Malaysia’s newest opposition party, Bersatu, will struggle to win seats in the country’s next general election if it cannot overcome its leaders’ political baggage and some key problems with its public image. Bersatu’s potential to be a spoiler, or even a longer-term alternative, to UMNO cannot be ruled out.

By Saleena Saleem*

Speculation is rife that Malaysia’s 14th general election which must be held by August 2018, may be called this year. The general election come after a protracted political scandal over state wealth fund 1MDB, with damaging financial mismanagement and corruption allegations levelled at Prime Minister Najib Razak.

Several former leaders from the ruling political party, United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), have left and regrouped into a new Malay nationalist opposition, Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Bersatu). Led by former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad as chairman and former deputy premier Muhyiddin Yassin as president, Bersatu will need to sell itself to a jaded public if it is to pass as a credible contender for UMNO’s Malay voter base.

Public Perception Challenges

These public perception challenges stem from the former UMNO leaders’ decisions and actions. At the height of the 1MDB scandal in mid-2015, the expectation that UMNO leaders, particularly Mahathir and Muhyiddin, would lead a massive break-away faction of dissatisfied party members when Najib was at his political weakest, did not materialise.

Instead, they fought for control of UMNO from within for nearly a year. It wasn’t until February 2016 that Mahathir left his old party – for the second time. It was a missed opportunity that gave Najib ample time to build support for his leadership within the various UMNO groups and to present a united front. As a high-profile frontman for Bersatu, Mahathir’s actions during this period may prove problematic for four key reasons as the new party targets the Malay vote.

First, while still in UMNO, Mahathir associated with pro-opposition civil society groups such as Bersih. Mahathir’s participation in the Bersih 4 rally, which was widely seen as a Chinese-dominated anti-Najib demonstration, leaves him vulnerable to the PM Najib’s race-based argument that should Malays fail to support him, the government would fall to a Chinese-led political machine. Given Bersatu’s alliance with the opposition coalition, of which the Chinese-dominated Democratic Action Party (DAP) is a key player, such fears can be magnified to its detriment during an election campaign.

Second, Mahathir initially stated he had no intention of establishing a political party upon quitting UMNO, but he did precisely that in late 2016. The timing of his departure from UMNO, which came only after his son, Mukhriz, was forced to resign as the Kedah chief minister by pro-Najib UMNO members, provides ample ammunition to those who claim Mahathir is primarily motivated by his son’s political ambitions rather than a genuine concern for Malaysia’s future.

Inevitability of Electoral Pacts

Third, Mahathir’s past ideological differences, and the harsh treatment of civil society activists and political foes while he was in government, many of whom he associates with today, leaves him open to charges of hypocrisy. For example, during the Asian Financial Crisis in the 1990s, Mahathir clashed over economic policies with his then-deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim. This set the stage for Anwar’s imprisonment on charges of sodomy, and his rise as an opposition leader of the Reformasi movement, which advocated an open society and economy.

Mahathir has curtailed fundamental liberties that the opposition stands for – he used the Internal Security Act to imprison DAP’s leader Lim Kit Siang during Operation Lalang in 1987, after government appointments in Chinese vernacular schools spurred an outcry.

Fourth, Mahathir’s criticism of Najib’s alleged misdeeds over 1MDB leaves him exposed to scrutiny over his own actions while he was prime minister. He already faces criticism over the Bumiputera Malaysia Finance Limited scandal in the 1980s, and the central bank’s forex losses of US$10 billion in the 1990s, although Mahathir’s camp claims the two are not comparable.

Bersatu enters into an opposition political landscape that is already divided, and where the various parties now jostle to re-negotiate the terms of a political arrangement for the upcoming elections. A January survey by INVOKE, an opposition-linked NGO, found that a three-cornered fight between the opposition coalition Pakatan Harapan (which includes Bersatu), the Islamist party, Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) and the ruling party, Barisan Nasional benefits the incumbent government. This makes electoral pacts essential, even as the different ideological bents and histories of the parties in the opposition complicate matters.

Looking Beyond Opposition’s Intractable Difficulties

The previous opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, saw public bickering among its constituent parties over various issues leading eventually to its collapse. Two examples are the political impasse that ensued over disagreements on the Selangor chief minister post in 2014 and PAS’ renewed focus on implementing hudud (criminal punishment).

The lack of agreement on seat allocations between remaining coalition parties, Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and DAP, during the 2016 Sarawak state elections, and the recent DAP resignations of its elected representatives over simmering grievances from the past coalition pact with PAS, reinforce the perception that the opposition face intractable difficulties in maintaining a cohesive front.

Furthermore, the opposition’s current narrative on “Save Malaysia from Najib”, which was built on Mahathir’s short-lived “Save Malaysia” movement may not be as compelling for voters compared to calls for change based on democratic ideals of equality, justice and fairness for all races, and which were emphasised during the previous two general elections.

When Mahathir recently criticised investment projects in Johor from China, he utilised the race-oriented tactics of the past, which can be off-putting to some voters who had been drawn to the opposition in the first place.

Nevertheless, although Bersatu carries the baggage of its founding members, it is a new political party with the potential to grow in strength if it can sustain itself beyond its immediate challenges. No doubt Bersatu is a potential spoiler for UMNO. Addressing public perception issues and becoming a serious contender to UMNO may increasingly require the introduction of a younger generation of politicians.

With the senior generation playing the role of mentors, this new generation could do much to project the future direction of Bersatu as a viable political party — one that looks beyond the objective of unseating Najib.

*Saleena Saleem is an Associate Research Fellow at Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. A version of this commentary was jointly published earlier in the Policy Forum and New Mandala, The Australian National University.

By Susith Fernando

A South African Anglican priest visited Sri Lanka to support the nation’s healing after years of ethnic strife between the majority Sinhalese and Tamils in a bid to help bring lasting peace.

During his visit, Father Michael Lapsley spoke to Buddhist monks, Catholic priests and the general public, where he stressed the need to examine personal tragedies and other nightmares of war to heal both victims and perpetrators via restorative justice.

New Zealand-born Father Lapsley has himself turned his own sufferings into a call for peace and forgiveness. In 1990, security forces of the ruling aparthied government sent Father Lapsley a parcel containing two religious magazines. Inside one was a sophisticated bomb and when he opened the magazine, it blew off both his hands, destroyed one eye and burned him severely. Coming out of that tragic experience, the activist priest would go on to establish the Institute for Healing of Memories, which has assisted many South Africans work through their trauma.

During his Sri Lankan talks, the Anglican priest stressed the need for victims to speak about the personal war-related tragedies and on how restorative justice can help heal both the victims and perpetrators.

“After a war or national crisis we can provide water, housing, electricity and other facilities to the people but if there is hatred and bitterness we cannot create a better society,” Father Lapsley told ucanews.com.

“It is encouraging when Sri Lanka talks about transitional justice, healing and reconciliation. That is good but the danger is they become slogans,” he said, adding that people must accept the damages each community has done to each other.

“We cannot turn the page of history without reading it. If we want to live in peace, we have to accept the damage done to each other,” he said.

The U.N. Human Rights Office had documented killings, sexual violence, enforced disappearances, torture and attacks on civilians between 2002 and 2011 committed on both sides of Sri Lanka’s civil war, which came to an official end in 2009 when the government overran Tamil guerrillas in the country’s north.

According to the U.N. the war claimed the lives of at least 40,000 civilians in its final days alone.

The National Christian Council of Sri Lanka (NCCSL) has been working with Father Lapsely for several years, organizing talks, healing sessions and training workshops at temples and Catholic churches, examining how the teachings of Christianity and Buddhism can be used to avoid another war.

“We first met Father Lapsley in 2013 and invited him to bring his mission to Sri Lanka. This is his fourth visit now and we have conducted programs with various groups belonging to different communities and religions,” said the Rev. W.P. Ebenezer Joseph, NCCSL general secretary.

Buddhist leaders also recognized the need for Father Lapsley’s expertise.

“We must understand, after repeated youth uprisings and ethnic wars, we are a wounded nation. Even though some of us did not fight in the war or were not directly involved in violence, we were indirectly part of it,” said Venerable Dammananda, a university lecturer attached to the Department of History, Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Kelaniya.

“The wound has not been healed and that is why the violence keeps recurring,” the Buddhist monk said.

(EurActiv) — French President François Hollande stressed Monday that he would “do everything” in his power to prevent Le Pen from winning the election this year and leading Paris out of the EU.

Polls suggest that Le Pen, leader of the National Front (FN), is likely to win the first round of France’s election on 23 April.

However, surveys also show she would then lose in the deciding second-round run-off on 7 May either to the centrist and pro-business Emmanuel Macron, or conservative candidate François Fillon.

But with Fillon’s campaign in turmoil over accusations he paid his wife for a fake parliamentary job from public funds, analysts have warned that the election is extremely difficult to predict.

“There is a threat” of Le Pen winning the election, Hollande acknowledged in comments to French daily Le Monde – part of an interview with six European papers (Le Monde, La Stampa, The Guardian, La Vanguardia, Suddeutsche Zeitung and Gazeta Wyborcza).

“The far-right has not been so high (in the polls) for more than 30 years but France will not give in,” vowed the president.

France “is aware that the vote on April 23 and May 7 will determine not only the fate of our country but also the future of the European project itself”, he added.

Le Pen has vowed to ditch the euro as France’s currency if elected and hold a referendum on the country’s membership of the European Union.

Hollande, who has battled stubbornly high unemployment throughout his five-year term and has suffered low poll ratings, decided last year not to run for a second term.

He said it was his “last duty… to do everything to ensure that France is not convinced by such a plan” of taking the country out of the EU`’.

By Aline Piva*

“The Rule of Law is a multi-faceted ideal, but most conceptions give central place to a requirement that people in positions of authority should exercise their power within a constraining framework of public norms rather than on the basis of their own preferences, their own ideology, or their own individual sense of right and wrong.” – Jeremy Waldron[i]

On Wednesday, February 22, the Brazilian Senate confirmed Alexandre de Moraes as the newest member of the Supreme Court, leaving little doubt that Brazil, once again, is witnessing the country’s rule of law being torn apart.[ii] The tragic plane crash that killed Justice Teori Zavascki opened the path for the country’s unelected President, Michel Temer, to nominate another Justice for the Supreme Court.[iii] And his choice could not be more controversial. On February 6, the President’s spokesman, Alexandre Parola, informed the public that Temer had appointed his Minister of Justice and Public Security, Alexandre de Moraes to fill Zavascki’s vacancy in the Supreme Court. [iv] A close ally of the PSDB (Brazilian Social Democracy Party, Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira), Moraes will have an important role in Operation Car Wash, the agency that investigates a corruption scheme involving a number of key Brazilian political and business figures. His choice has been seen by many as another step to shield corrupt political figures from the investigations, further eroding the already fragile legitimacy of the country’s Judiciary.

Who is Alexandre de Moraes?

