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

Money Matters: Memory And The Psychology Of Spending

0
0

Studies have shown that if you have 10 $1 bills in your wallet you are more likely to spend them than if you have one $10 note in there. Why is that?

The previous research has suggested that larger bills are more convenient, cleaner and because they are considered, in a sense, more valuable, they make it easier to exert self-control and regulate spending.

Advancing this line of research on the “denomination effect,” Priya Raghubir of New York University, Mario Capizzani of IESE Business School and Joydeep Srivastava of Temple University look at the role of memory, finding biases in our recall of bills and coins.

Their paper “What’s in Your Wallet? Psychophysical Biases in the Estimation of Money,” published in the Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, uses experiments to show how a specific amount of money is more difficult to remember when carried in smaller denominations, as compared with larger ones. In turn, overestimating how much cash is at hand is linked with an increase in the likelihood of spending.

The research supports the notion that people strategically choose to receive money in larger denominations in order to better control their spending, with memory added as a reason why.

What’s in Your Wallet?

The co-authors conducted four experiments with students. In them, participants were asked to recall the overall value of money in their wallets, then noting the denominations and then rating how easy it was to recall each denomination. Counting the actual contents of their wallets, students recorded the number of units by denomination and were given the opportunity to make a purchase.

The results offered support for the idea that errors in recall of the contents of one’s wallet have downstream consequences — that is, people spend more if they have overvalued the amount of cash they have in hand. This helps shed light on why breaking big bills into smaller denominations hinders the monitoring and tracking of money.

While we still use cash, the practical implications are that big bills help encourage saving while smaller, and more numerous, bills and coins encourage spending. The next political leader who wants to stimulate the economy via consumer spending might consider doling out the $1 bills.

For the future, if we as a society move away from cash, what will the psychological implications be? After using physical money for thousands of years, are we ready to give it up for digital currencies? This study reinforces the idea that cash, in its physical forms, has its own added value — and for that reason, may have more staying power.

Methodology, Very Briefly

The four studies included 370 business and economics students as participants. Comparing student estimates and the actual amounts of money on hand, the researchers looked at recall errors according to denominations (face values) and according to the number of units. They then developed three descriptive models to capture the subjectivity in value assessment.


Can Congress Save DACA? – Analysis

0
0

By Jack Memolo*

After weeks of speculation and uncertainty, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced last Tuesday that the Trump administration will phase out Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.

The program was instituted by President Barack Obama in 2012 by means of an executive order. In essence, DACA defers the deportation of undocumented residents who had been in the United States as children before 2007, as well as those who were under the age of 31 before June 15th, 2012.

Despite the heated rhetoric coming from conservative immigration hardliners, DACA does not give recipients a path to citizenship or even permanent residency.

Under the program, eligible “Dreamers,” were able to apply for a renewable two-year visa which allowed them to find employment legally in the US without the fear of legal repercussion.[i] It also authorized them to obtain a driver’s license, take out loans, or use a credit card– all actions that have contributed to the growth of the US economy since the implementation of DACA nearly five years ago. In fact, the Center for American Progress has recently estimated that if the 800,000 Americans enrolled in DACA lose their legal status, over 500 billion dollars within the United States economy could potentially evaporate over the next 10 years.[ii]

While DACA is officially on the White House’s chopping block, the government has announced that it will allow the renewal of visas for Dreamers already enrolled in the program at least until October 5th.

Although President Trump has announced he will not renew DACA, he may change his mind. Throughout his adult life, and especially on the campaign trail, Trump has capriciously flipped his position on a number of issues. In the past week, the President has called Dreamers “Absolutely incredible kids,” who deserve to be treated with great “heart.”[iii] Just a few days ago, Trump reaffirmed his supposed love for the Dreamers, demanding Congress to act while also allegedly striking a deal with top Democrats Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. The agreement involved saving DACA in exchange for increased border security.[iv] But after word of the deal reached the public, a fury of anger was unleashed on the President and Congress by anti-immigrant hardliners opposed to any kind of compromise. Unsurprisingly, Trump backed down, stating on twitter that “No deal was made last night on DACA.”[v]

Seemingly unable to hold to a position on any issue for more than 5 minutes, whether or not President Trump will act on behalf of the Dreamers still remains unclear. What is clear, however, is that Dreamers, activists and other Americans who support the program cannot count on the mismanaged executive branch for salvation. The real fight to save DACA will not happen in the White House, but on Capitol Hill. All eyes are now on Congress, where legislators will have until March 5th, 2018 to act.

Given this context, one fundamental question remains: Can Congress, with levels of political gridlock unseen since the Civil War, save the Dreamers? The short answer: Possibly.

According to FiveThirtyEight, a statistical news website, the House may have the votes to pass a kind of codification of DACA into law– if we accept a few baseline assumptions.[vi] For one thing, while achieving comprehensive immigration reform has eluded Congress for over a decade, a simple provision enshrining the legal status of Dreamers participating in DACA would be a much less daunting task for the legislature–especially if such a provision was attached as a “rider,”– a provision or clause which, although unrelated, is attached to a larger body of legislation in order to pass it. As Republicans have a brimming legislative agenda for the fall, Democrats will have more than a few opportunities to employ this tactic.

Another advantage of attaching an extension of DACA to another piece of legislation is that it would potentially give Republicans in Congress the political cover they need to save the Dreamers while simultaneously passing a more popular bill for their conservative base, such as the annual Defense Reauthorization Bill.

But despite the higher chance of saving DACA through this “rider” tactic, some Democrats insist that a standalone bill which comprehensively addresses the issue is the only way to fix the problem in the long term. If Democrats in Congress decide on this strategy, they will most likely try and push what some on the Hill are calling a “clean version” of the original Dream Act– a bill proposed in 2001 by Senator Dick Durbin which would have created a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. Since then, like so many other attempts to pass some sort of immigration reform, the Dream Act failed to become law– even in 2010 when Democrats were in control of both houses of Congress. Yet some remain optimistic. According to a poll by POLITICO/ Morning Consult, a majority of Americans support allowing Dreamers to stay in the United States; and with the Trump administration’s recent decision to end the program, people throughout the country have been impassioned to pressure their respective congressmen to act.[vii] “We want to do it as soon as possible and strike while the iron is hot because public opinion is so in favor” of DACA and the Dreamers, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.[viii]

Yet even with mounting public support for formally legalizing the status of Dreamers by means of a stand-alone bill, the likelihood of a “clean” legalization of DACA passing Congress is uncertain. In a recent statement, Republican Senator Tom Cotton asserted his unwillingness to protect undocumented immigrants unless such a measure went in conjunction with other provisions aiding American workers. Others in Congress such a Steve King, a congressman from Iowa and anti-immigrant firebrand, have labeled any sort of provision renewing DACA as “amnesty” and “Republican suicide.”[ix] Such rhetoric, as repulsive as it is, may be persuasive for many conservatives in Congress who watched Donald Trump win over the conservative base during the 2016 election with his intensely anti-immigrant policy platform.

Whether or not a majority of Congress can be convinced to revive the legal status of Dreamers is only one of the many variables at play in the coming legislative battle. Even if proponents of DACA can secure a filibuster proof majority in the upper chamber of Congress, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will still have to approve the bill for a vote on the Senate floor. Although McConnell has been critical of DACA since its implementation in 2012, he has never gone after the participants of the program directly. Instead, his criticism has been directed mostly at President Obama for his so-called “executive overreach.” In fact, McConnell has in the past expressed support of the Dreamers. Earlier in the year, the Senate Majority leader stated he was “very sympathetic with this situation” and that “these are young people who were brought here at a tender age and who have grown up here or are in the process of growing up here. I’m very sympathetic to that situation..”[x]A similar logic applies to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. Like McConnell, Ryan’s earlier criticisms of DACA focused on the supposed “executive overreach” dimension rather than the Dreamers themselves. Ryan has recently stated that participants in DACA can “rest easy” and that he expects to reach a compromise with congressional democrats before the March 5th deadline.[xi] Although the details of such a compromise are still uncertain, many speculate that Republicans, like the President in his nullified deal with Democrats, will move in a positive direction on the DACA issue if Democrats support provisions to increase security on the southern border.

In the end, the fate of both DACA and the Dreamers will be decided not by sympathy, but rather the political calculus of politicians on Capitol Hill. We can only hope that this will lead to a compromise in favor of codifying some form of DACA into law. But with a politically paralyzed Congress, the future is far from certain.

*Jack Memolo, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Additional editorial support provided by R.O. Niederstrasser and Jordie Conde, Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Notes:
[i] Jonathan Blitzer, “Trump’s DACA Decision Puts Dreamers’ Future in the Hands of Congress,” The New Yorker, September 05, 2017, accessed September 12, 2017.

[ii] Dara Lind, “Trump just turned DACA into a ticking time bomb for 800,000 immigrants,” Vox, September 05, 2017, accessed September 11, 2017.

[iii] Miriam Jordan, “‘Dreamer’ Plan That Aided 800,000 Immigrants Is Threatened,” The New York Times, August 27, 2017, accessed September 08, 2017

[iv] MAGGIE HABERMAN and YAMICHE ALCINDOR, “Pelosi and Schumer Say They Have Deal With Trump to Replace DACA,” The New York Times, September 13, 2017, accessed September 15, 2017.

[v] Adam Edelman, “Trump Says ‘No Deal’ Was Reached With Democrats to Extend DACA,” NBCNews.com, September 14, 2017, accessed September 15, 2017.

[vi] Bacon, Perry. “Congress Probably Has The Votes To Make DACA Law. But That Doesn’t Mean It Will.” FiveThirtyEight. September 05, 2017. Accessed September 11, 2017.

[vii] Steven Shepard et al., “Poll: Majority opposes deporting Dreamers,” POLITICO, September 05, 2017, accessed September 15, 2017.

[viii] Daniel Bush, “Congress has tried to protect ‘dreamers’ before. Will this time be different?” PBS, September 08, 2017, accessed September 15, 2017.

[ix] Daniel Bush, “Congress has tried to protect ‘dreamers’ before. Will this time be different?” PBS, September 08, 2017, accessed September 15, 2017.

[x] Bolton, Alexander. “McConnell: I’m very sympathetic to ‘Dreamers’.” TheHill. February 17, 2017. Accessed September 10, 2017.

[xi] Mike DeBonis, “‘Dreamers’ can ‘rest easy,’ Ryan says, promising congressional action,” The Washington Post, September 06, 2017, accessed September 10, 2017.

