Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live

Escalate To Deter The Pakistan Army – Analysis

0
0

It is the fear of escalation, which the Pakistan army has masked behind bombastic threats, that India needs to exploit.

By Rajesh Rajagopalan

As the Indian government considers how to respond to Pakistan army’s latest provocations, it should keep in mind that proportional retaliation will prove to be no more than a temporary slave. The key is to convince the Pakistan army that India will not hesitate to escalate, and that the Pakistan army will not win the escalation race. Though military escalation will be painful to both sides, and there are always uncertainties in any military venture, Pakistan army’s leadership has repeatedly demonstrated that its threats to escalate are not matched by its actual behaviour, which has been far more cautious. The Pakistan army leadership, rightly, fears escalation more than its rhetoric lets on, and this provides India a deterrence leverage that it needs to take advantage of.

Escalation is the only real option that India has to deter the Pakistan army. Diplomacy is useful to an extent, and it is important for India to make its case to the rest of the world. But diplomacy will not solve the terrorism problem. It is foolish for India to expect that one more bilateral statement with some visiting foreign leader will change the Pakistan army’s calculations. Even states that agree with India about the Pakistan problem will not do much because this is not their problem. In this, they are no different than India: it is not as if New Delhi is going to help any other country with their terrorism problem either.

The other aspect of diplomacy, bilateral diplomacy with Pakistan, also offers no solution. Most importantly, though India should always be open to negotiations, expecting that bilateral diplomacy with the civilian leadership in Pakistan will solve the Kashmir problem is foolish because Pakistan’s civilian leadership have little control over the Pakistan army, especially when it comes to India or Kashmir. This is well-known, and has been demonstrated clearly and often.

In addition, there are no magical solutions that some back-channels can come up with, that will solve either the Kashmir problem or the India-Pakistan problem. And of course, these problems are not the same. The India-Pakistan problem, rooted in the imbalance of power in the region, will persist even if the Kashmir problem is resolved, though that is not to suggest that no effort must be made to solve at least the Kashmir problem. It is also silly to cut off talks or sports or other interactions with Pakistan every time there is some transgression because all this does is illustrate Indian helplessness, not strength or confidence. India should always be open to talks and negotiations with Pakistan, even as it responds forcefully to every assault from the Pakistan army.

Because it is the Pakistan army that controls the levers of terrorism against India, India’s deterrence policy should focus on the Pakistan army. The aim should be to deter the Pakistan army from seeing terrorism as a no-cost option by threatening — and when needed, imposing — a very high cost on the Pakistan army for such behaviour.

So far, India’s military response has failed to put the Pakistan army, the only arbiter of its India policy, under adequate pressure. India’s exaggerated fear of escalation has been a serious constraint. Until the “surgical strikes” last year, New Delhi’s fear of escalation was so great that it did not acknowledge military retaliation even when it took them. So openly owning to such retaliatory strikes was a significant breakthrough. But it is also necessary to acknowledge that, outside of publicising it, these strikes were not very different from the other border actions that the Indian forces had carried out before. More importantly, the retaliatory attacks in September 2016 were carefully calibrated, and also appears to have been designed to signal that India did not want to escalate further, as I pointed out then. The India attack was shallow, targeted mostly terrorists rather than the Pakistan army and it did not attempt to seize territory, characteristics similar to previous Indian retaliatory strikes. The strikes were escalatory only in relation to previous Indian behaviour, not in relation to Pakistan’s actions itself. Considering that Pakistan had ordered a direct attack on an Indian army camp, resulting in the death of seventeen Indian soldiers, an escalatory response should have been much more severe. But the limited aim of the surgical strike was understandable because India was already making a significant change in policy and signaling resolve by publicising the strikes. But such a limited response will not suffice this time; escalation would need to be in relation to Pakistan’s behaviour rather than to standard expectations of Indian behaviour.

India’s reluctance to escalate so far is surprising for two reasons. One is that, logically, it is the stronger state that has the option to escalate. India’s conventional military superiority may not be as great as it should be given that India’s GDP is almost eight times as large as Pakistan’s and India’s military budget is about seven times larger but it is clearly the stronger side in the equation. And in a short offensive with specific territorial targets (such as the Haji Pir pass, for example), India’s current superiority should be sufficient, especially since India should be able to gain tactical surprise. The Pakistan army may know that India is gearing up for an attack along the LoC, but it will not know where that attack might come. In short, the stronger side has more options, and a bigger margin for error, and India needs to recognise it.

The second is that despite all the rhetoric about Pakistan’s propensity to escalate, Rawalpindi has repeatedly chosen not to escalate. In Kargil, when India employed its air force, Pakistan complained and warned of escalation dangers but chose not to escalate. And the Pakistan army simply abandoned its Northern Light Infantry (NLI) troops. Similarly, in 2016, India’s surgical strike did not lead to any escalation by the Pakistan army, despite almost two decades of constant threats to escalate. In between, there have been repeated artillery duels and cross-LoC raids, not one of which the Pakistan army escalated. If the Pakistan army was really so trigger-happy to escalate, it has had plenty of opportunity. That it has not so far escalated suggests that Pakistan army leadership knows that it will face significant and disproportionate cost if it escalated. Indian military superiority might not be great enough to give it an easy win over Pakistan, but it is difficult to imagine Pakistan winning either.

This is the key issue. To the extent that Pakistan cannot win, there is little incentive for the Pakistan army to escalate. Much of the argument about escalation between India and Pakistan is based on the assumption that the Pakistan army will climb all these steps on the ladder, doubling-down on a losing bet until escalation reaches the nuclear level. But each of these steps represent an expensive and irrational gamble, and the Pakistani army leadership is not irrational. They have made bad bets — Operation Grand Slam and Kargil definitely were — but they have shown no propensity to double down when their initial gamble failed. Rather, they have usually chosen to walk away and find another game to play.

Pakistan army’s behaviour is perfectly rational: as is well-recognised, its domestic legitimacy is built on its role as defender of the Islamic Republic against India. If it cannot perform this basic duty, its domestic legitimacy will suffer, as will its outsized role in national politics, economy and society. It is not without reason that Pakistan disowned the NLI troops in the Kargil war or refused to acknowledge that India had conducted a retaliatory strike last year. More than anything else, the Pakistan army fears defeat at Indian hands. Despite its rhetoric, it fears escalation because escalation carries with it the very real possibility of a just such serious defeat. Much like a Haka war dance, Pakistan’s threats are designed to intimidate but are not actual predictors of behaviour.

It is this fear of escalation, which the Pakistan army has masked behind bombastic threats, that India needs to exploit. It gives India a clear deterrence leverage. But it also requires India to look to the actual behaviour of the Pakistan army leadership rather than assume that Rawalpindi’s rhetoric is an indicator of how they will behave.


Solidarity Tops Juncker’s Agenda For Europe’s Future

0
0

By Daniela Vincenti

(EurActiv) — European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker moved solidarity up the ladder of EU priorities in a straightforward speech delivered in Florence on Friday during the State of the Union Conference.

Cutting short his speech, which he delivered in French as “English is losing importance”, Juncker regretted what little appreciation Europeans have for the impressive achievements of the European project.

Mentioning the European founding fathers he saluted the impressive return of their vision: peace. “They were able to transform their struggle into a political project which was able to benefit us all,” he said, referring to the centuries of wars that had divided the continent.

Project after project, he enumerated the EU successes from enlargement to the single market and currency but also highlighted the many weaknesses, prompted by an uneven construction.

“In the past, the EU has done a little too much, even the Commission: too many rules, too much interference in the daily lives of our citizens,” Juncker admitted, adding that his Commission has slashed the number of legislative proposals from 130 a year to 23 and is concentrating on the environment and programmes to boost trade, growth and jobs.

But the EU is much more than a single market, he said.

Moving forward will not be easy at a time where the EU is disparaged, destroyed and cut into pieces, the president warned, citing the UK’s decision to leave the European Union.

Insignificance or relevance

“We are the smallest continent and we are losing clout,” he said. In the future, the EU’s global share of GDP will drop from 25 to 15%, which, combined with a growing ageing population, means the only way to solve common challenges is boosting unity not division.

Without mincing his words he said the time has come for further unification.

The EU executive presented in March five different scenarios for the future of Europe.

At the time, sources said that the Commission’s preferred option was a scenario in which some member states could integrate further and others would and could join at a later date.

That multi-speed Europe has not gathered much consensus since then as some fear it will reignite an East-West divide.

While the idea of building the EU’s future around a “hard core” and a group of less integrated peripheral states has seduced France, Germany and Italy, the EU’s newest members eye this development with suspicion.

“We need to speed things up,” he said, defending further integration on defence and building further solidarity by placing social rights at the heart of the European construction.

“The great absentee in Europe is solidarity,” he highlighted. Mentioning Italy and Greece, which cannot be left alone to deal with migration, he hinted at the need for a more united front in dealing with the many crises hitting the EU.

“Europe does great things, it’s not time to fall into despair. We need determination which is the only way to bring forward our ambition,” he concluded.

Robert Reich: The Moral Travesty Of Trumpcare – OpEd

0
0

Shame on every one of the 217 Republicans who voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act on Thursday, and substitute basically nothing.

Trumpcare isn’t a replacement of the Affordable Care Act. It’s a transfer from the sick and poor to the rich and healthy.

The losers are up to 24 million Americans who under the Affordable Care Act get subsidies to afford health insurance coverage, including millions of people with pre-existing conditions and poor people who had access to Medicaid who may not be able to afford insurance in the future.

The winners are wealthy Americans who will now get a tax cut because they won’t have to pay to fund the Affordable Care Act, and healthy people who won’t have to buy health insurance to subsidize the sick.

House Republicans say they have protected people with pre-existing health problems. Baloney. Sick people could be charged premiums so high as to make insurance unaffordable. Trumpcare would even let states waive the Obamacare ban on charging higher premiums for women who have been raped — which actually occurred before the Affordable Care Act.

