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

Taiwan Loses Another Ally – OpEd

0
0

By Thomas J. Shattuck*

(FPRI) — In another blow to Taiwan’s ever-shrinking list of diplomatic allies comes the news that Panama has severed ties with Taiwan in favor of establishing a relationship with the People’s Republic of China. Panama’s announcement comes only months after Sao Tome and Principe cut ties with Taiwan in favor of China. With these two nations switching recognition, Taiwan has only 20 official diplomatic allies. As China continues to exert pressure on President Tsai Ing-wen and her Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that holds a majority in the country’s legislature, China will attempt to poach more of Taiwan’s allies in an attempt to further isolate Taiwan from the international space.

The Office of the President released a statement addressing the switch in recognition: “We express our deep regret and disappointment at the Republic of Panama’s decision to renounce our long-standing friendship and establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China.”

The End of the Diplomatic Truce

Though people unfamiliar with Taiwan are not likely to see the importance of the end of this relationship, it is important to understand how China acted during the tenure of former President Ma Ying-jeou, a member of the Kuomintang (KMT), Taiwan’s other major political party that has a more a pro-China view than the DPP. At the beginning of his presidency in 2008, Ma announced that he was pursuing a policy that he called a “diplomatic truce,” in which Taiwan and China tacitly agreed to stop poaching each other’s allies. In 2008, Ma said during the planning stages, “If the diplomatic truce turns out to be a successful strategy, it might be possible that we won’t gain any more allies, but we won’t lose any either.”

Ma’s prediction almost proved true. During his two terms in office, Taiwan only lost one ally, Gambia, in 2013. However, China did not establish official relations with Gambia until 2016, only a few months before Ma left office and Tsai took his place. The delay in establishing relations could be seen as a sign of deference for the diplomatic truce under Ma’s presidency.

Unfortunately for Taiwan, the diplomatic truce has ended with China poaching two countries— Sao Tome and Principe and Panama—from Taiwan since Tsai took office in May 2016. Panama’s move has particularly angered Taiwan. In the summer of 2016, Tsai visited the country for the opening ceremony of the newly expanded Panama Canal. Panama and Taiwan had good relations and exchanges before this announcement.

The canal is most likely the primary reason for Panama’s sudden decision since China is its “second most important customer.” China now has no incentive to stop using the canal, and it cannot dangle its high level of usage over Panama as a veiled threat. The move now also calls into question the China-backed Nicaragua Canal as Nicaragua still recognizes Taiwan, not China. The project’s viability had already been hotly debated, and perhaps Panama hopes that China will focus less on the Nicaragua Canal as a result of its decision.

Tsai released a statement criticizing China’s role in the Panama switch as well as its recent actions in trying to isolate Taiwan from the rest of the world:

Although we have lost a diplomatic ally, our refusal to engage in a diplomatic bidding war will not change. The fact that the Republic of China exists will not change. And Taiwan’s value and standing in the international community will not change.

We are a sovereign country. This sovereignty cannot be challenged nor traded. China has continued to manipulate the “one China” principle and pressure Taiwan’s international space, threatening the rights of the Taiwanese people. But it remains undeniable that the Republic of China is a sovereign country. This is a fact China will never be able to deny.

What Next?

The question, now, for Taiwan is what will happen next. Sao Tome and Principe’s decision to switch to China did not cause much angst in Taiwan since the small island nation apparently asked for $200 million before its switch in recognition. The country was essentially demanding a handout for the continuation of relations, but the Panama case appears different and unexpected. China’s poaching of these nations is exactly what the diplomatic truce under the Ma years stopped, but with Tsai in office, China has decided to alter its course.

Now, if China is truly opening its wallet to Taiwan’s other 20 allies, can Taiwan—or any nation—blame them for accepting a switch in recognition for the prospect or promise of millions of dollars in aid and/or investment? There is not much that Taiwan can do since the Tsai administration has stated that it will not engage in this practice for the sake of stability across the Taiwan Strait. As pressure continues to mount on Taiwan and as its list of allies grows thin, Taiwan may need to rethink its strategy for keeping or finding allies in light of China’s recent actions.

About the author:
*Thomas J. Shattuck is the Assistant Editor and a Research Associate at FPRI. He received his BA in History and English from La Salle University in 2013 and his MA in International Studies from National Chengchi University in 2016. Thomas also received a Fulbright grant to teach English in Kinmen, Taiwan for the 2013-14 academic year.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI


Baltic Energy Sources: Diversifying Away From Russia – Analysis

0
0

By Simon Hoellerbauer*

(FPRI) — “From now on, nobody will dictate us the price for gas – or buy our political will,” said Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė at the opening ceremony of the Klaipėda Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal in October 2014. The Baltics’ historic dependence on Russia for natural gas had allowed Moscow to charge high prices and made the Baltics’ gas networks vulnerable to Russian influence. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have moved to increase their independence from Russian gas. The LNG terminal represents is only one of the measures implemented to achieve this goal. They have also sought to integrate their gas networks with one another and with Europe. Since President Grybauskaitė’s statement, the Baltic states have moved even closer to a more secure gas market, though much remains on the agenda.

Baltic Reliance on Russia for Gas

Baltic States and Russia. Source: Wikipedia Commons.
Baltic States and Russia. Source: Wikipedia Commons.

Until they began addressing their dependence in the past few years, the Baltic states depended on Russian gas for three main reasons. First, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia inherited their entire gas infrastructure from the Soviet Union, so after the three countries’ independence, their networks were disconnected from the rest of Europe and received gas only from Russia. This situation made them susceptible to gas cut-off. Second, because of the constraints imposed by this infrastructure, until recently, the Baltic states depended almost entirely on Russia for their natural gas imports, paying some of the highest prices in Europe. Third, Russian state-owned energy company Gazprom maintained a considerable stake in the natural gas companies of the Baltic states, owning 37% of Estonia’s Eesti Gaas (a further 10% was owned by another Russian gas company, ITERA), 34% of Latvia’s Latvias Gāze (16% also owned by ITERA), and 37% of Lithuania’s Lietuvos Dujo at the point of its greatest involvement in 2014. These ownership levels gave Gazprom considerable say in the policies and strategies employed by these companies. After 2014, however, Gazprom began to sell its shares due to new European regulatory requirements.

The three countries are addressing each of these issues. Lithuania, which consumes more gas than Estonia and Latvia, was the first to combat the region’s dependence on Russia. It leased a floating gas storage and regasification vessel from the Norwegian shipping company Höegh LNG for ten years at a cost of 430 million euros and constructed the onshore infrastructure necessary to connect the floating terminal to Lithuania’s gas network for 131 million euros. Stationed in the port of Klaipėda, the vessel lets Lithuania import liquefied natural gas. LNG is transportable by ship, eliminating the need for overland pipelines to obtain gas. Because the EU was more interested in a regional, not national, LNG terminal, it did not provide financial support for the project. Even without this support, the terminal, Klaipėda LNG, began operating in December 2014.

In the same year, Lithuanian state-owned gas company Litgas signed a contract with the Norwegian gas supplier Statoil to import .54 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas per year between 2015 and 2020. Statoil and Litgas later extended the contract for five more years, although for the lower annual amount of .35 bcm. Two more Lithuanian companies, gas supplier Lietuvos Duju Tiekimas and fertilizer maker Achema, signed short-term contracts with Statoil in 2016, bringing the total amount of LNG regassified at Klaipėda LNG in 2016 to over 1 bcm—which meant that in 2016, Lithuania imported more natural gas from Norway than it did from Russia for the first time in its history.

With an annual regasification capacity of 4 bcm, the terminal can cover a significant portion of the Baltic region’s natural gas demand. However, in 2016, only 29% of the terminal’s capacity was used. Some have questioned the economic viability of Klaipėda LNG because demand for natural gas in the Baltics is falling. The three Baltic countries had a combined demand of 5.11 bcm in 2012, but consumed only 4 bcm in 2015, a drop caused by the growing role of biomass fuels in electricity production, sparked by the high natural gas prices offered by Gazprom. Usage of the terminal has fallen in 2017 compared to 2016 so far.

In addition, Lithuania’s lease on the terminal expires in 2024, so Lithuania must decide whether to buy the vessel or renew the lease, a decision that will be easier to make if the EU decides to support it financially. AB Klaipedos nafta, the company managing the terminal, is hoping to use Klaipėda LNG as the starting point for a small-scale LNG network in northern Europe, shipping small quantities of LNG where it is needed in an attempt to make the operation more economically sustainable. For this to succeed, however, demand for LNG must rise, and the surrounding countries must invest in their own infrastructure. Despite these challenges, the terminal introduces competition for Gazprom into the Baltic gas market and makes it possible for Lithuania to export gas to the other Baltic states. Some gas from the terminal has already been sold to Estonia and even to Poland and Ukraine. Most importantly, it makes it possible for natural gas to be imported in the case of a Russian shut-off.

Increased Connections to Europe

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania also have worked to improve their connections to Europe. Under the auspices of the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP), an EU initiative intended to facilitate the integration of the Baltic energy market into Europe, the EU granted significant funding for two projects, the Balticconnector pipeline between Estonia and Finland and the Gas Interconnection Poland Lithuania (GIPL).

GIPL Map (Source: Bearas/WikiMedia Commons)
GIPL Map (Source: Bearas/WikiMedia Commons)

The EU has also provided 18.7 million euros in financial support for improvements to the pipelines between Latvia and Estonia. The Balticconnector pipeline, which costs 250 million euros to build, 187.5 million of which has been granted by the EU, is currently still in the planning stages, with an expected completion date in 2020. Crucially, the Balticconnector will allow gas to flow in both directions, depending on demand. GIPL is expected to cost 444 million euros, of which up to 266 million euros will be covered by the EU. This pipeline is slated to begin construction this year although it is not expected to be completed until 2021.

GIPL is a much larger project. Whereas the Balticconnector involves 146 km of pipeline, GIPL consists of between 487 and 534 km. GIPL recently ran into problems with the planned path of the pipeline, showing that much work remains. Once the pipelines are complete, however, the Baltic states will no longer qualify as energy islands and will be tied into the European gas network.

