In the first quarter, the Philippine peso depreciated against the US dollar. Internationally, this was attributed to President Duterte’s policies. In reality, it has a lot to do with the expected US rate hikes. But there is a reason why misguided geopolitics now overshadows Philippines.

In the recent quarter, the Philippine peso depreciated by 0.88 percent against the US dollar. It was the only currency in Asia to do so. For the first time since 2009, the peso drifted to 50 per US dollar.

Much of international media attributed the fall to President Duterte and his “unlawful” policies. The number of such reports has increased since last fall and escalated through the spring, particularly in US-based media, including some of the largest global financial news hubs.

At best, these reports reflect an odd discrepancy between the fundamentals of the Philippine economy and the way it is portrayed internationally. At worst, they illustrate a gross misrepresentation of those fundamentals.

The geopolitical peso story

As the peso peaked at 50.40 in early March, international media saw the real culprit in President Duterte. who is “involved in unlawful killings and corruption,” as Bloomberg’s Ditas B. Lopez put it. The headline told the story: “Asia’s ugly duckling of the year is the Philippine peso, thanks to Duterte.”

Actually, this narrative did not start in early 2017 when the Philippine currency began to weaken against the US dollar. It did not reflect news; it proactively shaped news. It began already in September 2016 when peso was still 46 against the dollar. From January 2017 back to September 2016, the Bloomberg author’s Philippine stories included “Southeast Asia’s Worst-Performing Currency Is in for Another Tough Year,” “Philippine Peso Completes Worst Month in 16 Years,” “Duterte’s Peso Rout Runs Counter to the Booming Philippine Economy,” “Philippine Officials Seek to Soothe Investors Spooked by Duterte.”

Bloomberg was not alone. In the Barron’s (March 22, 2017), William Pesek’s headline tells the story: “Philippine peso’s troubles just beginning. The peso is down 8% and investors are dumping stocks amid doubts about Duterte’s economic agenda.” Here the peso is seen “buckling under the weight of a chaotic and distracted administration,” and “lots of body bags, more than 8,000 and counting.” The peso’s fall is attributed to “impeachment talk” (about Duterte). In the past investors, were “clamoring for peso assets thanks to predecessor President Aquino’s structural upgrade drive.”

Like many others, Barron’s mistook Aquino’s stated economic goals with his actual achievements. No questions are posed about the dramatic rise of the drug trade under Aquino’s watch, the complicity of public officials, and media silence about the drugs. Instead, marginal figures (Gary Alejano) with an anti-democratic mutineer record are presented as “opposition politicians.” Flawed drug wars statistics is quoted as accurate. Senator Leila de Lima is portrayed as a figure of integrity, despite her gross abuse of public office and funds, and cooperation with drug lords. And Vice President Robredo’s UN speech, which penalized her credibility, is presented as testimony of courage.

Most distressingly, most of these accounts are quiet about the alleged Goldberg plan – that is, the alleged regime change plan by the former US Philippines ambassador to replace Duterte – which advocated exploiting the Philippine public and private sector, along with international NGOs and international media, exactly in the way that these reports have done.

Peso among Southeast Asian currencies

As the peso has depreciated against the US dollar, the Bangko Sentral (BSP) has put a positive spin to the story. In this narrative, the relative strength of the peso in the past plus lower inflation explains the currency stability.

The story is largely true. Between 2009 and 2013, the peso strengthened against the US dollar from 49 to 41. In the past quarter, it weakened to 50.

In international media, the fall was compared with the alleged strength of the Japanese yen, Korean won and other currencies. Yet, comparing apples and oranges may not be useful. The peso is an emerging-economy currency; yen and won are advanced-economy currencies. In the latter, per capita incomes are five times higher than in the Philippines.

In Vietnam and Myanmar, per capita incomes are closer to those in the Philippines. In the past years, their currencies have also experienced strong depreciation. In contrast to the peso’s 25% fall, the Vietnamese dong has weakened over 35% since 2009 and Myanmar kyat 55% since 2012.

There is still another problem with the international media accounts about the peso’s fall. It did not happen under Duterte’s watch. Instead, it began in the middle of the Aquino era, with the Fed’s exit from quantitative easing and the first rate hike around 2013 and 2016. That’s when the peso fell from 41 to 48 per dollar.

Last year, the Philippine current account did shrink to 1%, while the trade deficit soared to a record $25 billion, and the peso depreciated accordingly.

Nevertheless, Philippine exports are expected to recover while remittances and business process outsourcing revenues should remain robust.

The stability of the peso has not disappeared. In fact, in early April, when all Asian currencies took hits, the peso bucked the trend by rising on strong net inflows to the Philippines equity market. What this suggests is that investors are looking past the international media narrative and are instead focusing on the probable gains of the Duterte economic agenda.

Strengthening dollar, weakening peso

As the Fed has exited QE and initiated tightening, US dollar hit its 14-year high last fall. It has been fueled by rising government bond yields and the Fed’s anticipated hikes) and expectations of Trump’s fiscal expansion via infrastructure stimulus.

What makes the peso trajectory harder to project vis-à-vis the US dollar is the uncertainty associated with the dollar. As the US must borrow ever more to finance its trade deficit, rising debt is pushing America deeper into the red. In the last quarter of 2016, foreign ownership of US debt outpaced US claims on foreigners by $8.4 trillion, which means a deficit that’s almost half of US GDP.

In contrast, the Philippines continues to enjoy significant long-term economic potential, even though – after months of misguided stories about the Philippine economy – international investors have been spooked by their own media.

As international focus lingers on political controversies associated with Manila’s regional rebalancing, the economic promise of the Duterte policies has been ignored. However, that’s not about economic fundamentals but about geopolitics.

The original version of this commentary was published by The Manila Times on April 17, 2017

As the White House and Republican leaders continue debates and negotiations on a new bill, the blamestorming continues over the failure to repeal and replace Obamacare. Congressional Republicans have only themselves to blame. Since returning to majority in the House in January 2011, Republicans have formally voted 54 times to address all or part of Obamacare. Six were votes on full appeal.

In 2015, H.R. 132 is typical of these efforts. It simply stated: “such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.” Why didn’t Republicans vote on this a few weeks ago?

Republicans did not vote on simply going back in time, because they thought government should play a significant role in healthcare. It should not. Crippling regulations need to be changed and the private sector needs to be encouraged. Last month’s legislation did not clear the way for these solutions.

The Republicans’ problem is squandering six years with legislation designed more for fundraising and campaigning than governing. Instead, they could have viewed their repeal and replace efforts as prototyping or beta-testing a new product or APP. They could have tested ideas and built Republican consensus. Not doing this led to disaster. What to do next?

In 2013, I outlined a patient-centric versus politician-centric approach. Maybe now it will be followed. Those wanting an expanded governmental role in healthcare and those opposing it are fighting the wrong battle in the wrong way.

The debate over national healthcare policy has lasted over a century – intensifying during the Clinton Administration and since Obamacare. It has always been about coverage, liability, and finance, never about care protocols and patients. If making health affordable is everyone’s stated goal, then why not focus on the actual care, health, and wellness of Americans?

America remains the best place on Earth to have an acute illness or shock-trauma injury. Our nation’s emergency rooms and first responder protocols are unequaled. Princess Diana may have lived had her car accident happened in New York City instead of Paris. America’s diagnostic methods and equipment are unequaled. That’s why patients from all over the globe seek answers to complex symptoms by visiting the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Sloan Kettering and countless other world class facilities.

The other side of American healthcare is its failings in chronic care, expense, and a system that is controlled by the medical profession, pharmaceutical companies and insurance industry. This triad of entrenched interests has prevented the widespread use of substances and therapies deemed effective in most of the world.

Thankfully, an increasing number of healthcare professionals are embracing global best practices, virtual technology, and patient-centric methods. Some are even exploring homeopathic and nutritional treatments that are common place around the globe, but viewed as “nontraditional” in America. These innovations are improving the health of patients while driving down costs. This is the arena where policy-makers should check their partisanship at the door. Seeking ways to improve healthcare, not health financing, will ultimately make health affordable to us all.

I have personal experience with the convergence of these worlds. Since 2007, I have been the primary caregiver to several family members with serious chronic conditions. These conditions have been punctuated by emergency care and major surgeries. Making decisions and managing treatment across this spectrum has been a real education that has helped me identify four major areas of opportunity for health and healthcare improvement, while addressing the affordability of private and public health services.

First, not all ailments require doctors and prescription medications. Government and industry policies drive people away from cheaper and more effective natural remedies. Herbal remedies have been successfully used since the first humans. For example, apple cider vinegar has completely solved acid reflex. Cayenne pepper has improved heart function.

However, natural substances are not covered as a medical expense either by insurance or tax deductions. Instead, acid reflex sufferers must pay for over-the-counter treatments (which are also not covered by insurance or tax deductions), or must obtain expensive prescriptions after paying to see a doctor or specialist. Being a natural treatment, the vinegar regime also avoids side effects and drug interactions. Why not go “back to the future” and find ways to support these more affordable and effective treatments?

Second, nurse practitioners form one of the new front lines of care. The overwhelming majority of my family’s office visits are with a nurse practitioner interacting with the patient and lab technicians. Occasionally, a doctor will review the information and discuss treatment options with the patient. Supporting the evolution to nurse practitioners through education, professional certification, protocol modifications and pricing would reduce costs and expand health options for professionals and patients.

Third, community caregiving is another new frontline of achieving and sustaining wellness. In 2009-2011, I was part of the planning team for developing a community-based care system for the Atlanta area. We found a disturbing pattern – patients, especially Medicare/Medicaid patients, arrive in hospital emergency rooms when their chronic conditions (diabetes, congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD, eg) become acute. These patients are treated at the most expensive point of care: emergency room. Once they are released, many do not have the support (family, friends, neighbors) or the capacity (some form of dementia) to follow a treatment regime that would prevent the next emergency room visit. These revolving door patients drive-up costs and end-up in a cycle of deterioration.

Our solution was to develop a community-based healthcare network. Such networks are known as “Accountable Care Organizations” (ACOs). They break-out of traditional hospital and doctor office environments to forge partnerships with the community – churches, social workers, local government, neighbor associations, and nonprofits. A needy patient with chronic conditions is assessed holistically.

This includes risk factors (i.e. smoking, alcoholism, drugs) and environmental factors (family & home environment). A care plan is developed and assigned to a multi-faceted care team (comprising community resources) and a care manager. Doctors and nurses are part of the team. The majority of health actions take place among family and community – driven by electronic medical records, aided by remote sensors and virtual care, and guided by the managed care team.

The result of this holistic approach is improved care, sustainable health and reduced costs. It is the one way Medicare and Medicaid costs can be substantially reduced while enhancing quality of life. There are initiatives to promote this methodology within the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), but it is occurring too slowly and is too isolated. ACOs are making a difference, but no major politician has embraced the concept and neither party has promoted them as a way to reduce Entitlement costs.

Fourth, families have always been a pivotal component in healthcare. Whether it is a parent staying home to care for sick children, or adult children caring for ailing parents, family caregiving is vital; but it is also emotionally and financially draining.

Having been the care manager, medical power of attorney, and patient advocate for both my parents and my wife, I know how much time is spent with ailing family members. Current IRS regulations provide for listing parents as dependents based only upon financial support.

