In addition to the impact on public health, the tangible impact of the Zika outbreak, such as on gross domestic product (GDP), could cost the Latin American and the Caribbean region as much as $18 billion between 2015 and 2017, a new United Nations report has revealed.

The report Socio-economic impact assessment of Zika virus in Latin America and the Caribbean, prepared by the UN Development Programme (UNDP) in partnership with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), has a particular focus on Brazil, Colombia and Suriname – countries that first reported the outbreak in October-November 2015.

Highlighting the far-reaching impact of Zika virus would go beyond tangible losses such as to the GDP and could potentially impact the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Jessica Faieta, the UNDP Assistant Administrator and Director of its Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, said:

“The consequences of the virus can undermine decades of social development, hard-earned health gains and slow progress towards [achieving] the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).”

The assessment also clearly showed that the impact of the virus was felt the most in poorer countries.

While larger economies such as Brazil could bear the greatest “absolute” burden, but the most “severe” impacts are likely be felt in the poorest countries such as Haiti.

“Zika reminds us that all countries and peoples remain vulnerable to emerging infectious diseases, and that a disease that primarily affects poorer populations has wide-ranging social and economic implications for entire communities,” added Magdy Martínez-Solimán, the UNDP Assistant Administrator and Director of its Bureau for Policy and Programme Support.

The impact assessment also highlighted the need to strengthen regional and national preparedness and response strategies which also involve communities and have particular focus on the needs of vulnerable group such as girls, women and persons with disabilities.

“The Zika virus has highlighted, once again, the critical role that communities and local health workers play during health emergencies,” said IFRC Regional Director for the Americas Walter Cotte highlighting that community engagement strengthens local partnerships, resilience and reduces stigma.

“We must continue to promote coordination at all levels and strengthen the Red Cross’ role as an auxiliary to public authorities.”

Clarity about the the value of government comes through its budget allocations. If there is more money provided for poverty alleviation, for instance, it indicates that the government is compassionate. If there are severe cuts to farm aid, it suggests that the government cares little for the trials of farmers. The government of Donald Trump—in close association with the Republican leadership in the United States Congress—has now provided its template for the budget. A reading of the document—merely 62 pages long—shows that the Trump administration seems to care little for those who suffer and much more for the military and the moneyed. Trump’s rhetoric about helping the “forgotten Americans” seems largely forgotten. Wall Street, the defence industry and the military contractors will benefit greatly from this budget. Those without jobs and who live in poverty will see little relief.

Trump ran for office making the pledge that he would turn his attention to those who had been abandoned by policymaking in Washington, D.C. The language he spoke was drawn from the doctrine of economic sovereignty—that the government should tend to the economic problems of its people before it worries about global problems. Nation-building at home, Trump said to rapturous applause, was more important than nation-building in Afghanistan or Iraq. There is little in this budget that reflects his nation-building-at-home promise. Has Trump abandoned the “forgotten Americans”? In introductory economics classes, students are taught the problems of resource allocation through the metaphor of “guns vs butter”. Governments have scarce resources and they must allocate these resources with care for the priorities of the people. It is necessary to spend some money on the military and the police, but if too much goes in that direction, it will undermine other requirements of society, such as education, health care and programmes for the elderly. A government’s decisions over how much to spend on “guns” impacts on how much remains to be spent on “butter”.

The Trump budget calls for an increase in U.S. military spending by $54 billion. This would lift the total U.S. military spending to $641 billion, edging up to 3.5 per cent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). The U.S. far outspends the rest of the world’s states in terms of military spending. China, the next on the list, spends a mere $215 billion, under 2 per cent of its GDP. Added up, the total military spending of the next nine countries after the U.S.—China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United Kingdom, India, France, Japan, Germany and South Korea—approaches the U.S. total. In other words, U.S. military spending was already far above that of other countries, while it is now in another stratosphere entirely. It is important to point out that Russia’s government, in this period, has cut its military budget by 25 per cent, down to roughly $60 billion. This means that Trump’s addition to the U.S. military budget amounts to 80 per cent of the total Russian military budget.

Trump will divert money to the military at the same time as he offers major tax concessions to the wealthy, deregulates business enterprises and cuts sharply on social programmes. The economic team in the administration is entirely staffed by former executives of the major financial behemoth Goldman Sachs—people such as Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and head of Trump’s National Economic Council Gary Cohn. These men are driving economic policy, much of it to benefit their own circle of billionaires and financiers. Money to help the American poor with heating costs and with affordable housing will be sliced, just as funding for education, the arts and the humanities will be cut. Regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency will lose their ability to do their jobs. This is what Trump’s adviser called the “deconstruction of the administrative state”. Rural Americans, many of whom drove miles to vote for Trump, will find themselves unable to avail themselves of rural airports and to listen to public radio on rural stations. Money for these initiatives will dry up. More money is spent on the military’s advertising budget than on the government-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Large numbers of government employees will lose their jobs. “Shrink the federal workforce,” says the draft budget. “You can’t drain the swamp and leave all the people in it,” said Mick Mulvaney, Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Senator Bernie Sanders, confronted with this draconian budget, called Trump a “fraud”. “I think he is going to sell out the middle class and the working class of this country,” said Sanders, who had run his primary campaign on the issue of rising social inequality in the U.S.

Cultural sovereignty

Despite an avalanche of negative publicity, Trump’s approval ratings, as reported by the Gallup poll, remain at 42 per cent. This has remained steady despite the chaos in the White House, the report that showed that 24 million Americans would lose their health care with Trump’s new plan, the ridiculous tweets about Barack Obama wiretapping Trump last year, and the catastrophic diplomatic fumbles with Germany and the U.K. None of this has impacted Trump’s followers, who are loyal to the core. What Trump’s team understands is that his supporters need economic support but that they also believe that their fortunes have been undermined by specific groups of people and policies. These include “Mexican illegal workers”, “Indian H-1B workers”, “the Chinese government’s fiscal policy”, and “radical Islamic extremism”. Trump justifies his budget choices not on the basis of rational calculations but on the prejudices of his followers. The main impulse that anchors his budget is “America First”.

In Trump’s preface to the budget document, he writes: “A budget that puts America first must make the safety of our people its number one priority—because without safety, there can be no prosperity.” In other words, the population of “forgotten Americans” must forgo their personal ambitions for that of the nation. It turns out, of course, that the “forgotten Americans” are the largest contributors to personnel in the U.S. armed forces. They have one or more family members in the military and have a personal connection to the idea of a strong military. Whether this helps their family in direct economic terms or not is beside the point. The idea that national strength translates to personal strength is a powerful emotion that cannot be set aside.

Trump’s preface points not only to the increase in defence spending but also to the building of the wall on the Mexican-U.S. border, to the increase of funds for Homeland Security, and to the increase of funds for the police. If economic sovereignty cannot easily be produced, then cultural sovereignty can be afforded to the population. Attacks on those who “do not belong”—illegal immigrants, terrorists, job stealers—become central to the message of the Trump administration. The id to Trump’s ego is Iowa Representative Steve King, who went on television news programmes to tout an unreconstructed racist message. “You cannot rebuild your civilisation with somebody else’s babies,” he said, referring to immigration. “You’ve got to keep your birth rate up and you need to teach your children your values.” No other civilisation, King said, had contributed anything worth studying. “Western civilisation” alone is to be championed. It is sufficient. Such messages of cultural superiority tickle the fancy of a population that will once more be forgotten when it comes to economic policy.

There is an element of raw truth in Trump’s draft budget. He writes that it is “a message to the world—a message of American strength, security and resolve”. A strong military, such a view suggests, would allow the U.S. to threaten its trade partners to resolve trade disputes, such as those over intellectual property rights or currency manipulation, to its benefit. U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s threats to North Korea—“all options are on the table”—send a strong message to China. Trump’s comments about a 30-foot-high border wall send a message to Mexico City and Ottawa regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Trump’s comments that NATO members “must pay what they owe” and his refusal to shake German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s hand during a photo opportunity, after she asked him specifically if he would like to shake hands, signify the kind of America First message that Trump wishes to send. In an earlier language, this attitude would have been characterised as “imperialism”. Nowadays, that term is rarely used. Which is largely why there is such confusion over how to understand the Trump agenda.

This article originally appeared in Frontline (India).

By my count, there are now four grounds to impeach Donald Trump. The fifth appears to be on its way.

First, in taking the oath of office, a president promises to “faithfully execute the laws & the constitution.” That’s Article II Section 2.

But Trump is unfaithfully executing his duties as president by accusing his predecessor, president Obama, of undertaking an illegal and impeachable act, with absolutely no evidence to support the accusation.

Second, Article I Section 9 of the Constitution forbids government officials from taking things of value from foreign governments. But Trump is making big money off his Trump International Hotel by steering foreign diplomatic delegations to it, and will make a bundle off China’s recent decision to grant his trademark applications for the Trump brand – decisions Chinese authorities arrived at directly because of decisions Trump has made as president.

Third: The 1st Amendment to the Constitution bars any law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But Trump’s ban on travel into the United States from 6 muslim countries – which he initiated, advocated for, and oversees – violates that provision.