The EU has also indirectly helped to push Russian gas interests out of the Baltic. As part of the Third Energy Package passed in 2009, the EU mandates that member states unbundle their gas markets—separating control of energy generation and supply from its transmission. The goal is to prevent one company from squeezing competition out of the market by unfairly dominating infrastructure. Lithuania and Estonia both initiated unbundling in 2012, completing the process in 2014. Although Gazprom fought unbundling in Lithuania, the company eventually acquiesced after arbitration and a large fine from Lithuania’s competition authority. Gazprom subsequently sold its shares in the Lithuanian state gas company in 2014 and in the Estonian state gas company in 2016. Gazprom acquiesced ostensibly to adhere to the legal requirements imposed by the Third Energy Package, although the potential of added competition and the lack of control over a liberalized market implied diminished returns for Gazprom. Although the Latvian gas company Latvias Gāze, influenced by Gazprom, resisted unbundling longer than its neighbors, in April 2017, Latvia’s gas market was liberalized, with Latvias Gāze expected to be unbundled fully by year’s end. Gazprom, however, still holds a significant stake in the company, and in August 2016, it signaled that it is reconsidering selling its shares. Thus, Gazprom’s ability to affect Baltic gas policy and development has been reduced through these new polices.

Balticconnector Map (Source: Balticconnector.fi)
Balticconnector Map (Source: Balticconnector.fi)

Importing LNG, increasing connections with the rest of Europe, and decreasing Gazprom’s corporate influence work together to decrease the Baltic states’ dependence on Russia for natural gas. Klaipėda LNG, for example, is only free from Russian influence via Gazprom due to the unbundling reforms and will only be economically viable if Balticconnector and GIPL are completed successfully. Each measure alone would probably not be enough, but together, they represent a leap forward for Baltic gas security. And although progress toward decreasing energy dependence from Russia has historically been hampered by lack of cooperation and differing levels of commitment by the three countries, even these obstacles may soon disappear. In December 2016, the prime ministers of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania agreed to establish a unified Baltic gas market by 2020. In early 2017, the major Baltic gas operators agreed to implement an Implicit Capacity Allocation model beginning in summer 2017. This type of model facilitates the trading of natural gas between the three countries (and Finland, once the Balticconnector is completed) representing the first step toward full market integration.

Cutting the Cord

The fact that many of these projects are still ongoing means that the way forward is still somewhat unclear. There is cause for optimism, however. Russia has thus far only minimally attempted to impede changes in the gas sector, mainly via Gazprom. Indeed, the Baltic countries represent a very small market for the Russian company, so it could cope with losing their business. Nonetheless, Russia can be expected to fight such measures to retain its gas investments to use for future foreign policy purposes. Because Finland represents a much larger market, however, with an annual demand larger than that of the Baltic states combined, attempts to draw Finland into the Baltic gas network, as is planned, could rouse greater Russian resistance. Indeed, Gazprom has tried to ensure that any EU-supported regional LNG terminal would be located near Finland, where it has greater influence.

Russia has only cut off gas to a Baltic country once. It did so in 1993, purportedly to punish Estonia for unpaid debts, but, in reality, Russia did so in response to Estonia’s passing of a law that required non-citizens— who at the time were primarily ethnic Russians—to apply for residency or leave the country within two years. The issue goes deeper than the risk of a cut-off, however. Gazprom charged the Baltic states considerably more for gas than the rest of Europe. In addition, it is always risky to depend solely on one supplier for a product or service. Political or economic instability within Russia could also endanger the supply of gas to the Baltics. Diversification via better connections to Europe and more varied sources of gas is an achievable goal that can ensure that the Baltic states will be able to buy gas from Russia because they want to, not because they must.

About the author:
*Simon Hoellerbauer is an Associate Scholar in the FPRI Eurasia Program

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

China: Diocese In Limbo As Vatican Bishop Pick Not Ordained

0
0

A Chinese bishop who avoided government intervention in the affairs of his diocese has died without having his Vatican-appointed successor officially ordained.

Vatican-approved Bishop John Liu Shigong of Jining (Wumeng) in the northern Inner Mongolia autonomous region died aged 89 on June 9 after being diagnosed with liver cancer in May. He is the fourth Chinese bishop to die this year.

A funeral for the bishop is scheduled for June 15 and to be presided over by Bishop Meng Qinglu of Hohhot at the Jining East Church, with a burial in the church cemetery at Hua’ershan.

It is believed that in 2010, the Holy See appointed Father Anthony Yao Shun, vicar general of the diocese, as Bishop Liu’s successor. Father Yao was ordained a priest in Jining in 1991 and graduated from St. John’s University in the U.S. in 1996. The 52-year-old is considered a liturgy expert in China.

Soon after the Vatican appointment, Father Yao returned to the diocese from Beijing, where he taught at the National Seminary, and began managing church affairs in place of the bishop, said a church source who asked not to be named.

According to the Chinese government, which does not recognize papal authority over a bishop’s appointment, a Catholic bishop must be produced through an election. The result has then to be approved by the bishops’ conference, which is not recognized by the Vatican, before an episcopal ordination can take place.

To get around the requirement, some dioceses hold an election after the Vatican appoints a bishop for them.

“The diocese prepared to run an election several years ago but government officials came and showed Bishop Liu the regulations about ordaining bishops, such as the diocese has to accept that the authorities can assign any bishop as consecrator or co-consecrator,” the source said.

Bishop Liu was unhappy after reading the regulations and there has been no progress with regard to electing a bishop as per the government’s requirements.

“Election and ordination need to take place eventually as a ‘home cannot have no master,'” said the source. “But if there is a bishop not recognized by the Vatican attending the episcopal ordination, our priests for sure would not accept it,” the source said.

“The Chinese government would only consider its own interests. So, unless the Vatican compromises to an extent that makes the government satisfied, the diocese will possibly delay the bishop appointment procedure until a better time,” the source said.

The Vatican has prioritized closed-door negotiations with Beijing since 2016 in a bid to resolve the thorny issue of bishop appointments. Beijing demands the Vatican recognize seven government-appointed bishops whom the Vatican does not recognize. Meanwhile, the Vatican wants Beijing to recognize about 20 bishop candidates that it has appointed for the open community, including Father Yao, and nearly 40 underground bishops.

Jining has about 60,000 Catholics served by 30 priests, one deacon and 12 nuns. It has two seminarians.

A bishop remembered

The source said Bishop Liu was “a kind and nice” man who did not care much for formality.

Bishop Liu was born in Sizi Wangqi, in Inner Mongolia on Aug. 18, 1928. He entered the seminary at the age of 14. His vocation was suspended when the seminary he was attending was closed due to political turmoil in the late 1940s. He returned to the seminary again in 1952.

He was ordained a priest in 1956 and served in the parish until religious activities were prohibited again due to political turmoil. During the Cultural Revolution, he became a farmer for a period but was also sent to a reform-through-labor camp. He re-assumed his duty as parish priest when religious activities revived in the late 1970s. In 1995, he was ordained Bishop of Jining.

The source described his Vatican-preferred successor Father Yao as a “rigorous and careful person who has great patience with others.”

Wildfires Pollute Much More Than Previously Thought

0
0

Summer wildfires boost air pollution considerably more than previously believed.

Naturally burning timber and brush launch what are called fine particles into the air at a rate three times as high as levels noted in emissions inventories at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to a new study. The microscopic specks that form aerosols are a hazard to human health, particularly to the lungs and heart.

“Burning biomass produces lots of pollution. These are really bad aerosols to breathe from a health point of view,” said researcher Greg Huey from the Georgia Institute of Technology, which led the study. The research also describes other chemicals in wildfire smoke, some never before measured, and it raises the estimated annual emission of particulate matter in the western United States significantly.

The previous EPA data had been based on plume samples taken in controlled burns ignited by forestry professionals. Measuring plumes so thoroughly, from the sky, directly in the thick of a wildfire had not been possible before this study.

Plunging into plume

Unique research missions deployed planes to plow through the plumes of three major wildfires, including the 2013 Rim Fire, the third-largest wildfire in California history. An ensemble of instruments bristling from the flanks of NASA and U.S. Department of Energy aircraft allowed teams of researchers on board to measure chemicals and particles in real time and cull masses of data, upon which the new study is based.

“We actually went to measure, right above the fire, what was coming out,” said Huey, a professor in Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, which he also chairs.

Bob Yokelson, a professor of atmospheric chemistry at the University of Montana has taken a leadership role in many aspects of the research and was in a group of about 20 scientists who selected the instruments to be installed on the large NASA plane. “We really didn’t have to go without anything we wanted really badly,” he said. Yokelson also helped design the flight paths.

Georgia Tech had instruments and scientists on the NASA DC-8 plane. Researchers associated with a total of more than a dozen universities and organizations participated in data collection or analysis. The scientists published their peer-reviewed results on June 14 in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.

“This paper is expected to serve as a basis for the next NASA fire chemical monitoring mission,” Huey said.

Refinery in flames

Methanol, benzene, ozone precursors and other noxious emissions collected from wildfire plumes may make it sound like an oil refinery went up in flames. That’s not so far-fetched, as oil and other fossil fuels derive from ancient biomass.

“You can see the smoke, and it’s dark for a reason,” Huey said. “When you go measuring wildfires, you get everything there is to measure. You start to wonder sometimes what all is in there.”

The study found many organic chemicals in the wildfire plumes, and technological advancements allowed them to detect certain nitrates in the smoke for the first time. But burning biomass does not appear to be a dominant source of these chemical pollutants, and the major findings of the study involved the fine particles.

Particulate matter, some of which contains oxidants that cause genetic damage, are in the resulting aerosols. They can drift over long distances into populated areas.

People are exposed to harmful aerosols from industrial sources, too, but fires produce more aerosol per amount of fuel burned. “Cars and power plants with pollution controls burn things much more cleanly,” Huey said.

Various aerosols also rise up in the atmosphere, but their net effect on global warming or cooling is still uncertain, as some aerosols reflect sunlight away from Earth, and others, in contrast, trap warmth in the atmosphere.

Prescribed burnings

As global warming expands wildfires in size and number, the ensuing pollution stands to grow along with them. Stepping up professional human-initiated burnings may help cut these emissions, the study suggested.

So-called prescribed burnings prevent or reduce wildfires, and they appear to produce far less pollution per unit area than wildfires, the study said.

“A prescribed fire might burn five tons of biomass fuel per acre, whereas a wildfire might burn 30,” said Yokelson, who has dedicated decades of research to biomass fires. “This study shows that wildfires also emit three times more aerosol per ton of fuel burned than prescribed fires.”