America has the only healthcare system in the world designed to avoid sick people. Private for-profit health insurers do whatever they can to insure groups of healthy people, because that’s where the profits are. They also make every effort to avoid sick people, because that’s where the costs are.

The Affordable Care Act puts healthy and sick people into the same insurance pool. But under the Republican bill that passed the House, healthy people will no longer be subsidizing sick people.  Healthy people will be in their own insurance pool. Sick people will be grouped with other sick people in their own high-risk pool – which will result in such high premiums, co-payments, and deductibles that many if not most won’t be able to afford.

Republicans say their bill creates a pool of money that will pay insurance companies to cover the higher costs of insuring sick people. Wrong. Insurers will take the money and still charge sick people much higher premiums. Or avoid sick people altogether.

The only better alternative to the Affordable Care Act is a single-payer system, such as Medicare for all, which would put all Americans into the same giant insurance pool. Not only would this be fairer, but it would also be far more efficient, because money wouldn’t be spent marketing and advertising to attract healthy people and avoid sick people.

Paul Ryan says the House vote was about fulfilling a promise the GOP made to American voters. But those voters have been lied to from the start about the Affordable Care Act. For years Republicans told them that the Act couldn’t work, would bankrupt America, and result in millions losing the healthcare they had before. All of these lies have been proven wrong.

Now Republicans say the Act is unsustainable because premiums are rising and insurers are pulling out. Wrong again. Whatever is wrong with the Affordable Care Act could be easily fixed, but Republicans have refused to do the fixing. Insurers have been pulling out because of the uncertainty Republicans have created.

The reason Republicans are so intent on repealing the Affordable Care Act is they want to give a giant tax cut to the rich who’d no longer have to pay the tab.

Here we come to the heart of the matter.

If patriotism means anything, it means sacrificing for the common good, participating in the public good. Childless Americans pay taxes for schools so children are educated. Americans who live close to their work pay taxes for roads and bridges so those who live farther away can get to work. Americans with secure jobs pay into unemployment insurance so those who lose their jobs have some income until they find another.

And under the Affordable Care Act, healthier and wealthier Americans pay a bit more so sicker and poorer Americans don’t die.

Trump and House Republicans aren’t patriots. They don’t believe in sacrificing for the common good. They don’t think we’re citizens with obligations to one another. To them, we’re just individual consumers who deserve the best deal we can get for ourselves. It’s all about the art of the deal.

So what do we do now? We fight.

To become law, Trumpcare has to go through 4 additional steps: First, a version must be enacted in the Senate. It must then go a “conference“ to hammer out differences between the House and Senate. The conference agreement must then pass in the House again, and again in the Senate.

I hope you’ll be there every step of the way, until Trumpcare collapses under the weight of its own cruelty. House Republicans who voted for this travesty will rue the day they did. Any Senate Republican who joins them will regret it as well.

Egypt: Islamic State Threatens New Attacks Against Christians

0
0

The leader of Daesh “the Islamic State group” in Egypt has sent a new warning to Coptic Christians, suggesting the extremists will continue their attacks against the religious minority’s places of worship.

The Egyptian “Emir of the Caliphate’s soldiers” said in IS’ weekly newspaper al-Naba published on Thursday that churches were “legitimate targets” in the group’s war against the “infidels and tyrants”.

Three IS suicide bombings of churches killed dozens of Coptic Christians in December and April, in the bloodiest wave of attacks the country has experienced in years.

“Targeting churches is a part of our fight and war on infidelity and infidels,” the unnamed IS leader said, giving Christians three options: “convert, pay the Islamic poll tax or go to battle”.

He sent a message to Muslims, warning them to stay away from churches to avoid future attacks.

“We are warning you to stay away from Christian gatherings, as well as the gatherings of the army and the police and the areas that have political government facilities,” he said.

He added that military’s response against the group in Sinai has bolstered the resolve of the extremists and their “hatred for Christians and apostates”.

Christians, who make up around 10 percent of Egypt’s population of 92 million, have increasingly come under attack from the Sinai-based militants.

Extremists accuse Coptic leaders of supporting the military overthrow of Islamist president Mohammad Morsi in 2013, which ushered in a deadly crackdown on his supporters.

IS has also threatened Sufi Egyptians and beheaded two of the Islamic sect’s clerics in its Sinai stronghold.

Egypt has been fighting a long-running insurgency by the local IS affiliate with hundreds of soldiers, policemen and civilians having been killed in the insurgency.

Last month, leaked footage showed Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai allegedly shooting dead unarmed, blindfolded detainees at point-blank range.

Original article

Somalia: Al-Shabaab Kills US Soldier

0
0

One US service member was killed Thursday during an operation against al-Shabaab in a remote area of Shabeellaha Hoose in Somalia, approximately 40 miles west of Mogadishu.

“This is the first combat death in Somalia since the early 1990s,” Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, director of Pentagon press operations, told reporters.

The identity of the fallen U.S. service member is being withheld pending notification of next of kin.

Operation With Somalian Army

U.S. forces were conducting a partnered operation with members of the Somalia National Army, Davis said, noting this was an operation targeting an al-Shabaab group that had been associated with attacks against the United States, Somalia and African Union Mission in Somalia forces.

Davis said al-Shabaab is an al-Qaida affiliate closely tied more specifically to Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, which is a group that has murdered Americans, radicalized and recruited terrorists and fighters in the United States, and has conducted and inspired attacks against Americans and U.S. interests around the world.

“We have been conducting this particular mission to partner with and counter al-Shabaab in Somalia since 2013,” Davis said. “This is part of an ongoing mission there to degrade this al-Qaida’s affiliate’s ability to recruit, train and plot external terror attacks throughout the region and in the United States.”

The U.S. continues to support its Somali and regional partners to systematically dismantle this al-Qaida affiliate, and to help them achieve stability and security throughout the region as part of the global counterterrorism effort, according to a U.S. Africa Command news release issued today.

Russia Critical Of CoE Decision On Georgia

0
0

(Civil.Ge) — The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticized Tbilisi over the May 3 decision of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers on the Conflict in Georgia, saying that the document is “non-consensual” and “surprisingly prejudiced, reaching absurdity in its divergence from reality.”

“The document speaks of the non-existent belonging of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to Georgia, attempts are being made to place responsibility on Russia for Georgia’s conflictive relations with the republics that once were part of it, [as well as] the internal situation in them,” the May 5 statement reads.

“Tbilisi, with the support of its Western patrons,” the MFA went on, “continues to spread the political-propagandistic empty talk on international platforms, the only purpose of which is to “legitimize” the unwillingness of Georgia to normalize relations with its neighbors,” it also said.

“In this situation, one has to think over on continuing the Geneva meetings in their current format,” the MFA stated referring to the Geneva International Discussions.

The Geneva International Discussions, is a multilateral mediation forum co-Chaired by the EU, OSCE and UN, which was created after the 2008 war to address security and humanitarian issues. It involves representatives from Tbilisi and Moscow, as well as Tskhinvali and Sokhumi (both Moscow-backed authorities and the authorities ‘in exile’ based in Tbilisi) in their individual capacities.

France: Macron’s Campaign Hit With ‘Massive’ Hacking Attack

0
0

(RFE/RL) — French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron’s campaign said it was hit with a “massive and coordinated hacking attack” which resulted in the release online of a major trove of internal campaign documents late on May 5.

Macron’s En Marche! (On The Move) party said in a statement that the leaks came “in the last hour of the official campaign” and were “clearly” aimed at “democratic destabilization, like that seen during the last presidential campaign in the United States.”

Such a large-scale hacking is “unprecedented in a French electoral campaign,” it said.

The WikiLeaks website posted a link on Twitter to the trove of documents — saying it “contains many tens of thousands [of] e-mails, photos, attachments up to April 24, 2017.”Wikileaks indicated that it was not responsible for the leak itself, but did not say where it obtained the documents.

The documents also appeared of Pastebin, a document-sharing site that allows anonymous posting. The Pastebin document dump was posted by a user called EMLEAKS.

Similar leaks of Democratic campaign documents on Wikileaks and other online sites during the U.S. presidential election last year were eventually traced by U.S. intelligence agencies to hackers they said were working for the Russian government.

“The files circulating were obtained several weeks ago due to the hacking of the personal and professional mailboxes of several party officials,” and then were released just as campaigning for the May 7 presidential election officially ended at midnight on May 5, Macron’s campaign said.

While most of the leaked documents appear authentic, the campaign said, “those circulating these documents are adding many false documents to authentic documents in order to sow doubt and disinformation.”

The campaign said the leaks are clearly aimed at boosting the election prospects of Macron’s opponent, far-right nationalist leader Marine Le Pen.

“The aim of those behind this leak is, all evidence suggests, to hurt the En Marche! party several hours before the second round of the French presidential election,” it said.

“Throughout the campaign, En Marche! has constantly been the party the most targeted by such attempts, in an intense and repeated fashion,” it said.

Despite the apparently massive effort to sway the election, none of the leaked documents contained anything potentially damaging or embarrassing to Macron, the campaign maintained.

“The documents arising from the hacking are all lawful and show the normal functioning of a presidential campaign,” it said..

Whether there is time before the election for the public to even learn what’s in the huge trove of documents was a question, however. WikiLeaks said there were around 9 gigabytes of data in total.

Moreover, French journalists are prohibited by law from publicizing the material in the hours left before the vote. Soon after the documents were released, France’s electoral commission issued guidance asking French publications to refrain from covering them.

“Free and fair elections are at play,” the commission said in a statement, adding that some of the documents probably were fake and there could penalties — even criminal ones — for rebroadcasting forged documents.

Macron’s campaign first disclosed its was under attack by hackers in February, and at that time it blamed a hackers’ group operating out of Russia or Ukraine.