Fourth: The 1st Amendment also bars “abridging the freedom of the press.” But Trump’s labeling the press “the enemy of the people,” and choosing who he invites to news conferences based on whether they’ve given him favorable coverage, violates this provision.

A fifth possible ground if the evidence is there: Article II Section 3 of the Constitution defines “treason against the United States” as “adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

Evidence is mounting that Trump and his aides colluded with Russian operatives to win the 2016 presidential election.

Presidents can be impeached for what the Constitution calls “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The question is no longer whether there are grounds to impeach Trump. The practical question is whether there’s the political will.

As long as Republicans remain in the majority in the House, where a bill of impeachment originates, it’s unlikely. Another reason why it’s critically important to flip the House in 2018.

By Kevin Jones

Facing legal scrutiny over foreign funding of efforts to fight Ireland’s anti-abortion law, a pro-abortion group has returned a $25,000 grant to billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

But Cora Sherlock, spokesperson for the Pro Life Campaign, fears the grant to the Ireland-based Abortion Rights Campaign was only “the tip of the iceberg.”

“There is no question this was politically motivated funding,” she told CNA April 5. “I think it is a good thing that the money was returned but there are still outstanding questions that have not be answered.”

In August 2016, CNA broke the news of documents that had been reportedly hacked from Open Society Foundations and posted to the site DCLeaks.com.

These documents showed a strategy proposal for the foundations’ Women’s Rights Program to fund the Abortion Rights Campaign, Amnesty International Ireland, and the Irish Family Planning Association “to work collectively on a campaign to repeal Ireland’s constitutional amendment granting equal rights to an implanted embryo as the pregnant woman (referred to as ‘fetal personhood’).”

That same month, the Republic of Ireland’s Standards in Public Office began to examine whether the funding violated Irish law, according to the newspaper The Irish Catholic, which cited documents released under a freedom of information act request.

Irish law forbids campaign groups accepting more than 100 Euro in donations from foreign sources that could be used for domestic political purposes.

Irish officials repeatedly sought copies of correspondence between the Abortion Rights Campaign and the Open Society Foundations, including its funding application.

The Abortion Rights Campaign was reluctant to hand over these documents.

It initially claimed all funding for political purposes had been revealed, The Irish Catholic reported. After another request, it invoked European Convention on Human Rights protections and maintained the grant was not for political purposes. The group claimed that providing the grant application and other correspondence would violate the European human rights convention and raise questions about confidentiality.

By November 2016, the Standards in Public Office threatened to report the campaign to Ireland’s national police if it did not turn over the relevant documents. The Abortion Rights Campaign then agreed to provide the documents while protesting the way the law was being applied.

The documents suggested that the campaign’s own grant application to the Open Society Foundations was conscious of political purpose.

According to the application, the purpose of is project was “to engage, energize, mobilize and provide self-education opportunities on issues of sexual health, reproductive rights and abortion in Ireland with a strategic goal of garnering support for repeal of the Eighth Amendment of the Irish Constitution, reducing abortion stigma, and increasing grass roots engagement.”

The Abortion Rights Campaign agreed to return the grant, but it reiterated its disagreement with the officials’ interpretation of the law.

Sherlock said there are “numerous” international pro-abortion rights groups and foundations besides the Open Society Foundations that have funded, or wish to fund, the movement against Ireland’s abortion law.

“A concern I would have is that international pro-abortion foundations have already contributed vast sums of money to ‘Repeal the Eighth’ groups in Ireland and it just so happens that some of the Soros funding has come to light under the DC Leaks exposé,” she said. “The sums of money given by the Open Society Foundations alone to Amnesty Ireland and the Irish Family Planning Association are far from insignificant. Hundreds of thousands of Euro have been transferred to these groups and I would fear this is the tip of the iceberg.”

Sherlock said she found it “very hard” to believe the other groups did not receive politically motivated funding. In her view, the DC Leaks documents “clearly showed that the funding from the Soros Foundation to these groups was intended to influence the campaign to repeal the Eighth Amendment.”

In response to The Irish Catholic report in March 2017, the Abortion Rights Campaign said that the grant was intended “to fund educational and stigma-busting projects.”

“Our focus remains on advocating for reproductive rights while striving to lift the stigma surrounding abortion in Ireland,” said the group’s spokesperson Linda Kavanagh.

The Republic of Ireland’s Eighth Amendment, passed by voters in 1983, acknowledges “the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

The Open Society Foundations documents suggested that the foundations saw any pro-abortion rights success in Ireland as a model to change pro-life laws in other Catholic countries in Europe, such as Poland. It also noted support for pro-abortion efforts in Mexico, Zambia, Nigeria, and Tanzania, and other parts of Latin America and Europe.

The strategy document said the foundations’ actions from 2016-2019 would aim to generate “a robust set of organizations advancing and defending sexual and reproductive rights and injecting new thinking/strategy into the field.”

Other documents on the DCLeaks.com website showed the Open Society Foundations collaborating with Planned Parenthood, the Hewlett Foundation and the Democracy Alliance in a multi-million dollar campaign to respond to videos that appeared to expose the abortion performer’s involvement in the illegal sale of fetal tissue and unborn baby parts for profit.

Using unsubstantiated allegation of a gas attack by the Syrian government, the US government has unleashed its military power in what is likely to be judged by future historians as yet another “pretextual war,” notwithstanding the 2003 invasion of Iraq on a WMD hoax.

The remarkable consistency in US’ militarism irrespective of changing guards at the White House clearly shows that we must probe the causes deeper and look beyond the figure or figureheads in the White House. In raining down some 50 cruise missiles on the Syrian army, the Trump administration has simply shown that the rhetoric of change and house cleaning were just empty rhetoric and continuity rather than discontinuity with the past pattern of US militarism rules Washington.

By all indications, the purpose of this “surgical strike” was to preempt an independent investigation of the gas attack, which might well have been caused by the rebels and or explosion at a munition depot held by them due to an airstrike, as Russia insists, yet instead of pushing for an investigation, both the US government and the entire “free” US media lined up behind it, uniformly pinned the attack on Damascus in order to lay the groundwork for the military strike, with Trump shedding tears for the affected victims, numbering in a few dozens according to reports, i.e., a relatively small figure by the horrific standards of the Syrian conflict now in its sixth year.

Coinciding with a suicide bombing at a St. Petersburg’s metro, on the day visited by President Putin, suggesting a high-level coordination, the gas attack in Syria is, of course, unacceptable by any human standard but, really, the question is who were the perpetrators and if some foreign hands had something to do with it? This question owes itself to the fact that in the past there have been reports of sarin gas being funnelled to the Syrian rebels from Libya via the Saudis and the Qataris. Add to this the fact that ISIS terrorists have captured Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons factories in Iraq in the recent past and, therefore, it is a sure bet that they have used those weapons on a number of occasions.

In comparison, in 2013, under a US-Russia agreement, Syria agreed to and fully implemented a disarmament plan with respect to its chemical weapons stockpile, which was verified by both parties and the world’s experts, yet there would be no comparable dispossession of chemical weapons in the hands of Syrian rebels and various terrorist groups. The latter have been on the defensive for nearly two years and, now, all of a sudden due to the infusion of US military on their side, aimed at weakening the Syrian government, these groups are receiving a new lease of life, bound to lengthen Syria’s agony precisely at a time when the on-going peace talks are showing tangible signs of progress. Intent on denying Russia-Syria-Iran-Hezbollah a decisive victory, the purpose of US military action is to change the equation of forces and to turn the tide of war against Damascus, even if it means an overnight flip-flop on the fate of Assad.

Concerning the latter, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was due in Moscow on April 11, was recently in Turkey lecturing the Turks about Syrians deciding their own fate, and yet he is now singing the tune of militarism, calling for Assad’s removal and a “transition” already under way. This is music in the ears of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who were close to being branded as the losing party in Syria, now somewhat rescued by Trump and his “humanitarian strike” at Syria, which carries multiple ramifications: (a) it will signify a dangerous new low in US-Russia relations, (b) it will antagonize Tehran to the detriment of the moderate President Rouhani and the nuclear deal, (c) it will embolden the terrorists and extremists operating in Syria and will likely be interpreted by them as a sign the US air power is acting on their behalf. Indeed, if there were any chances of a united anti-ISIS front that would include Russia and Iran, that scenario is now blown into pieces by the very moment the US missiles landed in Syria.

What all this will mean for the future of US intervention in Syria remains to be seen, depending to some extent on Russia’s response. What is clear, however, is that the dire prediction of many peace activists such as Noam Chomsky about Trump’s threat to world peace is now being realized before our eyes, cleverly camouflaged under the banner of punishing the inhuman Syrians, and sheepishly toed by the US media, the New York Times in particular. No wonder the scientists have moved the doomsday clock closer to midnight.

President Trump, in his first speech before Congress, called for an increase in the United States military budget, so as to provide American military personnel with the wherewithal to win wars. However, it is sound strategy, not weapons, that provides the foundation for eventual success in war.

By Bernard F W Loo*

In a meeting with state governors before his first speech to Congress, President Donald Trump declared: “We never win, and we don’t fight to win.” As a consequence, President Trump argued in Congress for a defence budget totalling US$603 billion, which represents an increase of US$54 billion beyond what the Budget Control Act has capped for fiscal year 2018.

