Gen. Mattis’ visit underscored the growing salience of defence ties in shaping the trajectory of Indo-US relations.

By Harsh V. Pant

Hours after US Secretary of Defence James Mattis landed in Kabul, he was welcomed with six rockets landing near Kabul’s international airport, as if to remind Washington what’s at stake in the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan. This visit came weeks after the Trump administration unveiled its South Asia strategy which in many ways marks a radical departure from the past by putting Pakistan on notice and bringing India to the centre stage of Washington’s Afghanistan policy.

This was reinforced by Gen. Mattis during his visit to India this week when he suggested India and the US would work together to fight terrorism. “There can be no tolerance of terrorist safe havens,” he said. “As global leaders, India and the United States resolve to work together to eradicate this scourge.” While announcing his new Afghanistan policy, US President Donald Trump had mentioned, “We appreciate India’s important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars in trade with the US, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development.”

In line with this, Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman made it clear that while “there shall not be boots from India on the ground in Afghanistan,” New Delhi will be stepping up its development and capacity-building engagement with Afghanistan.

India has decided to take up 116 “high-impact community developmental projects” in 31 provinces of Afghanistan. India and Afghanistan have also agreed to “strengthen security cooperation”, with New Delhi agreeing “to extend further assistance for the Afghan national defence and security forces in fighting the scourge of terrorism, organised crime, trafficking of narcotics and money laundering”. India will be training Afghan police officers along with Afghan soldiers. This is aimed at sending out a message to Pakistan, which continues to assert that India has “zero political and military role” in Afghanistan.

After handing over four attack helicopters to Kabul as part of its assistance package, India is keen to expand the scope of its security cooperation with Afghanistan which had remained limited in the past not only due to geographical constraints, but also due to Washington’s desire to limit India’s security engagement in the country.

The US is sending about 3,000 more troops to Afghanistan, most of which are preparing to arrive in the coming weeks. “A lot is riding on this of course as we look toward how do we put an end to this fighting and the threat of terrorism to the Afghan people,” Gen. Mattis said in Kabul. “We are here to set the military and security conditions for that but recognise ultimately the responsibility for the Afghan leadership to step up and fully own the war.”

The convergence between India and the US on Pakistan has evolved at an extraordinary pace. The Trump administration’s hardline approach on Pakistan’s support for terrorism comes at a time when New Delhi has led an active global campaign to marginalise Islamabad and bring its role as a state sponsor of terror to the forefront of the global community. During Gen. Mattis’s visit, Ms. Sitharaman reminded the US that “the very same forces which did find safe haven in Pakistan were the forces that hit New York as well as Mumbai.” Mr. Trump had made it clear that Washington “can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organisations, the Taliban and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond.” The Xiamen BRICS declaration earlier this month also listed Pakistan-based terror organisations for the first time. It is not surprising, therefore, that Pakistan’s Foreign Minister has had to admit that terrorist Hafiz Saeed and terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) are a “liability” for his country and for the South Asian region.

Stronger ties with US

The visit of Gen. Mattis also underscored the growing salience of defence ties in shaping the trajectory of Indo-US relations. Washington is no longer coy about selling sensitive military technologies to India. China’s growing assertiveness in the wider Indo-Pacific is a shared concern and this was reflected in the reiteration by the two countries of the critical importance of freedom of navigation, overflight and unimpeded lawful commerce in the global commons. Bilateral defence ties have been growing in recent years, “underpinned by a strategic convergence”. As Gen. Mattis suggested, the US is looking forward to “sharing some of our most advanced defence technologies” with India “to further deepen the robust defence trade and technology collaboration between our defence industries.”

The sale of 22 Sea Guardian Unmanned Aerial Systems, which was announced during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the US earlier this year, is high on the agenda. With this deal, the Indian Navy will not only acquire the world’s most advanced maritime reconnaissance drone, it will also lead to greater defence technology sharing.

As India and the US expand military cooperation in the Indo-Pacific, new alignments are emerging which have the potential to reshape the regional security architecture. In the past, India had been reluctant to play an active role in East and Southeast Asia. Now as part of its ‘Act East’ policy, India’s engagement with the region has become more robust and Washington has been encouraging India to shape the regional strategic realities more potently. At a time when regional security in the wider Indo-Pacific has taken a turn for the worse, the US is looking at India to shore up its presence in the region. And India, driven by China’s growing profile around its periphery, is keen to take up that challenge.

Gen. Mattis’s visit has highlighted the growing convergence between the US and India on key regional and global security issues. As the two nations move ahead with their ambitious plans, the challenge will be to sustain the present momentum given the myriad distractions that Washington and New Delhi have to contend with.

This article originally appeared in The Hindu.

By Prof. Dr. Josep-Maria Terricabras*

(EurActiv) — Time and time again, the Spanish government has tried to undermine the Catalan referendum by hiding behind the Spanish Constitutional Court’s (CC) judgments.

This institution, which was created to evaluate whether sentences and decisions of the Spanish courts were in accordance with the Spanish Constitution, and followed models of good practice in many European states, was reformed in 2015 to become an intrusive court with expansive powers.

No longer a neutral arbiter, the court can now be compared to the model currently applied in Albania, Armenia, Moldova or Ukraine.

