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

Egyptian Warplanes Bomb Terrorist Camps In Libya After Attack On Coptic Christians

0
0

Hours after gunmen opened fire on a convoy of vehicles carrying Coptic Christian worshippers to a desert monastery in Egypt, killing 28, the Egyptian warplanes carried out six bombing strikes targeting camps near Derna in Libya where Cairo believes militants responsible for the deadly attack were trained, Egyptian military sources said quoted by Reuters.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said directed strikes against what he called terrorist camps, declaring in a televised address that states that sponsored terrorism would be punished. He also vowed to continue striking bases used to train militants and who carry out terrorist attacks in his country, whether those camps were inside or outside the country.

“The terrorist incident that took place today will not pass unnoticed,” Sisi said. “We are currently targeting the camps where the terrorists are trained.”

“Egypt will not hesitate in striking any camps that harbor or train terrorist elements whether inside Egypt or outside Egypt,” the al-Ahram news agency quoted Sisi as saying.

The strikes took place around sundown, hours after the deadly attack. Christians, who account for about 10% of Egypt’s population of 80 million, have become the victims of an intensifying campaign of bombings and shootings masterminded by ISIS, which is trying to expand its footprint in Egypt. In April, at least 37 people were killed and more than 100 injured in two separate bombings at Christian Coptic churches packed with worshippers in northern Egypt one week before Coptic Easter.

Following the Libyan incursion, Egyptian armed forces released a short video which was aired on state television following the president’s speech. The voiceover in the army video said its air force carried out strikes on targets in Libya “after confirming their involvement in planning and committing the terrorist attack in Minya governorate on Friday.” Egypt’s military said that the air strikes are ongoing, local media reports.

Egyptian security forces have destroyed some 300 vehicles over the past two months which attempted to cross the border from Libya in order to bring in “evil,” according to Sisi, who emphasized the huge efforts his country has undertaken to battle terrorism.

The Egyptian president also directly addressed Donald Trump to take the lead in fighting terrorism. “I direct my appeal to President Trump: I trust you, your word and your ability to make fighting global terror your primary task,” he said.

On Friday President Trump condemned the attacks on Egypt’s Coptic Christians, denouncing the “thuggish ideology” and “evil organizations of terror.” The White House issued the following statement earlier in the day:

Terrorists are engaged in a war against civilization, and it is up to all who value life to confront and defeat this evil. This merciless slaughter of Christians in Egypt tears at our hearts and grieves our souls. Wherever innocent blood is spilled, a wound is inflicted upon humanity. But this attack also steels our resolve to bring nations together for the righteous purpose of crushing the evil organizations of terror, and exposing their depraved, twisted, and thuggish ideology.

America also makes clear to its friends, allies, and partners that the treasured and historic Christian Communities of the Middle East must be defended and protected. The bloodletting of Christians must end, and all who aid their killers must be punished.

America stands with President Al Sisi and all the Egyptian people today, and always, as we fight to defeat this common enemy.

Civilization is at a precipice—and whether we climb or fall will be decided by our ability to join together to protect all faiths, all religions, and all innocent life. No matter what, America will do what it must to protect its people.

No militant group has yet claimed responsibility for the deadly attack on the bus.


Coalition ‘Removes’ Islamic State Leaders From Battlefield

0
0

Coalition airstrikes have removed senior Islamic State of Iraq and Syria military officials and planners from the battlefield.

The elimination of three senior foreign fighters represents a significant degradation of the ISIS planning and operational capability, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials said.

Terrorists Were Based in Syria, Iraq

Mustafa Gunes, a Syria-based ISIS external operations facilitator from Turkey, was killed by an April 27 coalition airstrike near Mayadin, Syria. He was identified as an ISIS recruiter in the central Turkish city of Konya. He was linked to facilitating financial support for planning attacks outside Syria and Iraq against the West, officials said.

Abu Asim al-Jazaeri, an ISIS external operations planner and a Syria-based French-Algerian ISIS fighter, was killed by a May 11 coalition airstrike near Mayadin, Syria. He was involved in training a new generation of ISIS youths called the Cubs of the Caliphate, officials said, describing it as a high-priority training program sanctioned by ISIS leadership.

Abu-Khattab al-Rawi, a senior ISIS military official, was killed during a May 18 operation near Qaim, Iraq, along with three other terrorists. Rawi was an ISIS military official who operated in Iraq’s Anbar province and provided direct support to ISIS leadership, officials said. He also was responsible for coordinating unmanned aerial vehicle operations and procurement in Anbar.

The deaths of these men eliminates senior foreign fighters who had extensive experience and training and degrades ISIS’ ability to plan and conduct attacks on civilian targets in Iraq and Syria, as well throughout the region and in the West, task force officials said.

No Evidence Brain-Stimulation Technique Boosts Cognitive Training

0
0

Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS)–a non-invasive technique for applying electric current to areas of the brain–may be growing in popularity, but new research suggests that it probably does not add any meaningful benefit to cognitive training. The study is published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

“Our findings suggest that applying tDCS while older participants engaged in daily working memory training over four weeks did not result in improved cognitive ability,” explained researcher Martin Lövdén of Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University.

“The study is important because it addresses what has arguably been the most promising cognitive application of tDCS: the possibility of long-term cognitive enhancement from relatively limited practice on select cognitive tasks,” Lövdén added. “Cognitive enhancement is of interest not just to scientists, but also to the student studying for final exams, the gamer playing online games, and the retiree remembering which pills to take. Because of this large audience, it is of utmost importance to conduct systematic research to disentangle hype from fact.”

Working memory–our capacity for holding information in mind at any given moment–underlies many fundamental cognitive processes and is linked with some aspects of intelligence. Research has shown that working memory training improves working memory performance but it’s unclear whether this specific training can yield improvements to broader cognitive abilities.

Recent interest and publicity surrounding the potential effects of tDCS–which involves conducting a weak electrical current to the brain via electrodes on the scalp–led Lövdén and colleagues to wonder: Could using tDCS during cognitive training enhance brain plasticity and enable transfer from working memory to other cognitive processes?

The researchers enrolled 123 healthy adults who were between 65 and 75 years old in a 4-week training program. All participants completed a battery of cognitive tests, which included tasks that were incorporated in the training and tasks that were not, at the beginning of the study and again at the end. Those randomly assigned to the experimental group trained on tasks that targeted their ability to update mental representations and their ability to switch between different tasks and rules, while those in the active control group trained on tasks that focused on perceptual speed.

As they completed the training tasks, some participants received 25 minutes of tDCS current to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain that plays a central role in working memory; other participants were led to believe they were receiving 25 minutes of current, when in actuality the current was only active for a total 30 seconds.

Comparing participants’ performance before and after training indicated that those who received working memory training did improve on the updating and switching tasks they had encountered during training and on similar tasks that they had not encountered previously.

But there was no evidence that tDCS produced any additional benefit to the working memory training–at the end of the study, participants who received tDCS did not show greater improvement than their peers.

When the researchers pooled the data from this study with findings from six other studies, they again found no evidence of any additional benefit from working memory training that was combined with tDCS.

Given strong public interest in cognitive enhancement, Lövdén and colleagues urge caution when it comes to this as-of-yet unproven application of tDCS:

“A growing number of people in the general public, presumably inspired by such uninhibited optimism, are now using tDCS to perform better at work or in online gaming, and online communities offer advice on the purchase, fabrication, and use of tDCS devices,” the researchers write. “Unsurprisingly, commercial exploitation is rapidly being developed to meet this new public demand for cognitive enhancement via tDCS, often without a single human trial to support the sellers’ or manufacturers’ claims.”

“These findings highlight exactly how limited our knowledge is of the mechanisms underlying the potential effects of tDCS on human cognition and encourages the research community to take a step back and focus its resources on developing strategies for uncovering such mechanisms before using the technique in more applied settings,” Lövdén concluded.

Venetian Physician Santorio Had Key Role In Shaping Early Modern Chemistry

0
0

Newly discovered notes show for the first time the Venetian doctor who invented the thermometer and helped lay the foundations for modern medical treatment also played a key role in shaping our understanding of chemistry.

The physician Santorio Santori, who lived between 1561 and 1636, came up with an accurate explanation for how matter works twenty years before Galileo.

Handwritten notes made by Santorio in a 1625 edition of his own book Commentaria in primam Fen primi libri Canonis Avicennae (A Commentary on the First Fen of the First Book of Avicenna’s Canon) show he realised matter was made from invisible ‘corpuscles’. Although the Greek philosopher Democritus and others after him had already maintained the existence of such bodies, historians previously believed that nobody had come up with the proof for their existence before Galileo.

The book, kept in the British Library, was found by Dr Fabrizio Bigotti, from the Centre for Medical History at the University of Exeter. The language used and handwriting style strongly suggest the notes were made by Santorio.

Dr Bigotti said: “This discovery makes the case for a deeper study of early modern chemistry in the Medical School of Padua, where Santorio taught, and the work carried out there between the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century. Santorio’s true contribution to chemistry has been forgotten but, I hope, this new discovery means that will no longer be the case.

“The notes show he did not see the world not made up of four elemental qualities – hot, cold, dry and moist – as Aristotle had suggested. This helped to start the process of getting rid of the idea that magic and the occult could be found in nature.

“It is truly remarkable that, beyond his undoubted merits in science and early modern technology, Santorio also held very innovative ideas on chemistry and was so fully committed to investigating the structure of matter.”

Santorio had correctly identified the minimal structure of matter as a series of corpuscles as early as 1603, and proved his assumptions by means of a series of optical experiments on light, as well as distilling urine. All these experiments were carried out with instruments Santorio made especially for his own research.

It was already known that Santorio laid the foundations for what is understood today as evidence-based medicine and the study of metabolism. The new discovery shows he was he among the first scientists to suggest the body aims at preserving its own balance through discharge of invisible particles.

Dr Bigotti began researching the life and works of Santorio in 2013. His project is now funded by Wellcome Trust. He outlined this new discovery at an international conference organised with Professor Jonathan Barry, Co-director of the Centre for Medical History of the University of Exeter, in Pisa this month.

Groundbreaking Discovery Of Early Human Life In Ancient Peru

0
0

A-tisket, A-tasket. You can tell a lot from a basket. Especially if it comes from the ruins of an ancient civilization inhabited by humans nearly 15,000 years ago during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene ages.

