China wants to move its manufacturing up the value chain to become a producer and exporter of high-value goods, for which Europe can be the best market.

By Manoh Joshi

On May 14 and May 15, Beijing hosted one of those mega events that the Chinese revel in. But the two-day meeting of the Belt & Road Forum – yielding an unfortunate acronym, BARF – will, not be the event of 2017. That will be the 19th Communist Party of China Congress slated for November which will sacralise the Xi Jinping era. And before that, there is the BRICS summit in Xiamen and the 90th anniversary parade of the People’s Liberation Army’s founding.

Significantly, this massive scheme, known as the Belt Road Initiative (BRI) or the One Belt One Road (OBOR), the signature foreign policy initiative of Xi Jinping, combines the Silk Road Economic Belt going overland to Europe across Asia, and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Route through the Indian Ocean to Europe, via the Suez or the Cape of Good Hope.

The problem with trying to understand what it is all about is that it is a combination of many things: an economic plan for taking the Chinese economy on to the path of sustainable growth, a scheme for market development and dominance, an effort to export of excess capacity in key infrastructure industries, all adding up to a geopolitical assertion of China’s major power status.

India missed the party in Beijing which was attended by 28 heads of government or state, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and many of our neighbours, like Pakistan, Myanmar, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

The BRI takes on a range of already existing and ongoing Chinese governmental and state owned enterprise (SOE) projects and seeks to provide them with an overall coherence and direction. The first phase of the project is connectivity, not surprisingly, from and to China, through new highways, railways, ports and pipelines. This is the “hardwiring” that has in some instances already taken place, or is taking place.

But most important, it is a destination called Europe. Even though all maps and schemas of BRI clearly indicate this, most people get distracted by its side-shows like the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), or its schemes to avoid Indian Ocean choke-points.

Why Europe? Because OBOR is crucially linked to what China wants to do with its economy – move its manufacturing up the value chain to enable the country to become a producer and exporter of high-value goods. For this, it needs a rich market, and what could be better than Europe, the richest region in the world ? China sees Europe as a source of technology, lifestyle goods like fashion garments, wine, cheese, olive oil for its rising middle class and a market for its high-end products.

Central Asia, South Asia, or the ports of Indian Ocean, are merely way-stations through which the China-Europe Express will run.

The BRI is a major playground for China’s SOEs, 47 of whom are carrying out some 1,700 projects in the 65-odd countries associated with the scheme. While fantastic sums, in excess of $ 1 trillion are spoken of, for the BRI, investment currently is a bit more modest. As of now, despite the smoke and sound, the BRI is not the main destination of Chinese overseas investment. As a David Dollar, a former head of the World Bank in China and now a Brookings Institution scholar notes, China is probably the biggest financier to the world with its outward direct investment totalling $170 billion and its policy banks – China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank – another $ 100 billion. But he says, only a small proportion of this is going to the OBOR projects currently. Even the policy banks which have lent some $675 billion, have only allocated $101.8 billion of 15% for OBOR linked lending by the end of 2016. Dollar’s estimates tend to ignore Europe as a factor in the project and there is, it would appear, a small cottage industry in the western press to diss the BRI.

However, the scheme is still young, having gotten underway in just 2015. Even the institutions the Chinese have created to push it are just about a year or two old. The Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Silk Road Fund currently have a paid up capital of $240 billion. Their lending has so far been far short of their potential. But the wily Chinese have let it be known that they are open to funding from all sources, including the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to co-fund their projects.

Perhaps the most frenetic activity is in building and developing railroads – 750 km long, linking Addis Ababa with Djibouti, 480 kms of the Mombasa-Nairobi railway in Kenya, 414 kms linking Kunming with Vientane in Laos, with extensions to Bangkok and Singapore.

With the three gas and one oil pipeline from Central Asia to Xinjiang, a significant proportion of Central Asian oil and gas is going to China. Now, work has begun on a fourth line from Central Asia, as well as the pipelines bringing oil from Russia to northern China.

Central Asia is also a key junction for the grand Chinese vision of high-speed railway networks linking Chinese cities to Europe. These or not just plans but reality today. Freight trains have been carrying cargoes from Chinese cities since the first train traveled in 2008 from Xiangtuan in Huynan province to Hamburg. Subsequently HP demonstrated the economic value of its Chongqing-Duisberg trains running four times a week. Now a dozen Chinese cities are linked to 15 European cities. 2016 saw Chinese trains arrive in Teheran and Mazar-e-Sharif through newly developed links.

These trains travel to Kazakhstan and then taking a northern route via the Trans Siberian to the Polish border. A new container terminal at Khorgos has opened an alternate route which will be developed to link to the Russian line, or to avoid Russia altogether and go through the Caucasus or Iran to Turkey and Europe.

The maritime component is being developed through a string of ports in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), these include Kyakapu in Myanmar, Bagamayo in Tanzania, Lamu in Kenya, Hambantota in Sri Lanka and Gwadar in Pakistan.

Countries like Japan, India and the US have not been particularly enthusiastic about the BRI, saying that this is a Chinese funded scheme, to be executed by the Chinese, to serve Chinese national goals. There has been little consultation with others whose participation the Chinese are seeking.

After facing some resistance China has begun to adopt a more accommodative approach. It now says that the scheme has no geographical limits, that it is about inclusion and global integration and far from challenging the US, China would like to play a role in rebuilding its dilapidated infrastructure.

Even so, the Chinese do realise that trust is still wanting. One reason for this is the rapidity with which the flag has followed the trade. In the Indian Ocean region, from 2014 onward Chinese submarines have shown up. And as of 2015, the first Chinese military base has been created in Djibouti.

Indian concerns have been projected as arising from the fact that the CPEC runs through Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. But this is just a pretext. The POK route has been active since the 1970s and New Delhi did not make much of it. What India is concerned about is Chinese naval activities in the northern Arabian Sea, in Karachi and Gwadar and the fact that CPEC involves a closer integration of Pakistani economy with that of China.

Indeed, what India is worried about is that through its generous lending, China is creating dependencies in our South Asian backyard, which means these countries will have little alternative but to back Beijing’s political goals.

The choices before New Delhi are not too many. We do not have the kind of monetary resources China has, nor the kind of exprienced SOE’s who excel in executing infrastructure projects. Further, unlike China, India has a huge infrastructure development agenda within the country. Some of these schemes such as the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor or the Bengaluru-Chennai corridor are underway. We have a number of important new port projects such as the one in Vizhinjam, Kerala and the Enayam, Tamil Nadu.

Even so, it may be a good idea for New Delhi to see this as an opportunity to attract companies, including those of China, to fund and develop our infrastructure along with those like Japan and South Korea. India can leverage funds from Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, New Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank to undertake infrastructure development within the country and its neighbourhood.

New Delhi has been lackadaiscal in executing projects like the Chah Bahar Port project, or the Kaladan Multimodal Project. We need to come up with our own version of the Silk Road Economic Belt by taking up the International North South Transportation Corridor, a multimodal scheme to take goods from western Indian ports to Europe, via Iran.

More than that, we need a clearer strategic vision for India going on to the 2030s and 2050s. All we get from the Narendra Modi government are a succession of slogans. In that sense, China has total clarity. It intends to become a significant Indian Ocean power by the 2030s and by the 2050s it seeks to be a world power, if not the world power.

The OBOR will provide the sinews and muscle to fulfill that Chinese dream.

This article originally appeared in The Wire.

The Baltic countries, and some of their Scandinavian neighbors, are mortally terrified of Russia. Or so they would have us believe. They clamored to join NATO as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed and are currently among the most shrill anti-Russian voices outside of Hillary campaign hangers-on and their newfound neocon allies. Just this week, the Lithuanian president begged Washington to permanently station troops on its soil to “not only deter but to defend” against the great Russian “threat” across their border.

But, as Ted Carpenter writes in the National Interest, these very same countries who scream the loudest about the Russian threat are strangely reluctant to devote any of their own resources to defending themselves against said threat. One would think that if a country faced an “existential threat” from their neighbor, Russia, (as Polish foreign minister Witold Waszczykowski claimed recently), that country would be motivated to do something to address that threat in any way possible. But in fact the opposite is the case. Instead of devoting resources to blunting the Russian spear they claim is in their face, these same countries show no interest at all in spending for their own defense.

As Carpenter writes:

The other two Baltic republics, Lithuania and Latvia, spend 1.49 and 1.41 percent, respectively. Romania and Bulgaria devote 1.41 percent and 1.30 percent. Slovakia and Hungary spend a mere 1.12 percent and 1.02 percent, and the Czech Republic brings up the rear at 1.01 percent. NATO’s leading countries don’t do significantly better. The figures for France and Italy are 1.79 and 1.11 percent, respectively. Perhaps most telling, democratic Europe’s leading economic power, Germany, spends a pathetic 1.20 percent.

Think about it: if you really felt an existential threat from your neighbor would you do nothing at all to defend against that threat?

And what about that “threat”? It’s largely manufactured as cover for central Europe’s reliance on the US military-industrial complex (powered by the beleaguered US taxpayer) to cover its defense expenses. The US military machine is happy to provide the propaganda that the mainstream media is happy to distribute as “news” and “analysis.” Poor old Joe Six-Pack works a good deal of his day to pay for the military budget of places like super-rich Germany and all he gets is this stupid monetary inflation that decimates his standard of living to show for it.

Threat? No, double standards. Washington criticized a military exercise between Russia and its ally Belarus on its own soil scheduled for later this summer, with Defense Secretary Mattis stating that “any kind of buildup like that is simply destabilizing.” In fact, Mattis supports sending US missiles to the Russian border in response to these wargames. However the United States takes part in numerous wargames outside its own territory and even on the Russian border, but somehow these are not to be viewed by the rest of the world as “destabilizing” in any way. Even if they simulate attacks on North Korea just a stone’s throw from North Korean territory!