Preparing To Live Sustainably Alongside Increasing Natural Risks – OpEd

0
0

The past few weeks have been a grim reminder that natural disasters know no borders. They can strike countries at opposite ends of the globe simultaneously and whether in Asia or North America, the images of people and livelihoods being swept away are disturbing. Intense monsoon floods, typhoon Hato, tropical storm Harvey and hurricane Irma, all raise questions about what more can be done to both mitigate the risks of extreme weather conditions and improve relief operations.

Disasters are becoming more frequent and intense. The UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), in its recent report Disaster resilience for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Leaving no one behind shows natural disasters were responsible for the loss of two million lives and cost the region’s economy $1.3 trillion between 1970 and 2016. Over ninety per cent of deaths were due to earthquakes, tsunamis, cyclones and floods. The poor and vulnerable bore the brunt of these disasters, suffering a death toll five times higher than the rest of the population.

By 2030, fifty percent of the Asian population will be living in urban areas. The combination of unplanned urban sprawl and new cities means increasing numbers of people and economic stock will be exposed to future disasters we cannot predict. In urban megacities, over fifty percent of the population already live in disaster prone areas where inequality is high. Our focus must be on identifying potential scenarios, determining risk tolerance levels and building response capacity where it is inadequate. Policy makers need to strengthen the science and policy interfaces to allow countries to deal effectively with these risks. The report offers a clear set of recommendations on how to build resilience and reinforce sustainable development in the region.

The importance of early warning cannot be overemphasized. In 2004, the world experienced the Indian Ocean Tsunami. It killed over 250,000 people and was one of the deadliest natural disasters ever recorded. Unlike the Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean had no early warning system in place for coastal communities. Thanks to a founding contribution of $10 million from Thailand, the ESCAP Trust Fund for Tsunami, Disaster and Climate Preparedness, has helped to plug this gap. But for a tsunami warning system to be sustainable, it needs to address multiple coastal hazards. Regional cooperation can help share vital innovations in science and technology to strengthen tsunami early warning systems. ESCAP’s Trust Fund has helped to empower people through improved early warning of disasters and supported knowledge transfer from countries with strong disaster risk management capabilities to other Asia-Pacific countries. To take just one example, technical support, modern equipment and on-line technologies helped upgrade the Myanmar National Earthquake Data Center, to meet international standards for tsunami warning centres.

ESCAP, in collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, is organizing an event at the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly, entitled ‘Disaster Risk Reduction in Asia Pacific: achievements in regional cooperation for tsunami, disaster and climate preparedness’ to explore these issues further. It will take place on 21 September 2017, further presenting ESCAP’s research and showcasing the ESCAP Trust Fund’s contribution to building people’s resilience to disasters, so that no one is left behind in pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals.

*Dr. Shamshad Akhtar is an Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) and the Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).

Signs Of Hope In The Middle East? Don’t Hold Your Breath – Analysis

0
0

Optimists see hopeful signs that the Middle East may be exiting from a dark tunnel of violence, civil war, sectarian strife, and debilitating regional rivalries.

The Islamic State (IS) is on the cusp of territorial defeat in Syria and Iraq. Saudi Arabia may be groping for an exit from its devastating military intervention in Yemen. Gulf states are embarking on economic and social reform aimed at preparing for the end of oil.

Haltingly, Gulf states may be forced to find a face-saving solution to their more than three-month-old crisis that has pitted a UAE-Saudi led alliance against Qatar and there may even be an effort to dial down tension between the kingdom and Iran.

Hamas, the Islamist faction that controls Gaza said it was willing to negotiate with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas about joint rule of the strip and move towards long overdue elections.

At first glance, reasons for optimism. But don’t hold your breath. Optimists base their hopes on shifting sands and tentative suggestions that protagonists may be looking for ways out of the malaise.

Yet, none of the indicators involve actions that would tackle root causes of the Middle East multiple conflicts and problems. In fact, some of the solutions tossed around amount to little more than window dressing, while others set the stage for a next phase of conflict and strife.

Talks between the feuding Palestinian factions have repeatedly failed. It was not clear whether Hamas would be ready as part of a deal to put its armed wing under Mr. Abbas’s control – a key demand of the Palestinian president that the Islamists have so far rejected. It also remains to be seen how Israel would respond. Israel together with the United States, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates sees Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Beyond Palestine, the contours of future conflict are already discernible. If Myanmar’s Rohingya are the 21st century’s rallying cry of the Muslim world, the Kurds could be one of its major fault lines.

Disputes over territory, power and resources between and among Sunni Muslims, Shiites and Kurds that fuelled the rise of IS in Iraq are resurfacing with its demise. In a twist of irony, a recent poll showed Sunnis were for the first time more positive about Iraq’s future than the country’s majority Shiites.

Reconstruction of Sunni cities in the north destroyed by the fight against IS is key to maintaining a semblance of Iraqi unity. With no signs of massive reconstruction gaining momentum, old wounds that have driven insurgencies for more than a decade could reignite IS in new forms. “All the writing is on the wall that there will be another ISIS,” said former Iraqi foreign minister and Kurdish politician Hoshyar Zebari, referring to the group by another of its acronyms.

The initial flash in the pan threatens to be the fact that Iraqi Kurds are certain to vote for independence in a unilateral referendum scheduled for September 25. If the independence issue did not provide enough explosives in and of itself, the Kurds’ insistence on including in the referendum the ethnically mixed, oil-rich city of Kirkuk and adjacent areas further fuelled the fire.

The referendum and the dispute over Kirkuk reopen the question of what Iraqi Kurdistan’s borders are even if the Kurds opt not to act immediately on a vote for independence and to remain part of an Iraqi federation for the time being.

The issue could blow a further hole into Iraq’s already fragile existence as a united nation state. Iraqi President Haider al-Abadi has denounced the referendum. His efforts to persuade the Iraqi parliament to fire Kirkuk governor Najmaldin Karim for backing the poll as well as for calls for parliament to withdraw confidence in Iraqi President Fuad Masum and sack ministers and other senior officials of

Kurdish descent could push the Kurds over the edge.

Iraqi military officials as well as the Iranian-backed Shiite militias that are aligned with the military have vowed to prevent the referendum from being held in Kirkuk. “Kirkuk belongs to Iraq. We would by no means give up on Kirkuk even if this were to cause major bloodshed,” said Ayoub Faleh aka Abu Azrael, the commander of Imam Ali Division, an Iran-backed Iraqi Shiite militia.

A possible fight may not be contained to Kirkuk. Kurdish and Iraqi government forces vie for control of areas from which IS has been driven out stretch westwards along the length of northern Iraq. Mr. Al-Abadi warned that he would intervene militarily if the referendum, which he described as unconstitutional, provoked violence.

Add to that, the ganging up on the Kurds by Iran, Turkey and the United States. The US backs the Iraqi government even if it put Kurdistan on course towards independence when it allowed the autonomous enclave to emerge under a protective no-fly zone that kept the forces of Saddam Hussein at bay. Breaking with the US and its Arab allies, Israel has endorsed Kurdish independence.

Turkish intelligence chief Hakan Fidan and Iranian Al Quds force commander Qassem Soleimani have warned the Kurds on visits to Iraqi Kurdistan to back away from the referendum. Iran has threatened to close its borders with the region.

Describing the referendum as “a matter of national security,” Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said that “no one should have doubt that we will take all the necessary steps in this matter.” Turkey fears that Kurdish independence would spur secessionist aspirations among its own Kurds, who account for up to 20 percent of its population and that an independent Kurdistan would harbour Turkish Kurdish insurgents already operating from the region.

Mr. Al-Abadi alluded to possible Turkish and/or Iranian military intervention to prevent the emergence of an independent Kurdistan by suggesting that the referendum would be “a public invitation to the countries in the region to violate Iraqi borders… The Turks are very angry about it because they have a large Kurdish population inside Turkey and they feel that their national security is threatened because it is a huge problem for them. And, of course, the Iranians are on the same line,” Mr. Al-Abadi said.

The Kurdish quest for some form of self-rule is likely to manifest itself in Syria too. The US backs a Syrian Kurdish militia aligned with Turkish Kurdish militants in its fight against IS. The militia that prides itself on its women fighters is among the forces besieging the IS capital of Raqqa.

The Kurds are hoping that an end to the war in Syria will leave them with an Iraq-style autonomous region on the Turkish border – an aspiration that Turkey, like in Iraq, vehemently opposes. The target of strikes by the Turkish air force, the Kurds hope to benefit from the force’s shortage of pilots because of mass purges in the wake of last year’s failed coup against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The air force last month ordered all former fighter pilots flying for Turkish airlines to report for service.

The Kurds may provide the first flashpoint for another round of volatility and violence, but they are not the only ones. Nor are sectarian and other ethnic divisions that are likely to wrack Iraq and Syria once the current round of fighting subsides.

Eager to find a face-saving exit from its ill-fated invasion of Yemen that has pushed the country to the edge of the abyss, Saudi Arabia is will have to cope with a populous country on its border, many of whose citizens harbour deep-seated anger at the devastation and human suffering caused by the Saudis that will take years to reverse.

Similarly, the three-month-old rift between Qatar and an alliance led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates is likely to leave deep-seated scars that will hamper integration among the six Gulf states that make up the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the Middle East’s only functioning regional organization prior to the crisis. A failure of talks between Qatar and its detractors, mediated by US President Donald J. Trump, even before they got started, suggested that a resolution to the crisis is nowhere in sight.

Coping with the fallout of the crisis and the Yemen war, simply adds to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s woes as he prepares to at some point succeed his ailing father, King Salman. Prince Mohammed, who is popular among the country’s youth in expectation of economic and social change, has already had to backtrack on some of the promised change. Foreign lenders have moreover indicated a lack of confidence as they head for the exit rather than explore new opportunities.

In addition, Prince Mohammed has signalled concern about opposition to his proposed reforms within the kingdom’s ruling Al Saud family, determination to avoid political change, and willingness to rule with an iron fist. Prominent religious scholars with significant followings and activists have been arrested in recent weeks while dissenting members of the ruling family have been put under house arrest.

The optimistic view may be that the Middle East is six years into an era of political, economic and social change. If historic yardsticks are applicable, that amounts to one third of a process of transition that can take up to quarter of a century to work itself out. There is little reason to believe that the next third will be any less volatile or violent.

Canada Should Look At Expanded US Activities In Space As Opportunities – Analysis

0
0

By Sean Kelly and Christopher Sands*

Canadians have never been more prominent in space. Former astronaut Chris Hadfield has become a YouTube sensation for his video and Internet chats with schoolkids from space and has written a bestselling children’s book. Marc Garneau, now Canada’s minister of transport, flew on three space shuttle missions before serving as president of the Canadian Space Agency (CSA). And Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced that former astronaut Julie Payette, who flew on two missions to the International Space Station, will become Canada’s 29th governor general.