While still more needs to be known about professional prescribed burnings’ emissions, this new research makes clear that wildfires burn much more and pollute much more. The data will also help improve overall estimates of wildfire emissions.

Fire prevention professionals follow stringent rules to carry out prescribed burns to avoid calamity and sending pollution downwind into populated areas. The researchers do not recommend that inexperience people burn biomass, as this contributes to air pollution and can trigger tragic blazes, including wildfires.

Daunting flights

Experiments like these in real natural disasters are uncommon not only because of the rarity of assembling such great instruments and taking them airborne. The flights can also be dangerous. Plumes are not only filled with toxins, but their turbulence tosses planes around, shaking up technology and researchers.

“The smoke leaks into the cabin and makes you nauseous,” said Yokelson, who started flying plume missions many years ago. “You’re trying to take notes, run your instrument, look at the fire, talk on the headset, and get pictures. And at the same time, it’s crazy bumpy. Normally, if you’re in a smaller plane, your stomach is not too happy.”

Also, wildfires pop up unannounced, so flight schedules must be hammered out on short notice around strict regulations that normally prohibit flights near wildfires. Research aircraft also have to coordinate with regional authorities to avoid crossing paths with fire-fighting planes.

The rare data the flights from NASA’s SEAC4RS mission and the Department of Energy’s BBOP mission have provided stand to greatly increase understanding of the pollutants naturally burning biomass flings into the air.

Multispectral Imaging Reveals Ancient Hebrew Inscription Undetected For Over 50 Years

0
0

Using advanced imaging technology, Tel Aviv University researchers have discovered a hitherto invisible inscription on the back of a pottery shard that has been on display at The Israel Museum for more than 50 years.

The ostracon (ink-inscribed pottery shard) was first found in poor condition in 1965 at the desert fortress of Arad. It dates back to ca. 600 BCE, the eve of the kingdom of Judah’s destruction by Nebuchadnezzar. The inscription on its front side, opening with a blessing by Yahweh, discusses money transfers and has been studied by archaeologists and biblical scholars alike.

“While its front side has been thoroughly studied, its back was considered blank,” said Arie Shaus of TAU’s Department of Applied Mathematics, one of the principal investigators of the study published today in PLOS ONE.

“Using multispectral imaging to acquire a set of images, Michael Cordonsky of TAU’s School of Physics noticed several marks on the ostracon’s reverse side. To our surprise, three new lines of text were revealed,” Shaus said.

The researchers were able to decipher 50 characters, comprising 17 words, on the back of the ostracon. “The content of the reverse side implies it is a continuation of the text on the front side,” said Shira Faigenbaum-Golovin of TAU’s Department of Applied Mathematics, another principal investigator of the study.

The multidisciplinary research was conducted by Faigenbaum-Golovin, Shaus, and Barak Sober, all doctoral students in TAU’s Department of Applied Mathematics, and by Dr. Anat Mendel-Geberovich of TAU’s Department of Archaeology. Additional collaborators include Prof. David Levin and Prof. Eli Turkel of TAU’s Department of Applied Mathematics, Prof. Benjamin Sass of TAU’s Department of Archaeology, as well as Michael Cordonsky and Prof. Murray Moinester of TAU’s School of Physics. The research team was co-led by Prof. Eli Piasetzky of TAU’s School of Physics and Prof. Israel Finkelstein of TAU’s Department of Archaeology.

“Using multispectral imaging, we were also able to significantly improve the reading of the front side, adding four ‘new’ lines,” said Sober.

A request for more wine

“Tel Arad was a military outpost — a fortress at the southern border of the kingdom of Judah — and was populated by 20 to 30 soldiers,” said Dr. Mendel-Geberovich. “Most of the ostraca unearthed at Arad are dated to a short time span during the last stage of the fortress’s history, on the eve of the kingdom’s destruction in 586 BCE by Nebuchadnezzar. Many of these inscriptions are addressed to Elyashiv, the quartermaster of the fortress. They deal with the logistics of the outpost, such as the supply of flour, wine, and oil to subordinate units.”

“The new inscription begins with a request for wine, as well as a guarantee for assistance if the addressee has any requests of his own,” said Shaus. “It concludes with a request for the provision of a certain commodity to an unnamed person, and a note regarding a ‘bath,’ an ancient measurement of wine carried by a man named Ge’alyahu.”

“The newly revealed inscription features an administrative text, like most of the Arad inscriptions,” said Dr. Mendel-Geberovich. “Its importance lies in the fact that each new line, word, and even a single sign is a precious addition to what we know about the First Temple period.”

“On a larger scale, our discovery stresses the importance of multispectral imaging to the documentation of ostraca,” said Faigenbaum-Golovin. “It’s daunting to think how many inscriptions, invisible to the naked eye, have been disposed of during excavations.”

“This is ongoing research,” concluded Sober. “We have at our disposal several additional alterations and expansions of known First Temple-period ostraca. Hence, the future may hold additional surprises.”

Mobile Roaming Fees Disappear, But MEPs Want More EU Rules

0
0

By Catherine Stupp

(EurActiv) — European mobile phone contracts are required to charge domestic rates for calls, SMS and data use when users travel in the EU starting today (15 June), capping off a ten-year fight to get rid of roaming fees.

The EU institutions are touting the popular roaming ban as a major victory after drawn-out negotiations and several rounds of new legislation. They called getting rid of the charges “one of the greatest and most tangible successes of the EU” in a joint statement yesterday from European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, Parliament President Antonio Tajani and Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, who chairs the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU.

The Commission has downplayed warnings of loopholes and abuse that have dogged the legislation.

There are some catches: telecoms operators can ask national regulators to exempt them from the rules if they prove their business would suffer. Firms could also stop offering roaming altogether, meaning consumers would have no service when they cross a border in the EU. If a phone user spends more time roaming than in the country where they pay their bill, the provider can charge limited fees—capped at 3.2 cents per minute for voice calls, 1 cent per SMS and €7.7 per gigabyte of data use. Those fees will gradually fall starting next year.

Some telecoms industry sources have warned that they might have to hike up domestic rates to cover their loss from roaming.

But the Commission insists the risks are small. So far, regulators have approved only a tiny number of exemption requests from mostly small operators, according to one Commission source.

Consumers with unlimited data packages could lose out if they end up with a lower data allowance when they travel. Companies will calculate the exact amount of data those users get, according to the new EU price cap and what the consumer pays.

Despite pushback from companies, the Commission has sold the ban on roaming fees as a chance for them to cash in. If consumers use more data when they travel, they might buy more expensive packages with higher data allowances, officials argue.

“The EU just eliminated any remaining barrier for data connectivity demand to go through the roof. This can only help increase demand,” said Guillermo Beltrà, a senior legal advisor at the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC).

“I’s a great time to be in the business,” he added.

The Commission has brushed off criticism from companies by arguing that they’ve had plenty of time to get ready for the new rules. Wholesale rates, what operators pay firms in other countries to let their subscribers use networks there, have gradually decreased over the last decade.

Divided markets

“We made a decision at the beginning not to do it totally in one stroke because that would have meant putting into danger most of the smaller telecom companies,” said the Luxembourgish Parti chrétien MEP Viviane Reding (EPP), who first proposed the roaming phase-out in 2007 when she was the EU’s Information Society and Media Commissioner.

But Reding said the roaming ban is only one step towards knocking down digital borders in the European Union.

“The telecoms market is still divided into national markets. It will take some time before the transnational market will thrive. The way spectrum frequencies are sold is still very national and only bound to the income of ministers of finance,” she told EURACTIV.com.

EU member states have objected to a Commission draft proposal to overhaul how they auction off lucrative radio spectrum to mobile telecoms operators.

International calls

Another fight over digital borders is already brewing in the European Parliament over whether to press on with even more regulation to cut down on expensive phone calls from one EU country to another, a move MEPs say is logical after the axe to roaming costs.

Some MEPs want the Commission’s telecoms bill, which is still making its way through negotiations, to include a cap on call rates from one Union member state to another. The Commission first proposed lowering those rates in 2013, but was slapped down my national governments.

Officials who drafted the new telecoms rules now say that more regulation isn’t needed since consumers use digital services like Skype or WhatsApp to call abroad.

“There is a lot more competition now,” one official said.

MEPs who tabled amendments to lower call rates between EU countries say digital services alone won’t drive down prices.

Austrian Green MEP Michel Reimon said, “A call with an Austrian phone or Swedish phone to a Greek phone isn’t the same price as a call at home. That’s just not happening and I don’t see how that will happen in the next years.”

Reimon and Spanish Socialist MEP José Blanco (S&D) signed separate amendments calling for a cap on intra-EU call rates.

“Of course IP voice services help reduce the telephone bill but we are not talking only about the cost of calling, but also the rationality of the system,” Blanco said.

“It does not make sense,” he added.

Telecoms companies are bracing themselves for another fight.

“Continuing down the path of price regulation does not appear to be coherent with the political objective of creating a European gigabit society,” said Alessandro Gropelli, spokesman of ETNO, an association representing operators like Deutsche Telekom, Orange and Proximus.

Consumer advocates also want the EU to intervene on call prices between member states.

“Even though it should have happened hand-in-hand with the roaming reform, it should happen now. It’s never too late,” said the BEUC’s Beltrà.

EU Parliament Backs New Carbon Cuts, Debates US Withdrawal

0
0

Plans for new compulsory greenhouse gas cuts under the Paris agreement were backed by European Members of Parliament (MEPs) on Wednesday, following a debate on the announced U.S. withdrawal.

These cuts will help deliver on the EU’s overall target for 2030 on all policies – a 40% cut from 1990 levels. The EU is committed to these cuts in the framework of the Paris Agreement.

The legislation will make it possible to break down the EU targets into binding, national ones for sectors not covered by the EU carbon market – i.e. agriculture, transport, building and waste, which together account for about 60% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Each EU member state will have to follow an emissions reduction pathway, calculated from a starting point of 2018, instead of 2020 as proposed by the Commission, in order to avoid an increase in emissions in the first few years or a postponement of their emission reductions.

To ensure long-term predictability, MEPs also set a target for 2050, of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% compared to 2005 levels.

Rewarding early action

MEPs also propose rules to reward early action from member states with a GDP per capita below EU average which have taken, or will take, action before 2020, with more flexibility during the later part of the scheme.