A former public prosecutor from the state of São Paulo and law professor, Moraes’ career as a public figure has been meteoric – and has allowed him to gather a significant fortune along the way.[v] He served as São Paulo’s municipal secretary of Transportation from 2007 to 2010. He also worked for Geraldo Alckmin, governor of São Paulo for the PSDB. On two occasions, he served as the São Paulo governor’s aide, and most recently, as head of the Public Security Secretary (2014 to 2015), and as well as head of the Justice and Defense Secretary (2002 to 2005), a position that he renounced to assume a seat in the National Council of Justice (Conselho Nacional de Justiça, CNJ), a public institution in charge of holding the Brazilian Judiciary System accountable. Shortly before assuming his position in Temer’s cabinet, Moraes defended Eduardo Cunha (PMDB-RJ), former speaker of the Brazilian Lower House, in a case where he was accused of falsifying documents. Cunha, in turn, played an important role in putting forth Moraes’ nomination as Minister of Justice.[vi

In all of his public capacities, Moraes has left a legacy of violence, incompetence, and chaos. During his term as São Paulo’s Secretary of Public Security, he manipulated the city’s homicide rates to portray a scenario far from its reality. Under his guidance, the military police acted with extreme violence, being responsible for one in every four cases of homicide being witnessed in the state.[vii] He criminalized social movements and student protests. Moraes also permitted, for the first time in São Paulo’s history, the use of Israeli-manufactured tanks to suppress peaceful demonstrations.[viii] As Minister of Justice, he diverted money from public accounts to create his own police force; he publicly lied about offering aid for the containment of Roraima’s penitentiary chaos and anticipated, in a campaign event, what would be the next steps in Operation Car Wash.[ix] In his time in office, Brazil reversed legislation supporting indigenous rights that had been conquered in the past decades. His tenure also saw one of the most violent prison riots in Brazil’s history. While he was on leave from his position as Minister of Justice, he was informally “questioned” over a fancy dinner with many of the senators who voted for his approval. Likewise, Brazilians saw the State of Espírito Santo being engulfed in chaos.[x]

Moraes has been a member of PSDB since December of 2015. But according to political scientist Fernando Almeida, that is not the most disturbing aspect of his nomination: “the problem of Moraes’ nomination is precisely that of the political instances, as well as legal theses, and interests that he represents, whether or not he is affiliated with a party. He has already shown himself as someone authoritarian, even truculent, with little concern for human rights […]. [He] is a nominee who comes from the core of an illegitimate government, with a conservative reform agenda and highly implicated in the Car Wash [Operation]. In other words, in addition to having highly questionable general political positions, which must be democratically questioned, he is linked to immediate and minor direct political interests, which disqualify him as minister and as a member of the Supreme Court, especially at a time like this.”[xi] Besides his political agenda, Moraes was also being challenged by his lack of regard for Brazilian Constitution and accusations of plagiarism in his Ph.D. thesis.

Car Wash Operation

Moraes’ appointment has been seen by many as a crucial move to prevent the corruption investigation from “bleeding out” the Brazilian political establishment – as predicted by Temer’s former minister and now senator, Romero Jucá of the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB), who was caught on tape planning a “national pact” to stop the investigations that would involve, among other steps such as putting Temer in power, the Supreme Court.[xii] According to journalist Jeferson Miola, Moraes’ nomination “is part of the rebuilding of the putsch’s block to stifle Operation Car Wash and protect the PSDB, the PMDB, and the allies mentioned in the statements of the contractors that were kept under secrecy by General Attorney Rodrigo Janot.” [xiii]

Coincidently, Janot, who is the general attorney in charge of supervising the Car Wash proceedings, recently issued an official petition that the composition of Temer’s government had, at least to some extent, the intention of protecting the “criminal organization” that was under investigation. He asked for the opening of criminal proceedings against, among others, Senators Romero Jucá and Renan Calheiros, both from the PMDB – and who were both closely related to Moraes’ nomination. [xiv] It is worth mentioning that 13 of the 81 senators currently serving the Brazilian Senate are under investigation in the Car Wash proceedings, while others have been cited in depositions regarding the corruption scheme. The majority of them voted for Moraes’ approval.[xv]

According to existing Brazilian legislative procedures, Moraes will automatically be the Operation Car Wash process reviewer. In that role, he will be able to review “the work of the [Car Wash] Rapporteur and confirm it […]. In general, it is a rather bureaucratic function. On the other hand, it is worth mentioning that in the judgments of the Supreme Court’s plenary, the reviewer is always the second to declare the vote, shortly after the rapporteur, which is important, because he is the first to confirm or disagree with the position of the rapporteur”, and may be a positive influence for other votes.[xvi]

Swiftness of Process

Although there is not a mandated timeframe or schedule for the approval of the Supreme Court nominee, the rapidity of Moraes’ process, which was set to be done with before the celebrations of the Carnaval, has raised many questions. And journalist George Marques reminds us why: Janot had pledged that, after the Carnaval, he would withdraw the secrecy of all the testimonies of Odebrecht’s executives, which will most likely implicate many members of the current government, including Temer himself.[xvii] There could not be a more convenient choice for Temer’s illegitimate government than Moraes. Moraes can simultaneously strengthen Temer’s alliance with the PMDB, save many of his allies from further investigations and, on top of that, deepen the attack against progressive forces in the country.

The Rule of Law seems to be a rather fluid concept overall, but in Brazil, its fluidity is now taken to another level. As Igor Drumond, a Brazilian attorney and writer, reminds us, “Brazilians never had more than 30 years of democratic stability; […] they never thought on Law (Rule of Law) as the origin and constraint to the use of power by authorities in a constitutional democracy. Now it doesn’t matter anymore since we can say that there’s no such thing as Rule of Law in Brazil […].”[xviii]

If there are not any changes in the current legislation, Moraes will serve in the Supreme Court for up to 30 years – a constant reminder of the long-term consequences of the coup that ousted Rousseff. His approval reaffirms, once more, the notion that the illegal impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff was just one small piece of the puzzle crafted to put an end to a bundle of corruption investigations. Without a doubt, this decision could go down in history as another perverse act of an illegitimate government that seized power with little more of an agenda than protecting their own interests.

*Aline Piva, Research Fellow, Head of the Brazil Unit at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

[i] “Rule(r) of Law.” Unreasonable. October 07, 2016. Accessed February 13, 2017. https://desarrazoado.wordpress.com/2016/10/07/ruler-of-law/ and “The Concept and the Rule of Law.” The Concept and the Rule of Law by Jeremy Waldron: SSRN. Accessed February 13, 2017. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1273005.

[ii] “Senado aprova nomeação de Alexandre de Moraes ao STF.” Brasil de Fato. February 22, 2017. Accessed February 22, 2017. https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2017/02/22/senado-aprova-por-55-votos-favoraveis-nomeacao-de-alexandre-de-moraes-ao-stf/.

[iii] Coha. “How the Zavascki Plane Crash Could Advance a Political Agenda in Brazil.” COHA. Accessed February 15, 2017. http://www.coha.org/how-the-zavascki-plane-crash-could-advance-a-political-agenda-in-brazil/.

[iv] Brasília, Por Luciana Amaral G1. “Temer indica ministro Alexandre de Moraes para vaga de Teori no STF.” G1. Accessed February 13, 2017. http://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/temer-indica-ministro-alexandre-de-moraes-para-vaga-deixada-por-teori-zavascki-no-stf.ghtml.

[v] “Alexandre de Moraes acumulou patrimônio milionário no serviço público.” BuzzFeed. Accessed February 10, 2017. https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexandrearagao/alexandre-de-moraes-apatrimonio-milionario?utm_term=.xmq7R4R9#.jdnny3y6.

[vi] https://medium.com/@zuniplinio/o-problema-do-argumento-advogado-do-pcc-8648c9026ea4#.1b20j8udf

[vii] “Cunha, PCC e repressão policial: o passado polêmico de Alexandre de Moraes, novo ministro da Justiça e Cidadania.” Extra Online. May 12, 2016. Accessed February 10, 2017. http://extra.globo.com/noticias/brasil/cunha-pcc-repressao-policial-passado-polemico-de-alexandre-de-moraes-novo-ministro-da-justica-cidadania-19293131.html.

[viii] “Comunidade jurídica deve se unir contra Alexandre de Moraes no STF.” Justificando. February 07, 2017. Accessed February 10, 2017. http://justificando.cartacapital.com.br/2017/02/06/comunidade-juridica-deve-se-unir-contra-alexandre-de-moraes-no-stf/.

[ix] Ibid.

[x]Ibid,http://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/indicado-para-o-stf-moraes-passa-por-sabatina-informal-em-barco-de-senador.ghtml

[xi] “Cotado para o Supremo, Moraes é filiado ao PSDB.” Justificando. February 06, 2017. Accessed February 10, 2017. http://justificando.cartacapital.com.br/2017/02/06/cotado-para-o-stf-alexandre-de-moraes-e-filiado-ao-psdb/.

[xii] Coha. “Leaked Audios Reveal Plot to Oust Dilma Rousseff.” COHA. Accessed February 23, 2017. http://www.coha.org/leaked-audios-reveal-plot-to-oust-dilma-rousseff/.

[xiii] “Escolha de Moraes só é explicável num regime de exceção.” Caros Amigos. Accessed February 10, 2017. http://carosamigos.com.br/index.php/artigos-e-debates/9192-escolha-de-moraes-so-e-explicavel-num-regime-de-excecao.

[xiv] “Formação do governo Temer visava proteger organização criminosa, diz Janot.” CartaCapital. Accessed February 13, 2017. http://www.cartacapital.com.br/politica/formacao-do-governo-temer-visava-proteger-organizacao-criminosa-diz-janot.

[xv] Brasília, Por Gustavo Garcia G1. “Comissão que vai sabatinar Moraes tem 10 senadores investigados na Lava Jato.” G1. Accessed February 10, 2017. http://g1.globo.com/politica/operacao-lava-jato/noticia/comissao-que-vai-sabatinar-moraes-tem-10-senadores-investigados-na-lava-jato.ghtml.

[xvi] “O que faz o revisor do STF?” Politize! February 22, 2017. Accessed February 23, 2017. http://www.politize.com.br/revisor-do-stf-o-que-faz/.

[xvii] “Com governo clamando por sobrevivência política, Alexandre de Moraes chega ao Supremo.” The Intercept. February 22, 2017. Accessed February 23, 2017. https://theintercept.com/2017/02/22/com-governo-clamando-por-sobrevivencia-politica-alexandre-de-moraes-chega-ao-supremo/.

[xviii] “Rule(r) of Law.” Unreasonable. October 07, 2016. Accessed February 13, 2017. https://desarrazoado.wordpress.com/2016/10/07/ruler-of-law/.

Obamacare channeled billions of dollars out of the productive economy and diverted it toward a health-services sector that has become even more bloated than it was before 2010.

Last July, Dr. Bob Kocher, a venture capitalist who served as a special assistant to President Obama when the Affordable Care Act was created, noted that more than half of all healthcare workers today are administrators, up from just over a third before Obamacare became law.

These are paper pushers, not doctors and nurses—not the kind of jobs we should be bragging about.

Because Obamacare diverted money into health spending, technically lots of jobs have been added by the healthcare sector. This provides cover for a superficial story that Obamacare has been a job-creation machine.

Scholars affiliated with the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University estimate Obamacare repeal would kill 2.6 million jobs by 2019. Almost a million jobs would be lost from health services while the balance would be lost in construction, real estate, retail, finance and insurance.