However, there are no tax credits or deductions for those who have the medical power of attorney and devote countless hours to direct care or acting as the patient’s advocate for managing their care. Politicians at both the state and federal levels should provide relief for this indispensable and growing volunteer service sector. Supporting Family-based assistance will save billions in public assistance.

According to the National Alliance of Caregiving, 70 million Americans provide unpaid assistance and support to older people and adults with disabilities. Forty percent of these caregivers provide care for 2-5 years, while approximately 29% provide care for 5-10 years. Unpaid caregiving by family and friends has an estimated national economic value (in 2004) of $306 billion annually – exceeding combined costs for nursing home care ($103.2 billion) and home health care ($36.1 billion). This value is increasing as the population ages.

These four areas of opportunity will not address every health issue or entirely diffuse the fiscal bombs strapped to medical entitlements, but they are a good nonpartisan start. It is time for politicians to focus on the wellbeing of patients, not themselves.

*Scot Faulkner was Chief Administrative Officer for the U.S. House of Representatives.He served on the ACO team for the Southeast Atlanta Health Care System [SAHCS], as an advisor to Kinexum, a medical research consortium, and as an advisor on professional standards and ethics to the American College of Dentists. He has been the medical power of attorney and primary caregiver for his spouse and parents since 2007.

All too many alarmist climate scientists have received millions in taxpayer grants over the years, relied on computer models that do not reflect real-world observations, attacked and refused to debate scientists who disagree with manmade climate cataclysm claims, refused to share their computer algorithms and raw data with reviewers outside their circle of fellow researchers – and then used their work to make or justify demands that the world eliminate the fossil fuels that provide 80% of our energy and have lifted billions out of nasty, brutish, life-shortening poverty and disease.

A recent US House of Representatives Science Committee hearing on assumptions, policy implications and scientific principles of climate change showcased this. Testimony by climate scientists Drs. John Christy, Judith Curry and Roger Pielke, Jr. contrasted sharply with that of Dr. Michael Mann.

Christy noted that Congress and the public have been getting biased analyses and conclusions that begin with and attempt to confirm the belief that human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions drive climate change. He said government should “organize and fund credible ‘Red Teams’ that look at issues such as natural variability, the failure of climate models and the huge benefits to society from affordable energy, carbon-based and otherwise.” He demonstrated how average global temperatures predicted by dozens of models for 2015 are now off by a full half-degree Celsius (0.9 F) from what has actually been measured.

Curry discussed how she has been repeatedly vilified as an “anti-science” climate change “denier” and “disinformer.” But she focused on the role of the scientific method, especially as related to the complex forces involved in climate change – and especially when used to advise on policy and law. Real science means positing and proving a hypothesis with convincing real world evidence. Models can help, but only if they accurately reflect the total climate system and their results conform to real world observations.

Pielke discussed his own mistreatment as a “denier” and showed that there is “little scientific basis” for claims that extreme weather events (tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts) have increased in recent decades due to GHG emissions. In fact, IPCC and other studies reveal that the USA and world have had “remarkable good fortune” with extreme weather in recent years, compared to the past: 23 major hurricanes hit the US East Coast 1915-1964; but only 9 in 1965-2016 – and not one since October 2005. He also offered 18 specific recommendations for improving scientific integrity in climate science.

Mann said the other three witnesses represent a “tiny minority” who stand opposed to the 97% who agree that “climate change is real, is human-caused, and is already having adverse impacts on us, our economy, and our planet.” He defended his “hockey stick” historic temperature graph, claimed climate models have been “tested vigorously and rigorously” and have “passed a number of impressive tests,” insisted that warming [of a couple hundredths of a degree] in recent years proves that manmade global warming “has continued unabated,” and accused those who contest these statements of being “anti-science” deniers.

The “97% consensus” is imaginary – a fabrication. One source was a survey sent to 10,256 scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. But their number was arbitrarily reduced to 77 “expert” or “active” climate researchers, of which 75 agreed with two simplistic questions that many would support. (Has Earth warmed since 1800? Did humans play a significant role?) Voila! 97% consensus. But what about the other 3,069 respondents? 75 out of 3,146 is barely 0.02 percent. Purported consensus studies by Cook, Oreskes and others were just as bogus.

Moreover, governments have been spending billions of dollars annually on climate research. The vas majority went to the alarmist camp. If $25,000 or $100,000 a year from fossil fuel interests can “buy” skeptical scientists, as we are often told, how much “consensus” can billions purchase? If many scientists who contest “dangerous manmade climate change” are harassed, or threatened with RICO prosecutions, how many will have the courage to speak out and challenge the “consensus” and “settled science”?

These are timely questions. On April 12, 1633 the Catholic Church convicted astronomer Galileo Galilei of heresy, for refusing to accept its doctrine that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

But far more important, the climate battle is not merely a debate over miasma versus germ theory of disease, AC versus DC current, or geologic mechanisms behind plate tectonics. It’s far more even than disagreements over how much humans might be affecting Earth’s climate, or how bad (or beneficial) future changes might be, on a planet where climate fluctuations have occurred throughout history.

Manmade climate catastrophe claims are being used to justify demands that the United States and world eliminate the carbon-based fuels that provide 80% of the energy that makes modern industry, civilization and living standards possible – and that continue to lift billions of people out of poverty and disease.

Climate alarmists want that radical transformation to take place right now. McKinsey & Company, the UN and assorted activists say the world must spend some $93 trillion over the next 15 years to convert completely from fossil fuels to “sustainable” energy! Or it will be too late. Our planet will be doomed.

Claims and demands like those require solid, incontrovertible proof that climate alarmists are right. Not just computer models, repeated assertions, “peer review” among like-minded researchers seeking their next government grant, or a partial-degree of warming amid multiple El Niños and cooling cycles. They require “Red Team” analyses and open, unfettered debate over every aspect of human and natural influences on Earth’s climate, the ways carbon dioxide improves plant growth, and the need for abundant, reliable, affordable electricity and motor fuel for every person in every nation.

We haven’t had any of that so far. Up to now, climate chaos is just one more Club of Rome supposedly looming disaster, supposedly caused by human intervention in natural processes, supposedly requiring immediate, fundamental changes in human behavior, to avoid supposed global calamities – threats to the very survival of our wildlife, civilization and planet. It’s all assertions, devoid of persuasive evidence.

It’s true that virtually all nations have signed the Paris accords. However, only President Obama signed it for the USA; the Senate never ratified the decision. And the US reduced its CO2 emissions by 12.5% since 2007, while Europe’s carbon dioxide emissions rose 0.7% in one year, 2014-2015.

Britain is looking into rescinding some 2020 clean energy targets and using more coal and natural gas. EU nations are realizing that overpriced, unreliable wind and solar power is hammering families and killing their jobs and economies. Virtually all the developing nations that signed onto the Paris (non)treaty did so because they were promised trillions of dollars in climate “adaptation, mitigation and reparation” money.

That brings us to another April anniversary: the 1815 eruption of Indonesia’s Mt. Tambora. This monumental volcanic explosion blew an inconceivable 4,650 feet off the volcano; sent 36 cubic miles of ash, rock, sulfur and other gases into the atmosphere; triggered tsunamis that killed over 10,000 people; and caused serious climate changes and crop failures that killed 80,000 more over the following year.

We may be about to witness another volcanic explosion. Under the Paris insanity, developed nations are expected to de-carbonize, de-industrialize and curb their growth – while sending $100 billion per year to ruling elites in developing countries that are not required to trim fossil fuel use or GHG emissions.

It cannot and will not happen. In fact, industrialized nations are already reneging on their pledges, refusing to contribute to the Green Climate Fund, or recasting current foreign aid as Paris climate money. China, India, Brazil and poor countries are outraged. They want new money, more money – or else they will walk away from their commitments, and the Paris house of cards will collapse. It should collapse.

Billions of people are still energy-deprived, impoverished, diseased and starving. Millions are dying needlessly every year. Faulty, authoritarian climate and “sustainability” claims are being use to perpetuate these travesties. It’s time to help poor countries get the same energy, technologies and opportunities we have – so that they can take their rightful places among Earth’s healthy and prosperous people.

A charity which campaigns for religious freedom in Pakistan has welcomed calls from the Pakistani parliament to reform the country’s controversial blasphemy laws.

The calls came after a university student was killed by a mob on April 14 after being accused of the offence which carries the death penalty for insulting Islam, the Independent Catholic news website reported.

A resolution passed by the National Assembly condemned the lynching and stated that safeguards must be included in the law to stop it being abused in the future.

Pakistan’s top court is investigating the murder of the student, Mashal Khan, from Abdul Wali Khan University in northwestern Pakistan, allegedly for his views on Sufi Islam and socialism.

The blasphemy laws are a highly sensitive issue in Pakistan, and vigilantes often take the law into their own hands and kill people accused of blasphemy. The student was brutally beaten and shot to death over allegations he promoted ‘blasphemous’ content on social media.

According to some reports, as many as 45 people have been detained in connection with the mob attack.

Nasir Saeed Director CLAAS-UK has welcomed the parliament’s resolution regarding introducing safeguards to stop the misuse of the blasphemy laws, and to prevent the ongoing killing of innocent people.

“It is great news as in the past whoever tried to speak about changes in the blasphemy laws was shut up and even threatened with death,” he said.

“Those who raised their voices, like Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer and minority minister Shahbaz Bhatti, were killed in broad daylight, and their killers hailed as heroes.”

He said it is encouraging that parliament has agreed to stop the ongoing misuse of the blasphemy laws and hopes it will stick to its word.

Good afternoon, all. The Trump administration is currently conducting across the entire government a review of our Iran policy.

Today I’d like to address Iran’s alarming and ongoing provocations that export terror and violence, destabilizing more than one country at a time.

Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and is responsible for intensifying multiple conflicts and undermining U.S. interests in countries such as Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon, and continuing to support attacks against Israel.

An unchecked Iran has the potential to travel the same path as North Korea, and take the world along with it.

The United States is keen to avoid a second piece of evidence that strategic patience is a failed approach.

A comprehensive Iran policy requires that we address all of the threats posed by Iran, and it is clear there are many.

Iran continues to support the brutal Assad regime in Syria, prolonging a conflict that has killed approximately half a million Syrians and displaced millions more. Iran supports the Assad regime, even as it commits atrocities against its own people, including with chemical weapons. Iran provides arms, financing, and training, and funnels foreign fighters into Syria. It has also sent members of the Iran Revolutionary Guard to take part in direct combat operations.

In Iraq, Iran provides support to some Iraqi militant groups, primarily through the Qods Force, which has been undermining security in Iraq for years.

Iran maintains a longstanding hostility towards Israel, providing weapons, training, and funding to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations.

In deed and in propaganda, Iran foments discord.

Just yesterday, the regime reportedly exhibited a missile marked “Death to Israel” during a military parade.

In Yemen, Iran continues to support the Houthis’ attempted overthrow of the government by providing military equipment, funding, and training, thus threatening Saudi Arabia’s southern border. Interdictions by Emirati forces in Yemen and coalition forces in the Arabian Sea have revealed a complex Iranian network to arm and equip the Houthis.