To help member states achieve their goals, the regulation allows them to “borrow” up to 10% of the following year’s allowance, reducing it accordingly.

The report was approved by 534 votes to 88 and 56 abstentions.

MEPs opened negotiations with Council with an aim to reach a first reading agreement on the proposal. Informal “trilogue” negotiations will start when Council has set its own position.

Debate on U.S. withdrawal announcement

Parliament also discussed the announcement by U.S. President Donald J. Trump to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, on Wednesday, with Marshall Islands President Hilda Heine and Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. “The world is now watching Europe”, said Ms Heine, highlighting the vulnerability of her country to climate change. “With an average elevation of two metres above sea level, there is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide” against climate change, she said. (…) my country risks becoming completely uninhabitable before the century ends” she said.

European Parliament President Antonio Tajani (EPP, IT), said: “Climate change is one the most pressing global challenges that we face today. (…) By addressing this challenge, the EU is creating new opportunities for our citizens and industry. (…) Simply put, the U.S. administration’s decision is a mistake. By working together with nations around the world we can successfully deliver a cleaner and safer planet to our citizens.”

President Juncker said that the EU will not renegotiate the Paris Agreement. MEPs overwhelmingly spoke in favor of taking the UNFCCC 2015 agreement forward and applying it fully.

The announcement from U.S. President Trump was criticized by EU lawmakers, who announced that the European Union will stick to its commitments and move forward with its own climate legislation.

Czech Republic, Hungary And Poland Not Complying With EU Relocation Directive

0
0

The European Commission launched on Wednesday infringement procedures against the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland for non-compliance with their obligations under the 2015 Council Decisions on relocation.

Despite the Commission’s repeated calls for action, these three countries remain in breach of their legal obligations and have shown disregard for their commitments to Greece, Italy and other Member States.

The Council Decisions require Member States to pledge available places for relocation every three months to ensure a swift and orderly relocation procedure. Whereas Hungary has not taken any action at all since the relocation scheme started, Poland has not relocated anyone and not pledged since December 2015. The Czech Republic has not relocated anyone since August 2016 and not made any new pledges for over a year

The Commission had previously announced in the 12th Relocation and Resettlement report presented on 16 May that those Member States that have not relocated anyone, or have not pledged for almost a year, breaching their legal obligations, should start doing so immediately and within a month. As announced yesterday in the 13th report on relocation and resettlement, since no action has yet been taken by the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to meet their legal obligations, the Commission has decided today to launch infringement procedures and address letters of formal notice to these three Member States.

Next steps

A letter of formal notice is a first official request for information and the first step in an infringement procedure. Given that the Council Decisions on relocation were adopted in response to an emergency situation and in view of the repeated calls to the three Member States, the authorities of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland now have one month to respond to the arguments put forward by the Commission, instead of the customary two-month deadline. If no reply to the letter of formal notice is received, or if the observations presented in reply to that notice cannot be considered satisfactory, the Commission may decide to move to the next stage of the infringement procedure, and send a ‘reasoned opinion’ to the Member States. If necessary, the Commission may then refer the case to the Court of Justice of the EU.

The temporary emergency relocation scheme was established in two Council Decisions in September 2015, in which Member States committed to relocate persons in need of international protection from Italy and Greece. The relocation decisions concern the commitment to relocate 98,255 people, after the Council adopted an amendment to the 2nd Council Decision on relocation on 29 September 2016 to make 54,000 places not yet allocated available for the purpose of legally admitting Syrians from Turkey to the EU.


Spain: Rajoy Survives No Confidence Vote

0
0

With 82 votes in favor, 170 against and 97 abstentions, the Plenary Session of Spain’s Lower House of Parliament has rejected the motion of no confidence presented by Unidos Podemos-En Comú Podem-En Marea against the Government of Spain led by Mariano Rajoy.

In the corridors of the Lower House of Parliament and after the vote, Spain’s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, expressed his satisfaction because the motion of no confidence “has been rejected by the vast majority of the MPs in the House”.

Rajoy said that “stability is highly necessary today so that the recovery we have already started – with significant economic growth and job creation – can continue”.

In this regard, Rajoy described the forecast released by the Bank of Spain on Tuesday hinting that the Spanish economy will grow by over 3% in 2017 as “a very positive figure”. “It would be the fourth consecutive year of growth and the third at over 3%, which is twice that of Europe”, he said.

Rajoy reiterated that “our goal continues to be 20 million people in work by the end of 2019, which would be a great success” as it would enable revenue to be collected for improving healthcare, pensions and education.

Rajoy added that the result of the motion of no confidence represents “a rejection, which has also taken place in other European countries, of radical elements, extremists and people with rather unhealthy behaviour for the times we live in”.

Rajoy said he believes that it also sends out “a clear message for us to remain focused on the interests of the people”. Rajoy concluded by stating that he feels encouraged to continue doing a job “that is not easy but that is producing increasingly better results”.

Qatar: UN Voices Concern Over Negative Impact Of Blockade

0
0

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, voiced concern over the potential impact on the human rights of many people on the heels of the decision by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt to sever diplomatic and economic ties with Qatar.

In a statement on Wednesday, the UN official described the measures that have been taken as too wide in scope and implementation and seriously impede the lives of thousands of women, children and men only because they belong to one of the nationalities of the countries involved in the conflict.

Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain have issued directives to address humanitarian needs for families with common nationalities however these measures are not effective enough to address all cases, he stressed.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern that the UAE and Bahrain threaten to imprison and fine anyone who sympathizes with the State of Qatar or opposes his government’ actions, describing these measures as a ‘clear violation of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.’

He urged all States concerned to resolve the crisis through dialogue as soon as possible, refrain from taking any actions that would affect the well-being, health and employment of their citizens and respect their obligations under international human rights law.

Qatar On Brink Of Domestic Coup Or Foreign Aggression – OpEd

0
0

By Jalil Bayat*

Tensions are soaring in Qatar’s relations with Saudi Arabia and some other Arab states in the Persian Gulf. Following a spate of verbal and media contentions during past weeks, Saudi Arabia finally decided last Monday to cut all diplomatic ties with Qatar. Following suit with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Yemen and a number of other countries severed their relations with Qatar as well. Pressures mounted on the Qatari government did not remain limited to severance of political relations and included banking and trade relations as well. As a result, the aforesaid countries banned any form of trade exchanges with or use of their seaports and airports by Qatar. Saudi Arabia even gave Qatari nationals 14 days to leave its soil while warning its own nationals that they would face three years in prison and a fine of 10,000 Saudi riyals if they traveled to the neighboring Qatar. Saudi Arabia has also warned that it may oppose the Qatari gas crossing its soil.

These conditions have led to one question: What would be the future outlook for this crisis? The answer is that according to the available evidence, a dangerous scenario is in the offing for Qatar and it seems that the main goal pursued by Saudi Arabia and its allies is to change the Qatari government, or at least its policies, through a domestic coup d’état or foreign aggression.

In reaction to the ongoing crisis in Qatar-Saudi ties, most regional and extra-regional countries, including Iran, Turkey and France, have expressed concern and called for peaceful resolution of differences through negotiations. Meanwhile, Kuwait has proposed to mediate between the two sides, which has been welcomed by Qatar as well, while Pakistan has not taken a clear-cut position yet and Iraq has decided to remain impartial.

In his first reaction to the new political crisis in the Persian Gulf, US President Donald Trump took to Twitter, noting that during his visit to the Middle East, he had urged for an end to funding extremist groups and Arab leaders had pointed to Qatar. He tweeted, “So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the [Saudi] King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would take a hard line on funding extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!” Such remarks by Trump point to his implied agreement to the measure taken by Saudi Arabia and its allies in severing ties with Qatar and mounting pressure on that country. If this is the case, then it must be noted that a very dangerous scenario is in the offing against Qatar.

Of course, differences between Saudi Arabia and Qatar have a long record, but the existing conditions show that the ongoing crisis is somehow different from previous ones and it will not be easily resolved. It is the first time that Saudi Arabia and its allies have decided to cut all ties with Doha and close their land, sea and air borders to this country. Adoption of such decisions in international relations usually means that one side is ready for showing the most intense reactions. However, in view of Qatar’s early reactions, it seems that the country’s Emir is not willing to backtrack in the face of Saudi Arabia and its allies. On the other hand, it does not seem possible for Saudi Arabia to get along with Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, because if this was going to be the case, the dispute would have subsided after the Qatari government denied the remarks, which were attributed to the Qatari Emir, on several occasions, and would not have reached the present climax.

Saudi Arabia has been able to take two important measures in the past couple of months. First of all, it has managed to shift Donald Trump’s focus from Riyadh to Tehran as the main factor of instability in the region and the main supporter of terrorism. During his election campaign, Trump clearly took Saudi Arabia to task, describing that country as supporter of terrorism and the main factor of instability in the region. However, during his first foreign trip, which took Trump to the Middle East, he described Iran as the main factor of instability in the region and called for a coalition of Muslim countries to be formed against Iran. The second measure taken by Saudi Arabia was to shift Trump’s viewpoint about the main financier of terrorism from itself to Doha. Of course, Qatar has been financially and politically supporting the Jabhat al-Nusra [the al-Nusra Front, which is currently called Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (the Levantine Conquest Front)] in Syria, but there is no doubt that the main source of support for terrorism in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia and the extremist ideology, which is harbored by this country.

Therefore, it can be predicted that in view of the green light shown by Trump, during coming days, we may either witness a coup staged in Qatar in order to change its government, or will see a military assault launched by Saudi Arabia and its allies against this country. A domestic coup would not be necessarily guided from outside of the country, but other powerful groups in Qatar may stage a coup to end the crisis if they see the country in more dire straits. On the other hand, prolongation of the crisis will increase discontent among people and tilt the balance in favor of those who are opposed to the incumbent government. Therefore, a coup d’état would be launched in order to change the government in Qatar and end the current crisis. From this viewpoint, the next person that would hold the reins of power in Qatar must be in line with Saudi Arabia’s policies.

However, if domestic conditions in Qatar prevent a coup, then the possibility of a military attack by Saudi Arabia and its allies against this Arab country would increase. Such attack could be conducted by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain in cooperation with Egypt. The military assault would also seek to change the ruling government in Qatar or change its regional policies. Of course, military attack on a member of the (Persian) Gulf Cooperation Council by its other members would cast doubt on legitimacy of this institution. Due to this reason, perhaps a domestic coup in Qatar would be the best option for Saudi Arabia. However, one way or another, Riyadh seems to believe that this crisis should end in a way that would be beneficial to Saudi Arabia.

