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

US-Led Military Exercise Kicks Off In Georgia

0
0

(Civil.Ge) — Two-week long U.S-led Noble Partner military exercise started at the Vaziani training area outside Tbilisi on July 30, a day before U.S. Vice President Mike Pence’s visited the country.

Over 2800 troops will take part in the drills, including 800 Georgian and 1600 U.S. military personnel. Other participating nations include Armenia, Germany, Slovenia, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

The key purpose of the exercise is to enhance cooperation and interoperability between the participating nations.

Among the planned training events are: airborne operations led by the U.S. 173rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team; joint live-fire exercise of the Georgian Fourth Brigade and an American battalion from the Third Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division; U.S. Naval Forces Europe equipment transfer from Bulgaria to Poti port; and combined arms live-fire exercise built around a defensive scenario.

As part of the military exercise, U.S. military equipment was ferried from Bulgaria to Georgia’s Black Sea port of Poti, including Stryker infantry carrier vehicles, which will be taking part in the drills for the first time.

Strykers, together with other military vehicles, marched along the East-West highway on July 31 from Senaki Military Base in western Georgia to Vaziani training area, passing through several cities along the road, including Gori which was particularly affected in the 2008 Russo-Georgian war.

Other U.S. military equipment, among them M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, was shipped by rail from Poti to Vaziani training area. Part of the U.S. army equipment was delivered using military aircraft.

Addressing the opening ceremony on July 30, President Giorgi Margvelashvili said the exercise is “a very important” occasion for Georgia. “I could not describe this joint training more precisely than its name itself, because we [indeed] are noble partners and companions, bearing together the flag of freedom, democracy, human rights and global stability.”

PM Giorgi Kvirikashvili, who also spoke at the opening ceremony, said that the drills would contribute to the armed forces’ “better professionalism, better resolve, better combat readiness and better compatibility to strategic and international partners” and that “it would be a guarantee for more peace, security and stability for the country.”

Describing the drills as “one of the largest, complex and dynamic” military exercises held in Georgia, Defense Minister Levan Izoria said at the opening ceremony that this exercise “along with deepening cooperation and increasing capacity of the armed forces,” would bring the country closer to NATO standards.

“That the number of military personnel and the equipment has been significantly increased [this year], speaks to the support of the United States, NATO member states and partner countries to Georgia and the regional stability,” Izoria also noted.

Noble Partner 17 is a part of a series of U.S.-led military exercises that are being held in the Black Sea region, including the Saber Guardian, held in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, and the See Breeze, held in Ukraine.


China Investment Lags In Belt And Road Countries – Analysis

0
0

By Michael Lelyveld

While China invests heavily in developed countries, it has relied mainly on construction contracts to expand its presence in the developing world, analysts say.

The distinction between investing and contracting may be key to understanding China’s approach to its major “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) initiative, the U.S. $1-trillion (6.7- trillion yuan) plan to recreate Silk Road trade routes through Asia and Africa to Western markets.

According to a recent report, China has recorded more than U.S. $1.6 trillion (10.8 trillion yuan) worth of deals under the broad category of foreign investment since 2005, including some U.S. $137 billion (924 billion yuan) in the first half of this year.

But only a portion of the huge total represents real investment.

A substantial share — at least U.S. $691.6 (4.6 trillion yuan) since 2005 — is actually the reported value of large engineering and construction contracts, primarily in developing economies.

The outbound investment and foreign contract categories are often lumped together to give a complete picture of China’s influence, said the report by the China Global Investment Tracker, compiled by the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Heritage Foundation.

But the distinction may be important to understanding the extent of China’s growing global reach.

“Investment brings full or partial ownership of an asset,” wrote AEI resident scholar Derek Scissors in an analysis.

“In many nations, China has signed contracts worth billions and brought in thousands of workers, but there is no ownership,” he said.

The contracts cover hundreds of construction projects, including rail lines, dams and power plants, in which China does not have equity stakes.

As large as it is, the tally may understate the value of Chinese contracting, since the monitor only lists projects of at least U.S. $100 million (675 million yuan) since 2005.

Contracting has been the main vehicle of China’s involvement in developing countries, often exceeding the value of real investment.

“The much-touted Belt and Road initiative is an investment dud, but construction is considerable,” Scissors said.

In Pakistan, for example, where China is building a major “economic corridor,” contracting valued at U.S. $38.3 billion (258.5 billion yuan) accounts for 78 percent of China’s total investment and contract activity.

By contrast, contracting represents a relatively minor portion of China’s dealings in developed countries, where it faces greater competition and resistance.

Debt obligations

While contracting has been China’s main conduit in OBOR countries, it can also lead to debt obligations and a more permanent presence in the developing world.

The issues of debt and development came to a head in Sri Lanka on Saturday as the country’s port authority signed a controversial U.S. $1.1-billion (7.4-billion yuan) deal, giving China effective control over its southern Hambantota port on a key OBOR route.

Under the agreement, China Merchants Port Holdings will take a 70-percent stake in a joint venture with the Sri Lankan authority and a 99-year lease on the port as part of a plan to convert U.S. $6 billion (40.4 billion yuan) in Chinese loans into equity, Reuters reported.

“We thank China for arranging this investor to save us from the debt trap,” the Sri Lankan port minister, Mahinda Samaraasinghe, was quoted as saying.

The deal has been resisted by opposition parties and has raised concern that the port could be used by Chinese naval vessels, Reuters said.

China’s investment in Western countries has focused on high-value acquisitions in sectors including technology, real estate and entertainment.

The United States has been the leading destination for Chinese investment, nearing U.S. $170 billion (1.1 trillion yuan) over the past 12 years.

Although U.S.-bound investment fell by some 50 percent from a year earlier in the first half of 2017, it still reached U.S. $17 billion (114 billion yuan), the tracker said.

China’s worldwide outbound investment rose 9 percent so far this year to U.S. $97.1 billion (655.2 billion yuan), but much of the increase was due to a single acquisition of the Swiss-based seed giant Syngenta, which was finalized during the period.

Without ChemChina’s U.S. $43-billion (290-billion yuan) deal, China’s investment would have dropped by about one- third, thanks in part to tighter capital controls, the study said.

On Monday, a Ministry of Commerce official cited a 42.9- percent decline in first-half oubound investment to 331.1 billion yuan (U.S. $49.4 billion). Investment in OBOR countries fell 3.6 percent, said Vice Minister Qian Keming.

Strategic intentions

The focus on contracts instead of investments in developing countries may provide clues to China’s strategic intentions in promoting OBOR and other foreign economic initiatives.

The comparatively low level of investments and ownership interests raises the question of what China wants in OBOR countries.

Is China only using its vast construction resources to build overseas infrastructure for trade, while keeping its surplus of contractors employed? Or is it establishing a permanent footprint for strategic purposes in the developing world?

In an email exchange, Scissors was asked whether Chinese contracting and construction in OBOR countries might be only a prelude to investment later on.

“If construction is a prelude to investment in OBOR countries, it’s a long prelude,” said Scissors.

“Chinese companies often prefer investment, but with their smaller economies, most developing countries can’t stomach the idea of large-scale Chinese ownership of their assets,” he said.

While some OBOR countries may experience an economic boom that would make large-scale Chinese investments “less intimidating,” most will want high volumes of construction rather than investment for years to come, Scissors said.

The database of the China Global Investment Tracker has identified U.S. $98 billion (661 billion yuan) of Chinese investment in 64 OBOR countries since 2014.

The list of countries for Chinese construction contracts is led by Pakistan, followed by Nigeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Algeria.

Outbound investment pattern

The recent pattern of China’s outbound investment has been inconsistent as regulators seek to balance orders to control financial risks and debt growth with the Communist Party’s story line of strong economic performance ahead of the critical 19th National Party Congress in the fall.

Despite the deep decline in first-half investment reported by the Ministry of Commerce, Chinese companies have invested in more than 3,900 overseas enterprises in 145 countries so far this year, the official Xinhua news agency said.

The pace of reported overseas deals slowed markedly after government agencies warned last December that they would closely monitor “irrational” investments in sectors including real estate, hotels, entertainment and sports.

The curbs coincided with tighter capital controls, prompted by declining foreign exchange reserves earlier in the year. But after months of forex stability, the investment pace has resumed at a reduced level.

According to the New York-based Rhodium Group, the number of newly-announced Chinese merger and acquisition deals abroad dropped 20 percent in the first half of 2017 from the year-earlier period, mostly due to a first-quarter slowdown.

Double-digit growth in transactions returned in March and April, while more than 20 new overseas deals with a value of at least U.S. $5 million (33.7 million yuan) were reported in both May and June.

The average deal size has fallen “dramatically” since last year, Rhodium said in a research note. While China signed deals worth U.S. $3 billion (20.2 billion yuan) or more at the rate of one a month in 2016, there were only two of that size in the first half of this year, it said.

In an apparent reaction to the abrupt slide in outbound investment, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) announced on July 19 that regulators will lift some restrictions, while continuing to discourage speculation in foreign real estate, hotels, entertainment and sports.

A spokesman for the planning agency said scrutiny would be eased for investment risks taken by “small parent companies with large subsidiaries and by new enterprises established in a short period of time rushing to go global,” the official English-language China Daily reported.

The steep drop in China’s outbound investment has been hard to reconcile with its intense promotion and investment promises in May at the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing.

China’s outbound investment was expected to total U.S. $600 billion (4 trillion yuan) to $800 billion (5.4 trillion yuan) over the next five years, said NDRC Vice Minister Ning Jizhe at the time.

If overseas investment continues at this year’s first-half rate, it would fall far short of those marks.

Legendary French Actress Jeanne Moreau Dies At 89

0
0

Jeanne Moreau, whose brooding beauty entranced international film audiences in such films as The Lovers, Jules et Jim and The Bride Wore Black, has died at the age of 89, The Hollywood Reporter reveals.

The French president’s office announced her death without providing a cause.

Dubbed “Le Moreau” for her slithering sensuality, she was a femme fatale who was also one of the top stage actresses of her time. Offscreen, Moreau oozed romance and mystery: She was likened to the free-spirited woman with two lovers whom she played in Francois Truffaut’s Jules et Jim.

She burst to international stardom in Louis Malle’s The Lovers (Les Amants) in 1958. The story of a woman who deserts her husband for a younger man, the film was controversial for the times and banned in some U.S. cities. Flaming her notorious image, Moreau next played in Roger Vadim’s Les Liaisons Dangereuses, which was also censored in several towns in France. It was briefly banned from export not for its sexuality, but for its unflattering depiction of French diplomats.

Moreau was one of the most sought-after actresses in the world and performed in an array of films with leading directors, including Jules et Jim (Truffaut), The Trial (Orson Welles), Eva (Joseph Losey), Peau de Banane (Marcel Ophuls), Renoir, La Notte (Michelangelo Antonioni), La Baie des Anges (Jacques Demy), Moderato Cantabile (Brook), Diary of a Chambermaid (Luis Bunuel), The Sailor From Gibraltar (Tony Richardson), Querelle (Rainer Werner Fassbinder).

She won the best actress award at Cannes in 1960 for her starring role in Peter Brook’s Moderato Cantabile.

More recently, she played in Map of the Human Heart (1992) and The Proprietor (1997).

Her personal life proved to be as captivated as her onscreen performances. “When I am in love, it influences my pleasure in acting,” she told Playboy in 1965. “Most people don’t have the energy for passion, so they give up and go to the movies.”

In 1976, Moreau wrote and directed Lumiere, which focused on four actresses. She also directed L’adolescente in 1979, which won critical acclaim. In 1997, she directed a third film, Solstice.

Moreau was born in Paris on Jan. 23, 1926, the daughter of an English chorus girl and a French bartender. She studied at the Conservatoire National d’Art Dramatique. In 1947, she began in La Terrasse de Midi at the Avignon Festival.

In 1948, at age 20, she became the youngest ever member of the repertory theater La Comedie Francaise, where she first appeared in A Month in the Country. She spent four years with the Comedie Francasie, and among other plays, she was in the original production of Andre Gide’s The Vatican Caves.