Before 2015, the CC was not a Court of Justice. However, through the Organic Law 15/2015 of 16 October 2015, it was reformed to receive new powers with which to enforce its decisions, forcing judges, courts and public administrations to act with urgency if the court asked.

This was not only met with criticism by judges of the court, but also by many external jurists and the Venice Commission which strongly criticised giving the CC the task to execute its own judgments, usually attributed to other state powers.

The Commission also denounced another new function of the court, that of suspending elected officials from office. Despite this, no substantial changes have been made to the law that dictated the reform.

The CC has continuously acted against laws enacted by the Catalan Parliament. Since 2015, they have struck down or suspended 20 different laws including a law against fracking, one designed to fight energy poverty, and one promoting equality between men and women.

Last week, the CC finally used its new powers and imposed daily fines of €12,000 on 12 members of the Catalan election board as well as the Secretary-General of the Catalan Ministry of Economy which had been detained by the Civil Guard during a morning raid.

The severity of these actions even caused three of the CC’s judges to denounce the danger of having the court impose fines and that the Court shouldn’t have the power to execute its rulings, as it risks degrading the authority of the institution.

The Spanish government wants to present the image of a CC which mirrors those in the US or Germany, but Catalan citizens are living under the purview of a politicised court, with new executive powers, whose next step will be to suspend elected officials from office if the Spanish government demands it.

Definitely our best option is to vote freely, without fear, and decide to build a better justice system in a new Catalan state and falls far short of the model one should expect in a European Union member state.

* Prof. Dr. Josep-Maria Terricabras is a Spanish MEP, representing the Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya, as well as holding the position vice-chair of the Green/EFA group.

Swiss precision — and competitiveness. For the ninth year running, Switzerland was ranked the world’s most competitive economy by the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index (GCI), scoring 5.86 points on a scale from 1 to 7 — climbing even higher than its chart-topping 5.81 points last year. The country’s strong results were evenly balanced across the 12 pillars of competitiveness measured.

The United States could not have been a closer No. 2 this year, with 5.85 points. Meanwhile, Singapore fell to third place, with 5.71 points (down from second place last year, when it logged 5.72 points). The Netherlands and Germany stayed in their places, ranking fourth and fifth, respectively.

The WEF’s annual ranking of 137 economies, accounting for 98 percent of world GDP, defines competitiveness as the factors that drive countries’ productivity and prosperity. Good news aside, approaching the 10th anniversary of the global financial crisis, this analysis warns that many of the world’s economies remain at risk from further shock and are ill-prepared for the next wave of innovation and automation.

Three Problem Areas

Along with its GCI ranking, The Global Competitiveness Report 2017-2018 delves into the world’s current economic progress and future challenges, homing in on three areas of greatest concern. First, the financial sector still looks vulnerable in many places. Second, while more countries have been able to innovate and advance technology, they still need to do more to spread its benefits — especially in emerging economies, like China, India and Indonesia.

Finally, on the brink of a new technological revolution, dubbed the Fourth Industrial Revolution within the WEF, both labor market flexibility and worker protection are needed. “With vast numbers of jobs set to be disrupted as a result of automation and robotization, creating conditions that can withstand economic shock and support workers through transition periods will be vital,” the WEF’s press release states. “A decade of data illustrates the importance of balancing flexibility with protection in labor markets and why big, hoped-for gains in productivity from innovation have remained elusive.” The report underscores the need to boost innovation with labor reforms and other key changes.

Focus on Spain

Professor Pascual Berrone and researcher María Luisa Blázquez of IESE’s International Center for Competitiveness (ICC) serve as collaborating members for the WEF, covering Spain for the compilation of the report. They note that Spain improved its score from last year, inching up from 4.68 to 4.70 this year. That said, in the ranking Spain dropped two spots — from 32nd to 34th — as Chile (4.71 points) and Thailand (4.72 points) pulled ahead.

Spain’s strong points continue to be its infrastructure, for which it placed 12th among the 137 economies. Air transport, railroads, ports and roads all receive high marks. Another bright spot is Spain’s higher education and training, with high marks for management schools and enrollment rates in secondary and tertiary education. There remains much room for improvement, too. According to the GCI Executive Opinion Survey, “inefficient government bureaucracy, tax rates, and restrictive labor regulations” are the most problematic factors, dampening innovation and productivity.

More on Europe and Asia

Elsewhere in Southern Europe, Portugal (42nd) climbed four spots, overtaking Italy (43rd). Meanwhile, Northern Europe was well represented in the top 10, although Sweden (7th) and the United Kingdom (8th) each slipped one spot. (See top 10 insert.)
Within the top 10, Hong Kong SAR was the biggest gainer, climbing three spots to sixth. Hong Kong boasts the world’s very best physical infrastructure and the second-highest score for efficient markets, based on its healthy competition and openness.

Elsewhere in Asia, Japan ranked 9th while China climbed one spot to 27th. At 40th place, India remained the most competitive country in South Asia.