An archaeologist from Florida Atlantic University’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute is among a team of scientists who made a groundbreaking discovery in Huaca Prieta in coastal Peru – home to one of the earliest and largest pyramids in South America. Hundreds of thousands of artifacts, including intricate and elaborate hand-woven baskets excavated between 2007 and 2013 in Huaca Prieta, reveal that early humans in that region were a lot more advanced than originally thought and had very complex social networks.

James M. Adovasio, Ph.D., D.Sc., is co-author of the study and a world acclaimed archaeologist at FAU's Harbor Branch, who is the foremost authority on ancient textiles and materials such as those used in basketry. Credit  Florida Atlantic University's Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute
James M. Adovasio, Ph.D., D.Sc., is co-author of the study and a world acclaimed archaeologist at FAU’s Harbor Branch, who is the foremost authority on ancient textiles and materials such as those used in basketry. Credit: Florida Atlantic University’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute

For decades, archaeologists exploring Peru have argued about the origins and emergence of complex society in Peru. Did it first happen in the highlands with groups who were dependent on agriculture or did it happen along the coast with groups who were dependent on seafood? Evidence from the site indicates a more rapid development of cultural complexity along the Pacific coast than previously thought as published in Science Advances.

“The mounds of artifacts retrieved from Huaca Prieta include food remains, stone tools and other cultural features such as ornate baskets and textiles, which really raise questions about the pace of the development of early humans in that region and their level of knowledge and the technology they used to exploit resources from both the land and the sea,” said James M. Adovasio, Ph.D., D.Sc., co-author of the study and a world acclaimed archaeologist at FAU’s Harbor Branch, who is the foremost authority on ancient textiles and materials such as those used in basketry.

Among the artifacts excavated are tools used to capture deep-sea fish-like herring. The variety of hooks they used indicate the diversity of fishing that took place at that time and almost certainly the use of boats that could withstand rough waters. These ancient peoples managed to develop a very efficient means of extracting seaside resources and devised complex techniques to collect those resources. They also combined their exploitation of maritime economy with growing crops like chili pepper, squash, avocado and some form of a medicinal plant on land in a way that produced a large economic surplus.

“These strings of events that we have uncovered demonstrate that these people had a remarkable capacity to utilize different types of food resources, which led to a larger society size and everything that goes along with it such as the emergence of bureaucracy and highly organized religion,” said Adovasio.

Advosasio’s focus of the excavation was on the extensive collection of basket remnants retrieved from the site, which were made from diverse materials including a local reed that is still used today by modern basket makers. Some of the utilitarian baskets discovered may date back as far as 11,000 years, while the more elaborate baskets made from domesticated cotton using some of the oldest dyes known in the New World are approximately 4,000 years old.

“To make these complicated textiles and baskets indicates that there was a standardized or organized manufacturing process in place and that all of these artifacts were much fancier than they needed to be for that time period,” said Adovasio. “Like so many of the materials that were excavated, even the baskets reflect a level of complexity that signals a more sophisticated society as well as the desire for and a means for showing social stature. All of these things together tell us that these early humans were engaged in very complicated social relationships with each other and that these fancy objects all bespeak that kind of social messaging.”

The late archaeologist Junius B. Bird was the first to excavate Huaca Prieta in the late 1940s after World War II and his original collection is housed in the American Museum of Natural History in New York. This latest excavation is only the second one to take place at this site, but this time using state-of-the-art archaeological technology. This recent excavation took approximately six years to complete and included a total of 32 excavation units and trenches, 32 test pits, and 80 geological cores that were placed on, around and between the Huaca Prieta and Paredones mounds as well as other sites. These artifacts are now housed in a museum in Lima, Peru.

Leading the team of scientists is Tom D. Dillehay, Ph.D., principal investigator and an anthropologist from Vanderbilt University. The final report of this excavation will be published in a book by the University of Texas Press later this summer. Adovasio and Dillehay plan to go back to Peru within a year to further examine some of the, as yet, still unstudied basket specimens, especially the very earliest ones which are among the oldest in the New World.

Serbia: Small Town Appeals For More Migrants

0
0

By Maja Zivanovic

While intolerance towards migrants is rising in many parts of Europe, and in Serbia, this is not the case in the remote Serbian town of Bosilegrad in Serbia, which is asking the Serbian government to send them some.

“Migrants are more than welcome in Bosilegrad. We understand what it means to have problems, and they are wonderful people and we mustn’t close our eyes to their problems,” the Mayor of Bosilegrad, Vladimir Zaharijev, told BIRN.

According to the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, around 8,000 refugees, migrants and asylum-seekers remain in Serbia, many of whom are stuck in temporary accommodation.

While neighbouring countries tighten border controls, and with Hungary manning a barbed-wire fence on the Serbian border, the number of migrants in Serbia has risen and they face rising intolerance.

On the May 17, the authorities moved several hundred migrants from a derelict warehouse where they were living near the main train station in the capital, Belgrade.

A newspaper reported that the expelled refugees were “sprayed with insecticide before forceful eviction”.

After locals in the border town of Sid, near Croatia, petitioned for their removal, complaining that they were a safety risk, the authorities last month moved migrants from a centre located near the train station.

An announcement by the authorities of the northern city of Subotica, that they planned to build new homes for migrants, met strong hostility as local political parties lined up to condemn the move.

The right-wing Dveri party told the city government to dump the plan, or call a referendum in which citizens could decide about such settlements.

But down in Bosilegrad, the mood is different. The mayor says migrants are welcome in this town, no matter where they come from, adding: “You will not find a person in Bosilegrad who thinks differently”.

He said about 60 migrants from Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are currently living in Bosilegrad.

“We are throwing them parties, we distributed gifts to their children for the New Year because family means a lot to them, our folk dancing groups organized a show for them. They are learning to dance our traditional dances and Serbian words,” Zaharijev said.

According to the last census, Bosilegrad has a total population of around 8,000 inhabitants, most of whom are ethnic Bulgarians.

“Migrants … are an opportunity to make a progress and develop our infrastructure, but also to show our hospitality and care,” Zaharijev added.

“Business in Bosilegrad’s stores is increasing so there are multiple benefits for us,” the Mayor pointed out.

He added that he’s looking forward to more newcomers, adding that one migrant mother is expecting the birth of a child at the local hospital.

“It is a miracle how someone’s tragedy can bring together people of different religions,” he concluded.

Trump Administration Proposes Slashing Programs In Caucasus, Central Asia

0
0

By Joshua Kucera*

When Georgian Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili visited Washington in early May and met with United States President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and other senior officials, it was billed as a reaffirmation of the US’s strong support for Georgia from the new administration.

“We received strong assurances of positive partnership from the US in every direction,” Kvirikashvili said on May 9. “The US, as Georgia’s major strategic partner, will continue supporting Georgia, and these relations will only grow stronger.”

But behind the scenes, the White House was preparing a budget that would slash spending for that partnership by more than half. According to budget documents released on May 23, funding for US State Department programs in Georgia would be cut from $80.6 million this year to $34.1 million in 2018. Nearly all of Georgia’s military aid would be cut; programs under the rubric of “Governing Justly and Democratically” would be reduced by 60 percent; and those under “Economic Growth” by 37 percent.

Georgia is not the only country to be so affected: if the proposed budget were to pass, spending on the Caucasus and Central Asia would be slashed by more than half, from $218.1 million in 2016 to $93.1 million in 2018.

The budget must be approved by Congress, and several members have already expressed alarm at the deep cuts – which affect not only Eurasia but much of the rest of the world as well – and so the final budget will likely restore many of the White House’s proposed cuts. Nevertheless, the proposal provides a vivid view of the new administration’s intentions, which are being closely watched around the region.

“It’s not good for the region, it’s not good for US relations with the region,” said Paul Stronski, a former State Department and White House official dealing with Eurasia and now senior fellow in the Russia and Eurasia Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington, DC, think tank. “This is a time when China and Russia are both very active there, and it looks like we’re disengaging,” Stronski told EurasiaNet.org.

Kyrgyzstan, the second-largest recipient of US programs in the region behind Georgia, would see its programming cut from $48.4 million to $17.5 million. Programs in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan would be almost completely eliminated.

In the scope of the total $37.6 billion foreign affairs budget, the amount cut for the Caucasus and Central Asia is “peanuts,” said Luke Coffey, Director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy at the Washington, DC, think tank The Heritage Foundation. “Even so, this aid often provided good bang for the buck for US interests in the region,” Coffey told EurasiaNet.org. “At a time when countries like Russia, China, and in some cases even Iran, are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the South Caucasus and Central Asia, it is very shortsighted for the US to slash spending in the region in such a draconian manner.”

Some of the largest cuts would come in military aid. The Foreign Military Financing program, through which the US gives money for countries to buy American military equipment, is eliminated for nearly every country around the world, cutting about $900 million in aid. (The exceptions are the four largest recipients – Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Pakistan – who will receive $4.85 billion from the program.) Under the proposal, the State Department would have a new program to replace FMF money with a budget of about $200 million to use at its discretion for countries around the world.

Georgia was the largest recipient of State Department military aid in 2016, receiving $30 million in FMF funding, which would be reduced to zero in 2018 under the proposed budget.

“Cutting funds of course is not a good thing, particularly on bilateral military programs,” said Batu Kutelia, former Georgian ambassador to the US and now vice president at the Atlantic Council of Georgia. But he said he is waiting for more information to determine the potential impact, “particularly if these cuts are or will be compensated by some other bilateral arrangements (on economy, defense and security, or democracy),” he told EurasiaNet.org.

Military aid programs operated by the Pentagon, however, appear to be relatively untouched in the new budget, and it is those programs that have provided the bulk of military aid in countries like Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

The only country in the region to see an increase in State Department funding would be Uzbekistan, where the budget would grow slightly, from $10.1 million in 2016 to $10.6 million in 2018. “There’s a new government in Uzbekistan and I think there are some expectations here in the United States that it is more reform-minded, and more willing to work with its neighbors,” Stronski said. “So it’s a more hopeful time for Uzbekistan.”

Stronski said that the proposed budget was of a piece with the apparent disinterest in the region by the new administration. “I don’t think we’re seeing a whole lot of strategic thinking about this region. That shouldn’t be a surprise, it’s never been a priority region for the US,” he said. The US is still unclear about its policies toward greater foreign policy priorities, most notably Russia, and policies toward the Caucasus and Central Asia are likely to follow from that. “When we know what the policy toward China is, toward Afghanistan is, toward Iran is, toward Russia is, then we’ll have a greater sense of where this region is,” Stronski said.