The purpose of this proposed defence budget is to provide the United States military with the tools to maintain its deterrent posture and, where necessary, “to start winning wars again”. Interestingly, the chairs of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, Mac Thornberry and John McCain respectively, criticised the proposal as insufficient: “With a world on fire, America cannot secure peace through strength with just three percent more than President Obama’s budget.”

Two Sets of Issues

The proposed budget increase highlights two sets of issues: the capacity for US military forces to maintain peace and security throughout the world; and the capacity of the US military to win wars. The efficacy of military power in both is at best mixed.

In the first instance, military power is used for deterrent and peacekeeping purposes. For the US military, this translates into a range of missions around the world, from the Baltics and the Black Sea to the South China Sea. Such missions require presence, and this demands that capabilities be available.

For countries such as the Baltic states, South Korea and Japan, the continued presence of US military forces is regarded as desirable, even essential, for the maintenance of peace and stability in the respective regions.

Arguably, the US military is overstretched. Its military presence is truly global, deploying personnel and equipment from all three armed services. For a number of countries around the world, a continuing US military presence is regarded as contributing positively to the maintenance of security and stability in the respective region.

This military presence is regarded as evidence that the US maintains an interest in the security and stability of the particular region. An increase in military spending is potentially desirable in this regard, if it results in a US military that is better able to fulfill its global security missions.

The Rub

But there is a rub. It is difficult at best to ascertain the effectiveness of such operations by the US military. Much of the problem relates to the issue of deterrence: in any given situation, just because nothing happens does not necessarily mean that deterrence has held.

Similarly, the absence of an outbreak of armed conflict between otherwise adversarial states in any region cannot be absolutely attributed to the presence of US military forces.

However, it is the second issue – the capacity of US military forces to win wars – that is even more problematic. Simply put, as the title suggests, weapons alone do not win wars. If it were so, the United States should not have lost the war in Vietnam; the Soviet Union should not have withdrawn from its failed intervention and occupation of Afghanistan in 1989. Indeed, the history of wars tells us that every once in a while, a smaller power will defeat its militarily stronger adversary in war, if not in battle.

Superior weapons capabilities can result in victory in battles. The capability to locate adversarial military forces is essential to any armed forces ability to wage battle; and if one side can locate its adversary before the adversary can do likewise, this confers on the first side a potentially significant tactical advantage. Secondly, if the first side can then bring accurate and devastating kinetic force to bear against that adversarial force, the adversarial force faces the distinct prospect of being destroyed in battle.

However, the winning of battles, while desirable and even essential in war, does not itself guarantee strategic success – or victory – in war. The US, arguably, did not lose any battle against its North Vietnamese and Vietcong adversary; yet this is clearly strategically irrelevant.

Sound Strategy Factors

Arguably what caused the United States to lose the war in Vietnam and the former Soviet Union to lose in Afghanistan was the absence of sound strategy. A sound strategy is one that takes into consideration the following factors, none of which is more important than the other.

A sound strategy first identifies a political stake involved that is unequivocally important to the national interests of the country such that the country has to resort to the use of military force. As long as the national interest at stake is clearly important, and this importance is recognised not just by the political elites but by the rest of the population as well, this provides a firm foundation for the crafting of sound strategy.

Next, the country’s resources will need to be mobilised to ensure that the armed forces has the necessary wherewithal to wage war successfully. And there can be no half measures: no country should go to war while handicapping itself. However, as long as the national interest at stake has been clearly articulated to the population, and the population unequivocally accepts this articulation, the mobilisation of resources can be achieved with a minimum of political fuss.

Third, a coherent causal argument has to be constructed that relates the application of military power to the attainment of the political interests at stake. In other words, sound strategy must be able to show how the use of military power can achieve the political end-states that the country seeks to establish. And sound strategy can be crafted only when political elites and military planners are involved in the process.

Final Rub: Success Not Guaranteed

However, there is a final rub. Even sound strategy does not guarantee strategic success. War is just too non-linear: the law of unintended consequences always applies, and actions will not necessarily result in the intended outcomes.

The combination of overwhelming military power applied in a sound strategy merely increases the probability of a successful outcome. Just do not expect weapons per se to get the job done.

*Bernard F W Loo is Associate Professor at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

By Sandip Kumar Mishra*

South Korean President Park Geun-hye was impeached by the National Assembly on 9 December 2016. There were thirteen charges against her; these included bribery, influence peddling, and dereliction of duty. On 10 March 2017, the Constitutional Court of Korea unanimously upheld the impeachment, and sent Geun-hye to prison on 31 March.

In fact, the process of Park Geun-hye’s downfall began in October 2016, when it was reported that her old family friend, Choi Sun-sil, had access to government documents, took final decisions on government policy and appointments, and embezzled huge sums of money from Korean business houses by establishing various foundations. The widespread shock among South Koreans reflected in her popularity ratings, which reached a low of 4 per cent after these revelations.

Geun-hye’s downfall has been perceived in South Korea as a positive moment in their democratic processes. An entirely peaceful people’s movement has shown that the South Korea polity is governed by the ‘rule of law’ and that nobody is above it. In the peaceful protests that took place across South Korea over the past five months and in which more than half of the Korean population participated, there was no report of violence, destruction of public property, or rioting. The South Korean polity, which was earlier supposed to be divided between the conservative and progressive parties, appears much more cohesive than is believed – less than 20 per cent favours conservative forces.

The impeachment, apart from having consequences for domestic politics, is also going to have some important implications for South Korea’s relations with the US, China, Japan and North Korea.

One of the most important issues for the next South Korean presidential elections scheduled for 9 May 2017 is the installation of the Terminal High Altitude Air Defence (THAAD) system in the country. South Korea’s progressive parties are campaigning to review this decision. It has been alleged that Geun-hye did not allow enough public discussion on the subject and quite suddenly decided to deploy THAAD in early-2016, after North Korea’s missile and nuclear tests. In the first three years of her term, Gen-hye was keen on engaging China and had annual summit meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013, 2014 and 2015. In this period, South Korea joined the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), Chinese initiative, in spite of Washington’s displeasure. Earlier, it officially denied, on multiple occasions, that they were discussing THAAD with the US. It appears South Korea did not conduct a sufficient cost-benefit analysis of the situation, as China’s displeasure would have serious implications for their bilateral economic and security exchanges.

For the same reason, the US sent its first major installment of THAAD equipment to South Korea when the process of impeachment was underway. The intention was to move forward to a point of irreversibility or no return. The tactic may work, and if the process of installation moves beyond the critical phase, it will not be easy for the next South Korean president to reverse the decision even if they undertake a review.

However, despite the unlikelihood of a reversal of the decision on technical grounds, the next progressive president may try to mend relations with China, which have deteriorated in the past year and a half owing to THAAD. Over two South Korean progressive administrations, from 1998 to 2002, the country forged close ties with China in the political and strategic domains, and this might be repeated.

Geun-hye’s administration also reached a hasty ‘final deal’ with Japan in late December 2015 on the issue of comfort women. South Korea’s progressive parties have been consistently critical of this deal, and the new president in all likelihood will review it. It has been alleged that in the first three years of her presidency, Geun-hye held several South Korea-Japan bilateral exchanges hostage to the comfort women issue, and she agreed to a less-than-satisfactory deal when this started having a negative impact on South Korea. Notwithstanding domestic contestation, Japan-South Korea relations may deteriorate if the next president tries to revise or scrap the deal.

The Geun-hye administration has been criticised by the progressive parties on the issue of North Korean missile and nuclear tests as well, and her policy to engage North Korea has been deemed a failure. Although Geun-hye had initially proposed ‘trust politik’ with North Korea, inter-Korea relations and lines of communication worsened during her presidency. The next president may have a more genuine policy of engagement that would not demand mechanical or short-term reciprocity.

Overall, the South Korean president’s impeachment will lead to a significant shift in South Korea’s foreign policy orientation with implications for East Asian regional politics.

* Sandip Kumar Mishra
Associate Professor, Centre for East Asian Studies, JNU, & Visiting Fellow, IPCS

By Pramod Jaiswal*

2016 began with difficult start for Nepal. Shortly after the massive earthquake and the disaster that followed, there was a shortage of fuel and essential supplies due to the ‘economic blockade’ imposed by Madhesis to pressurise the government to address their demands related to the newly promulgated constitution. To add to the woes, the ‘economic blockade’ took place during the winter months when the country was struggling to recover from the earthquake that had claimed thousands of lives. Despite this, the then Prime Minister of Nepal, KP Oli, refused to address the demands of Madhesis, Janajatis and Tharus through amendments in the constitution.

With the prime minister’s reluctance to pay heed to the demands, the blockade was lifted after the 134 days long protest, without any result. The first quarter of 2016 was also a period of despair as Nepal lost its former Prime Minister and senior Nepali Congress leader, Sushil Koirala. It was also around the time when India-Nepal relations were at a low because the KP Oli-led government had accused India of supporting the ‘economic blockade’ imposed by the Madhesis.