It did not say who could be behind the May 7 leaks. Russia has repeatedly denied any involvement ir interference in the French election.

The French Interior Ministry declined to comment on the leaks, citing French rules which forbid any commentary that could influence an election in the day before the vote.

The last opinion polls taken before the election show Macron was heavily favored to win with about 62 percent of the vote.

Diabetes Cured In Mice Without Side Effects

0
0

A potential cure for Type 1 diabetes looms on the horizon in San Antonio, and the novel approach would also allow Type 2 diabetics to stop insulin shots.

The discovery, made at The University of Texas Health Science Center, now called UT Health San Antonio, increases the types of pancreatic cells that secrete insulin.

UT Health San Antonio researchers have a goal to reach human clinical trials in three years, but to do so they must first test the strategy in large-animal studies, which will cost an estimated $5 million.

Those studies will precede application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for Investigational New Drug (IND) approval, Bruno Doiron, Ph.D., a co-inventor, said.

U.S. patent

The scientists received a U.S. patent in January, and UT Health San Antonio is spinning out a company to begin commercialization.

The strategy has cured diabetes in mice.

“It worked perfectly,” Dr. Doiron, assistant professor of medicine at UT Health, said. “We cured mice for one year without any side effects. That’s never been seen. But it’s a mouse model, so caution is needed. We want to bring this to large animals that are closer to humans in physiology of the endocrine system.”

Ralph DeFronzo, M.D., professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Diabetes at UT Health, is co-inventor on the patent. He described the therapy:

“The pancreas has many other cell types besides beta cells, and our approach is to alter these cells so that they start to secrete insulin, but only in response to glucose [sugar],” he said. “This is basically just like beta cells.”

Insulin, which lowers blood sugar, is only made by beta cells. In Type 1 diabetes, beta cells are destroyed by the immune system and the person has no insulin. In Type 2 diabetes, beta cells fail and insulin decreases. At the same time in Type 2, the body doesn’t use insulin efficiently.

Incorporating genes into the pancreas

The therapy is accomplished by a technique called gene transfer. A virus is used as a vector, or carrier, to introduce selected genes into the pancreas. These genes become incorporated and cause digestive enzymes and other cell types to make insulin.

Gene transfer using a viral vector has been approved nearly 50 times by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to treat various diseases, Dr. DeFronzo said. It is proven in treating rare childhood diseases, and Good Manufacturing Processes ensure safety.

Unlike beta cells, which the body rejects in Type 1 diabetes, the other cell populations of the pancreas co-exist with the body’s immune defenses.

“If a Type 1 diabetic has been living with these cells for 30, 40 or 50 years, and all we’re getting them to do is secrete insulin, we expect there to be no adverse immune response,” Dr. DeFronzo said.

Second-by-second sugar control

The therapy precisely regulates blood sugar in mice. This could be a major advance over traditional insulin therapy and some diabetes medications that drop blood sugar too low if not closely monitored.

“A major problem we have in the field of Type 1 diabetes is hypoglycemia (low blood sugar),” Dr. Doiron said. “The gene transfer we propose is remarkable because the altered cells match the characteristics of beta cells. Insulin is only released in response to glucose.”

People don’t have symptoms of diabetes until they have lost at least 80 percent of their beta cells, Dr. Doiron said.

“We don’t need to replicate all of the insulin-making function of beta cells,” he said. “Only 20 percent restoration of this capacity is sufficient for a cure of Type 1.”


Milestone Reached In Geothermal Deep Drilling Project

0
0

The results and lessons learned from the drilling process, which took 168 days, have just been published by the EU-funded DEEPEGS (Deployment of Deep Enhanced Geothermal Systems for Sustainable Energy Business) project whose well now has the deepest casing of any in Iceland. The work was done in two phases, the first to deepen an existing, 2,500 metre well to 3,000 metres and then to drill still further to an ultimate depth of 4,659 metres.

The project’s long-term goal is to use deep wells for highly efficient energy production, opening up new dimensions in the use of geothermal as a source. DEEPEGS needed to find supercritical fluid at the bottom of their well as this has a much higher energy content than conventional high-temperature geothermal stream resulting in a more efficient energy source – the project was able to report that it had done so.

Surmounting obstacles and gaining valuable experience

DEEPEGS explains that drilling a well this deep and hot presents challenges that are hard to overcome. As they drilled further down the complexities developed, and since this well went deeper than any that preceded it, DEEPEGS gained new insights into the type of problems that arise.

Extracting drill cores proved particularly difficult, it took 13 attempts to extract 27.3 metres and the last core to remove was at the bottom of a shaft of about 4 500 metres. Conventional drilling methods were not an option, so the project had to develop new means of tacking the challenges. All obstacles apart from the last, circulation loss, were overcome.

The project found the complete loss of circulation below 3 060 metres could not be dealt with through lost circulation materials, or by sealing the loss zone with cement. As a result, drill cores were the only deep rock samples recovered. However, as DEEPEGS set out to drill deep and extract cores, measure temperatures, search for permeability and find fluids at supercritical condition, the main objectives were reached.

So how viable is the source?

DEEPEGS believes the scope for potential utilisation will not be known until the end of 2018 when all research, including substantial well simulation and flow testing, has been conducted. But, says the project, initial indications are positive. The temperature at the bottom of the well has already been measured at 427°C, with fluid pressure of 340 bars, drill cores were retrieved, and the rocks appear to be permeable at depth. If deep, supercritical wells can produce more energy than conventional geothermal wells, fewer will be needed, resulting in the same amount of energy capture for less environmental impact.

Cordis Source: Based on project information and media reports

The Puzzle Of Iran In US Foreign Policy – OpEd

0
0

By Ali Esmaeili Ardekani*

A rapid review of how Iran has been treated by three past and present US administrations, that is, under former presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and also under the incumbent President Donald Trump, will clearly prove that Iran has always been a complicated actor in US foreign policy by playing an enigmatic game in the Middle East region. The most important question in this regard is what is the reason behind this ambiguity and enigma that surrounds Iran’s regional role? Which aspect of Iran’s foreign behavior has created this degree of ambiguity in the mind of American decision-makers and analysts? At the first glance, one may claim that this ambiguity and enigma emanates from absence of a successful effort to understand the nature of Iran’s foreign policy. Two basic principles in understanding Iran’s foreign policy logic include: A) recognition of the country’s position in the region and international system; and B) showing equal respect in political interactions.

To the contrary of the aforesaid hypothesis, some analysts maintain that the main factor, which sets direction of the United States foreign policy in the face of Iran, is merely the plurality of tactics prescribed and opinions held by various political elites at the White House. In other words, this group of analysts maintains that this direction is set by the policies that neoconservatives and democrats adopt in reaction to international and regional developments. However, continuation of this ambiguity shows that although the United States has almost come up with a clear strategic approach in the face of regional countries (including Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and so forth), Iran has been constantly considered as an enigma in the country’s foreign policy under all the aforesaid three administrations.

The foreign policy elites and strategists working for former president, George Bush Jr., tried through a realistic-romantic approach to impose international isolation on Iran by labeling it as a party to the so-called “Axis of Evil.” However, the same elites reached out to Iran for help after they were taken by a strange surprise due to developments in West Asia, especially in Iraq. Because of its realistic approach to regional issues and the priority that it gives to stabilizing West Asia, Tehran accepted Washington’s request for help. In line with this policy, Iran decided to work with the United States on a limited number of cases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the other hand, elites and strategists working for former US president, Barack Obama, at first took a realistic-idealistic approach through which they identified Iran as a problem. However, in addition to recognition of this problem, they owned up to cultural, and military position of Iran and, in short, admitted to the Islamic Republic’s position as a hegemonic power on regional and international levels. At that juncture, there were concerns about closeness between China and Iran in view of two economic (energy supply) and political (third way and look to the east) variables that existed at that time. They were concerned that when faced with the West’s pressure, China and Iran would form a tripartite alliance, which would include Russia as well.

At that juncture, Obama administration finally reached the conclusion that Iran should not be left alone with China and Russia. They concluded that if possible, Iran must be added to the list of the United States’ allies through a win-win strategy. This seemed especially true because further closeness between Iran and China would have made US calculations with regard to offshore balancing in the Persian Gulf and East Asia more complicated. This realism and understanding of Iran’s power and regional position was such that some advisors to Obama administration, including Stephen Walt, believed that the main and necessary ally of the United States in West Asia, especially under conditions when a new development was unraveling there on a daily basis, was not Egypt, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia, but was Iran. Of course, they admitted that achieving such an alliance with Iran would be very difficult given the history of 35 years of severed relations and discontinued cooperation between the two countries.

Meanwhile, understanding of Iran’s role under Trump administration has been so far the result of a misinterpretation. In other words, understanding of Iran’s role at this juncture has been merely romantic and unrealistic. This type of understanding, which is result of a coordinated effort by Saudi Arabia and the Zionist regime of Israel to set direction of Trump administration’s strategy in its regional policies, has failed to offer an accurate analysis of how to understand Iran’s role as an actor in West Asia and the Persian Gulf region. Contradictory remarks made by US president and secretary of state as well as the CIA director and those strategists and elites, who have been serving this administration during the past few months, are signs of this type of understanding of Iran’s foreign policy.

The most important variables that cause confusion within Trump administration with regard to Iran include: 1. Iran’s undeniable role and position in the region as an influential power; 2. the role played by Saudi and Israeli lobbies in their effort to make Iran look like an immediate and serious threat.

These two variables will be explained as follows:

–          Iran has always declared stability in West Asia as the most important goal of its foreign policy. Iran has never started any conflict and war in the region and has used its independent military capabilities in defense. The effort made by Iran to stabilize its security environment cannot be considered illegitimate in view of the norms of international law. By accepting the reality of this position in the region and also through understanding the main motif in Iran’s foreign policy, which is based on mutual respect for neighboring states and other countries, the United States will be in a better position to follow up on its declared policies with regard to Iran.