*Joshua Kucera is the Turkey/Caucasus editor at EurasiaNet.org, and author of The Bug Pit. He is based in Istanbul.

US Healthcare Inefficiency: Evidence From International Prescription Drug Data – Analysis

0
0

Despite higher per capita healthcare spending, US health outcomes compare poorly with other developed nations. One potential reason is that the US healthcare system creates incentives that promote the faster adoption of medical technologies with minimal benefits. This column tests this claim using data on the quality and diffusion of new pharmaceuticals in the US and four other countries. The results suggest that compared to Australia, Canada, Switzerland, and the UK, low-quality drugs diffuse more quickly in the US relative to high-quality drugs.

By Margaret Kyle and Heidi Williams*

Although the US spends more on healthcare per capita than any other developed country, it does not enjoy better health outcomes. Are institutional features of the US healthcare system driving this apparent inefficiency? Garber and Skinner (2008) hypothesised that the fee-for-service system of reimbursement prevalent in the US may create incentives for faster adoption of new medical technologies that may have minimal clinical benefits. However, directly testing this hypothesis is generally complicated in part because it is difficult to construct consistent measures of healthcare utilisation across countries in a way that holds quality of care constant. For example, a surgical procedure may be used more in one country than another because the quality of the procedure is higher in that country, not because it is inefficiently administered.

In a recent paper, we argue that the adoption and diffusion of new pharmaceuticals across countries is well-suited for testing the Garber-Skinner conjecture (Kyle and Williams, 2017). First, we can be confident that pharmaceutical use is relatively consistently measured across countries – there is little difference between the cancer drug Avastin sold in the US and the cancer drug Avastin sold in other countries. Second, for pharmaceuticals it is possible to exploit an existing measure of drug quality that is based solely on clinical value (that is, this quality measure is independent of the drug’s price). Despite having some limitations, this quality measure allows us to compare whether the US differs from other developed countries in the adoption and diffusion of drugs with relatively high therapeutic value relative to those that provide more marginal gains.

Data and measures

We analyse quarterly data from 2000-2013 on revenues and quantities sold for new pharmaceuticals in Australia, Canada, Switzerland, and the UK provided by QuintilesIMS Health. We aggregate across all packages or presentations of a drug to the molecule (or molecule combination) level.

For our measure of drug quality, we rely on assessments of France’s Haute Autorité de Sante (HAS). When a drug is introduced in France, the HAS evaluates both its clinical importance and its relative therapeutic value over existing treatments. The latter, referred to as the ASMR (amélioration du service médical rendu, or improvement in actual benefit), is a score from I to V. ASMR I corresponds to major improvements. Gleevec, generally considered a breakthrough treatment for some cancers, is an example. ASMR V is assigned to all generic drugs (which offer no clinical benefit relative to the originator version) as well as other new drugs with no evidence of clinical superiority over existing treatments. The ASMR evaluation takes place before price negotiations in France – it is an assessment of clinical value, not an assessment of cost-effectiveness.1

Our sample is confined to drugs for which an ASMR rating is available and for which we have complete sales data from the time of launch. In addition, we focus on new brand-name or originator products – that is, new molecular or biologic entities – rather than generic drugs. We focus on comparing outcomes in the US to outcomes in four other major developed countries: Australia, Canada, Switzerland, and the UK.2

Results

Our key research question is: how do higher- and lower-quality drugs diffuse over time in the US relative to our comparison countries? We measure diffusion by sales of standard units (that is, by measuring quantities rather than revenues), and focus our quality metric on a comparison of more (ASMR I/II/III) and less (ASMR IV/V) therapeutically valuable drugs. We analyse diffusion over the first six years after a product is launched, during which time a new product should generally not face any generic competition. We estimate a regression specification that pools all five countries and includes fixed effects for drugs, countries, and years since launch.

Our results suggest that – consistent with the Garber-Skinner conjecture – the US is indeed “uniquely inefficient” in the sense that low-quality drugs diffuse more quickly compared to high-quality drugs, relative to the comparison countries we analyse. The same pattern holds if we compare the US against each of our comparison countries individually, although the difference in coefficients is only statistically significant in pairwise comparisons when comparing the US to the UK and to Switzerland. All of these results are strengthened if we omit the ASMR III (‘intermediate’) quality category.

Figures 1-4 provide a graphical summary of our results. In each, we plot the diffusion curves – units sold relative to the initial year of launch in each country – for lower-quality drugs (in dark red) and higher-quality drugs (in light blue), with 95% confidence intervals. While the confidence intervals for low and high quality drugs are overlapping in this more disaggregated comparison, qualitatively the overall patterns are remarkably consistent – with the exception of the year of and first year after launch in Australia and Canada, lower-quality drugs consistently diffuse more in the US relative to higher-quality drugs, judged relative to any of the four comparison countries.

Figure 1 Diffusion, US and Australia

Figure 2 Diffusion, US and Canada

Figure 3 Diffusion, US and Switzerland

Figure 4 Diffusion, US and UK

Conclusion

Prior work (Kyle 2007, Kyle and Qian 2014, and Cockburn et al. 2016) has attempted to quantify the influence of factors such as intellectual property rights and price control policies on firms’ decisions to launch new drugs globally. To the best of our knowledge, our paper is the first to focus on how diffusion varies across countries based on a measure of therapeutic quality. While our drug quality measure is of course imperfect – in particular, while it is independent of price, assignment of these measures happens in the shadow of price negotiations – it arguably takes a step forward in understanding the welfare implications of cross-country differences in drug diffusion.

Our tabulations suggest that low-quality drugs diffuse more quickly compared to high quality drugs in the US relative to these four comparison countries. These patterns are consistent with the assertion in Gruber and Skinner (2008) that the US healthcare system may be “uniquely inefficient” in the sense of fuelling the rapid adoption and diffusion of medical technologies with small or unknown benefits.

Our hope is that, in the future, the newly linked data developed in our paper can be combined with an analysis of policy changes in order to analyse the potential roles of specific factors in explaining the higher diffusion of lower quality drugs in the US relative to other countries. For example, does the use of centralised health technology assessments in countries outside the US encourage the adoption of technologies with higher measured benefits? What are the longer-term consequences of such policies, not only for health spending but also for health outcomes?

*About the authors:
Margaret Kyle,
Professor of Economics and Chair in Markets for Technology and Intellectual Property, MINES ParisTech

Heidi Williams, Class of 1957 Career Development Associate Professor, MIT Department of Economics

References:
Cockburn, I, J Lanjouw and M Schankerman (2016), “Global diffusion of new drugs: The role of patent policy, price controls and institutions”, American Economic Review 106(1): 136-164.

Garber, A and J Skinner (2008), “Is American health care uniquely inefficient?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 22(4): 27-50.

Kyle, M (2007), “Pharmaceutical price controls and entry strategies”, Review of Economics and Statistics 89(1): 88-99.

Kyle, M and Y Qian (2014), “Intellectual property rights and access to innovation: Evidence from TRIPS”, NBER, Working paper 20779.

Kyle, M and H Williams (2017), “Is American health care uniquely inefficient? Evidence from prescription drugs”, American Economic Review Papers & Proceedings 107(5): 486-490.

Endnotes:
[1] We compared the ASMR to an alternative quality measure, priority review status at the US Food and Drug Administration, and found a positive correlation. We prefer the ASMR because it provides somewhat finer information than the binary FDA review status.

[2] All drugs in our sample must have been introduced in France, in order for them to have an ASMR score. Because the European Medicines Agency (the equivalent of the FDA) grants marketing authorisations which are valid throughout the EU, France and the UK have more similar drug launches than other pairs of our comparison countries. However, regulators in all these countries have largely harmonised clinical requirements and manufacturing standards.


India-Malaysia Partnership In The Pink – Analysis

0
0

India views its ties with Malaysia as a core element of its Act East Policy, while the Malaysian leadership has taken note of India’s geopolitical importance and the many attractions of its market Both nations share a strong commitment to multiculturalism, democracy and inclusive development.

By Rajiv Bhatia*

It’s the 60th anniversary this year of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Malaysia and India, and an apt time to take stock of ties that have been mostly in a steady state of bloom.

Malaysia is one of the prominent leaders of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), together with Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand. All four countries enjoy multi-faceted ties with India, both in the regional and bilateral contexts, while also having a very substantial relationship with China.

The Malaysian leadership’s driving motivations in its relationship with India are: unease with China’s assertiveness in the region, realisation of India’s geopolitical importance in Asia, and the attractions of the growing Indian market. This explains why India-Malaysia relations currently are in the pink. But divergences and differences too have marked this relationship, given the two countries’ different locations, state of governance and development, and interpretations of national interest.

The Malaysian prime minister was among the four ASEAN leaders who attended the Belt Road Forum (BRF) in Beijing earlier this month. (The other leaders were from Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam.) India pointedly declined the invitation.

Malaysia is an active participant in current negotiations for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which includes both China and India. At the same time, Malaysia is one of the four ASEAN countries[1] that are part of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP); it is presently engaged in endeavours to ensure TPP’s survival, after President Trump ordered America’s withdrawal from it.

There is yet another significant clue about Malaysia’s regional strategy: as the Trump administration shows unwillingness to assert leadership in East Asia, Malaysia and other ASEAN members have chosen to be more conciliatory towards China on the contentious South China Sea question. The way has recently been cleared for a draft framework agreement on the Code of Conduct (COC).[2] New Delhi seems busy deciphering the implications of this development.

Against this backdrop, the Malaysian government has been notably consistent in according priority to deepen economic, political, security and defence cooperation with India. Formally, the two nations have an “enhanced Strategic Partnership”. India views its ties with Malaysia as a core element of its Act East Policy. Both nations share a strong commitment to multiculturalism, democracy, pluralism and inclusive development.

On the diplomatic side, India and Malaysia work together to uphold the freedom of navigation and over flights in the South China Sea and elsewhere and to adhere to the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). They also display a resolute will to counter terrorism and radicalisation. In fact, India admires the Malaysian model of moderate Islam and the success of its de-radicalisation programme. The latter may have some relevance to the situation in India. This mutual understanding seems to have insulated official relations from being disturbed by the activities of Zakir Naik, an Indian Islamic preacher, currently under the scanner of Indian agencies, who was based in Malaysia for several years.[3] Counter-terrorism cooperation and intelligence exchange seem to be on a growth path.