To improve the New Delhi-Kathmandu relationship, Oli was invited for a six-day visit to India. However, nothing remarkable was achieved through his visit. Within few weeks, Oli paid a week-long visit to China. He tried to challenge India by signing an agreement on trade and transit with Beijing. However, the Oli-led government could not last long. It collapsed within 10 months, following the withdrawal of support by the Maoists as the Oli government had failed to address the demands of the Madhesis, Tharus and Janajatis. Subsequently, Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, Chairman, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Center) became Nepal’s prime minister for the second time with the support of Nepali Congress, the largest party in the parliament. Both the Nepali Congress and the Maoists agreed to equally share the remaining 18-month term between themselves. Prime Minister Dahal was able to garner the support of the Madhesi parties as well, because he assured them that he would address their demands.

While 2016 was a mixed bag, 2017 comes with several challenges. Nepal has to implement the newly promulgated constitution by taking the Madhesis on board by addressing their demands. The government also needs to hold the three-tier elections (local, provincial and federal) by January 2018, as mentioned in the constitution. Delivering on these would be a herculean task for both the incumbent and the upcoming government led by Nepali Congress in 2017. Failing to address these challenges will plunge Nepal into crisis.

Prachanda’s Promise

Prachanda promised the Madhesis, Janajatis and Tharus that their demands will be addressed through a constitutional amendment as he was in need of their support to become the prime minister for the second time. However, despite his attempts, he has failed to do so. Though he tabled the amendment proposal in the parliament, he could not garner the two-third majority required for the amendment. Moreover, under the pressure of the main opposition, the Communist Party of Nepal [Unified Marxist Leninist] (CPN-UML), he announced that local elections will be held on 14 May.

The newly promulgated constitution requires holding of three-tier elections by January 2018. In this context, the Election Commission of Nepal had asked the government to agree on election dates at the earliest to facilitate conducting all three elections within the stipulated time. Following the strong reaction and warning of withdrawing support to the Maoists’ government, Prachanda reiterated that he would address the demands of the Madhesis, Janajatis and Tharus through amendments before the local polls.

Local Elections

If the local body election takes place on the announced date – May 14 – Nepal will have a democratically elected local body after two decades. But the Madhesi political parties are agitating and have demanded that the government should first address their concerns regarding Madhesis, Janajatis and Tharus through constitutional amendments and then announce the poll dates. Meanwhile, the CPN-UML had demanded that the government should hold the elections and had rejected the proposition of constitutional amendments.

Following the announcement of the election date, Madhesi parties announced a series of protests in Madhes. They declared that they would not partake in the election and would instead foil the process unless their demands are addressed via a constitutional amendment. With this declaration, unfortunately, five Madhesis became the target of brutal extra judicial killing by the security forces in eastern Nepal when the United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF) cadres tried to disrupt the CPN-UML’s Mechi-Mahakali campaign.

Conducting the election without the participation of Madhesi parties is not possible and neither does it serve any purpose. It will further increase the rift between the Madhesi parties and the government, which will further complicate the existing issue. There are also chances of serious clashes between people of different communities in Madhes, which could spiral into instances of large-scale ethno-centric violence that will worsen the situation. As experienced in the past, it has the potential to escalate further with the mobilisation of security forces and the Nepal Army. The possibility of another ‘economic blockade’ at the India-Nepal border and similar implications cannot be ruled out. Frustration among the Madhesis, Tharus and Janajatis is already rising. The radicalised Madhesi youth, may raise a demand for a separate Madhes, like CK Raut’s group. Together, all these issues might create an environment for the formulation and organisation of armed insurgents like it did in the past. Under such circumstances, conducting the election is possible only if the government strikes a deal with the Madhesi parties, addresses their demands, and brings them on board for holding the election in a timely manner.

Economy

Nepal has faced an acute power crisis for over a decade. Nepalese people were subjected to power cuts that lasted as long as 18 hours a day during peak seasons. This impacted the economy and normal lives severely. However, with electricity imported from India and the increment in domestic electricity production and some strong bureaucratic action, the power crisis has almost been resolved. Hence, it is highly probable that in 2017, Nepal’s economy will thrive.

India-Nepal Relations

India and Nepal share deep historical, political, geographic, economic and socio-cultural ties. The two countries share an 1850-kilometre long open border and cross-border marriages are common. Under the provisions of the 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, citizens of both countries enjoy special privileges.

Given this level of engagement between the two countries, any change in government or policy in Nepal or India cannot negatively impact the relations heavily. Yet, the bilateral has witnessed ups and downs at times. The tension in the Nepal-India relationship during the Oli government tenure was rectified as soon as Prachanda took over. Though Nepalese president Bidhya Devi Bhandari’s India visit could not take place during Oli’s tenure, Indian President Pranab Mukherjee paid a three-day visit to Nepal – the first by an Indian president to Nepal in 18 years. Additionally, there were several other high level visits between leaders of the two countries.

India is Nepal’s largest trading partner and contributes significantly in the country’s development. New Delhi has played a crucial role in Nepal’s major political transitions, be it the overthrow of the autocratic Rana regime; introduction of democracy; restoration of democracy in 1990; abolition of Monarchy; or mainstreaming the Maoists. It will continue to play an important role in days to come.

However, with the thumping victory of Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) in Uttar Pradesh – an Indian state that shares borders with Nepal – there are apprehensions in Nepal that India might impose ‘Hinduism’ on secular Nepal or might attempt to revive monarchy. But, these are highly unlikely in the present context. Even if India plans for such adventurism, it will not succeed; instead, it would be counterproductive and would have lasting implications for India-Nepal relations. India should pay special attention in Nepal to consolidate its influence, as there are speculations that China would have proactive diplomacy and engagement in Nepal in days to come. New Delhi was already alarmed since Oli tried to bring China to counterbalance India. Hence, in 2017, India must pay special emphasis on improving connectivity; bringing the political parties together to resolve their internal differences in the constitution for peace and stability; and support Nepal in improving and consolidating its economy.

Overview

2017 is full of challenges for Nepal’s government as well as the political parties. The first and major challenge is to address the demands of Madhesis, Janajatis, Tharus and other marginalised groups. This will create an environment conducive for free, fair and credible elections. It will also pave way for implementing the constitution, which will gradually create peace and stability in Nepal. Failing to conduct all the three elections by January 2018 will lead the nation into another constitutional crisis and prolong the transition. Prime Minister Dahal also has to hand over the prime ministerial role to the Nepali Congress after the local election, to meet the terms of the agreement. If the political parties fail to overcome these challenges, Nepal is bound to face a series of protests, violence and demands for a separate Madhes, and the constitutional gains of the past would be at stake. Any instability and chaos in Madhes will impact the security of its neighbouring regions, especially India.

* Pramod Jaiswal
Senior Fellow, IPCS
E-mail: pramod.jaiswal@ipcs.org

By Hans Mathias Moeller

Singapore has not suffered any terrorist attacks since the mid-1990s. Despite the absence of any attacks, Singapore is increasingly vulnerable to terrorism and is a potential target for international terrorism via neighboring countries, insider threats, and returning foreign fighters to the region.  New laws and amendments introduced by Singapore’s Parliament to boost physical security went into effect at the end of March 2017, further underscoring the growing concern over terrorism.

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) Global Terrorism Database (GTD) indicates that Singapore has experienced seven attacks over the past four decades. Despite the absence of successful terrorist attacks, the terrorist threat to Singapore appears to be on the rise. This assertion is based on several factors:

News Laws Underscore Rising Terrorism Threat

Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs Desmond Lee announced in Parliament in March 2017 that the Public Order Act would be amended to enhance measures to better guard against terrorism with regard to events with large crowds. A new Infrastructure protection act will also be introduced in 2017. These new measures went into effect at the end of March 2017, and will make businesses increasingly responsible to protect buildings and infrastructure against terrorism should they organize high-risk and large crowd events. Proposed measures include security officers, barricades, and full-person and bag checks. These laws are another indication that Singapore’s authorities view terrorism as a growing threat.

Singapore’s Insider Threat and Geographical Proximity to Terrorist-Prone Neighbors

Singapore has foiled a number of terrorist plots, including an August 2016 plot to attack the Marina Sands resort with rockets (unknown weapon) from the Indonesian island Batam. The island is located less than 30 km from Singapore. The attack itself was reportedly ordered by Bahrun Naim, the leader of Katibah Nusantara, a unit consisting of Southeast Asians fighting with the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS).

Singaporean authorities made significant arrests in 2015 and 2016. These terrorism-related arrests highlight a transnational terrorist threat from within Singapore. In November 2015 and March 2016, the Internal Security Department (ISD) detained 40 Bangladeshi workers planning to target Bangladeshi military and government workers.  The ringleader, Rahman Mizanur, said he would carry out an attack anywhere if he were instructed by ISIS to do so. The recruitment occurred inside Singapore and targeted foreign Bangladeshi workers in the construction and maritime industries.

These incidents are a reminder that terrorists associated with ISIS have both the intent, and a history of attempting to target Singapore. The radicalization of foreigner workers also suggests that Singapore is not completely immune to ISIS’ radical ideology.

Singapore is also located in close proximity to countries that experienced recent terrorist attacks by ISIS and the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). Malaysian authorities have for example prevented nine ISIS terrorist plots against Malaysia since 2014. ISIS’ first successful attack in Indonesia occurred in January 2016 and shut down a busy shopping district in downtown Jakarta. The leader of Katibah Nusantara had allegedly ordered the attack in Jakarta. ISIS related activities in 2016 and 2017 indicate that ISIS has turned its attention to Southeast Asia and terrorism could spill over into Singapore from neighboring countries.