Unfortunately, such research relies on the so-called “multiplier effect,” a politically seductive but misleading type of analysis. To be sure, Obamacare throws money at hospitals, doctors’ offices and other health services. Those recipients build new facilities and hire more workers, who spend their paychecks in their communities.

But these are not true measurements of economic growth. If Congress just sent a fleet of helicopters to scatter banknotes from the sky, the same “multiplier effect” would take place: People would pick the money up and spend it. Businesses located near the drop zones might profit, and some might hire and expand. Jobs and the economy would not grow, however, because the effect would be a mix of inflation and reduced spending in areas away from the drop zones.

In other words, excess job growth in health services comes at the expense of job growth in other sectors. And it is worse than that: Jobs in health services are actually recession-proof. Hospitals did not need Obamacare to keep adding jobs.

Nonfarm civilian employment peaked in January 2008 (at 138.4 million jobs), just before the Great Recession, and bottomed out in February 2010 (at 129.7 million jobs). Jobs were lost in 24 of those 25 months. Nonfarm civilian employment did not cross the January 2008 threshold again until May 2014.

However, more than half a million jobs in health services were added between January 2008 and February 2010. In other words, health services added jobs while the Great Recession destroyed 9.25 million other nonfarm civilian jobs before the Affordable Care Act was passed in March 2010.

Since then, Obamacare has caused a significant distortion of the American workforce toward health services. This has continued even as the economy has slowly recovered.

By December 2016, the United States had added 6.87 million jobs to the previous peak in January 2008. However, 2.59 million jobs—38 percent of the total—were in health services, which grew by 20 percent. By comparison, all other nonfarm jobs—in manufacturing, transportation, mining, retail and services—grew only 3.42 percent, adding 4.29 million jobs.

And this counts only private health services, not insurers and other middlemen or government employees added by Obamacare.

There can be such a thing as too much job growth in one sector, and that is surely the case for health services today. Obamacare didn’t create productive medical jobs, it created bureaucratic institutional bloat.

Workers and businesses outside the health care bureaucracy have been paying the price of Obamacare’s rules, regulations and mandates with sluggish job and wage growth.

The Affordable Care Act was not a jobs bill. Hospitals do not need Obamacare to maintain steady employment.

The rest of us, however, need Obamacare repealed so the rest of the economy can add jobs at a more normal pace.

We should not forget the encouragement: hack those emails, extolled Donald J. Trump during the presidential campaign in 2016. It was the first public evocation of its sort, an invitation to a foreign power, in this case Russia, to indulge in cyber activity that has now been described by various US members of congress as “an act of war”.

The excitement has turned, less on the issue of what the material revealed – suitably damaging, impairing and even disabling of, for instance, the Clinton campaign – but the fact of hacking itself. US sovereignty, goes the cry, was breached.

The sense of many tears over spilt milk is hard to avoid. The whole dimension of influencing – or at the very least attempting to – electoral outcomes, has a long history. In the 1990s, the US election system faced outside influences – on that occasion from funding sources in China. Campaign financing, notably favouring the Democrats, became the hot topic of discussion. As with what took place in 2016, there was rage and indignation.

Sober voices suggested that some soul searching beyond the moral cant was in order. “China has done little more,” claimed Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archive, an affiliate of George Washington University, “than emulate a long pattern of US manipulation, bribery and covert operations to influence the political trajectory of countless countries around the world.”[1]

When it comes to electoral interference, the United States can hold its own, whether through the soft power hands of the National Endowment for Democracy, or the more thuggish applications of the Central Intelligence Agency. In brute fashion, the US has swaggered imperially into and through state systems without much care. Even moderate stages of operation saw funding provided for the Solidarity movement in Poland in the 1980s, and various parties from Northern Ireland to Portugal.

During the Cold War, regimes were overthrown precisely because the electoral outcome was deemed undesirable to the stake holding power, or even too risky to entertain. Behind the screens and in the shadows of elections, local campaigns would also be shaped, funded and sabotaged. Local proxies were cultivated. The Soviets empowered their active intelligence arm, the KGB, to engage in aktivinyye meropriatia (“active measures”) rich with political warfare tactics to influence policy.[2]

The US, in mirror fashion, complemented such tactics, employing strategies of discrediting and targeting with similar feats of deception. More often than not, the trajectory disrupting target would be a rabble rousing populist, storming into the seat of government on the crest of a democratic wave.

The short of it is that both the United States and the United Kingdom, both states distinctly outraged by claims of Russian influence in both the UK election in 2015 and the US election a year later, were certainly, and avidly, doing their bit to transform and retard societies in the Middle East, Latin America and Africa, restoring ceremonially heavy monarchies, backing blood curdling despots and encouraging the nasty effects: murder, looting, carnage.

In the trophy cabinet of such meddling lie dark memories of the overthrow of Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, a process that led to the return of authoritarianism in the form of the Pahlavi dynasty. As the wheel turned in vengeance, the dynasty would fall to the religious populist outrage inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini.

To these ghastly exploits can be added the removal and murder of Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba in 1961, and the overthrow of Chile’s Salvador Allende in 1973 in what is remembered as that country’s September 11. Similar methods; similar bloody outcomes.

Economic and business imperatives were also dominant factors. In 1954, the strongarm gangster spirit of the United Fruit Co. (with direct interests with members of Congress), did Guatemala’s pro-agrarian and reformist Jacobo Arbenz in. Behind every nuisance of a democracy lurked the CIA, ready to pounce and strangle its quarry in the name of free enterprise.

The best, for last: allies, friends, who also wish to see their trajectory of history assured in the other country. After the outbreak of the Second World War, a threatened Britain was keen to push a pro-war line in the United States, initiating its own campaign through covert operations to get the candidates they wanted into a hostile Congress. Neutrality was the enemy.

This effort had, and here the word is appropriate, local collaborators, those scores, as Steve Usdin notes, “perhaps hundreds – of Americans who believed that fighting fascism justified unethical and, at times, illegal behaviour”.[3]

Usdin reminds us in salient fashion that Britain’s Secret Intelligence Services were adept at using their own variant of fake news and smear campaigns against candidates sympathetic to the “America First” line.

In 1999, a history commissioned by Canadian Sir William Stephenson, chief of British Security Coordination responsible or SIS operations in North and South America (1941-5), was declassified.[4] It revealed, in stark fashion, the extensive efforts made by Churchill’s government to intercept enemy communications, infiltrate labour unions and deploy radio and print propaganda sympathetic to Britain’s cause through the United States. Friends, indeed.

In the final analysis, electoral interference may not even net desirable results for the purported meddler. Beware the horse you back, not to mention the faecal blowback. Having Trump in the White House is certainly a different prospect from previous presidents, but Russia still faces the sanctions lobby in the State Department and an increased defence budget. A cursory appreciation of remarks by the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, on the veto by Russia and China of new sanctions on Syria, would attest to that.[5]

Notes:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/31/us/political-meddling-by-outsiders-not-new-for-us.html

[2] http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/science-and-technology/active-measures-a-history-of-russian-interference-in-us-elections

[3] http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/when-a-foreign-government-interfered-in-a-us-electionto-reelect-fdr-214634

[4] https://www.amazon.com/British-Security-Coordination-Intelligence-1940-1945/dp/088064236X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484169486&sr=8-1&keywords=british+security+coordination+history%20or%20http://www.worldcat.org/title/british-security-coordination-the-se

[5] http://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/2075006/china-and-russia-veto-new-un-sanctions-syria-over-chemical

By Sandip Kumar Mishra*

On 4 March 2017, the New York Times reported that the US national security deputies discussed the option of redeploying tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula. The expressed purpose was to give North Korea a ‘dramatic warning’. It may not be easy to make a final decision on the issue as it would also need consent from South Korea; but bringing the option on the table itself is an important move by the Trump administration, with serious implications.

The US’ tactical nuclear weapons were withdrawn from the Korean peninsula in September 1991. Washington’s policy has been consistent and clear that neither US tactical weapons are needed on the Korean peninsula nor is South Korea allowed to develop its own nuclear arsenal. The current deliberation, if taken forward, would be a fundamental departure from the US’ nearly three decades-long posture.

There could be three reasons for the US to opt for this change. One, presence of the tactical nuclear weapons would give parity to South Korea in its negotiations with North Korea. Two, it would send a clear message to North Korea that the policy of the new administration would be very different from the ‘strategic patience’ of former US President Barack Obama’s administration. Third, it would push Beijing to be tougher with North Korea as these tactical warheads are going to be stationed in the close vicinity of Chinese territory. The US’ move is also posited in the Trump administration’s recent opinion that it is too late to talk to North Korea and China is not doing enough to end North Korean nuclear ambition, which it can do ‘very quickly and easily’.

The US’ desperation vis-a-vis the North Korean nuclear programme is understandable but its strategy and course seems to be less informed about the recent developments in China-North Korea relations and China-South Korea relations. In fact, China has recently shown willingness to apply more pressure on North Korea. On 18 February 2017, China cut off one of Pyongyang’s very few revenue lifelines by banning North Korea’s coal imports for the rest of the year. China has also been concerned about the Kim Jong-un regime in North Korea which has had 40 ballistic-missile and three nuclear tests during his five-year reign, including four missile tests on 6 March 2017. Furthermore, Jong-un has purged senior officials who allegedly had close links to China, including his uncle Jang Song-thaek.

It is also suspected that Jong-un fears about a possible conspiracy of Beijing to replace him; and that the recent killing of Jong-un’s estranged brother Kim Jong-nam in Malaysia is also a result of this fear psychosis towards China as he was living in Macao under Chinese protection. Although, North Korea denies its role in the killing, the use of the nerve agent VX would definitely alarm China about Pyongyang’s chemical weapons capacity. For the same reasons, Chinese President Xi Jinping met his South Korean counterpart on multiple occasions after assuming office, but has so far denied meeting with the North Korean leader. On 28 February 2017, North Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Ri Kil-song began a five-day visit to China but reportedly the visit failed to re-establish communication between the two countries.

However, it would be premature to conclude on whether China will be irreversibly tougher towards North Korea because it fears that a collapse of North Korea may lead to a wave of refugees and also the disappearance of a geopolitical buffer to US forces under a unified Korea. However, obdurate North Korea poses difficult choices for Beijing, and China has increasingly adopted a tougher approach towards North Korea.
Already, the deployment of Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) missile defense system in South Korea has been an unacceptable proposition to China. Even though South Korea has explained to Beijing about its being meant for North Korea multiple times, China does not seem convinced. In the past few months, it has taken tougher actions on South Korea by curtailing Chinese tourists to South Korea and punishing Lotte Stores in China, which in South Korea is proving space for the THAAD installation.

In the above context, the recent deliberations over redeployment of the US tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula seem to be an act of over-doing. It comes at a time, when Beijing appears to be ready to do more to stop North Korea’s nuclear ambition. China seems to be convinced that North Korea’s dangerous provocations in the form of nuclear and missile tests along with its clear defiance to China’s national interests could not be tolerated indefinitely. However, it needs space and excuses to be tougher on North Korea. Over-doing by the US or South Korea would not provide China that space or excuses to do so.