Iranian naval vessels continue to undermine freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf by harassing U.S. naval vessels that are operating lawfully.

Iran has conducted cyber-attacks against the United States and our Gulf partners.

Iran has been behind terrorist attacks throughout the rest of the world, including a plot to kill Adel al-Jubeir, who was then the Saudi ambassador to the United States.

Whether it be assassination attempts, support of weapons of mass destruction, deploying destabilizing militias, Iran spends its treasure and time disrupting peace.

Iran continues to have one of the world’s worst human rights records; political opponents are regularly jailed or executed, reaching the agonizing low point of executing juveniles and individuals whose punishment is not proportionate to their crime.

Iran arbitrarily detains foreigners, including U.S. citizens, on false charges. Several U.S. citizens remain missing or unjustly imprisoned in Iran.

Apart from the abuses inside Iran’s own borders, it is the threat it poses to the rest of the world.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a grave risk to international peace and security.

It is their habit and posture to use whatever resources they have available to unsettle people and nations.

With its latest test of a medium-range ballistic missile, Iran’s continued development and proliferation of missile technology is in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

And it has previously stated it will conduct a second test flight of the Simorgh space-launch vehicle, which would put it closer to an operational intercontinental ballistic missile.

Any discussion of Iran is incomplete without mentioning the JCPOA.

The JCPOA fails to achieve the objective of a non-nuclear Iran; it only delays their goal of becoming a nuclear state. This deal represents the same failed approach of the past that brought us to the current imminent threat we face from North Korea. The Trump administration has no intention of passing the buck to a future administration on Iran.

The evidence is clear. Iran’s provocative actions threaten the United States, the region, and the world.

As I indicated at the beginning, the Trump administration is currently conducting a comprehensive review of our Iran policy. Once we have finalized our conclusions, we will meet the challenges Iran poses with clarity and conviction. Thank you.

MODERATOR: We’ll take a few questions. Andrea Mitchell.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, by your own letter to the Speaker of the House, Iran is complying with the terms of the nuclear deal. If you break out of that deal, won’t that send a signal to North Korea and other rogue nations that the U.S. can’t be trusted to keep its end of the bargain? And Iran is already being sanctioned for its terrorism, for its missile (inaudible) by the U.S. Is another option – one that many Republicans on the Hill have suggested – to increase those sanctions to punish Iran for those behaviors?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, Andrea, I think it’s important in any conversation on the JCPOA – and I think this was one of the mistakes in how that agreement was put together, is that it completely ignored all of the other serious threats that Iran poses, and I just went through a few of those with you. And that’s why our view is that we have to look at Iran in a very comprehensive way in terms of the threat it poses in all areas, of the region and the world, and the JCPOA is just one element of that. And so we are going to review completely the JCPOA itself. As I said, it really does not achieve the objective. It is another example of buying off a power who has nuclear ambitions; we buy them off for a short period of time and then someone has to deal with it later. We just don’t —

QUESTION: So should we break out of it?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: We just don’t see that that’s a prudent way to be dealing with Iran, certainly not in the context of all of their other disruptive activities.

MODERATOR: Matt Lee.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you mentioned that the JCPOA is another example of a failed approach, likening it to strategic patience with North Korea. On North Korea, is there serious consideration being given to relisting it as a state sponsor of terrorism, something that was – a designation that was removed, in fact, by the Bush administration?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: We’re reviewing all of the status of North Korea, both in terms of state sponsorship of terrorism as well as all the other ways in which we can bring pressure to bear on the regime in Pyongyang to reengage, but reengage with us on a different footing than the past talks have been held. So yes, we are evaluating all of those options.

QUESTION: I mean, it’s – it sounds like you’re already calling —

MODERATOR: Conor, Conor, Conor —

QUESTION: Secretary, regarding Venezuela, the turmoil in Venezuela today —

MODERATOR: Conor —

QUESTION: — are you worried about the situation in the streets of Caracas and Venezuela?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: I’m sorry, I didn’t catch all your —

QUESTION: The situation – the situation in Venezuela. Today there is a turmoil, a lot of people on the streets of Venezuela, protesting against the government of Nicolas Maduro. Are you worried about the situation there?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, we are concerned that the government of Maduro is violating its own constitution and is not allowing the opposition to have their voices heard, nor allowing them to organize in a way that expresses the views of the Venezuelan people. Yes, we are concerned about that situation. We’re watching it closely and working with others, particularly through the OAS, to communicate those concerns to them.

MODERATOR: Thank you, everybody. Thank you very much

Source: State Department, Treaty Room Washington, DC April 19, 2017

Donald Trump may have been told by his advisers that launching fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles, at a $15 million cost, against the small Shayrat air base in Syria was “necessary” and morally significant in retaliation for the recent chemical attack on Khan Sheikhun. A way to show Bashar al-Assad America’s outrage at the dictator’s presumed deeds… even if results from such action prove to be materially insignificant.

But, was it wise or even prudent to take such unilateral action without international and/or UN pre-arranged support? Was it really an admonition to Syria’s dictator “not to do it anymore,” as the chief honcho of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, seems to claim; or was it solely a perfect opportunity for a divided Republican Party to close ranks behind an erratic and arrogant president-by-default intent in enlisting blind support from the citizenry via his sophomoric truth-deflecting tweets?

Could this single action by the POTUS redeem him from two years of incredibly stupid oratory and a mounting litany of Munchausen lies, and bring him back to good graces with at least a slim majority of Americans? Could this action redeem Trump from any and all prior claims of Putinesque admiration and desire to make nice with Russia, and quickly absolve him of claimed Slavic fraternization, or any possible collusion affecting the recent presidential elections? Most important of all, could such military deed put Donald Trump in dress-uniform as Commander-in-Chief of the “Free World,” a chosen stalwart title self-awarded by Imperial America? Answers to these questions, whether from domestic polls or overseas voices, are likely to be heard soon… ad nauseam, as cable TV “breaking news.”

American public opinion, molded by a less-than-inquisitive mainstream media and two similarly-hawkish political parties, has selected Russia to be America’s enemy number one… with almost the entire population, through ignorance or political apathy, unable or unwilling to acknowledge the historic sub-rosa understanding which took place in 1991 as funereal rites ended the 44-year-old Cold War, thanks in great part to Mikhail Gorbachev’s wisdom through glasnost and perestroika… and not so much to Reagan’s peace efforts or his personal charm.

Not content with the humanity of peace, some Americans – unfortunately those holding the reins of power – prefer to hear the sound of victory bells, not those of compromise; and any patriotic (or influential) resurgence in old enemies, no matter how geopolitically restricted, is viewed as endangering US interests, a challenge to US’ global empire. To state it any other way would be at best deceiving, and at worst a lie.

Chances are that all investigations aimed at finding collusion between Trump’s rickety presidential campaign gang and a Russian government connection are likely to yield only circumstantial tidbits, but nothing that could be termed conspiratorial by a long shot. [We are not delving here into any state-sponsored cyber-spying or allied disinformation that both Russia and the US engage in to influence elections, or the success that either nation might have in that arena.] Unfortunately for hawkish politicians in the US, led by Senators McCain and Graham, former Secretary of State Clinton and a queue of long-standing adherents of global dominance, Russia will not become the scapegoat.

We would be remiss to question Vladimir Putin’s disdain for Hillary Clinton, or his preference for the election of Trump… it stands to reason that Clinton’s inflammatory rhetoric extending back six years left discordant notes in the Kremlin, while Donald Trump’s friendly attitude towards Putin and Russia augured the prospect of a reset in US-Russia relations with mutual benefits for both nations, including cooperation that could bring a semblance of permanent peace in the Middle East.

But Putin may have misjudged Trump’s helter-skelter brain, and how it gravitates to a single destination unaffected by constrains of idealism or loyalty, a temple-destination solely dedicated to the veneration of oneself: the Cathedral of Narcissism exhibiting the obligatory T at its main portico. And the opportunity that magnificently presented itself via the images of babies/toddlers in Khan Sheikun said to be victims of al-Assad’s chemical attack. Images that Donald Trump appropriated and used in his hypocritical flight from political trouble!

A new and improved Donald Trump is about to land at the White House: an anti-Russian Trump worthy of McCain and the Pentagon falconry; a Trump leaving behind (probably) embarrassing investigations; a Trump forging ahead as an astute politician… ready to join, and likely lead, America’s political mainstream; the mainstream he said to detest before his capture of the presidency.

Has Vladimir Putin, unwittingly, provided Donald Trump with a free ride to an unmerited redemption?

Defending oneself against prevalent cyber-threats is a challenge in the face of potential attacks by malware, botnets and other sources. Small businesses can be particularly vulnerable as they may lack the know-how to defend themselves.

The EU-funded SISSDEN (Secure Information Sharing Sensor Delivery Event Network)project is working on a data collection and sharing system that can identify potential threats, make information on those available and tell people how to deal with them. Although there are services offering to this already, SISSDEN will make all this information available for free.

In order to gather all the necessary information together, the project is currently developing a large, distributed sensor network based on state-of-the-art honeypot/darknet technologies. It is also using enhanced sandbox systems and the creation of a high-throughput automated data processing and sharing centre, based in Europe. This centre will be deployed as the project evolves but positive steps have already been taken in getting it operational.

One practical example of how the project is combining with law enforcement is the Criminal Use of Information Hiding Initiative, which includes involvement by EUROPOL. Information hiding is one technique used to hide the existence of malware and confidential data extraction. Hammertoss, Stegoloader, Regin and Duqu are all examples of malicious software that use information hiding techniques, or steganography. This technique has been exploited by spies (the Russian spy ring discovered in America in 2010), and terrorists (the arrest of one of al Qaeda’s members in Berlin revealed his use of video files containing hidden information in 2012).

The project has built on the experience of Shadowserver, a non-profit network known in the security community, that alerts victims of botnet and malware propagation free of charge. Along with helping individuals protect their data, the project is also gathering together a reference dataset to form a valuable research tool and intends to offer in-depth analytics on the collected data.

The work now being carried out by SISSDEN will also enable, ‘The development of metrics that can be used to establish the scale of some measurable security issues within the EU,’ explains the project. SISSDEN’s research is building up a curated reference data set which the project will publish. Researchers hope this will provide a ground breaking, high-value resource to academia and researchers in the field. Such a move should, the project believes, encourage future innovation and continued security research excellence in Europe.

Cordis source: Based on project information and media reports

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned Apple’s blocking of the satirical Web TV show China Uncensored not only in Mainland China, but also in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Apple’s extension of its blocking to territories not subject to Chinese law is a dangerous example of international corporate submission to the demands of Chinese censorship.

According to RSF, the consumer electronics giant seems to have had no hesitation about making generous concessions to China’s authoritarian regime in order to keep itself afloat in the Chinese market. That at least is the impression one gets from its decision last month to make China Uncensored available on the Apple TV app everywhere except China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

China Uncensored, which can also be seen on YouTube, openly sets out to combat Chinese propaganda. It mocks the regime, carries news about dissidents and persecuted minorities and is produced by New York-based New Tang Dynasty Television (NTD.TV), which is affiliated to the Falun Gong, a religious movement that is persecuted in China.

Is Apple scared of the Chinese authorities?