A series of high-level visits has nurtured political ties. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Prime Minister Modi visited Malaysia in 2010 and 2015 respectively. Malaysian Prime Minister Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak paid three visits to India – in 2010, 2012 and, most recently, from 30 March-4 April 2017. The latest visit not only showcased the close friendship and expansion of bilateral cooperation, but also indicated their future trajectory. It is worth recalling that bilateral relations used to be frayed and complex during the era of the previous prime minister, Mahathir Mohammed, whereas they have showed steady improvement since Najib came to power in 2009.

Mutual negative perceptions, which existed in the past, have diminished, but they have not disappeared altogether. The Indian side tends to view Malaysia as being too close to China, deeply sympathetic towards Pakistan, and always anxious to assert its Islamic identity under the influence of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The Malaysian side seems to dwell on the disconnect between India’s commitments and delivery, the huge asymmetry of power between China and India, and the impressive success of Malaysia’s development model as compared to India’s. Nevertheless, politico-economic convergences and bonds of history, culture and the diaspora have ensured that the two nations essentially relate to each other as good partners and friends today.

Malaysia’s proximity to China notwithstanding, Kuala Lumpur prefers to keep its channels to New Delhi open. In a subtle reference to the China factor, PM Modi recently observed, “Prime Minister Najib and I are also conscious of our role and responsibility in promoting economic prosperity, freedom of navigation, and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, especially its Oceans.”[4]

The economic dimension is undoubtedly of considerable significance. Bilateral trade has been somewhat erratic due to the global slowdown: it decreased from $16.9 billion in 2014-15 to $12.8 billion in 2015-16. The two governments want it to reach the level of $15 billion in the immediate future. Investment quantum looks healthy. Malaysian investments in India, valued at $7 billion, surpassed Indian investments in Malaysia standing at $2.5 billion by a large margin. Malaysian companies have been a force to reckon with, particularly in the infrastructure sector. According to official calculations, Malaysian companies have completed 53 highway and road projects in India so far.

The CEO Forum, held during PM Najib’s recent visit, underlined the need for fresh investment flows both ways, identifying “the knowledge deficit on the opportunities available”[5] as a challenge to be addressed. Infrastructure, healthcare, education, SME, civil aviation and tourism were considered as key sectors for further cooperation. While Indian companies are exploring new possibilities in the railways and water treatment sectors, Malaysian corporates can certainly contribute more to road construction, power generation, airport and port development. Further, an expectation exists that the Malaysian Pension and Provident Funds may invest more in Indian infrastructure assets. There is a shared business view in both countries that economic ties would benefit from early conclusion of a balanced RCEP that encompasses trade in goods and services.

The people-to-people aspect of the relationship is also significant. A nation of 28 million, Malaysia is home to a nearly two million-strong Indian origin community that accounts for 7% of the total population. This is rated as the highest share of Indian diaspora in any East Asian country. The Malaysian PM began his recent visit from Tamil Nadu, presumably in recognition of the fact that 85% of Malaysian Indians are of Tamil origin. His taking a selfie with popular star Rajinikanth revealed a desire to cultivate the Tamil connection as the next elections approach in Malaysia. This is a country where Indian cultural products are quite popular.

Many in India’s strategic community hold the view that Malaysia, together with the other Big Three of ASEAN, needs to work towards increasing its unity and solidarity. This alone will make ASEAN’s claim to “centrality” – its pivotal, even leading, role in East Asia – credible. This centrality has been under much stress in recent years from China’s policies and actions. It is in India’s interest to strengthen ASEAN as a robust and active actor in Asian affairs. This strategic calculus provides a powerful rationale for the two countries to further enhance their mutual cooperation.

PM Najib’s portrayal of India and Malaysia as the two “examples of moderate, civilised, peaceful countries that prize education, the safety and well-being of our peoples, and the equitable and sustainable pursuit of growth” is, thus, right on the dot.[6]

About the author:
*Rajiv Bhatia
is Distinguished Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies Programme, Gateway House. He has extensive experience of diplomatic work and study in Southeast Asia.

Source:
This feature was written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

References:
[1] The other three are: Brunei, Singapore and Vietnam.

[2] “China, ASEAN agree on framework for South China Sea code of conduct”, Reuters, 18 May 2017, <http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-philippines-idUSKCN18E1FS>; Panda, Ankita, “China, ASEAN Come to Agreement on a Framework South China Sea Code of Conduct”, The Diplomat, 19 May 2017, <http://thediplomat.com/2017/05/china-asean-come-to-agreement-on-a-framework-south-china-sea-code-of-conduct/>

[3] Alatas, Sharifah Munirah, “Can India and Malaysia Continue to Be Good Friends With Zakir Naik Lurking in the Background”, The Wire, 26 April 2017, <https://thewire.in/128029/zakir-naik-india-malaysia-bilateral-relations/>

[4] Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, Press Statement by Prime Minister during the State visit of Prime Minister of Malaysia to India, 1 April 2017, <http://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/28293/Press_Statement_by_Prime_Minister_during_the_State_visit_of_Prime_Minister_of_Malaysia_to_India>

[5] Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, Joint Statement of the India-Malaysia CEO’s Forum, New Delhi (March 31, 2017), 1 April 2017, <http://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/28294/joint+statement+of+the+india++malaysia+ceos+forum+new+delhi+march+31+2017>

[6] Razak, Najib, “HT Exclusive | Malaysia, India are leaders in Asia’s new emerging order: PM Najib Razak”, Hindustan Times, 31 March 2017, <http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/malaysia-india-are-leaders-in-asia-s-new-emerging-order-pm-najib-razak/story-hWsSeAzefjmDHuXpLY5g9N.html>

Infringement Of Fundamental Rights And Freedoms In Jamaica – Analysis

0
0

By Sharri K Hall*

In July 2016, Jamaica’s Attorney General, Marlene Malahoo Forte, declared that some “fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed to Jamaicans may have to be abrogated, abridged, or infringed.”[i] The Attorney General proposed an amendment to the Bail Act in murder cases involving intentional homicide: the accused are to be immediately remanded and subjected to trial without a jury. This drastic suggestion came at the heels of a staggering intentional homicide rate. Jamaica has the sixth-highest intentional homicide rate in the world, at 46 per 100,000.[ii] These radical propositions received vehement support from Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness.

If any democratic government seeks to impose such draconian legislation, especially such a politically reprehensible one, it must be able to support its decision with overwhelming reasons confirming that suspending constitutional rights will actually diminish radical violence. Therefore, this infringement of basic rights can only be upheld through a State of Emergency if its measures of success can be immediately quantifiable. The Holness Administration has not given enough justification for such a radical, unconstitutional measure that defies both Jamaican laws and international ideals.

Restrictions in Jamaican Constitutional Law

The Jamaican Constitution allows for some temporary suspension of rights upon the declaration of an official State of Emergency by the Governor General. However, this State of Emergency cannot last longer than fourteen days. Parliament can sanction an extension by a two-thirds majority, but even then, it cannot last more than three months.[iii] To impose a State of Emergency, the Governor General would have to justify that something has occurred in the nation that affects the government’s ability to function or that a total loss of control has rendered government and law enforcement unable to rule in the normal manner.

The proposal was met with immediate opposition from many high-level officials and attorneys. The Jamaican Bar Association warned that these laws would unjustifiably breach the rights of citizens without achieving the desired results.[iv] K.D. Knight, a private attorney practicing in Jamaica, advised that the government cannot assume that everything it imposes is constitutional or even legal.[v] Bert Samuels, another private attorney, in a raging editorial reminded the Attorney General of her oaths to remain “faithful and bear true allegiance to Jamaica. . .[and] uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of Jamaica.”[vi] Despite the tenacity of opposition, the Holness Administration seemed undeterred by public opinion and likely to pursue this radical agenda.

By measure of the nation’s own laws, the proposition is hardly legal or constitutional. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has made it its mission to create a “just and law-abiding society” that has an “accessible, efficient, and fair system of justice for all,” in order to “promote respect for rights and freedoms” of all Jamaican citizens. It intends to enact these principles by

…protecting the constitutional rights of citizens, maintaining the independence of the judiciary, reinforcing confidence in the Legal Institutions, carrying out law reform to effect greater social justice, providing means of redress when people are abused by organs of the state, [and] carrying out legal directives ordered by the courts for the protection of society.[vii]

This proposed enactment hardly appears to protect constitutional rights or reinforce confidence in legal institutions. However, most disconcerting of all, this proposed amendment does not retain the fundamental independence of the judiciary. Jamaica is a democratic state and as such, relies on the separation of power between the legislative and judiciary branches. This separation exists to guarantee accountability. The legislative branch cannot impose changes upon the judiciary based on its own interests to lower the island’s intentional homicide rate; this removes the legitimacy of the entire system. The MOJ qualifies that it may need to carry out legal reforms as necessary. However, these reforms cannot be allowed to undermine the validity of the constitution. Imposing such a naïve and undemocratic tactic to diminish the high levels of crime is demonstrating an abuse of power.

Chapter III, Section 13.1(a) of the 2010 Constitutional Amendment to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms denotes “all persons in Jamaica are entitled to preserve for themselves and future generations the fundamental rights and freedoms to which they are entitled by virtue of their inherent dignity as persons and as citizens of a free and democratic society.” Chapter III, Section 13.2(h) pronounces “the right to equitable and humane treatment by any public authority in the exercise of any function.” Incarceration without chance of bail and trial without a jury of impartial peers is hardly “humane treatment.” It is a direct defiance of the self-proclaimed “fundamental rights and freedoms” to which the nation prescribes in its constitution. The wording “to which they are entitled” may allow for some leeway. The government could argue that a person in defiance of the laws of the nation (e.g. by committing murder) is not entitled to the freedoms and rights written into the laws of that nation. However, that tactic is an assumption of guilt of the offender. True democracy, per Article 11 of the United Nation’s (UN) published Universal Declaration of Human Rights, requires an ideal of assumption of innocence until there is proven guilt.

Restrictions in International Human Rights Law

As a free, democratic nation, the Jamaican government and constitution must subscribe to the values imposed in this document. However, the suspension of juries and the right to bail for those accused of murder would further violate even more fundamental articles of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 5, which denies the use of cruel treatment or punishment, 7, which states that all men are entitled to equal protection under the law, 9, which states no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention, and 10, which states that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal.[viii]

Prime Minister Holness had asserted that the government did not intend to diminish human rights but that “the government has to weigh the balance of human rights as a whole, and the rights of those persons who are being murdered by persons who get bail. . .and go out and commit more crimes.”[ix] However, this emotional plea does not justify the suspension of human rights. It perpetuates the problem of assigning guilt before there is any proof of it.

