of 31 December 2016, which set out, among others, a timeframe for elections.

Viewing all 73639 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images