“We vehemently condemn this unacceptable act of censorship and we are alarmed by the apparent insouciance with which Apple, one of the giants of online programme distribution, seems ready to sacrifice freedom of information for the sake of its market share”, said Cédric Alviani, the head of RSF’s Taipei bureau, which covers Northern Asia.

China is Apple’s second biggest market, after the United States and before Europe. But it is a market in which nothing can be taken for granted. Last year, Apple suffered a major fall in its sales and in its share of the Chinese market to its Chinese rivals. Is Apple trying to ingratiate itself with the Chinese authorities in the wake of these setbacks?

Apple has already made a habit of withdrawing certain apps from the Apple Store in China on the grounds of complying with local law. But this is new. This time Apple is taking its self-censorship much further, and including territories not subject to Chinese law.

Chinese censorship on the rise

Content blocking in response to a formal request from the Chinese government is unfortunately not new. Apple removed the New York Times app from the Apple Store in China last January, but the app remained available in its Hong Kong and Taiwan stories.

Chris Chappell, China Uncensored’s host, said: “I totally understand why we’re blocked in Mainland China. We’re clearly disrupting the Communist Party’s harmonious propaganda…but Hong Kong and Taiwan are not supposed to be under Chinese law.”

Although China recovered sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997, the territory has Special Administrative Region status which explicitly guarantees freedom of expression. Although China claims sovereignty over Taiwan, it has functioned in practice as a sovereign state known as the Republic of China for half a century.

“Taiwan and Hong Kong represent two alternative models of Chinese-culture societies, ones with a well-established tradition of freedom of expression,” Alviani added. “Blocking a Web TV show critical of Mainland Chinese propaganda in these territories is no small matter.”

An accommodating attitude that could spread

RSF condemns Apple’s subservience to the Chinese regime, which could encourage other international content providers to censor themselves in exchange for commercial advantages from the Chinese authorities.

The behaviour of Apple, which has its headquarters in Cupertino, California, is all the more incomprehensible because it is one of the world’s most powerful multinationals, one that made more than 46 billion dollars in profit last year alone.

When contacted by RSF, Apple declined to comment. “We do not issue statements in response to this kind of information,” a spokesperson said. Censoring content and blocking freedom of information is obviously not the best kind of public relations.

China continues to be ranked almost at the bottom of RSF’s World Press Freedom Index (176th out of 180 countries), while Taiwan and Hong Kong are ranked 51st and 69th respectively.

United States forces appear to have failed to take necessary precautions to avoid civilian casualties in a March 16, 2017 strike that killed at least 38 people in western Aleppo in Syria, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.

The 16-page report, “Attack on the Omar Ibn al-Khatab Mosque: US Authorities’ Failure to Take Adequate Precautions,” found that statements by US military authorities after the attack indicate that they failed to understand that the targeted building was a mosque, that prayer was about to begin, and that a religious lecture was taking place at the time of the attack. A proper analysis of the target and its use would probably have established at least some of these elements. Human Rights Watch has not found evidence to support the allegation that members of al-Qaeda or any other armed group were meeting in the mosque.

“The US seems to have gotten several things fundamentally wrong in this attack, and dozens of civilians paid the price,” said Ole Solvang, deputy emergencies director at Human Rights Watch. “The US authorities need to figure out what went wrong, start doing their homework before they launch attacks, and make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

US authorities have said they will investigate both whether civilians were killed in the attack and whether the building hit was part of a complex belonging to a mosque. The US government should make public the detailed findings of its investigation, provide adequate redress to civilian victims or their families, and hold those responsible for the attack to account.

Human Rights Watch interviewed by phone 14 people with firsthand knowledge of the attack, including four who were in the mosque at the time of the attack. In carrying out the investigation, Human Rights Watch used some of the research provided by the open source investigative group Bellingcat, which analyzed video footage and photographs from the attack, and Forensic Architecture, which created models of the mosque and a reconstruction of the attack. However, Human Rights Watch, Bellingcat, and Forensic Architecture conducted separate investigations into the attack.

At about 7 p.m. on March 16, US aircraft attacked a location southwest of al-Jinah, a village in western Aleppo province. US military authorities have acknowledged that they carried out the strike, saying that they targeted a meeting of al-Qaeda members.

While US officials acknowledged that there was a mosque nearby, they claimed that the targeted building was a partially constructed community hall. But information from local residents, photographs, and video footage of the building before and after the attack show that the targeted building was also a mosque. Local residents said that the mosque was well-known and widely used by people in the area, and that dozens, if not hundreds, of people were gathering in the building at prayer times. While the mosque did not have a minaret or a dome, aerial surveillance should have shown the people gathering. Any attempt to verify through people with local knowledge what kind of building this was would likely have established that the building was a mosque.

US authorities also appear to have inadequately understood the pattern of life in the area. A US official said that the attack happened after evening prayer had concluded, implying that civilians had left the area. While it is not clear which prayer the official referred to, the sunset or night prayer, US statements show that the attack took place at about 6:55 p.m., just 15 minutes before night prayer on that day. Even if US authorities believed that the targeted building was a community hall, the knowledge that prayer was about to start was relevant because they knew that another mosque was nearby. Information about prayer times is easily accessible online and should have been well-known by US authorities.

Local residents said that it was well-known in the area that the religious group in charge of the mosque was holding religious lectures in the targeted building every Thursday between sunset prayer and evening prayer, around the time of the attack. Any attempt to gather information about the targeted building from people with local knowledge might also have alerted US authorities to this fact.

Human Rights Watch has not found evidence to support the allegation that members of al-Qaeda or any other armed group were meeting in the mosque. Local residents said that no members of armed groups were at the mosque or in the area at the time of the attack. The residents said that the victims were all civilians and local residents. First responders said the dead and injured wore civilian clothes and that they saw no weapons at the site. US authorities have released no information to support their claims that members of armed groups were in the mosque.

Even if armed group members were in the mosque, understanding the nature of the targeted building and the pattern of life around the building would be crucial to assessing the risk to civilians and taking necessary precautions to minimize civilian casualties. Striking a mosque just before prayer and then attacking people attempting to flee without knowing whether they were civilians or combatants may well have been disproportionate or indiscriminate. Indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks violate the laws of war, as does failing to take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian deaths.

Syria Civil Defense, a search and rescue group operating in opposition-controlled territory, said that it recovered 38 bodies from the site. The group published the names of 28 who were identified by relatives at the site, including five children, saying that 10 bodies were unidentified.

The laws of war strictly prohibit attacks targeting civilians or civilian structures, including mosques, unless they were being used for military purposes. The laws of war also prohibit indiscriminate attacks, which fail to distinguish between military and civilian targets, and disproportionate attacks, in which the civilian casualties or damage to civilian buildings is excessive considering the military advantage gained. All feasible precautions must be taken by all parties to the conflict to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects.

Serious violations of the laws of war can amount to war crimes. These include deliberately targeting civilians or civilian objects, including mosques, or carrying out attacks in the knowledge that they will likely result in indiscriminate or disproportionate death or injury to civilians. The US authorities’ failure to recognize the most fundamental aspects of the target and pattern of life around the target raises the question of whether individuals were criminally reckless in authorizing the attack.

Human Rights Watch submitted its findings to the US Central Command. In response, the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate said in a letter dated April 14, 2017 that based on “a thorough examination of the classified intelligence used to inform the targeting decision and the classified intelligence that emerged following the airstrike…[a] comprehensive investigation reached the preliminary conclusion that the strike was lawful.” The letter said that the US Central Command will “carefully review this incident” in light of the Human Rights Watch report.

On March 28, Human Rights Watch said that procedural changes for authorizing airstrikes in Iraq raise concerns about the protection of civilians, especially following airstrikes in Mosul on March 17 that allegedly caused dozens of civilian deaths.

“Whatever changes the US administration makes to how they authorize and carry out attacks, it should make sure that they are in line with international law,” Solvang said. “Otherwise civilians will die unnecessary and US officials risk being charged with war crimes.”

We are currently seeing widespread concerns in many parts of the world regarding free trade and globalised finance.[1] These concerns mainly stem from perceptions of inequality of opportunities and a lack of inclusiveness in sharing the benefits of international openness, resulting in growing disparities in income. Often, these are not only perceptions. In this country, for example, net income inequality has been on an upward trend since the late 1970s.[2]

Although globalisation might have amplified growing income inequality, empirical analysis tends to suggest that technological progress, and the associated rise in demand for skilled labour over low-skilled, is likely to explain most of the rise in income inequality in advanced economies since the early 1980s.[3] And yet, fears of globalisation appear to dominate public discussion and are likely to have been a key factor in fomenting political opposition to the free movement of goods, services, capital, and people.

Much has been said about the perils of rising protectionism. Today, I would like to focus on a related but distinct risk, namely all the talk of a weakening of the international financial regulatory agreements that were reinforced in the wake of the financial crisis. Such a push-back would be all the more difficult to understand as there is compelling empirical evidence that excessive risk taking by the financial sector has contributed to rising inequality.[4] Dismantling regulatory standards would therefore not only make financial markets less safe, it would also be unfair to those who feel left behind.

Indeed, in recent years, through the actions of the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and standard-setting committees such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the international community has made important progress in rewriting the international financial rule book with a view to curbing financial exuberance, protecting taxpayers from costly bailouts, and improving cross-border cooperation.[5]

These reforms have undoubtedly made global financial markets more resilient. And they have also supported the recovery of loan growth to households and firms despite claims that regulation may hurt economic growth and dent bank profitability. Indeed, researchers at the Bank for International Settlements have found that soundly capitalised banks tend to lend more.[6]

Our experience in the euro area corroborates this view. The phasing in of new regulatory standards has helped bring about a measurable increase in euro banks’ capital ratios in recent years. In parallel, and supported by the ECB’s comprehensive monetary policy measures, bank loans to the real economy have recovered steadily from their cyclical (and historical) troughs and, towards the end of last year, were increasing at their fastest pace since the crisis.[7]

This suggests that a sound regulatory framework is an essential element of a country’s growth agenda. But in an integrated global economy, financial regulation has to rely on internationally agreed standards. To the extent that countries around the world are signing up to these standards, the conditions for growth in a financially stable environment are being reinforced globally. Of course, this does not mean that we should not look back and evaluate critically what has been done already. The FSB, together with other bodies, will undertake a broad evaluation of the individual and combined effects of past reforms. It will assess if the initial objectives have been achieved or if there are any unintended consequences that call for changes to the regulatory framework. It will also assess whether reforms aimed at different industries or market segments have created conflicting incentives. And it will take stock of the progress achieved in curbing risk taking outside of the banking sector and in strengthening the resilience of financial market infrastructures.

But this exercise should not be mistaken for tolerance of hidden forms of financial protectionism or a relaxation of regulation. Turning back the clock on international financial regulation would revive distrust, create financial fragmentation, and risk regulatory arbitrage and a race to the bottom.

The stakes are too high to allow such short-termism to thrive. While unilateral financial deregulation may yield quick benefits, its potentially harmful implications for financial stability and, ultimately, economic growth are not likely to be felt until later. And then, those implications would be felt worldwide. Ultimately, this would leave the most vulnerable members of society very exposed.