She left the Comedie Francaise in 1953 and joined the Theatre National Populaire, where she appeared in such plays as Le Cid and The Prince From Hamburg.

In 1953, she appeared in The Shining Hour at the Theatre Antoine and also played in Jean Cocteau’s The Internal Machine and Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion. In 1957, she played Maggy in Tennessee Williams’ Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, directed by Peter Brook.

She began her film career with a role in Dernier Amour. After a number of nondescript roles, she won her first strong notice as a prostitute in Jacques Becker’s Touchez-Paul au Grisbi.

In 1957, Malle sported her in a French theatrical production of Cat on a Hot Tin Root and cast her in his first feature film, Ascenseur Pour L’echafaud (Elevator to the Scaffold), which was released in the United States as Frantic.

Moreau served as president of the Commission d’Avances of France’s Centre National de la Cinematographie.

She served as president of the jury at the 1995 Cannes Film Festival.

She was married to William Friedkin from 1977 to 1979 and previously to Jean-Louis Richard.

Aardvarks’ Fate Affected By Climate Change

0
0

The aardvark, a highlight for anyone on a game-viewing African safari, will become increasingly rare as the world warms and dries, and the consequences go well beyond a decline in aardvark safari encounters.

According to researchers studying this elusive mammal, sometimes classed as one of the “Shy 5”, in South Africa’s Kalahari Desert, aardvarks prove to be highly susceptible to the warmer and drier climates that are predicted for the western parts of southern Africa, in the future. During the study of a number of aardvarks by researchers of the Brain Function Research Group at the University of the Witwatersrand, all but one of the study animals – as well as other aardvarks in the area – died because of a severe drought, with air temperatures much higher than normal and very dry soil in the area.

“While unusual now, those are the conditions that climate change is likely to bring as the new normal,” said Professor Andrea Fuller, the Research Group’s director.

Dr Benjamin Rey studied the aardvarks as part of his postdoctoral studies. Along with his colleagues, he used the new technology of “biologgers” (miniature sensors attached to computer chips and implanted into the aardvarks by wildlife veterinarians), to study the activity patterns and body temperatures of aardvarks living in the Kalahari. The researchers were not to know that during the year of their study there would be a severe drought, which led to the death of the study animals.

“It is not because the aardvark’s body can’t take the heat, but that the termites and ants that they rely on – not just for food but also for water – can’t take the heat and aridity of changing climates,” said Rey.

Aardvarks usually sleep during the day in burrows that they have dug, and emerge at night, to feed on ant and termites, using their long, sticky tongues to sweep up thousands of insects. However, during the drought, the termites and ants, on which the aardvark depends for body energy, were not available.

“As a result, the aardvarks’ body temperatures fell precipitously at night. The aardvarks tried to compensate by shifting their search for ants and termites from the colder night to the warmer day, so that they would not have to use energy to keep warm, but that was not enough to save their energy stores,” said Dr Robyn Hetem, a co-worker on the study. “We believe the aardvarks starved to death.”

The aardvark progressively became skinnier and bonier. They even tried sun-basking to save energy, but many ultimately died. Their body temperatures dropped to as low as 25°C just before they died.

Rey says that this curious-looking creature – described as having the snout of a pig, the ears of a rabbit and the tail of a kangaroo – is much more than just a curiosity to be checked off a bucket list.

“Many species of African birds, mammals and reptiles use the burrows dug by aardvarks to escape cold and heat, to reproduce, and to avoid predators. They can’t dig these burrows themselves. Without aardvarks, they would have no refuge. Worryingly, they could face the same fate as the aardvark.”

Climate change in southern Africa affects animals through the direct effects of increasing air temperatures and aridity. Wild dogs, for example, reduce hunting activity as temperature increases. But the indirect consequences of heat and aridity may be more pervasive. Disappearance of aardvarks, and with them the burrows that they dig, will have knock-on effects for many other animals.

Sad! Drifting Word Meanings May Be Creating Two Different Political Languages

0
0

If the current political discourse sounds a little like people are speaking two different languages, Penn State psychologists, who studied political rhetoric over the past three presidential elections, say that may be close to the case, semantically speaking.

In a series of studies, the researchers found a split between the same words presidential candidates from the nation’s two major political parties used and what those words mean. This semantic divide appears to be growing, they added, which may continue to make the possibility of dialogue difficult, if not impossible.

“This work was actually finished last year before the 2016 elections and we were struck by how different the rhetoric was between these different candidates,” said Ping Li, professor of psychology and associate director of the Institute for CyberScience. “In a lot of ways, it’s worse than speaking two different languages. If, for example, I speak Chinese and you don’t, you have no idea what I’m saying. But, if we’re both speaking English and you think you know what I am saying, but don’t get what I actually mean, or worse, think it means something different, it can be really confusing.”

The researchers examined how presidential candidates used words together — word association — in speeches and debates since 1999 to help determine the meaning of those words in the minds of the candidates. For example, when the word “table” appears in text together with the word “chair,” it provides meaning — or context — that the speaker is referring to a type of furniture, Li said. However, if “table” is used in a sentence with terms such as “town council” and “regulation,” for example, “table” could mean a type of legislative action.

In politics, context can be subtler and more complicated, according to the researchers, who report their findings in Behavior Research Methods, available online now.

“For example, if I use the word ‘security,’ that can mean a lot of different things,” he said. “Maybe I am referring to job security, or cyber-security, military security, or some other type of meaning for the word. Also, not only do the words in political speeches reflect different ideologies and ideas of the parties, but they can reflect the times of when the speech was made, so the meaning can change over time.”

In the most recent presidential election, the researchers said words, such as “deal” and “education,” provided not just a glimpse into how different the political rhetoric was between then-candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, but also suggests differences between their beliefs.

“In Donald Trump’s speeches, as a business person, he would apply the word ‘deal’ to almost anything,” said Li, who served as the paper’s lead author. “Of course, ‘deal’ is often associated with business, but, in his speeches, he also associated it with family and education, which would not traditionally be grouped together. So, this goes back to how word association can reflect attitudes and beliefs, as also shown in a recent Science paper by Aylin Caliskan and colleagues.”

Clinton, on the other hand, would more often associate the word “education” with women and family, he said.

“In this case, ‘education’ became an issue of equality and allowing everyone access to education,” said Li, who worked with Benjamin Schloss, a graduate student in cognitive psychology, and Jake Follmer, a graduate student in educational psychology.

The researchers compiled a list of 213 single words and 397 word phrases, including 136 politically charged words — such as “minority,” “spending” and “justice” — used by American political parties. They then used an artificial neural network algorithm to statistically examine how often words appear together in a sentence, or speech.

The researchers also found that political word association has changed over time.

“We charted word meaning changes over time between parties,” said Li. “What you see is that the parties have become farther and farther apart as time goes on. In other words, for the same word, people tend to associate different words for them and, hence, convey different meanings.”

In a follow-up study, the researchers were able to examine the word associations of a group of 324 participants and, by using machine-learning algorithms, predict their political leanings and what party they belonged to, as well as which candidate they were likely to vote for in the presidential elections.

“We were able to predict voters’ reported political affiliations with a relatively high degree of accuracy simply based on the way they organized a list of 50 political concepts, that is, how they grouped these concepts,” said Li. “This also suggests the complex interdependence of language, speech and culture.”

In the future, Li said the researchers may try to provide a more detailed picture of these interdependences by looking into more political concepts and documents from a larger pool of candidates and with more sophisticated computational methods.

Babies Of Overweight, Obese Or Diabetic Mothers Have Increased Risk Of Lung Problems

0
0

Babies born to women who are overweight, obese or have diabetes during their pregnancy have less mature lungs than babies of normal weight pregnancies. That’s according to research done in a sheep model of pregnancy, published today in The Journal of Physiology.

Previous research has shown that women who are overweight, obese or suffer diabetes during pregnancy have an increased risk of giving birth to a baby that experiences lung problems both at birth and later during infancy and childhood.

The team of researchers at the University of South Australia found that the offspring at risk had more immature lungs compared to offspring of mothers with normal weight. Lungs produce a substance called surfactant that serves two purposes: it keeps the airway surfaces from sticking together, and also fights bacteria and viruses. Immature lungs produce less surfactant meaning that the lungs cannot perform their normal functions.

The researchers either fed the pregnant sheep a normal diet or a diet that provided 55% more energy, simulating an over-nutrition and obesity model. This diet was fed during the last trimester of pregnancy which is when the most critical stage of lung development happens. They looked at the lungs of the lambs before birth and one month after birth to evaluate the growth of the lung and to check if there were a normal number of cells that make surfactant. They found that there was less surfactant production and fewer cells producing it in the offspring from mothers in the over-nutrition model.

One month after birth, the amount of surfactant had normalised in this model, so the long-term effect on lung maturation of being overweight, obese, or diabetic during pregnancy is unclear.

Professor Morrison, senior author of the study, commented:’These findings suggest it may be advisable for overweight, obese and diabetic pregnant women to be provided with treatments to help mature their babies’ lungs before they give birth. It may also be advisable for care providers to counsel overweight, obese and diabetic women to manage these states before becoming pregnant to improve the health of their unborn baby.’

She added, ‘Further studies will follow up with the offspring later in life to see if there is a higher risk of breathing problems’.

China Bans Teaching Uyghur Language In Schools

0
0

Authorities in China’s Xinjiang region have banned the use of the Uyghur language in schools, official sources have said.

Those violating the order face “severe punishment,” they said.

The ban is being seen as one of the strongest repressive measures yet imposed by Beijing to try and assimilate ethnic Muslim Uyghurs.

The Education Department in Xinjiang’s Hotan (in Chinese, Hetian) prefecture outlawed the use of Uyghur in schools, saying Mandarin Chinese should be spoken “in order to strengthen elementary and middle/high school bilingual education.”

In the directive — a copy of which was obtained by Radio Free Asia — schools must “insist on fully popularizing the national common language and writing system according to law, and add the education of ethnic language under the bilingual education basic principle.”

Mandarin Chinese “must be resolutely and fully implemented” for the three years of preschool, and “promoted” from the first years of elementary and middle school “in order to realize the full coverage of the common language and writing system education,” the directive said.

It instructs schools to “resolutely correct the flawed method of providing Uyghur language training to Chinese language teachers” and “prohibit the use of Uyghur language, writing, signs and pictures in the educational system and on campuses.”

Any school or individual that fails to enforce the new policy, will be designated “two-faced” and “severely punished,” it said, using a term regularly applied by the government to Uyghurs who do not willingly follow such directives.

A Han Chinese official in Hotan’s Qaraqash (Moyu) county education bureau said the directive was issued on June.

A Uyghur official with Hotan’s Chira (Cele) county government said she had been informed about the order, but was not fully aware of its contents.

Islamic State Presence In Afghanistan Still Strong, Iraqi Embassy In Kabul Suffers Attack

0
0

The Islamic State group claimed it had attacked the Iraqi embassy in Kabul on Monday, as a series of explosions and the sound of gunfire shook the Afghan capital in a continuing assault.

A security source told AFP that a suicide bomber had blown himself up outside the Iraqi embassy. “Civilians are being evacuated” from the area as the attack is ongoing, said the official, who declined to be named.

There was no immediate information about casualties.

Two members of “the Islamic State attack the Iraqi embassy building in the Afghan city of Kabul”, said the jihadist group’s propaganda agency Amaq without providing further details.

At least four explosions, along with the sounds of gunfire and grenades, were heard near the city’s diplomatic quarter shortly after 11:00 am (0630 GMT).

Security forces rapidly descended on the area and the sirens of ambulances rushing to the scene could also be heard. A column of smoke rose from the blast site.

Police confirmed at least one blast but said they did not immediately have further information.

The Iraqi embassy is located in northwestern Kabul, in a neighbourhood that is home to several hotels and banks as well as large supermarkets and several police compounds.

“I heard a big blast followed by several explosions and small gunfire,” said Ahmad Ali, a nearby shopkeeper.

“People were worried and closed their shops to run for safety. The roads are still blocked by security forces.”