When it comes to space exploration and science, Canada has been a team player, achieving much by working with other countries, particularly the United States. Since taking office, US President Donald Trump has pledged to revise US space-related policy as part of his commitment to “make America great again.” Expanded US military, commercial and scientific activity in space will generate challenges and opportunities for Canada’s space ambitions.

Defence

Tests of anti-satellite weapons by Russia and China have led the US to conclude that space will be as important in future conflicts as the ocean was in the 19th century. One response has been a proposal in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2018 to create a space corps, housed under the Air Force and with similar autonomy to that of the Marine Corps. The proposal has drawn criticism from Capitol Hill, the Department of Defense and the White House.

The Department of Defense is warming to the idea of partnering with the private sector to develop the next generation of space technology, indicating interest in investing in emerging space technologies with cost-cutting potential, including reusable launch vehicles, satellite servicing technologies and small satellites.

Commerce

US firms have developed cost-competitive launch and mission capabilities that are making the outer atmosphere a viable area for economic activity. By some estimates, reusable launch vehicle technology, developed by companies such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX, could undercut launch costs by as much as 40 percent. Recent innovation in small satellites, a market expected to surpass $30 billion in the next decade, is bringing the cost of commercial use of space down even further.

Some US investors are exploring mining projects on the moon and some asteroids. A recent report claims the cost of an “asteroid-grabbing craft” could be as low as $2.6 billion, which would pay off handsomely with the plentiful water and platinum reserves obtainable on these asteroids. The US space industry has several interested players that intend to exploit the space mining market, including Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries.

Science

The Trump administration hopes to focus the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on missions related to space science and exploration. The NASA budget request for fiscal year 2018 may be an early sign of Trump’s interest in space, as it was only 0.8 percent lowerthan the previous year’s budget; NASA would be faring much better than agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.

To advise on US research and exploration priorities, Trump re-established the National Space Council, which had been allowed to lapse since 1992. The council will be chaired by Vice-President Mike Pence, a passionate advocate for an expanded US role in space.

Nevertheless, the US space program will continue to face tight budgets. In the past, NASA has partnered with US research universities, including the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins, for innovative ideas to advance scientific knowledge in the face of fiscal constraints. These relationships have led to some of the progress we now see in small satellite and CubeSat technologies. Additionally, NASA grants have facilitated partnerships between research universities and private industry participants, including university collaboration with SpaceX and Deep Space Industries. SpaceX has even established a University Program, providing industry exposure and training to currently enrolled students.

The future of the Canada-US partnership in space

Speaking on Parliament Hill on July 1, Prime Minister Trudeau said, “As we celebrate Canada’s 150th birthday, we also look towards an exciting future of space exploration.” For nearly 50 years, the US and Canadian space programs have collaborated on research, development and satellite information-sharing agreements.

Commercial space cooperation between Canadian and US firms is promising, with Canadian technology and engineering providing components and systems solutions to the US commercial space sector, much as they do in the automotive sector. Canadian companies that are already taking advantage of partnerships with US private sector participants include Magellan Aerospace, which has secured US-based customers ranging from Lockheed Martin to Orbital Sciences. Outside the US, Canada’s Neptec has been working with Astrium UK in recent years on the ExoMars Rover, sponsored by the European Space Agency; it is expected to launch in 2018.

NASA and the CSA have a long history of cost-sharing when it comes to grand space ventures, most notably with the International Space Station and next-generation satellite servicing technology. CSA partnership could add funding and experience to a new array of collaborations with NASA, while keeping ambitious projects on budget.

Canada’s universities will need more support from governments and the private sector to train a new generation of talented young people with space-related expertise to boost Canadian participation. Canada’s freshly renewed and reorganized Space Advisory Board is determined to see this happen, recommending that the government set aside “at least 10% of the CSA’s budget for scientific and research activities in Canadian universities.” This funding should be used not only for partnerships between universities and the CSA but for cooperation between universities and the private sector as well.

Expanding Canada’s military role in space in partnership with the United States will be controversial: opposition to the “weaponization” of space has been significant since the 1980s. As in the case of US-Canadian missile defence cooperation, there is the risk that moral arguments against Canadian participation will prevail and result in Canada’s space assets being protected by the United States by default, just as Canadian cities assume US missile defences will protect them in the event of an attack. It would be far better for Canadians to partner with the United States in the protection of their space-based interests, thereby securing a role for Canada in international dialogue on the peaceful use of near-earth orbit and more distant zones.

Canadians should consider all these US developments as opportunities, but to make the most of them, Canada must prepare now. The stars are aligned for a strategic rethink of Canada’s future role in space.

*About the authors:
Sean Kelly
, Internship Program and Operations Manager

Christopher Sands, Former Senior Fellow

Source:
This article was published by the Hudson Institute

Drone Technology Taking Off At United Nations

0
0

Drone technology appears to be taking off at the United Nations, with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) being used for various purposes, including in humanitarian, development and peacekeeping operations.

Although this technology is not a magic solution, “the promise of drones is really tremendous,” said Christopher Fabian, principal advisor on innovation at the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), in an interview with UN News.

For UNICEF and other humanitarian and development agencies, he said, drone technology can make a big difference in three ways.

First, drones can leapfrog over broken infrastructure in places where developed transportation networks or roads do not exist, carrying low-weight supplies.

Second, UAVs can be used for remote sensing, such as gathering imagery and data, in the wake of natural disasters like mudslides, to locate where the damage is and where the affected peoples are.

Third, drones can extend WiFi connectivity, from the sky to the ground, providing refugee camps or schools with access to the Internet.

As big as a Boeing 737 passenger jet and as small as a hummingbird, a huge variety of drones exist. According to research firm Gartner, total drone unit sales climbed to 2.2 million worldwide in 2016, and revenue surged 36 per cent to $4.5 billion.

Although UNICEF’s use of drones has been limited, the agency is exploring ways to scale up the use of UAVs in its operations, Mr. Fabian said.

In late June, Malawi, in partnership with UNICEF, launched Africa’s first air corridor to test the humanitarian use of drones in Kasungu District.

Also with UNICEF, Vanuatu has been testing the capacity, efficiency and effectiveness of drones to deliver life-saving vaccines to inaccessible, remote communities in the small Pacific island country.

Vanuatu is an archipelago of 83 islands separated over 1,600 kilometres. Many are only accessible by boat, and mobile vaccination teams frequently walk to communities carrying all the equipment required for vaccinations – a difficult task given the climate and topography.

To extend the use of drones, UNICEF and the World Food Programmes (WFP) have formed a working group. In addition, UNICEF, together with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), chairs the UN Innovation Network, an informal forum that meets quarterly to share lessons learned and advance discussions on innovation across agencies.

Drones are also used in other parts of the UN system. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its partners have introduced a new quadcopter drone to visually map gamma radiation at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, which was damaged by the devastating 2011 tsunami.

Last year, an IAEA-supported drone won fourth place in the 2016 United Arab Emirates Drones for Good Award competition, which received over 1,000 entries from more than 160 countries.

ROMEO, or the Remotely Operated Mosquito Emission Operation, met the competition’s aim of improving people’s lives. It was designed to transport and release sterile male mosquitoes as part of an insect pest birth control method that stifles pest population growth.

Some UN peacekeeping missions, such as those in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali and the Central African Republic, have deployed unarmed surveillance UAVs to improve security for civilians.

Drone technology, however, can be a double-edged sword. UN human rights experts have spoken out against the lethal use of drones.

“Hardware itself does not violates human rights. It is the people behind the hardware,” said Mr. Fabian, stressing the need to “make sure that any technology we bring in or work on falls within the framing of rights-based documents,” such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

UNICEF has a set of guiding principles for innovation, which includes elements like designing with the end-user.

For drone applications to spread further, Mr. Fabian said, the UN has a strong role in advocating this technology and ensuring that policy is shared with different governments.

In addition, governments have to clearly define why they need drones and what specifically they will be used for, while also building up national infrastructure to support their use.

The private sector must understand that the market can provide them real business opportunities.

In 10 to 20 years, drones might be “as basic to us as a pen or pencil,” said Mr. Fabian.

“I believe this technology will go through a few years of regulatory difficulty but will eventually become so ubiquitous and simple that it’s like which version of the cell phones you have rather than have you ever use the mobile phone at all,” he said.

Peru: Priority To Articulate Indigenous And Ordinary Justice

0
0

By Segundo Chuquipiondo

Wrays Pérez, pamuk (Chief-President) of the Autonomous Government of the Wampis Nation, an Amazonian indigenous initiative to make visible the indigenous territorial management that dates back 7,000 years, tells Latinamerica Press that a code of justice is being prepared for the Wampis Nation, Amazonian indigenous people that inhabits the basin of the Morona and Santiago rivers, in the Amazonas and Loreto regions.

This code should be ready by the end of 2018, and has the support of the 65 communities and annexes that make up the Wampis government. Likewise, the Kampuapiawi (known as Shawi in Loreto), Shiwilu, Quechua of Pastaza and Candoshi peoples, who already have their own communal statutes, see the issue of justice as a strategic core for the communal order, as it is explained by Oswaldo Manihuari, the leader of the Regional Coordinator of the Indigenous Populations of San Lorenzo (CORPI SL) in the department of Loreto.

It should be noted that the “communal statutes” are similar to the political constitution of the state, but reduced to an autonomous people that operates in a determined territorial space.

“Our intention as indigenous organizations is that once the statutes are completed we can go to the Congress to present them and indicate that this is how we want to live, and be clear how far the state justice and our justice can reach,” said Manihuari.

For his part, Pérez explained: “We have had conversations with prosecutors and with the Superior Court of Justice of Amazonas from an intercultural perspective. In other words, we leave in their hands issues dealing with drug trafficking, illegal logging, human trafficking, etc.; in our hands would be indigenous justice; we deal with situations when, for example, a leader does bad deals with businessmen or people outside the community and the community members are unaware of this, we proceed to hand down a punishment: we first reject his leadership role and then we give him ishangasos [lashings with ishanga, a nettle that has many thorns on its leaves and stems]”. Pérez highlights that it is a matter of defining roles and functions according to the case and place.

It has been 24 years since the Political Constitution of Peru, in its article 149, expressly recognized the right to exercise indigenous (communal) justice in a determined territorial space, as long as it does not violate human rights.