More than ever, we Europeans are convinced that belonging to the European Union (EU) helps us maximise the benefits of international cooperation. It minimises the risks of short-sighted unilateralism. It offers a framework that disciplines Member States to work towards the common objectives and values enshrined in our treaties. It leverages the experience gained as one of the world’s largest markets, which has existed for 60 years under a single rule of law. And it reminds us that there is no fair exchange without an agreed and enforceable set of rules, domestically and internationally.

Despite daunting challenges, the EU and the euro area in particular have a track record of overcoming common challenges through cooperation.[8] The creation of a single banking supervisor for the euro area, along with a single framework for bank recovery and resolution, is a recent case in point. It has created a level playing field for banks operating across the euro area that strengthens financial stability, eliminates double standards and can protect European taxpayers.

The European Commission’s recent steps to curb illegal tax benefits for multinationals and to promote a common corporate tax base are another example. Progress on this front is essential as globalisation has made it more difficult to effectively tax multinational companies. Globalisation will be sustainable only if its benefits are spread across society. This is not something that market forces alone can correct. It is possible only if governments keep control of their tax and benefit systems. Effective tax cooperation can tilt the balance towards rebuilding trust in globalisation.

Strengthening these efforts is advisable. Globalisation has already helped to raise our living standards considerably. Over the past 25 years, world trade has increased by about twice as much as GDP, financial openness has quadrupled and millions of people, particularly in emerging and developing markets, have been lifted out of poverty. Regional and multilateral trade and financial agreements, alongside the creation of international financial and regulatory institutions and bodies, have significantly contributed to this process.

Many of us have taken these developments for granted. In Europe, for example, younger generations have grown up in the belief that the free movement of people, goods, services and capital is an unqualified right.

The current zeitgeist forces us to put aside our complacency. As the benefits and legitimacy of international cooperation are being called into question, it’s essential to defend the values that underlie global economic governance – openness, collaboration and tolerance. Those who cherish the benefits of international cooperation should make their voices heard. They should highlight past achievements and explain why continued and strengthened cooperation is essential. This appeal must be seen as an opportunity and responsibility, not as a chore.

*Speech by Benoît Cœuré, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB,
at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, 19 April 2017

Notes:
[1] I would like to thank J. Beirne, M. Ca’ Zorzi and M. Grill for their contributions to this speech. I remain solely responsible for the opinions contained herein.

[2] See, e.g., Solt, F. (2016), The Standardized World Income Inequality Database, Social Science Quarterly 97(5), 1267-81. In other advanced economies, e.g. France and Norway, net income inequality has remained fairly constant in recent decades.

[3] See Dabla-Norris, E., K. Kochhar, N. Suphaphiphat, F. Ricka and E. Tsounta (2015), Causes and consequences of income inequality: A global perspective, International Monetary Fund Staff Discussion Note SDN/15/13, June.

[4] See, e.g., Philippon, T., and A. Reshef (2012), Wages and Human Capital in the U.S. Finance Industry: 1909-2006, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(4): 1551-1607.

[5] For a critical appraisal of the FSB, see Sheets, N. (2017), Race to the Top: The Case for the Financial Stability Board, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Policy Brief 17-12, April.

[6] Gambacorta, L. and H. S. Shin (2016), Why bank capital matters for monetary policy, BIS Working Papers No 558, April 2016.

[7] The common equity Tier 1 ratio of significant euro area banks reached 13.7% in the third quarter of 2016 against 9% in 2012. The annual growth rate of adjusted MFI loans to non-financial corporations (i.e. adjusted for loan sales, securitisation and notional cash pooling) stood at 2.0% in February 2017, up from a trough of -3.5% in February 2014. The annual growth rate of adjusted MFI loans to households stood at 2.3% in February 2017, up from a trough of -0.4% in November 2013.

[8] See Cœuré, B. (2017), Sustainable Globalisation: Lessons from Europe, speech at a special public event “25 years after Maastricht: The future of Money and Finance in Europe”, Maastricht, 16 February.

The European Commission launched Wednesday a new initiative for the sustainable development of the blue economy in the Western Mediterranean region.

The region covers economic hubs like Barcelona, Marseille, Naples and Tunis. It also includes tourist destinations like the Balearic Islands, Sicily and Corsica.

The sea’s biodiversity is under severe pressure with a recent report by scientists from the Joint Research Centre indicating that 50% has been lost in the last 50 years. In addition to this are recent security and safety concerns from the increase in migration from the South to the North.

This initiative will allow EU and neighbouring countries to work together to increase maritime safety and security, promote sustainable blue growth and jobs, and preserve ecosystems and biodiversity.

Karmenu Vella, Commissioner for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries said: “Millions of holiday makers have a happy association with the Western Mediterranean. Like the millions more who live across the region, they understand the fragile link between conserving national habitats and traditions and ensuring economic viability. Blue economy is important for each of the countries involved and they have recognised the strength of working together.”

Johannes Hahn, Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, said: ”This new regional initiative recognises and taps into the economic potential of the Mediterranean Sea and its coast lines to further enhance economic growth, contribute to job creation and eventually the stabilisation of the region. It is an important step towards closer coordination and cooperation among participating countries.”

The initiative is the fruit of years’ of dialogue between ten countries of the Western Mediterranean region who are ready and willing to work together on these shared interests for the region: five EU Member States (France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Malta), and five Southern partner countries (Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia). It follows up on the Ministerial Declaration on Blue Economy endorsed by the Union for Mediterranean (UfM) on 17 November 2015.

The goals of the initiative

By fostering cooperation between the ten countries concerned, this initiative has three main goals:

• A safer and more secure maritime space
• A smart and resilient blue economy
• Better governance of the sea.

Gaps and challenges have been identified and a number of priorities and targeted actions have been set for each goal.

For Goal 1 priorities include cooperation between national coast guards and the response to accidents and oil spills. Specific actions will focus on the upgrade of traffic monitoring infrastructure, data sharing and capacity building. For Goal 2 priorities include new data sourcing, biotechnology and coastal tourism. For Goal 3, priority is given to spatial planning, marine knowledge, habitat conservation and sustainable fisheries.

The initiative will be funded by existing international, EU, national and regional funds and financial instruments, which will be coordinated and complementary. This should create leverage and attract funding from other public and private investors

This “Initiative for the sustainable development of the blue economy of the Western Mediterranean” is another example of the EU’s successful neighbourhood policy. Barely three weeks ago, the EU secured a 10-year pledge to save Mediterranean fish stocks. The MedFish4Ever Declaration, signed by Mediterranean ministerial representatives from both Northern and Southern coastlines on 30 March, involves 8 Member States (Spain, France, Italy, Malta, Slovenia, Croatia, Greece, and Cyprus) and 7 third countries (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Albania, Montenegro). The two projects will enhance each other in protecting the region’s ecological and economic wealth.

By Jasmin Mujanovic*

Aleksandar Vucic is the new President of Serbia. But the extent to which this was a foregone conclusion, ahead of the recent election, is precisely the problem.

Vucic’s control over his Serbian Progressive Party, the media, and the public administration, was already decidedly “illiberal”. But with his only true competitor, Tomislav Nikolic, now fully out of the way, Vucic genuinely stands alone.

Brussels seems unconcerned. If anything, the EU is relieved that its man in Belgrade has cemented his rule, providing it with a credible lynchpin for its efforts to reign in the perpetually problematic Western Balkans.

The EU has hedged virtually its entire foreign policy muscle in the region since 2012 on Belgrade. To the Brussels establishment, Vucic is a determined reformer, a decisive leader and a man who can deliver results.

(RFE/RL) — U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on April 19 sharply criticized the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, saying it “only delays their goal of becoming a nuclear state” and does not address “alarming ongoing provocations” by Iran in the Middle East.

Tillerson said a 90-day review of the deal by the Trump administration will not only look at whether Iran is complying with the deal, as the State Department certified it was on April 18, but also whether Tehran’s behavior in the region continues to undermine U.S. interests.

The deal “fails to achieve the objective of a non-nuclear Iran,” Tillerson said at a news conference. “It only delays their goal of becoming a nuclear state.”

While Iran has repeatedly said it is not seeking to develop nuclear weapons, Tillerson said Iran’s “nuclear ambitions are a threat to the world’s peace and security… An unchecked Iran has the potential to travel the same path as North Korea and take the world along with it.”

The deal between Iran and major global powers including the United States imposed restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear activities in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.

Tillerson said it made the mistake of “buying off a power that has nuclear ambitions” for a short time and then leaving the problem to future generations to resolve.

“The Trump administration has no intention of passing the buck to a future administration on Iran,” he said.

Tillerson said the Trump administration is reviewing the deal in light of these and other concerns.

“A comprehensive Iran policy requires we address all of the threats posed by Iran, and it is clear there are many,” he said. “We have to look at Iran in a very comprehensive way in terms of the threat it poses in all areas of the region and the world.”

Tillerson’s harshest comments to date on Iran came one day after he appeared to take a softer approach by certifying that Tehran has complied with the nuclear deal in a notice to Congress that also extended the deal’s sanctions relief for Tehran.

Tillerson on April 19 appeared to be siding with the deal’s strongest critics, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, which opposed the deal because it did not entirely shut down Iran’s nuclear industry or address other alleged aggression by Iran in the region.

Earlier on April 19 on a visit to Riyadh, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis also levelled strong criticism at Tehran.

“Everywhere you look if there is trouble in the region, you find Iran,” Mattis said. “So right now what we’re seeing is the nations in the region…trying to checkmate Iran and the amount of disruption and instability they can cause.”

Even the nuclear deal’s proponents have acknowledged that it has limitations. Key restrictions it places on Iran’s enrichment of uranium for potential use in nuclear bombs, for example, are scheduled to end in a decade.

Former U.S. President Barack Obama, who viewed the deal as one of his major achievements, acknowledged that it did not address concerns about Iran’s role in regional wars in Syria and Yemen or its continued development of ballistic missiles.

Obama argued the deal was narrowly tailored to prevent what he said was the imminent emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran. After the deal was negotiated, he worked with Congress to maintain U.S. sanctions targeting Iran’s missile development and alleged human rights violations.

Iran has yet to comment on the Trump administration’s latest round of criticism, but Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has warned that Tehran would retaliate if the United States breached the nuclear agreement.

By Inge Snip*

In a bid to bolster property rights, Georgia is pioneering a new system for registering land titles and property transactions, using the same type of blockchain technology that underpins the virtual currency Bitcoin.

Georgian authorities created the system with the assistance of Bitfury, a firm specializing in developing blockchain-based software and hardware. It began a slow rollout in April 2016. So far, about 100,000 land titles have been registered under the program. In addition to registering land ownership, the program intends to handle property transactions, mortgages, demolitions and notary services.

Property disputes have long been an issue in Georgia. Records in many cases are spotty, due in part to the chaos that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, as well as the high level of corruption that plagued Georgia during the early years of independence. In some areas, especially in tourist destinations along the Black Sea coast, it is not unusual for land to be the subject of conflicting claims.

Georgia started addressing the issue in the mid-2000s, when the administration of Mikheil Saakashvili launched a reform to digitize records. The blockchain initiative is the next step in increasing public confidence in property-related record keeping.