Until middle America understands how it is being ripped-off by the international bureaucrats, military-industrial complex, and their own hypocritical and paid-off politicians — forced to pay the way for rich strangers — they will continue to see their standard of living decline. Will they find their righteous anger at the immoral forces allied against them? Hopefully so, and hopefully soon.

No more NATO!

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

New data analysis reveals that more than 10,000 parents of US citizen children are most likely detained every year in California by immigration authorities, Human Rights Watch said Monday. In light of new Trump administration policies likely to boost detention and deportation, the state of California should act to ensure that detained migrants are held in dignified and humane conditions and have access to lawyers.

The Human Rights Watch report, “‘I Still Need You’: The Detention and Deportation of Californian Parents,” is based on data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request to federal immigration authorities. The data covers nearly 300,000 federal detentions of immigrants in facilities in California over a four-and-a-half-year span. Over that period, an average of about 65,000 immigrants a year were detained in California in 15 facilities. Many were parents of US citizen children. Although the records for most of the period do not specify whether detainees have US citizen children, the records for one nine-month span (October 2014 to June 2015) generally do, and statistical methods can reliably fill the gaps. Analyzing the records for that nine-month span, Human Rights Watch found that nearly half – 42 percent – of detainees had US citizen children.

“The rights of immigrants in the United States, including the parents of US citizens, are under greater threat than ever, especially people held in the immigration detention system,” said Clara Long, researcher in the US program at Human Rights Watch. “With 15 percent of all US immigration detainees held in California, state legislation aimed at enforcing humane detention standards and addressing fundamental due process failures is crucial.”

The need for human rights safeguards for detained immigrants is acute, Human Rights Watch said. The Trump administration has signaled its intention to place more people in a detention system that is notorious for its punitive and often inhumane conditions, including subpar medical care, which has contributed to deaths in custody that might have been prevented. In the context of the existing due process crisis in immigration adjudications, the administration has also announced plans to expand fast-track deportation procedures that have demonstrably harmed asylum seekers’ and others’ ability to get fair hearings.

Two measures under consideration by the California state legislature would address human rights abuses in immigration detention. The assembly is currently considering a budget revision released on May 11, 2017, by Governor Jerry Brown that would allocate US$15 million in state funds to provide lawyers for people in immigration detention in California. A recent study found that 68 percent of detained immigrants in California do not have legal representation and that detained immigrants who had counsel prevailed in their cases, and were allowed to stay in the country, at five times the rate of those who did not.

“Everyone should have a right to fair adjudication in deportation proceedings,” Long said. “State leaders should address due process gaps for everyone in immigration detention no matter their situation or history.”

Another measure, Senate Bill 29, would require California jails to meet specific civil detention standards when holding immigrants, including access to legal services, medical care, freedom from harm or harassment, and privacy. It would also prohibit an immigration detention facility from placing a detainee in segregated housing involuntarily because of their actual or perceived gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation. The bill would prohibit California cities and counties from renewing or entering into new contracts with for-profit detention companies. While Human Rights Watch takes no position on the use of for-profit facilities, the bill’s other provisions would be crucially important tools to prevent abuse in detention.

“The consequence of immigration authorities’ failure to enforce applicable standards can quite literally be death,” Long said. “California should take this opportunity to ensure that no immigrant is held in substandard and undignified conditions within its borders.”

Saudi Arabia has announced the birth of an ‘Islamic Military Coalition’ of more than 30 Muslim countries, and Sunni ones in particular. The coalition includes Arab countries Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, together with Muslim countries Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, and African and Gulf states.

It has not included any Shia sect majority countries, such as Iran or Iraq, or the Alawites Shia of Syria. Oman is also not a part of this coalition due to Sultan Qaboos’s neutral stance in the Shia-Sunni tussle.

The presence of Turkey in the coalition has labeled it as the ‘Islamic NATO.’ The main task of the coalition is to fight against terrorism. It is building an air, naval and land operation forces to intercede in major operations against terrorist organizations like, Al-Qaida, Islamic State and Al-Shabaab.

It assures to protect the Islamic countries from the evils of all terrorists without any sect and name discrimination, which causes corruption and the death of innocents. Saudi Arabia believes that the campaign is a coordinative effort to fight terrorism initially in Syria, Iraq, Egypt Libya, and Afghanistan.

Additionally,  the coalition will also coordinate with all major powers, regional and international organizations especially in the case of Iraq and Syria.

Critics believe that Yemen war has not represented a positive impact for Saudi Arabia, and forced her to create an international coalition — with most of the coalition partners joining the initiative just because of guaranteed substantial economic flows from Saudi Arabia.

Most of the African country members have really nothing to do with Middle Eastern affairs. Additionally, except Pakistan, the same goes for Asian country members. Pakistan is a close ally of Saudi Arabia and already supplies its military manpower. The first commander of the coalition — Raheel Sharif — is also a Pakistani retired military general.

The Gulf States have involved themselves in financial and limited demographics., but the cases of Turkey and Egypt are different.

Egypt is the biggest contributor to the military as an ally of Saudi Arabia in the Yemen war and Al Sisi has given strong support from the Gulf States. Cairo is also facing terrorism, both from the IS in the Sinai and Libya.

Turkey’s President Erdogan has never veiled his objectives to play an important role in regional affairs. Both Riyadh and Ankara are strong allies against the Syrian regime and have a powerful grip in the region.

Nevertheless, above all it is not clear which international or regional organization will liaise with the Islamic ‘NATO’. The United Nations? The Organization of the Islamic Conference? The Arab League? And will she intervene to defend coalition partners or will she attack third-party countries?

According to news reports, the United States and China both are in favor of the coalition. In this case President Donald Trump could assist this initiative and see how effective it might be, before formulating interventionist policy.

China has always supported the regional and international efforts to combat terrorism and appreciated the Saudi-led coalition and showed its willingness to cooperate.

Apart from international support and appreciation, still there are many mind-boggling questions with regard to the Islamic NATO. What does it really intend to do?

History has witnessed the two similar alliances — NATO and the Warsaw Pact. NATO is an alliance that was initially envisioned to protect Europe from Russian interventionism. Likewise, the Warsaw Pact was a treaty between Soviet Union and its allies against NATO. The enemies were identifiable entities. But the Islamic NATO is intended to tackle terrorism and extremism, and terrorists are ‘within’. How will other coalition partners help to fight against an enemy that is within the region?

Until and unless these questions are not answered, the organization could simply look like an extension of the primarily Sunni coalition that is currently waging war against Shia rebels in Syria and Yemen.

The author is PhD scholar at Center for Nontraditional Security & Peaceful Development Hangzhou, China. iimran110@zju.edu.com, tweeter: iiimran110

By Chintamani Mahapatra*

More than a hundred days have passed since Donald Trump entered the Oval Office as the forty-fifth president of the US. US domestic politics and Washington’s engagement with the rest of the world since then have entered an unprecedented period of uncertainty and there is no surety that this era of uncertainty is going to end any time soon.

Donald Trump has done several things that none of his predecessors either attempted or succeeded in doing. He draws only a dollar a month as his presidential salary. At the same time, he doggedly refuses to reveal his income tax returns. He has stopped former senior US officials from serving as lobbyists on behalf of foreign governments, which was a big blow to several countries that periodically used US officials to promote their respective national interests in the corridors of power in Washington. President Trump also signed a few executive orders aimed at protecting the job market for US citizens and making it costlier for US companies to hire foreign workers. The unemployment rate in the US has witnessed a record reduction in the first few months of the Trump administration.

The other side of the domestic scenario is equally striking. Trump is yet to gain the confidence of a large number of Republican legislators, but has managed a legislative victory in the US House of Representatives in his attempt to repeal the Obamacare health insurance policy. While he did not have his way in getting the appropriate budget allocation for the proposed wall across the US-Mexico border, he managed a substantial allocation to enhance US’ defence preparedness. He could not stop Congressional oversight over his campaign team members’ alleged connection with Russian intelligence, but displayed his mettle in firing the director of the powerful Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He has waged a prolonged war with the US media by criticising and snubbing it, and has even prevented their entry into White House events. On social media, however, he continues to have a large fan following.

In the arena of world affairs, Trump, the presidential hopeful, unnerved several foreign leaders and alliance partners. He declared NATO obsolete, asked Japan and South Korea to have their own nuclear arsenals to defend themselves, declared China a currency manipulator, and Pakistan, an unreliable ally. He promised to build a wall to stop immigrants them from entering the US. He vowed to completely defeat the Islamic State (IS).

Many analysts argued that candidate Trump would be different from President Trump, and that he would behave like his predecessors by taking a 180 degree turn and abandoning his campaign rhetoric on US foreign policy. Many expected the Trump administration to build a cooperative relationship with Russia, US’ erstwhile Cold War adversary, and seriously combat emerging challenges from China.

However, Trump, as president, appears to exhibit a smart foreign policy strategy mixed with ambiguity and surprise moves. He no longer considered NATO obsolete but insists that NATO partners must pay more towards defence burden-sharing. He has promised to continue to extend US’ nuclear umbrella to Japan and South Korea, but has also demanded more money in exchange for the security guarantee. He has stopped calling China a currency manipulator, after having offended it through his telephonic conversation with the Taiwanese president. He continues to praise Russian President Vladimir Putin, but has also dealt him a political blow by raining down missiles on Syria on the basis of the alleged use of chemical weapons by the pro-Russia Syrian regime. He has sought to ban Muslim immigration from seven countries in an unintended projection of his image as anti-Muslim, but has also sent his vice-president to visit the largest mosque in Southeast Asia.