The City-State Island – A “Legitimate” and Attractive Economic Target

Singapore is a contributor to the Operation Inherent Resolve coalition that fights ISIS in Syria and Iraq. ISIS online magazines have repeatedly called for retributive attacks against members of the anti-ISIS coalition. A number of countries, including but not limited to France, Russia, Belgium, and Germany have specifically been targeted by ISIS. Singapore is, in the eyes of ISIS, a legitimate target.

Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) and ISIS have previously expressed intents and incited supporters to target Singapore in social media and online magazines. From a terrorist perspective, Singapore is an attractive target. Singapore is the region’s economic capital and hosts many Western multinational corporations. The city-state island is also a strategic trade port with economic trade ties between Southeast Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. It is primarily an economic target.

Furthermore, as AQIS once noted in its Resurgence magazine, Singapore is a strategic chokepoint and attacks against freighters with small-boats loaded with explosives in the Malacca Strait could temporarily disrupt global oil and commercial trade. Singapore’s tourism industry is also a major contributor to the country’s gross domestic products and a sustained terrorism campaign could undermine foreign investments and tourism revenues.

The Return of ISIS Fighters – Threatening Regional Stability and Singapore

The degradation of ISIS in Syria and Iraq or loss of territory and rank-and-file members could result in a returning wave of Southeast Asian fighters in the months ahead. Some foreign fighters may be disengaged or disillusioned with ISIS ideology, and others may still be motivated to attack on behalf of ISIS. A return of well-trained fighters, many of whom are members of Katibah Nusantara, could strengthen terrorist cells operating in the region, primarily in Malaysia and Indonesia, and undermine regional security.

ISIS also appears to be making progress in establishing a ‘province’ (Wilayat) in the southern Philippines (central Mindanao). ISIS has, with some effectiveness, tapped into local insurgencies and terrorist groups in the region. Rohan Gunaratna, head of the International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research in Singapore notes that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has appointed the former ASG chief, Isnilon Hapilon, to lead ISIS in Southeast Asia. If ISIS opens up a new front in Southeast Asia while strengthening its ties with terrorist groups in the region such as ASG and Jemaah Ansharut Tauhid, it could put not just Singapore, but Australia (which is geographically close to southern Philippines) in the crosshairs of ISIS-inspired terrorism as well.

The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the authors are theirs alone and don’t reflect any official position of Geopoliticalmonitor.com, where this article appeared

The rift between the European Union and member state Hungary is widening, with the EU Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker criticizing two recent issues that are seen as pushing Budapest away from EU values, The Associated Press reports.

Juncker said Thursday, April 6 he objects to an education bill that critics say targets a university founded by billionaire American philanthropist George Soros. It was pushed by lawmakers from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party.

On top of that, he criticized the Hungarian government’s new National Consultation that has the motto “Let’s Stop Brussels.”

Juncker said that “after reading this biased questionnaire, I would like to better understand Mr. Orban’s intentions,” adding the criticism of EU headquarters ran counter to Orban’s reinforced support for the EU at a summit in Rome two weeks ago.

While the economic performance of Latin America is expected to be better this year and next compared to 2016, uncertainties and risks could get in the way of the opportunities, leaders from government, finance and international organizations concluded in a session on the economic outlook for the region at the 2017 World Economic Forum on Latin America.

“The region is pulling out of recession,” said David A. Lipton, First Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington DC. “The region has the chance to make important strides.” He pointed out that the global context is favourable, with growth momentum picking up on the back of a rise in industrial production around the world. “It’s time for the region to make the most of an opportunity.” Growth in the region could run to 2.5-2.7% in the short term, he added.

“The region is going to grow after two years of contraction,” Alicia Bárcena Ibarra, Executive Secretary, United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), agreed. “We have curbed inflation.” But, she cautioned, “the region faces a very uncertain context. What the region hasn’t been able to underpin enough is its investments.” Latin America is difficult to analyse as a whole because of the different situations in each country, but “structural gaps persist that are very complex”. Countries should assess their fiscal space carefully, she advised, noting that more than 14 countries in the region have already undergone tax reforms that have offset in part the drop in non-tax revenue.

“We see upside and downside risks,” Lipton remarked. The uncertainties around the new US administration and its policy decisions, especially in trade, are a concern. Latin American countries would do well to build greater links among themselves, increase intra-regional trade and boost links with other regions and emerging markets, he said.

The word that best describes the outlook for Mexico is “uncertainty”, Guillermo Ortiz, Chairman, BTG Pactual Latin America at Banco BTG Pactual SA, concurred. The rhetoric during the US election was “highly disruptive” for Mexico, he observed. But “I believe we are in a much better situation – those in the US who are in charge of the bilateral agenda are experienced people who know the country very well.”

“The main risk for Panama and the region is the lack of certainties,” Dulcidio De La Guardia, Minister of Economy and Finance of Panama, said. He too argued that the rhetoric of the US presidential campaign does not reflect what is really happening. “We have seen far more reasonable steps taken than what we heard.”

In Brazil, Ortiz reckoned, “something very significant is happening”. The country is exiting its worst recession and the new leadership is poised to deliver a stabilized economy. “The most important issue is to ensure the stability of public finances. There is now a cap in total spending and they are focusing on social security. Inflation is dropping significantly. Brazil will have lower inflation than Mexico. I can’t remember when that last happened. Brazil will show modest growth this year but next year might surprise us with far higher growth.”

Argentina is another turnaround tale in Latin America. “We inherited enormous problems,” Nicolas Dujovne, Minister of the Treasury of Argentina, acknowledged. But since he came into office in 2015, President Mauricio Macri has implemented reform policies that have yielded significant results. Its fiscal consolidation plans have been deliberate. “Fiscal gradualism is not a slogan to procrastinate in fiscal terms,” Dujovne explained. “It is a strategy.” The administration will be focusing on tax reform after upcoming mid-term elections. “This government was confronted with a very difficult situation and has taken the right approach,” Lipton observed. “It is off to a good start and headed in the right direction.”

Asked about corruption across the region, Ortiz predicted that the problem would be “the defining issue” of the presidential elections in Mexico next year. “Corruption is clearly a tax paid by the poor but you have to be certain that, when cleaning your house, you are not knocking it down,” De La Guardia warned. “The fight against corruption hasn’t gone too far,” Dujovne asserted. “Any level of corruption affects investment and the credibility of a country.” “We live in a culture of privileges. But we need to install a culture of shared prosperity – or else we won’t be able to move ahead,” Bárcena concluded.

More than 1,000 business, government and civil society leaders are taking part in the 12th World Economic Forum on Latin America in Buenos Aires, Argentina from 5 to 7 April 2017. The theme of the meeting is “Fostering Development and Entrepreneurship in the Fourth Industrial Revolution”.

Authorities in the northeastern Chinese province of Liaoning have formally arrested two South Korean Protestant pastors accused of trying to help North Koreans flee across the border into China.

Neither pastor has been named. One was arrested along with his wife in February as they tried to board a plane for South Korea from Qingdao in the eastern province of Shandong, while the second was detained at a hotel in the northeastern city of Qinhuangdao, Radio Free Asia (RFA) reported.

While both wives have since been released, the two pastors remain in police detention.

Peter Chung, spokesman for the human rights group Justice For North Korea, said their families have hired lawyers to represent the pastors, now that the cases look set to proceed to trial.

“The cases are now with the state prosecutor’s office; all the files are with the prosecutor now,” Chung told RFA on April 5. “This was approved on March 29.”

He said “their lawyers have already met with them a number of times, and they both seem to be in good health.”

A Chinese rights lawyer who declined to be named said the pastors had been charged with “organizing illegal crossing of a national border,” a charge carrying a relatively light sentence in view of the humanitarian intentions behind their actions.

“I think they are trying to treat them in a friendly manner, bearing in mind political considerations, because they are foreigners,” the lawyer said. “They will be dealt with a bit more leniently.”

“It’s likely that they will be deported before sentencing, or even after it, but not have to serve it,” he said.

China says North Koreans fleeing political persecution in the home country are “economic migrants,” and typically repatriates them.

Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena said that the current methods of tax collections should be more efficient and systematic for the development of national economy.

Sirisena made the statement during the address of 16th annual meeting of commissioners Association of Inland Revenue held at the Kingsbury Hotel (April 6).

State income, which has to be collected through State Institutions, certain private companies and investment projects have made several issues regarding the failures of such institutes, said Sirisena.

Sirisena also said to improve the citizen’s life style, and create a prosperous economy for them, everyone must fulfill their duties and responsibilities.

To improve the quality of tax collection in Sri Lanka, a number of foreign training sessions are to be introduced to staff members as Sirisena mentioned.

By Jaya Ramachandran

With the Somali pirates back after a lull of five years, the United Nations and the European Union anti-piracy taskforce (EU Naval Force) are urging greater vigilance and asking ships to continue to follow the advice of navies and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) when planning passage off Somalia.