The attack is the latest to rock Kabul, and comes as the resurgent Taliban intensify their offensive across the country.

A week ago, a car bomb struck the city during morning rush hour, killing at least 26 people in an attack claimed by the Taliban.

But the Islamic State group, recently ousted from the Iraqi city of Mosul, have been expanding their footprint in eastern Afghanistan and claimed responsibility for several devastating attacks in Kabul.

A recent UN report showed that nearly 20 percent of all civilian deaths in Afghanistan in the first half of 2017 took place in Kabul.

Many of those deaths occurred in a single attack in late May when a truck bomb exploded during the morning rush hour, killing more than 150 people and injuring hundreds.

No group has officially claimed responsibility for that attack, the deadliest in the capital since the US invasion in 2001.

NATO forces ended their combat mission in Afghanistan at the end of 2014. Since then Afghan troops and police, beset by soaring casualties, have struggled to beat back the insurgents.

The US is considering whether to send thousands more troops to help the beleaguered Afghan forces as the war-weary country is gripped by increasing insecurity.

Original source


Charlie Gard Was Baptized, Held St. Jude Medal Before Death

0
0

Charlie Gard, an 11 month-old British infant who made headlines around the world over a fierce legal battle on parental rights, had been baptized by April.

Around that time, a picture of his tiny fist made the rounds on the internet of him clutching a St. Jude medal.

The boy’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, on Friday issued a statement announcing his death, saying: “Our beautiful little boy has gone, we are so proud of you Charlie.”

Family spokesperson Alison Smith-Squire announced on Sunday that he will be buried with his toy monkeys, pictured with him in one of the viral photos of the boy.

“We should be planning Charlie’s first birthday but instead we’re planning his funeral,” his mother said, according to the Sun.

According to the Sun, his parents spent the weekend with family and on Monday were planning to register his death. They had wanted to keep a low profile from the media after the boy’s passing.

Charlie had been at the center of a legal battle between his parents and the Great Ormund Street Hospital (GOSH), an internationally known children’s hospital where he was being cared for. The case raised questions about medical ethics, end-of-life procedure, and parental rights.

Charlie was born on Aug. 4 last year, and in September was discovered to have a rare genetic condition which resulted in muscular deterioration. He was believed to be one of 16 sufferers of the disease in the world.

He was admitted to GOSH in October, and in a series of court cases stretching from March to June, judges repeatedly ruled in favor of doctors who wished to have the boy’s life support removed, all the way to the European Court of Human Rights’ rejection to hear the case. Yates and Gard had hoped to take Charlie to the U.S. for experimental treatment.

In early July, both Pope Francis and U.S. president Donald Trump intervened in support of the family on twitter. Trump said that the United States would cooperate with the boy’s parents in helping Charlie receive the experimental care.

On July 10, unpublished research on Charlie’s condition seemed to indicate the therapy being developed in the States could improve his condition. However, as weeks passed, his condition deteriorated beyond chance of improvement, and GOSH doctors insisted that international specialists claiming he could improve had not fully reviewed his medical records.

Yates and Gard conceded their legal battle on Monday after the latest medical reports indicated their son was beyond improvement indefinitely, and began fighting to have him spend a week in care at home before life support would be pulled.

On Thursday, Yates announced that they had been denied their wish to have him die at home. The boy’s parents had wished to spend a week with him in hospice. This too, however, was denied to them on the grounds that it may cause Charlie prolonged suffering, according to GOSH doctors.

The boy’s death was announced on Friday in a statement from the family.

A number of prominent figures, both from the secular and Catholic worlds, made statements on the passing of the little boy whose plight sparked international support as well as a debate on medical, infant, and parental rights.

Shortly after his passing was announced, Pope Francis tweeted his solidarity with the parents.

“I entrust little Charlie to the Father and pray for his parents and all those who loved him,” the pontiff said. He had previously made two statements in support of and solidarity with the child and his parents. One of these statements led to “the Pope’s hospital,” l’Ospedale Bambino Gesù, offering to care for Charlie.

Days before the boy’s passing, Bambino Gesù issued another statement, called “Charlie’s Legacy,” noting that it was too late for the boy to receive care but also commending the fact that “(f)or the first time, the international scientific community has gathered around a single patient, to carefully evaluate all the possibilities.” They called this “the true legacy of Charlie.”

The Great Ormund Street Hospital, where Charlie spent much of his final months, sent “heartfelt condolences.” Charlie’s parent had accused the hospital of putting up “obstacles” to allowing their child to die at home. The parents’ taking GOSH to court was the spark that lit the months-long legal turmoil for the family.

Theresa May, Prime Minister of Great Britain, said: “I am deeply saddened by the death of Charlie Gard. My thoughts and prayers are with Charlie’s parents Chris and Connie at this difficult time.”

Vice President Mike Pence tweeted, “Saddened to hear of the Passing of Charlie Gard. Karen & I offer our prayers & condolences to his loving parents during this difficult time.”

The March for Life issued a statement with their condolences and offering their prayers for the family.

“Though his life here on earth was cut short, Charlie’s spirit will continue to inspire an international fight to ensure that the sanctity of every human life is respected,” the March’s statement said.

Catherine Glenn Foster, President and CEO of Americans United for Life, issued a statement saying that “Our hearts are heavy today as we learn of Charlie Gard’s passing. We are so thankful for his life, which though too brief, has made a lasting impact on the world and drawn together people from all walks of life and political persuasions, uniting them around the dignity and value of every human being.” She also offered condolences to the parents and assured that “Charlie’s legacy” would build a culture of life.

The Catholic Association (TCA) also offered their condolences, noting that Gard and Yates had to endure both the death of their son as well as a tumultuous legal fight.

“(T)his excruciating decision should have belonged to his loving and devoted parents,” the TCA said. “There was no apparent compelling justification for the courts to override and replace the unique parental bond of love in this case, which has only added to the heartbreak of Charlie’s passing.”

The TCA statement continued: “The international response to the plight of this baby is a beautiful testament to the irreplaceable value of one human life.”

Looking To Future Through First Autonomous Artificial Iris

0
0

The science of photonics continues to impact many areas of our lives from telecommunications to information processing, but the EU-funded PHOTOTUNE project recently highlighted its potential for medical applications, and the next generation of robotics.

Researchers from the PHOTOTUNE project recently published a study in the Advanced Materials journal, which announced the creation of an artificial iris which can react to light much as a human eye does. The study harnessed so-called photoalignment technology (also used in some contemporary mobile phone displays) in conjunction with light-sensitive liquid crystal elastomers (LCEs or networks of polymer chains) to manufacture the iris.

What makes the invention stand out is its ability to function more autonomously than previous efforts, as it does not rely on external light detection systems or power sources. The head of the research group, Associate Professor Arri Priimägi elucidates, ‘An autonomous iris that can independently adjust its shape and the size of its aperture in response to the amount of incoming light is a new innovation in the field of light deformable materials.’

Exploring potential biomedical applications

The iris is a tissue in the eye which controls the amount of light that is let into the eye through alteration of the eye’s pupil size. Ensuring that the eye’s retina receives the right amount of light is key to enabling vision with any degree of high quality and definition. As Associate Professor Priimägi describes the new technology, ‘The artificial iris looks a little bit like a contact lens and its centre opens and closes according to the amount of light that hits it.’

The same process is harnessed by camera technology. However, cameras rely on a process that uses light detection systems to adjust the amount of incoming light, which then reaches the image sensors in digital cameras and film in analogue versions, so producing high-quality pictures.

The most obvious medical application of the technology is for the treatment of iris defects, but the researchers acknowledge that much work still lies ahead to fine-tune the technology before it is ready to be rolled out. As Associate Professor Priimägi further explains, ‘Our next goal is to make the iris function also in aqueous environments. Another important goal will be to increase the sensitivity of the device in order to make it react to smaller changes in the amount of incoming light. These developments will be the next steps towards possible biomedical applications.’

Photonics helping to herald the age of ‘soft robots’

More broadly, the PHOTOTUNE (Tunable Photonic Structures via Photomechanical Actuation) project was set up to develop a range of functional and stimuli-responsive materials based on polymers and liquid crystals, with particular focus on light-controllable systems. A specific area of interest for the researchers is the exploration of potential applications for so-called ‘soft robotics’.

Earlier this year the team published a study in the Nature Communications journal about their advances in developing a light-activated polymer gripper. They have likened the functioning of this device to that of a Venus flytrap plant as PHOTOTUNE, using their light-driven technology to achieve what they call ‘feedback-type actuation’. This enabled the device to display autonomous object recognition, including the ability to make selections from amongst those objects based on pre-determined characteristics.

Cordis Source: Based on project information and media reports

Handling J&K: What Is Right And What More Needs To Be Done? – Analysis

0
0

By Lt Gen (Retd) Syed Ata Hasnain*

As the Kashmir Valley stabilises just a bit, there is the lurking fear that the next big negative event may not be very far in the future. In such an environment, it may be good to take stock of trends that may contribute to further improvement and be aware of faults that need to be focused upon and rectified.

The first of the positives is the obvious resilience being displayed by the J&K Police in the face of serious intimidation of its rank and file ever since mid-2016. Kashmiri police personnel have suffered from a strident campaign brought against them with vengeance. From the killing of SHO Achabal and his team of comrades to the lynching of DSP Ayub Pandith, targeting of unarmed traffic policemen and even policemen on leave the J&K Police personnel of the Valley have borne immense pressure both while performing duties and off duty hours. In the face of this intimidation and the sanctioned threats endorsed by the Separatists there were times when some police families had to virtually beg forgiveness from Separatists.

There is something very correct about the training of J&K policemen and the ethos with which they serve. However, this loyalty should not remain unrecognised. The Army, one of the biggest benefactors of police loyalty and effectiveness, must continue to respect it and strive to work together at different levels. Incidents like the one at Gund police station in Ganderbal district work against the joint effectiveness of the two strongest Indian institutions.

For all these years we have known exactly what role finance and networks play in the sustenance of violence and anti-national activities in Kashmir. Somehow there appeared to be tremendous reluctance to act against these. In fact there was official addition to the coffers of the Separatists through legitimate payments for travel, medical and other assistance. A media house’s sting operation has become the trigger for revelation of details of conduits that make up these networks. In Iraq, the effectiveness of the Islamic State (IS) reduced very largely once the oil finance networks and the money from the looted treasury began to dwindle. The National Investigation Agency’s serious investigation is already leading to loss of Separatist effectiveness. Sustained efforts at making financing almost impossible will prevent the supply of military withdrawal, draw away potential stone throwers, compromise the rising strength of vigilantes in rural mosques and force LoC infiltration guides out of business. A possible fifty per cent reduction in overall anti-social activity will be possible over the next few months but sustainability is the key.

Linked to the financial conduits is the issue of trans-LoC trade. In the 10 years of its existence since 2008, there has been little concern towards formalising this trade and taking it to the next level with barter giving way to an institutionalised banking system. J&K Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti’s Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) party had invested much in this initiative but has been unable to convince the Centre to go beyond. As one of the avenues of illegal movement of money, drugs and sim cards, the trade is now under threat and could become a bone of contention between the coalition partners.

The missing link is the diffused, leadership which apparently holds more power than the largely discredited Hurriyat leadership. Now that the latter is under the scanner for a range of anti-social activities, its usefulness to the establishment being questionable, the time is ripe to ascertain and identify the source that sustains the rabble rousing. There is no doubt that the infrastructure for anti-social activity remains the one set up and nourished by the Hurriyat. While identifying the new leadership the Indian security establishment must turn focus on this infrastructure and neutralise it leaving little scope for revival.

The handling of the Amarnath Yatra tragedy involving the unfortunate death of seven pilgrims in a terror attack should give the existing coalition government more confidence. The after effects being comparatively much lower due to public and political maturity should have a telling psychological effect on the sponsors of proxy war and the public. It motivated the chief minister to send a strong message to her party members that disconnect from the people of South Kashmir, once their bastion, cannot continue on the pretext of the adverse security situation. However, if the chief minister has to walk this talk it will need the support of one organisation which can make all the difference, the Army; it has the deployment, reach, contact with people and the robust ability to secure a grand engagement plan. It cannot be a creeping plan. It just has to be bold with transformational approach. All the talk about not talking will vanish once the government, the politician and security forces are speaking with the people and not the leadership. It is not difficult but needs imagination and a positive mindset.