–          Trump’s problem in the face of Iran is that countries like Saudi Arabia and the Zionist regime are concerned about their long-term security and military dependence on the United States after Trump declared its policy to give priority to problems inside his country. As a result, such countries are trying to project an image of Iran, which would make the United States accept responsibility for protecting them from security and military viewpoints. These countries are reflecting the reality of Iran, which is an independent country in political, security and military terms, as a serious threat in the region. This reflection will help them implement their “free riding policy” in military and security fields.

In conclusion, the United States must first bear in mind Iran’s diplomatic logic in its relations with the international system, which was most successfully reflected in achievement of the country’s nuclear deal with the P5+1 group of countries, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Afterwards, Washington must note that any measure based on the current romantic understanding of the nature of Iran’s foreign policy can turn into an exact example of the recommendation by America’s senior strategists and advisors, who believe that such an approach would “merely add a mistake to a raft of the United States’ mistakes in West Asia.”

*Ali Esmaeili Ardekani
Doctoral Student of International Relations at Allameh Tabatabaei University

 

Maldives: A Tyrant Next Door – Analysis

0
0

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

Maldives is too close to India both geographically and strategically and therefore developments in that country though small will have a great impact on India’s national security.

We now have a leader in Maldives who is said to be ruthless, vindictive and ungrateful. He has been systematically jailing all the leading members of opposition under some ground or other and mostly under terrorism laws. It looks that he is making his way clear for his re- election in 2018 without any opposition. In this evil pursuit he has generously used (misused) the judiciary as well as the security forces.

In order to understand what is happening in Maldives- one should only see the documentary of Al Jazeera on Maldives titled “Stealing the Paradise.” This documentary has exposed the high level corruption with the accounts of eye witnesses. It should be an eye opener to all those who innocently believe that Maldives with its hundred percent Sunni population, after three decades of autocratic rule is now a model of democracy!

President Yameen, came to power on the shoulders of two influential leaders in Maldives- the former President Gayoom and the richest and most popular businessman Gasim Ibrahim. In the Presidential elections held in 2014, former President Nasheed was almost near the fifty percent mark. It was a crucial midnight meeting of Gayoom on behalf of his half-brother Yameen with Gasim Ibrahim, the third largest vote getter that tilted the scales in favour of Yameen by a narrow margin.

Today Gasim Ibrahim is in jail on trumped up charges of having bribed the voters (all he did was to appeal to his erstwhile party members to return to the fold of his party – the Jumhooree party). As usual, the Police have seized his cell phone also. By one count the Police must be holding thousands and thousands of seized cell phones.

Former President Gayoom has been stripped of his membership of the party he created-the PPM in 2011 all with the help of the civil courts and the appellate courts. Gayoom’s body guards have been withdrawn and he has been disallowed to fly the national flag in his residence. More humiliations could follow with the cancellation of his pension and one will not be surprised if he is put in jail if he does no behave at least now.

One Vice President Jamal is in exile as he was being threatened with impeachment for not being totally loyal to President Yameen. Another young Adheeb for whose election to the post of Vice President, the constitution was amended, is now counting cockroaches in the jail. He is being shifted from one jail to another as if he is a dangerous criminal.

Adheeb is undergoing imprisonment under terrorism charges. But the real reason is said to be the differences he had with President Yameen on the US $ 80 million scandal that broke out in the State tourist firm, the Maldives Marketing and Public Relations Corporation.

Most of the opposition leaders are either in jail or in exile. The fiery and active leader of the Adhaalath Party Sheikh Imran is in jail on terrorism charges- for participating in the May Day rally against the government.

The former Defence Minister Mohamad Nazim was sentenced to 11 years under terrorism charges for keeping a rusted pistol at his house. It had since been proved that the pistol was deliberately placed in Nazim’s house before search on the instructions of former Vice President Adheeb. Nazim must have been automatically discharged. He is still in jail and needs medical treatment. On 28th January the UN Panel had ruled that the continued detention of Nazim as illegal and called for his release. Now Nazim who was under house arrest has suddenly been shifted back to jail! UN opinion does not matter.

Another former Defence Minister Hameed Faisal has now been charged under terrorism laws for arresting Yameen (the present President) in 2010 for his involvement in distributing a scurrilous pamphlet against the then President Nasheed.

The list is endless. The misuse of terrorism laws is so open and blatant and there is no stopping of Yameen. Misuse of the government machinery and the courts has become a regular feature. One example of the way Gasim Ibrahim has been treated should do.

Gasim’s Villa Group is one of the largest companies in Maldives dealing with shipping, tourism, media, commercial establishments, transport and educational fields. He is also one of the leading philanthropists. His mistake was in opposing President Yameen politically.

In August 2014 the Government of Yameen seized the Kandehdhoo airport and downgraded Villa Group’s (Gasim’s own) Maamigili airport, when Gasim warned that the SEZ legislation would facilitate massive corruption. But both were reversed when Gasim’s party voted in favour of SEZ laws.

In 2015, Gasim went on to form an alliance against the government with other parties and soon the tourism ministry seized five properties leased to villa group for development. The Central Bank of Maldives froze over US $ 90 million of Gasim’s funds alleged for non-payment of rent etc. When Gasim Ibrahim announced retirement from Politics, the courts obliged and overturned the fine and the properties were also returned.

Again in March 2017 when Gasim Ibrahim was to join the MUO (Maldives United opposition) along with former Presidents Nasheed and Gayoom against Yameen, his properties were seized once again by court orders and the bank assets of 90 million dollars frozen. Now Gasim is in Police custody for fourteen days on charges of bribery! How the authorities forgot about the terrorism laws is a mystery.

In the face of blatant misuse of laws of the country, the opposition represented by former Presidents Gayoom, and Nasheed, Gasim Ibrahim of Jumhooree and Sheikh Imran Abdulla of Adhaalath signed a historic declaration on 24th March that said:

  • to protect the owner ship of the land, sea and natural resources
  • find a solution to the political discord afflicting the country
  • safeguard civil and political rights abrogated from citizens
  • ensure elections held in Maldives are free and fair in which candidates of political parties are allowed to contest.

The four agreed to work together to:

  1. To secure freedom for all individuals who have been arrested, under investigation, on trial or convicted of politically motivated charges.
  2. Prevent Corruption, embezzlement within the government.
  3. Seek the restitution of transactions and properties unlawfully seized by the government.

The way the no confidence motion against the Speaker Maseeh was conducted recently is another example of high handedness of the government. The motion was forced to be conducted by a roll call that was unprecedented and resorted to only when the voting machines were out of order. The idea of an open roll call was only to find out who were all voting against government and due action as expected was taken against the individuals.

Some of the acts of revenge taken by the government soon after the farce of the no confidence motion were:

  • Gayoom was expelled from the Ruling Party PPM, the national flag removed from his residence and the PPM logo removed from his residence all done by Government agents.
  • Fresh charges under terrorism laws were brought against ex-President Nasheed for arresting Yameen in 2010.
  • Abdulah Riyaz the Deputy Leader of Jumhooree Party and a former Police Chief had his mobile phone confiscated and placed under investigation on charges of spreading rumours and attempting to influence the security forces.
  • Gasim Ibrahim, the leader of Jumhooree party was arrested and his passport seized.
  • Rajje TV, the station which supports the opposition was fined MVR I million on flimsy charges.

Another incident that should cause concern is the killing of Yameen Rashid, a prominent blogger and an internet Activist in the early hours of 23rd April at his residence. Rashid was a fierce critic of Salafist-Wahhabi re Islamization that was making the face of Islam in Maldives. Rasheed had 16 stab wounds on his body.

There is no doubt that the Wahhabi-Salafi brand of Islam is slowly creeping into Maldives and this is what Rasheed had opposed. The present government was almost on the point of giving away the Faaful Atoll consisting of 26 islands to the Saudis for development and investment of over 10 billion Dollars. Only, the huge public outcry and supposed eviction of over 4000 villagers brought the project to a temporary halt. The Yameen government had already prepared the ground by amending the constitution in 2015 to allow foreign ownership of its territory.

It looks that India is aware of the troubled situation in Maldives. The Indian Foreign Secretary made a hurried visit to Maldives on April 13 and 14 and met everyone one but carefully avoided the opposition members. It is not clear as to why this was done. The High Commissioner there was perhaps given the task to meet the opposition leaders three days later on the 17th. President Yameen’s attempt to get closer to Saudis needs to be watched as the Saudis are now having an Islamic NATO led by a Pakistani General. Yameen is also seen to be an overenthusiastic supporter of the One Belt One Road economic offensive of the Chinese.

The Saudis and the Chinese are only waiting in the wings. They would prefer tyrants over genuine democratic leaders who are all in exile. It remains to be seen how India would react. India has made many mistakes in the past. Ready acceptance of the fall of Nasheed who was actually thrown out in a coup earlier was one such mistake.

Trump’s North Korea Policy: Regional Implications – Analysis

0
0

By Sandip Kumar Mishra*

US President Donald Trump has displayed an inconsistent and dangerous approach towards North Korean provocations, prompting even Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to advise restraint. This is because the consequences of a major conflict on the Korean peninsula, which would definitely have nuclear dimensions, are going to be disastrous for the whole region.

The present episode of crisis was caused by the Trump administration’s attempt to move the redline over the North Korean nuclear and missile programmes. Earlier, after North Korean nuclear and missile tests, the US used to bring more stringent economic and diplomatic sanctions on Pyongyang through UNSC resolutions. However, the new US administration is threatening to use ‘preemptive strikes’ on North Korean installations if any tests are conducted. Also, the US has been considering provisions of ‘secondary sanctions’ on countries, bodies and individuals that deal with North Korea. If North Korea acknowledges and accepts this new redline, they will be unable to have more nuclear and missile tests. In all probability therefore the Kim Jong-un regime will not accept this proposition, at least not before some diplomatic gains are achieved through dialogue and negotiation. However, the US is not ready to accept any form of dialogue with North Korea, until the latter “refrains from these provocative tests.”