To understand indigenous justice in its real dimension we must look at it from an intercultural context, that is to say, with respect to the culture and the place where it is practiced. Juan Carlos Ruíz Molleda from the Legal Defense Institute (IDL) explains, by making a supposition, how justice could be applied in a community: “If a person is caught stealing, he could be punished by walking naked around the main square, hanging a sign reading ‘I am a thief’, in a case of a high Andean community; but, other measures could be taken in the case of the jungle, like giving 10 lashes to the person with ishanga,” the specialist told Latinamerica Press.

Multicultural and multilingual country

Regarding to the legal arguments of indigenous justice, Ruiz Molleda explains that “the indigenous peoples existed long time before the existence of states; and along with them, their thousand-year justice has offered practical solutions to maintain the equilibrium and peace in the community.”

In 1993, the Constitution categorically recognized the right to self-identification of the indigenous-peasant communities and to the right of exercising justice at their own levels of organization and territory. Also, article 15 of the Penal Code of 1991 states that: if a person commits an act based on his costumes and is unaware that it is a crime, is exempt of any responsibility.

Furthermore, there is the Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the International Labor Organization, ratified by Peru in 1994. In its Article 2 it establishes that the governments must promote “the full realization of the social, economic and cultural rights of these peoples with respect for their social and cultural identity, their customs and traditions and their institutions.”

In order to determine whether indigenous justice affects human rights, Ruiz Molleda says that “this situation must be looked at in two specific moments: first, with the investigation of the case being brought to justice, and second, with the punishment — which in some experiences, as it is the case of Colombia, it is seen as a healing —, all of it under the criteria of “as long as [the case] puts in danger the life and physical integrity of the person.”

There are 65 indigenous peoples in Peru and 47 officially recognized languages, making it a multicultural and multilingual country. From this fact, comes the real urgency for the proper application of the legal instruments that make visible and guide the process to render justice in the corresponding jurisdiction, guaranteeing peace and the respect for human rights.

Also, the legal pluralism in Peru recognizes the indigenous peoples customary law and the objective is to promote the existence of other types of justice and their levels of organization according to their location, whether in the Andes or the Amazonia.

Communal self-defense organizations

As part of the process of a new policy on intercultural justice, the Judiciary presented last May the Commission of Indigenous Justice and Peace Justice in order to strengthen and improve the levels of coordination with indigenous authorities in the communities where communal justice takes place, with the support of rondas campesinas (autonomous communal self-defense organizations that surged in the mid 1970s in rural areas of the country). Their activity is regulated by the Rondas Campesinas Law 27908 of 2003.

It should be noted that at the end of 2016, the Judiciary presented the bill “Development Law of Article 149 of the Peruvian Constitution, which regulates the intercultural coordination of justice”; a proposal for the coordination of the special jurisdiction with the ordinary jurisdiction to which the Rondas Campesinas were opposed to.

The community based organizations at national level, such as the National Agricultural Federation (CNA) and the Pact of Unity of the Indigenous Organizations of Peru, as well as the Rondas Campesinas, demanded the immediate withdrawal of the bill, as they consider that it would restrict the administration of justice in their own territories by subordinating the special justice that they practice to ordinary justice.

“Over 35 percent of the population in the country is organized in peasant communities and indigenous communities, and the state has not done much to articulate and assist in the efforts between the community and ordinary legal bodies; and it can be said that the organizations themselves are those who approach the offices looking to establish dialogue on this issue,” says Ruíz Molleda.

“There has been talk since 2002 regarding an intercultural policy to understand the justice process, but there have not been concrete actions; that is to say, there are places where the ordinary justice system does not have the least coordination and validity. For this reason, a good faith rapprochement is necessary to learn from indigenous justice and respect it at their decision making levels,” he adds.

Wampion leader Shapion Noningo (a board member of the Wampis Autonomous Government) agrees with the specialist when adding that: “The relationship between indigenous and ordinary justice is not all good, but some form of compatibility based on mutual respect must be achieved.”

Finally, if this type of indigenous justice intrinsic to the country is to be recognized, “we must treat it judicially; contrast it with already available legal instruments,” says Ruíz Molleda.

Somalia: Al Shabab Kills Four, Injures Three

0
0

At least four soldiers were killed and three others injured early Sunday when al-Shabab militants attacked an army checkpoint in central Somalia, according to a police official.

Hiiran Police Commander Col. Issak Ali Abdulle said the attack occurred in Kalabayr, a strategic road junction some 25 kilometers (15.5 miles) away from Beledweyne town and about 17 kilometers (10.5 miles) from Fer-Fer, a town at the border between Ethiopia and Somalia.

Al-Shabab claimed it killed six troops in the attack.

The injured soldiers were taken to Beledweyne town for treatment, the police commander added.

Since last week, al-Shabab has briefly overrun army checkpoints in Bulagudud, Beled-Hawo, El-Wak, and Kalabayr.

Earlier this month, at least two people were killed in a suspected al-Shabab suicide bombing at a busy restaurant in Beledweyne town.

Beledweyne, 345 kilometers (214miles) north of capital Mogadishu, is the regional capital of Hiran. The town is also a base for African Union troops from Djibouti and Ethiopia.

Original source


The Fall Offensive: US, France And Brazil – OpEd

0
0

The fall of 2017 will witness the most brutal assault on working and middle class living standards since the end of World War II. Three presidents and their congressional allies will ‘revise’ labor legislation, progressive income tax laws and regulations and effectively end the mixed economy in France, the US and Brazil.

Throughout the summer, public opinion has been diverted by US threats to launch new overseas wars, France’s rhetoric about forming a post-Brexit, Berlin-Paris pact, which will remake the European Union, and Brazil’s President Michel Temer’s corruption and crime scandals.

These superficial controversies will be overwhelmed by fundamental class conflicts, which promise to alter the present and future structural relations within Western capitalism.

President Trump’s Fall Offensive: Profits, Wars and Epidemics

President Trump proposes to enrich capitalists and intensify class inequalities via his radical transformation of the tax system. Corporate taxes will be cut in half; overseas corporate taxes will be abolished; and wage and salaried workers will pay more for fewer social benefits.

Trump can count on the support of the Republican leadership, business and banking elite and sectors of the Democratic Party in his plans to roll out a massive tax giveaway for the billionaires.

Trump’s cabinet, led by the Goldman Sachs trio and his troika of generals will ensure that the budget will include slashing the funds for education and health in order to increase military spending, expand wars and cut taxes for the rich.

Even more aggressive threats against North Korea, Russia, Iran, Venezuela and China, greater overseas war spending and troop levels in Afghanistan and the overt militarization of policing, immigration control and domestic intelligence will result in drastic cutbacks on federal programs for the poor and working classes. Declining access to quality health care for workers and deterioration in workplace safety conditions will fuel the opioid addiction epidemic leading to hundreds of thousands more premature worker deaths by overdose, injury and inadequate, incompetent care.

President Emmanuel Macron: The Capitalist Offensive in France

In France, the workers and middle class face the most comprehensive attack on their employment rights and progressive social legislation in modern history.

French President Emmanuel Macron welcomes President Donald J. Trump to the reviewing stand for the Bastille Day military parade in Paris, July 14, 2017. Macron and Trump recognized the continuing strength of the U.S.-France alliance from World War I to today. DoD photo by Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Dominique Pineiro
File photo of French President Emmanuel Macron welcoming President Donald J. Trump to the reviewing stand for the Bastille Day military parade in Paris, July 14, 2017. DoD photo by Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Dominique Pineiro

President Emmanuel Macron has declared his goal of completely transferring socio-economic power from French workers to capital by gutting all pro-labor laws and protections. Employees will have to negotiate with their bosses, one plant and one office at a time, thereby undermining the collective bargaining power of a united working class. Employers will be free to hire and fire workers with virtually no restrictions or consequences.

Temporary and short-term ‘garbage’ contracts will proliferate, destroying long-term worker stability. Macron will eliminate the jobs of over 100,000 public employees while slashing corporate taxes by over $50 billion euros.

In contrast to massive tax cuts for the bourgeoisie, Macron proposes to increase taxes on French pensioners, hitting millions of retirees. Once in place, Macron’s legislative agenda will concentrate power, profits and wealth of capital while increasing inequalities and class polarization. Responding to the economic interests of the bankers, Macron promises to lower the deficit to 3% of GDP through massive cuts in health and education.

Under the pretext of ‘reducing unemployment’, Macron will promote part-time and temporary employment for French youth and immigrant workers, stripping all French workers of their hard-fought gains in job security and labor rights. Macron justifies his assault on labor by dismissing workers as ‘lazy’.

Brazil: The Great Fire Sale

Michel Temer, Brazil’s ‘unelected’ President plans to privatize 57 public enterprises – the crown jewels of Brazil’s economy. This will amount to the biggest capitalist asset grab in two centuries!

Brazil's Michel Temer. Photo by Licurgo Miranda, Wikipedia Commons.
Brazil’s Michel Temer. Photo by Licurgo Miranda, Wikipedia Commons.

Included in the sell-off are: oil fields, energy transmission lines, highways, airports, as well as Brazil’s mint and lottery. Electrobas, Latin America’s biggest electricity generator, is up for grabs. In addition, Temer plans to raise interest rates charged by the state-owned development bank BNDES to increase the private bankers’ share of lending and profits.

This naked grab of profitable state enterprises by private domestic and foreign investors will lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and the lowering of wages, salaries and pension payments.

Temer started to slash state pension liabilities by increasing the age of retirement by several years. Wages and social benefits have been frozen for the foreseeable future. Presidential decrees, which dictate the terms of labor contracts, threaten collective bargaining.

The Capitalist Offensive: Results and Perspectives

These presidents have declared their intention to launch full-scale ‘class war from above’ – the consequences of which remain to be seen. The presidents, who rule by fiat, are treading fragile terrain. Each is facing major political, economic and social challenges.

All three presidents have lost public support since taking power, especially among their lower middle and working class-class voters.

Macron’s approval dropped from 65% to 40%; Trump from 49% to 35%; and Temer (who was not elected) barely retains 5% (and falling) public approval.

Brazil: Facing the Abyss

Despite uncertainties over the regime’s stability and future, foreign investors and the financial press supports Temer.

President Temer’s isolation from Brazil’s voting public has weakened his power in the Congress, and among the domestic banking elite and oil and power corporations. However, if the trade unions call for widespread militant strikes by manufacturing workers, public employees and the landless rural workers’ movement (MST) is effective and paralyzes the economy, Temer may be forced to resign before his program is implemented. Meanwhile, President Temer faces numerous judicial investigations for corruption.