Lastly, soon the Yatra will end and the special additional forces would have done their job. For the Army, no return to base for these units is strongly recommended. More troops will help in denying the terrorists space and through the next three to four months, will ensure that operations in South Kashmir can be more proactive.

With change of government in Pakistan one should expect more unpredictability. The form in which it will manifest is something for us to ponder.

* Lt Gen (Retd) Syed Ata Hasnain
Member, Governing Council, IPCS, & former GOC, 15 Corps, Srinagar

What’s At Stake In Doklam Stand-Off? – OpEd

0
0

The uneasy military standoff between China and India in the Doklam plateau area of Bhutan, near the tri-junction between the three countries, will enter its third month by mid-August. A modus vivendi appears elusive as of now because the much hoped for breakthrough in the just concluded visit of national security adviser Ajit Doval to Beijing for a Brics-related meeting, did not materialise. But the silver lining to a dark bilateral cloud is that there has been no breakdown between Delhi and Beijing over Doklam. The standoff over Doklam has a complex genealogy and involves a large chunk of colonial history that includes the 1890 Anglo-Chinese convention and a subsequent iteration of 1906. However, Bhutan was not party to this convention at the time. After both India and China became independent in the late 1940s, they engaged in the 1962 border war over an opaque territorial dispute that is still unresolved. A status quo was arrived at over a 4,000 km Line of Actual Control that also acknowledged Bhutan’s claim over the disputed areas in the tri-junction near the Chumbi Valley. Over various meetings, the special representatives of India and China came to an agreement in 2012, that the status quo at the tri-junction would not be disturbed pending final settlement in consultation with the “third country” — in this case, Bhutan.

The Indian narrative on the sequence of events notes that China was engaged in road-building activity in the disputed Doklam plateau — which, if completed, would have altered the tactical military situation in China’s favour. Delhi deemed this to be a serious security concern that would render vulnerable the critical Siliguri Corridor that connects the Indian mainland to the Northeast. India has a special relationship with Bhutan that is detailed in the Friendship Treaty of 2007. As per this, both nations are mandated to “cooperate closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests” and, furthermore, “neither government shall allow the use of its territory for activities harmful to the national security and interest of the other.” When Thimphu registered its protest at this Chinese incursion into Bhutanese territory — albeit disputed — and urged Beijing to restore the status quo, India stepped in to prevent the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops from continuing their construction activity. Since then the issue has festered, with Beijing claiming that the Doklam area, where they were constructing the road, was indeed Chinese territory; and that, in the event that there was a dispute, it was between China and Bhutan where India had no locus.

The legal claims by all three parties — Bhutan, China and India — lend themselves to detailed interpretation. Depending on where one’s empathy lies on this issue, persuasive arguments have been advanced on both sides to buttress the Chinese claim or, well, that of India. Beijing has often invoked history in a selective manner to strengthen its position (three warfare tenets?) and disparaged other historical claims and international jurisprudence, as was seen in the South China Sea case and the tribunal award that did not go in its favour. However, Doklam cannot be viewed in isolation and it is instructive to review Beijing’s response since mid-June and seek to illuminate what may have fuelled China’s current anxiety and deep insecurity over contested territoriality in relation to India and, by extension, Bhutan. The Doklam incident is distinctive, for it involves a third country and is hence not quite comparable to more recent bilateral events such as Depsang (2013) and Chumar (2014). The other strand about Doklam that goes beyond past precedent is the very angry and disparaging/offensive anti-India turn of phrase used by some media outlets in China. The flip side is that part of the Indian television spectrum which is equally shrill in denouncing China for its muscular assertiveness — and exhorts the Narendra Modi government to stay firm and give the PLA a “bloody nose” — if push comes to shove over Doklam.

Both China and India have been differently convulsed by the vicissitudes of history — both colonial and Cold War — and in the last 25 years they have acquired a self-image about their locus in Asia and, by extension, the world stage. Ironically, this self-image is not shared outside of their own constituencies, much less by each other. China under President Xi Jinping seeks to return to the imagined grandeur of the Middle Kingdom and an equally confident Prime Minister Narendra Modi is determined to steer India towards its destiny as a “leading power”. Mutual and empathetic accommodation of each other’s aspirations and anxieties has remained elusive since the early 1990s. Beijing’s decision to enter into a strategic relationship that included transfer of nuclear weapons and missile technology to Pakistan’s military to assuage its own deeply embedded post-Tiananmen insecurities lies at the core of the current Doklam tension in a non-linear manner. My assessment is that when India was accorded an exceptional nuclear status in the fall of 2008 by a US-led initiative, the seeds of Doklam were sown. Beijing’s Asia policy, it appears, is to constrain both India and Japan till they accept Chinese primacy. A former PM of India had once wryly observed that after the end of this nuclear ostracism, Beijing’s unstated objective has been to “keep India in a state of extended disequilibrium”.

In the last three years since Mr Modi assumed office, both nations have had a contradictory relationship, wherein cooperation in certain issues and fora — for instance climate change, Brics and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation — has been leavened with discord over the Nuclear Suppliers Group membership, support to certain terror leaders at the United Nations Security Council and, most recently, the One Belt, One Road summit in Beijing. The resolve that Delhi now exudes is new, and Doklam is a case in point. How prudent will it be in the long run to advance India’s comprehensive national interests remains moot. A.G. Noorani, one of India’s most rigorous China-watcher, has cautioned: “At stake is something far more than the immediate crisis over the land in Doklam. What is at stake is the future of India’s relations with China.” Doklam may well turn out to be the bellwether about the texture of the Asian century.

This article appeared at Deccan Chronicle

Playing Both Sides Against The Middle: Saudi Engages With Iraqi Shiites – Analysis

0
0

Saudi Arabia, with the Islamic State on the ropes in Iraq, is forging ties to Iraqi Shiite leaders and offering to help fund reconstruction of Mosul and other predominantly Sunni Muslim cities that were devastated in the military campaign against the jihadist group.

The Saudi outreach to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and controversial Shiite scholar, politician and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr, who last week held rare talks in Jeddah with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, aims to contain significant Iranian influence in Iraq. Mr. Al-Sadr is widely seen as having balanced his strong sense of nationalism with his relations with Iran. It was his first visit to the kingdom in more than a decade.

Mr. Al-Sadr’s visit was a far cry from the days not so long ago when as a firebrand he railed against the kingdom, prompting an Iraqi poet to declare that “with Moqtada’s help we will destroy Saudi Arabia.”

Mr. Al-Sadr, who has criticized powerful Iranian-sponsored Shiite militias fighting the Islamic State alongside the Iraqi army as well as Iran’s backing of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, was preceded by Mr. Al-Abadi who was received in the kingdom in June despite having voiced days before his visit opposition to the two-month old Saudi-UAE led diplomatic and economic boycott of Qatar.

Rivalry with Iran is one of the core issues in the Gulf crisis. The Saudi-UAE alliance has demanded that Qatar curtail its relations with Iran, with which it shares the world’s largest gas field.

The Saudi outreach also signals a rare Saudi recognition that Iranian influence is a fact in a vicious proxy war that so far has been largely fought by the kingdom as a zero-sum-game. The proxy war prompted Saudi Arabia’s ill-fated military intervention in Yemen that has brought Yemen to the brink of the abyss as it battles famine and epidemics, aggravated Syria’s brutal civil war, and sparked sectarian tensions across the Muslim world.

Ibrahim al-Marie, a retired Saudi colonel and Riyadh-based security analyst, voiced Saudi expectations of its outreach when he noted that “the significant improvement in Saudi-Iraqi relations, official and non-official, doesn’t mean that Iran’s domination of Iraq has decreased or will decrease. Dealing with all political currents in the Arab world is expected from a country of the kingdom’s size and stature.”

The Saudi outreach, despite Saudi Arabia’s designation of Iranian-backed Lebanese militia Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, constitutes the second time in six months that the kingdom has opted for engagement rather than confrontation.

Saudi Arabia in February reversed its cancellation of $3 billion in military aid to Lebanon, where Hezbollah is one of the country’s foremost political forces and part of the government; appointed a new ambassador; rescinded its advice to Saudis not to visit Lebanon, a popular Saudi tourism destination; increased flights to Beirut by its national carrier; and welcomed Lebanese President Michel Aoun, a Christian ally of Hezbollah, on a visit to the kingdom.

Prince Mohmmed reached out to Mr. Al-Sadr as the kingdom’s security forces were cracking down on activists in the predominantly Shiite, oil-rich Eastern Province. The Saudi interior ministry reported earlier this week that a police officer was killed and six others injured when their patrol was attacked in the town of Al Awamiyah. Al Awamiyah was home to Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, the Shia scholar whose execution in early 2016 sparked a rupture in Saudi-Iranian diplomatic relations.

Canada, which sold $15 billion worth of armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, last week launched an investigation into claims that they had been employed in crackdowns on Shiites. The investigation was based on videos released by Saudi human rights activists that purported to show the use of Canadian vehicles in past crackdowns in the Eastern Province rather than the current operation in Al Awamiyah.

Saudi engagement with Iraqi leaders comes in advance of Iraqi provincial and parliamentary elections scheduled for next year. Mr. Al-Sadr’s visit to Jeddah took on added significance because of his opposition to Mr. Al-Abadi’s rival, former Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is widely seen as a major Iranian asset. The visit raised questions of what role Mr. Al-Sadr may want to play in countering Iranian influence in cooperation with the kingdom.

Messrs. Al-Sadr and Al-Abadi hope that Saudi Arabia will not only help in funding reconstruction of predominantly Sunni Muslim cities that have been left in ruins by the campaign against the Islamic State, but also in building bridges to a community that feels that it has been marginalized since the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s minority Sunni regime. They believe that Saudi Arabia will be able to leverage not only its financial muscle but also the fact that many Iraqi Sunni tribes share a common lineage with Saudi clans.

Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city prior to its takeover by the Islamic State in 2014, has been virtually destroyed. Its infrastructure will have to be rebuilt from scratch at an estimated cost of tens of billions of dollars. Rebuilding other cities ravaged by the anti-Islamic State campaign has been slow to get off the ground.

Some optimists suggest that there may be more to Saudi moves. They hold out the possibility that Prince Mohammed is looking for a back channel to Iran, a role Mr. Al-Sadr could fulfil as one of the few Iraqi Shiite politicians who has reasonable relations with both the Islamic republic and the kingdom. More likely, however, Prince Mohammed sees an opportunity to exploit differences within the Iraqi Shiite community towards Iran and the government’s need of help in forging bridges to its Sunni citizens.

“One thing is for sure. The Saudis did not invite a major Iraqi Shiite cleric to Jeddah just to inquire after his health,” quipped Middle East scholar Juan Cole.

Why Planned Parenthood Should be Defunded – OpEd

0
0

By Laurence M. Vance*

Planned Parenthood has 56 independent local affiliates that operate more than 600 centers across the country. According to Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual report, 41 percent ($555 million) of the organization’s revenue comes from government reimbursements and grants.

Planned Parenthood is also the nation’s largest abortion provider, performing more than 320,000 abortions a year — more than 30 percent of the nation’s annual total.

Republicans Continue to Fund the Organization

Congressional Republicans often say they want to defund Planned Parenthood because it performs abortions. That, of course, means that the organization has been previously funded. And funded it has been — for years, by Republicans, most recently in the omnibus spending bill (H.R.244) to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year that was signed into law by Trump on May 5. If Republicans, the vast majority of whom would say they are against abortion, are so opposed to Planned Parenthood because it performs abortions, then why did they fund the organization with millions of taxpayer dollars during the Bush years when they had a majority in both Houses of Congress for more than four years?