Methodology, Very Briefly

The WEF’s Global Competitiveness Report has ranked economies based on its Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) since 2005. GCI rankings for 137 economies are evaluated according to 12 pillars (i.e., categories) of competitiveness. They are: institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, health and primary education, higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labor market efficiency, financial market development, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication, and innovation. Various indicators for each pillar are scored based on statistical data (from internationally recognized organizations) as well as perception data, which comes from the GCI’s Executive Opinion Survey, one of the largest executive studies of its kind with thousands of respondents.

Full details are available in the report.

The big news is that the overwhelming majority of Iraqi Kurds have voted in favor of a state of their own. Now the big question is, will the other states harboring Kurds approve the splitting of Iraq or support it in defying the Kurd verdict.

The initial reports indicate that Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran have already rejected the idea of holding a referendum collectively decided to resist formation of an independent Kurd state. However, it is feared that the US and Israel will provide money and arms to the Kurds to initiate a full-scale encounter with Iraqi forces that are already busy in fighting ISIS. All the stakeholders must keep in mind that the war among the Muslim countries, which are also major oil producing countries would benefit their enemies.

While many Muslim countries of the Arabian Peninsula have chosen to remain silent, Hezbollah has categorically stated that the Kurdish vote marked the first step towards the fragmentation of the Middle East, which could lead to the Muslims killing each other. Hezbollah Chief, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, said Kurds vote for independence was a threat to the whole region and not just Iraq and neighboring states with Kurdish populations.

Nasrallah said pointblank that arch enemy of Muslims, Israel had come out in support of independent Kurdish state and described the referendum as part of a US-Israeli plot to carve up the region. He had warned earlier this year that a future Israeli war against Syria or Lebanon could draw thousands of fighters from countries such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan, and could take place inside Israel.

Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan said that Iraqi Kurdish authorities would pay the price of the referendum. Turkey had built strong commercial ties with Kurdish authorities, which pump hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil daily through Turkey for export to world markets. However, after the referendum Turkey threatened to impose economic sanction, effectively cutting their main access to international markets. Erdogan went to the extent of saying that Iraqi Kurds would go hungry if Ankara halted export of Kurdish oil.

Prior to referendum, Saudi Arabia had urged Kurdish leaders to call off planned referendum in the interests of Iraq’s stability, security, unity and sovereignty. The referendum “may result in negative repercussions” for the fight against terrorist organizations, and “it would be best to avoid new crises,” said a Saudi government.

I am of the view that the Kurd referendum is part of creation of ‘Greater Kurdistan’ which will be formed by instigating Kurds from Turkey, Iran and Syria to also take similar decision. I would also say that separating Kurds from Iraq is the preamble of splitting the country into Sunni and Shia states. The US has been working on this plan ever since it attacked Iraq accusing it for developing weapons of mass destruction soon after 9/11

BDS, the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, was the outcome of several events that shaped the Palestinian national struggle and international solidarity with the Palestinian people after the second intifada in 2000.

Today, it is growing because it is both a moral and legal obligation to support oppressed people and pressure those who violate international law to end their unwarranted practices.

Building on a decades-long tradition of civil disobedience and popular resistance, and invigorated by growing international solidarity with the Palestinian struggle as exhibited in the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa in 2001, Palestinians moved into action.

In 2004, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) called for the boycott of Israeli government and academic institutions for their direct contributions to the military occupation and subjugation of the Palestinian people. This was followed in 2005 by a sweeping call for boycott made by 170 Palestinian civil society organizations.

PACBI has been a conduit through which the Palestinian point of view is articulated and presented to international audiences through the use of media, academic and cultural platforms. Because of its continued efforts and mobilization since 2004, many universities, teachers’ unions, student groups and artists around the world have endorsed BDS and spoken out in support of the movement.

The BDS movement’s three main demands are ending Israel’s illegal occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Apartheid Wall; recognizing the fundamental rights, including that of full equality, of Palestinian citizens of Israel; and respecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

In the absence of any international mechanism to end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, and the lack of international law being enforced, as expressed in dozens of un-implemented UN resolutions, BDS has grown to become a major platform to create solidarity with the Palestinian people, and to apply pressure on and demand accountability from Israel and those who are funding, or in any way enabling, Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

The call for BDS comes from Palestinian society. This is important, for no one has the right to represent the Palestinian struggle but Palestinians themselves.

However, the BDS movement itself — although centered on Palestinian priorities — is an inclusive global platform. Grounded in humanistic values, BDS aims to court world public opinion and appeals to international and humanitarian law to bring peace and justice in Palestine and Israel.

In fact, there are many notable historical precedents that guided BDS from the very start.

The boycott movement was at the heart of the South African struggle that ultimately defeated apartheid. Roots of that movement in South Africa go back to the 1950s and 1960s, and even before.

However, it was accelerated during the 1980s, which led to the collapse of the apartheid regime in 1991.

There are many other precedents: The Boston Tea Party, protesting at unfair taxation by the British Parliament; the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955 (which ushered in the rise of the Civil Rights Movement led by Martin Luther King); and the Salt March led by Mohandas Gandhi in 1930, which initiated the civil disobedience campaign that was a major factor leading to India’s independence in 1947.

These are all powerful examples of popular movements using economic pressure to end the subjugation of one group by another. BDS is no different.

However, Israel is relentless in levying accusations against the movement and its founders.