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Executive Director Yury Fedotov said: “After . . . attacks, following a lull of five years, it is clear that Somali pirates are resurgent and intent on continuing attacks on commercial shipping. I urge the international community to be vigilant, to work in close partnership and to hold the Somali pirates accountable.” Fedotov was speaking after a spate of recent piracy attacks off Somalia.

According to analysts, there are several reasons for resurgence in piracy, including drought, famine, corruption, a surge of smuggled weapons and the influence of the Islamic State.

A Pakistan-owned cargo vessel, which was carrying food, was hijacked off the coast of central Somalia, Somali officials said on April 4, according to the New York Times. The hijacking came hours after the pirates hijacked an Indian vessel along the coast of Somalia near a village named El Hur.

Abdillahi Ahmed Ali, mayor of Somali town Hobyo, confirmed the incident while talking to Voice of America, but expressed unawareness about the number of crew members on the Pakistani vessel called Salama 1.

An Indian registered cargo dhow, which was hijacked by suspected Somali pirates on April 1, was meanwhile in the vicinity of Hobyo, the EU Naval Force said on April 3. “EU Naval Force can confirm that an Indian registered cargo dhow was seized by suspected pirates on 01 April and is now in the vicinity of Hobyo, Somalia,” a statement on its website said.

Commenting the recent attacks, the head of UNODC’s Nairobi-based Maritime Crime Programme Alan Cole said: “The threat of Somali piracy has never gone away: it has been suppressed by the good work of the shipping industry and their security teams, navies, and UNODC’s support to the trial and imprisonment of 1,300 pirates.”

Large parts of the Somali coast remain beyond the reach of law enforcement authorities so ships should continue to follow the advice of navies and the International Maritime Organisation when planning passage off Somalia. UNODC continues to support the trials of piracy suspects in the region and the Somali maritime law enforcement agencies as they extend their reach around the Somali coast.

UNODC’s Global Maritime Crime Programme works in South and South East Asia, West Africa and the Indian Ocean, and in five locations across Somalia. The programme addresses every aspect of maritime crime including terrorism, people trafficking, migrant smuggling, narcotics trafficking, fisheries crime, maritime hostage-taking and maritime piracy.

In the wake of the hijack of the Aris 13, off Puntland – a region in northeastern Somalia whose leaders declared the territory an autonomous state in 1998 – IMO Secretary-General Kitack Lim urged the shipping industry to apply diligently IMO guidance and best management practices to avert possible piracy attacks,

“While we have seen a very welcome decline in piracy off Somalia since the last reported hijack by Somali pirates in 2012, the reality is that piracy off the coast of Somalia has not been eradicated and the underlying conditions have not changed,” Lim added.

Merchant shipping should continue to take protective measures against possible piracy attacks in the Gulf of Aden and the western Indian Ocean through diligent application of IMO guidance and Best Management Practices, Lim said.

He also called upon the Federal Government of Somalia and its regional authorities in Puntland to take prompt action to ensure the safe and speedy release of the eight Sri Lankan seafarers.

Data on incidents reported to IMO show that the hijack of the tanker Aris 13, on March 13, was the first reported hijack of a vessel covered by IMO regulations by Somali pirates since the tanker Smyrni in May 2012.

Since 2012, although piracy has been largely contained, Somali pirates have continued to attempt to hijack ships, but less frequently. The most recent reported attempted attack in the region was on the UK flagged product tanker CPO Korea in October 2016. In that incident, the ship was reported safe after the attack failed.

Lims advised ships transiting the high-risk area to follow IMO guidance and best management practices. Specifically, they should register with the Maritime Security Centre – Horn of Africa  (MSCHOA), report to the UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) office in Dubai, which acts as the primary point of contact for merchant vessels and liaison with military forces in the region, implement IMO guidance and Best Management Practices (BMP), and follow the Internationally Recommended Transit Corridor (IRTC).

By Bhaskar Roy*

There is great expectation in China that when President Xi Jinping meets President Donald Trump at the Mar-a-Lago resort (April 6-7) relations will be reset as the Chinese say in a “win-win” manner. At the moment the Chinese are not quite sure how Trump will react to various planks that he had outlined in the run-up to his elections, and even after that.

More challenging news now comes that Trump is issuing an executive order just before Xi’s arrival, directing officials to examine over a dozen countries, product by product, to identify dumping in the US. He is concerned about USA’s huge trade deficit. (India is one of the countries in this list). China is the number one country, though US-China bilateral trade in 2016 was around $519 billion. China has trade surplus with most countries if not all, including India.

Trump has a slew of allegations against China ranging from trade and economic to military and strategic. But how consistent he is in sticking to his promised actions? He loudly proclaimed that USA’s “One China” policy (regarding Taiwan) will be reviewed, but fell in line after a telephone call from Xi. He reassured Xi that the “One China” policy will be honoured.

China experienced a meteoric rise in its economic power in the last two decades. Part of it powered its military modernisation which its neighbours interpret as “with us, or against us”. But all good things do not last and China faces economic slowdown. Beijing has embarked on an economic model change. It cannot rely on an export driven economy and has to create a surge in domestic demand. It is restructuring, but that is a complex enterprise, and will take time. It has a huge forex reserve, more than three trillion dollars. To keep the economic arteries alive it is seeking to invest abroad, mainly in developing countries where Chinese citizens are brought in to work. But the attitude of some of the Chinese workers in foreign countries, especially in developing countries, is odious, to say the least. Recently, a Chinese citizen working for a Chinese cell phone manufacturing company, in an altercation with Indian employees, tore up the Indian national flag and dumped it in a trash bin. According to Indian law he could have been jailed for twelve months at least. He was sent back home and the company apologised. This is a demonstration of growing Chinese arrogance.

Some African countries where Chinese companies have invested, especially in the mining sector, have faced Chinese arrogance and exploitation.

The Chinese leaders realise that they have to move from cheap light industrial exports to more heavy sectors like steel and aluminium. The US Department of commerce has initiated an investigation on anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Chinese aluminium products. China has now huge excess capacity in several sectors which it has to address, because if affects jobs.

True to character, Trump’s protectionism prescription is punishment. It cuts both ways, however. It is still early days and US industries are watching very carefully. If China stops buying heavy items from the US, American industries will also take a hit. According to China’s Ministry of Commerce, it receives 26 percent of Boeing jet orders, 56 percent of US bean exports, 16 percent of automobile exports, and 15 percent of integrated circuit exports, among other things. For US companies, manufacturing in China is cheaper than making the products in the US, keeping domestic market prices down (though labour wages in China are also increasing).

But bringing back jobs to the US is not a simple mantra as Trump is trying to push. He just cannot dislocate America from the globalized world. It will result in American job losses which Trump can hardly afford at the moment, when his approval rate is going down sharply. China can absorb the blow back, given its political system.

A host of security and strategic issues encompassing the Asia Pacific region will be on the table. Trump has put the North Korean nuclear and missile development issue high on the agenda. By saying the US will deal with the situation with or without China, a veiled military option has been weighed in. This statement from Trump, coming just before Xi Jinping’s visit, does not augur a good beginning.

Is this one of Trump’s rants from which he will retract or is this a well-considered statement taking into consideration the views of all involved in US departments, will be revealed soon. Given his recent track record, this statement appears to be one of his personal brain waves or inspired by his son-in-law Jared Kushner, his prime foreign policy advisor.

America’s two East Asian allies, Japan and South Korea are unlikely to subscribe to such a misadventure. An attack on Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile establishment will also provoke in all likelihood a massive retaliation targeting South Korea, Japan and American military positions. Seoul can be reduced to rubble by North Korean artillery.

China will not stand by idly. If the US tries to get an UN sanction for such a military action, it will not pass. The impact will be unimaginable.

China is a key player in the North Korean nuclear issue. Although Beijing’s influence on Pyongyang may have reduced as they claim, no other country has near as much influence as China has. All roads to North Korea lie through China. Periodic stoppage of oil supplies or small trade sanctions whenever there is an international outrage over North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests, are not convincing. President Xi Jinping has not met North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, and not likely to any time soon. But that does not preclude the two countries from conducting deep exchanges.

There is a defence from China’s side that if North Korea collapses, a flood of refugees will pour into China and create a very difficult law and order and social situation, impacting its security. China has a point, but a limited one.

China’s problem is that if North Korea collapses, it would unite with South Korea and a bigger and stronger Korea (with nuclear power) will emerge on China’s shoulder, with American influence. This is just not acceptable to Beijing. The balance of power may shift heavily in favour of the US and its allies in East Asia, just when China is trying to knit together the concept of “Asian Security for Asians and by Asian only”.

The six-party (China, US, North Korea, South Korea, Japan and Russia) talks remain frozen. Meanwhile, the freeze has given space to North Korea to improve its nuclear and missile capability right under China’s (benevolent?) nose.

China’s strong opposition to the THAAD advanced antimissile defence system in South Korea is linked to both North Korea and US-China rivalry for military supremacy in the region. The US has already started the process and Trump is unlikely to pull back at this moment.

Two Chinese moves must be taken into consideration. One is the 2014 Shanghai summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA). Xi Jinping proposed a charter on how Asians could manage security for themselves. He followed it up with further elaboration in the 2016 CICA meeting. The low tone was how to come together under China’s leadership and keep the US out.