He has not walked away from the Iran nuclear deal, but is going to make Saudi Arabia his maiden foreign visit to balance Washington’s engagement in the Middle East. In other words, the Trump administration is going to be an administration with a difference. India will have to learn to deal with this administration with caution and innovative diplomacy because uncertainty will be the name of the game. Navigating this political environment will require deft diplomatic skill. The bipartisan consensus in the US for a stronger strategic partnership with India notwithstanding, playing ball with Trump is going to be hard.

* Chintamani Mahapatra
Rector and Professor, JNU, & Columnist, IPCS

U.S. and British forces entered southern Syria on Sunday afternoon while traveling through the Tanf Border-Crossing in the Homs Governorate, according to the SMART News Agency.

Based on the report released by the SMART News Agency, approximately 150 U.S. and British military personnel entered Syria, alongside the Free Syrian Army’s “Jaysh Mughawyr Al-Thurah”; they were filmed traveling towards the Hamimah area.

The Hamimah area is located 90km east of Palmyra near the Deir Ezzor countryside; its proximity to the key town Albukamal makes it an important military endeavor for the U.S. and British troops.

With their recent push to the Hamimah area, the U.S. and British forces could ultimately cutoff the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) from the Deir Ezzor Governorate, which may spark potential clashes between the opposing parties.

A delegation from Uganda has visited China to familiarise itself with nuclear energy technology and to discuss cooperation. The African country plans to introduce nuclear into its future energy mix.

The delegation – led by Prisca Boonabantu, undersecretary in the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development – comprised representatives from the ministry, the Uganda Atomic Energy Council and from Uganda’s embassy in Beijing. The visit took place on 2-5 May and was organised by China Zhonguan Engineering Corporation (CZEC), a subsidiary of China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC). It followed a visit of Chinese officials to Kampala in March last year.

During the visit, the Ugandan delegation engaged with key Chinese nuclear energy agencies, including the national Nuclear Safety Administration and the China Institute of Atomic Energy (CIAE). As well as visiting the China Experimental Fast Reactor, the group also visited the construction site of the demonstration Hualong One reactors at Fuqing in Fujian province.

Boonabantu noted that Uganda’s Vision 2040 roadmap incorporates the development of nuclear energy as part of the country’s future energy mix. “Plans have been made in Uganda to have clean and safe energy generation sources with nuclear being one of them,” she said. The country, she added, welcomes partners to help construct, train and develop nuclear energy in line with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) standards.

CZEC president Yang Chaodong told the delegation China is ready to foster closer cooperate with Uganda in the area of nuclear development through partnerships and dialogue.

CNNC announced on 10 May that a memorandum of understanding on nuclear energy cooperation had been signed during the visit between China Central Plains Foreign Engineering Company, China Nuclear Manufacturing Group and Uganda’s Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development.

The text of a draft MOU between the Ugandan ministry and CNNC was also agreed upon during the visit.

Last October, a framework MOU was signed between the Ugandan ministry and Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom for cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Uganda’s Atomic Energy Bill came into effect in 2008, to regulate the use of ionising radiation and provide a framework to develop nuclear power generation. In October of that year, Uganda signed up to the IAEA’s Country Program Framework, which provides a frame of reference for planning medium-term technical cooperation between an IAEA member state and the Agency, and identifies priority areas where the transfer of nuclear technology and technical cooperation resources will be directed to support national development goals.

By Michael Lelyveld

China has quietly climbed to the top of the list of world oil importers as the government maintains silence over the energy security risks.

In the first four months of the year, China’s inflows of crude jumped 12.5 percent from a year earlier to 139 million metric tons, or nearly 8.5 million barrels per day (bpd), ranking first among importers, according to figures from China’s General Administration of Customs.

U.S. imports averaged less than 8.2 million bpd during the period, based on data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Foreign oil supplies to China eased moderately in April to 8.4 million bpd after hitting a record of 9.2 million bpd in March, while domestic oil production for the first four months fell 6.1 percent to 3.9 million bpd, the National Bureau of Statistics said.

The numbers have pushed China’s import dependence to nearly 68.5 percent so far this year. Based on the March figures alone, the ratio briefly topped 70 percent.

China also outranked the United States in the first quarter with imports averaging 8.53 million bpd compared with U.S. inflows of 8.17 million bpd, Reuters and S&P Global Platts energy news said.

The decline in China’s domestic output, due to continuing cutbacks at high-cost and older oilfields, suggests that the country has decided to meet its growing demand with increases in imports despite the risks of relying on foreign oil.

On examination, that seems to be the case, although the government has said little or nothing to clarify its policies or strategic choices.

China first crossed the 50-percent threshold of import dependence in full-year results for 2009, when domestic oil production averaged 3.8 million bpd with imports of nearly 4.1 million bpd.

Edward Chow, senior fellow for energy and national security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said that China’s risks are rising with the rapid growth of import dependence.

“It’s just been going on for too long, in terms of this trend, for there not to be deeper soul-searching,” Chow said. “You can’t keep letting import dependency go the way it has.”

Chow argues that China’s energy security risks with long import routes from the Middle East, Africa and Russia are greater than those of the United States ever were before the boom in U.S. domestic production.

“China’s position is much more dangerous than that of the United States was at any stage of the game, given that most of our imports were from the Western Hemisphere on short-haul cargoes,” he said.

Trend will continue

But higher demand in China suggests the trend will continue.

With China’s recovery in economic growth to 6.9 percent in the first quarter, implied oil demand jumped 5.3 percent in the first two months of the year while domestic output continued to stagnate, Platts said.

Before the recovery, China’s oil demand for all of 2016 edged up only 2.5 percent, the slowest pace in three years, Reuters estimated. Demand last year rose just 1.3 percent, according to Platts.

In January, the government issued a five-year energy plan that would keep domestic oil production essentially flat at 4 million bpd through 2020, representing a seven-percent decline compared with 2015. The target signaled greater import dependence ahead.

The five-year outlook projected imports of 7.8 million bpd in 2020, a level that has already been eclipsed.

Complicating factors in interpreting China’s spike in crude imports include the growth in processing by independent refiners under new government quotas, a near 25-percent March increase in exports of refined fuels, and oil exports to neighboring countries.

But even with those factors, the rapid rise in China’s reliance on imports has been faster than analysts anticipated only a few months ago.

“The 9.2 (million bpd) of crude imports is definitely a shocking number,” said Harry Liu, an analyst at the IHS Markit consulting group, as quoted by Reuters last month.

Liu estimated that nearly 1.7 million bpd went into storage in March, an amount that he called “way off the chart from any perspective.”

The question is critical because the government rarely provides information on storage, inventories or actual consumption, making the risks of import dependence harder to assess.

Official reports typically omit essential data.

In March, for example, the official Xinhua news agency reported that commercial crude oil inventories fell 1.4 percent in February from a month before without citing the volume or the source of the information.

The government has also provided only partial or outdated details on China’s Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) since the emergency stockpile was created over a decade ago.

On April 28, the National Bureau of Statistics reported that SPR inventories rose to 33.25 million tons (243.7 million barrels) in “mid-2016,” citing 10-month-old data.

Keeping analysts guessing

The lapses in reporting may keep analysts guessing about how much of China’s imports is being stored or consumed, but the mid-2016 figure suggests that the SPR may cover as little as 26.5 days of imports at the March rate.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) requires members to maintain 90 days’ of import coverage in case of supply disruptions. It also urges transparency in reporting SPR levels to promote stability in the world oil market.

China falls short on both counts at a time when oil demand appears to be rising and domestic output is falling, raising questions about its policies and the energy security risks.

Edward Chow said the lack of transparency contradicts the goals of China’s cooperation with organizations like the 72- member International Energy Forum (IEF), based in Saudi Arabia.

“What’s the point of the IEF if there’s not going to be more data transparency?” Chow said.

Despite the concerns, China’s official media have said little about growing import dependence, while the government appears to be keeping the energy security issue under wraps.

In one of the few recent reports on foreign oil dependence by the official English-language China Daily in January, a research arm of state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) noted that reliance on imports rose to 64.4 percent of demand last year, up from 60.6 percent in 2015.

The report cited the high costs of oil production in China but did not comment on the energy security risks.

“Under such circumstances, imported oil was more cost effective,” the paper said, quoting the CNPC Economics and Technology Research Institute.

Chow said the government’s silence on the security issue leaves unanswered questions.

“You would think that it would be so geopolitically significant that very senior policymakers in China would not only be cognizant of it but would be trying to figure out ways to address it,” said Chow.

“Is the fact that they don’t talk about it very much a sign of very severe concern because they don’t have the answer for it, or is it something much more innocent than that?” he said.

Because of testing inefficiencies, maintenance inadequacies and other factors, cars, trucks and buses worldwide emit 4.6 million tons more harmful nitrogen oxide (NOx) than standards allow, according to a new study co-authored by University of Colorado Boulder researchers.

The study, published today in Nature, shows these excess emissions alone lead to 38,000 premature deaths annually worldwide, including 1,100 deaths in the United States.

The findings reveal major inconsistencies between what vehicles emit during testing and what they emit in the real world — a problem that’s far more severe, said the researchers, than the incident in 2015, when federal regulators discovered Volkswagen had been fitting millions of new diesel cars with “defeat devices.”

The devices sense when a vehicle is undergoing testing and reduce emissions to comply with government standards. Excess emissions from defeat devices have been linked to about 50 to 100 U.S. deaths per year, studies show.