The US moves in the East Asia, including its approach towards North Korea under the Trump administration, appears to be based on the tactic of unilateral pro-action, and friends and foes are pushed to make their own re-actions. Several experts who have been dissatisfied with the Obama administration’s ‘inaction’ in Northeast Asia may read Trump’s moves positively. However, even from this perspective of pro-activeness, it would be more appropriate to give sufficient time to others for reactions. This week, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will visit China, South Korea and Japan, and hopefully, his deliberations would lead to a rethink over the US’ deliberation on tactical nuclear weapons. Otherwise, it seems that the US has moved from being inactive to overactive vis-a-vis North Korea and neither of the strategies may be able to bring desired results.

* Sandip Kumar Mishra
Associate Professor, Centre for East Asian Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi; and Visiting Fellow & Columnist, IPCS

It seems an eternity ago but it was only last Tuesday night when Donald Trump addressed a joint session of Congress and stuck to the teleprompter without going off the deep end – eliciting rapturous praise from the media.

“Donald Trump at his most presidential,“gushed NBC; “a recitation of hopes and dreams for the nation,” oozed NPR; “the most presidential speech Mr. Trump has ever given — delivered at precisely the moment he needed to project sobriety, seriousness of purpose and self-discipline,” raved the New York Times; “he did something tonight that you cannot take away from him. He became president of the United States,” rhapsodized CNN’s Van Jones.

The bar was so low that all Trump needed to do was not sound nuts and he was “presidential.”

But that all ended Saturday morning when the old Trump – the “birther,” the hatemonger, the thin-skinned paranoid, the liar, the reckless ranter, the vindictive narcissist, the whack-o conman – reemerged in a series of unprecedented and unverified accusations about his predecessor.

In truth, the old Trump was there all along, and he will always be there. He’s unhinged and dangerous. The sooner congressional Republicans accept this, and take action to remove him – whether through impeachment or the 25th Amendment – the better for all of us.

By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

The main opposition Social Democrats and Macedonia’s ethnic Albanian parties have dismissed VMRO DPMNE leader and former Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski’s call for another general election.

Macedonia’s opposition Social Democrats, SDSM – who have obtained a majority in parliament to form a new government – have ruled out another early general election as a way out of the current crisis.

Replying to repeated calls from VMRO DPMNE leader Nikola Gruevski over the weekend for a fresh election, presumably in May, together with the local polls, the SDSM said this would only allow Gruevski to prolong the crisis further.

“Macedonian citizens don’t want new parliamentary elections! They have already supported the concept of one society for all [in the December 11 early elections],” the SDSM said.

“That won’t happen! We are working on peaceful transfer of power as soon as possible. We still hope the President will retract his unconstitutional decision, as the best possible option for resolving the stalemate, but we have other options which we hope won’t be necessary,” SDSM spokesperson Petre Shilegov said.

Speaking at the weekend for Croatian Radio and Television, VMRO DPMNE head Gruevski offered two solutions.

One is for the SDSM to denounce the so-called “Albanian platform” – the conditions set by ethnic Albanian parties to join a new government – while the other was to hold fresh elections.

Gruevski said new elections would serve as a referendum for or against the platform pushed by the country’s ethnic Albanian parties.

“The goal of this offer is prolongation of the crisis because to put it simply, Gruevski does not want to go. Even if we go to new elections, which we would win, what makes you think that [President] Ivanov would then award the mandate to the opposition?” Shilegov asked.

President Ivanov on Wednesday refused to award a mandate to Zaev and the SDSM, despite their majority in parliament, claiming their alliance with Albanian parties and acceptance of the “Albanian platform” had the potential to “destroy the country”.

Zaev had earlier accepted the main demands of the ethnic Albanian parties as contained in the agreed platform.

Zaev, who has the support of all three ethnic Albanian parties represented in parliament, then accused Ivanov of attempting a coup.

Macedonia has not had a new government for over two-and-a-half months, since the December 11 early elections failed to produce a clear winner.

Meanwhile, the other key Albanian players have also opted against the idea of another snap poll.

The main Albanian party in Macedonia, the Democratic Union for Integration, DUI, last week strengthened its resolve to participate in a new SDSM-led government, saying it was ready to join Zaev’s government, not just support it.

“New elections are not the way out because they would only deepen the crisis. The formation of a new political government that would have the support of the majority of citizens is the best possible option,” the DUI said on Monday.

Another Albanian party, Besa, as well as the Alliance for Albanians, have said since January that they would boycott any attempt at repeat elections.

The two parties, which both support Zaev’s bid to form a new government, say their stands on this issue have not changed.

Tensions – high since the election in December – soared further last Monday after Zaev called on President Ivanov to offer him a mandate to form new government, which he refused to do.

VMRO DPMNE party supporters have meanwhile been staging daily street protests denouncing Zaev’s announced government in Skopje and in other towns. The protests were set to resume on Tuesday.

Like VMRO DPMNE, the demonstrators claim a potential coalition government between Zaev’s Social Democrats and the Albanian parties would endanger Macedonia’s sovereignty.

Zaev has insisted that the street protests are a cover designed to allow Gruevski to cling onto power and so escape justice.

The Albanian parties have denied planning to destroy Macedonia, saying they mainly want improved status for the Albanian language and more equal access to the country’s resources in the budget.
– See more at: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/macedonia-s-gruevski-alone-in-calling-for-fresh-elections-03-06-2017#sthash.TG0qn2Nk.dpuf

By Lt Gen (Retd) Syed Ata Hasnain*

It has been almost 27 years since the externally sponsored conflict commenced in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). Throughout this period, each year came and went with some reviews and a few lessons learnt. However, without fail, a strange phenomenon occurs every year. The Army charts out two strategies per year: a winter strategy and then a summer strategy. That is strange for an organisation that always believes in first outlining an aim and then the strategy; and strategy is usually supposed to be segmented into long term, mid-term and short-term. Even stranger is that for 27 years there has been utter clarity in the aim of Pakistan and its Army; giving its due to the adversary is usually prudent. Their aim alludes to wresting the territory of J&K (by means foul and fair).

Mostly each set of Pakistani strategies to achieve the aim has followed a course of three or four years, interspersed with tactical ploys and triggers. It has also addressed most of the domains that go into making such a strategy. In other words when that is compared with India’s approach, the latter’s is largely seen to be tactical and perhaps at most operational, whereas the former’s approach has been solidly strategic.

Analysing and writing about the approaching summer of 2017 would once again be akin to falling into the same trap that has consumed India’s establishment for many years. Since India does not have an articulated or even a semi-articulated aim, it becomes difficult to outline a strategy that is anywhere near long or mid-term. It is about time that at least the Indian Army evolved a draft political and military aim, even as an exercise in its various training institutions, where vast talent exists. Indian Army Chief Gen Bipin Rawat’s extensive experience in hybrid war should help him push this agenda and facilitate a discussion at the highest levels of government. J&K is not a pushover issue that can be handled during breaks from politics. It needs solid intellectual application of ideas and experience to make any difference on ground. The first long term strategy can then be evolved. The internal report of India’s Ministry of Home Affairs could well be a start point too with no dogma attached to it.

The lack of clarity for those on the ground, in command assignments or managing the proxy conflict elsewhere, can be gauged from the fact that there is only grudging support within the Army’s ranks for Sadbhavana, the Army’s twenty year long hearts and minds campaign. This emerges from the inability to grasp what Sadbhavana is. Some perceive it in a civilian way that it is all about pandering to the needs of Kashmiri society, which in their perception, is already pampered. The absolutely uninformed and inexperienced call it the Army’s administration of J&K in the light of the failure of the government, not being even remotely aware of the miniscule annual budget of the exercise. Yet others imagine that it is India’s psychological warfare machinery at work. With such gross lack of clarity, one of the essentials of the counter-insurgency campaign rests on diffused perceptions. What then should be expected from the ticket punching events such as national integration tours of J&K’s youth and other citizens that are rarely followed to any conclusion? The cumulative effect on the psyche of the target population is hardly ever known to different levels of leadership.

It is never the intent to pick holes in the strategy or narrative creation by the establishment; but just a few core issues may help better the record in taking these beyond the tipping point. For far too long has the joint capability taken the path of countering the terrorist menace only to be stumped by its incapability in taking it beyond to the social, political and psychological domains in which solutions of mainstreaming the society ultimately lie.

For a start, let there be a clearer strategy evolved with consensus. The latter bears the key otherwise it will return to the unsavory experience of what is being currently witnessed with former members of the cabinet finding fault with everything the establishment does today. The inevitable question to them that they never seem to answer is – what happened to the interlocutors’ report and why was it not tabled in the parliament for a discussion? For inspiration, the establishment needs to only fall back to the strategy adopted in 1994 – which saw the coming together of the two mainstream parties to pass a joint resolution of both houses of parliament affirming that the territories of the former princely state of J&K all belong to India; that India will aspire to and enable the return of these. 22 February 1994 is a golden day in India’s strategic history. It is the day the resolution was passed in parliament.

Secondly, the strategy must cater to all domains – the military and intelligence, diplomatic, political, development, social, economic, and most importantly, psychological. No single entity can dictate these and needs the coming together of many minds. There has to be a long and mid-term tasking of different organisations with review of achievements, failures, and need for course corrections. This has to be carried out by entities that are responsible for different domains and should lead to a national level review.

When people speak of the need for change in the narrative, it need not be specific to execution. In the current context, when policy has been reasonably astray for some years, change of narrative should first look at sending home a very early message to Pakistan’s security establishment. It should convey that Pakistan is involved in an unwinnable game that will subsume it internally. A larger country, a virtual subcontinent such as India can still absorb such a situation in a border state albeit it is always dangerous to let it fester. However, a smaller state such as Pakistan, which has invested much energy in its mission to wrest J&K will have a much larger impact internally.

Finally, at present, India’s policymakers need to examine how much of a change, if any, has occurred in Pakistan’s thinking after Hafiz Saeed’s detention. Is there something for real? There must not be a rush to resume talks unless India is reasonably assured that these will not go the way all other talks have gone in the past.

* Lt Gen (Retd) Syed Ata Hasnain
Member, Governing Council, IPCS, & former GOC, 15 Corps, Srinagar

By Emanuel L. Paparella, Ph.D.*

“Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Freedom” –Thomas Jefferson

“And at the end they go crazy” –Giambattista Vico

John Adams, the second president of the United States, did a study on the life of Republics from their inception all the way to the 18th century. To his great surprise, he discovered that they all died, sooner or later. In other words, they were mortal. The ones who lasted longer were what he calls “republics of virtue.”

By republic of virtue Adams meant a polity based on the rule of law, concern for the common good of the whole polity, rationality, justice, personal virtues such as courage, honesty, sobriety, wisdom, harmony, enterprise, magnanimity. These were the virtues as enunciated by the ancient Greeks’ ethical treatises, considered essential components of personal as well as collective well-being.

Rome could also function as an example of that stance toward republicanism, at least at the beginning. That may explain why it lasted so long, some 500 years as a Republic based on democratic principles of people’s representation via the Senate. It was built on a solid political foundation.