By equating any criticism of Israel and its right-wing government with anti-semitism, Israeli supporters accuse BDS of being an anti-semitic movement.

For example, the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League bases such an accusation on the premise that “many individuals involved in BDS campaigns are driven by opposition to Israel’s very existence as a Jewish state.”

This is one of many claims that mispresent the BDS movement. They are also meant to confuse and distract from the discussion. Instead of engaging with internationally supported Palestinian demands for justice and freedom, anti-BDS campaigners disengage from the conversation altogether by levying the accusation of anti-semitism.

But BDS is not anti-semitic. In fact, quite the opposite. BDS opposes the supremacy of any racial group or the dominance of any religion over others. It challenges the Israeli legal system that privileges Jewish citizens and discriminates against Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

The Israeli government has sponsored several conferences aimed at developing a strategy to discredit BDS and to slow down its growth. It has also worked with its supporters across North America and Europe to lobby governments to condemn and outlaw BDS activities and the boycott of Israel in general.

These efforts culminated on March 23, 2017 with Senate bill S720, which, if passed in its current form, will make the boycott of Israel an illegal act punishable by imprisonment and a heavy fine.

Meanwhile, Israel has already enacted laws that ban foreign BDS supporters from entering the country. This also applies to Jewish BDS supporters.

The massive campaign to discredit BDS is a testament to the power and resolve of the civil-society centered movement. Palestinians are determined to achieve their own “South Africa moment,” when apartheid was vanquished under the dual pressure of resistance at home and the global boycott campaign.

BDS is successfully pushing the conversation on Palestine away from the margins to the center. It seems that the more Israel attempts to thwart boycott efforts, the more opportunities BDS supporters have to engage the media and general public. The accessibility of social media has proven fundamental to that strategy.

While government officials contend that significant progress has been made in economic reforms under PM Modi, analysts and commentators opine otherwise. Whose views are correct? The answer depends on which aspect of reforms one focuses on.

By Pradumna B. Rana*

Three years into his election in which he campaigned on a platform of economic reforms, Prime Minister Narenda Modi is attracting considerable debate on how successful he has been in his reform agenda.

Recently, the Economist ran a cover story arguing that Modi is not much of a reformer and lamented the missed opportunity (namely, low prices of oil, an important component of India’s import basket). Similarly, the Financial Times argued that the economic boom of the past two years is wobbling and one major reason is the serious structural problems from which the country is unlikely to recover rapidly.

Arguments For and Against

Understandably, government officials disagree. Amit Shah, the president of the ruling party recently said: “The BJP government that took power three years ago has completely transformed the thought process of the people and has been successful in creating brand India”. Arun Jaitley, the finance minister claimed that “no government in India has reformed as much as this one”.

Whose views are correct? The answer depends on which aspect of reforms one focuses on.

If one’s focus is on macroeconomic reforms then PM Modi deserves credit. The adoption of inflation targeting by the central bank has successfully kept inflation under control, below the double-digit rate of the past. His “Make in India” campaign together with Skills India, Digital India, and Smart Cities campaigns have helped attract a record amount of foreign direct investment, albeit from a low base.

This is despite the fact there are many hindrances to doing business in India and the country ranks a low 116 among the 189 countries in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Indicator. PM Modi was also instrumental in pushing a national biometric system (known as Aadhar) which has made it easier to dole out subsidies directly to the needy, bypassing the intermediaries who in the past pilfered up to three-quarters of the amount.

Modi’s most “eye-catching” and “boldest” reform has been the surprise “demonetisation” of large-value bank notes in November 2016. But here, recent evidence suggests that the costs (lower economic growth) have outweighed the benefits (digitalisation and control of “black money” and corruption).

The introduction of the Goods and Services tax (GST) had been under discussion for several years in India. But it was PM Modi who could strike a deal and get the GST implemented on 1 July 2017. In principle, the GST is an excellent idea. The plethora of state level taxes have erected barriers to the free movement of goods and services, fragmented the markets, and raised the cost of doing business.

The tangle of compromises and the complexity of the system has, however, led some analysts to reduce the projected growth stimulus to only 0.4 per cent. The growth stimulus will surely increase in the future if the six rates are eventually unified and the administration of the tax is simplified.

Lack of Progress in Microeconomic Reforms

Microeconomic reforms – sectoral and the second generation reforms comprising mainly governance and institutional reforms – had underpinned PM Modi’s campaign pledge of “minimum government, maximum governance”. During his June 2017 visit to the United States, Modi boasted that 7000 such reforms had been initiated, but this was a great exaggeration. If one focuses on the microeconomic reforms, therefore, Modi has not been successful in driving his reform agenda.

The much-discussed privatisation of state-owned enterprises has been slow. “Bad” debts in the financial sector have not been worked out. The government has also lagged in the provision of basic services to the private sector such as efficient and clean public administration system, education, healthcare, and a functioning market for land and labor.

A new bankruptcy law introduced in May 2016 is an area where some action has occurred. But even this law cannot be fully effective until the judicial system which has a huge backlog of pending cases – 24 million cases, nearly 10 per cent of them for over a decade – is reformed.

Aside from strengthening the Prime Minister’s Office, Modi has done little to reform the public administration and the civil service system. Governance indicators published by the World Bank – which assess, among others, government effectiveness, control of corruption, rule of law, and regulatory quality – show that India ranks far behind many East Asian countries.