Strategically, Temer can count on international support, especially from the US State Department, Treasury, Pentagon and the European Union. The neo-liberal regimes in Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, Colombia and Mexico have voiced strong support for Temer, especially since they have also received bribes from the same Brazilian corporate oligarchs! Under Temer, the Brazilian economy has declined by over 5% since he took power in a ‘legislative coup d’état’. His budget deficit exceeds 9% and unemployment has doubled to over 11%.

Despite support from foreign and domestic elite, Temer’s presidency will not survive. Under mass pressure and with looming elections, Brazil’s Congress may decide to allow the courts to prosecute Temer and block his proposed sellout of public assets.

Credit rating agencies are going to downgrade the Brazil’s economy to ‘junk’ status, undercutting new investments. With new elections on the horizon in 2018, it is clear that Temer will not even run for the presidency and his proposals to privatize Brazil’s major firms may not succeed. The economic recession has sharply reduced tax revenues and the possibility of receiving any significant boost from privatization is dubious. Even Temer’s initial regressive measure – the slashing of public pensions- has bogged down in bureaucratic infighting. However, the opposition to Temer’s capitalist offensive has yet to strike a decisive, organized blow.

The Congressional opposition, led by the center-left Workers Party (PT), is a distinct minority with many of its leaders facing their own corruption trials. The PT is incapable of blocking, let alone ousting, Temer. The rightwing opposition in Congress is divided between those who back Temer – based on party patronage – and those who want to replace Temer while pushing for his anti-labor agenda. The trade unions, led by the CUT, have mounted sporadic protests and made rhetorical gestures, while the MST (the landless rural workers) and associated ecological and homeless movements, which lack militant mass urban support, would be unable to topple Temer.

Ex-President Lula Da Silva has regained some degree of mass voter support but faces corruption charges, which may ban him from political office – unless there is a major mass mobilization.
In sum, the rightwing, pro-capitalist offensive in Brazil is comprehensive — offering public assets and private profits– but weak in institutional support and economic fundamentals.

A big-push from the Left could undermine the political base for Temer’s economic team, however, it is not clear which party or leaders would replace him.

France: Bonaparte in the Palace, Workers on the Streets

When President Emmanuel Macron was elected President of the Fifth Republic, he carried a mass electoral base as well as the support of France’s leading business and banking organizations. However, in the run-up to the launching of his capitalist offensive the mass base has evaporated. Voter disapproval is rising rapidly. The militant wing of the trade unions (CGT) prepares to launch general strike. His regressive tax agenda has alienated wide sectors of the petit bourgeois, especially public-sector employees.

Macron’s concentration of executive power (his Bonapartist complex) has turned his allies on the right against him.

The outcome of Macron’s offensive is both likely and uncertain.

For one thing Macron enjoys a majority in the French Congress. The economy is growing and investors are exuberant. Tax-conscious small business groups are happy. Labor is divided with the class collaborationist CFDT and FO refusing to join with the trade union opposition.

United Kingdom's Prime Minister Theresa May with France's President Emmanuel Macron. Photo Credit: UK Prime Minister's Office.
United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Theresa May with France’s President Emmanuel Macron. Photo Credit: UK Prime Minister’s Office.

The European Union is united, up to a point, in its support for Macron. Equally important, Macron is determined to crush street protests and sporadic, partial strikes with demagogic appeals through the corporate mass media, coercion and outright state repression.

The political party opposition, led by the left socialists and the nationalists, is divided. The Socialist Party barely exists. Pensioners and students are opposed to Macron, but have not taken to the streets. Few among the professional class and liberal academia retain any illusions about the ‘new centrist President’ but few are willing to actively confront the ‘the new Bonaparte’.

Macron has fashioned a formidable alliance between the state apparatus and the business ruling class to crush worker opposition. But popular opposition is growing and is furious at his agenda and insults: ‘They (French workers) have had it too good…’ To defeat Macron, they must unite the opposition and build a strategy of prolonged class warfare.

Macron will not give in to transitory strikes. If Macron’s capitalist offensive succeeds, it will have enormous implications for the French working class, especially the rights of workers and salaried employees to organize and struggle. A victory for Macron will profoundly undermine the structure and membership of popular organizations, now and in the future. Moreover, a defeat for French workers will reverberate throughout the EU and beyond. Conversely, a victory for labor could trigger mass struggles across Europe.

The United States

A powerful opposition could confront President Trump’s capitalist offensive, but it will not be led by the highly bureaucratized trade unions representing less than 8% of the private sector labor force. Trump’s enemies among the Democratic and Republican Party elite have dismissed Trump’s ‘working class’ supporters as ‘white supremacist and neo-Nazis’. American workers’ concerns have been trivialized and marginalized by the divisive politics of ‘identity’, so blatantly used by both parties. Trump’s capitalist offensive in favor of a regressive pro-corporate tax cuts and the gutting of social welfare (health, education, housing, environment and worker safety) has failed to provoke sustained, unified social opposition. In the US, the pro-business elites dominate and dictate the agendas of both the incumbent Trump regime and the ‘elite opposition forces’.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump. Photo Credit: Kremlin.ru
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump. Photo Credit: Kremlin.ru

The official ‘anti-Trump opposition’, which terms itself a ‘resistance’, promotes ‘identity’ interests linked to elite political representation. It works hard to undermine any possibility of working class unity based on common socio-economic interests by focusing on marginal and divisive issues. In the midst of mass poverty, declining life expectancy and an epidemic of suicide and drug overdose deaths, the ‘resistance’ forces of the elite opposition concentrate on manufactured foreign (‘Russia-gate’) conspiracies and life style issues (trans-genders in the US Special Forces) to overthrow the Trump regime. They have no intention to forge any class alliances that might threaten Trump’s regressive capitalist agenda.

The struggle this fall in the US will not be between labor and capital: It will spotlight the contradiction between what remains of Trump’s business protectionist agenda and the Democrats’ neo-liberal free trade policies. The capitalist offensive against labor in the USA was already determined by default. US trade union officials are marginal and inconsequential actors, incapable and unwilling to politicize, educate and mobilize workers.

Trump’s capitalist offensive appeals to investors and boosts the stock market. The majority of his economic team is tied to Wall Street bankers against so-called economic nationalists. Trump’s mindless chauvinist rhetoric to the populace is openly dismissed by the plutocrats within his own cabinet, who complain they have been targeted by ‘fascists and anti-Semites’ (meaning Trump’s deplorable and angry voter base).

The United States is the only country in the industrial world launching a massive, sustained capitalist offensive without an anti-capitalist opposition. The American working class is openly ‘deplored’ by the major elements of the elite opposition and blatantly manipulated by its fake ‘champion’, Trump.

The consequences are pre-determined. The capitalist offensive cannot lose; both capitalist sides ‘win’. Under the Businessman-President Trump, multi-national corporations will secure lower taxes and degrade working class living standards and social benefits. Bi-partisan agreements will ensure that banks are completely deregulated. The elite anti-Trump opposition will ensure that ‘their’ capitalists get favorable neo-liberal trade agreements, guaranteeing their access to cheap immigrant labor and a non-unionized workforce denied workplace safety and environmental regulations.

While France and Brazil face real class war, the ‘classless’ US slouches toward nuclear war. Macron confronts militant trade unions, Temer faces the fury of broad social alliances, and Donald Trump marches after ‘his Generals’ to nuclear conflagration. He invades Russian diplomatic properties; points nuclear weapons at Moscow and Beijing; holds massive offensive exercises and stations THAAD missiles on the border of North Korea; and escalates US air and ground force operations in a 16-year losing war in Afghanistan.

Workers in Europe and Latin America choose to fight capitalists in defense of their class interests, while US workers have become passive spectators to the looming possibility of nuclear war, when they are not in a prescription-induced opioid stupor. Defeating the capitalist offensive in France and Brazil can advance the cause of social justice and ensure concrete benefits for workers and masses of people; Trump’s unopposed capitalist military offensive will send clouds of nuclear ashes across the world.

Behind The Scenes Switzerland Keeps US And North Korea Talking

0
0

By Balz Rigendinger

In public, threats. Behind the scenes, diplomacy and de-escalation. Switzerland has been negotiating between the United States and North Korea without fanfare but with success. This week a former US diplomat and a representative from North Korea spoke to each other in Montreux.

It was one of those meetings that happen from time to time: at the lowest level, during an international get-together, discreet and informal. Yet it is significant because it represents a moment of normality in relations between the North Korea and the US. These are more strained than ever, following a series of weapon tests in North Korea and threats from the White House. In times like these, even small steps are large.

The conference began on Monday; the UN Security Council had just imposed very tough sanctions on North Korea. The Japanese national public broadcasting organisation NHK reported that Evans Revere, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, had spoken to Choe Kang Il, deputy director general for North American affairs at North Korea’s foreign ministry. No details of the unofficial encounter were given.

On September 4, Doris Leuthard, who holds the rotating Swiss presidency this year, explicitly offered Switzerland’s services in a mediating function to both states. One role for Switzerland, she suggested, could be as a suitable location for meetings.

“I think it’s our job to see what possibilities exist – Twitter won’t be an adequate instrument. This has to be very discreet,” she said.

‘Military option’

Immediately after the conference, the conflict between North Korea and the US re-escalated. On Thursday, North Korea tested another missile which flew over Japan and had enough range to hit Guam, the US Pacific island territory and military hub. According to North Korea, the test was intended to “curb US belligerence”, the aim being a “balance of power” between North Korea and the United States.

On Friday, Choe Kang Il, on the way back from Switzerland, spoke to reporters in Beijing. He said the missile test was part of a plan to strengthen North Korea’s nuclear position. He added that North Korea would never remove its nuclear weapons and missiles from the negotiating table while the US expressed hostility towards North Korea and threatened the country with nuclear weapons.

Dialogue would only begin, he stressed, when the US abandoned its hostile policy and sanctions.

Asked what he and Revere had discussed in Montreux, Choe Kang Il repeated that North Korea’s nuclear weapon and missile programme was a self-defence measure. He recently told US network NBC: “The Trump administration would be well advised to rethink how it views North Korea.”

On Friday, after the most recent missile test, the US national security adviser HR McMaster said there was a “military option” for North Korea, adding that it was an option that the Trump administration did not want to employ.