* Jalil Bayat
Doctoral Student of International Relations at Tarbiat Modarres University

Domestic Terrorism In The Age Of Trump – OpEd

0
0

By Peter Montgomery*

Harassment, intimidation, and physical violence against religious and ethnic minorities is on the rise. And some experts worry the Trump administration is making things worse.

The attack on a Portland commuter train by a knife-wielding white nationalist who was screaming anti-Muslim insults overshadowed other recent crimes apparently motivated by bigotry — including a machete attack against a black man in California and the killing of a Native American man by the driver of a pickup truck who was terrorizing a group of picnicking friends.

Just outside Washington, D.C. recently, an African American student on the verge of graduating from college was murdered by a white student who was reportedly a member of an online “alt-Reich” group. Nooses have been placed in a number of prominent locations, including the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

The Southern Poverty Law Center documented almost 900 reports of harassment and intimidation in the immediate aftermath of the 2016 election. “Many harassers invoked Trump’s name during assaults,” the SPLC reported, “making it clear that the outbreak of hate stemmed in large part from his electoral success.”

Similarly, the Anti-Defamation League reported that anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. jumped 86 percent in the first quarter of 2017. There’s also been a surge in violent attacks on Indian Americans and Sikhs, sometimes by people mistakenly identifying them as Muslims or Arabs.

What’s going on?

greg lilly/ Flickr

Violence motivated by bigotry obviously didn’t begin with Trump. But there’s no question that Trump’s rise has inflamed racial resentments and unleashed something dangerous. His campaign excited white nationalists, beginning with his first speech vilifying Mexican immigrants and continuing with his call for a ban on Muslims entering the country.

Trump’s suggestion that the Indiana-born Judge Gonzalo Curiel couldn’t rule fairly because of his family’s Mexican origins sent a signal: Real, trustworthy Americans are white. Trump’s close alliance with some conservative Christian leaders sends another signal: Real Americans are Christians.

Some hateful people take these signals as permission to openly express and act on bigotries that were previously understood to be unacceptable.

Indeed, by putting Steve Bannon in senior campaign and White House positions, Trump made it clear that promoting bigotry is no bar to service in his administration. Bannon’s leadership of a right-wing website was praised by a prominent neo-Nazi leader for making the site “hardcore.”

These signals were amplified by the appointment of Jeff Sessions, a Voting Rights Act critic and promoter of anti-immigrant policies, to be U.S. attorney general.

In the face of a growing bipartisan consensus on criminal justice reform, Sessions is trying to take the country in the opposite direction, pushing aggressively for mass incarceration and undermining previous Justice Department efforts to hold police accountable for racially motivated violence.

Arlie Perliger, a Massachusetts professor who works with West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center, argues that right-wing violence grounded in white supremacist ideology should be treated as domestic terrorism.

But the Trump budget proposal released in May zeroes out funding for a Homeland Security program that gives grants to communities to counter violent extremism. Reuters reported that the administration has also frozen $10 million in grants that had already been allocated.

Generations of Americans have struggled and continue to struggle to make liberty and justice for all a reality in our increasingly diverse society. But with Trump as their leader, opponents of pluralism are demanding a return to some undefined period when America was “great.”

They’re at war with what America has been becoming. And while the Trump administration may give proof to the axiom that truth is the first casualty of war, it’s sadly not the last.

*Peter Montgomery is a senior fellow at People For the American Way. Distributed by OtherWords.org.

The UK Balance Of Power – OpEd

0
0

The world now knows that Britain’s general election resulted in what is known as a “hung parliament”. While prime minister Theresa May’s Conservatives won most seats, they did not gain enough to command a majority in the House of Commons. To win essential parliamentary votes, such as the legislative programme or the budget, they will need additional support . The only grouping in the new parliament politically close to the Conservatives is the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), a right-wing Northern Ireland party that won 10 seats in the election – 10 vital seats for, added to the Conservatives’ total, they provide that essential majority over all other parties.

What is the DUP? The party was founded in 1971 by the Reverend Ian Paisley, at the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. It was intended to focus loyalist opposition to the IRA and its offshoots, then intent on fighting the British army and police, and undertaking terrorist attacks within the UK. Did the birth of the DUP in the midst of bombs and bloodshed generate a sort of fellow feeling towards Israel? Probably, and there were other factors at play, but it is certainly true that the DUP has consistently demonstrated strong sympathy and steady support for Israel.

When Paisley launched the Northern Ireland Friends of Israel in March 2009, he certainly drew a parallel between Israel’s and Northern Ireland’s struggles against terrorism.  He also prayed for peace in Jerusalem, demonstrating another strand in the genetic makeup of the DUP – a Bible-believing Protestant background. Many members and supporters of the DUP sincerely accept the Biblical basis of the Jewish people’s connection to the land.

The DUP’s support for Israel has been all the stronger, perhaps, because it is matched by fierce support for the Palestinians by their political enemies, Irish Republicans. Sein Fein, the political wing of the republican movement, has long associated itself with the Palestinian cause. Co-operation and trading, including training and arms procurement, between the PLO and the IRA dates back to the 1970s. The connection continues. When a Sinn Fein delegation travelled to Turkey last November, a meeting with Hamas officials featured on their agenda. The visit was roundly condemned by DUP spokespeople in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

In October 2014 the UK parliament in its wisdom decided to vote on recognizing the (non-existent) state of Palestine “alongside the state of Israel”. The motion was passed by 274 votes to 12 – in other words only 286 MPs voted out of a total of 650 members. But the 12 stalwart No voters included all 8 DUP members of parliament at the time.

Recent Conservative administrations have been supportive of Israel. David Cameron, the previous prime minister, counted himself a friend. Theresa May sprang to Israel’s defence after ex-Secretary of State John Kerry launched his verbal attack on Israel in the dying days of the Obama administration. It is reasonable to assume that this aspect of Conservative thinking will be sustained at the highest decision-making level in the new UK administration by the ever-supportive voice of the DUP.

The Danger Of Washington Succumbing To A ‘Riyadh Consensus’– Analysis

0
0

By Justin McCauley*

U.S. President Donald Trump’s speech to Arab leaders at the Arab Islamic American Summit in Riyadh on May 21 was noteworthy for several reasons. The president displayed his ability to stay on script, recasting his previous anti-Muslim rhetoric into a sort of Manichean struggle between good and evil and asking that the rest of the Sunni Arab world join him in combating Islamic terrorism. But the most significant segment of the speech was no doubt the characterization of Iran as the greatest purveyor of Islamic terrorism in the world, bringing Washington unequivocally in line with a sort of “Riyadh consensus” on the Middle East’s security landscape.

While Trump’s call for counterterrorism unity was no doubt genuine, past presidents have made it before, with mediocre results. Saudi Arabia has been extremely helpful with intelligence and tactical support, particularly in the post-9/11 era. Yet the bolstering of militant Salafist-Jihadists in the region has been the Kingdom’s consistent policy.

Although the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have maintained an enduring alliance based on pragmatic mutual interests for nearly a century – essentially, oil for security – rarely has a president so explicitly aligned Washington with Riyadh’s agenda. Trump’s speech was not just an affirmation of partnership; it was a declaration of commitment to the Saudi worldview pertaining to the geopolitics and security landscape of the region. Most importantly, the Trump administration is on board with Riyadh’s anti-Iranian agenda.

The realpolitik of the U.S.-Saudi alliance is straightforward enough. Trump’s new commitment, however, to what amounts to the Sunni “side” of the region’s struggle for hegemony raises questions about the wisdom of the new American trajectory. His stated policy of “principled realism” suggests that the U.S. will seek to keep out of the fray of local politics and internecine conflicts; yet his summit speech indicates that America is becoming detrimentally tied to one regional power.

According to international relations theorist Stephen Walt, the U.S. maintains three strategic interests in the region – preserving the flow of oil and gas, mitigating the threat of anti-American terrorism, and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – all of which depend on good relationships with a variety of states. After nearly a decade of U.S. blood and treasure expended in Iraq, it has now become all but a foregone conclusion that Iran is, and will remain, the primary foreign influence inside the country. The U.S. still retains considerable power and influence in Baghdad, but much will depend on how it manages the Sunni-Shi’ite divide going forward. Iraq desires good relationships with both Iran and Saudi Arabia. However, the political, cultural, sectarian and geographical connections between Iraq and Iran run deep (despite tribal connections with the Nejd for some southern Iraqis) and should not be underestimated, particularly if Baghdad is put in a position where it must choose.

Likewise, while the future of Bashar al-Assad’s regime remains unclear, its re-entrenchment following Russia’s intervention along with renewed Iranian and Hezbollah efforts should be considered. This is particularly true when remembering that Trump is more focused on Daesh (“Islamic State”) than on Assad. The same holds true for Lebanon, where President Michel Aoun and his Hezbollah allies remain close to Tehran. Indeed, the power structures in the Levant generally remain indebted to Iran and hostile to Saudi Arabia.

Throughout the post-war period until Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, Washington effectively balanced close relationships with the Kingdom and the Shah’s Iran, much to the chagrin of both. This approach was based on a realism that worked – not gambling solely on one power, and not allowing either one to become too powerful. The policy was geared toward preventing the kind of regional destabilization that a hegemon brings. This balance could be achieved again, given Iran’s rational and pragmatic character. As Washington slowly slides into this “Riyadh consensus”, it is instructive to remember the history of the U.S. relationship with Israel.

Beginning roughly with the founding of the Jewish State in 1948 through the mid-1990s, the U.S., although a solid and dependable ally of Israel, carefully calibrated its relationship with both Tel Aviv and the Arab states. This balance provided America with chess board-like leverage across a dozen Middle Eastern capitals. But at the start of the twenty-first century, U.S. policy slid firmly into the Likud-Kadima orbit. As a result, America’s credibility in many Arab capitals, and its ability to manage peace with the Palestinians, has grown increasingly slim.