The other is the White Paper on “China’s Policies on Asia-Pacific Security Cooperation” (January, 2017). This is the first Chinese White Paper on a new regional architecture under China’s leadership but not totally evicting the US. The two moves need to be analysed together as they are two parts of a whole. President Donald Trump and his team must ask the Chinese during Xi Jinping’s visit or at a separate bilateral forum, to give specific clarity. Not all countries in Asia, or Asia-Pacific region/ Indo-Pacific region can surrender to this Chinese vision.

The problem in the Asia Pacific region is that most if not all countries depend on China economically but look to the US where military and security are concerned. China believes that economy and security are two wheels of a chariot and must be joined by one axle- that is China.

A host of other issues are likely to be on the Trump-Xi agenda, not the best being the South China Sea issue. At the same time, non-militarization of the Indian Ocean must be kept in view. Prowling in the Indian Ocean with battle ships and attack submarines on the excuse of defending interests is not conducive to the stability of the Indian Ocean littoral states.

Xi Jinping will be visiting the US for this summit meeting when President Trump is fighting internal fires lit by him. Trump’s handpicked secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s maiden visit to China showed up some weaknesses. In Beijing, Tillerson Lip-synced the Chinese recipe for major power relations with the US – principle “no conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation”, withdrawing from the earlier aggressive position.

China was appreciative of Trump’s efforts to erase whatever was the Obama policy, especially in foreign policy centered on Obama’s Asian Pivot. This is just the beginning. There should be no expectation that Xi Jinping will retract in any conceivable move against US pressure. He is at the top of his power and the 19th Congress of the Chinese communist party in the autumn fall this year is critical for him. He cannot show any weakness.

(The writer is a New Delhi based strategic analyst. He can be reached at e-mail grouchohart@yahoo.com)

By Thorsten Polleit*

The European Central Bank (ECB) pushed its deposit rate to minus 0.4 percent in April 2016: Since then, euro area banks must pay 0.4 percent per annum on their excess reserves held at ECB accounts.

This, in turn, has far-reaching consequences.

To start with, banks seek to evade this “penalty rate,” especially by buying government bonds.

That inevitably pushes bond prices up and lowers bond yields. Moreover, the ECB keeps monetizing government debt as well. The result is a tremendous downward pressure on the yield environment. For instance, the real (inflation-adjusted) return on short-term German bonds currently stands at around minus 2.5 percent per annum.

Negative interest rates (both in nominal and real terms) contribute to lowering the debt burden of financially overstretched states and banks. In fact, negative interest rates force the ratio between outstanding debt and gross domestic product to shrink. Such a monetary policy benefits borrowers at the expense of creditors. The latter has to foot the bill.

At the same time, however, Eurozone banks’ businesses suffer from the ECB’s negative interest rate policy. On the one hand, they find it increasingly difficult to remain profitable in an environment of extremely suppressed interest rates. On the other hand, banks run into higher costs due to a negative ECB deposit rate (and the costs keep rising as the ECB creates more and more excess reserves in the banking system).

Banks are under pressure to impose negative rates on client accounts. Given negative deposit rates, however, clients are most likely to withdraw (at least part of) their deposits in cash, and banks could experience a (huge) cash drain, resulting in a funding gap. They are therefore likely to increasingly push the ECB to end the policy of keeping the deposit rate in negative territory.

A New Experiment

If the ECB relents (and it is likely that it does), it would presumably bring the deposit rate back to zero. This, in turn, would bring all bond yields back up and above the zero line. To prevent the interest rate from rising too much, however, the ECB would have to continue manipulating long-term bond yields. This can be achieved by continued bond purchases.

The ECB can set long-term yields at politically desired levels. It simply declares a certain minimum price for bonds. The market prices of bonds will converge towards the minimum price and will not fall below such a level. By monetizing debt, the ECB expands the outstanding quantity of money, driving up inflation at the same time.

The new regime will most likely look like this: Eurozone bond yields in nominal terms will go up slightly. Inflation will also go up, reaching or even exceeding nominal yield levels. This, in turn, will force real returns (that is nominal yields minus inflation) into negative territory. If inflation does not go up too much, most depositors and investors can be expected to stick to their fixed-income holdings.

The new interest rate regime would indeed be positive for ailing euro area banks: The yield curve would remain sufficiently steep, which should turn out to be profitable for banks in terms of lending. At the same time, the negative short-term interest rates help to debase their liabilities against depositors and investors. In fact, the ECB policy would amount to a large-scale bank bail-out program.

In the light of the political desire to keep the euro together, the ailing Eurozone banking industry can be expected — as a necessary condition — to be bailed out by the ECB. It seems therefore likely that the ECB will end its policy of a negative deposit rate sooner rather than later in favor of increasing inflation. Such a policy will entail an ongoing debasement of peoples’ life savings in euro-denominated bank deposits and bonds.

This is the uncomfortable truth of the euro currency experience. As it seems, people in the euro area about to learn an old lesson: namely that unbacked paper money — which is what the euro represents — cannot be trusted. Or, as Thomas Paine put it: “Paper money appears at first sight to be a great saving, or rather that it costs nothing; but it is the dearest money there is.”

About the author:
*Dr. Thorsten Polleit, Chief Economist of Degussa and macro-economic advisor to the P&R REAL VALUE fund. He is Honorary Professor at the University of Bayreuth.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

The real red herring is the Russia collusion story considering there is zero evidence that Russia actually tampered with the US elections.

By Adelle Nazarian

Even before his first 100 days in office, the left has tirelessly aimed to dismantle Donald Trump’s presidency using the Russia narrative to take down those closest to him, one by one, until — like in the game chess — they reach the king himself.

The allegations that Trump “colluded” with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election are so outrageous that even those who were opposed to his candidacy have indirectly come to his defence.

For one, outspoken billionaire Mark Cuban recently argued over Twitter that there was “no chance this is a DJT-led conspiracy,” because Trump “isn’t detail oriented, organised or big picture enough” to pull off such a thing.

Cuban also suggested that if anyone who had developed ties to Russia became involved in Trump’s campaign, they “had no clue that those connections were possibly being influenced by Russia” and that they “had no idea what was happening.”

In Russia, the lines are often blurred between business and politics.

However, one cannot examine the left’s Russia narrative without considering the strong likelihood that members of the Obama administration surveilled the Trump campaign and their associates, both foreign and domestic, to gather information which they then used to allege collusion.

President Trump alleged that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Towers to garner information about his team and how foreign diplomats viewed him soon after the Russia talks surfaced.

Last month, House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) announced that two White House aides provided him with dozens of intelligence reports that included details — highly inappropriate details — on President Trump’s transition team. Despite it all, the Democrats have relentlessly pushed the Russian “collusion” narrative, suggesting that the wiretapping allegations are merely a diversion tactic.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called Trump’s wiretapping claims a wrap-up smear employed by authoritarian leaders. “It’s called a wrap-up smear,” Pelosi said on CNN. “You make up something. Then you have the press write about it. And then you say, everybody is writing about this charge. It’s a tool of an authoritarian.”

However, the real red herring is the Russia collusion story considering there is zero evidence that Russia actually tampered with the US elections. In fact, Hillary Clinton managed to torpedo her own campaign by skipping over working-class, white male voters in places like Michigan and Wisconsin; states that helped push Trump into the White House.

To understand the true nature of obstruction, one must look no further than 2015, when the Obama administration interfered in Israeli elections by paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a group that sought to unseat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But whose counting.

For one, the CENTCOM scandal of 2014 was a hallmark of the Obama administration’s history of manipulating intelligence for political gain. That year, senior members of US Central Command changed intelligence assessments in order to make it seem like, under the leadership of then-President Obama, the United States was winning the war against the Islamic State. The same Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, Daesh) that Obama infamously referred to the terrorist group as the “JV team.”

Further, the allegations that Russia was behind thousands of leaked Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails — which helped expose the corruption of the Clinton campaign — were denied by WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange who outright said: “That is the circumstantial evidence that some Russian, or someone who wanted to make them look like a Russian, was involved, with these other media organisations. That is not the case for the material that we released.”

Last month, Pelosi’s Democratic counterpart, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, echoed her sentiment on the news network. “For a president of the United States to make such an incendiary charge — and one that discredits our democracy in the eyes of the world — is as destructive as it was baseless.”

Yet, on Sunday, CNN’s State of the Union Sunday Schiff said that he did not “agree with” chairman Nunes’s “characterisation” of the documents about the alleged surveillance of Trump’s transition. And he certainly did not say Nunes was wrong about what he said.

And while the Obama administration, a former intelligence official, and FBI Director James Comey have denied the charges that wiretapping took place at Trump Tower, last month, Fox News senior political contributor Brit Hume pointed out a potential contradiction in Comey’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee about Trump’s 2016 election campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia that raised eyebrows.

Hume noted that during the testimony, Comey acknowledged that an investigation dating back to last summer took place, but he also denied that there was surveillance, which was likely necessary to have an investigation in the first place.