China’s Calculus On Hypersonic Glide – Analysis

0
0

By Dr Lora Saalman*

Hypersonic glide vehicles are a growing factor in strategic stability calculations. Given their speed, precision and manoeuvrability, these systems are well suited to defeating missile defences. This section takes the current dyadic approach to US–Chinese competition in the field and inserts Russia as a factor that is shaping Chinese views on the subject. Presenting the key takeaways from 872 of 1675 surveyed Chinese-language texts, the author reviews more than a decade of research on hypersonic and boost-glide technologies to reveal growing Chinese interest in Russia. Combining this trend with both countries’ shared concerns over US missile defence suggests that it is time to start factoring in how Russia’s calculations on its own prompt global strike programme might shape China’s decisions on future nuclear and conventional payloads, and the targets and range of its own hypersonic glide vehicle programme.

Strategic intersection

In China, as in Russia, the US prompt global strike programme is discussed as an inherently pre-emptive and destabilizing system. Both countries make the worst-case scenario assumption that the USA will deploy a prompt global strike system that places their arsenals and command and control infrastructures at risk, whether on intercontinental ballistic missiles, air- and submarine-launched hypersonic cruise missiles, or kinetic weapons launched from an orbiting space platform. In the light of these concerns, it is not surprising that both China and Russia are exploring similar capabilities to offset or deter decapitation of their arsenals by the USA.

The timing of China’s flight test of its DF-ZF (previously designated as the WU-14) in April 2016 further highlights integration as a factor. China’s hypersonic glide vehicle test was reportedly a success and occurred just days after Russia carried out its own test. Its proximate timing to that of Russia recalls China’s previous flight tests, which often came on the heels of those conducted by the USA. This is more than mere coincidence. A review of more than a decade of Chinese writing on hypersonic and boost-glide technologies reveals growing interest in and research on Russia’s hypersonic glide vehicle programme. Combining this trend with both countries’ shared concerns over US missile defence suggests that it is time to start factoring in how Russia’s calculations on its own prompt global strike programme might shape China’s decisions on future nuclear and conventional payloads and targets, as well as the range of its own hypersonic glide vehicle.

Russia and China are not simply linked by China’s increased interest in Russia’s hypersonic glide developments. China’s renaming of its Second Artillery Corps as the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) and the publication of its 2015 Military Strategy White Paper also hint at a growing convergence. The full implications of this name change and restructuring, which seemingly mirror Russia’s own Strategic Rocket Force, are unclear but there is an emerging similarity between the two forces. The PLARF commands all three legs of China’s nuclear triad and is now thought to be on an equal footing with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), Navy and Air Force.

In addition, while China’s 2015 White Paper might not be as specific as Russia’s 2015 Military Doctrine, it emphasizes a similar vision of a global revolution in military affairs tied to long-range, precise, smart, stealthy and unmanned weapons in both outer space and cyberspace. It also details how the Second Artillery, now the PLARF, ‘seeks to improve nuclear and conventional forces and long-range precision strike capability’ and ‘is building systems of reconnaissance, early-warning, command and control, as well as medium- and long-range precision strike capabilities’. Finally, it advocates the development of ‘independent new weapons and equipment’ and fielding ‘a lean and effective nuclear and conventional missile force’.

Thus, Chinese experts from such organizations as the China Airborne Academy in Luoyang and the China School of Aerospace Engineering at the China Institute of Technology already place a high priority on near-space attack systems as the future of warfare. China has also been increasing the manoeuvrability of its hypersonic glide vehicles, conducting simulations that leverage near space and heat reduction to allow for successful re-entry, and researching more powerful engines and better trajectory optimization to expand the range of its hypersonic glide vehicles. While the majority of these papers involve technological mirroring of US advances, a number also highlight the arc of Russia’s hypersonic and boost-glide pursuits. Chinese research into aerodynamic properties, manoeuvrability and the G-force effects on the fuselage at high speeds often feature overviews of Russia’s programmes, including its Project 4202 which spawned the Yu-70 (102E or 15Yu70) and the more evolved Yu-71 and Yu-74.

As both Russia and China seek to deploy their own version of a hypersonic glide system, they are confronted with many of the same considerations faced by the USA in distinguishing between a conventional and a nuclear payload. Nonetheless, Russia’s reported testing of its hypersonic glide vehicle on the UR-100N and the potential mounting of it on the heavy liquid-propelled RS-28 ICBM to defeat US ballistic missile defences suggest that it is making its intentions clear. Given the focus on defeating US missile defences, a nuclear payload would be the most likely option. By contrast, China has been hedging on whether its DF-ZF will be conventional or nuclear. Current discussions on mounting hypersonic glide vehicles on the DF-21 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) and the DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) indicate a regional contingency. This has elicited a profusion of Western analyses of China’s use of its systems for anti-access area-denial (A2AD) to complicate US regional intervention in a crisis.

What these studies disregard, however, is that roughly a quarter of the Chinese technical studies on hypersonic glide vehicles remain focused on US missile defences, rather than any A2AD agenda. Some Chinese experts are even beginning to allege that the very existence of A2AD is a fabrication by Western analysts. Roughly half the Chinese studies surveyed on hypersonic glide vehicles and related technologies concentrate on countering or developing longer-range systems, such as space planes. This suggests that the future uses of China’s hypersonic glide vehicles will extend well beyond a conventional payload and a regional conflict. The fact that they place a similar focus on Russia’s intended use of these systems to defeat US missile defences in response to US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty also suggests identification with Russia when confronting this threat.

Thus, when it comes to the question of whether the DF-ZF, or the Yu-71 and the Yu-74, would be used to overcome theatre missile defence (TMD) or national missile defence (NMD), Chinese and Russian analyses have similar perspectives. They do not distinguish between regional and national missile defence. Much as in Russian discussions of US deployment of TMD in Eastern Europe, Chinese debates over TMD in East Asia concentrate on how these systems serve larger US NMD reconnaissance and intercept goals, thereby threatening its strategic deterrent. This has recently come to the forefront of Chinese concerns over the intended stationing by the USA of THAAD in South Korea, in terms of both enhanced radar and intercept capabilities. Moreover, US X-Band radar deployment in Japan has been a concern for a number of years. The fact that both Chinese and Russian developments in prompt high-precision systems are trending towards the targeting of US missile defences and a nuclear payload makes the postural crossover of these countries all the more relevant.

System integration

If China’s DF-ZF is intended as a conventional weapon to be used against a non-nuclear target, then the chances of use are likely to increase. This stems from the inherent difference between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons posited by Li Bin, professor and director of the arms control programme at Tsinghua University, who argues that countries do not intend nuclear weapons for actual use, but rather for coercion—or bargaining in the case of the USA. Unlike nuclear weapons, hypersonic glide vehicles are viewed in a much more utilitarian way in Chinese texts. In part, this stems from their current use, which Western analysts assume is to be mounted on medium-range missile systems to thwart US regional intervention.

When it comes to Chinese technical and official analyses, however, China appears to be extending hypersonic glide range and utility from the regional conventional systems to be deployed on DF-21D MRBMs and DF-26 IRBMs, to longer-range nuclear systems that put US missile defences at risk. Given the pre-existing utilitarian concept of these systems as conventional weapons, building hypersonic glide vehicles into China’s strategic deterrent creates the potential for them to erode the nuclear taboo, increasing the likelihood of their use even if mounted with nuclear payloads.

The utilitarian posture in China towards hypersonic glide vehicles, which may at some point carry over to nuclear payloads, creates worrying challenges in terms of escalation and overall strategic stability. Exacerbating these challenges is the co-mingling argument made by James Acton at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which posits that a conventional strike against co-located nuclear and conventional command and control centres could trigger a nuclear response. In this case, China’s own control architecture poses the greatest challenge.

China’s assumed conventional and nuclear co-location deters an adversary from launching an attack. Yet, the likelihood of such facilities being compromised in a conventional conflict remains and could result in rapid escalation. If China’s DF-ZF system is launched in response to what has been deemed a ‘first-use’ attack on a co-mingled facility, there is a chance of nuclear escalation. That is why the impact of Russia’s posture on China—as it pertains to its own hypersonic glide vehicles and tactical nuclear weapons—is so critical.

To this end, further exploration of the concept of ‘rapid response’ (快速反应) should be part and parcel of understanding this postural evolution in China. Although Zhao Tong has noted in previous publications that this term could be associated with launch-on-warning, there are indicators that it could just as easily be referring to prompt global strike capabilities. The concept of ‘rapid response’ appeared in roughly a quarter of the Chinese texts surveyed for this section. In most cases, it was paired with near space, space-based weapons and prompt global strike capabilities.

As just one example, in China’s 2015 Military White Paper, rapid response appears on a list that contains ‘strategic warning’ (战略预警), ‘command and control’ (指挥控制), ‘missile penetration’ (导弹突防) and ‘survivability protection’ (生存 防护).22 While its inclusion on a list with ‘strategic warning’ could point towards launch-on-warning, the positioning of ‘rapid response’ between ‘missile penetration’ and ‘survivability protection’—combined with the importance of early warning in countering prompt global strike—suggest that this reference could also be applied to hypersonic glide vehicles, space planes and the future of strategic stability.

At the military level in China, US space planes such as the X-37B and X-51 are also frequently paired with discussions of ‘rapid response’ (快速反应) and ‘rapid strike’ (快速打击). While the latter term correlates with prompt strike systems as a direct translation to Chinese, the postural implication of ‘rapid response’ is less clear. In Chinese texts, prompt global systems, such as near space aircraft, are viewed as providing platforms for reconnaissance, missile defence, electromagnetic countermeasures, transportation, communication and space weapons.

For example, ‘rapid response’ appears in Harbin Institute of Technology theses to describe the use of near space aircraft as space weapon platforms and serves as part of a longer list that includes such capabilities as long-range attack, widerange, high-mobility, precision-strike capabilities or, in other words, the ‘fifth dimension’ (五位一体) of joint operations.

Chinese technical studies on hypersonic glide vehicles and related technologies emulate what they call US ‘rapid response’ programmes, such as the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Falcon project, with its the common aero vehicle and affordable rapid response missile demonstrator. While the USA and other foreign powers such as Russia dominate these Chinese studies, they also focus on China’s own ambitions when it comes to hypersonic glide vehicles and related systems.

Beyond papers advocating that China develop more active prompt global systems, a number also detail China’s own eforts to obtain ‘rapid response’ capabilities. These include: (a) hypersonic aircraft ground tests and wind tunnel tests by China North Industries Corporation; (b) a robust adaptive approach to near space vehicles based on trajectory linearization control at Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics; and (c) designs and simulations using terminal guidance laws, gas thermo-elastic multi-field coupling and thermal protection for reusable hypersonic vehicles at the Harbin Institute of Technology.