But as that other great observer of republicanism in Roman history, Giambattista Vico, well observed, it too eventually succumbed to the process of an historical law wherein republican polities begin with a basis in necessity and a need to survive (the poetical era of the gods), continue with a basis in utility based on prosperity (the era of the heroes), and finally, as he puts it, they become corrupt with abundance and luxury and “they go mad” (the era of men) The process of “madness” comes in the third and final cycle. Then the process repeats itself and from extreme rationalism there is a gradual return to the poetical.

That is to say, at the end republics manage to destroy themselves. The destruction happens interiorly, with the corruption of the essential moral core of the republic based on virtue. And this was the second great surprise to Adams: they did not succumb to external invasions by fierce enemies; they committed suicide.

The best example of that sad situation is to be found in Roman history in the reign of Caligula which was the culmination of imperial corruption. Prominent on stage, at that time, there was a deranged emperor sitting on top of a pyramid of power which had lost even the memory of its virtuous republican heritage.

He was a vindictive sort of fellow and thought of himself as a magnificent god before whom his subjects had to kneel in adoration, even when he presented himself naked in every respect, especially the moral sense. Few dared shout that the emperor is naked. In effect, the Romans had become sychophantic narcissistic idolaters worshipping themselves. Caligula was the supreme representation of that narcissistic idolatry. Rome worshipped itself as a goddess. It was nothing less than the beginning of the end.

Enter Thomas Jefferson: he agreed with Adams that virtue was essential but added that it was also important to keep up one’s guard and not sleep on one’s laurels, so to speak, and not take the democratic system, as brilliant as it might be, too much for granted. That too can be corrupted. Hence he coined the famous dictum: “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.”

When Jefferson counseled “eternal vigilance” he did not mean the installment of a powerful invincible army buttressed by state-of-the-arts weapons that would keep the peace world-wide (the pax Americana, similar to the pax Romana), but the preservation of the virtues on which the republic had been built: its democracy, its checks and balances, its freedom of speech, its Constitutional guarantees, its bill of rights, its freedom of religion. Unless those were preserved, Democracy would eventually turn into a shamble of sorts. Democracy can be powerful in a military sense, but to remain a democracy, its foundations cannot be based on sheer power, in a Machiavellian mode, so familiar to European nationalism, but on virtue as the Greeks and early Romans understood it.

Let’s now briefly look at the present situation. The parallels between Trump and Caligula are uncanny. Undoubtedly we still have all the trappings of democracy in America: three branches of government, elections, congress, executive, judicial, constitutional guarantees of human and political rights, free unfettered debates.

All this in theory. In practice we have an electorate of which 50% and more does not bother to vote; of the other 50% approximately 25% have opted to vote for a madman who has somehow managed to become a president by the subversion of democracy even if never won the popular vote (which he lost by 3 million votes). He won mostly by electoral college count and, most importantly, by harnessing the help of an undemocratic foreign power run by authoritarian oligarchs, Putin at the forefront. That remains to be investigated.

To be perfectly truthful and frank, the whole process was rigged and fraudulent. Had Congress insisted on the revelation of Trump’s tax returns, as all other modern presidents had done, his financial connections with Russia, going back 30 years, would have come to the surface and would have revealed malfeasance and corruption. He has no intention of doing so, and the Republican controlled Congress has no intention, so far, to demand the disclosure; which in effect means that they are in on the malfeasance.

This illegitimate president reigning like Caligula and demanding constant adulation, has so far fooled some 40% of the electorate by making it look like populism: he feigns to be for the people and by the people. In reality he has surrounded himself with “fat cats” who are beginning to show their bias for tax cuts for the rich and diminishment of social benefits for the poor and middle class, not excluding their health insurance. This is in process as we speak.

Behind the scene, pulling the strings, there is his strategist Steve Bannon, who is in possessions an historical theory of clash of civilizations and white supremacy. His allies are those who believe that there is an alternate government at work (consisting mostly of Intelligence agencies) which they call “deep alternate government.”

It stand to reason that the enemy would be perceived to be intelligence agencies, globalization in any shape or form, the liberal media, and, by default, genuine democracy itself. And that is exactly what we have been witnessing for the last few weeks. Few pundits and media experts have shouted “the Emperor is naked.”

The allies, on the other hand, are perceived to be “white supremacist” authoritarian fascist-leaning nations like Russia or Hungary who have little use for democracy and social justice. It’s all “grab what you can” for yourself, at the personal and collective level and to hell with democracy.

We have now reached the sorry stage when some 30% of Americans have more sympathy for Russia than for our traditional allies in the European Union. The same people continue deluding themselves that they live in a thriving democracy. I suppose derangement is like a disease: it spreads exponentially.

So the urgent question resurfaces: are we witnessing the beginning of the end of American and Western democracy as we know it? Will Jefferson’s dictum come back to haunt us when America and the EU will have destroyed themselves by destroying their own principles and ideals? Indeed, Jefferson had in on target: “eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.”

Let me end with a modest proposal. The Romans had in place a system of emergency in case of a political disaster. It was the equivalent of desperate measures to confront desperate situations, like a Hannibal, for example. We should install such a measure, democratically installed and approved, of course: when the republic is in mortal danger, and it is discovered that a national election was rigged and fraudulent, it should be declare null and void and the citizens be invited to return to the urns and vote again, this time in a legal and fair mode. Any takers? Let those who have ears, let them hear.

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 at Modern Diplomacy.

By Ilke Toygür*

Turkey has been undergoing exceptionally hard times. Very important elections in June and November 2015, followed by a coup attempt in July 2016, entirely changed its political scenery. As a new challenge to its democratic existence, the country is going to a constitutional referendum on April 16th, with a society heavily polarised between Evet (‘Yes’) and Hayır (‘No’). It is fair to say that the ‘Yes’ campaign is led by the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) with the support of the National Movement Party (MHP), while the ‘No’ has the backing of a number of different groups. The latter include not only the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) and Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) but also the rebel nationalists and other Islamist entities. For this reason, the main arguments of the ‘No’ campaign vary greatly. The polls predict a neck-to-neck race while mostly giving a couple of extra points to the ‘No’ camp. In the meantime, it is widely questioned if the referendum will be ‘free’ and ‘fair’ since the under the current state of emergency all rallies and protests are only possible with official permits, which means that the government holds the key to both campaigns in its own hands.

The underlying story

Although the idea of reforming the constitution had been around for a couple of years, the biggest step towards doing so came just after the nationalist MHP declared that it would back the proposal. With the necessary majority guaranteed in Parliament (with a 60% threshold, or 330 MPs of the total 550), the government prepared 18 amendments to the constitution that would dramatically increase the President’s powers. The main criticism at that time was the lack of political dialogue or public debate, very necessary conditions for a constitutional change in any country. Once the reform package was approved in Parliament with the support of 339 deputies, the country found itself running one of the most polarised referendums in its history under a state of emergency.¹

What are the proposed changes?

The proposed constitutional reform would lead to the most significant political changes since the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923. The core of the proposal is that the mostly symbolic post of President will become an executive presidency, with powers as head of state. In short, the amendments include a change from a parliamentary to a presidential regime, giving the President the authority to select Ministers and appoint the Cabinet while dramatically decreasing Parliament’s monitoring and supervisory rights. According to the new constitutional proposal, the President will be elected directly by Turkish citizens for a maximum of two terms of five years. The need for an impartial President is thus removed, while the way is opened for having a head of state attached to a political party. The amendments also define new roles to the Vice-president(s), also selected by the President. In short, all executive powers will be in the hands of the country’s elected President. In addition to this sharp about-turn, amendments include increasing the number of MPs from 550 to 600, while lowering the age limit for becoming an MP from 25 to 18. Furthermore, while decreasing the frequency of parliamentary elections from four years to five years, the amendments also schedule them to be held alongside the presidential elections. In addition, it is also stated that the President could propose budget and also appoint half of the members of the Board of Judges and Prosecutors. The main problem here is Turkey’s lack of safety mechanisms. This is the most voiced fear of all the opposition, claiming that the country will be governed by a one-man regime since Turkey does not have necessary checks and balances.

The current situation: any clues as to what will be the result?

No. There is no certain answer to this question. In addition to all secularists, a majority of the Kurds, a significant number of ‘rebel’ nationalists and certain groups of Islamists will say ‘No’ in April. Even if they share no ideological similarities, the ‘No’ campaign is based on protest votes. This side is relying heavily on the social media, since the current state of emergency makes it very difficult for opposition groups to campaign. In the meantime, the governing party will do everything in its power to campaign for ‘Yes’. In this highly fragmented society, the level of participation will be the key. Even if Turkey is a country with a tradition of high participation compared with other European countries, both sides are expected to mobilise their voters more than ever. It should be bore in mind that there are rumours circulating the claim that Ankara is also considering a dignified exit plan if the level of support for ‘Yes’ fails to rise in opinion polls in the following weeks.

What if the result is ‘Evet’ (‘Yes’)?

The constitutional amendments must be officially approved by both Parliament and popular vote. A transition period to 2019 is planned for changing the system from parliamentarianism to a Turkish-style presidentialism. If all goes as planned, President Erdoğanwill take over the leadership of the AKP since the principle of impartiality will be impeached. According to the new electoral calendar, in 2019 elections for both President and Parliament will be held. Afterwards, Turkey will be governed by an executive presidency.

What if the result is ‘Hayır’ (‘No’)?

First, this would be the biggest electoral loss to occur to the AKP in the past 15 years. The constitutional amendments would be expected to be shelved, at least for now. The situation would most likely lead to snap elections. It is very much open to question who would benefit from early elections in the event of a “No” vote. It is important to underline that both HDP and MHP are undergoing difficulties for different reasons. Both leaders and MPs of HDP are in prison, while there are many problems within the nationalist MHP. Such a situation could lead to a drop in their share of the vote, which may push them to the verge of the 10% threshold again. If this is the case, Turkey might end up by returning to its two-party system, with a very powerful AKP and a very weak CHP as the main opposition party. In any case, following weeks will be vital for the future of Republic of Turkey and its people.

About the author:
*Ilke Toygür, Analyst, Elcano Royal Institute | @ilketoygur

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute.

Notes:
1. Turkey has had another six referendums in its history: 1961 (60.4% Yes, 39.6% No), 1982 (91.37% Yes, 8.63% No), 1987 (50.2% Yes, 49.8% No), 1988 (35% Yes, 65% No), 2007 (68.95% Yes, 31.05% No) and 2010 (57.9% Yes, 42.1% No). Four of them have been constitutional referendums.

By Ryan McMaken*

By Clint Watts*

(FPRI) — Is Trump a Manchurian Candidate?” The Trump as “Manchurian Candidate” scenario has been a constant query for my colleagues and I since we published our warnings in August and November last year about Russia’s influence campaign on the U.S. presidential election.

This loosely plays along the plot line of the 1959 novel and follow up 1962 movie where a communist conspiracy tries to install a dictatorial president in the U.S. In the most dire conspiracy theories today, Donald Trump is portrayed as a covert Russian operative ceding control of America to an ascendant Vladimir Putin. Trump’s supporters instead see the inverse – a new populist president focused on “America First,” seeking to make deals and secure peace through a worldview and foreign policy similar to Russia. Evidence for either of these scenarios remains scant, and conspiracy theorists on both sides of the political spectrum should consider that reality likely rests somewhere in between. Trump’s Russia connections and Putin’s overt support for “the Donald” should be evaluated not as dichotomous positions, but as the ends of a spectrum of four possible scenarios (Figure 1).