In dealing with the ‘unpredictable’ North Korea, Donald Trump has been trying to convey that he is also equally unpredictable. He also wants to show that his threats are not empty by firing missiles on Syria and detonating the ‘mother of all bombs’ in Afghanistan. The US has also brought back the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson to the Korean Peninsula, along with the nuclear-powered submarine USS Michigan. Bilateral and multilateral military exercises between the US, South Korea, Japan, France and Britain are underway around the Korean peninsula. The US has also hastened to install the Terminal High Altitude Arial Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea. All these measures are meant to pressurise North Korea into accepting the new US redline.

Although the US has threatened to ‘go alone’ on the North Korean issue, Washington knows that the role of Beijing is going to be very critical. For the same reason, Donald Trump likely tried to reach some understanding with Chinese President Xi Jinping in dealing with North Korea during their recent summit meet in Florida, and over the phone conversations that followed. The US has been attempting to appease Beijing by promising trade concessions and taking Chinese security interests in the region into consideration.

However, the game that the Trump administration appears to be playing is devoid of any understanding of the complex regional context. Donald Trump needs to understand that ‘blinking first’ is not an option for North Korea’s belligerent regime. The North Korean strategy so far has been to defy any pressure and sanctions, and assert its independent security posture. Any moderation in this strategy in response to pressure would lead to the regime’s total strangulation and is thus not an acceptable proposition. Trump must also understand that North Korea is not Syria, for at least three reasons. First, North Korea possesses nuclear weapons along with their delivery systems. Second, North Korea’s survival is ensured by China. While China is not in favour of North Korean nuclear development or its provocative behaviour, it is definitely committed to the country’s survival. Third, any preemptive strike on North Korea would invite North Korean assured retaliation on Seoul, where one-fourth of the South Korean population resides, in addition to fifteen thousand US soldiers.

The US has also been unable to understand that China is not going to change its approach towards North Korea because of Donald Trump’s cheap inducements. Instead, it seeks bilateral trust based on a long-term common vision for the region. China has consistently been imposing economic sanctions on North Korea aimed at its nuclear and missile programmes, in tandem with the international community’s efforts. However, it also continues to have significant trade linkages with North Korea that help the regime survive. China’s recent ban on North Korean coal imports has more to do with its compliance with UNSC resolution 2321 and less with a bilateral understanding with the US. China’s approach was made clear by Foreign Minister Wang Yi in his speech at the UNSC on 28 April, when he called for dialogue and diplomacy on the North Korean crisis rather than military threats and arms build-ups. Trump’s redlines thus carry with them huge consequences.

The US administration’s approach has also irked South Korea, one of its allies in the region. South Korea feels that although Trump has unilaterally determined his North Korea policy, it will have far-reaching regional consequences. In addition, Trump has asked South Korea for US$1 billion for the deployment of THAAD, and has hastened the process of deployment when there is no elected leader in the country. The South Korean media has in fact emphasised that through his behaviour, Trump has threatened not only North but also South Korea. When the new South Korean leadership takes over in less than two weeks, it is likely that the very alliance with the US will be reviewed.

In this scenario, Trump’s unfolding game in the Korean Peninsula is, at best, not going to work, and at worst, may have devastating consequences for the region. Many in the region are of the opinion that the real danger is not from Kim Jong-un doing something catastrophic but Trump making a foolish move. It is only hoped that good sense prevails and a modus vivendi is evolved to deal with the crisis.

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

Examining The Strategy Behind China’s OBOR – Analysis

0
0

By Bhaskar Roy*

On May 14, representatives of 110 countries would be gathered in Beijing in one of the biggest international summits, to listen and discuss China’s “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) initiative. Around 28 national leaders from Russia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines and Turkey, and several from the West and Africa would be in attendance.

India, which is being pursued by China to join the CPEC, will have a low level representation, if any. India’s neighbour, Nepal which is sandwiched between the two counties, was finally pressured to send a high level delegation, while Sri Lanka appears resigned to its fate. All the benefits of connectivity with positive economic results is being held out to Myanmar.

OBOR in not an entirely new concept. Reaching out to Europe by an overland railway route, through Central Asia to Amsterdam, started in the 1990s. Next came re-enacting Admiral Zheng He’s sea voyage through the Indian Ocean to Africa, touching briefly India’s southern ocean tip, according to some reports. This gave the concept of the New or 21st century Maritime silk Route. The Chinese Communist Party, which formulates policies, does years of research, collecting reactions of concerned foreign governments, China’s growing economic and military capabilities, winning over new friends and allies, to come to a definite conclusion.

Chinese President Xi Jinping packaged the entire input together to unveil the OBOR project in 2013. He put them in an enigmatic package backed by massive official media and contact diplomacy at all levels. Even then, the international community is generally skeptical and would hear out Xi Jinping on May 14 in Beijing. They may even ask some quiet questions, because the OBOR is still a work in progress in Beijing’s Zhongnanhai.

The full scope of OBOR initiative has not been revealed yet. There is a lack of transparency. The only aspect being projected is that economically it is a win-win opportunity for all. China says that it is ready to invest one trillion dollars. The plan is to connect the East and the West through Central Asia. One catch is that partner countries will have to pay up and provide security. Will the economically weaker countries be able to do that and pay back the Chinese investments in 25 to 30 years at interest rates of 3-4 percent, with annual pay back packets? If some of them fail what will be the penalty and whether in cash or kind? Open ended questions, indeed – a perfect example of debt trap.

China would be extending profile and influence in regions that till today were under US influence. The message: If Washington digs in more firmly in the Asia-Pacific region Beijing will show its flag in Europe. In the area of trade and economic relations China stands very high in the priority of all these countries. The Chinese have understood US President Donald Trump well, especially after the Xi Jinping – Trump meeting in Trump, Mara Lago resort. OBOR is part of promise to his party and his people. The drive to be the second super power after the US, though the gap between the two will take several decades to bridge. They are on track to 2050, when the Party celebrates 100 years of the People’s Republic in 2049.

China’s threat perception from Islamic terrorism and separation in its Xinjiang – Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR), bordering Central Asian Countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan, has risen several folds in recent years. The Uighur Muslims, who are of Turkish origin, are at the centre of this concern. Beijing has managed to close support for them from Pakistan using diplomacy and working with some of Pakistan’s Islamic parties and groups, as well as Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) which is the real enabler of Islamic militants. One sop given by China to the ISI appears to be standing with them against international (and Indian) moves to declare well known ISI supported terrorists like Jaish-e-Mohammad Chief Masood Azhar or terror groups like the Laskar-e-Toiba (LET). This has paid dividends and Pakistan as clamped down on Uighur militants in Pakistan. China has also pressured Central Asian countries like Kazakhstan which have Uighur population.

But with draconian laws for Uighurs in XUAR (such as those which prohibit them for fasting during Ramadan, men not allowed to keep beards, punishing them for not smoking in front of clerics, outlawing the hijab for women among other things), the worry now is that a sizeable number of Uighurs are fighting for Daesh or ISIS, who are yet to attack China or Chinese interests abroad. But China remains one of Daesh’s targets. The Belt with its financial and other support to the Central Asian countries is intended to create a “Crescent” of countries to block infiltration of Daesh. The Belt is planned to create a Chinese extension of Mackinder’s Theory of the importance of Central Asia as a large and critical land island.

Having said that, the belt connections will include a large number of Islamic countries. Given the wide range of radical Islamist groups and anti-China sentiment, the project is not risk averse. China will, of course, expect these countries to provide security as is being down in Pakistan.

The OBOR is mainly designed for its own economic protection. China’s export driven economy is beginning to falter as new centres of low and intermediate range goods production are growing. Its low labour cost advantage is beginning to fade, while idle production capacity is growing, along with unemployment. This initiative together with China’s investment may allow them to locate their companies in the crescent countries and arm twist their governments to give extended tax rebates and high interest rates for the investments.

Chinese security forces are likely to follow and set up centres and port holdings where opportunity allows. Export of Chinese labour and blue and white collar jobs are written in the script. In several countries it can be a virtual Chinese take over.

The Pakistan Case

Whether the China-Pakistan Economic corridor (CPEC) will be a game-changer for Pakistan or an extended disaster is being hotly debated in Pakistan. On the one side is the government arguing in favour but without facts to support it. On the other in a conglomeration of experts, journalists, local politicians and even some industrialists who are asking sharp questions which the government is ducking. Pakistani freelance journalist Salman Rafi wrote in Asia Times (March 10, 2017) “The CPEC continues to look like a mystery, wrapped in an enigma”. Rafi goes on to say the CPEC “appears to become a China only project, stripping it of its game-changing elements for Pakistan and giving China a disproportionate presence in the country and the region”.

Last year (July 2016), Pakistan’s planning and Development Minister Ahsan Iqbal informed the senate that, “Agreement of the economic corridor with China is sensitive and it cannot be disclosed”. He, however, handed a copy of the agreement in a sealed cover to senate chairman Raza Rabbani asking the members to examine the agreement in the chamber of the chairman, if they wished to do so. The initial agreement is not a complete one, according to a number of sources. It is still a work in progress.

The Pakistani government has failed to explain if this is an economic agreement. Why hide it from the people because the money of the tax payers is involved. Or is it a Faustian bargain the Pakistani government has been forced to enter into by China and the Pakistani military? The Chinese investment in the project has increased from 46 billion dollars to 56 billion dollars, according to Pakistani media reports. But how does this play out?

A brief summary of the costs involved for Pakistan is as follows. Pakistan is raising a security force of 15,000, (roughly two divisions) for protection of Chinese personnel and CPEC installations from Gwadar to Kunjerab Pass. The entire cost will be borne by Pakistan. The Chinese refused to share the cost, saying security was not their business.