“We wanted to increase the reliability, safety and transparency of services of the National Agency of the Public Registry,” Papuna Ugrekhelidze, NAPR’s chairman, told EurasiaNet.org. “And we thought blockchain technology would be a secure, transparent and accessible option.”

Blockchain technology relies on a distributed database in order to store information accurately and securely. Once entered into a block in the chain, data cannot be altered, thus the system provides a clear picture on the sequence of transactions.

Analysts are keeping an eye on the Georgian project, believing it has great potential to be an efficient solution to keeping track of lots of data. Exploring blockchain technology “is a healthy and forward-thinking approach to offering new and innovative services,” said Vijay Michalik, an expert on blockchain technology and a research analyst at Frost & Sullivan.

“The long-term vision of blockchain technology for trusted and auditable data trails and accountable governance is definitely worth investing in,” Michalik added.

BitFury custom-designed the system for NAPR. “It allows NAPR to verify and sign a document containing a citizen’s essential information and proof of ownership of property, and allows citizens to ensure their documents are legitimate without exposing confidential information,” BitFiry’s CEO Valery Vavilov told EurasiaNet.org in an email interview, adding that the system will soon include smart-contract capabilities to streamline business operations for NAPR.

Georgia is not the only country turning to blockchain technology for record keeping. The Chinese government is using it to fight fraud; Estonia has used a blockchain-based service that enables people to trade stocks; and Senegal is planning to use blockchain technology to introduce a national digital currency. Georgia, however, is believed to be the first state to implement a blockchain-based system for both land registration and transactions.

While blockchain technology has lots of appeal, there are potential risks, said Michalik, the sector analyst. “Future risks might include platforms which lose developer interest or support, flaws in the blockchain’s code or smart contracts, the cracking of the encryption algorithms by quantum computers, a fork in the developer ecosystem or state intervention,” he noted.

BitFury’s CEO Vavilov agreed that the risks are there, but told EurasiaNet.org that his company was “committed to designing secure and efficient blockchain systems.”

“Blockchain [technology] can secure billions of dollars in assets, and make a significant social and economic impact globally by addressing the rapidly growing demand for transparency and accountability,” Vavilov added.

Michalik, who acknowledged he had not fully studied NAPR’s blockchain system, expressed concern that some metadata could be insecure, including originating IP addresses, the values of transfers and other linked addresses. These possible vulnerabilities could pose a danger when services potentially expand into other areas.

“Much more caution must be taken when handling personal information, like criminal or medical records, and may need the technologies to mature further before attempting,” Michalik told EurasiaNet.org in an email interview.

Privacy concerns are prompting NAPR to proceed cautiously with the new system, Ugrekhelidze said. Even so, officials in Georgia are already pondering other potential uses for blockchain technology, including the creation of a National Repository of Governmental and Official Documents.

*Inge Snip writes about (social) innovation, startups, and grassroots movements. She hails from the Netherlands, but has lived in Tbilisi on and off since 2007.

(Civil.Ge) — Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, on the second day of his visit to Abkhazia, proceeded to meet with representatives of the region’s authorities.

In the opening statement before his meeting with Raul Khajimba, the region’s leader, Sergey Lavrov pointed out that it was “important to look at outstanding issues” during the talks, naming “the border and property relations” as such issues.

At the press-conference after the meeting, Lavrov praised relations with Sokhumi leadership and said that he and Khajimba reaffirmed their “mutual commitment to strengthening our alliance and strategic partnership in all areas with a special focus on trade, economic and investment ties.”

Speaking about the Geneva International Discussions, the only multilateral mediation forum involving representatives from Tbilisi and Moscow, as well as Tskhinvali and Sokhumi in their individual capacities, Lavrov noted that Moscow “expects a legally binding instrument on the non-use of force to be signed in the foreseeable future.”

“This would be an important signal for the Caucasian region in general, taking into account our past experiences,” he added.

In response to the question on Sokhumi’s potential cooperation with the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization, Lavrov stated that Moscow “would, of course, welcome the cooperation” but added that it would require the support of all organization members, implying the lack of such support. He also noted that Russia itself provided for Abkhazia’s security “in the most reliable way.”

“Abkhazia’s security is ensured and guaranteed by its relations with the Russian Federation as per the international treaties between the two countries, as well as specific measures undertaken by Russia in cooperation with Abkhazia’s armed forces to guarantee that the country will not be subject to external aggression ever again,” he stated.

Lavrov also spoke about the resumption of transit connection between Russia and Armenia running through Abkhazia and the rest of Georgia, saying that he had discussed the issue with Khajimba.

According to Lavrov, “Russia has no problems with resuming transit.” “The legal framework is in place; it can be based on agreements reached by the Russian Federation with the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2011, when we joined the trade club.”

He also stated that Armenia was interested in resuming transit, and that the Abkhaz leader was not against it either, adding that the issue depended on “other countries, where these transits are heading to.”

Khajimba commented on the transit issue as well, saying that “the Abkhaz side is ready” for it, in case Georgia is as well.

Other Sokhumi authorities who Lavrov met during his visit included the region’s government head Beslan Bartsits and foreign minister Daur Kove.

Conservative watchdog Judicial Watch is suing to obtain records of US government dealings with billionaire George Soros’ network of nonprofits in Macedonia, which stand accused by the country’s government of fomenting regime change for several years.

On Wednesday, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against both the State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), seeking “records and communications relating to the funding and political activities” of the Open Society Foundation and its affiliates in Macedonia.

.@JudicialWatch Sues State Dept & USAID for Records re: Funding & Activities of Soros’ Open Society Fnd in Macedonia https://t.co/mkOrpFiSVK

— Chris Farrell (@cjtfarrell) April 19, 2017

“The Obama administration seemed to bust taxpayer budgets in an effort to fund the Soros operation,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said in a statement. “The Trump State Department and USAID should get their act together and disclose the details of the Obama-Soros spigot.”

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the State Department and USAID failed to respond to the organization’s FOIA request for the documents, which was submitted on February 16.

The group, which is best known for successfully hounding the Obama administration into publishing Hillary Clinton’s work-related emails from her tenure at the State Department, has pressed the new administration to reveal details about its predecessor’s taxpayer-funded “democracy promotion” efforts in Macedonia.

Between February 2012 and August 2016, the US government handed over $4,819,125 to the Soros-run Open Society Foundation – Macedonia (FOSM) and four local affiliates, through a USAID program called the Civil Society Project.

The program was then extended through 2021 and its funding increased to $9.5 million, according to Judicial Watch’s senior investigator William F. Marshall.

Macedonia, a former republic of Yugoslavia which declared independence in 1992, has received US aid ever since. In 2012, the aid became “very ideological” thanks to “Barack Obama and his ambassadorial minion, Jess Baily,” Marshall argued in a recent article published by American Thinker.

Image result for macedonia anti soros

“The FOSM-affiliated sub-entities receiving US tax dollars through USAID’s Civil Society Project are also closely tied to the main opposition political party in Macedonia, the country’s former Communists, now called SDSM,” Marshall wrote. “They have innocuous-sounding names, like Youth Educational Forum, Center for Civic Communication, and Reactor-Research in Action.”

Though it came second in December’s general election, SDSM has proposed a minority coalition government with the country’s restive Albanian minority. As a condition of their participation in the government, Albanians are insisting on a seven-point platform – allegedly co-written by governments in Albania and Kosovo – that includes a demand to make Albanian an official language in Macedonia. However, the US State Department and Oabma officials have their fingerprints all over the document.

Claims by the government in Skopje that the US was meddling in the country’s politics by funding the opposition parties have led some lawmakers to question the Civil Society Project.

In January, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) sent a letter to ambassador Baily, asking him to explain the State Department’s relationship with FOSM. In February, several congressmen requested an audit of the State Department and USAID activities in Macedonia.

Last month, six Republican senators sent an open letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, urging him to review the State Department’s practice of channeling taxpayer funds to organizations that promote “left-leaning parties” and the “progressive agenda” in foreign countries, citing Albania and Macedonia as the two most recent examples but noting that they had received complaints from South America and Africa as well.

The Trump administration should “review how our tax dollars are being utilized in order to halt activities that are fomenting political unrest, disrespecting national sovereignty and civil society, and ultimately undermining our attempts to build beneficial international relationships,” the letter said.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were endorsed by the global community through the UN in late 2015. Sustainability reporting has become a business, and there is evidence of some degree of “Greenwashing”. Walking the talk is more important and convincing of commitment than elaborate reports with quantitative metrics.

By Paul Teng*

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have passed their one-year mark since their adoption in 2015 by the United Nations. The 17 SDGs and 169 targets provide a good framework for interested groups to take action and promote sustainability. But what is sustainability? Most groups promote sustainability through policies and action focused around three “pillars”: environmental (ecological), economic, and social.

While there is no universal standard for what constitutes “sustainability”, it is generally accepted that sustainable policies and action are beneficial to the environmental, support economic growth and have equal benefits for all sectors of society. Taken together, they are also assumed to protect the needs of future generations while taking into account current societal needs such as clean, safe food produced with minimal effect on the environment, and use of farming practices which rejuvenate the soil. This is why the UN has adopted it as a universal project critical for the future of humanity.

Sustainability as Serious Business

These three pillars are relevant to many situations. But there has been variation in the manner and depth in which the private and public sectors have implemented the SDGs and included the “sustainability” concept into their business or work. There is a noticeable difference between the way in which groups declare the sustainability goals and report on them, and the integration of these into the company’s culture, values and processes.

Many in the private sector have recognised that “sustainability is good for business”. This has partly been in response to consumer demands for products made using sustainable practices. Many companies and public organisations have developed practices which can be assessed for their contribution to sustainability. Some have even provided ways to assess their compliance with their sustainability targets, often backing these up with scientific and social meaning.

A new industry has developed in recent years to help companies and governments become more sustainable in their practices and in their product types, as well as articulate their sustainability goals. These have contributed to faster adoption of the concept. Some multi-national companies and international organisations have incorporated sustainability into their vision, mission, strategic plans and operations.

However, high level pledges are only a good start but need to filter downwards throughout the entire organisation. It is apparent that tensions still exist between the different parts of organisations respectively responsible for the immediate business “bottom line” versus the more strategic “sustainability” approach.

In Singapore, various examples can be found of organisations which duly comply with required sustainability reporting, those which incorporate sustainability practices in their business and culture, and those which actively advocate sustainability even beyond immediate business concerns. The Singapore Exchange, SGX, has implemented sustainability reporting, and many larger companies have positions for “sustainability directors”.

Showing compliance with sustainability and contribution to achieving the SDGs is an important step towards incorporating sustainability into an organisation. Recently, the Singapore-based agrifood company OLAM took the commendable lead to co-start the Global AgriBusiness Alliance and in doing so, put Singapore on the map as both thought and action leader to take the SDGs seriously.

Aspirations versus Reality: Greenwashing

Early attempts at incorporating sustainability and the SDGs have been through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities. Many organisations have however matured in their approach and are showing more meaningful practices. However, it has also become obvious that only those with deep pockets have been able to do so. There is also evidence that some are becoming quite adept at reporting their sustainability compliance.

This phenomenon has been termed “Greenwashing”, and is the practice of making a misleading claim about the environmental benefits of a product, service, technology or company practice. Greenwashing can make a company appear to be more environmentally friendly than it really is, whereas in reality, the effects are more cosmetic than real.