Scenario #1: “Natural Ally”

President Trump and many of his supporters contend that the new administration represents nothing more than the natural alliance between two men seeking their own country’s interests through toughness. Trump’s affinity for Russia dates back to the late 1980s by some accounts, and his business pursuits in the country have been well documented.

The “natural ally” explanation for Trump’s Russian affinity would only make sense if the president had an enduring worldview and foreign policy stance over several electoral cycles that justified and explained why an alliance with Russia would be both good for America and put “America first.” President Trump may know business, but foreign policy is not his bailiwick. Prior to his jump into the presidential race, Trump didn’t espouse any clear foreign policy stances suggesting his national security views in general, particularly in regards to Russia. On rare instances where Trump stated foreign policy views prior to his presidential run, he often contradicted himself (i.e. U.S. invasion of Iraq). Trump’s alignment with nearly every Russian foreign policy objective grew in increments, eerily coinciding with the entrance of key aides and advocates into his campaign, not through his own study.

Scenario #2: Manchurian Candidate

On the opposite end of the spectrum, those most traumatized by Trump’s victory have questioned if the U.S. has fallen under the command of the world’s most cunning authoritarian: Vladimir Putin. A “Manchurian Candidate” Trump would be a deliberate plant commanded by the Russian government, aided during the campaign with both a hacking-influence campaign – equipped with key Russian advisors – and funding to help him take the White House.

This scenario is unlikely to be the case for several reasons. Trump’s behavior and policy positions sway with the wind. The famous former British intelligence officer dossier argued that Trump’s behavior in the lead up to the election caused unease amongst Kremlin leaders backing him. Trump openly discusses Russian connections and seems to be unaware of his closest aides ties and contacts to Russian diplomats and intelligence assets. Even Trump’s unfounded tweet storm about the wiretapping of Trump Tower would pose a threat to Russia under the “Manchurian Candidate” scenario. A Russian-directed U.S. president would be more deliberate in policy positions and would conceal rather than discuss connections with Russia. To date, no direct financial or physical contacts and communications can be directly tied to President Trump.

Most importantly, a Manchurian Candidate scenario, if it came to light, would likely result in direct war between the U.S. and Russia. The Russians started their second Cold War with the U.S. years ago, and they are winning. They don’t need a Manchurian candidate; that’s higher cost and higher risk to their efforts. They prefer systematic, indirect, asymmetric engagements that incrementally achieve their goals rather than provoking the U.S. into a direct clash militarily and economically – a fight the Kremlin would likely lose.

Scenario #3: “Useful Idiot”

Russian influence of Trump most likely falls into the category of what Madeleine Albright called a “Useful Idiot” – a “useful fool” – an enthusiast for Putin supportive of any issue or stance that feeds his ego and brings victory. Russian intelligence for decades identified and promoted key individuals around the world ripe for manipulation and serving their interests. Trump, similar to emerging alternative right European politicians, spouts populist themes of xenophobia, anti-immigration, and white nationalist pride that naturally bring about a retrenchment of U.S. global influence. By spotting this early, Russia could encourage Trump’s ascension and shape his views via three parallel tracks. First, Russia led a never before seen hacking and influence campaign to degrade support for Hilary Clinton and promote Trump among a disenfranchised American populace. As a “useful idiot,” Trump not only benefited from this influence effort, but he urged Russia to find Hilary Clinton’s missing emails – a public call a “Manchurian Candidate” would not likely make. Trump even fell for false Russian news stories citing a bogus Sputnik news story at a presidential rally – a glaring and open mistake that would reveal a true “Manchurian Candidate.”

Second, political operatives of other Russian campaigns mysteriously surfaced as close advisors whispering Kremlin lines in Trump’s ear, modifying his world view, sliding in Russian foreign policy positions as mainstream American positions, and even altering the Republican platform to support a Russian position over a Ukrainian ally. Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager who previously worked in Ukraine on behalf of Russia, mistakenly cited a debunked Russia false news story about a terrorist attack on Incirlik airbase in Turkey as a final show of Russian influence before being fired. Carter Page, a Trump campaign linkage, denies being an agent, but has waffled on his meetings with Russian diplomats. The ex-MI6 agent’s dossier alleged secret meetings between Trump officials and Russian agents, but these have yet to be confirmed.

Third, Russia used overt influence and ultimately compromised key Trump advisors and appointees. The former MI6 officer’s dossier noted Russia’s deliberate attempts to sway Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Trump’s first National Security Advisor retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. This verifiable claim surfaced in the lead up to the presidential election with Flynn’s paid attendance at an RT event and the fact that he sat next to Russian President Vladimir Putin called into question the zealous general’s allegiance in his vengeful rants against an Obama administration that fired him. Flynn then lied about his conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak prior to the inauguration which lead to his resignation. Now, Attorney General Sessions has potentially lied during confirmation hearings about meeting this same Ambassador Kislyak during the presidential campaign resulting in his recusing himself from all issues regarding Trump’s ties to Russia. Trump aides have also allegedly been pushing for a back channel deal between Ukraine and Russia, a maneuver between liaisons more typical of a “useful idiot” rather than “Manchurian Candidate” scenario. This sort of meddling provides the Kremlin plausible deniability and still achieves Russia’s objectives: breaking up the European Union, dissolving NATO, and weakening of American influence.

Scenario #4: Compromised

President Trump has been bullish on ISIS, China, and Iran, but has curiously been quite amenable to Russia. One explanation put forth regarding his toughness on all American enemies except Russia is that he is compromised – vulnerable to blackmail by the Russian government due to sexual compromise or financial entanglements. Under this scenario, President Trump would not be doing the bidding of Putin on a day-to-day basis, but would bend as needed to a Russian foreign policy position in order to protect himself from public disclosures and the resulting political backlash.

The former British intelligence officer’s dossier made salacious claims of sexual misconduct by Trump during a visit to St. Petersburg. But rumors of sexual compromise have yet to bring forth any real evidence of misbehavior. Furthermore, Russia would have a hard time sexually compromising a president who has been married three times, who may have bragged about his sexual prowess while posing as his own publicist, and who was caught using misogynistic speech in a leaked video. President Trump compromised himself in this fashion, and the voters didn’t seem to care. Should Russia release the alleged provocative video tape now, they would only confirm their meddling and achieve nothing – the dossier leak and U.S. government discussion of the dossier likely inoculated the president from any compromise on a sexual basis if anything even existed.

Trump claims no financial ties to Russia but these allegations still remain open due to Trump’s refusal to show his tax records and the media’s failure to show any discernible financial ties to Russia. This situation may change in the future and could damage the president. More recently, President Trump’s son appears to have received $50,000 from a pro-Russia group in the weeks leading up to the election. This revelation, alongside absent tax records, suggests that President Trump and his family might be currently or in the future financially compromised through business interests that have not been properly divested by the president – business interests tied to or manipulated by Russia without the full knowledge of the First Family.

What are the implications of these Russian connections for Trump and America?

Regardless of President Trump’s relationship to Russia, the repeated disclosure of Russian influence and connections to his campaign and staff have created considerable turmoil in the White House and America as a whole. Trump’s loose style of alliances and tactical actions make him ideally suited for the “Useful Idiot” scenario of Russian influence as he takes on advisors and positions based on perceived loyalty, yet without a clear understanding of his advisors connections to Russia. Any traditional politician would have sensed the danger implicit in surrounding oneself with people so closely connected to Putin’s intelligence agents.

More importantly, President Trump appears strongly influenced by those in his inner circle. So if they have connections to Russia, whether President Trump knows it or not, he will, at times, be Russia’s pawn on foreign policy issues.

About the author:
*Clint Watts is a Robert A. Fox Fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Program on the Middle East as well as a Senior Fellow with its Program on National Security. He serves as the President of Miburo Solutions, Inc. Watts’ research focuses on analyzing transnational threat groups operating in local environments on a global scale. Before starting Miburo Solutions, he served as a U.S. Army infantry officer, a FBI Special Agent on a Joint Terrorism Task Force, and as the Executive Officer of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point (CTC).

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

However they want to term it, the Democratic Party establishment remains frustrated about Donald Trump’s winning the US presidency. Some clumsy disclosure within Trump administration circles have served the Dems’ effort to portray a sinister Russian attempt at acquiring substantial influence in the US. Partisan propaganda aside, there continues to be inconclusive evidence and considerable reasonable doubt on the accuracy of this spin. Meantime, the Kremlin’s preference for having better relations with the US has essentially hit a roadblock with enhanced anti-Russian misinformation.

The brouhaha over US Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ meeting with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, has led to the dubious claim that the latter is a spook. Prior to this frenzy, the characterization of Kislyak as a spy is lacking. Even now, some of the more objective North American mass media reporting/commentary, suggest that he has (over the decades) performed like a diplomats’ diplomat. Regarding eye brows raising manner, Kislyak doesn’t seem so especially suspect when compared to how former US Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul and his successor John Tefft have carried on. Specifically, McFaul’s clear receptiveness to some known opponents of the Kremlin and Tefft’s prior ambassadorial postings in the color coded revolution former Soviet republics of Georgia and Ukraine, as well as anti-Russian leaning Lithuania.

The late Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin (blessed memory), wasn’t more confrontational than his Obama administration counterparts Susan Rice and Samantha Power. The same can be said of their successor (now at the helm) Nikki Haley. Yet, the main US mass media 24/7 TV networks (especially MSNBC) have keenly downplayed this aspect pertaining to the manner of Russia’s top diplomats and some of their Western peers.

MSNBC host Brian Williams, had a February 22 segment, that saw McFaul and Malcolm Nance blatantly misinform about what Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at the recent Munich Security Conference. With Nance approving, McFaul erroneously stated that Lavrov expressed the opposite of Russia seeking better relations with the US. In actuality, Lavrov pointedly mentioned past US-Russian cooperation as a basis for what Russia currently desires. While preferring improved US-Russian ties, Lavrov indicated that the Kremlin isn’t in the mood to take hypocritically inaccurate and condescending criticism.

On a February 22 John Batchelor Show podcast, Stephen Cohen, expressed a view (in line with my own) that Lavrov and Churkin reflect a Russian pro-Western outlook, that has been regularly downplayed in the West – a point that leads to how disagreement with neocon and neolib views isn’t by default anti-Western.

Some alternative sources aside, Canada’s newly appointed Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, continues to get relative kid gloves treatment on her views and family’s WW II past. Not that she’s the keeper of others – family members included. Notwithstanding, Freeland’s Russia related comments appear like they might very well be influenced by her family’s past.

“Russia’s darkest secret“, as stated in the promotion of the recently released film “Bitter Harvest“, on the 1930s famine in Ukraine, omits some points that are downplayed at gatherings like the recent Atlantic Council anti-Russian panel discussion on Ukraine. For many, the greater secret is the number of Ukrainians and other non-Russians, who were subservient to the Soviet regime in question (including its head of state at the time of the famine), with the country known as the Soviet Union – not Russia.