Islamabad has decided to levy a one percent surcharge on domestic power consumers to help defray security costs.

The special economic zones to be set up along the corridor will be only for Chinese companies, not for Pakistani. Most of the labour, it is feared, will come from China.

Chinese power companies to be set up will charge much more than the domestic producers. The amount has not been disclosed.

Machinery will be procured from China. Chinese companies involved including railways and the Gwadar Port handling Chinese companies, will enjoy a tax holiday for at least 23 years. There are many other hidden elements, people suspect. Interest on Chinese loans is expected to be higher than international financiers like the IMF and World Bank.

According to Pakistani calculations, there will be little or no foreign exchange in flow back into the country, while it pays 90 billion dollars back to China over 30 years against loans and investments of 56 billion dollars. The average annual repayment will be 3.7 billion dollars, according to a Pakistani analyst. What will happen to Pakistan which is already heavily indebted in foreign exchange?

The end scenario looks like this. China will have full control of Gwadar port turning it into a base for the Chinese navy. The corridor will be used for strategic exports and imports for China.

In the process, it is believed that Beijing is preparing to try and enter into the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir, Breaking its own principles China is building the corridor through Pakistan occupied Kashmir which is a disputed territory claimed by India. This is a provocation which India will not accept.

China is pressing hard on Myanmar for such a corridor. Nay Pyi Daw may like to examine the Pakistan case.

The CPEC is very important for President Xi Jinping. OBOR is his flagship project, and CPEC is its crown jewels. He will do anything and everything for its success. Failure would harm him severely.

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

China-Philippines Ties: Lessons For India And Japan – Analysis

0
0

By Tapan Bharadwaj*

China and Philippines are in discussion to establish a bilateral consultation mechanism on South China Sea (SCS). This could re-establish direct talks between both countries after a long pause of six years. This upswing in bilateral ties however is a placebo. While China’s strategic position will almost certainly improve in the region, the Philippines stands detached from traditional allies, with some trade deals to gain from Beijing at best.

By aspiring to be a net security provider in this region, China is challenging US’ presence and its provision of security to the sea lines of communication (SLOCs). However, the Chinese military does not currently have the capability to take on this role. Above all, the role is unlikely to be neutral as China itself has territorial claims in the region and is still in disputes with India and Japan on territory-related issues.

Almost 55 per cent of India’s total trade, 85 to 90 per cent of Japan’s oil imports, and 33 per cent of its LNG imports pass through the (SLOCs) in this area. This gives both India and Japan critical commercial interests in the region of the dispute even though they are not parties to the dispute itself.

Commerce through the region has become much more dangerous with a sharp increase in piracy in the region. China does not recognise the freedom of military navigation, which means that Indian and Japanese commercial traffic cannot be protected by any security provider other than China. The visuals of such a situation are alarming to both India and Japan. Hence, turning a blind eye and ignoring the developments in the SCS can cause severe economic disruptions for both countries.

India is currently bogged down in Chinese activities in the Indian Ocean, and Japan in the East China Sea. This effectively means that both India and Japan are playing one game each, while China is playing three games simultaneously. It is then clearly myopic for both India and Japan to ignore Chinese activities in the SCS because it represents the first line of defence. If China gets away unchallenged in this region, its normal and natural tendency will be to expand towards hegemony in all three domains. Holding China down in the SCS ensures that its navy remains a defensive littoral navy, whereas allowing it to break out from the SCS dispute will mean that China will naturally transition to a big, power projecting navy across Asia.

The problem that both countries face however is that some countries in the region are notoriously fickle and unreliable. For example, the Philippines has disowned its traditional strategic alliance with the US and sought to engage China bilaterally in the hope of finding a better deal. This has created a severe dilemma for any country seeking to support the regional disputants against China. The fear is that they will be used to forward a local agenda, but sold out at the negotiating table, much like President Rodrigo Duterte did.

However the good news is that Duterte’s gamble does not seem to have paid off, and with the benefit of hindsight, he may have been much better off retaining the help of the US. For example, Duterte’s ‘ice-breaking’ visit to China in October 2016 – which included meeting with Xi Jinping, Li Keqiang, and other important leaders, and the signing of thirteen agreements covering a wide range of subjects – delivered absolutely no concrete benefit for the Philippines, save some investment and photo opportunities. These improved ties have neither led to a softening of China’s territorial claims in the SCS nor have they led to any decrease in the aggression of China’s military patrolling and construction activities.

The Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) published a report on 27 March 2017 which stated that China had nearly finished constructing aircraft hangers, radar sites, surface-to-air missile shelters and runways on three of China’s largest artificial islands, Fiery Cross, and Subi and Mischief Reefs, all part of the Spratly islands. These islands are at the heart of the SCS dispute. Further, President Duterte’s less than stellar results seem to have spurred internal opposition to his rapprochement with China. Defence Secretary Delfin Lorenzana remained openly suspicious, citing ever more provocative Chinese patrolling – closer to the Philippines than before.

On 6 April, Duterte seemed to finally reverse course by asking troops to occupy uninhabited islands and shoals the Philippines claims in the disputed SCS, which contradicts what he said in March – that it was pointless to challenge China’s fortification of man-made islands in SCS: “We cannot stop them because they are building it with their mind fixed that they own the place. China will go to war,” he said.

The Philippines’ current conundrum may be an object lesson for the rest of ASEAN: that abandoning old and trusted allies for misguided faith in the benevolence and magnanimity of China will not yield results, and may severely weaken leaders attempting such rapprochement domestically. In that object lesson lies the opportunity for India and Japan to re-engage with the region.

* Tapan Bharadwaj
Researcher, CRP, IPCS

Iran’s Presidential Elections: A Political Essay

0
0

As a political scientist observing Iran’s political situation from afar, this year’s presidential elections provide yet another context for theoretical reflection on the post-revolutionary society and its evolution over the past four decades marking certain changes amid political continuity.

This means taking stock of the revolution’s initial elan, its reconstruction of national identity, its creative blend of theocracy and democracy, and its founding principles of liberty, popular sovereignty, redistributive justice, and anti-hegemony.

Over time, journeying through multiple internal and external crises, the Islamic Republic has reached a new level of maturity or, to put it in political science jargon, institutionalization that is, simultaneously, confronted with the challenges of maintaining its authenticity and vitality, the coherence of its historical vision, valorizing its revolutionary ethics, and sustaining development. The beauty of the presidential elections is that it creates a new opportunity every four years to revisit these big questions and contemplate about the future direction of the Iranian society.

In so contextualizing the presidential elections, critical lenses are necessary in order to decipher the nature of changes and to evaluate policies and alternatives for leadership presented to the nation.

There is an on-going generational discourse and debate about the nature, problems, and prospects of Iran’s Islamist democracy featuring regular elections, checks and balances, and a dynamic civil society that is part of the post-revolutionary public sphere, crystallized in the electoral politics that makes incremental adjustments routinely, such as by adopting televised presidential debates, which have become the fulcrum of public discussions, enabling a greater degree of political transparency and accountability, thus adding to the system’s legitimacy.

Of course, the downside of these debates is that it risks giving priority to style over substance, and campaign tactics over strategy, compared with the upside of being a catalyst for national integration of the electorate into the political process in a more meaningful way, in light of the still rudimentary and haphazard life of political parties in today’s Iran.

The majority of Iranian voters do not belong to any party and their votes are cast along a plethora of class, ideology, ethnic, and other lines. In Iran, these debates perform basically the same function as in western “deliberative democracies,” by providing a rational venue for informed choices by the voters engaged in evaluating the presidential candidates on the television screens.

But, the process is rife with potential tensions and susceptible to being derailed, as was the case with the controversial 2009 elections when a losing candidate, who gained the majority in the capital city, contested the results even though he never proffered any serious documents to prove his allegations.

The tremors of that political earthquake still rattle the political system, which experienced a period of contraction and has yet to fully resolve the specter of that election haunting it.

In retrospect, it is patently obvious that serious political mistakes were made by both sides and that signs of foreign meddling to cause a ‘velvet revolution’ in Iran and thus to unravel the Islamic revolution could be found aplenty. Since then, as expected, the political system adopted precious lessons and is still wary of lifting some of the limits on the democratic process that could prove destabilizing.

Meanwhile, a whole set of new questions have popped up in this election: has the Rouhani government performed up to par deserving a second term? Is Iran under Rouhani swayed too much in the direction of neoliberal globalization? Has the revolution’s egalitarian dimension evaporated and needs to be rehabilitated? Has the premise of a “resistant economy” been informing the government’s economic and foreign decisions?

Indeed, the list of questions is a long one and the feasible answers to them quite divergent, depending on one’s political point of view. There are those in Iran who strive for a new rebalancing of the government’s priorities away from technocracy and toward Islamist populism, concerned that the government suffers from a “vision deficit” and apt to make the post-sanctions Iran conform with the dictates of world capitalism and thus cause a revolutionary metamorphosis into a status quo power.

This forms the nub of criticism of the three Usulgarayan (Principalist) candidates, Raisi, Ghalibaf, and Mirsalim, who accuse the Rouhani government of embourgeoisification and becoming the guardians of “top 4 percent.” They criticize the new culture of consumerism eating the revolution from within, and the appalling wage and income inequalities.

Such criticisms resonate with the poor electorate, whose ranks have swelled by millions over the recent years, with estimated %40 percent of the population at or below the poverty line.

To these candidates, Rouhani’s failure to deliver the economic benefits of the nuclear deal present a devastating weakness that warrant their current optimism that, perhaps, they can unseat him, particularly if in the end they unify behind one candidate and avoid splitting their votes (as was the case in the previous elections). Also, they are emboldened by the Supreme Leader’s recent criticism of Rouhani’s discourse that the nuclear deal removed the threat of war. On the contrary, the leader stated, it was the people and their heroic resistance that achieved this goal.