A professor of sustainability at the well-known IMD Business School in Lausanne, Switzerland, Francisco Szekeley, has expanded on the above in his forthcoming book, “Beyond the Triple Bottom Line”. The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach uses the three pillars (environmental, economic and social) to show their sustainability performance. Each pillar is justified on the basis of key performance indicators defined by the organisation. But he has posed the question – “Can this methodology determine sustainability performance?” and noted that “seemingly sustainable companies continue to conceal business-as-usual practices”.

Professor Szekeley has further advocated reducing dependence on the TBL approach and to assess sustainability in a more holistic way. This would take into account an organisation’s relationships with its current stakeholders, such as a company’s employees, its clients, the consuming public and its suppliers. He further proposes that the needs of silent and future stakeholders, as represented by the environment and future generations, should be taken into account as part of this holistic way.

A critical question that follows is: should the holistic sustainability performance of a firm also be measured internally?

More than Just CSR

Apart from meeting the external demands to demonstrate sustainability, and internal business operations which make use of sustainability concepts, a third aspect is the “socialisation” of sustainability values into an organisation’s culture through its employees. Examples of such cultural values being practised by an organisation’s employees are zero food waste, energy saving habits, and careful use of water. But many of these values-based internal actions are not commonly included in sustainability reporting. And yet for the longer term, these have more meaning to build a society which cares for future generations.

Ultimately, sustainability needs to be part of the core business of organisations and not be viewed as expedient attitudes to please clients or consumers. This means, for large companies, going beyond CSR projects. For SMEs, three prevailing challenges to implement sustainability goals that have been noted are the apparent lack of government support, the lack of uptake by major importing countries, and the costs of training suppliers to adopt sustainable practices.

For F&B enterprises, there also seems a gap between consumers’ demands for sustainably-produced food, and producers’ ability to meet the requirements for sustainable production methods. Some producers have adopted certification schemes provided by internationally-recognised groups. In the case of the farming community, Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) are local examples of adopting accepted sustainability practices. This gap needs both public and private sector interventions if the bulk of the enterprises in most countries — the SMEs and small producers – are to be included in the move towards a more sustainable society.

Ultimately, institutional and governance aspects are also important because institutions in a modern society distinguish caring from uncaring societies. Companies, governments, public sector entities, civil society groups all need to demonstrate they have adopted the sustainability mantra and paradigm.

*Paul Teng is a Professor in Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU.

By David Danelo*

(FPRI) — You should have said something,” a perturbed Chilean university professor tells me in Spanish, soon after we disembarked from a bus in Córdoba, Mexico. Wearing combat boots, fatigues, and a shaved head with scrubby facial hair, the short, slender, middle-aged man had watched me get inspected three times by Mexican migration and military personnel while traveling north from the Mexico-Guatemala border. At each checkpoint, I was the only passenger who drew attention; my passport and documents permitting me to travel through Mexico were scrutinized, and each compartment in my backpack was unzipped. The Chilean, who looked like he could have been in the military himself, claimed he was an advisor to Mexican border forces. “They were profiling you. They are not supposed to do that.”

I laughed. Of course, they were profiling me. I look exactly like what I am: a gringo; a güero; an American. Given the attitude the United States government has directed recently towards Mexico, why wouldn’t I be a primary target for extra security screenings? I considered myself fortunate that Mexican authorities were content with seeing my passport and searching my backpack. All things considered, it was a courteous reprieve.

The military and law enforcement presence in Mexico’s south is not a new development. On the country’s border with Guatemala and Belize, the United States has assisted Mexican authorities since 2014 with interior checkpoints and inspection technology through the Obama administration’s Plan Frontera Sur. Although American authorities have wanted Mexico to build up security on its southern border for years in an attempt to decrease Central American migration into the United States, Mexico has its own reasons for maintaining strict controls. Whether the partnership continues remains to be seen; the Trump administration, while bellicose about Mexico’s northern border, has said little about any strategic interest in its southern one.

For several weeks in early 2017, I journeyed throughout Mexico, traveling by airplane, bus, and shared taxi from Tenosique on the country’s southern border with Guatemala, through the states of Veracruz and Puebla, into Mexico City, and to Tijuana and Ciudad Juárez, a pair of border cities infamously stereotyped as dominated by violence. With a population of 122 million, Mexico faces its most complex economic, political, and social challenges in decades. Having successfully tied its economic growth to the North American Free Trade Agreement, and, concurrently, to its two northern neighbors, the prospect of a trade war has rattled Mexico’s currency, inflated commodities, and worsened the impact of a long-planned fuel price increase.

But presuming current U.S. immigration policies remain in place, no issue will impact Mexico more than migration for the remaining decade. By July 2018, when Mexico elects a new president for another six-year term, the country is on track to receive more applications from immigrants into its asylum system, by proportion of population, than either Canada or the United States. The last time that Mexico experienced such an influx of newcomers took place almost two hundred years ago when a wave of white American immigrants destabilized Mexico’s northern frontier, eventually provoking two wars that resulted in the cessation of almost half of the country’s territory. These migrations will fuel both instability and opportunity in Mexico, as Central American refugees and North American returnees enter a country that, while handling multiple obstacles, may soon be in its strongest global position since before World War II.

The New Migrant’s Dream

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” From the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to President Donald Trump’s proposed wall, the penultimate line of the Emma Lazarus poem has never fully aligned with either United States immigration law or public sentiment. Despite the inconsistency between ideal aspiration and legal reality, the Statue of Liberty’s inscription illustrates how many perceive the United States as a beacon of hope. This perception of American exceptionalism has, for over a century, sustained migratory flows into the U.S. for mythical prospects of economic prosperity. These aspirations have also provided American diplomats with moral leverage when negotiating with authoritarian or despotic regimes throughout the world in general and the Western Hemisphere in particular.

But the United States has now made it clear—through rallies, votes, and the Trump administration’s immigration policies—that it no longer considers the tired, poor, and huddled masses to be worthy of any welcome at all. With the door into the U.S. under lock and key, many are either seeking asylum in Mexico or refusing to go north. In March 2017, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security released a report trumpeting the “unprecedented decline” in apprehensions on the U.S.-Mexico border, largely because fewer Central Americans are arriving. Likewise, at the “La 72” refugee shelter in Tenosique, 40 miles northwest of the Guatemala border, Director Ramón Márquez told me around 500 people arrived from Central America in February 2017 seeking aid—well below half of the monthly average during the three previous years.[1]

One example is María, 33, a Honduran mother of four who lives in Tenosique now after having traveled as far north as Veracruz in search of asylum.[2] In November 2013, her first husband lost his leg from an accident while traveling on a train, eventually dying from his wounds. María’s oldest son and her mother had remained in Honduras, and she lived as a young widow for two years in a series of refugee shelters in Mexico with her two sons. Eventually, she made her way to Tenosique with another Honduran refugee, a slightly younger man with no children whom she married last year. The couple now has a newborn daughter, and María proudly told me of her youngest child’s Mexican citizenship.

“I only got as far as the sixth grade before I had to go to work,” María said. “My daughter will be able to go to university here.” If granted Mexican citizenship, the mother’s two preteen sons may eventually also qualify for higher education benefits. Even without that incentive, her six-year-old son’s broken arm—the product of the same childhood accidents of six-year-olds worldwide—had been treated in a Mexican health clinic and was healing in a proper sling and plaster cast when we spoke. María’s dream was once the United States, but is now Mexico.

Given that Mexico averaged deporting 9 of 10 Central American migrants in 2016—the highest in the Western Hemisphere—the country has been sending a message that migrants are no more welcome in their country than in the United States.[3] That statistic seems to suggest migrants are unwelcome in Mexico, but that would be a misleading conclusion. Like the United States, Mexico’s immigration system is overwhelmed; founded in 1980 amidst Guatemala’s civil war, the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance (COMAR) anticipates at least 20,000 asylum petitions this year. COMAR has seen asylum applications more than double since 2015, from around 3,000 to over 8,000 applicants.

But unlike the U.S., Mexico’s refugee law permits any foreigner the right to request asylum; even Americans can (and have) qualified. Ironically, the high rate of deportations suggests that Mexico is far more efficient in judicial rulings of immigration cases than either Canada or the United States. In both countries, a paucity of immigration judges relative to the case backlog has left waits of up to two years before asylum requests are brought before review. Mexico’s law, in contrast, requires asylum requests to be ruled on within 45 days.

Shared Borders and American Security

Even though Mexico has its own motives for securing its southern border, the United States has an interest as well. From an American security perspective, the 21^st century’s international border management system is a fragile ecosystem of cooperation through information exchanges, shared inspections, and public-private partnerships between the United States, other countries, and multinational transportation companies. For over 15 years since the September 11 terrorist attacks, U.S. authorities have rewarded participation in a global system of transit that encouraged free movement for as many “trusted” travelers and traders as possible. U.S. Homeland Security programs like Global Entry, TSA PreCheck, NEX U.S., SENTRI, C-TPAT, FAST—and similar schemes in other countries—may have different names and clever sounding acronyms, but each offers the same practical bargain: provide access to your data and permission to inspect your cargo (or you) in another country, and in exchange, you’ll receive head of the line privileges and lighter inspection at the actual border checkpoint.

There have been many arguments advanced against the Trump administration’s immigration policies as racist and xenophobic. Beyond that, the president’s policies threaten the border security data sharing infrastructure, which decreases U.S. security. Whether through stationing American immigration enforcement officers at London’s Heathrow Airport, scanning containers prior to embarkation onto cargo ships in Shanghai, or funding increased security forces on Mexico’s southern border, the idea of policing borders beyond the United States has become standard practice for border patrol agents and customs officers. Enabling people and things to move as freely as possible around the world is a global concern, and partnerships with other countries increase trade and travel efficiencies.

Setting aside privacy and surveillance concerns, these international agreements depend on shared values and trust that the Trump administration’s policies, and the President’s rhetoric, have severely compromised. For information exchanges to be credible, other countries must believe their data will not be misused to injure their own citizens. Partnerships between border authorities from different countries require shared understanding that security concerns—not national origin, religion, or ethnicity—are the factors evaluated when people seek entry. In addition to indecency, inhumanity, and illegality, the current presidential executive orders have increased, rather than reduced, insecurity at border transits by eviscerating this common ethos.

An Inevitable Clash of Civilizations?

In 2005, political scientist Samuel Huntington argued in his final book, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, that immigration in general, and from Latin America in particular, was incompatible with Western civilization. “All societies face recurring threats to their existence, to which they eventually succumb,” Huntington wrote. His thesis was a corollary to his most influential work, The Clash of Civilizations, which hypothesized that cultural and religious identity would be the primary cause of 21^st century political conflict. States weak in cultural identity, he said, were most likely to fall to those with stronger cohesion.

Because Huntington believed the United States and Canada represent a culture that is impossibly opposed to Latin America, he also believed that what he loosely defined as “Latin American Civilization” could pose the greatest physical danger to the United States—even greater than Islam, he suggested. “Assimilation is particularly problematic for Mexicans,” Huntington claimed. His prescription was straightforward: “Americans should recommit themselves to the Anglo-Protestant culture, traditions, and values that for three and a half centuries have been embraced by Americans of all races, ethnicities, and religions.” Or put another way, Huntington wanted to Make America Great Again well before it was a campaign slogan.