Educational standards are poor and the country lacks a capable and healthy workforce. Much of the education and healthcare is provided by the private sector because of the poor quality of public services.

In many Indian states, firms with more than 100 workers must seek government approval to hire and fire workers. As a result, many resort to contract workers or simply chose to forego economies of scale by remaining small. During PM Modi’s first year in office, several states such as Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Andhra Pradesh had sought to partially liberalise their labour markets. But now it looks like these efforts have stopped.

Land is a state matter in India. If businesses need land they must approach the state governments which allocate land in much the same way as the old system which granted business licences.

Implications of Slow Microeconomic Reforms

Slow progress in microeconomic reforms means that the government has not been successful in creating an enabling environment for the private sector. Private sector investment could dip further and the present economic slowdown which began in early 2016 could continue unless it is offset by other favourable domestic and external factors.

The economy grew by only 5.7 per cent in the quarter ending 30 June 2017, the slowest since 2014. Progress in microeconomic reforms cannot be expected, at least, until after the 2019 election. As in the past, an inefficient public sector will continue to be all-pervasive in the Indian economy.

* Pradumna B. Rana is Associate Professor and Coordinator of the International Political Economy Programme in the Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS) at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. This is based on a co-authored book entitled “Jumpstarting South Asia: Revisiting Economic Reforms and Look East Policies” to be published by the Oxford University Press (India).

Notwithstanding its institutional weaknesses, ASEAN is in a unique position to play a role in the brewing crisis in North Korea by bringing conflicting parties back to the negotiating table.

By Richard Javad Heydarian*

ASEAN has often come under criticism for its supposed muted response to major crises in its own backyard. From the Rohingya humanitarian tragedy in Myanmar to the brewing maritime disputes in the South China Sea, the regional body has struggled to muster a robust response.

Yet, the Korean Peninsula presents ASEAN a unique opportunity for redemption. As the purported driver of pan-regional integration in East Asia, the regional organisation provides a unique platform for reviving dialogue and peaceful negotiations among disputing parties.

An Indispensable Player

Crucially, the collapse of the Six Party Talks in 2009 has left the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) as the sole mechanism for institutionalised diplomatic interaction among all concerned parties, ranging from Seoul and Beijing to Washington, Tokyo and Pyongyang. By and large, North Korea has displayed an unusual commitment to engaging the world through the regional body by sending high-level delegation to ASEAN meetings.

In August, North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-Ho attended the ARF in Manila, where he held (broadly) constructive exchanges with Philippine Foreign Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano, who oversaw the drafting of ASEAN statements on key regional security concerns.

The North Korean chief diplomat’s meeting with President Rodrigo Duterte, who is the current rotational chairman of ASEAN, was even warmer. After a long and friendly conversation, the Filipino president went so far as describing North Korea as “a good dialogue partner,” encouraging sustained engagement between ASEAN and Pyongyang.

North Korea seems to appreciate the ASEAN as a largely neutral and sufficiently consequential regional actor. During the ASEAN summit in April, Pyongyang sent an unusually warm letter to the ASEAN chairman (Duterte), asking him to dissuade world powers, particularly the United States, from threatening North Korea lest the world suffer a “nuclear holocaust”.

Pyongyang also asked ASEAN to forward “a proper proposal” to prevent the crisis from further escalation. Shortly after, Duterte held extensive phone conversations with both President Donald Trump, his American counterpart, and President Xi Jinping of China, discussing prospects of diplomatic resolution to the crisis with the two superpowers.

South Korea’s Position

The Moon Jae-in administration in South Korea has also recognised ASEAN’s value as a potential partner for peace. In fact, Seoul has encouraged the regional body to play a more pro-active role in the Korean Peninsula crisis.

In late August, South Korea hosted the first-ever International Conference on ASEAN-Korea partnership. ASEAN secretary general Lê Lương Minh as well as the Philippines’ (as the rotational chairman) and South Korea’s foreign ministers were in attendance.

During the event, South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha openly welcomed a more pro-active ASEAN role in the inter-Korean crisis. To underline its commitment to stronger ties with Southeast Asia, which now represents South Korea’s second largest trade and investment destination, Seoul also inaugurated a state-of-the-art structure to celebrate the cultural heritage of Southeast Asian countries.

The ASEAN Culture House’s inauguration 1 September 2017 saw the participation of senior officials from both Seoul and all key ASEAN members.

As an adviser of president Moon told me during a recent trip to Seoul, the South Korean government is eager to dampen Sino-American tensions over the issue, which, if mishandled, may once again engulf the Korean Peninsula in total war.

Middle Power Diplomacy

Middle powers such as ASEAN are seen as indispensable to reviving a diplomatic roadmap for peace, which is consistent with Mr. Moon’s vision of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Korean Peninsula by 2020.

To be fair, Southeast Asian countries have also displayed commendable unity and coherence vis-à-vis Pyongyang’s destabilising behaviour. In recent months, the regional body has unequivocally expressed its dismay by stating its “grave concern” over the reclusive regime’s ballistic missile tests.