“A lot of attention has been paid to defeat devices, but our work emphasizes the existence of a much larger problem,” said Daven Henze, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at CU Boulder who, along with postdoctoral researcher Forrest Lacey, contributed to the study. “It shows that in addition to tightening emissions standards, we need to be attaining the standards that already exist in real-world driving conditions.”

The research was conducted in partnership with the International Council on Clean Transportation, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization, and Environmental Health Analytics LLC.

For the paper, the researchers assessed 30 studies of vehicle emissions under real-world driving conditions in 11 major vehicle markets representing 80 percent of new diesel vehicle sales in 2015. Those markets include Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Korea and the United States.

They found that in 2015, diesel vehicles emitted 13.1 million tons of NOx, a chemical precursor to particulate matter and ozone. Exposure in humans can lead to heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and other health problems. Had the emissions met standards, the vehicles would have emitted closer to 8.6 million tons of NOx.

Heavy-duty vehicles, such as commercial trucks and buses, were by far the largest contributor worldwide, accounting for 76 percent of the total excess NOx emissions.

Henze used computer modeling and NASA satellite data to simulate how particulate matter and ozone levels are, and will be, impacted by excess NOx levels in specific locations. The team then computed the impacts on health, crops and climate.

“The consequences of excess diesel NOx emissions for public health are striking,” said Susan Anenberg, co-lead author of the study and co-founder of Environmental Health Analytics LLC.

China suffers the greatest health impact with 31,400 deaths annually attributed to diesel NOx pollution, with 10,700 of those deaths linked to excess NOx emissions beyond certification limits. In Europe, where diesel-passenger cars are common, 28,500 deaths annually are attributed to diesel NOx pollution, with 11,500 of those deaths linked to excess emissions.

The study projects that by 2040, 183,600 people will die prematurely each year due to diesel vehicle NOx emissions unless governments act.

The authors say emission certification tests, both prior to sale and by vehicle owners, could be more accurate if they were to simulate a broader variety of speeds, driving styles and ambient temperatures. Some European countries now use portable testing devices that track emissions of a car in motion.

“Tighter vehicle emission standards coupled with measures to improve real-world compliance could prevent hundreds of thousands of early deaths from air pollution-related diseases each year,” said Anenberg.

(RFE/RL) — Media are reporting that U.S. President Donald Trump disclosed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister during a meeting last week, potentially jeopardizing a source of intelligence about Islamic State.

The White House quickly denied the charges which were published by the Washington Post, Reuters, and other media late on May 15. But congressional Democrats and some Republicans condemned the reported disclosures as “troubling,” “dangerous,” and “reckless.”

Media, citing anonymous officials, said the information Trump relayed to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak during their May 10 meeting had been provided by a U.S. partner through a highly sensitive intelligence-sharing arrangement.

The partner had not given Washington permission to share the material with Moscow, and Trump’s decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State militant group.

During his Oval Office meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak, Trump reportedly went off-script and began describing details about an IS threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.

In his conversations with the Russian officials, Trump was reported to boast about his knowledge of the looming threats, telling them he was briefed on “great intel every day.”

While discussing classified matters with an adversary would be illegal for most people, the president has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that Trump’s disclosures broke the law, the Post said.

After the reports of Trump’s disclosures came out, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster issued statements denying anything improper.

“The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said McMaster, who participated in the meeting.

“At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”

“During President Trump’s meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov, a broad range of subjects were discussed among which were common efforts and threats regarding counter-terrorism. During that exchange the nature of specific threats were discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods or military operations,” Tillerson said.

But U.S. Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that if the allegations are true, that would be a “slap in the face” to the U.S. intelligence community.

“Risking sources & methods is inexcusable, particularly with the Russians,” Warner said on Twitter.

The Senate’s number two Democrat, Dick Durbin, called the reported disclosures “dangerous” and “reckless.”

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, a Republican, called the reports “worrisome” and “troubling,” and told reporters that the Trump White House “has got to do something soon to bring itself under control and order.”

“The shame of it is there’s a really good national security team in place and there are good, productive things that are under way through them and through others,” Corker said.

“But the chaos that is being created by the lack of discipline…it creates a worrisome environment.”

US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis met Monday at the White House with United Arab Emirates Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan to discuss the U.S.-UAE defense partnership, the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Dana W. White, said in a statement about the meeting.

Their meeting followed the crown prince’s inaugural visit with President Donald J. Trump, she said.

At the meeting, Mattis and Prince Mohammed, who is also the deputy supreme commander of UAE’s armed forces, lauded the conclusion of a new bilateral defense cooperation agreement, which, White said, will enable closer and more agile collaboration against a range of threats over the next fifteen years.

“The agreement marks a new chapter in our partnership and reflects the breadth and depth of our ongoing cooperation, which is underpinned by the mutual respect we share for the professionalism and efficacy of our armed forces,” Mattis said, according to the statement. “I look forward to continuing to work with the UAE in support of security and stability in the Middle East and around the world.”

The two leaders discussed a range of shared security threats, White said, including the ongoing instability in Yemen and Libya and the campaign in Iraq and Syria to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. They also affirmed their shared values and interests, she said, including freedom of navigation, territorial sovereignty for the states of the Arabian Peninsula and the fight against extremism.

By Fatjona Mejdini

On a visit to Albania, Deputy Assistant US Secretary of State Hoyt Brian Yee asked all Albanian parties to participate in the June 18 elections in order to give all citizens the right to be represented.

In an interview for “Jeta ne Kosove” BIRN TV program, Yee said that he was coming to listen to all the parties and understand what was happening and share advice on how to move forward.

“I’m there not to tell people what to do or to impose an American solution or my solution but to hear from all sides. If I have any suggestions that I think might help, I will certainly share them,” he said.

However, Yee said his visit to Tirana on Monday to discuss the crisis there was an important reminder that Washington cares about the country.

“What I can bring from Washington is a fresh point of view, a message that Washington, the US government, cares enough to make the trip, to meet with all the parties and hear them out and offer any advice, if we have any different advice,” he said.

He conceded the right of every party to decide whether or not to take part in elections, but added that in countries in transition like Albania, it was important not to leave people disenfranchised.

Yee said that although elections without the participation of the opposition “can legally and credibly take place”, this would not be the ideal situation for Albania.

“Our view though is that countries like Albania, like any country in Balkans, should have the participation of all parties; all efforts will be made to have the participation of all parties,” he said.

On Monday, he started the day by meeting the ruling Socialist Party leader and Prime Minister, Edi Rama, then the speaker of parliament and President Ilir Meta as well the leader of the main opposition Democratic Party, Lulzim Basha.

The crisis in Albania started in February when the opposition started a boycott of parliament and called on Rama to step down and allow a technical government to handle a new election.

Ater Rama refused to step down, the opposition refused to register for the June 18 election.

The Coalition of Domestic Observers, CDO, on Monday invited the two main parties to seize the momentum from the US visit and resolve the crisis for the sake of a normal election process.

“Integrity and the strong assistance shown by the US is the best opportunity to achieve an accord based on principles that help democracy,” the statement said.

“This is a last major chance for consensus in order not to let self-destruction of Albanian democracy [take place],” it added.

For the past 20 years Washington has aggressively pursued the age-old imperial strategy of ‘divide and conquer’ throughout the Middle East, Southwest Asia and East Africa. Frustrated at its inability to control national policy of various independent nation- states, Washington used direct and indirect military force to destroy the central governments in the targeted nations and create patchworks of tribal-ethno-mini-states amenable to imperial rule. Tens of millions of people have been uprooted and millions have died because of this imperial policy.

Washington’s strategy of fragmentation and secession follows closely the “Greater Israel Plan” set forth by Israeli politico-military writer Oded Yinon in February 1982 and published by the World Zionist Organization. Yinon maintained that the key to Israel’s domination of the Middle East rested on fostering ethno-religious and regional divisions. Following the Yinon Plan, in the first instance, Tel Aviv signed accords with Jordan and Egypt to break-up Arab regional support for the Palestinians. It then proceeded to fragment what remained of Arab-Palestine into small warring enclaves between the West Bank and Gaza. Israel then sub-divided and settled wide swatches of the West Bank with the collaboration of the corrupt ‘Palestinian Authority’ under Mahmoud Abbas.

Israel’s ‘divide and conquer’ strategy toward the Greater Middle East depended on its placement of ‘Israel First’ officials in top policymaking positions of the US Defense, State and Treasury Departments and the power of the Zionist Power Configuration’s (ZPC’s)– the so-called “Israel Lobby” – to control the US Congress and Presidency in matters related to Israel.

The Israeli Mid-East strategy of fragmenting and weakening pro-Palestinian governments thus become the official US policy toward Arab countries.

This policy has not been limited to the Arab Middle East: Israel and US policymakers intervened to undermine the ‘pro-Palestinian’ government of Sudan by supporting a secessionist war to create a huge resource-rich ‘Southern Sudan’ conglomeration of tribal warlords, leaving a devastated region of mass murder and famine.

Somalia, Libya and Ethiopia were also riven by regional wars financed and armed by the US with overt and covert Israeli operatives and advisers.

Israel’s policy to weaken, fragment and destroy viable developing countries, differed from the traditional policies of colonial regimes, which sought to conquer and exploit unified nation-states. Washington has blindly followed Israel’s imperial ‘model’ without assessing its impact on US interests and thus undermining its past practice of economic exploitation of viable nation states.