In the process of drastically limiting its options, Washington must also consider Riyadh’s internal stability and its ability to check Tehran. The Islamic Republic retains a fundamental stability that the Kingdom lacks. The House of Saud, on the other hand, is forced to play a balancing act between its religious extremists and the West, and finds itself in a constant state of reassessment. And with subsidies set to decline when oil prices stabilize, civil strife is possible. Meanwhile, regardless of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)-led deep state in Iran, the country has once again displayed a powerful inclination toward democracy and reason. A massive voter turnout enabled the reelection of moderate President Hassan Rouhani over the IRGC’s preferred candidate, Ebrahim Raisi.

Moreover, given Iran’s 30 years of success in asymmetric warfare (and its stalemate with Iraq in the longest conventional war of the twentieth century), it is highly questionable whether Saudi Arabia, with no real-world combat experience to speak of other than its failing performance in Yemen, can compete with Tehran when it comes to warfare, conventional or, more importantly, unconventional.

Indeed, by all measures Iran is an ascendant power in the beleaguered Arab world. This is particularly true as we see Russia bolstering its efforts to further patronize Tehran. This competition between Washington and Riyadh on one side and Moscow and Tehran on the other is nothing new. The Cold War offered similar challenges in the region with the U.S. backing conservative and pro-Western Arab sheikdoms with the Kremlin lending its support to Leftist, secular, and Arab nationalist regimes.

Today, however, Washington should remember that as a superpower it should have its own strategic agenda, and not simply adopt that of the Saudis. The U.S. response to the Qatar crisis ignores the strategic necessity of maintaining unity in the GCC (especially if seeking to counter Iran). At the same time, the muted American response, and President Trump’s obvious feelings of schadenfreude following the June 7 Daesh attacks in Tehran, contradict the stated primacy of U.S. counterterrorism efforts against the terror group. It appears that U.S. strategic concerns are being subordinated to Saudi ones.

History serves as a good teacher. The era during which the U.S. successfully balanced its relationships with Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as with Israel and the Arab powers, was a time of unparalleled American power, influence, and strategic success in the region. Ultimately, for Washington the risk of further succumbing to a “Riyadh consensus” is that the U.S. could lose further influence in the Middle East.

About the author:
*Justin McCauley
, based in Dubai, is an analyst at Gulf State Analytics and a communications consultant with Memac Ogilvy Public Relations.

Source:
Gulf State Analytics originally published this article

Paris And Pittsburgh, pesticides In Indonesia: When None Is Best – OpEd

0
0

Donald Trump famously said, “I was elected to represent the people of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” when he announced the withdrawal by the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement (PCA). Pittsburgh is a city in the Rust Belt, which suffered from economic decline due to deindustrialization. It was purportedly the Rust Belt that paved Trump’s path to the presidency.

But what was the Pittsburgh mayor’s reaction? “We’re actually with Paris on this.” In fact, the majority of Rust Belt states are also. It just goes to show, climate change and global warming goes beyond politics (although pssst! For your information, Pittsburgh did vote for Clinton!).

Well, that’s the way it should be. If there’s one thing that people have in common, it is that we all live on this one fragile, precious planet.

Another thing we have in common is that we all eat. In the past 50 years, the number of people in the world has doubled, and so obviously, so has food production. Modern agriculture has relied even more on pesticides to get rid of pests and vermin which damage crops, but like anything, too much of a “good thing” can be bad.

Pesticides are for crops like chemotherapy is for cancer: in the same way that chemo kills the good cells in addition to the bad ones, pesticides tend to kill organisms that weren’t intended to be killed. Pesticides also affect the whole ecological system, leeching into the soil and water, and poisoning birds, fish and other small animals.

And the effect of pesticides on humans? An entry in Toxipedia says it has “neurological health effects such as memory loss, loss of coordination, reduced speed of response to stimuli, reduced visual ability, altered or uncontrollable mood and general behavior, and reduced motor skills.” Thanks, but no thanks!

Recently I came across a book called Krisis Pangan dan ‘Sesat Pikir’: Mengapa Masih Berlanjut? (Food Crisis and ‘Misguided Thinking”: Why does it still continue?”) published last year, which addresses a very important issue: food production in Indonesia.

Edited by Yunita T. Winarto, professor of anthropology at the University of Indonesia (U.I.), the anthology has eight chapters by six experts on topics ranging from climate, insects, marginalized farmers and, yes, pesticides.

There were two chapters on pesticides, one of them written by James J. Fox, professor emeritus from the Australian National University (ANU) and Professor Yunita from UI.

Jim, as he is usually called, is an old friend of mine from the 1980s. When I knew him then he was working among others to get rid of pesticides. He was lucky. He got help from none other than President Soeharto himself. Pak Harto issued a presidential decree (Inpres No. 3/1986) on Nov. 5, 1985 banning the use of 57 varieties of pesticides in response to a serious outbreak of brown planthopper infestation. At the time Indonesia had just achieved rice self-sufficiency – a source of great national pride.

According to Jim in his chapter, the Inpres had the immediate effect of reducing the brown critters and more. The reduction of pesticides for rice cultivation resulted in annual rice increases for 17 years from 1987 to 2002. Impressive!

As the lowest user of pesticides in any developing country, Indonesia was a shining example of effective biological control of pests for other countries. In any typical sawah (paddy field) there are 100 natural predators of threatening pests, especially of brown planthoppers who breed like rabbits.

Unfortunately, all good things come to an end. In 2002, there was a dramatic change in the pesticide industry. Hundreds of local companies were established relying heavily on supplies from China. Pesticides were promoted as obat (medicine) for growing crops, distributed by local agents to village kiosks throughout Java.

Stunningly, in one decade, from being one of the world’s lowest users of pesticides, Indonesia became one of the highest. Brown grasshopper infestation became endemic on Java. According to Jim and Yunita, “Twice in five years (2011 and 2014) national rice production declined because of significant crop losses on Java.”

What? Aren’t pesticides supposed to get rid of the brown planthoppers? Here’s the irony: The overuse of pesticides actually induces the population increase of planthoppers by killing their natural predators. Oh no! Then there’s also resistance: With each generation of pesticide, the planthoppers become more resistant to the pesticides.

There were also rice varieties that were resistant to brown planthoppers, but by 2011, Indonesia had none. Shifting infestations became endemic.

Jim and Yunita did a UI-ANU pesticide survey in the village of Indramayu in West Java to obtain comprehensive data on farmers’ utilization of a range of pesticides. The study is replete with scientific names of various types of pesticides, fungicides and herbicides, which the farmers can’t distinguish. Given the lack of control in the form of government licensing systems, for example, the farmers are like kids in a candy shop, choosing between striking labels and the existence of “new products,” which could actually be old products with new labels. Does this sound like a familiar marketing ploy?

Other problems that the UI-ANU study identifies are spraying intensity and pesticide cocktails. The farmers believe that the more, the better, and just to be on the “safe side,” why not mix all the different products into a cocktail? Sounds yummy right? In a disastrous way.

What’s the politics behind it all? Political reformation in 1998, which led to regional autonomy. Inpres No. 3/1986 still exists and could be invoked, but it isn’t. The existence of a variety of incentive schemes from the pesticide companies certainly helped, in the same way that the 22 senators who urged Trump to withdraw from the PCA over the past five years collectively received US$10 million in campaign contributions from oil, gas and coal industries.

Rice is a “political commodity” and governments’ ability to guarantee rice production and supply earns them the people’s trust. In fact, raising the target of rice production is a main program of the Jokowi administration in 2014-2019. But the reality is that the sawah ecosystem on Java has now become very vulnerable. This trend cannot be reversed until the “misguided thinking” of the farmers and various interested parties is also reversed.

Given the recognized global dangers of pesticides, two United Nations experts have called for a comprehensive global treaty to regulate and phase out toxic pesticides. The movement for organic sustainable farming is in fact growing.

Could this be an opportunity for Indonesia to reclaim the Queen Bee status it once had for 17 years to lead this movement?

*Julia Suryakusuma is the outspoken Indonesian thinker, social-cause fighter and trendsetter. She is the author of Julia’s Jihad. (first published by Jakarta Post)


Lance Berkman’s Religious Rights Attacked – OpEd

0
0

Not too long ago it would be considered perverse to say that men have a right to use the restrooms and shower facilities reserved for women. Today, the reverse is true. Ask Lance Berkman, the former St. Louis Cardinals slugger.

The St. Louis Cardinals has hosted Christian Day for nearly three decades, and this year, as in the past, they have invited Berkman. But because he is opposed to men and women using the bathrooms and shower facilities of the opposite sex—it’s almost always cross-dressing men who want to crash the ladies room—the Cardinals are being condemned by homosexuals and other sexual minorities.

Even sports columnists have gotten into the act. Bill Baer of NBC Sports writes that “In September 2015, Berkman foolishly advocated against public accommodations for transgender people to use public bathrooms,” saying such persons were “troubled men.”

There is nothing “foolish” about supporting the privacy rights of women, but there is something seriously wrong about objections to it. Two years ago, Berkman walked back his comment about transgender persons being “troubled men,” though there was no good reason why he should have.

He clarified his remark saying, “The issue is, what to do about a 15 or 16-year-old boy who thinks he’s a girl and wants to shower with the girls? Maybe he is [transgender], maybe he’s confused. But I wouldn’t want him in the shower with my daughters.”

What Berkman said is common sense and a tribute to common decency. No normal father would want his high school daughter showering with a boy. But we live in an age where the sacred and the profane have switched places, and common sense has all but collapsed.

When Berkman was asked about a person who identifies with the opposite sex, he said, “You’re taking their word for it, saying that’s the way they’re born…maybe there’s a science that backs that up. I don’t know.”

There is no science to back this nonsense up. Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer is an epidemiologist trained in psychiatry, and Dr. Paul R. McHugh is one of the nation’s preeminent psychiatrists; the former is scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and the latter was psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital for 25 years, and is a colleague of Mayer in the same department.

They have researched sexuality for decades, and their findings on transgender persons are revealing. “The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex—that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.” Their conclusion is based on empirical data, not politics.

These are important points, but they are not the most critical.

There are two reasons why Berkman deserves to be defended. One, he is exercising his free speech rights, and nothing he has said is untoward. Second, his religious rights are paramount.

Regarding the latter, when asked to explain his position, Berkman said he felt it necessary “to stand up for Christ.” And for this some want him silenced! Sadly, our society is no longer committed to the First Amendment as it once was.

Religious leaders across faith lines have a moral duty to support Berkman and beat back the forces of censorship. If we don’t stand with those who “stand up for Christ,” we are the problem.