If the postural interpretation of the term ‘rapid response’ is retaliatory and supports ‘active defence’ (积极防御), a case could be made that it diminishes the chances of pre-emption on the part of China. However, the larger question becomes: to what are these systems responding? If China’s hypersonic glide vehicles are to be deployed regionally to serve as A2AD systems mounted on the DF-21D or the DF-26 but with greater delegation of launch authority, this indicates a conventional payload and pre-emptive use.

However, if the goal of China’s hypersonic glide systems is more in line with that of Russia and targeted on defeating US missile defences, this suggests a nuclear payload. This latter trend could alter not only how ‘rapid response’ and ‘active defence’ are defined, but also how experts interpret China’s postural bedrock of no first use. This bedrock is being eroded by the very systems identified in the US Nuclear Posture Review as the USA’s deterrent against China and Russia—missile defence and prompt global strike.

Conclusions

Given that hypersonic glide tests conducted by China, Russia and the USA have not yet led to deployment, there is still an opportunity for greater analysis of how these technologies will affect the postural evolution of these three countries. Not taking the time to assess the potential outcomes of a technology-driven posture could lead to greater strategic instability and arms racing. As part of this process, beyond the US–Chinese paradigm, more emphasis needs to be placed on integrating Russia into analyses of China’s hypersonic glide vehicle development. This would provide a more nuanced analysis than the current bilateral calculations, which often simplify nuclear relations.

Chinese and US experts already meet on strategic nuclear issues at the academic and semi-official levels, although prompt global strike is generally a smaller and newer portion of the agenda. Expansion to a trilateral discussion that includes China, Russia and the USA at a more official level would mean moving beyond the idea that China’s asymmetrical disadvantage in nuclear warhead numbers precludes its involvement in US–Russian strategic stability talks. As China’s advances in hypersonic glide vehicle technology grow and its arsenal size responds to missile defence expansion in the Asia-Pacific region, the excuse of asymmetric disadvantage diminishes and the argument for trilateral engagement grows.

About the author:
*Dr Lora Saalman
is the Director of and a Senior Researcher in the SIPRI China and Global Security Programme.

Source:
This article was published by SIPRI

Ron Paul: Rand Paul’s Senate Vote Rolls Back The Warfare State – OpEd

0
0

Last week, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) reminded Congress that in matters of war, they have the authority and the responsibility to speak for the American people. Most Senators were not too happy about the reminder, which came in the form of a forced vote on whether to allow a vote on his amendment to repeal the Afghanistan and Iraq war resolutions of 2001 and 2002.

It wasn’t easy. Sen. Paul had to jump through hoops just to get a vote on whether to have a vote.

That is how bad it is in Congress! Not only does Congress refuse to rein in presidents who treat Constitutional constraints on their war authority as mere suggestions rather than as the law of the land, Congress doesn’t even want to be reminded that they alone have war authority.

Congress doesn’t even want to vote on whether to vote on war!

In the end, Sen. Paul did not back down and he got his vote. Frankly, I was more than a little surprised that nearly 40 percent of the Senate voted with Rand to allow a vote on repealing authority for the two longest wars in US history. I expected less than a dozen “no” votes on tabling the amendment and was very pleasantly surprised at the outcome.

Last week, Rand said, “I don’t think that anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty believes that these authorizations from 16 years ago and 14 years ago … authorized war in seven different countries.”

Are more Senators starting to see the wars his way? We can only hope so. As polls continue to demonstrate, the American people have grown tired of our interventionist foreign policy, which burns through trillions of dollars while making the world a more dangerous place rather than a safer place.

Some might argue that losing the vote was a defeat. I would disagree. For the first time in years we saw US Senators on the Senate Floor debating whether the president should have authority to take the US to war anywhere he pleases. Even with just the small number of votes I thought we might have gotten on the matter, that alone would have been a great victory. But getting almost 40 percent of the Senate to vote our way? I call that a very good start!

The first step toward rebalancing the separation of powers is for Congress to re-assert its authority and responsibility for declaring war. To this point, Congress has preferred to transfer its war responsibility to the president.

The second step, once Congress understands its obligations, is to convince our representatives that war was not designed to be the first choice in foreign policy, but rather to be the last resort when we are under attack or when a direct attack is imminent!

Just because Congress decides to approve the use of force does not mean that the war is just, justified, or wise. Congress is just as susceptible to war propaganda as the rest of America and unfortunately it is dominated by the false opinion that if you are not enthusiastic about US military solutions to disputes overseas then you are not being tough enough. In fact, it takes far more strength to exercise restraint in the face of the constant war propaganda and disinformation coming from the media and the neocons.

We have achieved a small victory last week, thanks to Senator Paul. But we still have a lot of work to do! We must keep the pressure on and convert more to the cause of peace and prosperity!

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

South African Revenue Service Mulls Legal Action Against KPMG

0
0

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) will consider instituting legal proceedings against KPMG for reputational damage.

On Monday, the revenue service said it had noted a statement issued by the audit, tax and advisory company on Friday pertaining to, among other things, the setting aside of the conclusions and recommendations of the ‘Allegations of Irregular and Misconduct’ report.

SARS received an email from Norton Rose Fulbright, acting on behalf of KPMG International, on Friday on the matter.

“SARS has been completely taken aback by KPMG’s aberrant and unethical conduct. KPMG unilaterally announced the purported withdrawal of its report, despite the existence of a service level agreement governing the relationship between the parties,” it said.

Briefing in Tshwane, SARS Commissioner Tom Moyane said the revenue service has been left with no option but to consider instituting legal proceedings against KPMG for reputational damage to SARS, including, but not limited to, a civil claim.

Moyane said SARS has no option but to consider the following legal route including:

1) Reporting KPMG to the relevant statutory audit bodies both locally and internationally;

2) Reporting the company to the Minister of Finance with the aim to blacklist KPMG for its unethical, immoral, unlawful and illegal behaviour.

3) Report KPMG to the Minister of Finance to consider stopping all work currently performed by KPMG in other departments, as well as any work in the pipeline until all the work KPMG conducted for the State have been investigated and reviewed for quality and proper auditing quality and expected standards;

4) Immediately seize any work which KPMG is currently performing for SARS and assess the work KPMG has performed in the last 10 years with the aim to determine whether there was a value for money and whether SARS should demand its money back and

5) Report KPMG to Parliament through SCOPA and SCOF with the aim to investigate the immoral conduct of KPMG and determine the appropriate action.

Service level agreement

SARS said it was important to note the service level agreement governing the relationship between the parties. The agreement provides that all rights, title and interest, including all Intellectual Property Rights, literary works created, written and or presented by KPMG and or its agents and employees, which relate to the service performed by KPMG vest exclusively in SARS.

“KPMG has irrevocably and in perpetuity transferred, made over and assigned to SARS, all intellectual property rights and which SARS has accepted; and KPMG has waived all its moral rights conferred upon it as an author by the provision of Section 20 of the Copyright Act, 1978,” said Moyane.

The revenue service said that the contractual obligations confirm that the report belongs to it as KPMG has surrendered all rights to SARS.

“It follows that the report is an exclusive property of SARS as it constitutes SARS intellectual property. SARS sees KPMG’s conduct as nothing else but a dismal attempt to portray SARS, its leadership, and in particular SARS Commissioner as incompetent, corrupt, inefficient and involved in a witch-hunt.”

The KPMG report was handed over to SARS in late 2015 and made final on 26 January 2016.

Criminal case on Rogue Unit

The revenue service said it had further noted a set of people, who are trying hard to claim that the purported withdrawal of the report by KPMG automatically vindicates them from their responsibility to account to the alleged criminal acts.

“SARS places on record that such malicious and irresponsible claims are either some acts of gross ignorance but at worst, a dismissal attempt to circumvent the law and or to mislead the public.”

Trump Meets With Prime Minister Netanyahu In New York

0
0

US President Donald Trump met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Monday in New York for a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), reaffirming the special relationship and unbreakable bond between the United States and Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu said, “I want to say that under your leadership, the alliance between America and Israel has never been stronger, never been deeper.” President Trump underscored the United States’ unwavering commitment to Israel’s security, according to the White House.

According to the White House, the two leaders discussed their continued cooperation across a range of issues and stressed their goals of countering Iran’s malign influence in the region and resolving the Syria crisis in a manner consistent with American and Israeli security interests. President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu also discussed continuing efforts to achieve an enduring Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

President Trump stated that despite the difficulty, “I actually think with the capability of Bibi and, frankly, the other side, I really think we have a chance.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu closed by once again acknowledging the strong relationship that the United States and Israel share, “[U]nder President Trump, America’s position towards Israel at the U.N. has been unequivocal, it’s been strong, it’s got both clarity and conviction.”

Starve Them To Death: Wall Street Journal’s Solution To North Korea – OpEd

0
0

The editors at the Wall Street Journal have settled on a plan for ending the crisis in North Korea. Starve them to death.

I’m not kidding.  In an article titled “Options for Removing Kim Jong In” the WSJ’s editorial board suggests that the US use “all of its tools to topple the North Korean regime” including, of course,  vital food imports which keep women and children from facing an agonizing death by starvation. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

“The North is especially vulnerable to pressure this year because a severe drought from April to June reduced the early grain harvest by 30%. If the main harvest is also affected, Pyongyang may need to import more food while sanctions restrict its ability to earn foreign currency….

While the regime survived a severe famine in the 1990s, today the political consequences of a failed harvest would be severe. …. The army was once the most desirable career path; now soldiers are underpaid and underfed. North Koreans will not simply accept starvation as they did two decades ago.

Withholding food aid to bring down a government would normally be unethical, but North Korea is an exceptional case. Past aid proved to be a mistake as it perpetuated one of the most evil regimes in history. The U.N. says some 40% of the population is undernourished, even as the Kims continue to spend huge sums on weapons. Ending the North Korean state as quickly as possible is the most humane course.”

(“Options for Removing Kim Jong In”, Wall Street Journal)

“Humane”?  The WSJ editors think that depriving people of enough food to stay alive is humane?

And look how cheery they sound about the fact that “40% of the population is (already) undernourished”, as if they’re already halfway towards their goal. Hurrah for the US embargo, still inflicting misery on innocent people some 6 decades after the war!

It’s sick!

Who are these people who grow up in our midst, attend our schools and universities, live in the same neighborhoods , and go to the same churches? Where do these monsters come from?

I’m reminded of what Harold Pinter said in his Nobel acceptance speech:

“What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days – conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead?”

It’s sure as hell is dead at the WSJ, that’s for sure. Dead as a doornail.

And what is starvation supposed to achieve anyway? What’s the ultimate objective?

Why regime change, of course, isn’t that what it’s always about, installing a more compliant stooge to  follow Washington’s diktats?