‘Israel First’ officials within the US federal administrative policy-making bodies played a decisive role in fabricating the pretexts for the 2003 US invasion and destruction of Iraq. They pushed fake ‘documents’ alleging Iraqi ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and they promoted a plan to sub-divide the country in three ethnically ‘cleansed’ regions: Kurds (as Israel’s allies) in the North, impoverished Sunnis in the center and easily controlled Shia tribal leaders in the South.

The policy of dismantling a central government and promoting regional fragmentation backfired on the US authorities in Iraq: Sunni insurgents, often trained by experienced Baathist (former Iraqi Army) officers, formed the ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS), which took over major cities, slaughtering all non-Arab, non-Sunni residents, and threatened to established an independent state. The Shia-led government in Baghdad turned to Iran for support, forcing the US, Israel and the Kurds to declare war against ISIS, while trying to retain the weakened Sunni tribal clients. No viable central government remains in the once powerful multiethnic republic of Iraq.

The US joined Saudi Arabia in invading and bombing Yemen to destroy the Houthi rebels and favor the Sunni Salafist groups allied to al Queda. The goal was to weaken Yemen and prevent popular Yemini revolts from spreading to Saudi Arabia as well as undermining any Houthi alliances with Iran and expression of support for Palestine.

The US directly invaded Afghanistan expecting to easily conquer and ‘neatly’ subdivide that enormous region and ‘skillfully’ pit the various regional ethno-tribal groups against each other – while setting up a lucrative and militarily strategic site for launching future wars against US (and Israeli) rivals in Iran, Central Asia and China.

The battle-hardened Afghan Islamist Pashtun guerrilla-fighters, led by the Taliban, and unified by ethno-religious, national, tribal and extended family ties and customs, have successfully resisted this divide and conquer strategy. They now control most of the countryside, infiltrating and influencing the armed forces and police and have driven the US forces into garrison airbases, reliant on dropping mega bombs from the stratosphere.

Meanwhile, blinded by the media propaganda reports of their ‘successes’, Washington and the NATO powers launched a bloody surrogate war against the secular nationalist government of Syria, seeking to divide, conquer and obliterate an independent, pro-Palestine, pro-Iran, ally of Russia.

NATO’s invading armies and mercenary groups, however, are sub-divided into strange factions with shifting allegiances and patrons. At one level, there are the EU/US- supported ‘moderate’ head-chopping rebels. Then there are the Turkey and Saudi Arabia- supported ‘serious’ head-chopping al Qaeda Salafists. Finally there is the ‘champion’ head-chopping ISIS conglomeration based in Iraq and Syria, as well as a variety of Kurdish armed groups serving as Israeli mercenaries.

The US-EU efforts to conquer and control Syria, via surrogates, mercenaries and terrorists, was defeated largely because of Syria’s alliance with Russia, Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

Syria has effectively been ‘chopped up’ by competing imperial and regional powers leading to a possible confrontation among major powers. The US-Kurdish-Turkey conflict provides the most immediate danger of serious open warfare among major nations.

Among the myriad surrogate groups that Washington supported in its seemingly contradictory policy of violently overthrowing the Syrian government in Damascus while seizing territory from ISIS, Pentagon strategists have relied most heavily on the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (YPG). The US escalated its military support for the YPG, promising heavy arms and increased US ground and air support. Meanwhile, the YPG expanded its control of the Kurdish regions in Syria especially along the Turkish border, creating a powerful territorial tie of Syrian-Kurds with Turkish-Kurds and Iraqi-Kurds. The US generous supply of heavy weapons to the YPG has increased the Kurds capacity to fight Turkey for the establishment of a contiguous ‘Greater Kurdistan’. Moreover, the US government has publicly informed Turkey that its armed forces will provide a ‘shield’ to protect the YPG – and indirectly the PKK – from Turkish attack.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is acutely aware that the YPG’s goal is to partition Southeastern Turkey and Northern Syria and form a Kurdish state with Iraqi Kurdistan. US Defense Secretary James Mattis’ pledge that ‘Washington is committed to protecting its NATO ally (Turkey)’ is ambiguous at best and most likely a hollow promise. Washington is counting on the Kurds as a strategic ally against both Damascus and ISIS. Only after accomplishing their twin goals in Syria might the Pentagon turn against the Kurds and support the Turkish government.

Complicating this scenario, the Israelis have long-standing ties with the Iraqi Kurds as part of their own divide and conquer strategy. Meanwhile, Tel Aviv has been bombing Damascus, aiding ISIS fighters in southern Syria (with material and ‘humanitarian’ medical treatment) while supporting YPG against the Syrian and Turkish militaries.

The Erdoğan regime is in a quandary

A victory for the Kurdish YPG and their occupation of territory along its border will materially threaten the ‘unity of the Turkish state’. An armed, unified Kurdish presence in this region will result in enormous pressure on Erdoğan from the nationalist political parties and supporters and the Turkish Armed Forces. On the other hand, if Erdoğan launches cross border attacks on the Pentagon-supported YPG it will directly face US ground and air power.

President Erdoğan is clearly aware that the US was involved with the silent ‘Gulanist’ permeation of the Turkish state leading up to the 2016 abortive Gulanist coup. Erdoğan’s scheduled meeting with US President Donald Trump in mid-May may not resolve the impending Turkish-Kurdish confrontation in Syria where the US is committed to protecting the YPG.

Washington hopes to convince President Erdoğan that the YPG will hand this strategic territory over to an amorphous, minuscule puppet Arab-led militia, presumably made up of non-Kurdish collaborates of the US-NATO-Saudi war against Damascus. It is hard to imagine the veteran politician Erdoğan believing a Pentagon plan for the YPG to just hand over its territorial patrimony after having fought and died to secure the region. The US is in no position to force the YPG to surrender its gains because the YPG is crucial to the Washington-Israeli-Saudi plan to destroy the central government in Damascus and fragment Syria into weak tribal mini-states.

Erdoğan’s imminent failure to get Washington support for his war with the Kurds will force him to play his ‘nationalist’ card: There will be more pro-Palestine rhetoric, more opposition to a Cyprus accord, more pro-Russia posturing and the ‘discovery’ of more and greater ‘internal threats’ to the great Turkish State.

Will Erdoğan be able defuse the hostility among his own and independent nationalist supporters?

One point is clear:

A territorially-based powerful Kurdish militia, armed by the US, will be far more formidable threat to the unity of the Turkish state than the previous ill-armed rag-tag guerrillas in the mountains of northern Iraq.

It will be a humiliating defeat if Erdoğan surrenders to Pentagon demands and tolerates a US-YPG alliance on Turkey’s border. Erdoğan has some powerful options of his own: Turkey might deny the US Armed Forces access to its huge airbases in Turkey thus weakening NATO’s ‘southern flank’. A Turkish threat to withdraw from NATO altogether would have greater repercussions. Even the slightest hint of exercising these options would set off a ‘second coup’ against Erdoğan. This would involve a more serious US-NATO-backed uprising by senior Turkish officers, ‘nationalists’, democratic secularists and Kurds in major urban centers with ‘Gulanist’ politicians and bureaucrats waiting in the wings.

President Trump and the Pentagon may gain a foothold against Damascus with Kurdish surrogates in Northern Syria, but the loss of Turkey will be a strategic setback. Behind all of this confusion and devastation the partition of Syria and, eventually of Turkey, fits in very well with Greater Israel’s ‘Oded Yinon Plan’ for subdividing Muslim countries.

The International Maritime Review 2017 marks the 50th anniversary of the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN). But it also attests to the maturing maritime diplomacy in Southeast Asia that contributes to a rules-based maritime order in the wider Asia-Pacific.

By Jane Chan Git Yin and Collin Koh Swee Lean*

Following a tense 2016 surrounding the South China Sea disputes, especially in the run-up to the arbitral ruling at The Hague, 2017 offers a fresh respite with Southeast Asia’s maritime security seascape characterised by the spirit of concord.

The Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition (LIMA) was hosted by Malaysia in March, during which the LIMA Sea Exercise 2017 involving warships of 17 navies was conducted. Two months later in May, Singapore hosted an International Maritime Review (IMR) in conjunction with the International Maritime Defence Exhibition (IMDEX) and International Maritime Security Conference (IMSC). The IMR reflects the growing maturity of maritime diplomacy in Southeast Asia, in no small part a collective effort undertaken by both regional and extra-regional governments alike.

Growing Complexity Requiring Enhanced Cooperation

Despite the tamping down of tensions in the South China Sea, the broader Asia-Pacific maritime security environment remains tenuous. Maritime disputes are unlikely to go away for the foreseeable future; therein lies the potential risks of inadvertent clashes at sea. But a more immediate concern relates to the increasingly complex myriad of transnational maritime security challenges, for example seaborne terrorism as well as piracy and sea robbery – such as attacks in the Sulu Sea that are taking place with increasing frequency.

The complex array of maritime security challenges generates uncertainties, compounded by enduring geopolitical rivalries between major powers in the Asia-Pacific. There are also persistent differences in how coastal and user states in the region interpret and implement the rules-based maritime order, especially the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Notwithstanding these differences, it remains essential for the maritime forces of Southeast Asia and extra-regional powers to cooperate more closely with each other in order to maintain a rules-based regional maritime order that would underpin stability and prosperity.

However, it should be noted that Southeast Asian governments continue to view the policing of local waters as the littoral states’ responsibilities, whereas extra-regional powers could contribute through other forms of assistances, such as technical aid and training.

Sustaining US Maritime Security Engagement

To achieve the objectives mentioned above, the existing, interwoven web of regional maritime cooperation needs to be maintained and further developed. The United States Navy, for example, has been the lynchpin of Washington’s maritime security engagement with Southeast Asia, through longstanding exercises such as the bilateral Cooperative Afloat and Readiness Training (CARAT) and the multilateral Southeast Asia Cooperation and Training (SEACAT) series.