Preliminary Cautions

Unlike most other nations in the region, Jamaica is a middle-income country.[x] However, there are still vast pockets of poverty and a rather large divide between the rich and the poor. The privileged and wealthy are often able to escape arrest and incarceration due to monetary bribes and personal ties to government officials, police, and judges. The cases involving wealthy individuals that do make it to trial are often tried more leniently than those involving poor individuals. The amendment to the Bail Act would perpetuate the already popular idea amongst citizens that the poor have no rights.[xi]

The nation also suffers from an increasing trend of jury victimization through threatening, or even murdering jurors.[xii] Though the government has put systems in place where victimized or threatened jurors may attempt to reach trustworthy law enforcement, it has been largely unsuccessful in tempering the crime. Perhaps this dramatic amendment assumes suspending juries will aid in stemming the violence against jurors as well as the mishandling of juries and witness tampering. However, correcting one crime with a policy that denies basic rights is hardly an appropriate response. Jury and witness tampering occurs because criminals do not want to be incarcerated. Therefore, they target the individuals responsible for deciding their guilt. Suspending juries is hardly the solution to jury tampering; it is the creation of an even more skewed legal system.

Conclusion

It has been eleven months since Attorney General Mahaloo Forte proposed these radical changes to crime and punishment in Jamaica. In that time, there has been absolute silence on the topic. Perhaps the ill-considered idea has been sent to its grave. Perhaps, however, the Jamaican Parliament is quietly writing amendments to the Bail Act that would make these propositions legal, although criminally negligent when it comes to protecting human rights. The Holness Administration would be wise to refrain from advocating such a drastic change to the prosecution of homicides. The amendment to the Bail Act is unlikely to have the desired results in mitigating violence. It is much more likely to increase distrust in the government and increase tensions between citizens and law enforcement agencies.

*Sharri K Hall, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Additional editorial support provided by Kirwin Shaffer, and James Baer, Senior Research Fellows, Sebastian Chavarro, Extramural Research Associate, and Alexia Rauen, Emma Pachon, Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

[i] Edmond Campbell, “Drastic Measures – Radical Changes Coming to Tackle Murder Wave, Says Malahoo Forte,” The Jamaica Gleaner, July 6, 2016.

[ii] Andrew Lumsden, “Black, Green, Gold and Too Much Red: Jamaica’s Struggle with Gang Violence,” The Council for Hemispheric Affairs, October 5, 2016.

[iii] Bert Samuels, “Does Malahoo Forte Hear Herself?” The Jamaica Gleaner, July 10, 2016.

[iv] Livern Barrett, “Tread Cautiously, JamBar Warns Gov’t,” The Jamaica Gleaner, July 6, 2016.

[v] Edmond Campbell, “Drastic Measures – Radical Changes Coming to Tackle Murder Wave, Says Malahoo Forte,” The Jamaica Gleaner, July 6, 2016.

[vi] Samuels, “Does Malahoo Forte Hear Herself?”

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” The United Nations, accessed May 16, 2017.

[ix] Balford Henry, “Holness: Murder Victims Have Rights Too,” The Jamaica Observer, June 1, 2016.

[x] “Jamaica,” The World Bank, accessed on May 16, 2017.

[xi] Lloyd G. Walker and Cedric A. L. Taylor, “A Case Study of Citizen-to-Government Mobile Activism in Jamaica: Protesting Violations of the Rule of Law with Smart Phones,” in Human Rights and Ethics: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, edited by Christinna Henning et al. (Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference), 602-04.

[xii] “Witness Intimidation,” Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, accessed May 16, 2017.

What’s Gone Wrong With Indonesia’s Democracy? – Analysis

0
0

Amid the 2017 Jakarta Election, some loosely interpreted laws (such as regarding blasphemy, anti-Pancasila, and treason) have frequently been used as a tool for political manoeuvre both by the establishment and the opposition. The most prominent victim of this exploitation of democratic space is the incumbent Jakarta Governor, Basuki Tjahya Purnama.

By Emirza Adi Syailendra*

Political balancing nuanced the government’s intention to disband Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI), one of the mobilising forces behind the anti–Basuki Tjahya Purnama (Ahok) series of rallies throughout Indonesia. Indeed, the government has been closely monitoring HTI for years, due to suspicion over their activities promoting global Islamic caliphate ideology, which is deemed incompatible with Indonesia’s democratic values.

Nonetheless, HTI has been operating for over 25 years and was acknowledged by the Indonesian Ministry of Law and Human Right as a legal societal organisation in 2014, which warrants proper legal procedure (e.g. by issuing series of warnings) before any decision to dismantle them. The announcement of the plan to ban HTI a day before Ahok’s sentencing on 9 May 2017 has also led many to speculate that the decision was a political balancing act.

Weaponisation of “Rubbery” Laws

Having a vibrant democratic environment is progress, but learning to use the freedom is difficult. Blasphemy law in Indonesia has been the subject of international criticism, particularly after Ahok, a Christian of ethnic Chinese descent, was found guilty of blasphemy under Article 156(a) of the Criminal Code over a few careless throwaway lines on the campaign trail, weaponised against him through outrage from his political adversaries.

The sentence of two years’ imprisonment was also deemed as unexpectedly excessive, as the prosecutors only found him guilty of inciting public disorder and then reduced the demand to two years’ probation. This seems to suggest that the court verdict was motivated to maintain political stability, catering to pressure from the disgruntled conservative Muslim population.

Although the establishment elites appeared to have accepted the decision, they seem to be looking to compensate for defeat by targeting representatives of the opposing camp by using another pasal karet or “rubbery” law, in this case using the anti-Pancasila (Indonesia’s Five Founding Principles) charge against HTI. The worrying trend is that the term ‘anti-Pancasila’ can be loosely defined or interpreted with criteria subjectively determined by the elites in power.

Muhammad Rizieq Shihab, the leader of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), another leading figure behind the anti–Ahok rally, was also charged on 30 January 2017 with undermining the philosophy of Pancasila. The establishment camp targeted Rizieq Shihab personally, instead of the FPI as an organisation, arguably because the FPI is leader-driven and at times can be a government political proxy. As the pasal karet can be used for the government’s political objective, there is a lack of motivation to repeal the laws.

Beware Leviathan

Strong-arm tactics have also been frequently used in the name of creating stability at the height of tensions during the 2017 Jakarta Gubernatorial Election. On the eve of the 2 December 2016 rally the police arrested a dozen activists and nationalist figures, accusing them of treason – plotting to overthrow the government. The individuals detained included the coordinator of the Ahok Opposition Network (JALA).

Having limited funds, few supporters, and being unarmed, the Indonesian police’s argument that such groups were plotting an insurrection was not very convincing and widely criticised. This led many to believe that it was the government’s way of sending a signal to their opponents that the security apparatus can be used against them.

The police released most of the captured suspects after questioning them. Yet the event has created a chilling effect on free speech by the threat of legal sanction. This argument seems to be substantiated after another five men were arrested for treason on 31 March 2017, before a subsequent anti-Ahok rally. The worrying trend is the utter disregard by the authorities over the difference between treason and dissent, which can undermine the exercise of personal rights.

Return of Big Government

The contentious oligarchic politics in Indonesia have motivated the establishment party to utilise whatever resources are at their disposal to consolidate power. This has indicated that today big government is back with a vengeance to quell forces confronting the establishment.

Having bought many opponents to move to his side, President Joko Widodo’s (Jokowi) coalition currently controls nearly 70 percent of the House of Representatives (DPR) seats – a big jump from only 37 percent after the 2014 Presidential Election. Jokowi has made alliances with the Party of Functional Groups (Golkar), as well as small nationalist parties. Despite its overwhelming majority, Jokowi’s coalition remains capricious and largely depends on the president’s ability to strike bargains with senior party leaders.

Jokowi also still faces relatively strong opposition, primarily from Prabowo Subianto’s Gerindra Party and Islamist parties such as the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS). This presence of counterbalancing forces is reassuring to maintain checks and balances, so long as the establishment party and opposition do not conspire in collusive practices. This has often been the case, such as the E-KTP (electronic ID card) scandal, incurring state losses of around Rp. 2.3 trillion (USD172 million), which was allegedly shared by different factions of the DPR.

The return of big government has stirred up fiery opposition as well as praise. On one hand it helps Jokowi to implement his policies more effectively. On the other, it has often provided opportunities for the establishment to clamp down on the dissent of those who are not in favour of the government. While President Jokowi is not a big fan of free-flowing ideas and debates, as indicated in his remarks on 22 February 2017 that Indonesian democracy has “gone too far,” he needs to remember this vibrant democratic scene was the one that got him elected.

*Emirza Adi Syailendra is a Research Analyst in the Indonesia Programme of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. This is part of a series on the 2017 Jakarta Election.

Upstate New York Trump Voters Hit Hard In President’s Proposed 2018 Budget – OpEd

0
0

If President Donald Trump is successful in getting key parts of his proposed budget passed by the Republican-led Congress — especially his cuts in Medicaid and in the Food Stamp program — he is certain to face a rebellion among people in places that went heavily for him in last November’s election. Places like Delaware County in heavily Republican Upstate New York.

My family owns a summer home in Delaware County where we have lived on and off, mostly during the summer (or on weekends before it gets too cold) for the last 31 years, making us, if not native upstate New Yorkers, then at least accepted neighbors and friends of people who are.

Tucked up against the northeastern corner of Pennsylvania just at the point where the East and West Branches of the Delaware flow together to form the Delaware River, Delaware County in the Catskill Mountains is an area that was hit hard by the deliberate deindustrialization policies of the last half century or so promoted by alternating Democratic and Republican governments in Washington, DC.

Once home to large saw mills that supplied, for example, ash lumber stock for the Louisville Slugger company in Kentucky, to medical equipment manufacturers, and the like, and to the usual proliferation of auto dealerships, grocery stores, vacation resorts, day camps, etc., the county saw its well-paying and often unionized jobs move abroad or, after passage of NAFTA, down to Mexico. And once they left, so did many of the smaller businesses that depended on paying customers.