Freeland’s family was from the western part of contemporary Ukraine, which wasn’t in the Soviet Union during the mass starvation in question. Some other parts of the USSR experienced famine as well. The Ukrainian SSR bore the brunt of that suffering. I readily distance myself from those overly Sovok (Soviet nostalgic) types, who exhibit considerable disdain for any acknowledgement of that tragic occurrence. (BTW, there’s an anti-Soviet/pro-Russian outlook that shouldn’t be confused with the Sovok mindset.)

Brutal as that period was, there was no calculated attempt to eliminate the Ukrainian people. In the USSR, the Ukrainian Soviet WW II contribution was duly noted. In that war, many more Ukrainians fought on the Soviet side than the anti-Soviet variant.

The area where Freeland’s family was from included some negative elements (like the supporters of the WW II period Ukrainian Insurgent Army), which some either downplay or laud as heroes. Freeland and the panelists at the aforementioned Atlantic Council gig don’t seem to care much (if at all) that their anti-Russian views aren’t shared by a good number (not just ethnic Russians) with roots to the land that comprised the Ukrainian SSR. For the former grouping, they’re simply right, which (upon a reasonably objective overview) isn’t the case.

This kind of chauvinistic thinking has greatly contributed to the turmoil. There are numerous Russians and non-Russians taking a more mature approach to the past and present differences. The greatest chance for a mutually agreed peace is with these individuals having a primary role.

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. This article initially appeared at the Strategic Culture Foundation’s website on March 6.

Nokia and Zain KSA signed Tuesday a Memorandum of Understanding to work together on developing 5G and define a clear path toward building the next-generation ultra-broadband networks in Saudi Arabia.

The companies will combine their expertise to develop use cases, requirements and deployment scenarios for 5G technologies. The MoU was signed at Mobile World Congress 2017 by Peter Kaliaropoulos, Chief Executive Officer of Zain Saudi Arabia and Ashish Chowdhary, Chief Customer Operations Officer of Nokia.

The ultra-low latency and high reliability of 5G technology will enable connectivity for billions of devices in IoT. IoT use cases including connected mobility, industrial networking, smart factories and offices, remote healthcare, virtual reality and Ultra High Definition video services will help many sectors grow exponentially. While Nokia and Zain Saudi Arabia already started working together to transform Jeddah into a smart city, further collaboration through the new agreement will take that to the next level towards smart, safe and sustainable cities across the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

According to Peter Kaliaropoulos of Zain Saudi Arabia, “Zain and Nokia have been closely working together for over a decade and have achieved many MEA- and Saudi-firsts* in our joint endeavor to bring innovative mobile broadband services and world-class customer experience to the Kingdom. With this MoU, we are now taking this strong partnership to the next level, evolving toward building the next-generation 5G networks. We are confident again that in this journey we will mark many more industry-firsts, which will enable us to play our role in the digital transformation of the country toward the knowledge based economy.”

Eng. Sultan Abdulaziz AlDeghaither, Chief Technology Officer at Zain Saudi Arabia, said that “the agreement will take us closer to providing commercial 5G network in the Saudi market by introducing 4.5G Pro and 4.9G technologies to Zain’s network during the course of 2017. According to telecom experts, 5G networks will not only provide faster internet speeds, but also enable new applications such as IoT broadcast-like services and lifeline critical communications in times of natural disaster.”

Key aspects of MoU

Under the terms of the MoU, Nokia will collaborate with Zain KSA to evolve the operator’s network toward 5G by introducing 4.5G Pro and 4.9G technologies in Saudi Arabia, and support the National Transformation Plan 2020.

The companies will jointly carry out trials of Nokia’s advanced technologies including AirScale, which is the radio platform in Nokia’s 5G FIRST, transport network technologies, analytics and Cloud RAN using AirFrame data center solution.
Showcase 5G use cases including the industrial robotics and machine-to-machine critical communications in Zain Innovation Lab.

Trial end-to-end 5G use cases during Hajj 2019 in live networks are planned.

2017 will be a challenging year for Saudi Arabia, who is losing its leadership in the Middle East and faces looming economic challenges stemming from low oil prices.

SA has been humiliated in Syria, and embroiled itself in an endless and costly conflict in Yemen. According to Reuters, Saudi Arabia is spending $175 million per month for bombings in Yemen and an additional $500 million for ground incursions. These low oil prices and military expenses have unprecedented impact on Saudi foreign reserves, which depleted from $732 billion to $623 billion in 2015.

However the main cost of these military failures is not a financial one, they also dealt a fatal blow to the Saudi monarchy who used military nationalism to foster support, and implement a cult of the personality to King Salman. The Saudi propaganda relies on anti-Iranian rhetoric, and exaggerate Tehran’s geopolitical role to justify its foreign policy. In Yemen, Saudi monarchy has mischaracterized the Houthis as Iranian proxies. They claim that Tehran provides the Houthis financial and logistical support, as well as military advisers (Financial Times, February 2014). One of the arguments put forward is that the Houthis, who were isolated in the mountains in the North, would not have been able to gain such prominence without external support. However, their growth is primarily due to the support of the ex-president Saleh, who still has tribal and military allies. Thus, the extent of Iran support in term of funding and supply of arms remains unknown. (Salisbury, P (2015).

The war in Yemen embodies a military nationalism, which fired the Islamists imagination but could turn against King Salman. Indeed, Islamists in SA expected a quick victory against the Houthis, qualified as blasphemer puppet of Iran. Moreover, defeated militants in Syria could come back in their country and reunite to canalise their military effervescence in their country, accusing of their defeat SA leaders.

Saudi Arabia’s difficulties pose a threat to its hegemony in the region, which reverberates on its allies support. Indeed, Egypt pursues its own national interest when SA was expecting total cooperation, and unconditional support. There could be a backlash from Saudi Arabia population who expect Saudi Arabia to keep its leadership in the region.

Their lack of leadership in the region is aggravated by the deterioration of its relationship with the USA. The US is less and less dependant on SA oil and condemns its religious extremism, which has been worsened since the accession of King Salman in January 2015. Moreover, Trump financial approach to foreign affairs means that Trump will be tough toward SA if they face economic hardships. Concerning the Saudis, the bone of contention is not only the Iranian nuclear agreement but also the absence of support for their ally Mubarak in February 2011, which has been perceived as a betrayal from the US. Despite the disagreements, the Saudi Arabia government knows that they can’t afford to break ties with the USA. They rely on the USA military presence in the region, and on American military equipment.

The economic difficulties only add pressure to the government, who can’t afford to be present on all fronts. The collapse of oil price cost SA government 75 billions of euros, even though public spendings increased to finance the war in Yemen. The country’s foreign reserves have dropped by a quarter since oil prices started falling in 2014, and the budget deficit skyrocketed from 6,7% of the PIB in 2015 to 20% in 2016.

Consequently, Riyadh adopted a politic of austerity, and seized on every opportunity to squeeze costs: they cut construction projects, cut pay for ministers, freeze hiring, rise fees for visas, increase fines for traffic violations. Overall, they cut off 80% subsidies on public goods and services. The price for basic goods such as water and electricity has skyrocketed and spurred dissatisfaction nationwide.

In addition to the cut of public spending, the government announced an ambitious plan to diversify the economy, which relies entirely on oil. If the plan is successful, non-oil revenue will triple by 2020. To do that, they want to expand the country’s mining industry to exploit gold, phosphate and uranium deposit and build up the financial, technology and entertainment sectors.

The challenge is high for King Salman, who massed extraordinary domestic power, using a wave of Sunni based Saudi nationalism. The lack of leadership in the region, the military failures, and the economic difficulties poses a threat to the monarchy. For too long, the monarchy has postponed the necessity to implement economic reforms, cut public spending and diversify the economy. Indeed, the efforts put into place by Abdallah, who became a King in 2005, to implement reforms have been stopped when the fear of a contagion of the Arab Springs in 2011 lead the King to spend 135 billions of dollars to buy social peace. With social and political tensions, the government tries to avoid economic reforms, which could spur dissatisfaction. But the situation is critical and the survival of the regime depends on the King’s ability to reform the country, and assure Saudi Arabia leadership in the region.

*Ms. Elodie Pichon, Research Fellow of the IFIMES Institute, DeSSA Department. This native Parisian is a Master in Geopolitics, Territory and Security from the King’s College, London, UK.

By Dr. Peter Harris*

The presidency of Donald Trump has great potential to bring about significant changes in global affairs. Throughout his candidacy, Trump railed against so-called “globalism” while advocating an “America First” posture that would unabashedly place the country’s narrow self-interests above the concerns of friends, allies, and trading partners. Trump styled himself as an iconoclast, someone who could be relied upon to bring a new approach to almost every facet of U.S. foreign relations, including trade and investment policy, alliance commitments, support for international organizations, nuclear proliferation policy, and respect for international law and human rights.

The impending transformation of U.S. foreign policy undoubtedly poses a number of challenges for the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states – if, that is, the promised revolution materializes. But it would be wrong to assume that the Trump presidency will be devoid of opportunities for Arab Gulf leaders. On the contrary, there is good reason to believe that the next four years could be somewhat propitious for the GCC members’ core interests – even if any optimism must be tempered with a heavy dose of caution.

The Obama Legacy

President Barack Obama bequeathed to his successor a Gulf policy that emphasizes the importance of regional stability. Despite fears that the Obama administration might sideline the Middle East in favor of a military and diplomatic pivot to the Asia-Pacific region, steady cooperation between Washington and its allies in the Gulf characterized Obama’s two terms in office. In 2011, for example, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar joined the NATO-led military coalition against the Qaddafi regime in Libya. And beginning in 2014, several Arab Gulf states supported Washington’s military campaign against Daesh targets in Syria and assisted in training anti-Assad rebel groups. On his end, Obama resisted domestic pressure to use the Arab Spring as an excuse to push for political change in the Arabian Peninsula’s oil-rich monarchies. The U.S. was especially muted in its criticism of how Bahraini leaders, with support from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, suppressed dissent in Bahrain, a conspicuous silence that stood in pronounced contrast to Obama’s public support for protestors in Egypt and elsewhere.

Of course, America’s relationships with the GCC states were not always rosy on Obama’s watch. In general terms, the administration’s apparent eagerness to downsize the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East was a cause for concern among Arab Gulf leaders, who, for decades, have viewed the U.S. as an anchor of regional security and their most important defense guarantor. More specifically, Obama’s commitment to improving relations with Tehran raised questions about whether they could count on Washington as a bulwark against Iranian expansionism. Even if the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) ultimately succeeds in terms of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, the deal’s critics correctly point out that the lifting of sanctions has empowered Iran and its proxies across the region.

On balance, however, the Obama legacy in the Gulf region is one of lending broad support to the regional status quo. The partial rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran is certainly a development that Saudi Arabia and Bahrain would like to see undone – even if Oman and Qatar have been more openly supportive of a long-term thaw in Washington-Tehran relations as well as a détente between the Islamic Republic and all Sunni Arab Gulf monarchies – but it would be wrong to conclude that regional actors are looking to Trump for a major reversal in U.S. policy.