In recent times, in response to the evolving maritime security environment, US maritime security engagements with Southeast Asia have also taken a new twist. Several bilateral engagements began to incorporate other partners who bring along certain unique skillsets.

One example is Australia’s participation in the traditionally bilateral Exercise Balikatan series between the Philippines and US. Such engagements not only enable the regional forces to adapt to the evolving mission requirements, but also allow mutual learning of best practices, and contribute towards confidence-building.

With the uncertainties over sustained US security commitment to the region under the Donald Trump administration, recent statements made by senior US Navy leaders have been assuring. During his recent visit to Singapore, Admiral Scott Swift, commander of the US Pacific Fleet, affirmed the fleet’s resolve to contribute towards regional peace and stability. This came not too long after foreign ministers of ASEAN met Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in Washington D.C. where he also offered similar assurances.

Towards A More Inclusive Maritime Diplomacy

However, with the growing complexities of regional maritime security, Southeast Asia will likely see greater extra-regional involvement in this capacity-building process. This should be welcomed given the stakes.

Countries such as Australia, China, India and Japan play important roles, as does the US. In the 2015 revised version of A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower published by the US Navy, Washington emphasised contributions by US allies and partners towards maintaining regional maritime security.

Thus far, these countries have begun providing various forms of capacity-building assistances. For example, Japan has provided patrol vessels to Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam to bolster their maritime law enforcement capabilities.

Likewise, using its growing set of maritime security capabilities, Beijing is also reaching out to Southeast Asian partners. The Philippine Coast Guard’s recent participation in its Chinese counterpart’s training programme is one notable example – adding onto the growing involvement of the People’s Liberation Army Navy in regional maritime diplomacy.

More Bite Needed for Maritime Diplomacy

With the emergence and expansion of coastguard-type agencies and increased activities of coastguard vessels in regional waters, it stands to reason that future extra-regional involvement should also focus on these areas. The Indians and Japanese are already conducting regular coastguard ship visits to Southeast Asia as part of their broader maritime diplomacy. Likewise, a greater US Coast Guard presence would also be a welcome move, adding to the sustained US naval presence.

A more inclusive rules-based maritime order would only be more constructive for the maintenance of peace and stability in the global maritime commons. In this regard, while dialogue conducted under the rubric of regional mechanisms such as the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting Plus and the ASEAN Regional Forum remains important, regional states should look to enhancing practical measures.

One concrete example is greater participation by regional and extra-regional navies and coastguard-type forces in efforts to strengthen regional maritime security and stability. Indeed, such efforts would lend more traction to maritime diplomacy that promotes confidence-building and practical security cooperation against common challenges at sea.

*Jane Chan is a Research Fellow and Coordinator of the Maritime Security Programme, at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, based in Nanyang Technological University. Collin Koh is a Research Fellow at the same programme.

Although ASEAN should be concerned about the North Korean threat given the grave security implications to the wider Asia-Pacific region, ASEAN should be mindful of its actual raison d’etre to avoid distorting its credentials and relevance in relation to the Korean Peninsula crisis.

By David Han*

In recent months, rising tensions due to North Korean threat have aroused anxiety throughout the Asia-Pacific, including Southeast Asia. In a letter to the ASEAN Secretary General dated 23 March 2017, North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-Ho indicated his “expectations that ASEAN which attaches great importance to the regional peace and stability will make an issue of the US-South Korean joint military exercises at ASEAN conferences”. He added that ASEAN should take a “fair position and play an active role in safeguarding the peace and safety of Korean Peninsula”.

In April 2017, during the 30th ASEAN Summit in the Philippines, ASEAN expressed “grave concern” and urged North Korea to comply with UN Security Council resolutions on its nuclear programme. ASEAN’s firm yet measured response to North Korea not only reflects international consensus against North Korea’s actions. It is also a neutral posture that avoids siding with any party involved in the crisis, including China and the United States. Additionally, ASEAN’s position neither overestimates the organisation’s ability to contribute to the resolution of the crisis nor misconstrues its existing purpose as a platform for shaping regional security.

Korean Peninsula as Conduit for ASEAN-US Ties?

RSIS researchers Shawn Ho and Sarah Teo have written in an RSIS Commentary on 2 May 2017 (“Strengthening ASEAN-US Relations: Korean Peninsula as Conduit?”) that “ASEAN could strengthen its regional security credentials by paying more attention to the challenge on the Korean Peninsula”. The rationale is that given the “current salience of the Korean Peninsula’s security to Beijing and Washington, if ASEAN is to do more to deal with the challenge on the Korean Peninsula, ASEAN’s relevance and importance to both major powers could be enhanced”.

Understandably, this argument raises the importance for ASEAN to urge the US to continue engaging Southeast Asia. This the US could do through existing regional arrangements that have been shaped by ASEAN multilateralism, rather than circumventing such established structures in dealing with security and geopolitical issues.

However, this proposal could be problematic for two reasons. Firstly, it is unclear how ASEAN would demonstrate its relevance to the US by dealing with the North Korean threat, when ASEAN already faces challenges in tackling geopolitical issues within the region. As ASEAN has faced difficulties in reaching consensus over a major geopolitical contention such as the South China Sea disputes, it is puzzling how ASEAN could be relevant to the US in tackling the Korean Peninsula crisis without first demonstrating its capacity to resolve Southeast Asia’s problematic maritime spats.

Risk of Widening ASEAN Divide

Secondly, ASEAN risks becoming divided between China and the US. During the recent meeting on 4 May 2017 in Washington DC, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson conveyed to ASEAN foreign ministers that Washington intends to stay engaged in Southeast Asia; he commended ASEAN as an “essential partner” to the US. Furthermore, in view of the Korean Peninsula crisis, Secretary Tillerson urged ASEAN to pressure North Korea by reviewing Pyongyang’s relations with ASEAN and curbing the country’s revenue flows from Southeast Asia.

However, should ASEAN draw too close to the US to condemn North Korea’s actions, China could perceive this as an attempt by Washington to complicate the dynamics of the Korean Peninsula crisis of which ASEAN is not directly involved.

Furthermore, ASEAN’s internal unity could be affected negatively. There are already indications that some member states are more inclined towards China while others gravitate towards the US. If ASEAN chooses sides regarding the North Korean threat, this could widen the intra-ASEAN divide because of differing attitudes towards the two powers.

ASEAN-China relations have been strained in recent years due to the South China Sea disputes which is still far from being resolved. Even though ASEAN would welcome US intentions to stay engaged in Southeast Asia, ASEAN would probably not risk aligning itself too closely with the US on the North Korea issue to avoid upsetting China unnecessarily.

Realism for ASEAN’s Relevance

Thus, if ASEAN intends to show its relevance regarding the North Korean threat, it should be realistic about its own ability in offering viable solutions to the crisis, and avoid pandering to either China or the US. While ASEAN could do more by signalling to North Korea during the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) meetings to back down from Pyongyang’s provocative behaviour, beyond this there is not much that ASEAN could do to pressure North Korea to change its course.

In the past, ASEAN had issued similar statements on North Korea’s brinksmanship. But North Korea has disregarded such regional criticisms and has continued with its nuclearisation drive unabated.

This is not to downplay ASEAN’s importance as a regional organisation. Indeed, over the past few decades, ASEAN has played a key role in reducing the risk of conflict in the region through dialogue, consultation and consensus. It was even envisioned that ASEAN norms could have a wider influence on the security trajectory of the Asia-Pacific. The ARF was formed in 1994 for ASEAN and external stakeholders to discuss security issues and promote cooperative measures to enhance peace and stability in the region.

As the ARF is not meant to provide and enforce solutions to conflicts, ASEAN is limited in offering viable recommendations to both the US and China on the North Korean crisis. Nevertheless, in the long term, ASEAN should focus its efforts on developing the ASEAN Community to advance norm formulation and measures to promote peaceful consultation on security issues, and collective solutions to conflict prevention and resolution.

This would enhance ASEAN’s standing not only as Southeast Asia’s central regional institution capable of fronting peaceful and relevant alternatives to reduce tensions other than military tit-for-tat responses as witnessed in the Korean Peninsula. In the meantime, what ASEAN should do, and has done, is to continue in its unequivocal insistence that North Korea step down from its aggressive actions, and that all parties involved are to avoid further irritating each other.

*David Han is a Research Analyst with the Malaysia Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Postmenopausal women who reached menopause at an earlier age or who never gave birth are at a higher risk for heart failure, according to research published today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Previous research has found that hormones present during a woman’s reproductive period may influence her risk for heart disease and women who experience early menopause may be at an elevated risk for heart disease. Hormone levels during the reproductive period may be affected by menstrual cycling and pregnancy.

Researchers examined 28,516 postmenopausal women without cardiovascular disease from the Women’s Health Initiative to test associations between total number of live births, age at first pregnancy lasting at least six months, and total reproductive duration (time from first menstruation to menopause) with incident heart failure. During an average follow-up of 13.1 years, 5.2 percent of women were hospitalized for heart failure. Short total reproductive duration was associated with an increased risk of heart failure, which was found to be related to an earlier age at menopause and was more pronounced in women who experienced natural, rather than surgical, menopause.

Women who never gave birth were found to be at an increased risk for diastolic heart failure, a type of heart failure where the left side of the heart does not relax as well as it should. The authors did not find that this relationship was due to infertility. Having more children was not associated with heart failure risk.