Today, the poverty rate in the county is officially at about 25%, drug use and alcoholism, as in much of rural America, are both rampant, joblessness is higher than the state average, with a third of households classified as distressed, meaning that they are spending more than 30% of the mean family income of $32,500 just to meet mortgage payments or rent.

People here are white — about 97% of them, in fact. Half of them have at best a high school education. Don’t get me wrong. These are smart and savvy folks who know how to get by on incomes that are quite low. They know how to grow gardens, how to fish and to hunt for deer and other game, how to fix their own automobiles and pickup trucks — things that most urban and suburban Americans have entirely lost the ability to do.

They can be fiercely loyal and cooperative among each other, but they resent outsiders, whether in Albany or the nation’s capital, telling them what to do or how to do it.

When I have talked with people up in the Catskills about Trump, they’ve said what they liked was his promise to bring back jobs. They also liked his anti-immigrant talk, including his plan to erect a wall along the Mexican border, though you have to look long and hard to find a black or latino person in the place. Meanwhile, when it comes to actual immigrant people living in the community, attitudes are generally more accepting. The local Chinese restaurant in the town of Hancock, for example, located right at the convergence of the East and West Branch rivers, is a popular spot, in part because it’s the only affordable place open late at night. The fact that its friendly owners are Chinese immigrants and they their kids attend the local public school doesn’t seem to bother anyone. But I guess Trump’s claim that immigrants are “taking your job” still can seem threatening.

Fox TV is popular up here, and it is usually the station TV screens are tuned to when a restaurant has a television playing. So it’s understandable that people believe the “fake news” that immigrants are pouring across the Mexican border, when in fact the net trend is in the other direction.

Not surprisingly, Delaware County, like most of Upstate New York, gave Hillary Clinton the bum’s rush last fall, voting for Donald Trump over her by nearly 12,000 votes to 6600 — an almost 2:1 landslide.

But here’s the rub: Half of children attending public schools in this country come from families that have incomes low enough that they qualify for free lunches, suggesting that a huge percentage of the county’s population also qualifies for SNAP (formerly Food Stamp) assistance, whether they’re receiving aid or not. Also, over 16% of the population relies upon Medicaid to pay for their health care. All of those programs would be severely cut back in Trump’s proposed 2018 budget, which would go into effect next fall if approved by the Republican House and Senate.

And as popular as Trump was in November up here, I think his popularity is going to take a huge hit locally if Medicare and Food Stamps get whacked, especially as people start to realize that Trump is unable to do anything to bring back jobs to the region as he vowed to do if elected. Like most poor regions of the country, the whole local economy in most of Upstate New York depends upon federal transfer payments, whether it’s Social Security checks for the elderly and disabled (up here most people don’t have pensions or savings, so when they retire, Social Security is all they have to live on), Aid to Families with Dependent Children, SNAP, WIC, and Veterans benefits are mainstays not just for their recipients, but for local businesses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that every dollar in SNAP assistance provided to some low-income person or family needing food assistance, for example, generates almost $1.50 in economic activity in the region. Cut funding from those programs, as Trump and many Republicans in Congress want to do, and the economy in a place like Delaware County, NY will just wither.

So, I strongly suspect, local support for a man who promised to make America, and by inference, places like Delaware County, “great again” will be short-lived.

Delaware County and its people, and other places like it, will survive Trump’s betrayal, just as they survived years of betrayal by politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, in years past. But I suspect that the passion with which many threw their lot in with Trump and his fantastical promises will make for a bigger letdown than after earlier elections.

The residual political cynicism left over from Trump’s betrayal, though, will make it that much harder for any future genuinely progressive politician on the left to win such people over. Still, I have to believe that a party and a slate of candidates at all levels who, instead of being Trump-like charlatans, can make a sincere case to such distressed areas and their citizenry explaining how they can help make their lives and their communities better off, they can be won over.

The Left/Right Challenge To Failed ‘War On Drugs’– OpEd

0
0

More and more conservatives and liberals, from the halls of Congress to people in communities across the country, are agreeing that the so-called “war on drugs” needs serious rethinking.

First, we should define our terms. The “war on drugs” that was started by Richard Nixon in 1971 and persists to this day, refers to illegal “street drugs” – cocaine, heroin, marijuana and variations thereof. It is not used to mean a war on legal pharmaceuticals, whose excessive and often inappropriate prescribing takes over 100,000 lives a year in our country. Ironically,  prescription opioids alone took 35,000 lives last year – about equal to traffic fatalities.

The argument to criminalize “street drugs”, and severely punish their sellers and users, is largely based on the assumption that a “tough on crime” approach will reduce addiction and abuse of these dangerous substances. Criminalizing drug use consistently fails to address the health problems of addiction, and drives the drug trade underground where crime, violence and death flourish.

Our country learned this hard lesson firsthand when it prohibited the production and sale of alcoholic beverages in 1920 through the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. That led to an underworld of organized crime and illegal undercover stills making “moonshine”, whose victims could hardly go for medical treatment. Considered a failure, the amendment was repealed in 1933 with the 21st Amendment.

This national experiment with prohibition verified the wise observation of the famous dean of the Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound, who said that there were certain human behaviors that are beyond “the effective limits of legal action.” In short, the law couldn’t stop the addicting alcohol business; it could only drive it underground.

Legalizing the sale and possession of alcohol allowed people suffering from alcoholism to come out of the shadows and find support through thousands of successful chapters of Alcoholics Anonymous and other treatment options. Alcoholism is still a problem in our country, but it is out in the open where a rational society can address it.

Nicotine from tobacco products is one of the most addictive drugs that people can ingest. Lawmakers since the days of the Virginia tobacco growers in the 17th century have not prohibited the smoking of tobacco. For generations, smoking cigarettes and cigars was not considered harmful; it was said to help concentrate your mind on your tasks. The mass media perpetuated such false statements through ads that claimed doctors preferred Lucky Strikes because they were “less irritating.”

Then the historic and widely reported US Surgeon General’s Report of 1964 concluded that cigarette smoking is a cause of lung cancer and laryngeal cancer in men, a probable cause of lung cancer in women and the most important cause of chronic bronchitis. Over time, accumulating scientific knowledge connecting smoking to lung cancer and a host of other diseases began changing habits.

In 1964 about 44% of American adults smoked regularly; now it is down to 17%. Now smokers cannot indulge on airplanes, buses, trains or in schools, waiting rooms and most office buildings. Had we driven tobacco use underground, organized crime would have claimed the tobacco market and smokers and low-level dealers would have been jailed. If alcohol prohibition taught us the limitations of drug criminalization, efforts to reduce tobacco use have shown what is possible when dangerous products are taxed and regulated and consumers are educated.

So, what about “street drugs?” The drug trade is tearing Mexico apart. Just in the past few years, over 50,000 people have been slain by the fights between drug cartels and against police, judges, reporters and innocents who just happen to be in the way of the machine guns. Fear, anxiety, outright terror and political corruption grips large regions of our southern neighbor as the cartel’s violently work to meet the black market demand in the US and elsewhere.

Drug dealers in the US fight each other, producing violent crimes and terrorized neighborhoods.

To suppress this drug trade the US is spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars a year. Drug cases are clogging our court dockets and crowding out important cases involving corporate crimes and negligence. Low-level drug offenders continue to receive mandatory minimum sentences; filling our prisons and leading to the expansion of the private prison industry whose lobbyists prefer a status quo that commodifies the ruined lives who sustain their profitable inventory.

For decades, conservatives like William F. Buckley and progressives like the then Mayor of Baltimore, Kurt Schmoke, have called for decriminalization, or legalization and regulation, of illegal drugs. We don’t jail alcoholics for being alcoholics, or incarcerate people for smoking highly addictive cigarettes. Their addictions are treated openly as afflictions to be treated individually and more broadly through sound public policies.

Despite the many calls for reform, the arch-reactionary Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has recently ordered 5,000 federal assistant US attorneys to charge defendants peddling street drugs, many of whom are addicts themselves, with the most serious crimes and impose the toughest penalties possible.

Not so fast, say a growing group of liberal and conservative members of Congress. From Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to liberal Patrick Leahy (D-VT), lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are joining together to sponsor a bill to end mandatory minimum sentences. Senator Paul said such sentences “disproportionately affect minorities and low-income communities” and will worsen the existing “injustice” in the criminal justice system, while Senator Leahy declared that as “an outgrowth of the failed war on drugs, mandatory sentencing strips criminal public-safety resources away from law-enforcement strategies that actually make our communities safer.”

The bipartisan bill, S.1127, is already supported by 37 Senators and 79 members of the House. Both the NAACP and the Koch brothers support this legislation!

We need more open debates about the impact of the “war on drugs.” As Justice Louis Brandeis said years ago – “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

To learn more about the need for drug policy reform, and the history of the failed war on drugs, watch this informative video from the Drug Policy Alliance.

Robert Reich: Senate Republicans Screwed On Trumpcare – OpEd

0
0

Very soon Senate Republicans will have to decide what to do about Trumpcare. Their choice is severely limited.

The Congressional Budget Office has made it crystal clear that the House version of Trumpcare will cause 23 million Americans to lose their health coverage.

Which means that unless Senate Republicans repudiate their own Congressional Budget Office (whose director they appointed), they’ll have to either vote to take away healthcare for 23 million people, or come up with their own plan.

But if they try to come up with their own plan, they’ll soon discover there’s no way to insure those 23 million without (1) mandating that healthy people buy insurance, so that sick people with pre-existing conditions can afford it; and (2) keeping the existing taxes on rich people so that poor people can afford to buy health insurance.

In other words, they’ll be back to the Affordable Care Act.

Some Senate Republicans will no doubt claim that the Affordable Care Act can’t be sustained in its present form because private insurers are beginning to bail out of it.

That’s an awkward argument for Republicans to make because Republicans themselves have been responsible for this problem.

In 2010 Congress established “risk corridors” to protect insurers against uncertainties in setting the level of insurance premiums when they didn’t know who would sign up. Since then, Republicans have reduced or eliminated this backup. And the Trump Administration has done everything possible to generate even more uncertainty among insurers.

The obvious solution is to restore this backup and reduce uncertainty, in order to attract insurers back in.

This is surely better than repealing the Affordable Care Act and taking away health insurance coverage for 23 million people.

The only alternative is a single-payer plan – Medicare for all – that would provide universal coverage more cheaply than our present system, as embraced by most other advanced nations.

But Senate Republicans won’t get near a single payer.