Trump’s Calculus

So far, signs indicate that Trump is unlikely to do much to worsen ties between the U.S. and the GCC. Despite some well-founded concerns about Trump’s inner circle of advisers, the president’s eventual picks for the major foreign policy positions have been conservative choices: Defense Secretary James Mattis is a retired general, known to be a hawk on Iran; Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is a former head of Exxon Mobil who shows little inclination for radical change; UN Ambassador Nikki Haley is expected to be a steady and level-headed diplomat; and new National Security Adviser Herbert Raymond “H. R.”  McMaster, who replaced Michael Flynn after just a few weeks in the role, is almost universally respected as a truth-teller and strategic thinker. Along with Vice-President Mike Pence, the message from these top-level bureaucrats is that President Trump carry on with GCC relations in much the same way as did the Obama administration, even if their careful insistences on moderation do not always chime with the more bombastic and unpredictable utterances of the president himself.

Certain aspects of Trump’s foreign policy, with its hardline approach to Iran, will most likely please most GCC members. It is still unclear, however, just how hawkish Trump will be on Iran. Candidate Trump promised to tear up the Iran deal and Tillerson has since promised a “full review” of the agreement, but these statements do not concur with Mattis’ opinion that the deal should be given a chance to succeed. It is too early to know which viewpoint will eventually win out. Even so, it is unthinkable that the next four years will see the U.S. moving any closer to Iran. In the meantime, GCC states will be looking to the Trump administration to approve additional arms sales – the new president already seems poised to approve the sale of precision-guided missiles to Saudi Arabia and F-16 fighter jets to Bahrain – and to bolster cooperation in terms of energy policy.

Still, there are some major questions surrounding Trump’s foreign policy that GCC leaders cannot ignore. Trump has shown himself to adhere to a realist school of thought that abjures permanent friends and permanent enemies. The new president has no compunction about criticizing Washington’s alliances or announcing his desire to improve relations with longstanding adversaries like Russia. In specific terms, Trump has regularly called for U.S. allies – including Saudi Arabia – to pay more for their own defense. It would not be unthinkable for the president to act upon these statements now that he is in office. Either the GCC could be asked to take on more responsibility for regional security or Trump might demand some form of payment in exchange for America’s overseas deployments. Therefore, while there is little reason to suggest that the U.S. is preparing to abandon its six GCC allies, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that Trump might look to redefine the scope and nature of U.S. defense policy in the region.

Trump’s recent travel ban targeting seven Muslim-majority countries should also cause concern for the GCC’s governments and citizens. There are reports that Trump had originally wanted a more comprehensive ban on travel from Muslim-majority countries (during his campaign, Trump infamously called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”), but legal concerns led the administration to restrict the ban to citizens from the seven countries already singled out for special treatment under U.S. immigration law: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Even in its truncated form, however, the travel ban spells bad news for Arab Gulf states and other Muslim-majority countries because it was a blanket ban that did not discriminate between suspected terrorists and law-abiding citizens. Security experts almost universally judged it to be unnecessary. It seems to have been implemented for the sole purpose of indulging Islamophobic sentiment inside the U.S. and stoking fear of immigrants and visitors from Muslim-majority countries. In sum, the travel ban gambit serves to highlight how Trump and his core circle of advisers are not above implementing controversial and even self-defeating foreign policy measures if they judge there to be a sufficient pay-off in terms of domestic politics.

Actions and Counteractions

It is not just the decision-making calculus of the U.S. that warrants investigation. There is also the question of how Trump’s foreign policies might provoke actions or reactions from others in the Gulf region. Iran’s leaders, in particular, will find themselves in an invidious position if they feel spurned by a new U.S. administration after being coaxed into signing the JCPOA not even two years ago. There is also an abiding risk of confrontation between US and Iranian naval forces. In the recent past, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps speedboats have come close to U.S. vessels in the waters of the Gulf, prompting candidate Trump to pledge that he would “blow them out of the water” if elected president. In January 2017 – just weeks before Trump’s inauguration – a U.S. destroyer fired warning shots at Iranian vessels after they reportedly came within 800 meters of the U.S.S. Mahan, signifying that the risk of escalation cannot be discounted. Israel, too, will be monitoring Trump’s true level of commitment to regional security, which will perhaps inform future Israeli security policy toward Iran. Additionally, the Iraqi government, which is quite dependent upon the U.S. for its survival, may well reassess its ties with Washington, contingent on the Trump administration’s handling of diplomatic affairs.

Over the long term, however, it is Trump’s lukewarm attitude toward U.S. global leadership that could prove to be the most consequential and enduring legacy of his presidency. Is Trump – populist and anti-globalist par excellence – a harbinger of a major realignment in US politics? Is he primed to denounce the international order that his predecessors spent seven decades putting together? Or will Trump’s brand of anti-internationalism prove to be a short-lived aberration?

Either way, Trump’s election is a reminder that U.S. preeminence in world affairs cannot be taken for granted. Moreover, if Washington ever does choose to relinquish its role as a regional power in the Gulf, the consequences will be profound, just as the British Empire’s decision to withdraw “East of Suez” upended the security order during the 1960s and 1970s. The GCC states – and others who rely heavily upon a relationship with the U.S. – must start preparing themselves sooner rather than later for this eventuality.

Uncertain Futures

In conclusion, there is little to suggest that the Trump administration is imminently prepared to overhaul Obama’s policies toward Washington’s allies in the Arabian Peninsula. In the short term, Trump might reinvigorate the U.S. military for GCC members and is almost certain to halt America’s diplomatic thaw with Iran. Unquestionably, Saudi Arabia and some other GCC members would welcome such initiatives.

In the longer term, the fate of the JCPOA’s and Trump’s level of commitment to GCC security remain the key issues which require clarity. The wildcard, perhaps, is whether Trump’s reputation in the Muslim world will deteriorate to the point where even longstanding relationships between the U.S. and Muslim-majority countries, including the six GCC states, are called into question. This is something over which the Arab Gulf leaders have little control, but which has the potential, going forward, to loom large.

About the author:
*Dr. Peter Harris is an assistant professor of Political Science at Colorado State University.

Source:
Gulf State Analytics originally published this article on March 7, 2017

Back in June 2016, King Mohammed VI and the President of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire Alassane Ouattara chaired in Abidjan, the presentation ceremony of the management plan of Cocody Bay which will provide innovative mechanisms in urban planning, and aims to create a new dynamic of global development, balanced sustainable and able to ensure the success of this structuring project. Today the two heads of states presided over a new ceremony in Abidjan to present the progress of this ambitious project.

The Moroccan Press Agency reported that the chairman of the Marchica Med’s board of directors (company managing the project) Said Zarrou, gave a speech before the two heads of states in which he outlined the project’s first phase, that has reached a very advanced level, involves site cleaning up and landscaping, protection against floods, construction of hydraulic infrastructure, road development, and building a viaduct, symbol of an emerging Côte d’Ivoire.

He added that the project’s second phase, which concerns the Bay’s development and upgrading, is aimed at improving the citizens’ living conditions and turning Abidjan into a hot tourist destination, underlining that the project costs overall around 450 million dollars.

Thanks to the help of Marchica Med and in coordination with Ivorian authorities, the financing of this investment was completed. The financial engineering enabled to optimize funding capacities by associating several international donors.

Up to 20% of the investment will be covered through a bridging loan by the Ivorian government and via commercial banks. The remaining funding is guaranteed, under a concessional loan, by the main Arab funds as the Islamic Development Bank and the Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa.

On this occasion, HM the King and the Ivorian leader presided over the signing ceremony of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on the new phase of the Bay’s development and upgrading. Inked by Ivorian economic infrastructure minister Amédé Kouakou Koffi and Said Zarrou, this MoU sets the terms for the implementation of a program on the upgrading and development of the “Rive Plateau”, the Cocody Urban Park and the “Coulée verte” of Banco.

Concerning the “Rive Plateau”, a “Maison Ivoire” (Ivory House) will be set up and will comprise hotels, a trade center, a convention center, and facilities to promote the Ivorian culture. It will also include facilities for recreational, leisure and catering activities near the Abidjan marina.

As for the Cocody bank, it will house a future urban park with three main components, namely a sports plain, a zone for aquatic activities and a site for adventures and discovery.

The Coulée verte” of Banco project provides for the cleaning, reforestation and urban development of a 3,000 ha corridor between the Banco forest and the Cocody Bay. It also provides for the setting up of community-based infrastructure for populations living in adjacent neighborhoods, as well as the construction of thematic houses: the Cacao House, the Coffee House, the Wood House….

The MoU touches also on the extension of the partnership touching on the urban and port development of the Grand Bassam.

This major project will also provide for the development of an ambitious program of sports, cultural activities, entertainment and commercial facilities. This significant environmental project will ensure and maintain sustainably of its position as a leading regional tourist destination.

This participatory approach in designing this ambitious project is a clear example of the values of sustainable development that it embodies, and the innovative operational arrangements agreed upon to ensure its fulfillment will undoubtedly result in an exemplary partnership between the two Nations.
Marchica Med, a Moroccan State-owned company, is a subsidiary of the Agence pour l’Aménagement du Site de la Lagune de Marchica. Established in 2008, Marchica Med’s mission was to depollute the Marchica lagoon in Nador (Northern Morocco) and transforming the town along with its metropolitan area into a centre of competence, competitiveness and sustainable development.

Irish Central employs dunces. Here’s the latest proof.

Cahir O’Doherty likes to write boilerplate stories, and as a result his ability to get facts straight is seriously compromised. He, like many others, is experiencing apoplexy over my analysis of the fake news story about a “mass grave” containing the bodies of 800 children in Tuam, Ireland.

He says that Catherine Corless, the person peddling the hoax, “never spoke of” a mass grave. Wrong. On May 25, 2014, Alison O’Reilly of the Irish Daily Mail quoted Corless saying, “I am certain there are 796 children in the mass grave.”

He says “Donohue informs us that at most the two children [Barry Sweeney and Frannie Hopkins] found between 15 and 20 small skeletons” when playing in Tuam in 1975. “Donohue informs”? Sounds as if I made it up. In fact, I quoted what Sweeney said—embarrassingly, he is Corless’ key source—from an article written by Douglas Dalby of the New York Times on June 10, 2014.

He also takes issue with my comments on the McAleese Report on the Magdalene Laundries which did not substantiate the horror stories attributed to the nuns. Maybe O’Doherty will find time to read it.

O’Doherty is a dunce. But he gives his boss, Niall O’Dowd, what he wants to believe. O’Dowd licks his lips at any bad news coming from traditional Irish Catholic individuals or institutions.

For example, O’Dowd would have us believe that “Children died needlessly by the thousands” at homes run by the nuns in the early twentieth century. Really? So the evil nuns made the kids sick—they did not acquire sick children. What is really sick is the appetite to believe the worst about the Catholic Church.

O’Dowd would benefit from reading the story by Caroline Farrow posted yesterday on mercatornet.com. She speaks about the health conditions of children at the time the nuns were running the Mother and Baby Home in Tuam.

Farrow writes about “children subject to measles, influenza and gastroenteritis in crowded conditions, a time before antibiotics as well as poor diet and perennial low temperatures. An analysis of the death certificates indicates that the causes of death were rarely from one single determining factor—a lot of the children had had underlying ill-health or conditions since birth and some had been born with abnormalities.” I guess the evil nuns made that happen, too.

Don’t look for Irish Central to mention any of this. It would get in the way of its narrative.

Contact O’Dowd: niall@irishcentral.com