“Our finding that a shorter total reproductive duration was associated with a modestly increased risk of heart failure might be due to the increased coronary heart disease risk that accompanies early menopause,” said Nisha I. Parikh, MD, MPH, assistant professor at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine and senior author of the study. “These findings warrant ongoing evaluation of the potential cardioprotective mechanisms of sex hormone exposure in women.”

In an editorial comment published with the study, Nandita S. Scott, MD, co-director of the Corrigan Women’s Heart Health Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, said that while the mechanisms of these findings are unclear, their importance and potential impact on women’s health is real.

“There also remain many unresolved questions including the mechanisms of estrogen’s cardioprotective effect, making this truly a work in progress,” she said. “Altogether, these findings raise interesting questions about the cardiometabolic effects of sex hormone exposure over a woman’s lifetime and continue to raise important questions for future research.”

South Korean Catholics are opposing both the country’s reliance on nuclear power and the U.S. missile defense system recently established to pressure the North out of future weapon tests.

A major leader of the anti-nuclear movement, Father Moon Paul Kyu-Hyn, said “getting rid of nuclear power is the only way to survive, to save ourselves, and save the world,” according to Public Radio International.

A missile defense system has caused tensions between the U.S. and China as well as between China and South Korea. The country’s new president, Moon Jae-in, has emphasized his goal to solve the issues in the Korean Peninsula.

Father Moon expressed his disappointed in the new Terminal High Altitude Area Defense or THAAD, which became operational on May 2 in the Korean Peninsula. An agreement to install the system was established between the United States and South Korea’s former president, recently incarcerated for political corruption.

“THAAD is a weapon of war. You can’t be for peace if you’re preparing for war,” said Father Moon, an activist who spent three years in jail for illegally crossing over into North Korea in 1989.

He is now leading the charge on the anti-nuclear demonstrations participated by the clergy and lay people, who are opposed the expansion of nuclear power in all of Korea and the rest of the world. The group recently gathered in downtown Seoul to collect a million signatures for support against nuclear energy.

Nearly a third of the country’s electrical consumption relies on nuclear power from over 20 nuclear reactors. Moon Jae-in, who was confirmed president this week, promised to halt expansion of nuclear power and focus on clean energy during a campaign speech in April.

The push to remove nuclear power has increased in South Korea since three plants in Fukushima had a meltdown in 2011 caused by a Tsunami along the shores of Japan. The meltdown forced over 100,000 people to be evacuated from their homes, and the government is still cautious to allow everyone to return due to fears of radiation poison.

In an interview with Public Radio International, Father Cho Hyun-chul, a theology professor at Sogang University in Seoul, said if there is a similar accident revolving South Korea’s power plants then there would be “no room for us to live here. There is no more safe land.”

He continued to say that the destruction nuclear power can cause is “directly against God’s intention,” and the movement is stressing the need to care for the environment – a need heavily emphasized by Pope Francis especially in his encyclical Laudato Si.

The Pope recognized the “tremendous power” nuclear energy has gifted to humanity, but he also spoke against its dangers to the environment and the risk of being used improperly. He said a global consensus to focus on clean and renewable energy is essential for sustaining the earth.

“Such a consensus could lead, for example, to planning a sustainable and diversified agriculture, developing renewable and less polluting forms of energy,” Pope Francis wrote in Laudato Si.

According to Reuters, President Moon promised to ease away from nuclear energy in a campaign speech in April. The head for the president’s team on energy policy said South Korea “should move away from coal and nuclear power, and shift to clean or renewable energy-based platforms,” and that he would stop the plans to construct two new reactors in the south of the country.

The United States could be on track within the next decade to see significant steps towards ending the HIV epidemic in this country, suggests new research from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

The researchers say their findings reveal that, with adequate commitment, a path exists to eliminate domestic HIV infection through the achievement of critical milestones — specifically, the reduction of annual new infections to 21,000 by 2020 and to 12,000 by 2025. They say that if these goals were met, 2025 could be the turning point for the epidemic, when HIV prevalence, or the total number of people living with HIV in the United States, would start to decline. The report is published May 15 online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

“While these targets are ambitious, they could be achieved with an intensified and sustained national commitment over the next decade,” said study co-author David Holtgrave, PhD, chair of the Department of Health, Behavior and Society at the Bloomberg School. “It’s critical to note that the key to ending the HIV epidemic domestically lies in our collective willingness as a country to invest the necessary resources in HIV diagnostic, prevention and treatment programs.”

For their study, the researchers used HIV surveillance data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the years 2010 to 2013 to project yearly estimates for several key indicators — the number of new infections occurring annually, the number of people living with HIV in the United States, and the mortality rate — for 2014 through 2025.

The researchers used these projections to forecast the potential trajectory of the epidemic if the United States were to achieve certain benchmarks set by the National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS), which was first released by President Obama in 2010 and updated in 2015 with targets to be met by 2020. The NHAS targets for 2020 include a”90/90/90″ goal, which proposes that by 2020, 90 percent of people living with HIV will know their HIV status; 90 percent of people diagnosed with HIV will receive sustained, quality HIV care; and 90 percent of people on antiretroviral therapy (ART) will achieve viral suppression, or an undetectable level of virus in the blood. For their projection of the potential course of the epidemic from 2020 to 2025, the researchers proposed a “95/95/95” goal and assessed achievement of the NHAS targets at 95 percent levels by 2025.

Their analysis revealed that if the NHAS targets — “90/90/90” for 2020 and “95/95/95” for 2025 — were achieved, the number of new HIV infections in the United States would drop from 39,000 in 2013 to approximately 20,000 in 2020, or a 46 percent decrease, and to about 12,000 in 2025, a nearly 70 percent reduction. Additionally, the total number of deaths among people living with HIV would decline from 16,500 in 2013 to approximately 12,522 in 2025, a 24 percent decrease, and the mortality rate would drop from 1,494 deaths per 100,000 people living with HIV in 2013 to around 1,025 in 2025, a 31 percent decrease.

“If the United States were to reduce the number of new HIV infections to 12,000 by 2025, this would mark an important inflection point in the HIV epidemic in this country,” said study leader Robert Bonacci, MD, MPH, a resident physician in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “It would be the first year that the number of new infections drops below the simultaneously decreasing number of deaths among people living with HIV. This is critical, because if new infections decline faster than the number of deaths, the total number of people living with HIV in the United States would begin to decrease, meaning the United States would be on course to end the epidemic.”

Advancements in antiretroviral therapy (ART) — the lifesaving drugs that reduce HIV transmission by lowering the level of virus in the blood — mean that HIV can now be a manageable chronic disease. In the United States, the average life expectancy for people living with HIV continues to increase toward that of the general population. Yet, of the more than one million people living with HIV, many lack access to ART.

Additionally, certain populations — particularly gay men, young people, transgender people, black and Hispanic Americans and those who live in southern states — continue to be disproportionately affected, and the overall progress has not been felt equally across all communities.

By Sam Morgan

(EurActiv) — France’s new president, Emmanuel Macron, appointed a conservative prime minister on Monday in a shrewd move designed to broaden his political appeal ahead of legislative elections next month. But just who is Macron’s new right-hand man?

Édouard Philippe, 46, is a lawmaker and mayor of port city Le Havre. He is from the moderate wing of the main centre-right The Republicans party and will be a counterweight to former Socialist MPs who have joined Macron’s cause.

Élysee secretary-general Alexis Kohler made the announcement on the steps of the presidential palace earlier Monday.

Macron has pledged to end the left-right political game that has dominated France for decades, and his start-up centrist Republic on the Move (REM) party, which is just a year old, needs to find a wide base of support for the parliamentary elections.

Philippe is a close associate of former prime minister Alain Juppé, who leads the moderate wing of The Republicans and has indicated that he favours helping Macron. His appointment could draw more defectors from the party.

But Bernard Accoyer, secretary general of The Republicans, told journalists shortly after Philippe was named as prime minister that “this is an individual decision. It is not a political agreement”.

Referring to “ambiguity” that was now prevailing, Accoyer added: “Will this new prime minister support the candidates of En Marche of the president … or will he support the candidates of The Republicans-UDI, the candidates of his own political family?”

On the other side of the political divide, Macron’s decision not to put up an REM candidate to oppose former Socialist prime minister Manuel Valls in his constituency ties Valls closer and makes it hard for a divided left to re-unite.

It is the first time in modern French political history that a president has appointed a prime minister from outside his camp without being forced to by a defeat in parliamentary elections.

By appointing Philippe, Macron has passed over some loyal followers including Richard Ferrand, a former Socialist who was one of the first to join Macron’s cause last year and is secretary general of REM.

One of Macron’s close aides said on yesterday (14 May) this was the kind of tough choice that would have to be made in Macron’s inner circle now that the battle for the Élysee was won.

“In government, you will see that a lot of the inner circle will drop out,” Christophe Castaner, Macron’s campaign spokesman, told journalists at the inauguration ceremony.

“I was among the first to say ‘why not a prime minister from the right’? That’s in the nature of what we are trying to do… It’s tough… especially for the longest-serving ones,” he said.

Philippe began his political life as a Socialist activist affiliated to the former prime minister Michel Rocard while he was a student, before turning to the right.

A trained lawyer, he worked as public affairs director for the state nuclear group Areva between 2007 and 2010, before becoming a member of parliament in 2012, and then mayor of Le Havre in 2014.

Last year he was part of Juppé’s unsuccessful campaign team in The Republicans’ primaries, and then joined the presidential campaign of François Fillon, the party’s nominee. Philippe quit that cause when the financial scandal over fake jobs for Fillon’s family hit his campaign.

Philippe, like Macron, attended the elite ENA school, and his political hero is Rocard – another point in common with the 39 year-old new president.