Which means, as a practical matter, they have no choice. They may wrap it up in different garb and call it by a different name, but in the end the logic is unavoidable: They’ll have to strengthen the Affordable Care Act.

Washington’s Reaction To Trump’s Budget Justifies Rise Of Bitcoin – OpEd

0
0

By Tho Bishop*

Earlier this week the Trump administration announced their proposed budget for 2018. The plan bears some striking resemblance to Trump’s first budget attempt in three key ways: it contains some legitimate cuts to a number of government programs, it features increases to America’s irrational war budget, and all together it reflects a significant increase in government spending from current levels. It also has zero chance of passing in Washington, which may be the most significant aspect of the budget.

As soon as details emerged, it was already being torn apart by a web of pundits, think tanks, and politicians. Not because it doesn’t adequately address America’s growing debt bomb, but because it promoted an “extreme” view of austerity. In spite of its refusal to address the trillions in entitlement obligations for Social Security and Medicare, the budget’s modest reductions to Medicaid were deemed “radical.” New York City mayor Bill de Blasio warned that proposed cuts to additional social programs will literally kill children. Meanwhile, the dependably absurd Jennifer Rubin was up in arms because Trump wasn’t spending enough on war.

As such, Republicans in both the House and Senate have made it clear that they aren’t interested in Trump’s “New Foundation for American Greatness.”

In spite of the obvious failings within the Trump budget, it’s hard not to sympathize with his Director of Budget and Management, Mick Mulvaney. In defending the proposed cuts, he told Congress on Thursday:

This is a moral document and here’s the moral side: If I take money from you and have no intention of ever giving it back, that’s not debt — that is theft. If I take money from you and show you how I can pay it back to you — that is debt.

This makes sense in the real world, but not in a city that hasn’t had to worry about paying off its debt in quite some time.

By controlling the world’s reserve currency and placing massive entitlement programs off the books, politicians have mastered the art of kicking the can down the road.

Of course, this can’t last forever.

As Jeff Deist noted over the weekend:

In any reasonable, lawful world, spendthrifts are punished. The rest of the world knows America will never get its fiscal house in order. No sane accounting standard would ever permit a government to keep trillions of dollars in entitlement promises off its balance sheet.

If we think about it rationally, this should mean creditors cut us off entirely, or at least demand junk bond interest rates. It should mean haircuts and means testing for Social Security and Medicare. It should mean selling off federal assets, including vast western lands. It should mean significant cuts to the federal budget. But Congress will do none of these things, nor can it.

We’re past the point of political solutions.

This is why, as I’ve noted repeatedly, the most prescient thing Trump said on the campaign trail was suggesting that America was going to end up defaulting on the debt. America IS going to default, just as we have before. The only matter is when, and how.

This could, perhaps, be playing a role in the growing valuation in Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies.

After all, these alternative currencies share the same advantage enjoyed by gold and non-fiat money, by being free of increasingly reckless governments and central bankers. In fact, in recent years we have seen consumers shift to Bitcoin when confronted with a crisis in currency.

For example, when the Indian government banned the use of their largest bank notes, demand for crypto-currency accelerated dramatically in the country. Similarly, as crippling inflation grew in Venezuela, so did the appeal of Bitcoin. It’s also possible that the Bank of Japan’s negative interest rate policy played a role in Bitcoin use becoming so common that the country now accepts it as a form of legal payment.

While it’s difficult to figure out how much of Bitcoin’s extraordinary rise in value is a product of sound economic reasoning — and how much is speculation — it is easy to see that the world is awash in government debt. Just this week, Moody’s downgraded China’s debt for the first time in decades due to concerns about growing its way out of its financial liabilities. Given that reality, and the obvious lack of courage on the part of politicians to tackle these very difficult problems, it’s easy to see how crypto-currencies could become increasingly attractive in the future.

We may be past the point of political solutions, but not market ones.

About the author:
*Tho Bishop directs the Mises Institute’s social media marketing (e.g., twitter, facebook, instagram), and can assist with questions from the press.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute


Global Pension Timebomb: Funding Gap Set To Dwarf World GDP

0
0

The world’s six largest pension systems will have a joint shortfall of $224 trillion by 2050, imperiling the incomes of future generations and setting the industrialized world up for the biggest pension crisis in history.

To alleviate the looming crisis, governments must address the gaps in access to the pensions system and ageing populations as they are the key sources of the widening pension gap. These are the main findings of the new World Economic Forum report, We’ll Live to 100 – How Can We Afford It?, released Friday, which provides country-specific insights into the challenges being faced at a global level and potential solutions.

“The anticipated increase in longevity and resulting ageing populations is the financial equivalent of climate change,” said Michael Drexler, Head of Financial and Infrastructure Systems at the World Economic Forum. “We must address it now or accept that its adverse consequences will haunt future generations, putting an impossible strain on our children and grandchildren.”

The report is the latest study to calculate the impact of ageing populations on the pension gap in the world’s largest pension markets, which include the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Netherlands, Canada and Australia.

The gap in those markets is the largest in the US, where a current shortfall of $28 trillion is projected to rise to $137 trillion in 2050. The average gap in the six markets combined is calculated to reach $300,000 per person. The total gap for all 8 markets in the study (which further includes China and India, which have the world’s largest populations) will reach a total of $400 trillion by 2050.

The savings gap resembles the amount of money required in each country (including contributions from governments, individuals and employers) to provide each person with a retirement income equal to 70% of their pre-retirement income. Outgoings such as personal savings and tax are often reduced in retirement and targeting 70% of pre-retirement income, in line with OECD guidelines, is a crude guide to provide people with a similar standard of living in retirement as they had before retirement.

For low-income earners the 70% target will not be sufficient and could result in poverty unless savings are increased. The funding gap will continue to grow at a rate higher than the expected economic growth rate, often 4%-5% a year, driven in part by ageing population effects: a growing retiree population who are expected to live longer in retirement.

“The retirement savings challenge is at crisis point and the time to act is now,” said Jacques Goulet, President, Health & Wealth at Mercer, the lead collaborator for this initiative. “There is no one ‘silver bullet’ solution to solve the retirement gap. Individuals need to increase their personal savings and financial literacy, while the private sector and governments should provide programmes to support them.”

The report suggests five high priority actions that governments and policy-makers should take to adapt pension systems to address the challenges:

  • Review normal retirement age to increase in line with life expectancies. For countries where future generations have a life expectancy of over 100, such as the US, UK, Canada and Japan, a real retirement age of at least 70 should become the norm by 2050.
  • Make saving easy for everyone. A good example is the recent reforms in the UK where 8% of earnings will be automatically contributed to pension savings accounts for each individual from 2019. This initiative to automate the act of saving so far has boosted savings for 22- to 29-year-olds and low-income workers, and is estimated to create $2.5 billion in additional pension savings each year.
  • Support financial literacy efforts – starting in schools and targeting vulnerable groups. Financial literacy education should be offered throughout people’s careers to raise awareness of the importance of saving. A good case study is the media campaign executed in Singapore for the launch of CPF LIFE, the national annuity scheme that focused on translating a simple message easily understood by the average person.
  • Provide clear communication on the objective of each pillar of national pension systems and the benefits that will be provided. This would give individuals an understanding of the level of income they can expect from government and mandatory occupational systems and whether they need to accumulate their own individual savings to “top-up” income provided from national systems.
  • Aggregate and standardize pension data to give citizens a full picture of their financial position. A good example is Denmark, where an online dashboard collates pension information to provide individuals with a holistic view of their different pension savings accounts.

The report emphasizes that governments and policy-makers have a central role to play in reforming pension systems to ensure we can adapt to societies where living to 100 is commonplace.

“Because retirement outcomes unfold slowly over decades, emerging problems are very hard to see and are virtually unchangeable once they occur,” said Robert Prince, Co-Chief Investment Officer, Bridgewater Associates and part of the World Economic Forum’s Retirement Investment Systems Reform Project Steering Committee. “Good outcomes require effective approaches and good decisions applied consistently over decades. Ineffective actions taken over decades will put a weight on society and economies that will be virtually impossible to lift once it occurs. Given ageing populations and increasing lifespans, effective reforms are required now.”

Qatar Could Face Sanctions, US Moving Military Base

0
0

By Joyce Karam

Qatar was under increasing pressure in Washington this week as Congressman Ed Royce and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates raised possible sanctions and the moving of the US military base out of the country if Doha does not change its ways.

The news comes after a recent diplomatic spat between Qatar and its Gulf neighbors, as well as signs of lukewarm relations between Doha and the Donald Trump administration.

At a conference hosted by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies this week, Royce and former US officials from both Democratic and Republican administrations called for a more hawkish response to what they described as Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as groups such as Hamas, the Palestinian group designated as terrorist by the US.

Royce, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs committee, lambasted Qatar for its alleged support for Hamas. “Qatar hosts the worst of the worst of Hamas’ leaders,” Royce said, adding that his committee is putting together an “acid test legislation” to target Hamas’ backers.

The congressman said that “if it doesn’t change, Qatar will be sanctioned under a new bill I’m introducing to punish Hamas backers.”

Royce also appeared willing to have Congress consider having the US military leave Al-Udeid air base, where the US has been operating since 2003. “If their behavior doesn’t change, we in Congress would absolutely be looking at other options including moving out of Al-Udeid base.”

The change of behavior that Washington appears to be seeking from Qatar is related to cracking down on alleged terror funding activities and “commitments on terror support behavior,” as Royce indicated.

Gates was also open to the idea of ratcheting up pressure on Qatar. Responding to a question on moving the base from Qatar, Gates said: “My attitudes toward Al-Udeid and any other facility is that the United States military doesn’t have any irreplaceable facility.”

Gates criticized the apparent lack of strong action from Qatar against radical groups. “I don’t know instances in which Qatar aggressively goes after (terror finance) networks of Hamas, Taliban, Al-Qaeda,” he said.

He urged both Congress and the Trump administration to “tell Qatar to choose sides or we will change the nature of the relationship, to include downscaling the base.”

The former defense secretary, who served under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, added: “Qatar has long had the welcome mat out for the Muslim Brotherhood.” He called the group “science fiction shape shifters.” Gates referred to a generational split within the Brotherhood and said “it’s a mistake to see it as a solid group,” leaving the decision to designate it to Congress.