US Inflation Continues To Trend Downward In May – Analysis

0
0

Inflation in both the overall and core Consumer Price Index (CPI) showed evidence of slowing in May. The overall CPI actually fell by 0.1 percent in May, driven by a 2.7 percent drop in energy prices. The overall CPI is now up by 1.9 percent over the last year. The core index rose by 0.1 percent. It has increased by 1.7 percent over the last year.

Both indices are showing lower rates of increases in May than they had earlier in the year. The year-over-year change in the overall CPI peaked at 2.8 percent in February and has fallen sharply over the last three months. Core inflation was slightly over two percent at the end of 2016 but also has been trending lower in recent months. The annualized rate of inflation in the core index has been just 0.7 percent, comparing the average for the price index in the last three months with the average for the prior three months.

If the shelter component is taken out of the core, the numbers are even more striking. The core CPI excluding shelter has risen just 0.6 percent over the last year. The annualized rate of inflation core, excluding shelter, in the last three months compared with the prior three is actually -0.6 percent. In other words, core inflation would be negative if not for the rise in rental prices.

Even in the case of rental inflation there appears to be some slowing. The year-over-year increase in the owners’ equivalent rent index was 3.3 percent in May. It had peaked at 3.6 percent in December. The annualized rate comparing the last three months with the prior three months is just 3.3 percent, indicating a substantial slowing. The index for rent proper has risen somewhat more rapidly over the last year, increasing by 3.8 percent year-over-year. This index is likely due to the fact that the rent proper index also includes some utilities, which might have risen rapidly in price in many areas.

It is difficult to find any major components showing serious inflationary pressures. The price of medical care services have risen by 2.5 percent over the last year and actually fell by 0.1 percent in May. The index for educational tuition and fees rose by a modest 2.3 percent over the last year and 0.2 percent in May. Prescription drug prices have risen by 3.9 percent over the last year and rose 0.3 percent in May, but this is just 1.4 percent of the CPI.

New car prices have risen by 0.3 percent over the last year and fell by 0.2 percent in May. They continue to be held down in part by a glut of used cars on the market, a legacy of the proliferation of repossessed cars that has resulted from subprime car loans gone bad. Used car prices fell 4.3 percent year-over-year and fell by 0.2 percent in May.

There is also no evidence of any inflationary pressures building at earlier phases of production. The price index for final demand in the producer price index has risen 2.4 percent over the last year and was unchanged in May. The index for final demand for goods, excluding food and energy, has risen by 2.2 percent over the last year and by just 0.1 percent in May. The core index for final demand (including services) rose by 2.0 percent over the last year, although it did rise 0.3 percent in May.

The price reports for May indicate that inflation is actually decelerating slightly rather than accelerating. This is in spite of the fact that the unemployment rate is below the level that most economists consider to be the NAIRU. Of course, since wage growth also appears to be slowing, this pattern in prices is less surprising. The Fed seems determined to increase interest rates today, but with inflation below the Fed’s 2.0 percent target (with the PCE deflator as the measure) and heading downward, future rate increases will be hard to justify.

THAAD – Deploy Or Not To Deploy: Moon’s New Challenge – Analysis

0
0

The decision to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in South Korea was taken by the conservative government of Park Guen-hye. This was in pursuance of the hard-line policy chosen by the Park administration towards North Korea. The new liberal President Moon Jae-in is opposed to this deployment. Not only he feels that the decision was taken in haste without following the prescribed democratic processes but also feels that the decision does not in any way going to address North Korea’s nuclear and missile development issues. Rather, feels Moon, it complicates the security environment, which is already vitiated by multiple factors and opposing perspectives of nations concerned about the region’s security.

Now the situation is: can Moon reverse the decision to pull out THAAD, which is already deployed, and ask the US to remove from the place of deployment? That could be difficult. Moon is aware that both Russia and China are vehemently opposed to the THAAD deployment as their security comes under the radar of the THAAD and would, therefore, welcome if the same is removed. In such a situation, it would pose new challenge for Moon on how to manage South Korea’s alliance relationship with the US, its main security guarantor.

Taking a realistic point of view from the perspective of the region’ security, the Moon administration is unlikely to change the agreement reached by his predecessor Park government on the deployment of the anti-missile system and is likely to continue working closely with Washington. That could be a pragmatic approach in the interest of preserving the alliance relationship with the US and not risk derailing it by abrogating the agreement on THAAD deployment. With a view to clear doubts on Moon administration’s stand on the THAAD, Chung Eui-yong, South Korea’s top national security advisor clarified that the decision to postpone the full deployment of the THAAD system was because a review of its environment impact, a domestic measure to ensure a democratic process, was pending, and therefore did not construe its removal. Chung conceded that the decision to introduce THAAD was made to protect South Korea and the US forces in South Korea from a growing threat from North Korea and therefore reversing that decision could be problematic for the Moon administration.

Moon’s stand on THAAD is well known. During the election campaign, he had promised to review the THAAD deployment decision. China was concerned as the system’s powerful radar can penetrate deep into its territory, undermining its stability and unsettling the regional balance. There is also a view that the system could be ineffective to deter North Korea, the purpose for which it was decided to deploy, which is why it makes sense to remove it. Such an argument lacks conviction, however. That makes Moon’s position tricky.

China argues that THAAD deployment would do little to deter the missile threat from North Korea while allowing the US military to use its radar to look deep into its territory and at its own missile systems. Beijing also fears that THAAD deployment in South Korea would open the door to a wider deployment of the US missile defense systems, possibly in Japan and elsewhere. South Korean companies have already faced product boycotts and bans on Chinese tourists visiting South Korea. China however has denied discriminating against them.

With the intent to use THAAD for defending against North Korean missiles, two launchers of the full six-launcher THAAD battery, as well as its radar, were already installed near the south-eastern city of Seongju before Moon took power. Moon can ill afford to order its removal as such a decision could risk alliance relationship with the US. Moon’s strategy seems to be buying time and delay installing the additional four additional launchers based on the argument that environmental assessment ought to be completed first, which may take well over a year. This period could provide time for Moon to judge public mood and create environment for public endorsement against its deployment.

The THAAD battery consists of six truck-mounted launchers that can fire up to 48 interceptor missiles, fire control and communication equipment, and powerful X-band radar officially known as AN/TPY-2. There could be no definite answer at present if Moon could keep his campaign pledge to re-examine the THAAD deployment because a request for the withdrawal of the system’s components could severely undermine ties with the US. If the US decides to pull out the 28,500 troops stationed in South Korean soil, Moon shall be in no position to defend his country from potential aggression from North Korea and therefore cannot afford to displease its most important ally.

Position of the US

Moon is scheduled to have a summit meeting with President Donald Trump in late June 2017 and is expected to discuss measures to strengthen the alliance relationship and how to address the growing threat from North Korea’s weapons programs. The Trump administration is concerned that North Korea conducted two nuclear tests in 2016 and numerous tests of various missiles since then in defiance of UN sanctions, the latest being on June 8 when it tested a new type of land-to-sea missile off its east coast. The long-term aim of the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the continental mainland US with a nuclear weapon.

Trump has chosen to adopt a tough and hard-line stand on North Korea after the latter test-fired a string of missiles and ratcheted up tensions, something Trump said “won’t happen”. He has also made it clear that all options are on the table, including military strike. Even the defence secretary Jim Mattis warned that North Korea poses the most urgent threat to international peace and security, calling the regime’s weapons program a “clear and present danger” to all.

Taking a larger security perspective of the region and knowing well China’s soft spot for North Korea, the objection to THAAD deployment by China and Russia is viewed by the US in a larger context of “Great Power competition”, which makes THAAD more relevant for the US to deploy. The US is worried that both China and Russia are gaining military assertiveness and placing long-held global security protocol to risk. Washington is unwilling to concede if China and Russia wish to disrupt the key aspects of international order so painstakingly built since the end of World War II. Under this circumstance, Moon would face uphill task if he wants to do away with the THAAD deployment.

Slow Walk for Moon

In this situation, Moon would be constrained in his intended policy reversal stance. He is soon to find that increased diplomacy and legal manoeuvres alone might not bail him out from the dilemma that he faces on the THAAD missile defense system. Moon made his policy towards North Korea well known that it would be less confrontational and more engagement as means to reduce tensions but unless he gets the right response from Kim Jong-un, that could be a non-starter. THAAD presents a crucial test for his strategy to balance between supporting for the US alliance while seeking increasing cooperation and outreach with China and North Korea.

For the US, the THAAD battery is critical for defense against Pyongyang’s growing nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. Rejecting the THAAD by South Korea therefore could strain the alliance and undermine the agreed upon extended deterrence and containment strategy. Moon can ill afford to strain South Korea’s alliance relationship with the US as a review on THAAD could mean questioning the posture and the deployment of US forces in South Korea. Moon cannot afford to expose his country’s security to such vulnerability.

At the same time, open support for THAAD by Moon could mean alienating Beijing and rendering his engagement strategy with North Korea rudderless, as both vehemently oppose THAAD. In particular, Pyongyang sees the THAAD deployment as another attempt by the US to increase its military presence in the region and a larger game plan for eventual invasion.

There are domestic opposition as well in South Korea to THAAD deployment. Residents close to the site have expressed concerns over the possible negative health effects of the system’s powerful radar, besides exposing them to the danger of a possible attack by North Korea. Moon therefore could find him tight-walking.

In order to satisfy the domestic constituency, Moon suspended a deputy defense minister for not reporting the delivery of four additional THAAD launchers in an apparent attempt to bypass any oversight from his administration. He also ordered an environmental study of the site, which could mean further delaying the deployment schedule. In the meantime, efforts are being made if a national consensus could be reached on this controversial issue.

South Korea's Moon Jae-In. Photo Credit: VOA, Wikipedia Commons.
South Korea’s Moon Jae-In. Photo Credit: VOA, Wikipedia Commons.

It may be recalled, the decision to deploy THAAD battery system was taken by the Park administration in haste to deal with the North Korean threat. A THAAD battery is normally operated with six launchers, two of which were installed in late April 2017, days before Moon took office on 10 May. When Moon suddenly found in early June 2017 that four more launchers had arrived in South Korea, he suspended the deputy defense minister who failed to mention them in policy briefings in late May. Moon felt that the Defence Ministry “intentionally dropped” mentioning the arrival of the four launchers. Investigation then found that Deputy Minister for Defence Policy Wee Seung Ho had ordered ministry officials not to write clearly about the four launchers in policy reports, which led Moon to act. The argument Wee gave in his defence that South Korean and the US militaries decided not to publicise the four launchers’ arrival lacked merit as the President was kept in dark about such an important security matter.