The son of teachers, he likes to box in his spare time and collects cufflinks.

By Rene Zou*

After retreating from earlier attacks on Mexico and China, Canada has become the newest target of President Trump’s economic nationalism, with the spotlight fixed on the Canada’s lumber and dairy industries. As Canada braced itself for the risk of a trade war with the U.S., rumors circulated that Trump was considering signing an executive order to end the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—a three-country accord between Canada, Mexico and the U.S. that entered into force in 1994, promoting the gradual elimination of most tariffs in industries such agriculture, textiles, automobile, and manufacturing. Galvanized by ‘America First’ nationalists in his cabinet, President Trump was apparently about to make a dramatic exit from the trade deal just days before his 100^th day in office. However, the idea was eventually shelved after foreign leaders, other cabinet members, and C-suite executives scurried in to prevent Trump from making any rash decisions. With this core constituency in mind, Trump had already decided to hold off before receiving calls from Canada and Mexico. According to media reports, Agricultural Secretary Sonny Purdue and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross showed the President a map of “Trump country” communities overlapping with areas that were most vulnerable to a trade war. In the end, President Trump announced plans to renegotiate NAFTA instead of scrapping it entirely, as originally promised, whilst maneuvering an internally divided staff, Congress, and U.S.

Does Trump Have a Negotiation Plan?

In the absence of a clear grand strategy, the effects of Trump’s policies on Canada remain ambiguous. With regards to NAFTA, two conflicting groups of advisers exist within the Trump administration: the ‘America First’ nationalists—Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon and Trade Adviser Peter Navarro—and the ‘New York deal makers’—Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn. As WSJ reports, one senior Toronto bank executive said that Cohn and Mnuchin (both former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. executives) have recently reached out to senior Canadian business officials to counsel them, with no expectations for significant changes to NAFTA.

Trade experts have dubbed Trump’s flip-flopping as a classic negotiation ploy that seeks to gain leverage from ‘the power to walk away.’ The U.S. is required to give 6 months advance-notice to other NAFTA members before it can withdraw from the deal. Moreover, it is running on a tight calendar, with the appointment of Trump’s nominee for US Trade Representative stalling, Congressional approval pending, and Mexican elections coming up next year. The move to start the clock can therefore be interpreted as a pressure tactic to force Canada and Mexico into making greater concessions.

Trump’s draft letter sent to Congress in March outlined a list of priorities for the renegotiation of NAFTA. Further, inviting the House and Senate to revise the letter under fast-track law. As per the president’s fast-track authority, Congress may grant Trump the permission to negotiate a trade agreement with the ability to pass it through Congress, given a simple majority and an up-or-down vote, with no amendments.

However, cracks within the Republican Party have surfaced alongside increased division and incoherency vis-à-vis not only its domestic, but also foreign policy agenda. Republican representatives in Congress are warning of negative economic, and eventually political, consequences. As Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska notes, the bottom line is: “Trade lowers prices for American consumers and it expands markets for American goods. Risking trade wars is reckless, not wise.” Senator John McCain concurs, “It will devastate the economy in my state,” he told CNN, “I hope he doesn’t do that.” In fact, many of the areas that will be hardest hit from agricultural and manufacturing losses are located in the Rustbelt and South—Trump’s core constituents.

NAFTA and Canada

The Canadian dollar dropped to a 14-month low in light of this recent turmoil, before regaining its loss to grow as much as 0.6 percent to C$1.3534 after Trump called off plans to terminate NAFTA. Meanwhile, Canadian investors have responded to Trump’s lumber tariff in defiance, with upward share price movements. Hence, the big questions are who wins in terms of policy, and whether the market is able to weather this uncertainty at the macroeconomic level. A brief look at economic history will help us discern the costs and benefits of NAFTA’S renegotiation.

NAFTA has fundamentally reshaped North American economic relations. As the largest free trade region at the time of its inception, NAFTA drove economic growth and raised living standards across the continent via trade liberalization. While Canada and the U.S. had already entered the Canada US Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA) five years before NAFTA, the addition of Mexico’s developing economy was unprecedented. Moreover, the trade deal has since tripled regional trade volume, from roughly $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2016.

Total merchandise trade between Canada and the U.S. has more than doubled between 1993 and 2015, while the same figure for Mexico has increased over 8-fold. The U.S. was not only the top destination for Canadian merchandise exports but also the largest supplier of merchandise imports in 2015. As regional integration continues, companies no longer merely sell things to each other across the border, but are increasingly making things together. Bilateral agricultural flows have also increased, wherein Canadian agricultural trade with the U.S. has more than tripled since 1994. Finally, Canada remains the main foreign oil supplier to the U.S. and the fourth largest to Mexico.

Canada is the second largest market for US service exports, at nearly CA$122.8 billion in 2015, a 205.1% increase since 1993. Canada’s FDI stock has also grown from $70 billion pre-NAFTA to $353 billion post-NAFTA in 2015. In addition, Canada and the U.S. have one of the world’s largest investment relationships, with bilateral investment stock amounting to CA$836.2 billion in 2015. Today, one in six Canadian jobs are related to exports. Moreover, with the creation of 5.2 million net new jobs from 1993-2015, unemployment has decreased from 11.4% (1993) to 6.9% (2015).

Although economic growth is undeniable, it has been difficult to discern the trade deal’s effects from other factors such as technological change and China’s economic expansion. Still, neither Canada’s worst fears, nor its highest hopes for NAFTA have materialized. Contrary to what critics had predicted, Canada did not become an economic appendage or the “51^st state”  of America. Yet, it has also fallen short of closing the productivity gap between the two countries, as Canada’s labor productivity still remains at 72% of US levels.

Canada is much more dependent on NAFTA than the U.S., with 49% of Ontario and 50% of New Brunswick’s GDP accounted for by trade with the U.S. Meanwhile, only two American states’ trade with Canada surpass 10% of their annual economic output, as others sit between 1-3%. Still, the Canadian government likes to point out that Canada is the leading export destination for 35 U.S. states. Although Canada has traditionally been the largest importer and exporter to the U.S., both these two figures peaked before NAFTA. Canada purchased 23.5% of American exports in 1987, a figure that was matched in 2005 and has since fallen to 18.6% in 2016. Meanwhile, the Canadian share of American imports peaked at 20.6% in 1984, falling to 20.1% in 1996, thereafter declining to 12.6% in 2016.

Trade Tensions

Although most tariffs have been eliminated under the treaty, dairy and lumber are not covered under NAFTA. President Trump recently announced a 20% tax on softwood lumber coming into the U.S. from Canada, but more precisely, the Commerce Department is levying a range of tariffs that average around 20%. Feuds over protectionism have been recurring since the 1980s, wherein Canada has been criticized for providing an indirect subsidy to its lumber producers with cheap access to public land. Nevertheless, this is a longstanding issue, and one that is usually settled through an agreement to cap imports, the latest one was signed in 2006 and expired in 2015.

The two countries thus find themselves in a state of limbo. A drawn-out trade war would likely harm US exporters and increase some prices for American consumers. However, it would certainly hurt Canada more, since trade with the U.S. represents a larger percentage of Canada’s GDP. The Canadian government is well aware of this fact and has been seeking a “third option” of late. Moreover, Canadian lumber exports have showed increased trade diversification since the Great Recession. The Canadian government’s Twitter response to Trump’s lumber tariff has flaunted this: “Asia is an increasingly important market for Canadian softwood lumber. China and Japan alone now represents almost 20% of total global exports.”

Against the backdrop of protectionism, a letter from a Wisconsin farmer caught Trump’s attention, which lead to his April 25^th dairy tweet: “Canada has made business for our dairy farmers in Wisconsin and other border states very difficult. We will not stand for this. Watch!” By way of response, Prime Minister Trudeau emphasized: “The US has a $400-million dairy surplus with Canada so it’s not Canada that’s the challenge here. Let’s not pretend we’re in a global free market when it comes to agriculture.” Ironically, Canadian dairy markets would have been opened to American exports under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Obama negotiated. However, Trump’s first order in office was to withdraw the U.S. from negotiations.

Potential Outcomes

A new North American trade regime will have implications for Canada’s role in the world and its bilateral relationships with other countries. At the moment, there are three possible scenarios to the renegotiation of NAFTA. They include: 1) a return to the original Canada-US FTA (NAFTA’s predecessor from 1989); 2) a renegotiated deal with Mexico included; and 3) a minor “tweaking” of the current deal with smaller side deals just enough for Trump to fulfill the claim of reforming it.

Canada itself is looking for its “third option” of diversifying its trading partners. Across the pond, the EU is Canada’s second largest trading partner. Moreover, with the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) signed last year, 98% of tariffs will be eliminated on both sides, making the deal even broader in scope than NAFTA. Across the Pacific, Canada is also looking to bolster Asia-Pacific trade. Though Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from the TPP, the other 11 signatories have showed intentions of regrouping with China’s help instead. A new free trade agreement with China may also be expedited given changes to geopolitical circumstances, not to mention, the opening of security talks concerning extradition between the two governments.

While job losses from NAFTA had the trade agreement front and center in debates during the 2016 elections, the President Trump’s approach to solving the issue has been muddied by dueling factions within his cabinet and a divided Republican Congress. Although Canada is unlikely to lose out more than Mexico, old trade issues remain and Trump is taking a new approach by publicly calling Ottawa out. On the campaign trail, Trump accused Mexican and Chinese leaders of outsmarting the U.S. in negotiations. Now he is pointing the same finger at policymakers in Ottawa. However, when it comes to the brokering a new deal, Trump doesn’t have much to show for thus far.

This article was published at Geopolitical Monitor.com