Jake Sullivan, former Obama official and aide to Hillary Clinton, also advocated a harder line against terror financing. Sullivan said that “terror financing needs to be a persistent issue we bring out from behind closed doors and continually have on the table.” While many Arab leaders have flocked to Washington, Qatar Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani has not made a visit to the White House since Trump took office.

The highest-level visit of a Qatari official to Washington this year was made by Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, who met US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson earlier this month.

The concerns raised in the US follow tensions in the Gulf earlier this week, after a series of controversial comments attributed to Qatar’s emir.

Sheikh Tamim alleged comments, carried by the official state news agency QNA, apparently saw him endorse Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah — strongly diverging from the stance of Qatar’s Gulf neighbors. Doha claimed the report was the result of a hacking attack.

Criticizing the event, Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman Al-Thani said that no Qatari official was invited to attend the event.

Bishop Says Trump Budget At Odds With Catholic, American Ideals

0
0

The former head of the US bishops decried President Trump’s budget plan, claiming its cuts to social services conflict with both the Catholic faith and American principles.

“Whether through Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps or foreign aid, our nation has recognized that our worth is judged by how we treat the most vulnerable among us,” Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky said in a May 24 article published by Courier-Journal.

“The concept is shared by many religions and has become part of the ethos of the United States.”

President Trump issued 2018’s budget proposal, “The New Foundation for American Greatness,” on Tuesday. The proposal would defund many aid programs benefiting the poor, the environment, and the foreign aid, drawing outcry from organizations like Catholic Charities and Catholic relief services.

The budget proposes 4.1 trillion dollars for 2018, with budget cuts expected to affect nearly $19 billion in global aid according to Reuters.

Catholic leaders have applauded that federal funding will be redirected from Planned Parenthood to women’s health centers that do not perform abortions. But they lament the decrease in funding to US charitable programs.

“Our church has always said that we fulfill our responsibility to the poor not only through personal charity, but also through our support for just governmental policies,” Archbishop Kurtz said.

“The work of these agencies to serve the most vulnerable people depends on both private contributions and public support.”

Archbishop Kurtz, who served as president of the U.S. Bishops’ Conference from 2013-2016, discussed the benefits of foreign aid, especially to schools which provide both food and education.

“Right now in many developing countries, hundreds of thousands of kids get a nutritional meal every day at school … Sometimes that’s the reason they go to school. It’s a win-win situation: They get fed, and they get educated. They benefit. Their country benefits.”

He continued to give the example of Thomas Awiapo, who went to school solely because he was hungry. Receiving an education, he now works at Catholic Relief Services providing similar relief to other children.

After his father died, Awiapo was forced to live with his extended family. The family was already struggling with food, including family members who died from malnutrition. He then saw his friend returning from school with sorghum, a grain often used to feed US cattle. Attending school, he worked was able to receive food and education, and eventually he received his master’s in public administration.

The programs not only work, said the archbishop, but are part of U.S. history and serve to affirm the inherit dignity of the person. He expressed hopes that Congress would consider this and reject the proposal.

The budget cut would affect both Catholic Relief Services, an international aid program established in 1943, and Catholic Charities, a national relief program established in 1910. The programs rely on funding from private and public donations.

A budget cut for the next 10 years will decrease funding to national welfare programs by over $270 billion and $72 billion to disability programs in order to prepare for the increase in national defense.

Included in the proposal is an additional $54 billion to US military funding and $2.7 billion to immigration control. Military funding will have a total of $639 billion. Over $44 billion will go towards the Department of Homeland Security and nearly $28 billion to the Department of Justice.

Policy Differences Emerge Among Gulf States Days After Wooing President Trump – Analysis

0
0

Cracks have appeared in a Saudi-led, US-backed anti-terrorist political and military alliance days after US President Donald J. Trump ended a historic visit to Saudi Arabia. The cracks stem from Qatar’s long-standing fundamental policy differences with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates about Iran and the role of political Islam.

The cracks emerged as the result of an anti-Qatar media and cyber campaign involving a spate of anti-Qatar articles in US and Gulf media; the blocking of Qatar-backed media websites and broadcasts in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt; statements by prominent former US government officials; and a recent seminar by the Washington-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies that has long asserted that Qatar supports militant groups.

Seemingly emboldened by Mr. Trump’s blanket endorsement of Saudi Arabia’s proxy war against Iran and UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed visceral opposition to political Islam, Gulf states appear to believe that the time is right to again pressure Qatar to alter policies it sees as key to its national security. The crown prince reportedly maintains a close working relationship with powerful Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

An earlier attempt by Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain to force Qatar to align itself with the three states’ hard line positions failed in 2014 when Qatar refused to bow after they withdrew their ambassadors from Doha. The ambassadors returned to their posts after a 10-month absence with little, if any, change in Qatari policies.

The policy differences have rekindled a long-standing rift within the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the regional association that groups Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman that is rooted in geography and history. Qatar unlike other Gulf states shares the world’s largest gas field with Iran.

The differences reflect concern among many non-Arab members of the Saudi-led, 41-Muslim nation military alliance that the grouping is becoming an anti-Iranian grouping rather than one focused on combatting jihadism. They also erupted at a moment that Saudi Arabia is looking at attempting to destabilize Iran by fomenting unrest among the Islamic republic’s ethnic minorities – a move that worries Pakistan and other coalition members.

Qatar’s ability to mediate in conflicts involving militant groups like the Taliban and various jihadist groups is a pillar of its troubled effort to project soft power. Its relationship with controversial groups like the Muslim Brotherhood is strategic and goes back to the founding of the Gulf state. The Brotherhood populated key educational and government institutions in Qatar and other Gulf states at a time that they did not have needed professionals of their own.

In Qatar, a country sandwiched between regional giants Saudi Arabia and Iran, both of whom it views as potential threats, the Brotherhood, however, offered something far more strategic: the ability to chart a course of its own. Looking at Saudi Arabia’s power sharing agreement that empowers an ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim religious elite, Qatar used the Brotherhood to avoid falling into what it saw as a Saudi trap.

As a result, Qatar has no powerful religious establishment of its own. Its most prominent Islamic scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, is a naturalized Qatari citizen of Egyptian origin who is associated with the Brotherhood. Qatar’s ruling Al Thani family retains absolute power that it does not have to share.

In one of many contradictions in Qatari policy, Qatar unlike other Gulf states and despite being an autocracy, supported the anti-autocratic popular Arab revolts of 2011, and backed Islamist forces like the Brotherhood in Egypt. Its support explains why Egypt this month joined Saudi Arabia and the UAE in blocking Qatari-backed websites and broadcasts like Al Jazeera and The Huffington Post’s Arabic edition.

Qatar, along with Saudi Arabia the world’s only country that adheres to Wahhabism, a puritan, intolerant interpretation of Islam, has had strained relations with Egypt since general-turned-president Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi in 2013 toppled Mohammed Morsi in a military coup and brutally cracked down on the Brotherhood. Mr. Morsi, a Muslim Brother, was Egypt’s first and only democratically elected president.

The most recent GCC crisis erupted after Qatar charged that remarks attributed to Qatari emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani that stroked with Qatari policy and were broadcast by state-run Qatar television as well as carried by the Gulf state’s official news agency and various Twitter accounts, were the result of a cyberattack.

Sheikh Tamim was alleged to have suggested that Mr Trump’s administration could be short lived because of problems at home, questioned the wisdom of increasing tension with Tehran and defended Islamist groups Hamas, Hezbollah and the Brotherhood. Qatar has said it is investigating the hack.

In a bid to tarnish Qatar’s already troubled reputation, Saudi and UAE media gave prominent coverage to the alleged remarks. The two states’ media outlets rejected Qatari assertions of a cyberattack. They accused Qatar of having ties to Al Qaeda and reported that Qatari Foreign Minister Shaikh Mohammad Bin Abdul Rahman Al Thani had met secretly in Baghdad with Qasim Soleimani, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ notorious Al Quds Force.

Adding fuel to the fire, Robert Gates, a former US defence secretary and director of central intelligence, this week warned at a Foundation for the Defense of Democracies gathering on Qatar and the Brotherhood that Qatar risked losing its hosting of US forces at the Al Udeid Air Base, the largest US military base in the Middle East. “The United States military doesn’t have any irreplaceable facility,” Mr. Gates said.

Ed Royce, the Republican chair the House Foreign Affairs committee, told the gathering that “if it doesn’t change, Qatar will be sanctioned under a new bill I’m introducing to punish Hamas backers.”

Qatar has struggled to downplay the crisis and prove that the remarks attributed to Sheikh Tamim were fake news. Qatar’s problem is that it doesn’t matter whether the news was true or fake. The Gulf state is caught in a Catch-22. It is confronting a concerted Saudi and UAE effort to force it to align itself with the policies of a majority of the GCC. Qatar is doomed if it does and doomed if it doesn’t.

Qatar: Emir Wants Ties With Iran To Be ‘Stronger Than Ever Before’

0
0

Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani has said his country enjoyed deep and historical ties with Iran.

In a phone conversation with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Saturday, Al-Thani said he wanted the ties with Iran to be “stronger than ever before.”

The remarks confirm lingering suspicions that have been swirling in the world media that Qatar was in league with Iran against its fellow Arab and Gulf countries. Iran is seen as the root cause of all the troubles in the Arab world — from Syria to Iraq, to Yemen and Lebanon.

Al-Thani said he will instruct the authorities in his country to exert all efforts to develop relations with Tehran. Rouhani stressed that one of Iran’s foreign policy pillars is continuation of cooperation with Qatar.

In comments that will be seen as ironical, Rouhani said that sectarianism is a major scourge that affects everybody’s security. Iran has vociferously and militarily promoted sectarianism in the Arab world through its armed militias.

Rouhani called for strengthening cooperation between the countries of the region to bring about stability and harmony.

While underlining the importance Iran pays to developing relations with neighboring countries, especially Qatar, the Iranian president expressed confidence in the possibility of doing away with obstacles to such ties through the strong will of all countries, particularly Iran and Qatar.

Iran, said Rouhani, seeks to spread a climate of moderation and logic in the relations among the region’s countries, and gives priority to political solutions.

He added that the countries of the region need more consultation and exchange of ideas to resolve and contain regional challenges, and declared Iran’s readiness to cooperate in this regard.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE expressed exasperation this week after official Qatar media published remarks purported to have been made by Sheikh Tamim, which were critical of Trump’s foreign policy and of renewed tensions with Tehran.

Qatar said the remarks, published late on Tuesday, were fake and that the news agency that ran them had been hacked.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images