Just to clarify, the federal government does not directly fund abortions, except when it does. Congress passed the Hyde Amendment in 1976 — three years after the historic Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that effectively overturned most state abortion laws. It prohibits federal Medicaid coverage of abortions, except when the pregnancy will endanger the woman’s life or results from rape or incest. However, it doesn’t prevent the states from using their own funds to pay for abortions, and seventeen states do provide abortions to women enrolled in Medicaid. Conservatives argue that because the federal dollars given to abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood are fungible, no abortion provider should be eligible for Medicaid reimbursements, not even for cancer screenings, birth control, or preventive care.

This year, the Republicans have offered two bills that would restrict this spending. Both the American Health Care Act (AHCA) and the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) would cut off federal Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood for one year (about half of Planned Parenthood patients are on Medicaid) and prohibit most consumers from using tax credits to help buy insurance that includes coverage for abortions.

The bills don’t actually mention Planned Parenthood. What they do say is that

for the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, no Federal funds provided from a program referred to in this subsection that is considered direct spending for any year may be made available to a State for payments to a prohibited entity, whether made directly to the prohibited entity or through a managed care organization under contract with the State.

The bills define a “prohibited entity” as “an entity, including its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics”

(A) that, as of the date of enactment of this Act —

(i) is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code;

(ii) is an essential community provider described in section 156.235 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act), that is primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive health, and related medical care; and

(iii) provides for abortions, other than an abortion —

(I) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or

(II) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself; and

(B) for which the total amount of Federal and State expenditures under the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act in fiscal year 2014 made directly to the entity and to any affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics of the entity, or made to the entity and to any affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics of the entity as part of a nationwide health care provider network, exceeded $350,000,000.

But, the bills don’t block the millions in Title X family-planning funds Planned Parenthood receives annually.

Naturally, the president of Planned Parenthood opposed the bills. Cecile Richards said in a statement, “Slashing Medicaid and blocking millions of women from getting preventive care at Planned Parenthood is beyond heartless. One in five women in this country rely on Planned Parenthood for care. They will not stay silent as politicians vote to take away their care and their rights.” She also termed the proposed legislation “the worst bill for women’s health in a generation.”

Let’s Pursue a Real Defunding Effort

Planned Parenthood should certainly be defunded, but not because it performs abortions or does anything else that conservatives don’t like.

There are three simple reasons why Planned Parenthood should be defunded.

First of all, the Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to fund private organizations or businesses that provide services. Here is something that Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, pro-choicers and pro-lifers should all be in perfect agreement on.

Second, it is an illegitimate function of government to take money from individuals and businesses through taxation and transfer that money to organizations or businesses that provide services — even to nonprofits, even to organizations that don’t perform abortions, and even to businesses that provide important services. Businesses should charge for all services they provide and organizations that provide free or low-cost services should be funded by private grants and individual donations. If businesses can’t get enough customers and organizations can’t get enough grants or donations, then they should close.

Third, if it is okay for a private organization or business to receive government funds for providing family planning, STD testing, or cancer-screening services, then no logical argument can be made against a private organization or business to receive government funds for providing pest-control, auto-repair, hairstyling, house painting, or landscaping services.

It is not just Planned Parenthood that needs to be defunded. All organizations and businesses on the federal dole should be defunded.

Adapted from a longer article at the Future of Freedom Foundation. 

About the author:
*Laurence M. Vance
is an Associated Scholar of the Mises Institute, founder of the Francis Wayland Institute, and a columnist for LewRockwell.com and the Future of Freedom Foundation. He is the author of The War on Drugs is a War on FreedomWar, Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian Militarism, and War, Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy.​

Source:
This article was published by MISES Institute

Robert Reich: Hill Republicans, Trump Is Fritzing Out – OpEd

0
0

This morning I phoned my friend, a former Republican member of Congress.

Me: What’s going on? Seems like the White House is imploding and Republicans are going down with the ship.

Him (chuckling): We’re officially a banana republic.

Me: Seriously, what are you hearing from your former colleagues on the Hill?

Him: They’re convinced Trump is out of his gourd.

Me: So what are they gonna do about it?

Him: Remember what I told you at the start of this circus? They planned to use Trump’s antics for cover, to get done what they most wanted – big tax cuts, rollbacks of regulations, especially financial. They’d work with Pence behind the scenes and forget the crazy uncle in the attic.

Me: Yeah.

Him: Well, I’m hearing a different story now. Stuff with Sessions is pissing them off. And now Trump’s hired that horse’s ass Scaramucci – a communications director who talks dirty on CNN! Plus Trump’s numbers are in freefall. They think he’s gonna hurt them in ’18 and ’20.

Me: So what’s the plan?

Him: They want him outa there.

Me: Really? Impeachment?

Him: Doubt it, unless Mueller comes up with a smoking gun.

Me: Or if he fires Mueller.

Him: Not gonna happen.

Me: So how do they get him out?

Him: Put someone else up in ’20. Lots of maneuvering already. Pence, obviously. Cruz thinks he has a shot.

Me: But that won’t help them in the midterms. What’s the plan before then?

Him: Lots think he’s fritzing out.

Me: Fritzing out?

Him: Going totally bananas. Paranoia. You want to know why he fired Priebus, wants Sessions out, and is now gunning for Tillerson?

Me: He wants to shake things up?

Him (chuckling): No. The way I hear it, he thinks they’ve been plotting against him.

Me: What do you mean?

Him: Twenty-fifth amendment! Read it! A Cabinet can get rid of a president who’s nuts. Trump thinks they’ve been preparing a palace coup. So one by one, he’s firing them.

Me: I find it hard to believe they’re plotting against him.

Him: Of course not! It’s ludicrous. Sessions is a loyal lapdog. Tillerson doesn’t know where the bathroom is. That’s my point. Trump is fritzing out. Having manic delusions. He’s actually going nuts.

Me: And?

Him: Well, it’s downright dangerous.

Me: Yeah, but that still doesn’t tell me what Republicans are planning to do about it.

Him: Look. How long do you think it will be before everyone in Washington knows he’s flipping out? I don’t mean just weird. I mean really off his rocker.

Me: I don’t know.

Him: No all that long.

Me: So what are you telling me?

Him: They don’t have to plot against him. It will be obvious to everyone that he’s got to go. That’s where the twenty-fifth amendment really does comes in.

Me: So you think…

Him: Who knows? But he’s losing it fast. My betting is he’s out of office before the midterms. And Pence is president.


Pakistan: PM Nawaz Sharif’s Fate Sealed After Panama Papers Verdict – OpEd

0
0

It is a sad commentary on Muslim rulers and leaders that most of them are corrupt and shamelessly use even terrorism drama to mint wealth illegally, keeping them in the country concerned and abroad.

Arab rulers are the best examples who have huge assets indoors and abroad. Pakistan is one of worst affected corrupt nations just like its neighbor India where corruption at top level is promoted and protected by the government and president as their prime duty. People are disconnected from the government and deleted from the sphere of activities of their elected representatives to the assemblies and parliament where the rich corporate lords who lavishly fund the parties and their erections, have full sway. Parliaments and assemblies in these two nations are made to promote the interests of rich and corporate lords and MNCs In fact, after the polls, people, voters are nobody and if they have problems they must bribe the MLAs and MPs to get redressal, if any. These “big’ elected people have their own wealth agenda by immoral illegal means.

The Pakistani regime promotes and protects the private interests of the rich and aristocrats like Nawaz Sharif and his family. In fact, by using the name Muslim league the party works against the genuine interests of common Muslims. That is the case of Muslim League in India where Muslims have to bribe the ML leaders for a job and any such services and thus poor Muslims are ignored by the party which is supposed committed to all Muslims. The Muslim party employs criminal-fraud elements to tor the poor Muslims, others.

That is the real state of sad affairs of Muslim League both in India and Pakistan which behaves like a capitalist party. It cheats and betrays people.

Nawaz Sharif which was PM of Pakistan many times is an aristocrat with large business assets in and outside Pakistan and has ony the interests of the rich like Imran Khan who made money playing cricket fixed by the international mafias.

On July 28, Nawaz Sharif has resigned as prime minister of Pakistan following a decision by the country’s Supreme Court to disqualify him from office. The ruling came after a probe into his family’s wealth following the 2015 Panama Papers dump linking Sharif’s children to offshore companies.

Sharif, like India’s international frauds cum Bharatratna candidates like liquor-IPL magnet Vijay Mallya who after cheating India on finances, is enjoying life in London obviously with the backing of BJP government, has consistently denied any wrongdoing in the case. The five judges reached a unanimous verdict in the Islamabad court, which was filled to capacity. “Following the verdict, Nawaz Sharif has divested himself of his responsibility as prime minister,” a spokesman for Sharif’s office said in a statement. However, it said he had “serious reservations” about the judicial process.

That is the greatness of Pakistani judiciary, unlike its Indian counterpart which waits for “notes” from Indian government before declaring judgments of very important cases like Babri Mosque destroyed by the criminal elements of RSS-BJP and allies, now functions independently.

The court’s ruling stated that Sharif had been dishonest in not disclosing his earnings from a Dubai-based company in his nomination papers during the 2013 general election. One of the judges, Ejaz Afzal Khan, said that Mr Sharif was no longer “eligible to be an honest member of the parliament”. The court has recommended anti-corruption cases against several individuals, including Mr Sharif, his daughter Maryam and her husband Safdar, Finance Minister Ishaq Dar and others.

The case hearings – spread over nearly 15 months – have been marred by controversy. The case belongs in a criminal court. The Supreme Court, which is an appellate body, initially refused to hear it. But then it not only admitted the petition for hearing, it also took the unusual step of instituting its own investigation into the case, with a dominant role for military intelligence services.

Many believe that the Supreme Court has started a process of cracking down on corruption, which augurs well for democracy. Others see this as part of a long history of political manipulation through which the country’s powerful military establishment has sought to control civilian decision-making.

However, while across-the-board action against corruption may remain a pipe dream, this verdict will open the gates of power for a new set of politicians – as has often happened in the past.

A huge leak of documents has lifted the lid on how the rich and powerful use tax havens to hide their wealth. The files were leaked from one of the world’s most secretive companies, a Panamanian law firm called Mossack Fonseca. The files show how Mossack Fonseca clients were able to launder money, dodge sanctions and avoid tax. In one case, the company offered an American millionaire fake ownership records to hide money from the authorities. This is in direct breach of international regulations designed to stop money laundering and tax evasion.

It is the biggest leak in history, dwarfing the data released by the Wikileaks organisation in 2010. For context, if the amount of data released by Wikileaks was equivalent to the population of San Francisco, the amount of data released in the Panama Papers is the equivalent to that of India. There are links to 12 current or former heads of state and government in the data, including dictators accused of looting their own countries. More than 60 relatives and associates of heads of state and other politicians are also implicated. The files also reveal a suspected billion-dollar money laundering ring involving close associates of .rulers of most the G20 nations, including three of the four children of Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. who is now in his largest trouble..

The leaks in April 2016 revealed that three of Mr Sharif’s children owned offshore companies and assets not shown on his family’s wealth statement. The companies were allegedly used to channel funds to acquire foreign assets, including some apartments along Park Lane in London’s Mayfair area.

Despite documents from the Panama Papers suggesting that the beneficial owner of the luxury central London flats was Mr Sharif’s daughter Maryam, she later claimed that she was only a trustee – and that it was her brother who was the beneficial owner. To prove her point, Maryam Nawaz produced a trust deed signed by both her and her brother dated February 2006. But a British forensic expert later said the document was “fake” or had been “falsified” because it was typed in the Calibri font, which was not commercially available until 2007. The insinuation that the offshore companies were meant to hide or launder ill-gotten wealth or to avoid taxes called Mr Sharif’s credentials into question.

Although there are legitimate ways of using tax havens, most of what has been going on is about hiding the true owners of money, the origin of the money and avoiding paying tax on the money. IPL type joint cricket events is among the best routes for money laundering.. Some of the main allegations centre on the creation of shell companies, that have the outward appearance of being legitimate businesses, but are just empty shells. They do nothing but manage money, while hiding who owns it.. Many cricketers own such companies to further promote their own wealth making and awards for cricikt batboys.