While Huntington’s thesis has been used by white supremacists to justify their hate speech, there is little evidence to suggest his academic argument was rooted in polemics. At the same time, there is scant evidence that Huntington is in any way correct. Much of his “threat” argument focuses on a definition of Latin American Civilization that bears little resemblance to reality. Multiple chapters of Huntington’s book are dedicated to the fear of the Southwestern United States and Northern Mexico forming its own nation, a risk that is, in turn, almost entirely cited by quotes from one University of New Mexico activist professor.[4] Although political scientists point to secession activists in California (and Texas) as a sound argument for this breakaway risk, I struggle to grasp the logic in establishing American national security strategy and immigration policy by this perceived risk. By that standard, the United States should build a wall immediately between Quebec and Vermont, lest the Green Mountain Boys start getting too excited about establishing their own Second Republic.

To Intimidate or Inspire

“America has two fundamental powers,” Defense Secretary James Mattis said on January 12, 2017 at his Senate confirmation hearing. “One is the power of intimidation. I was part of it and America will defend herself and our idea, this experiment that we call America. And that’s all it is, is an experiment in democracy. But the other power I think that perhaps we have used less in recent years, last 20 years maybe, is the power of inspiration. And I think that the power of inspiration of America at times has got to be employed just as strongly.”

For over 200 years, the power of inspiration—of building a life; raising children; working for profit; achieving equality—framed the American idea of itself and in relationship to the rest of the world. The mythic American Dream was e pluribus unum, that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were possibilities for all, regardless of race, religion, or creed. Although many Americans were aware that it was only a myth, the one unifying belief that all Americans could pretend to claim—regardless of their birthplace—was that no culture usurped another in the United States; that out of many, we could indeed become one.

Losing the power of inspiration is, indeed, a threat to American security: not just at the border, or because of shared intelligence, but because the moral legitimacy of the United States, even if only perceived, is what has provided the country with its greatest leverage in its darkest hours. “The moral is to the physical as three is to one,” Napoleon said about warfighting. His dictum applies even more so in policymaking.

“The people of the United States like to believe that political will and good intentions can solve most human dilemmas,” wrote American historian T.R. Fehrenbach in his 1972 book Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico. “They often find it hard to understand Mexicans, who know better.” As Mexico confronts the most profound economic struggles it has faced in a decade and the country’s immigration system handles unprecedented challenges on both the northern and southern borders, advocates for good governance in the United States should certainly hope our southern neighbor can rise to the occasion. Whether Mexico City is able to handle either the cost or the challenge for these new dreamers, however, is another matter entirely.

The second part in this three part series will focus on Mexico City and its political evolutions.

About the author:
*David J. Danelo’s latest book, The Field Researcher’s Handbook: A Guide to the Art and Science of Professional Fieldwork (Georgetown University Press, 2017), will be released in April 2017.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Notes:
[1] The shelter’s name, La 72, refers to the August 2010 massacre of 72 migrants by the Los Zetas drug cartel in San Fernando, Tamaulipas.

[2] Pseudonyms for refugees and informants of other sensitive information will be used throughout this article series for identity protection.

[3] Patricia Vélez Santiago and Alejandro Fernández Sanabria, “México levanta un muro invisible.” Univisión.com. July 15, 2016, accessed April 3, 2017.

[4] See Chapter 9, “Mexican Immigration and Hispanization,” in Who are We?

On the visit of Canada’s Minister for Defense Harjit Sajjan to India, the Punjabi Chief Minister Amarinder Singh put up a show of undiplomatic bluster that matched the bullying and arrogance of a typical third world politician, revealing his credentials for being a clueless about decency, let alone international relations.

Shooting off his mouth, the Punjabi Minister ludicrously lied that the decorated Canadian Defense Minister is a “Sikh Separatist.” This is not first time the Punjabi Minister has gotten himself into trouble with the Canadian government. The politician has been banned by Canada for violating Canadian law and illegally raising campaign money from Punjabi expatriates. Despite making a fool of himself in front of the international press, Amarinder Singh also gave an excellent show of being a dysfunctional Anti-Sikh demagogue – a nationalistic honor in despotic India.

The Canadian High Commission in New Delhi rightly denounced Amarinder Singh’s bluster as “inaccurate and disappointing.” However, Amarinder Singh’s disgraceful arrogance made him an instant celebrity of scoundrel media having a deplorable legacy of cheerleading state propaganda.

Like all of India’s State Chief Ministers, Amarinder Singh is India’s authoritarian appointee- reigning the State of Punjab, he has been accused by opposition of rigging the elections. He is the ruling mob boss of Congress Party-presided by the infamous Gandhi crime family- that led national campaign of slaughter and genocide of Sikhs in 1984 to venerate a cold blooded nationalism.

It’s a twisted honor for Amarinder Singh to be part of a party that has only produced a rogue gallery of unindicted war criminals, rapists and mass murderers. Yes, Amarinder Singh is a Sikh in appearance, but he acts as a chief tyrant of a savagely racist police state, practicing an authoritarian nationalism.

This is why when Sikhs seek to practice liberty and democracy in India, they’re automatically called “terrorists” and “extremists” by despots of India. State terrorism is legitimized to justify endless brutalization of defenseless civilians.

Harjit Sajjan embarrasses India’s politicians who look undeserving to serve public interest. Besides doing an excellent job in making a fool of himself, Amarinder Singh did succeed in proving himself to be a wanker third world politician.

Lauren Windsor’s April 15 Huffington Post article “Maxine Waters: Tension In Syria ‘Phony’, A Ruse To Lift Oil Sanctions On Russia“, gives a misleading impression on what constitutes the political left and right. Especially in this day and age, these categories alone don’t tell the whole story. Concerning numerous issues, a good number of folks on the left and right find some agreement that disagree with others on the left and right.

Regarding this particular, there are individuals on the left and right (along with some of those who aren’t as easy to categorize), who reasonably disagree with California Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ Russia related comments. She’s known for making provocatively flippant remarks without much protest. Refer to her not so distant “scumbags” remark on MSNBC, directed against some in Russia and the Trump administration.

(Following an article of mine I noted the likely outrage if someone prominent referred to Waters as a douchebag. When he was with Fox News, Bill O’Reilly felt compelled to apologize for his saying that she wears a James Brown wig. Such are the double standards, which include O’Reilly receiving little criticism when he called Russian President Vladimir Putin a “killer“. How many high profile American journalists and politicians have called O’Reilly a sexual predator? Another double standard concerns the characterization of Russian Deputy UN Ambassador Vladimir Safronkov as a “thug“, for his replies to the UK and US ambassadors. Upon further review, Safronkov didn’t initiate rude behavior. He’s reflecting the many Russians who don’t take kindly to seeing their country treated as a kind of punching bag. Those resorting to rude behavior should expect the chance of being accorded the same treatment.)

Contrary to what the Democratic Party connected MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell suggested, the Trump administration’s strike on a Syrian government military base isn’t a coordinated covert Kremlin ploy to deflate the (faultily claimed) conspiracy, involving a Trump-Russian government collusion to weaken Hillary Clinton during the 2016 US presidential campaign. Waters’ use of “phony” (regarding the raised US-Russian tension over Syria) more accurately applies to the Democratic Party establishment’s selectivity when it comes to seeking an investigation of any Trump-Russia ties, unlike investigating the questionably premised Trump administration military strike on the Syrian government military base. The latter involves the possibility of a false flag operation, that jives with the Democrats’ desire to poke at Russia, which is supporting the Syrian government as the realistically best option (at least for the moment) in Syria.

Politics aside, there’s a very good basis to investigate the pretext that the Trump administration used to attack a Syrian government military position. At present, there hasn’t been conclusive evidence provided on what led to the recent chemical incident in rebel held Syrian territory. Instead, there’ve been unsubstantiated statements claiming proof of Syrian government culpability, which Anglo-American mass media hasn’t been keen to challenge.

Two examples from last week come to mind. On RT, a Syrian rebel representative claimed to have the name of the pilot who dropped the sarin gas as claimed. To date, the name of the pilot hasn’t been provided. CNN ran an unnamed source, claiming the existence of an intercepted communication of Syrian officials planning a chemical attack. The release of the anonymously quoted intercept claim hasn’t been provided. These claims are much different than the raw evidence the US provided in the instances of the Cuban Missile Crisis and downing of KAL 007.

Meantime, some credible Americans cast serious doubt on Syrian government culpability in the recent chemical incident. Among them are Lawrence Wilkerson, the retired US Army Colonel and former Chief of Staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Theodore Postol, an MIT emeritus, who has experience in dealing with a matter like the recent chemical incident in Syria. Postol and former US President Barack Obama join some others in doubting the claim that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in 2013.

To the regret of some Donald Trump supporters and others, the US president seems like he might’ve been conned into supporting the US attack on the Syrian military position. As has been noted, there’re several key individuals in his administration who contradict some of his earlier stated views, that have included the reluctance to go against the Syrian government. In addition, Trump might’ve reasonably assumed that the strike would benefit his ratings. A US military attack on a humanitarian based claim, involving no US casualties, can likely (at least initially) lead to an increase in popularity, as has happened in this instance.

The question arises on how long will that last? In the aftermath of the US strike in question, Trump tweeted about how US-Russian relations will improve. Over the past weekend, his National Security Adviser HR McMaster took a hardline, by unfairly putting the blame on Russia, while suggesting that the US-Russian relationship can improve on the basis that it’s at such a low point. In terms of overall improvement, setting the bar at a low point isn’t as good as seeking a higher standard from the get go.

As a high ranking military officer, who has been unhesitant to use force when he felt it required, McMaster can consider an open role reversal as part of an effort to foster better US-Russian relations – assuming that he sincerely seeks this goal on mutually reasoned terms. McMaster probably wouldn’t like a scenario where the Russian government (in let’s say some place in Russia’s near abroad) initiated a debatable humanitarian military action against a perceived US ally, that included the Kremlin telling the White House to remove its personnel to avoid getting hit. The US strike on the Syrian base included the US warning Russia to withdraw its personnel in the area, just prior to the attack.

It has been made less easier for Trump to improve US-Russian relations. A main criticism of him concerns his flip flopping stances. There’s nevertheless hope. During the Cold War, US President John Kennedy mistakenly believed the hawkish wing that advocated the Bay of Pigs operation. Its failure is said to have motivated Kennedy into using some restraint when the Cuban Missile Crisis developed. The late Ronald Reagan, his immediate successor George HW Bush and Barack Obama, are among the past US presidents, who took foreign policy stances that differed with some influential elements in their country.

The Syrian and Russian governments haven’t been shy in seeking an investigation on the recent chemical incident. Without counter-evidence, the false flag claimed by them isn’t so unbelievable. Should this predicament remain, Trump has a good enough base to take the initiative on what he campaigned for. One more shift on his part doesn’t necessarily rock the boat too much more than what has occurred. Trump won the US presidency, unlike Hillary Clinton, Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Marco Rubio. Trump’s appointed cabinet work under him and not vice versa.

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. This article is an updated version of the one that initially appeared at the Strategic Culture Foundation’s website on April 19.