Still, there is no doubt that Iran’s skillful nuclear diplomacy deserves a great deal of credit for removing the Chapter VII Un resolutions on Iran and maintaining Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle, albeit at a reduced level, as part of a grand nuclear bargain with the West, which essentially used the nuclear crisis as a hegemonic strategy vis-a-vis Iran.

Iran’s nuclear diplomacy was thus an example of deft counter-hegemony that knocked down the wall of sanctions and enabled Iran to slowly recuperate from the pile of punitive damages, requiring patience and sustained diplomacy since the West is still keen on “containing” Iran. Consequently, foreign policy continuity is mandatory in Iran, so that a second term Rouhani presidency can build on its present efforts in order to maintain and deepen the new chapter in Iran’s international relations foisted by the nuclear deal.

This is why Rouhani deserves a second term and will likely manage to pull this off at the ballot boxes in the near future, provided that he can convince the voters that he is capable of correcting the shortcomings of his first administration, above all the “vision deficit,” technocratic elitism, and the like.

Still, despite such shortcomings, it is worth remembering that Rouhani has an economic record of an Islamic populist as well, given the fact that his annual budgets devote a lion shares to social services, tantamount to a redistribution of national wealth from the top, and that simply means that the “petrolic populism” of Iran has a built-in tendency to reproduce its logic of action, instead of a straightforward evolution to a post–populist moment.

The biggest challenge of Rouhani is to demonstrate his willingness and ability to muster the necessary energy and will power to stay the course of Islamic revolution and its pillars of anti-hegemony and Islamist redictributive justice.


Natural Entities Now Legally People: Enough To Save Them? – Analysis

0
0

In recent weeks, courts in New Zealand and India have granted legal personhood status to three rivers and glaciers. While this is a significant legal development, will this strategy to protect these entities from environmental damage and climate change be enough without proper enforcement?

By Sangeetha Yogendran*

In March 2017, New Zealand’s parliament granted the Whanganui river legal personhood, something which its Maori people have been fighting for since 1873. The granting of legal person status to the Whanganui River formally acknowledges the special relationship between the river and the Maori people.

A few weeks later, in India, the Uttarakhand High Court granted the Ganga and Yamuna rivers the status of “living human entities”. India further extended this order to include other natural entities within this ambit of a “juristic (non-living) person”. These entities now include glaciers, rivers, streams, rivulets, lakes, meadows, dales, jungles, forests, wetlands, grasslands, springs and waterfalls.

Personhood for Nature: What It Means

What does conferring such legal personhood mean? It translates to conferring all corresponding rights, duties, liabilities and rights akin to fundamental and legal rights of a living person on these natural entities. According to the High Court in India, the rationale for doing so was to preserve and conserve them.

The Court noted the fast rate of recession of both the Gangotri and Yamnotri glaciers in the Himalayas. Any harm that is caused to these entities will be treated similarly to harm caused to human beings.

A juristic person for the purposes of the law does not necessarily have to be a human being. A juristic person can be any subject matter other than a human being, to which the law attributes personality. However, these rights give the natural entities the legal standing, often depicted as the ability to sue or be sued. This allows these natural entities to go to court to protect their rights.

In fact, these developments are not without precedent. In 2011, Bolivia granted all nature equal rights to humans, in her Law of Mother Earth, and Ecuador similarly did so in 2013. Also in 2013, New Zealand granted legal person status to the Te Urewera National Park.

Both New Zealand and India assigned the natural entities mentioned with legal guardians. The significance of assigning legal guardians is that in any foreseeable future action, they would not need to prove that damage (pollution for example) is harming humans; the proof would only need to be that the damage is harming the river or the other legal entities named.

Challenges in Enforcing Nature’s Legal Rights

We are reminded of the significant legal development of giving corporations the status of a legal person, which endowed companies with particular legal rights, and allowed the company to be considered as distinct from the people involved in it.

Questions remain, however, as to whether granting natural entities with these types of legal rights are relevant or even appropriate for nature to begin with. While these developments should be lauded, the true challenge lies in their implementation and enforcement.

For these rights to be enforceable, both the legal guardians and those who use the resource must recognise their joint rights and duties. Any adjudication of a potential case will require specific expertise, time, money, adequate funding, resources and expertise. Enforcement of these rights will require judicial and legislative independence where such action could be politically sensitive.

Many questions remain about the roles and responsibilities of the guardians of the natural entities, how they will decide to enforce which rights, and when they might choose to do so. What is important is ensuring that these rights are used and enforced successfully, instead of remaining ideal on paper but worthless in practice.

Possible Implications on Natural Entities in Southeast Asia

So far, the natural entities named are mostly contained within the geographical limits of one state. This should make enforcement relatively more straight-forward. Enforcement will become much more complicated when dealing with natural entities that cross multiple borders and jurisdictions.

In Southeast Asia for example, any governance of natural entities might require the need for transnational regional cooperation. Enforcing any legal rights on the Mekong River, for example, would require several countries working together to ensure that the rights can be enforced.

Granting legal status to the Mekong River might require different governance systems, one among countries in the lower Mekong region, and another that includes China as the source of the river. Before immediately suggesting granting the Mekong with legal personhood, it is important to examine whether granting legal rights would be realistic or effective. Efforts might be better devoted to cooperation mechanisms among all the countries concerned, instead of granting legal status first as an impetus for such cooperation.

How Feasible?

If legal status is granted for the Mekong, the motivations for doing so need to be clear. While the motive for doing so in New Zealand was to protect and acknowledge indigenous rights, and in India it was to mitigate climate change and pollution, perhaps both these motivations are relevant to the Mekong.

The Mekong is a lifeline for many in the region, and the many communities that live along the Mekong would greatly benefit from such recognition. But ensuring that such community security is enforceable in ASEAN will require a conversation on national and regional security as well, and will have to include China as a key partner of this conversation.

Whether granting legal status to entities that traverse multiple borders is even feasible remains to be seen. As countries struggle to cope with rising temperatures, melting glaciers and other extreme weather events, according natural entities legal status might be one way to stop, or realistically slow down, these effects.

*Sangeetha Yogendran is a Senior Analyst with the Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) Programme, Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Ron Paul: President Trump, Cancel Your Saudi Trip, Play More Golf – OpEd

0
0

President Trump is about to embark on his first foreign trip, where he will stop in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Vatican, before attending a NATO meeting in Brussels and the G-7 summit in Sicily. The media and pundits have loudly wondered why hasn’t he gone on a foreign trip sooner. I wonder why go at all?

What does the president hope to achieve with these meetings? This is a president who came into office with promises that we would finally start to mind our own business overseas. In December, he said that the policy of US “intervention and chaos” overseas must come to an end. Instead, he is jumping into a region – the Middle East – that has consumed the presidencies of numerous of his predecessors.

On Saudi Arabia, President Trump has shifted his position from criticism of the Saudi regime to a seemingly warm friendship with Saudi deputy crown prince Mohammad bin Salman. He has approved weapons sales to Saudi Arabia that President Obama had halted due to Saudi human rights abuses, particularly in its horrific war on Yemen.

While visiting Saudi Arabia, one of the most extreme theocracies on earth – where conversion to Christianity can bring the death penalty – President Trump will attend a meeting of Muslim leaders to discuss the threats of terrorism and religious extremism. No, not in Saudi Arabia, but in Iran, where Christianity is legal and thriving!

Perhaps President Trump’s flip-flop on Saudi Arabia was inspired by the ten separate Washington, D.C. public relations firms the Kingdom keeps on the payroll, at a cost of $1.3 million per month. That kind of money can really grease the policy wheels in Washington.

From there, the US President will travel to Israel. Does he believe he will finally be able to solve the 70 year old Israel-Palestine conflict by negotiating a good deal? If so, he’s in for a surprise.

The problem persists partly because we have been meddling in the region for so long. Doing more of the same is pretty unlikely to bring about a different result. How many billions have we spent propping up “allies” and bribing others, and we’re no closer to peace now than when we started. Maybe it’s time for a new approach. Maybe it’s time for the countries in the Middle East to solve their own problems. They have much more incentive to reach some kind of deal in their own neighborhood.

Likewise his attendance at the NATO meeting is not very encouraging to those of us who were pleased to hear candidate Trump speak the truth about the outdated military alliance. We don’t need to strong-arm NATO members to spend more money on their own defense. We need to worry about our own defense. Our military empire – of which NATO is an arm – makes us weaker and more vulnerable. Minding our own business and rejecting militarism would make us safer.

Many pundits complain that President Trump spends too much time golfing. I would rather he spend a lot more time golfing and less time trying to solve the rest of the world’s problems. We cannot afford to be the policeman or nursemaid to the rest of the world, particularly when we have such a lousy record of success.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Embassy Espionage: Top Secret NSA Spy Hub In New Delhi – OpEd

0
0

By Shelley Kasli*

The National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States had plans to install a super spy software named APPARITION in New Delhi, a recent ‘top secret’-marked NSA document leaked by CIA contractor-turned whistleblower Edward Snowden has revealed.

SCS stands for Special Collection Service (SCS), is a highly classified joint CIA–NSA program charged with inserting eavesdropping equipment in difficult-to-reach places, such as foreign embassies, communications centers, and foreign government installations. The SCS program was established in the late 1970s during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Around this time, SCS operatives reportedly hid eavesdropping devices in pigeons perched on the windowsills of the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C. Headquartered in Beltsville, Maryland, the SCS has been described as the United States’ “Mission Impossible force”.

According to documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the SCS is part of a larger global surveillance program known as STATEROOM. STATEROOM is the code name of a highly secretive signals intelligence collection program involving the interception of international radio, telecommunications and internet traffic. It is operated out of the diplomatic missions of the signatories to the UKUSA Agreement and the members of the ECHELON network including Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Canada and the United States. In almost a hundred U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide, Stateroom operations are conducted by the SCS.