Interestingly, Mossack Fonseca says it has operated beyond reproach for 40 years and never been accused or charged with criminal wrong-doing. President Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the reports were down to “journalists and members of other organisations actively trying to discredit Putin and this country’s leadership”. Publication of the leaks may be down to “former employees of the State Department, the CIA, other security services,” he said.

Pakistan has repeated history. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is resigning. He was the 18th prime minister of Pakistan. Not a single one of the 17 prime ministers that preceded him have completed their full term in office. Sharif, who was serving as prime minister for a record third time, was less than a year away from becoming the first in Pakistani history to complete a full term in office. He served as prime minister from November 1990 to July 1993 and from February 1997 until he was toppled in a bloodless coup in October 1999. Allegations of corruption have dogged Sharif Mia since the 1980s. And much of what the Panama Papers revealed was the subject of a federal inquiry in the mid-1990s.

It is not immediately clear who will succeed Sharif, but his brother Shehbaz, who is chief minister of Punjab province, is seen as a strong contender for the job. Pakistan’s ruling party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), will be permitted by the speaker of the National Assembly to select an interim prime minister to rule until the 2018 general election. The PML-N, which has the most seats in parliament, is expected to deliver a statement later on Friday.

Opposition parties will also have the opportunity to put forward their own candidates for the position. Meanwhile, the court has directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), the main anti-corruption body, to compile and send four references to accountability courts against Sharif and others. The NAB has been directed to file these references within six weeks. The accountability courts have been directed to complete hearings in these cases in six months.

The ruling represents the peak of a drama that has fuelled news coverage and social media debates for months, attracting both scorn and ridicule as well as trenchant support for the prime minister. The divisions fall largely along party lines but amid the febrile accusations, many have also expressed concerns over Pakistan’s political culture. The Wikipedia profile of the prime minister has also been littered with obscenities and accusations. Sharif is not the first prime minister to lose his position following the leaking of documents from the Panamanian law firm. Iceland’s prime minister was forced to resign after documents appeared to reveal that he and his wife concealed millions of dollars’ worth of investments in an offshore company.

The PML-N decided, in its own parliamentary committee meeting, to nominate Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif as the successor to his brother, Nawaz Sharif. Pakistan’s parliament will meet on Tuesday to elect a new prime minister after the Supreme Court disqualified Nawaz Sharif following an investigation into corruption allegations against his family. The ruling party named Sharif’s younger brother Shahbaz as his successor over the weekend, but he must first enter parliament by contesting the seat left vacant by Sharif. In the meantime the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), which enjoys a majority in parliament, has nominated ex-oil minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi as interim prime minister.

The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) in a parliamentary committee meeting on Saturday decided to push for a nominee unanimously supported by opposition parties for the vacant post of prime minister after Nawaz Sharif was disqualified from public office after a landmark Supreme Court ruling in the Panama Papers case a day earlier. The PTI’s parliamentary party of former cricketer Imran Khan expressed satisfaction and gratitude over the Supreme Court verdict in the Panamagate case, with Khan terming the decision a “historic” one.. The PTI announced that the party was fielding Yasmeen Rashid to contest by-polls for the NA-120 constituency left vacant after the deseating of Nawaz Sharif. Imran Khan met with Awami Muslim League leader Sheikh Rashid and invited him to attend Sunday’s ‘thanksgiving day’ gathering in Islamabad. Rashid accepted the invitation.

While the ML workers and leaders are unhappy and angry over the verdict that, they argue, would strengthen the opposition. , the general mood of the people is one of satisfaction. Local media on Friday showed crowds assembled outside the Supreme Court in Islamabad cheering the court’s verdict. As the verdict was announced, opposition supporters erupted in applause, rushing into the street chanting slogans and handing out sweets, according to reports. The vice-chairman of the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) party, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, called it an “historic day” and praised the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) for “not succumbing to the enormous pressure and serving the cause of justice.”

The verdict was announced amid heightened security in the capital, with about 3,000 armed police and members of the Pakistan Rangers paramilitary force deployed near and around the Supreme Court.

Observation

Pakistan is in need of an independent judiciary to help keep the democratic process within the ambit of the law and the Constitution. In a country where public officials, elected and unelected, routinely and brazenly live beyond their known and legal sources of income and wealth, the Supreme Court’s verdict in connection with the Panama Papers case in Pakistan may be the beginning of a new era of public disclosure and accountability.

The citizens of Pakistan deserve a better, more transparent and more accountable leadership in all state institutions and therefore the July 28, 2017 is a historic day for both the judiciary and politics in Pakistan. None of the former rulers of Pakistan have been subjected to the kind of transparent scrutiny that PM Nawaz Sharif and his family have undergone. Pakistani rulers and leaders must urgently learn a humility that neither Sharif not Imran has seemed capable of. The former cricket considers himself a Muslim god but he is fraud who entered politics to protect his illegal wealth. The fact that a cricketer has come to occupy a major position in Pakistani politics only reveals the emptiness and vacuum in thinking power of the people. That is sad. People opt a entertainers and frauds only when the professional politicians refuse to serve the people and lose their trust.

While the Muslim League workers and leaders are unhappy and angry over the verdict that, they argue, would strengthen the opposition. The general mood of the people is one of satisfaction. One fails to understand why the so-called “Islamic terrorists” who are suppose to fight for Islam do not target the corrupt rulers of Islamic world. One answer is that these terrorists are generated and supported by the anti-Islamic forces led by USA, Israel and allies whose main objective is to defame Islam as a terrorist nation, kill Muslims to reduce global Islamic populations. That is reason why USA and NATO are not interested in ending the terror wars. Russia has already joined them and China is providing indirect support to anti-Islamic forces in Syria and elsewhere. There is total uncertainty not only in Syria but also in Pakistan. .

The Hon judiciary of Pakistan has upheld the dignity of highest court of the land and genuineness of judgments by removing the strongest man in Pakistan- PM Sharif which in itself is a great achievement of Pakistan despite being one of the most corrupt states on the globe. This very important for the reason such judgments are very rare in the world of corrupt regimes around as judiciary sub-serve the cause of the regime that promotes corruption as their prime duty as part of promotion of capitalism and imperialism.

In India, for instance, judiciary cannot dare delivering such judgments against a Hindu prime minister or a Hindu President, because it does not want to degrade the prestige of India by punishing the big Hindu political frauds. India cannot have Muslim Prime minister possible for “secular” reason. In case Indian top political leaders, cutting across political spectrum, decide to post a Muslim as Indian PM, then, there could also be tremendous pressure from various quarters to remove the Muslim PM through courts. Until then, Indian PM is safe.

India, which happily punishes if a Muslim is rising faster than Hindus but promotes and pampers Hindu frauds who manage 50s/100s in cricket with mafia plus bowlers’ help, is not expected make a Muslim as Prime Minster even to punish him and insult other Indian Muslims and Islam. . After all, India looks down upon Muslims as a mere vote bank stuff – insulted and injured….For the oldest Congress party it is punishment for its crimes for decades as ruling party with hidden Hindutva agenda. Congress party that created all background work for the emergence of fascist forces in democratic and secular India to threaten Muslims, in fact saw to it that no Muslim become Indian PM and no Muslim leader emerges strong enough to defend Muslims in the country and indirectly paved way for the Hindutva forces to occupy Indian Parliament and several state assemblies, replacing the Congress party itself gradually.

Thus the Indian judiciary has almost lost its backbone to deliver real and genuine justice on Babri Mosque which, as the government in 1992 announced the Mosque would be rebuilt on the illegal destruction of it by the Hindutva criminal elements.

Can Indian Supreme Court now direct Indian government, ruled by the same gang that destroyed the Mosque on the strength of Hindu majority? to start work on reconstruction of Babri Mosque and help Indian Muslims retake the Babri Mosque for the purposes of daily worship of God? Indian Muslims, except those that support the anti-Muslim outfits like Congress and BJP parties, have not yet completely lost hopes on Indian Apex Court for justice.

Trudeau Must Stand Strong For Canadians Over NAFTA – OpEd

0
0

By Sheldon Birkett*

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) must be renegotiated to establish a more-fair and equitable free trade relationship, which is essential for increasing the welfare of Canadian and American working classes. On July 17, the Trump administration released the Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiations. The 17-page document entails an aggressive “Buy America” trade policy, securing American interests at the cost of Canada’s and Mexico’s minimal gains attributed from NAFTA. In a recent interview with Scott Sinclair of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives we discussed the challenges facing Canada in the NAFTA renegotiation, some policy responses for improving NAFTA, and the importance of NAFTA’s non-trade aspects.

NAFTA, a 23-year-old trade agreement, has been a frictional free trade agreement (FTA), in contrast to the popular perception of it being a frictionless free trade agreement. NAFTA has encountered continuous challenges throughout its tenure. Trade disputes in which the U.S. has responded to low Canadian “stumpage” fees[i] by imposing countervailing duties have occurred five times since 1982.[ii] Most of America’s disputes over trade with Canada have been met with resistance from the World Trade Organization (WTO) in accordance to default most favoured nation (MFN) status[iii] in international trade. However, the WTO dispute settlement process over accusations of Canadian industry subsidization by the U.S. Department of Commerce costed the Canadian lumber industry CDN $1.5 billion in 2003.[iv] Canadian exports to the U.S. are equivalent to 25 percent of Canada’s GDP, amounting to USD $278 billion exports to the United States and USD $262 billion of imports into Canada, with the United States having a trade surplus of USD $11 billion in 2016.[v] From the quantity of trade conducted it would be logical to assume that NAFTA has benefited both Canada and the United States, but what is often stated in the mainstream media is often far from the reality of Canada’s trade relationship with the United States.[vi]

In a recent study the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives estimates the impact on Canadian exports if President Trump made good on his repeated threats to terminate NAFTA. The impacts of reverting to WTO tariff rates are surprisingly modest. Just over 40 percent of Canadian exports would continue to enter the U.S. market duty-free even without NAFTA. A further, 40 percent of Canadian exports to the United States would face ad valorem[vii] tariffs, but most would be below 3 percent. Only 3 percent of all goods exported (US$2 billion worth) would face a tariff greater than 10 percent. The value of the total amount of trade reduced by removing NAFTA would only be equivalent to USD $4.1 billion per year, which is roughly 1.47 percent of Canada’s total exports.[viii] For 96 percent of Canadian exports to the United States the effective cost of losing NAFTA would be a modest USD $4.2 billion.[ix] Out of USD $540 billion, the value of trade between Canada and the United States, USD $4.2 billion is a drop in the bucket.

Trump’s “America First” NAFTA

The main threat to the Canadian economy from Trump’s new trade policy would be the application of trade remedies (i.e. countervailing duties[x] and protective measures), “Buy America” rule of origin, strengthening of NAFTA’s investor-state dispute (ISDS) clause, and government procurement policy that shuts out Canadian companies. There are also issues concerning intellectual property rights, telecommunications, and financial services between NAFTA members, but they are not direct issues concerning trade policy.

In the Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation under Customs, trade facilitation, and the rule of origin, the Trump administration states “[to] Update and strengthen the rules of origin, as necessary, to ensure that the benefits of NAFTA go to products genuinely made in the United States and North America.”[xi] The rules of origin do not provide any solutions to how the United States would be able to incentivize more exporters to take advantage of the minimal saving incurred under NAFTA. Currently 20 percent of Canadian exporters that can qualify for NAFTA’s preferential treatment do not do so because they would rather choose to swallow the small differences in savings to not partake in NAFTA’s preferential treatment.[xii]

On environmental regulation, Trump’s proposal seeks no palpable change to the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), a parallel agreement to NAFTA. NAAEC as administered by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) is much weaker than the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clause within Chapter 11 of NAFTA. For instance, NAAEC Article 22(1) states that “Any Party may request in writing with any other Party regarding whether there has been a persistent pattern of failure by that other Party to effectively enforce its environmental law.”[xiii] Conversely, Chapter 11 of NAFTA’s ISDS clause states that “each NAFTA Party must accord investors from the other NAFTA Parties national (i.e. non-discriminatory) treatment and may not expropriate investments of those investors except in accordance with international law.”[xiv] Certainly the use of passive language in the NAAEC clause entails a lack of emphasis on the need to sustain environmental protection over investors’ capital gains.