Pyonyang’s subsequent nuclear test further strengthened Southeast Asian countries’ resolve to rein in North Korea’s provocative posture. Given their geographical and historical proximity to North Korea, Southeast Asian countries’ buy-in is crucial to the effective implementation of international sanctions against Pyongyang.

The Philippines, for instance, has entirely suspended its bilateral trade with North Korea. Other key regional players such as Kuala Lumpur have dramatically scaled back their strategic and economic relations with Pyongyang, especially since the assassination of Kim Jong-nam, the half-brother of Kim Jong-un, by suspected North Korean agents on Malaysian soil.

Vietnam and Myanmar, considered as North Korea’s longstanding strategic partners in Southeast Asia, have also taken a tougher line and dramatically downgraded their defence ties with Pyongyang in recent years.

Will ASEAN Act?

Nonetheless, ASEAN has deftly maintained robust communication channels with North Korea, while deepening its strategic ties with South Korea, China, and Japan. This puts the regional body in a unique position to play a constructive and consequential role in the brewing conflict in Northeast Asia.

Notwithstanding the inherent intuitional weaknesses of ASEAN, including its notoriously inefficient consensus-based decision-making principle, Southeast Asian countries can and should step up to the challenge. There is no room for strategic complacency.

A full-scale conflict in the Korean Peninsula would have unimaginably adverse impact on all regional states, including in Southeast Asia. Thus, it is high time for ASEAN to multilaterally (through the ARF) as well as bilaterally (through its members) facilitate North Korea’s return to the negotiating table along with other major players.

*Richard Javad Heydarian is a Manila-based academic, columnist and author of, among others, “Asia’s New Battlefield: US, China, and The Struggle for Western Pacific” and “The Rise of Duterte: A Populist Revolt Against Elite Democracy”. A version of this commentary was published in The Straits Times.

The tax reform proposal offered last week by President Trump and Republicans in Congress would be an improvement over the current system, but more so for corporate income taxes than for individual income taxes. It appears that the biggest advantage the proposal offers individual taxpayers is a simplified tax structure, whereas significant cuts are in the works for corporate taxes.

Individual Income Taxes The proposal reduces tax brackets from seven to three: 12%, 25%, and 35%. The degree to which this might represent a tax cut remains to be seen, because the proposal does not say at what income levels those brackets would be effective. The standard deduction would almost double, meaning that those at the bottom end of the income distribution would surely enjoy a reduction in income taxes.

The proposal would broaden the tax base by eliminating many deductions and credits. The home mortgage interest deduction and deduction for charitable contributions would be retained, but deductions for payments of state and local taxes are eliminated. This deduction favored taxpayers in high-tax states, and effectively provides a subsidy to high-tax states financed by taxpayers in low-tax states.

Eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes would be a good move. There is little justification for having the federal tax code provide a tax advantage to support higher state and local expenditures. Eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction, which disproportionately favors higher-income taxpayers would also be reasonable, but retaining it shows the political orientation of the proposal. States with high state and local taxes mostly lean Democratic, which is not so true of those who benefit from the home mortgage interest deduction.

The proposal also eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was originally designed to target high-income taxpayers who took lots of deductions, but has increasingly impacted middle-income taxpayers.

Corporate Income Taxes The corporate income tax rate would fall to 20% under the proposal, and would transition to a territorial system in which American corporations are taxed on their domestic profits rather than on their global profits. A temporary low tax rate would be levied on cash held overseas that is brought back to the US, but the specifics of this element of the proposal were not given.

The proposal also allows expensing of business investments except for structures, which is advantageous to growing businesses. It provides little financial advantage to stable (or shrinking) businesses, but would greatly simplify bookkeeping for assets that are now depreciated.

The lower tax rate and shift to a territorial system are the big advantages the proposal provides to business, which should improve the global competitiveness of American businesses.

Bottom Line The proposal gives an overview of tax reform, with many details left to come. The proposed reform would result in a fairer and more efficient tax structure, and would have a bigger impact on corporate taxes than individual taxes. We can expect lots of political bickering over ways the proposal falls short, but the bottom line is that what is proposes would be an improvement over the current system.

This article was published at The Beacon.

A major Russian telecommunications company appears to have begun providing an Internet connection to North Korea. The new link supplements one from China and will provide back-up to Pyongyang at a time the US government is reportedly attacking its Internet infrastructure and pressuring China to end all business with North Korea.

The connection, from TransTeleCom, began appearing in Internet routing databases at 09:08 UTC on Sunday, or around 17:38 Pyongyang time on Sunday evening. Internet routing databases map the thousands of connections between telecom providers and enable computers to figure out the best route to a destination.

Until now, Internet users in North Korea and those outside accessing North Korean websites were all funneled along the same route connecting North Korean ISP Star JV and the global Internet: A China Unicom link that has been in operation since 2010.

Global Internet connectivity to Star JV. The orange denotes the China Unicom connection and blue the TransTeleCom. The graphic shows the Russian connection coming online around 0900 UTC, a short period of instability then a stable connection with two networks. (Dyn Research)

“The addition of Russian transit would create new internet path out of the country, increasing its resilience and international bandwidth capacity,” said Doug Madory, who analyzes global Internet connectivity at Dyn Research.

The new link comes at an interesting time.