Of course it is. But how’s it supposed to work, after all, depriving people of food isn’t like giving them guns and training them to topple the regime, is it?

No, it’s not, in fact, there’s not even the remotest chance that the plan will work at all. None. But it will help to punish the Korean people for the behavior of their government. It will do that.  And it will generate more suffering, unhappiness and misery. That much is certain.

Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and North Korea had the power cut vital food supplies to people in the United States. Sure, it’s far fetched, but just think about it for a minute. How would you react? Would you gather your neighbors and friends together to concoct a plan to overthrow the government?

The idea is ridiculous, isn’t it? The editors at the WSJ know that. These are educated, intelligent men who understand how the world works and who know the impact of particular policies. They know that starvation isn’t going to lead to revolution.  That’s just not going to happen.

Then why support a policy that won’t work?

Good question, but that’s where we have to veer into a very gray area of analysis, that is, trying to understand why some people are so morally malignant that they seem to enjoy inflicting pain on others. Why is that? Why are there so many cruel people in positions of power and authority?

It’s a mystery.


Can Forrest Gump Defeat Russian Propaganda In Belarus? – OpEd

0
0

Sometimes the simultaneous appearance of two stories apparently unrelated sheds light on issues more clearly than either of them does on its own. That is the case of two stories today from Belarus, one about Moscow’s promotion of Russophile books in that country and the other about the release of a Belarusian version of “Forrest Gump.”

Nasha Niva has investigated how money from the Kremlin has passed through the CIS-EMO, an apparently innocuous organization that stands for the Commonwealth of Independent States – Election Monitoring Organization, money to support books for Belarusians promoting pro-Russian attitudes (belaruspartisan.org/politic/395008/).

The CIS-EMO ostensibly was to be the counterpart of the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, but its real purpose is to promote pro-Russian attitudes in former Soviet republics. It has attracted attention for books like Human Rights Violations in Lithuania and The New Europe of Vladimir Putin (with Marie Le Pen on the cover).

Since 2013, this organization has been headed by Aleksandr Bedritsky of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISI). Among the books with a Belarusian dimension it has released since then are Belarusian Nationalism Against the Russian World, BSSR and Weestern Belorussia, and The White Guard of White Rus, all of which are in Russian.

The CIS-EMO organization gets its money from the Russian state budget via grants for “the development of a humanitarian foundation of Russian-Belorussian integration and the countering of falsification of history.” Last year, it received some 500,000 rubles or about 45,000 US dollars (grants2016.oprf.ru/grants2016-1/operators/perspektiva/requests/zhurnal/rec6880/).

The Russian propaganda books are distributed in part for free but also sold in several Russian Orthodox Church bookstores in Belarus. How many people read or are influenced by them is unknown, the Belarusian paper suggests. Also unknown is the number of Belarusians who are ready to accept their message.

But this weekend, a competing message will be offered in the Moskva Theater in Minsk when the Belarusian-dubbed version of the American film “Forrest Gump” will be shown to what are expected to be large and enthusiastic audiences who will demonstrate their interest by paying for tickets (charter97.org/ru/news/2017/9/17/263205/).

Indeed, in what is a kind of competition between the Zelig-like American film star and the kind of stick propaganda figures in books like The White Guard of White Rus, there is very little question as to who is going to win.

Iraq: Supreme Court Orders Suspension Of Kurdish Referendum

0
0

(RFE/RL) — Iraq’s Supreme Court has ordered the suspension of an independence referendum in the semiautonomous region of Kurdistan scheduled for next week.

The Supreme Court in Baghdad said in a September 18 statement that it has “issued a national order to suspend the referendum procedures…until the resolution of the cases regarding the constitutionality of said decision.”

It is not clear if Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq would abide by the court’s ruling.

Baghdad has repeatedly condemned the referendum as unconstitutional.

The United States and the United Nations have called on the Iraqi Kurdistan region to hold off the vote amid concerns that it could contribute to instability as Iraqi forces fight the extremist group Islamic State (IS).

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on September 17 warned that the planned September 25 referendum “would detract from the need to defeat” IS and to rebuild cities captured from the extremists.

Countries in the region, including Iran and Turkey, have also have also vehemently opposed the referendum amid fears that it could encourage their Kurdish minorities to break away.

Iran on September 17 warned that should Iraq’s Kurdistan region gain its independence, it would mean an end to all border and security arrangements agreed previously between Tehran and the regional government.

Turkey on September 18 launched a military drill with tanks close to the Iraqi border, the army said.

Ankara’s national security council will meet on September 22 to discuss the country’s official position on the referendum.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said over the weekend that it was a “mistake.”

Obama Receives $400,000 To Deliver Speech – OpEd

0
0

For a man who once criticized the Clinton Foundation for taking millions of dollars in ‘donations’ from Wall Street “Fat Cats,” Obama seems to be in a rush to replicate the lucrative Clinton scam via his very own Obama Foundation. As Bloomberg points out this morning, since leaving office in January, Obama has already collected millions in speaking fees from the same Wall Street banks that may have cost Hillary her shot at the White House.

Last month, just before her book “What Happened” was published, Barack Obama spoke in New York to clients of Northern Trust Corp. for about $400,000, a person familiar with his appearance said. Last week, he reminisced about the White House for Carlyle Group LP, one of the world’s biggest private equity firms, according to two people who were there. Next week, he’ll give a keynote speech at investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald LP’s health-care conference.

Obama is coming to Wall Street less than a year after leaving the White House, following a path that’s well trod and well paid. While he can’t run for president, he continues to be an influential voice in a party torn between celebrating and vilifying corporate power. His new work with banks might suggest which side of the debate he’ll be on and disappoint anyone expecting him to avoid a trap that snared Clinton. Or, as some of his executive friends see it, he’s just a private citizen giving a few paid speeches to other successful people while writing his next book.

“He was the president of the entire United States — financial services are under that umbrella,” said former UBS Group AG executive Robert Wolf, an early supporter who joined the Obama Foundation board this year. “He doesn’t look at Wall Street like, ‘Oh, these are individuals who don’t want the best for the country.’ He doesn’t stereotype.”

Now all he needs to do is use his foundation to raise money for Hurricane Irma victims in Barbuda, use that money to hire his buddies to rebuild the island and then sit back and wait for the kickbacks to roll in…then the transition to the Clinton Foundation will be complete.

Of course, as Bloomberg also notes, Obama’s speeches previously went unreported for some odd reason. Frankly, we’re shocked that these speeches didn’t manage to attract the media’s attention until now…they must have just missed it.

Obama’s appearance at the Carlyle conference in Washington was previously unreported. The private equity giant has enjoyed some of the best political connections in the world, with executives and advisers who have included former presidents, prime ministers and cabinet secretaries. Obama discussed his life and the decisions he made in the White House, the people who heard him said. A spokesman for the firm wouldn’t comment.

Northern Trust is a bank that specializes in wealth management for rich families and services for big funds. The event had gone unreported, but a program accessible on the firm’s website lists Obama alongside executives from Microsoft Corp., IBM and Michael Bloomberg, majority owner of Bloomberg LP.

Northern Trust, based in Chicago, gave Obama a discount on a $1.32 million loan for a mansion in that city in 2005, after he was elected to the Senate, the Washington Post reported. The rate was changed to account for an offer from another lender, a spokesman for Obama said three years later. Doug Holt, a spokesman for Northern Trust, wouldn’t comment for this story.

Meanwhile, we’re almost certain that Obama will ignore conflict of interest concerns being raised given that he continues to exert his influence in the political world. But Jeff Hauser, who studies political corruption as head of the Revolving Door Project in Washington, said Obama should play by the same rules as other politicians because of his ongoing work with the Democratic Party.

“He’s continuing to exercise the authority,” Hauser said, citing Obama’s support for the party’s redistricting committee and the push he gave Tom Perez in the race to head the Democratic National Committee. If he wants to play a role, “he ought to forgo a few hundred thousand here and maybe a half-million there.”

“Not everyone’s going to be a Jimmy Carter, who does purely good works after he gets out,” said Sean Coffey, a Democratic donor who chairs the complex litigation group at corporate law firm Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP. Obama is used to being criticized, the attorney added. “I don’t think getting any grief for doing this is going to bother him at all.”

“Not everyone’s going to be a Jimmy Carter,” indeed.

US, Japanese, South Korean Aircraft Conduct Show Of Force Flights

0
0

US Air Force and Marine Corps aircraft joined Japanese and South Korean military aircraft in a sequenced show of force over the Korean Peninsula Sunday in response to North Korea’s Sept. 14 launch of an intermediate range ballistic missile over Japan, the US Pacific Command said in a press release.

According to the press release, two B-1B Lancer bombers from Andersen Air Force Base, Guam; four U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Lightning II fifth-generation advanced fighters from Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan; four South Korean F-15K fighters and four Japanese F-2 fighters executed this mission, U.S. Pacific Command officials said.

US and South Korean aircraft flew across the Korean Peninsula and practiced their attack capabilities by releasing live weapons at the Pilsung Range training area.

Additionally, the US Pacific Command said that the F-35B fighters, B-1B bombers and Japanese F-2s flew together over waters near Kyushu, Japan.

Pacific Command maintains the ability to respond to any threat in the Indo-Asia-Pacific theater at a moment’s notice, Pacom officials said in announcing the show of force flights.

‘Dreamers’ Shout Down Democrats At San Francisco Press Event

0
0

Immigration activists interrupted a press event in San Francisco, California and shouted down House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and two other Congressional Democrats from the state.

Representatives Barbara Lee and Jared Huffman joined Pelosi on Monday at College Track San Francisco to promote the revived DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act, aimed at almost 700,000 immigrants brought into the US illegally as children.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration announced it would scrap the executive decision protecting these immigrants from deportation, known as DACA, and give Congress a six-month deadline to come up with a law.

About a hundred “Dreamers” crashed the event and talked over the Democratic lawmakers, according to San Francisco Chronicle reporter Evan Sernoffsky.

“You’re a liar!” and “You met with Trump and you call that resistance?” they shouted at Pelosi, according to KTVU-TV. Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) dined with Trump last week to discuss the DREAM Act.

Another chant was “All of us or none of us,” Sernoffsky reported. This may be a reference to the millions of other immigrants in the US illegally that would not be eligible for amnesty under the DREAM Act.

On Saturday, California’s state legislature passed the California Values Act, or Senate Bill 54, a measure proposed by Democrats that would make the entire state a “sanctuary” for immigrants in the US illegally.

However, some of the bill’s original provisions were amended to allow police to share information with immigration authorities in cases involving people convicted of certain crimes, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images