The industry-friendly-self-regulated policy model is detrimental to the health and safety of American and Canadian communities. In 2013, the allowance of a single operator to handle regulation concerning rail shipments of hazardous goods “was a cause and contributing factor to the [Lac-Megantic] accident”[xv] according to the Transport Safety Board (TSB), which played into the 2013 Lac-Megantic explosion that killed 47 people.[xvi]

Trump’s government procurement policy prioritizes “Buy America” trade policy, the Trump administration plans to override a non-partisan trade dispute policy in favour of an “America First” stance towards negotiations. Specifically, the Trump administration wants to eliminate Chapter 19 dispute settlement in NAFTA. Chapter 19 allows “an exporter to go to an independent binational panel to review final anti-dumping and countervailing duty rulings.”[xvii] Allowing disputes to go through an independent panel, and not domestic courts, provides room for an objective analysis of discriminatory trade practices. If the regulating panel agrees that the trade practice goes against any NAFTA regulations, or the MFN status by WTO standards, the panel can remand domestic trade authorities to align with the panel’s ruling.[xviii] It is imperative for Canada to not let the United States terminate Chapter 19 within NAFTA, as it is one of the only protective trade clauses within the trade agreement. Chapter 19 is also one of the few reasons why the Canadian government was willing to sign onto NAFTA in 1992 when it was discussed under the Mulroney government. However, Canada failed to gain secure access into the U.S market in 1994 because U.S. trade remedy laws allowed the United States Department of Commerce to apply full countervailing duties and anti-dumping measures to Canadian exports without Canada’s consent.[xix] Trump’s “American First” renegotiated NAFTA would be detrimental to the Canadian economy because it would give Trump unconditional control over trade, without any consideration for Canadian consumers or producers.

CCPA’s Policy Recommendations to Improve NAFTA

On May 18 President Trump sent a letter to Congress announcing his intention to begin the 90-day waiting period before opening formal negotiations.[xx] The renegotiations should be an opportunity for the Canadian government to gain an upper-hand and apply pressure to Trump’s “Americanized” NAFTA. Since the initiation of NAFTA in 1994, labour’s share of income has declined considerably in Canada,[xxi] and Canadian productivity has not kept pace with that of the United States.[xxii] This is the chance for Trudeau to strive towards establishing a more-fair and equitable NAFTA, by implementing policy recommendations to revitalize lagging productivity and ensure more inclusive growth. Such recommendations are discussed in the following interview with Scott Sinclair.

Sheldon Birkett is a Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, and Scott Sinclair is a Senior Research Fellow and the Director of the Trade and Investment Research Project at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in Ottawa, Ontario. The interview was conducted on July 24, 2017.[xxiii]

Transcript Follows…

Sheldon: Only 2 percent of Canada’s current exports would face an MFN (Most Favoured Nation) duty rate of 10 percent or more if NAFTA was terminated (reverting back to WTO rules), and given the reality that 20 percent of current exporters (that qualify for NAFTA preferential treatment) opt for WTO tariffs, why is NAFTA important to small businesses in Canada?

Scott: NAFTA is surprisingly unimportant to small businesses in Canada, you probably know that only one percent of Canadian small businesses export anything at all, to anywhere, trade is pretty much dominated by the largest businesses in Canada. I think the broader point of our report is that the impacts of going back to WTO tariff rates on Canadian trade, if Trump were to make good on his threat to terminate NAFTA, would be surprisingly small. Snapping back, or reverting to WTO tariffs, would mean an extra 1.5 percent cost on the value of Canadian exports, using 2016 figures. We call that a “speed bump,” that certainly wouldn’t bring trade to a screeching halt. The take-home message is that Canada has a much stronger negotiating position than is often appreciated, and if we are pushed around on issues, such as NAFTA Chapter 11, higher drug costs, and intellectual property rights, we can afford to walk away from that deal.

Sheldon: So, you are saying that Canada should change their stance on Chapter 11 ISDS?

Scott: Yeah, in our brief we argue that the ISDS should be eliminated from NAFTA. Canada has had a pretty negative experience with that, we are the most sued country in this regard. There have been 39 claims against Canada, a lot of those cases have to do with environmental protection and natural resource management disputes. So, I would say, that wasn’t what Canadians thought they were signing on-for when NAFTA was negotiated. When the ISDS system was included it was justified as necessary because of problems in the Mexican courts, but very few disputes have anything to do with the administration of justice in Mexico. A large chunk of them have been about environmental protection and resource management. We think Canada could afford to take a pretty assertive position against ISDS.

Sheldon: Given NAFTA’s scope and outline, and given your conclusions drawn in your report, the decline of labour’s share of income, and as well as Canada’s productivity growth has actually lagged behind the U.S. since the 1990’s; is NAFTA more focused on delivering the benefits of trade or intellectual property rights for multinational conglomerates?

Scott: Well, that’s a good question. I think it is really important to focus on the non-trade elements of NAFTA. NAFTA is a set of rules, but it is a set of rules that overwhelming favours the largest multinational corporations and richest individuals. You can see that most clearly in elements like the investor state dispute settlement mechanism, which is used overwhelmingly by large multinationals and in excessive intellectual property protection, which results in Canadians and Americans paying the highest drug costs in the developed world. Now some interests, particularly Republicans in the U.S Congress, would like to impose that model (of intellectual property protection) in NAFTA 2.0, moving Canada even further towards the U.S model, but also impose that on Mexico. It would have quite devastating consequences.

I think it is important to look at those non-trade elements, but it is also important to say that the Canada-U.S. trade relationship is pretty healthy actually, it’s certainly mutually beneficial, it’s pretty balanced, and unlike Canada’s trade with the rest of the world; in fact, trade with the U.S. trade is balanced both qualitatively and quantitatively. So, what I mean by qualitatively is with the rest of the world we are mainly selling unprocessed and semi-processed natural resources and importing higher value-added manufacturing goods, but with the U.S. it’s a mix. Obviously we sell a lot of energy but we export a lot of manufactured goods mainly in the automotive sector, and import them too, and the same is true from a U.S. perspective. So, the trade relationship is balanced and mutually beneficial. But the problem with NAFTA, as a set of rules, is that the benefits of that trade flow almost exclusively to the top 10 percent or even the top one percent in all three countries

Sheldon: Yeah, I think you put that the majority of actual benefits is a 2-3 percent reduction in tariffs for 60 percent of goods and services traded between Canada and the United States. If I am not mistaken?

Scott: Yeah, that’s right. 40 percent of Canada’s current exports to the United States would continue to enter the United States duty free, under WTO rules, even if NAFTA was to be terminated by the Trump administration.

Sheldon: This is another question to move on, in this article I am taking a more proactive stance, so what is the most important policy recommendation that is necessary to implement within NAFTA to improve the welfare of the Canadian economy, if not, are there any alternatives to NAFTA given Trump’s summary report released last week, which is basically to have “Buy American” goods, get rid of Chapter 19 dispute clause and so-forth. So, if Canada can’t negotiate adequately with the Trump administration in Washington, what is the most pressing recommendations in-order to improve NAFTA, or what are the other alternatives?

Scott: I think the priority is to change NAFTA’s rules so that the benefits of trade are distributed more fairly, and I think that the one key element is obviously to ensure high levels of labour standards in all three countries, and to ensure that those are fully enforceable, so that workers and unions can bring complaints in all three countries. Those complaints must be heard, unlike the current situation, and that there will be penalties and sanctions for employers and jurisdictions that don’t respect labour standards. That’s really critical.

I mentioned other elements of the non-trade aspects of NAFTA that shift wealth and power to the largest corporations and the richest individuals. That’s why we are focused on eliminating investor state dispute settlement, which gives too much power to corporations to attack regulation or even kill them if they feel they will harm their interests. We certainly don’t want to be moving towards the U.S. model for intellectual property protection, especially in the area of pharmaceuticals, but also in the area of copyright, and some other areas it would be a mistake for Canada to move in that direction. Again, it would just exacerbate the inequalities we are already experiencing.

Sheldon: What particularly about intellectual property rights would be damaging for Canada?

Scott: Well, the U.S. is pushing for longer terms of what is called data protection for biological drugs. The U.S. standard is 12 years, which is the longest period of protection in the world. In Canada we are at 8 years, which is also very high. Mexico, as a developing country, doesn’t have a fixed term of data protection for these biological and non-chemical based drugs. There’s also pressure for patent term extensions beyond the 20 years that are required under the WTO-TRIPS agreement. So, all those things would increase the cost of drugs in Canada, Mexico and the U.S. where it’s already the highest.

Sheldon: And that would increase the cost of drugs for Canadians, right?

Scott: Yeah, by delaying the availability of generic drugs. Those costs by the way are large, and they would be billions of dollars annually, they would totally swamp any NAFTA tariff preferences, totally negating trade benefits. They are very large costs, they are a cost burden that would be borne mainly by consumers and the public healthcare system.

Sheldon: It’s interesting, I don’t really hear much about intellectual property rights in the mainstream media about NAFTA. It seems like the Canadian government is really proactive about trade but they don’t really discuss the non-trade aspects of NAFTA, which can be more damaging to Canadians and Americans.

Scott: Yeah, as you know NAFTA is a set of rules, and is certainly not the only set of rules that could govern trade, and a lot of issues covered by NAFTA are only marginally related to trade. They have been shoe-horned in there by corporate lobbyists.

Sheldon: Do you think Canada would be able to use its trade relationship with the U.S. as “leverage” to conforming American environmental regulations in accordance to the Paris Climate Agreement? So, could Canada give up some of its protective industries, like dairy and lumber, in exchange for the U.S. and Canada to benefit from the renegotiation process?

Scott: Well, I don’t think it’s realistic that Canada will be able to leverage the Trump administration into reversing its deregulatory agenda around the environment. It’s not just pulling out of the Paris Accord, but it is also hamstringing the EPA, reversing commitments made jointly with Canada around reducing methane emissions, and stronger fuel efficiency standards for the auto sector, which they also reversed. I don’t think that it is realistic to assume Canada could make any concessions that would change the Trump’s administrations’ mind about that. I think that on the environment Canada has to take a very defensive point of view. We have to protect our policy flexibility to adopt high environmental protection standards, and that means things like getting rid of investor state dispute settlements that have been used to attack environmental regulation, and ensuring any regulatory cooperation process is based on moving to the highest common denominator, and improving standards, and not weakening them to now unacceptable U.S. levels.

Sheldon: What can be done to fairly and equitably improve NAFTA and general trade relations between Canada and the United States, that would both benefit the Trump administration promises and well as Trudeau’s promises, coming up to the NAFTA negotiations starting in August 16th-20th in Washington DC?

Scott: Well, we tried to set out our ideas on that in the brief that you have seen, so I have mentioned that adopting stronger labour rights and standards – much stronger – is key. We have tried to recommend a new approach to government procurement issues, instead of Canada whining about “Buy America” and trying to get an exception.

Sheldon: You did state in the report, that I found was interesting, if Canada can’t get a “Buy North America” policy, Canada should get a “Buy Canadian” policy?

Scott: Well, we should offer to cooperate with the United States on new infrastructure investments, and you know Canada is planning hundreds of billions of dollars of new infrastructure investment at both federal and provincial levels. We should offer to work with the U.S. and Mexico to leverage the most economic and environmental benefits we can from new infrastructure investment, and ensure all three countries have a fair share of benefits in proportion to how much they each invest in infrastructure, but if the U.S. is not interested in that, then we should go the “Buy Canada” route. Basically, if you can’t beat them, join them.

Conclusion: NAFTA, what to do next?