On Saturday, The Washington Post reported that US Cyber Command has been carrying out denial of service attacks against North Korean hackers affiliated with the Reconnaissance General Bureau. The attacks attempt to overwhelm their computers and the Internet connection with traffic making them slow or impossible to use.

The US cyber attack was due to end on Saturday, reported the Post. That means the new Russian connection went online just after the US Cyber Command attack ended.

TransTeleCom, or TTK, is one of Russia’s biggest telecommunications companies and a subsidiary of the Russian railway operator. Fiber optic lines are laid alongside the railway and, according to a map on its website, on a route from Vladivostok right up to the North Korean border.

This isn’t the first time North Korea has had alternate routes for Internet connectivity.

From 2012 for about a year, a second link to Star JV existed via Intelsat, an international satellite telecommunications operator, but in recent years the Chinese link has been the sole connection to Star JV.

Relying on one Internet provider has always left North Korea in a precarious situation.

More than once the link has been the target of denial of service attacks. Most were claimed by the “Anonymous” hacking collective, but on at least one previous occasion, many wondered if US intelligence services had carried out the action.

North Korea has few Internet users, but access to the network is available at major universities, to foreigners via smartphone, at government departments and major companies. Elite families are also suspected of having access. The cyber units of North Korea’s military also enjoy access.

The link is also vital for overseas researchers and academics who rely on access to North Korean state media websites for information.

(RFE/RL) — Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have presented their nominations for this year’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought — including Asia Bibi, a Christian woman sentenced to death in 2010 under Pakistan´s blasphemy law.

Polish MEP Anna Fotyga of the conservative ECR group in the European Parliament said on October 2 that Bibi’s “behavior in prison, the dignity she has shown during all these years is the best proof of her being able to represent the dignity of a defender of human rights in the face of the worst fate.”

Fotyga spoke at a joint meeting of the foreign affairs, development, and human rights committees in Strasbourg.

Bibi has been on a death row for almost seven years and her appeal to Pakistan’s Supreme Court has been postponed to an undetermined date.

She was convicted and sentenced to hang after an argument with a Muslim woman over a bowl of water. Her supporters maintain her innocence and insist it was a personal dispute.

Under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, anyone found guilty of insulting Islam can be sentenced to death. Rights groups say blasphemy laws are often abused to carry out personal vendettas, mainly against minority Christians.

Bibi is among six nominees for the European Parliament’s prestigious Sakharov Prize, which honors individuals and organizations defending human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The others nominees are Guatemalan human rights defender Aura Lolita Chavez Ixcaquic; Selahattin Demirtas and Figen Yuksekdag, co-chairs of a pro-Kurdish party in Turkey; a group of people representing the Venezuelan opposition; the Swedish-Eritrean prisoner of conscience Dawit Isaak; and Pierre Claver Mbonimpa, a human rights defender from Burundi.

On October 10, the European Parliament’s foreign affairs and development committees are scheduled to vote on a shortlist of three finalists and the laureate is to be announced on October 26. The award ceremony will take place at the parliament in Strasbourg in December.

Jordanian authorities have been summarily deporting Syrian refugees – including collective expulsions of large families, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The Syrians are not being given a meaningful chance to challenge their removal and Jordan has not assessed their need for international protection.

The 27-page report, “‘I Have No Idea Why They Sent Us Back’: Jordanian Deportations and Expulsions of Syrian Refugees,” documents that during the first five months of 2017, Jordanian authorities deported about 400 registered Syrian refugees each month.

In addition, approximately 300 registered refugees each month returned to Syria during that time under circumstances that appeared to be voluntary. Another estimated 500 refugees each month returned to Syria under circumstances that are unclear. Jordan has hosted more than 654,500 Syrian refugees since 2011. Human Rights Watch has repeatedly called for other countries to increase their assistance to Jordan and to resettle greater numbers of Syrian refugees living in Jordan.

“Jordan shouldn’t be sending people back to Syria without making sure they wouldn’t face a real risk of torture or serious harm and unless they have had a fair opportunity to plead their case for protection,” said Bill Frelick, refugee rights director at Human Rights Watch. “But Jordan has collectively expelled groups of refugees, denied people suspected of security violations due process, and ignored the real threats deportees face upon return to Syria.”

Human Rights Watch interviewed 35 Syrian refugees in Jordan, and 13 Syrians by telephone whom Jordanian authorities had recently deported to Syria. Those Jordan had deported or who knew or communicated with others who were deported consistently said that authorities produced little evidence of wrongdoing before deporting them. They also said that Jordanian officials did not give them any real opportunity to contest their removal or to seek legal help or the assistance of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) prior to their deportation.

Collective expulsions and individual deportations of Syrian refugees spiked in mid-2016 and again in early 2017. The increased deportation rates followed armed attacks on Jordanian forces, including an attack in northeast Jordan in June 2016 that killed seven, and attacks around the southern city of Karak in December 2016 that killed 19. Jordanian authorities have provided no evidence that any deportees were involved in any of these attacks.

A joint Russian-Saudi fund to invest in the energy sector will be announced during the forthcoming visit of the kingdom’s monarch Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud to Moscow, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak told the Al Arabiya TV Channel.