In October 2013, reports by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden led to the revelation of the SCS having systematically wiretapped Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel’s private cell phone over a period of over 10 years, among other activities to wiretap and systematically record large amounts of European and South American leaders’ and citizens’ communications.

APPARITION becomes a reality new corporate VSAT geolocation capability sees its first deployment (from the Top Secret document)

The first operational version of APPARITION achieved Initial Operating Capability (IOC) at Misawa, Japan, in late September. APPARITION is a precision geolocation capability for targeting foreign very small aperture satellite terminals (VSAT) — an important target, because VSATs are often used by Internet cafes and foreign governments in the Middle East. APPARITION builds on the success of the GHOSTHUNTER prototype developed at Menwith Hill Station, a tool that enabled a significant number of capture-kill operations against terrorists.

Going Global

The GHOSTHUNTER prototype capitalized on the co-location of Overhead SIGINT and FORNSAT at Menwith Hill Station to combine collection from both apertures to perform precise geolocations of VSATs. With APPARITION, this capability will not be limited to collocated sites; it will now be possible for collection from sites worldwide to be combined with Overhead collection. Plans call for APPARITION to be deployed to a number of FORNSAT and Special Collection Service (SCS) sites in the coming years.

This first APPARITION system builds on lessons learned from the initial GHOSTHUNTER implementation, and represents a more generic concept of operations (CONOP) for use worldwide. Rather than “chasing” the targets when they come on-line in a reactive approach, APPARITION uses an “industrial survey” concept that proactively targets and geolocates VSATs and populates the MASTERSHAKE database with the results. This approach reduces response time: by interrogating the database, a geolocation of the VSAT can be provided within seconds of the target appearing on-line

Future Plans

Plans are well advanced to install APPARITIONs at SCS sites in New Delhi, Ankara, Kuwait, and Istanbul before the end of this year, and at 27 FORNSAT/SCS sites worldwide, including Second Party locations, in the next two years. APPARITION has transitioned to using agile development methods and short, incremental development spirals, an approach that allows rapid evolution of the system. This has resulted in two further VSAT signals — LinkStar and single channel per carrier (SCPC) – being incorporated into the baseline within 2 months of IOC, thereby increasing the number of targets that can be geolocated.

On 23 November 2013, the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad released a top secret NSA presentation leaked by Edward Snowden, which shows the presence of SCS operations in numerous U.S. diplomatic missions located in numerous cities including New Delhi in India.

A management presentation dating from 2012 explains how the NSA collects information worldwide. In addition, the presentation shows that the intelligence service uses Computer Network Exploitation (CNE) in more than 50,000 locations. CNE is the secret infiltration of computer systems achieved by installing malware, malicious software.

The NSA computer attacks are armed by a special department called TAO (Tailored Access Operations). Public sources show that this department employs more than a thousand hackers. As recently as August 2013, the Washington Post published articles about these NSA TAO cyber operations. In these articles The Washington Post reported that the NSA installed an estimated 20,000 ‘implants’ as early as 2008. These articles were based on a secret budget report of the American intelligence services. By mid-2012 this number had more than doubled to 50,000, as is shown in the presentation TVNZ laid eyes on.

The malware can be controlled remotely and be turned on and off at will. The ‘implants’ act as digital ‘sleeper cells’ that can be activated with a single push of a button. According to the Washington Post, the NSA has leg carrying out this type of cyber operation since 1998.

The APPARITION program pinpoints the locations of people accessing the Internet across sensitive locations. Subsequent actionable intelligence information may lead to sending lethal Reaper drones to eliminate the target. The Top Secret reports speak of an SCS surveillance unit being set up in the embassy campus in New Delhi that operated under the codename DAISY.

Is this NSA’s Secret Spy Hub in New Delhi still operational? Only a thorough inspection of the US Embassy in New Delhi can tell. This is just one of the many such case studies that demonstrate clearly the Indian government’s lack of understanding about even the basic tenets of information warfare. Sadly, without any concept of a comprehensive national security doctrine what is at stake is the very sovereignty of our country.

*Shelley Kasli for GreatGameIndia. For a thorough understanding of how the gathering of information by the East India Company laid the foundations of this hi-tech modern surveillance program read our exclusive research report on the issue Digital India in the Age of Information Warfare published in GreatGameIndia – India’s only quarterly magazine on Geopolitics and International Affairs

France: Macron, The Fifth Republic’s Unusual Eighth President

0
0

By Aline Robert

(EurActiv) — Just one year after making his big political gamble, Emmanuel Macron was elected president of France with more than 65% of the vote on Sunday (7 May).

Macron’s rise has been meteoric. One year ago, his decision to quit the government and launch his own political movement was seen as crazy by virtually all of France’s political establishment.

But Sunday, the 39-year-old outsider was elected the eighth president of the Fifth Republic, beating the National Front’s Marine Le Pen by almost 66% to 34%.

At close to 25%, the abstention rate was at its highest in recent years. Around four million white or spoiled ballots were also counted.

The centrist’s emphatic victory, which also smashed the dominance of France’s mainstream parties, will bring huge relief to European allies who had …

“This is a magnificent result,” said centrist Democratic Movement party leader François Bayrou, who rallied behind Macron early on. “France is sending the world a message of hope,” he added.

11 million votes for Marine Le Pen

But this election clearly revealed just how divided France is. Macron garnered around 20 million votes but some 11 million French citizens expressed their desire for a fundamental change in direction by voting for Le Pen.

After beating the extreme-right candidate by 23.8% to 21.5% in the first round, experts estimate that the second-round victor attracted the support of almost all the traditional Socialist Party, Green and centre-right voters.

A split Republican Front

Yet, unlike in 2002, when incumbent right-wing resident Jacques Chirac faced off against National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen in a traumatic second-round ballot, many of France’s traditional right-wing voters chose to back the National Front candidate.

Fifteen years ago, Le Pen Senior’s progress was blocked by a truly united Republican Front, losing by 82% to 18%.

As the only overtly pro-European candidate, Macron benefitted from the strong desire for renewal among French voters but also from his rivals’ errors.

Fillongate, the internal splits in the Socialist Party over its candidate Benoît Hamon and the ongoing legal proceedings against Le Pen all contributed to making Macron look a credible choice.

In her concession speech, Le Pen welcomed “the elimination of the old parties and the reorganisation of French politics between the patriots and the globalists”, adding that she was “worried” about what the coming presidency would bring.

“I will propose a thorough transformation of this movement and I call on all patriots to join me,” she said.

Right, left and centre in the dust

“The governing parties will have to accept the consequences of having been beaten in the first round,” said Republican grandee François Baroin.

Dominique de Villepin, Chirac’s former prime minister, highlighted the territorial fractures dividing the country and called on the future president to “work for reconciliation”.

Outgoing President François Hollande also joined the chorus of congratulations for his former advisor and protégé.

“I have called Emmanuel Macron to congratulate him wholeheartedly on his election. I wished him every success for our country,” Hollande said on Twitter.

The official transfer of power to the new president will take place at the Elysée Palace this Sunday (14 May).

France: Macron Should Prioritize Rights As President, Says HRW

0
0

French President-elect Emmanuel Macron should place human rights at the heart of his domestic and foreign policy, Human Rights Watch said Monday. Macron defeated the far-right National Front candidate, Marine Le Pen, during a run-off election on May 7, 2017.

Macron’s government should also invest in understanding and responding to the factors that drove the strong showing of the far-right National Front in the presidential elections. Le Pen, the National Front’s leader, achieved the party’s best election result ever with proposals based on intolerance and xenophobia. Projections gave Macron, leader of the fledgling centrist En Marche! party almost 66 percent of the vote, with slightly more than 34 percent for Le Pen, who conceded defeat.

“It’s very encouraging news for France and Europe that French voters rejected a platform that played into xenophobic populism,” said Bénédicte Jeannerod, France director at Human Rights Watch. “At the same time, the far-right’s unprecedented share of the vote should be a wake-up call for France. Macron, his administration, and France’s next parliament should reflect on what has prompted so many to vote that way and address those concerns while defending rights for all.”

France’s new president will be confronted with immense human rights challenges as soon as he takes office, and responding to them should be a priority, Human Rights Watch said.

These challenges include ensuring respect for human rights in the context of fighting terrorism. Human Rights Watch and many other independent groups have emphasized the threat to the rule of law of an endless extension of France’s state of emergency. Strengthening the country’s asylum policy for people fleeing war and persecution should also be a priority. Macron should also make the fight against ethnic, racial, or religious discrimination a major plank of his policy.

At the European level, in the context of Brexit and the rise of radical right populism, France should play a leading role in ensuring that the European Union’s founding values of “respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law” are a priority of EU policy and hold member governments to account when they flout those values.

At the international level, conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and South Sudan, marked by deliberate attacks on civilians and serious violations of international humanitarian law, should be at the top of the new president’s diplomatic agenda.

Faced with the proliferation of human rights crises, France has a compelling need for justice. France’s commitment to international justice, through unambiguous political and financial support for the International Criminal Court (ICC), will be crucial in advancing the fight against impunity.

Macron and his future government should also place respect for human rights at the center of France’s bilateral relations, particularly those with countries that openly turn their backs on rights, such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey.

As head of the armed forces, the new president will also have to ensure that France’s external military operations, in particular those carried out in the context of the fight against terrorism in the Sahel and the Middle East, guard against abuse by the host armed forces or by the French army itself.

During the presidential campaign, Human Rights Watch sent all candidates a questionnaire about 11 key human rights issues. In his response, Macron outlined some of his policies with respect to human rights.

“Some policies promised by Macron go in the right direction of supporting human rights, while others are vague or insufficient,” Jeannerod said. “The world is watching France to see how it will protect and breathe new life into the values it claims to abide by. We, and French civil society, will be watching.”

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images