Because of the Trump’s administration hardline “America First” rhetoric, it has put Canada into a tough negotiating position on NAFTA. However, many of the non-trade elements within NAFTA have been detrimental for Canadians and Americans. It is essential for the Trudeau government to take a tougher negotiating position when it comes to NAFTA’s industry-friendly environmental regulations, intellectual property rights, and labour standards. It is also important for Canada to maintain the benefits received from free-trade, despite only 40 percent of the total goods that qualify under NAFTA get preferential tariff treatment. There have been many losers from NAFTA, particularly on the working classes in North America affected by sectoral change in the macro-economy. Trudeau will have to take advantage of this negotiating opportunity to create a better deal for Canadian and American working classes, implying higher regulatory standards and turning away from volatile liberalization reforms. Certainly, when it comes to NAFTA negotiations with a hostile American administration, it may be beneficial for Canada to walk away from a bad deal if negotiations turn sour.

*Sheldon Birkett , Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Additional editorial support provided by Scott Sinclair, Senior Research Fellow and the Director of the Trade and Investment Research Project, at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Jordan Bazak, Research Fellow, Felipe Galvis-Delgado and Liam Timmons, Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

* indicates required

Trump’s Critics On Russia – Analysis

0
0

Confusing a questionable claim (of Russian hacking, as claimed by the Democratic National Committee and its politicized cybersecurity CrowdStrike source, with no clear challenge from US Intel) as fact, The New York Times (NYT) and other US establishment outlets cheer the narrow-minded anti-Russian moves by the US Senate and Congress. The NYT’s July 27 editorial concerning Russia, is indicative of the kind of primitive provincialism that it suggests from US President Donald Trump.

Political science” is at best a soft science, unlike the hard sciences which have precise formulas. The categorized foreign policy isolationists aren’t necessarily ignorant about world affairs. Conversely, the interventionist neocons (and to a somewhat lessor extent neolibs) have sought incompletely thought out ways of dealing with a number of global issues.

While uncritically cheering the overwhelming Senate and Congressional votes for extended sanctions against Russia, the so-called “paper of record”, (in its aforementioned editorial) doesn’t take into consideration the views of numerous Europeans. Under the voted call for further sanctions, European Union (EU) based companies can be penalized by the US for doing business with Russia. Not too long ago, Trump’s lead critics were criticizing him for looking more cozy with Russian officials when compared to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. As evidenced by The NYT editorial in question, Germany can be easily ignored if it exhibits a limit to anti-Russian actions.

The lack of US-Russian business cooperation limits the effectiveness of sanctions and counter-sanctions between the two countries. In addition, one wonders just how substantive would US sanctions be against EU based companies doing business in Russia?

Some of the US mass media commentary notes that a US-EU squabble over increased sanctions on Russia benefits the Kremlin, because Moscow (as presented) desires to have greater division between Brussels and Washington. More accurately put, Russia seeks improved relations with the EU and US, in a way that doesn’t hinder Russian interests. The US Senate and Congress (as opposed to the Kremlin) created the chance for an EU-US spat over increased sanctions, Likewise, Russia wasn’t responsible for Hillary Clinton’s loss in the last US presidential election.

Of course, the Kremlin is going to favor those not looking to punish their country. There’s nothing especially sinister about that. On the other hand, there’s something disingenuous about the one-sided depictions against Russia (discussed at length in my Eurasia Review and Strategic Culture Foundation run commentary).

Regarding Russia, groupthink and peer pressure continue to dominate the US mass media and political establishments, over a more even handed approach, that serves to better cover all of the angles. This situation nurtures a coddled ignorance, as others with a differing and valid perspective are very much censored. Two recent examples of the former grouping concern MSNBC’s Joy Reid, as well as Harvard’s Lawrence Tribe and Yascha Mounk.

It’s US mass media and body politic en masse, which appear more apprehensive about engaging in a lengthy and spirited dialogue, in comparison to the pro-Russian elements out there, seeking to level the playing field. A July 29 Washington Post (WaPo) editorial underhandedly skirts this particular. Contrary to what The WaPo suggests, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) is pretty active in Russia, according to the latter’s website. Those competently familiar with the Russian government funded RT, know that this station has frequently had lengthy segments with Western critics of the Russian government. Overall, RFE/RL isn’t as open towards pro-Russian advocacy.

Relative to the newly voted call for further sanctions, Trump could’ve chosen to debunk the misguided anti-Russian advocacy with a firm, well thought out counter. (As of this writing, it seems like he’ll approve the sanctions bill.) He also has the cover of not rocking the boat by referencing the prevailing Capitol Hill mindset – never mind its groupthink/peer pressure dynamic.

*Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. This article was initially placed at the Strategic Culture Foundation’s website on July 31.

McCain To Propose Afghanistan Strategy

0
0

(RFE/RL) — U.S. Senator John McCain (Republican-Arizona) says he will propose a plan for a U.S. strategy in Afghanistan as an amendment to a defense authorization bill later this year.

McCain, an influential Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Service Committee, said in a July 31 statement that more than six months after U.S. President Donald Trump took office, “there still is no strategy for success in Afghanistan.”

“When the Senate takes up the National Defense Authorization Act in September, I will offer an amendment based on the advice of some our best military leaders that will provide a strategy for success in achieving America’s national interests in Afghanistan,” he said.

McCain, who has been undergoing treatment for brain cancer that was diagnosed earlier in July, also criticized the Afghanistan policies of Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, saying “eight years of a ‘don’t lose’ strategy has cost us lives and treasure” in the war-torn country.

McCain, the former Republican presidential nominee who lost to Obama in 2008, was part of a bipartisan delegation of U.S. senators who visited Afghanistan in early July and called for a new strategy to turn the tide against an increasingly strong Taliban insurgency and end the longest U.S. war.

Do Kosovars And Serbs Have Options Other Than Work Avoidance?- OpEd

0
0

By David B. Kanin*

One of the main problems with the EU’s approach to Balkan affairs is its penchant for the “low-hanging fruit” model of diplomacy.  This is the doctrine under which negotiators put aside central difficulties for the sake of resolving side issues and technical details.  The thought seems to be that the process of getting to know each other and forging agreements on small things will create an atmosphere in which contending sides can build a record of success and come to a feeling of mutual understanding (if not trust).  Perhaps they then can solve the big problems, or else those problems will be overtaken by events.  Meanwhile, whoever sits in the vaunted job of EU High Representative and Security Policy can brag about progress and instruct the sides on how they can attain further progress, without ever making any progress on the things that some day will lead to further fighting.

That is the central problem with the series of negotiations the EU continues to supervise between Serbia and Kosova, and the reason these discussions drone on without meaningful result. The focus on creating some sort of organization of Serb municipalities in Kosova sooner or later may produce an outcome, but this will have no more impact on the core dispute than agreements between Jules Ferry and Otto von Bismarck on colonial policy in the 1880s had on the lethal quarrel over Alsace-Lorraine.

The same goes for recent American diplomacy in Kosova and Macedonia, but this at least involved relatively low-keyed rhetoric and tactics.  To its credit, this round of US mediation lacked the usual pretension.  It also lubricated political processes while enabling a notably effective Macedonian special prosecutor’s office to do its job.  The best thing about Hoyt Yee’s visits to the region this spring was his willingness afterwards to back off and let the politicians in Pristina and the new government in Skopje get about their business.  Nevertheless, it is too bad he followed up with the usual rhetoric; he told a Greek interviewer that the borders of countries in the Balkans are “clearly defined, internationally recognized and not a matter of serious dispute” – all of which remains false no matter how many times Western diplomats repeat it.  Nevertheless, while the basic fault lines remain in place, there is something worthwhile about an interjection that left dangers chronic, rather than acute.

Getting at some of the central difficulties that otherwise will remain lethal in the Balkans will require attempting to crack the hardest nuts first (my apologies for mixing fruit and nut metaphors).  One way to do this would be to remember that, to the Serbs, Kosovo is a religious as well as political question.  For decades (centuries?), it has been clear Serbs from outside Kosovo are much more interested in traveling there to celebrate the sacred time of 1389 and conduct religious ceremonies than in building a viable provincial community.  To Albanians, Kosova has a much more practical object – it is home.  From time to time people have considered ideas designed to reconcile the Serbian clerical establishment in Kosovo with the Kosovar state.  It is worth thinking about this again.

If (yes, it is a very big if), mutual rhetorical and kinetic communal venom somehow could be overcome, there might be a deal possible between political authorities in Kosova and religious hierarchs in Serbia and in Kosovo-Metohija.  To be sure, the Serbian Orthodox Church, like other religious authorities in the region, has sought to restore its Ottoman-like centrality to communal identity and, on the whole, has formed symbiotic arrangements with nationalists who, like the prelates, seek to link faith, land, and politics.

At the same time, every now and then some Serbian priests appear willing to accept that – as Thomas Jefferson believed – the earth belongs to the living generation.  For a time, Father Sava Janjic appeared to propagate the view that it was in everyone’s interest to find a modus vivendi between the largely Albanian Kosovar population and an active, robustly Serbian Orthodox Church.
Father Janjic opposed Kosova’s independence and has continued to defend Serbian interests against what he views as misbehavior by the Kosovar authorities.  Willingness to deal with Kosova would not mean the Church would knuckle under to the bare-knuckled intimidation that characterizes some elements of Kosovar behavior toward it.  Rather, such a process would have to involve a good-faith effort to combine efforts to improve the material prospects of all communities in Kosova while nurturing Kosovo’s status as the social, spiritual, and cultural lodestar for many Serbs.

In my view, Alexander Vucic is in a good position to prepare the ground for and mediate such an effort, if he has the courage and patience to take it on.  No matter reports of election irregularities and inconvertible evidence of Vucic’s efforts to corral Serbian media, he is the clear center of politics in the country.  There is no question he was elected by a majority of Serbian voters and that there currently is no viable political opposition to him (despite a hatchet job in the Economist that crudely caricatured Vucic and greatly overestimated the political clout of Vuk Jeremic).  Vucic has proven skillful at balancing Western and Russian interlocutors and at managing the various pressures on him from his nationalist and liberal flanks.

He also has forged a constructive relationship with Hashim Thaci, who remains Kosova’s most important figure despite his move from the Prime Ministership to the less important Presidency.  If Vucic is willing, he might be able to craft a political-security arrangement under which Kosova would surrender sovereignty over churches and monasteries and the lands around them – and stop the land grabs that have been going on regarding the latter – in exchange for clear, de jure Serbian recognition of Kosovar sovereignty over everything else.  These Serbian spiritual sites, but not the rest of Kosova, would be taken care of by a budget built in Belgrade (although the Kosovars would maintain roads and other infrastructure necessary to keep these places viable).  Serbian police would serve the role Swiss guards did in the Vatican when they were among the best-trained soldiers in Europe.

Serbia and Kosova could then turn their attention to convincing other states in a still-fragile Balkan security eco-system to forge practical economic and security arrangements along the lines of the still-vague economic and trading zone proposed by Vucic and commented on favorably by the EU.  Serbia, Kosova, Macedonia, and – if its poisonous internal politics somehow can be overcome – Bosnia could then give the EU a little time to become serious about admitting them.  If the Club continues to use its rhetorical dance to hold them at arms length (which is the guess here), these still unsettled shards of the former Yugoslavia would have the opportunity to limit themselves to transactional deals with the Western powers, Russia, and China, while deepening their own ties as much as is practicable.

There is no question that is a major stretch to imagine that the Serbian Orthodox Church as a constructive player in a Kosova-Metohija and the greater Balkans, especially given the continuing quarrels the Serbian Church has with its Macedonian and Montenegrin counterparts.  It may take further fighting to moot current secular, ethnic, and religious quarrels the way 19th and 20th century warfare overawed disputes among the Patriarchate in Constantinople, the national Greek Orthodox Church, and the Bulgarian Exarchate.  Still, given the weak tea that is US and EU diplomacy, Russia’s Great Game style policies and actions, and simmering disputes among and within former Yugoslav states and the overlapping Albanian universe, it is at least worth trying something else.

*David B. Kanin is an adjunct professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University and a former senior intelligence analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of TransConflict.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images