Moon’s engagement policy towards North Korea

Under this circumstance, can Moon hope to succeed on his policy of engaging with the North? That is another question that has no easy answer. After Moon took power, his government made efforts to increase inter-Korean exchanges and make humanitarian aid to rebuild trust. Pyongyang has remained unresponsive to such gestures. Responding to Moon’s engagement strategy towards North Korea, aid and religious groups made requests to the Moon administration for approval to establish contacts. The National Assembly also called for the renewal of reunions of families that were separated by the Korean War and the partition of the Korean Peninsula at the end of World War II. Pyongyang did not approve these exchanges, citing South Korea’s support for sanctions against the Kim Jong-un’s government as an impediment to cooperation. Sections of South Koreans keen to make peace with the North appealed the Moon administration to drop sanctions and restore economic ties, including the Kaesong Industrial complex that employed thousands of North Koreans and the Mount Kumgang tourism project. As of now, it seems to be one-sided love or what is called “jak sarang” in Korean. It remains to be seen how much patience the Moon administration has to pursue both sanctions and offer of humanitarian aid to bring about peaceful change on the Korean peninsula.

Likely Future

The likely scenario in the coming time is that Moon would soon find THAAD as a long-term issue that cannot be resolved soon. What might likely to happen in the coming time is that the four undisclosed launchers will not be deployed and the two deployed ones will not be withdrawn. That would leave South Korea-China relations to uncertain future. South Korea is unlikely to be in a position to take any unilateral decision to stop THAAD deployment. That decision would rest on the US. If the THAAD is withdrawn, it will surely represent a significant challenge to the US-South Korea alliance relationship. Since South Korea would be constrained to reject THAAD not to damage ties with the US, can there be any possibility of the US and China reaching some sort of understanding, according to which the US agrees to withdraw THAAD without embarrassing the Moon administration? That could be wishful thinking.

*Professor (Dr.) Panda is currently Indian Council for Cultural Relations India Chair Visiting Professor at Reitaku University, JAPAN. E-mail: rajaram.panda@gmail.com Disclaimer: The views expressed are author’s own and do not represent either of the ICCR or the Government of India.

US Taxpayers Have Spent Enough On War In Afghanistan – OpEd

0
0

By Tim Haffner*

Former Navy SEAL and Blackwater founder, Erik Prince, recently penned an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal calling for a MacArthur Plan for Afghanistan that rests on two pillars: a central Viceroy acting with complete authority to direct development activities and a privatized East India Company model for securing key areas to bolster economic growth. He goes on to posit mineral resource extraction and agriculture cultivation as the means of funding Afghanistan’s rise into the ranks of civilized nations.

Of course, leftists immediately denounced the idea as war profiteering and corporate undermining of state authority. In terms of political economy, Prince is correct to point out the tremendous waste of money the US led coalition is costing the taxpayers of participating countries. After more than 16 years of occupation, the military campaign has become a quagmire and preventing the rise of future threats emanating from Afghanistan requires a comprehensive redesign and philosophical approach. Citing the expected $45 billion investment projected for 2017, Prince claims that his privatized security plan under a unified governor would cost only $10 billion. While this would be a significant savings and an improvement from the status quo, it still places the American taxpayer on the hook for subsidizing someone else’s security while adding nothing to their own. It still rests on a justified notion of foreign interventionism that makes every American an accomplice to aggressive invasion.

The United States faces no existential threat from Afghanistan. The potential for terrorist plots launching from Afghanistan are minuscule compared to the costs, military degradation, and fomenting of retaliatory hatred that comes from US deployments there. The 9/11 attacks, designed and launched from Afghanistan, were significant to be sure, yet as Sun Tzu teaches in chapter 8 of the Art of War, we should not count on the enemy not coming, but on our preparedness to defend. Preventing a 9/11 style attack does not require invading another country, but in dissolving the artificial restrictions that prevent captains, crews, and travelers from defending themselves, and what is theirs, while in transit.

Further, as Americans are constitutionally obliged to provide for their own security, benefiting, at best, by supplemental efforts orchestrated by the federal architecture, the defensive mandate allows for no public expenditures to benefit anyone other than taxpaying constituents. In other words, and to paraphrase Madison, the US federal government has no authority to spend from the public treasury on objects of benevolence for Afghans. The eradication of Al Qaeda through targeted strikes or bounties may have been at one time a legitimate political goal, yet that ship has long sailed past and now the American enterprise is sinking in the swamp of nation building.

If Afghanistan is as rich in minerals and valuable resources as is purported, indeed the international division of labor would benefit by an improved security environment that allows for their cultivation. Yet, investing in a commercial venture to first secure and then operate in these industries is the proper field of market actors, ideally in compliance with local governance and cooperating with legitimate property owners that see the benefits of such endeavors. Again, the taxpayers of coalition nations have no obligation to bankroll these efforts. In this way, those who invest and assume risk to operate in austere environments deserve the rewards of doing what others lacked the vision and fortitude to do. Only in this way, would profit be well earned.

It is from the insidious nature of public-private partnership that cronyism confuses the actual creation of social good, and corruption diverts the production’s purpose from delivering products to the market into intangible and nonsensical goals like stopping the tactic of terrorism or spreading democracy. The only way to keep the goals clear is through ensuring the investors, actors, and outcomes are solely within the private sphere.

Those that criticize Blackwater’s activities in Iraq and the infamous Nisour Square Incident like to state that military contractors operate outside of any responsible oversight, yet only pay scant attention to the fact that the regular military and special operations forces, particularly in the form of drone strikes, also routinely bring about civilian casualties and other perverse outcomes.

Further, while critics of private military companies enjoy denigrating mercenaries, they often neglect the state privileges conferred upon Blackwater during the ironically named Iraqi Freedom campaign that allowed for excessive uses of force. Absent these state privileges, a private company acting to secure commercial operations in Afghanistan would need to perform in accordance with local laws, customs, and industry standards. The liability for all violations would fall upon the actors and investors in those companies, and this is another reason to completely sever all authoritative connections between external governments and private military firms; let the risks and rewards be exclusively upon those with skin in the game.

So Mr. Prince’s proposal, by pointing out the perverse outcomes delivered by wasteful bureaucracies, is a small step in the right direction. He just needs to cut the umbilical cord, let the taxpayer off the hook, and let the production of security truly be private as a means of ending the ill-conceived, poorly executed tragedy of the US-led occupation of Afghanistan.

About the author:
*Tim Haffner
is an international security consultant and military veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also a doctoral student of political economy at the Swiss Management Center University.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

Oil Prices Are Set To Rebound – Analysis

0
0

By Nick Cunningham

The latest selloff in oil prices have left speculators in a predicament: The fundamentals continue to look poor with unimpressive drawdowns in crude oil stocks, but there is a general consensus that the extension of the OPEC deal should push the market towards a rebalancing over the next few quarters.

What that means for short-term movements in prices is unclear. The unpredictability of today’s oil market is leaving some investors burned by unexpected price gyrations. For example, just ahead of the recent selloff in prices last week, oil traders bought up bets on rising prices. Hedge funds and other money managers increased their bullish bets by 7.3 percent for the week ending on June 6, but prices plunged by 5 percent a day later.

Traders looking for some direction might want to consider the futures market, where a contango structure has reemerged. A contango, in which near-term oil futures trade at a discount to futures dated further out, is a symptom of oversupply. For example, two weeks ago, futures for December 2017 traded at a $1 per barrel discount compared to contracts for delivery in December 2018. That discount ballooned to $1.49 per barrel last week, according to Bloomberg, a sign that investors are growing more pessimistic about oversupply conditions this year. “Brent spreads are getting clobbered,” Amrita Sen, chief oil market analyst at consultants Energy Aspects Ltd., told Bloomberg. “The Atlantic Basin is awash in light crudes from Nigeria and Libya.

The December 2017-December 2018 spread is now deeper into contango territory than at any point since the original OPEC deal back in late 2016. In recent months the spread was positive – that is, the December 2017 contract traded at a premium compared to contracts a year later, a situation known as backwardation.

Several investment banks have insisted that OPEC’s best hope at draining inventories was to do just that: Induce a state of backwardation into the market. By driving up near-term prices while pushing down the back end of the futures curve, the argument goes, OPEC could scare off shale drilling. Producers would be deprived of finance by skittish lenders, and they would be reluctant to drill if they expected prices to be lower in the future. OPEC could achieve this state of backwardation by maintaining cuts this year while also signaling production growth in the future.

If that is the strategy, so far it has not succeeded. The reemergence of the contango reflects concerns about the glut persisting through this year.

Meanwhile, investors are growing wary of an energy market that continues to spurn them. Energy companies have been among the worst performing stocks in 2017. The poor results are leading to an exodus of capital from energy-linked exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Over the past three months, more than $300 million have been pulled out of energy ETFs, according to Bloomberg, which will likely result in the first quarterly outflow of capital from energy ETFs in more than two years. “People are re-allocating money to sectors that are performing better, technology or health-care, versus sitting on a sector like energy that’s down 10 plus percent,” Jeff Carbone, managing partner of Cornerstone Financial Partners, told Bloomberg. “We’re bottoming, but what pushes it higher? That’s the hard part.

The flip side is that some think that the selloff in energy is overdone. That is exactly why hedge funds and other money managers bought up a greater net-long position in early June, even though some might feel they got in at the wrong time. Nevertheless, the cratering of oil prices last week has opened up a buying opportunity. “When you start to approach $45 a barrel in WTI, you’re in an area where you do find some price support and I think there has been some evidence last week of investment flows coming back into crude oil,” Petromatrix strategist Olivier Jakob said in a Reuters interview. Jakob cautioned that the room on the upside could still be limited. “You have to be careful not to be too optimistic for now,” he said. “Physical differentials are still under pressure and the time structure is still under pressure in Brent. It’s a bit premature to call for much higher oil prices.

So what happens next depends on who you ask. Market fundamentals look weak but some traders see attractive entry points.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Has-Permian-Productivity-Peaked.html

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images