“The FBI director also said in an answer to the question that he had found no evidence, no information pointing to a wiretap of Donald Trump or of Trump Tower — no evidence of that,” Hume told Tucker Carlson. “However, what about this investigation that’s been going on since July of the Trump campaign and Trump associates? Are we to believe there is no surveillance associated with that? We do know, as you pointed out, that Mike Flynn was caught up in a wiretap. That may be a routine wiretap of the Russian ambassador to whom he was speaking. But who knows?”

Hume also noted that when Comey made the announcement that there was an ongoing investigation, “[H]e said he received permission from higher up to do this announcement.” Hume drew back to a 19 January story in the New York Times that said that the investigation “was based on surveillance that indicated there had been these contacts. That story also said it wasn’t clear that the wiretaps turned up anything about the Trump campaign. So, we don’t kind of know where we are here. And remember this — this is also supposedly a counterintelligence investigation, which means that it is basically national security matters. So, what’s up with that? I mean, what’s that tell us about how likely they are to find about Putin or collusion? One wonders.”

Carlson added, “[I]f there was an investigation, and there was, there was surveillance.”

A reporter for the New York Times recently suggested that the Obama administration “left a trail of bread crumbs” of evidence in an attempt to tie Trump’s campaign to the Russians. However, the cake is in the fact that Trump’s campaign was being surveilled by the previous administration in order to find out who he was meeting with and what they were saying about him.

But more than anything else, you don’t get bread crumbs from cake.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin “regards the US strikes as aggression against a sovereign nation,” his spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, noting that the president believes the strikes were carried out “in violation of international law, and also under an invented pretext.”

Peskov also insisted that “the Syrian army doesn’t have chemical weapons,” saying this had been “observed and confirmed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a special UN unit.”

Putin sees the US missile strike on Syria as an attempt to distract attention from civilian casualties in Iraq, Peskov added.

“This step deals significant damage to US-Russian ties, which are already in a deplorable state,” Peskov said.

(RFE/RL) — A truck has been driven into the crowded Ahlens department store in the Swedish capital, Stockholm, killing at least three people in a suspected terrorist attack.

“There are deaths, and many injured,” Nina Odermalm Schei, a spokeswoman for Swedish intelligence agency Sapo, told AFP on April 7.

“I saw at least three dead, but probably more,” Radio Sweden reporter Martin Svenningsen said. Police confirmed that at least three were dead.

Swedish national broadcaster SVT reported that at least five people were killed, but that could not immediately be confirmed. Reuters reported eight people were injured.

Police said they had received unconfirmed reports of shots being fired.

Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said all indications point to an “act of terror” and that two people appeared to have been in the truck, which The Aftonbladet newspaper reported had been hijacked from Swedish beermaking company Spendrups earlier in the day.

“Sweden has been attacked,” Lofven said. “This indicates that it is an act of terror.”

“Given what has happened in other parts of Europe, we cannot currently exclude that this is a terrorist crime,” police said.

Police said there had been no arrests in connection with the attack. Lofven had earlier said one person had been held. Police also said there were no indications of shots being fired, contradicting an earlier media report.

They released a picture of a potential suspect from a surveillance camera near the scene of the attack.

The man in the photo was wearing a white sweater and a dark hoodie under a military green jacket.

The truck crashed into the Ahlens department store near the busy Drottninggatan pedestrian area in the early afternoon.​

Television footage showed a column of smoke rising from the scene and helicopters flying overhead. A large number of police cars and ambulances were also seen.

A witness told Aftonbladet that the truck came “out of nowhere.”

“I couldn’t see if anyone was driving, but it was out of control. I saw at least two people get run down. I ran as fast as I could away from there,” he said.

Aftonbladet quoted a spokesman for the Spendrups company as saying the truck had been stolen while the driver was unloading goods during a delivery earlier in the day. The company said the driver was safe.

Police have asked locals to avoid the center of the city and announced that the subway system has been shut down.

Authorities ordered the evacuation of the nearby central train station, although they did not say why.

Sweden’s King Carl XVI Gustaf said the royal family viewed the attack “with dismay.”

“We follow developments, but as of now our thoughts go to the victims and their families,” he said.

Among the early reactions from abroad, a spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel issued a statement saying: “Our thoughts go out to the people in Stockholm, to the injured, their relatives, rescuers and police. We stand together against terror.”

Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, said, “”We stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with the people of Sweden.”

“One of Europe’s most vibrant and colorful cities appears to have been struck by those wishing it — and our very way of life — harm,” he added.

Sweden’s Scandinavian neighbors reacted by increasing security in public areas.

Norwegian police said officers at the Oslo airport and in the country’s major cities would be carrying weapons until further notice following the Stockholm attack. Norwegian police normally do not carry weapons.

In Finland, police in the capital, Helsinki, said they were increasing patrols.

There have been several recent terrorist attacks involving vehicles ramming crowds in Europe, all of them claimed by the Islamic State (IS) terrorist organization.

Five people died as a result of a knife-and-vehicle attack in London on March 22.

On December 19, 12 people were killed and 48 injured when a truck was driven into a crowded Christmas market in Berlin.

In July 2016, 86 people were killed when a truck slammed into crowds in the French city of Nice.

In his latest press conference, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has warned against Washington’s dangerous actions in Syria that can easily spiral out of control, while simultaneously stating that certain changes in Syria were necessary. The latter is the clearest indication yet that Tehran is wary of being burnt by its association with a government accused of using chemical weapons against the civilian population, even though there is a fairly strong conviction that the Syrian government’s denial is plausible since, for one thing, they were winning the war and had no need to resort to this kind of attack that was sure to backfire against them in the international community.

For his part, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in his telephone conversation with Rouhani has reiterated his denial of any complicity in last week’s deadly attack that killed several dozens and injured over 500, many women and children included. Iran concurs with the UN Special Envoy, Steffan De Mistura, that such attacks are criminal and whoever is responsible ought to be held accountable. President Rouhani has echoed Russia’s call, ignored at UN Security Council last week, for an impartial fact-finding. The US, on the other hand, proving trigger-happy, is pointing at confidential evidence implicating Damascus, and asking the world community to simply trust and have blind faith in US’ allegations — that have resulted in the firing of 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian air base, followed by hawkish US statements on regime change in Syria.

Having successfully mobilized a bulk of the world’s public opinion behind the missile attack on Syria, the US and its vast conglomerate of propaganda machine is put in extra gear to pin the blame on Assad and to stigmatize him so hard that he would be unsalvageable. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has been dispatched to Moscow to turn Russia from a “source of problem into a solution,” although it is unclear what Washington has in mind, in light of Syria’s geostrategic importance to Russia. What is clear, however, is that the inhuman gas attack has put Moscow and Tehran on the defensive and may also fragment the Shiite bloc, in light of the call by Iraq’s Shiite strongman Sadr on Bashar to step down.

From Tehran’s point of view, Assad may soon become a liability, resembling a sinking ship that might swallow its supporters as well. This explains why the Iranian foreign ministry’s initial reaction was to condemn the gas attack and did not second Damascus’s denial of culpability. Lest we forget, the UN-based investigations in 2014 and 2015 concluded on a couple of occasions that Damascus had used chemical weapons, even though as of October, 2013, UN had verified the complete destruction of Assad’s declared chemical weapons. So, the question is, what to do if the fact-finding mission under way concludes the responsibility of the Assad forces? This is a distinct possibility that is rendered somewhat improbable due to the following:

(a) lack of motivation on the part of winning Assad forces;

(b) past uses of chemical weapons, particularly at delicate times in the peace process;

(c) peculiar objection of Washington to Russia’s call at Security Council for a fact-finding mission to Syria, followed by US’ unilateral attack, which has been nuanced by Washington as a “signal” to Iran and North Korea.

(d) the immediate expansion of the missile attack to a U-turn in US policy now aimed at regime change in Syria and ending Iran’s influence, tantamount to de-prioritizing the fight against ISIS.

(e) strong evidence that US-backed Israel seeks an endless quagmire in Syria, rather than a successful anti-ISIS campaign benefiting the current Syrian government and its allies.

In light of the above-said, Iran is caught between the rock of denouncing chemical weapons and its culprits and the hard place of finding a suitable position that could safeguard against both US’ threat and the “guilt by association” stemming from its close alliance with Syria. By calling for “certain reforms” in Syria, Rouhani has signaled that it might be willing to think the unthinkable, that is, a Syria without Bashar al-Assad. But then again, can Iran’s strategic assets in Syria, and Lebanon, really survive a change of regime in Syria? There are too many uncertainties regarding the latter, thus making Rouhani’s statement on reform in Syria a bit of political gamble, stemming from Iran’s own national security concerns. For sure, there needs to be a political evolution in Syria and some form of “political transition,” but one that would guarantee that Libya’s post-Ghaddafi descent into chaos is not repeated and Syria is not condemned to permanent fragmentation.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, on the other hand, has rightly warned that Iran will not be cowered by the US threats, blaming the US for creating the ISIS and now using the pretext of chemical attack to support them by attacking the Syrian government in violation of international law. Indeed, the right approach to US’ hard-power threat signal is to convince the other side that their signals are not having the desired effects, otherwise it will be an invitation to more and more US’ military flexing. Iran’s hard power response in bolstering its national defense is, indeed, the only long-term remedy, coupled by smart regional diplomacy.

This article was published at Iranian Diplomacy