According to Novak, the basic agreement to establish the $1 billion fund has already been reached.

Novak said Russia is “focused on developing cooperation with Saudi Arabia not only within the OPEC framework but also outside the cartel,” including the energy sector, the electric power sector, and renewable energy resources.

The Saudi King is expected in Moscow early next month and will become the kingdom’s first monarch to visit Russia in the almost a hundred years since the two countries established relations.

Moscow and Riyadh are expected to announce a new investment platform and manufacturing projects.

Last week, the Director-General of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) Kirill Dmitriev praised significant results in investment cooperation between the RDIF and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF).

The two sovereign funds agreed to a partnership in 2015, establishing a joint $10 billion platform and inking several investment deals.

RDIF has also signed a cooperation agreement with the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority (SAGIA), to jointly search for investment projects in Russia. SAGIA is supposed to bring Russian companies to the Arabian market.

By Ryan Dagur

Islamic-based opposition parties have joined forces with militants in accusing President Joko Widodo of choking freedom of expression and pandering to communists.

They demanded the government get rid of a decree issued in July that gives it the right to disband mass organizations it considers a threat to national stability.

The accusations came as representative of parties that included the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), the National Mandate Party and the Great Indonesia Movement Party, led by Widodo’s arch-rival Prabowo Subianto, welcomed about 15,000 protesting Islamic hardliners outside the national parliament on Sept. 29.

They accused Widodo of trying to suppress Islam through the decree while at the same time allowing the revival of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI).

They cited the move to disband pro-Caliphate group, Hizbut Tahrir in July. The hard-line group is challenging the decree in the courts.

The allegations stem from mudslinging ahead of the 2014 presidential election in which Widodo was accused of being the son of former Communist Party members.

The accusations came to the fore again in September when Indonesian police and Muslim groups broke up a forum in Jakarta to discuss events during a deadly purge on communists more than 50 years ago.

About 500,000 were thought killed following the murders of several generals, blamed on Chinese communists.

“Widodo is pursuing an anti-Islam democracy,” rally organizer, Slamet Maarif, told ucanews.com.

“The decree attacks us as Muslims to fight for what we want,” he said after the rally.

Abdul Amin, a protester from Tangerang in Banten Province, said he had come with hundreds of his friends out of anger at Widodo.

“He prefers to defend communist groups and pressure us,” he said.

Calling Widodo a pro-communist president, Hizbut Tahrir spokesman, Ismail Yusanto, said the president was attacking the teachings of Islam.

“How can it be in Muslim-majority countries, that a Caliphate is forbidden,” he said.

Jazuli Juwaini from PKS joined the hardliner in calling the decree contrary to the spirit of democracy.

“We agree with them, and we will fight against the decree,” he said.

A Great Indonesia Movement Party spokesman said, “the decree will silence critical voices.”

“As citizens, we are guaranteed by law to express opinions,” Fadli Zon said.

Commenting on accusations that the government is pro-communist, he said, communism must not be allowed back in the country.

Hardliners, and opposition parties in turn are being accused of using the communist and religious issues to undermine Widodo ahead of the 2019 presidential election.

Analysts predict the election will be a two-horse race between Widodo and Subianto.

Wiranto, the Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs said he was confused by the protesters’ demands.

“It was made clear that ideologies looking to undermine the state’s secular philosophy, Pancasila, including communism would be banned,” Wiranto said.

A study led by a Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) investigator – in collaboration with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Political Science – has identified community health as a possible contributor to the surprising results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

In their analysis published in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, the researchers find an association between the public health of a county and the likelihood of a voting shift towards the 2016 Republican candidate, compared with the 2012 Republican candidate.

“Across the country, we found that voters in counties with poor public health shifted dramatically towards the Republican candidate in 2016, compared with 2012, an effect that was particularly strong in states where the results changed Electoral College votes,” said Jason H. Wasfy, MD, MPhil, of the MGH Division of Cardiology, who led the study. “Although we cannot determine causality from these results, the findings raise the possibility of a role for public health status in determining voting behavior.”

The authors note that previous studies of relationships between health and voting patterns have found associations between poor health – both physical and mental – and low voter turnout, particularly in older voters. In light of 2016’s unexpected shifts in voting patterns in several states – including the best performance for a Democratic presidential candidate in Texas in 20 years and the first victory of a Republican candidate in Wisconsin in 32 years – the researchers investigated potential connections between community health and changes in voting patterns between the two elections.

To do this, they combined county-by-county election data for both elections with information from a public health database compiled by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, including data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The public health measures used in the analysis were reported days of poor health; the prevalence of food insecurity, obesity and diabetes; teen birth rates, and the age-adjusted mortality rate. Complete data covering both elections was available for 3,009 counties, more than 95 percent of the 3,142 counties or equivalent regions in the U.S.

The primary outcome measured was the difference between the percentage of voters in a county voting for Donald Trump in 2016 and the percentage voting for Mitt Romney in 2012. Across all counties there was an average 5.4 percent shift from Romney to Trump – with 88 percent of counties shifting towards Trump while 12 percent shifted away from Trump. Counties that shifted towards Trump – not all of which were won by the Republican – had higher proportions of white populations, more rural populations and lower average household incomes than those that shifted away from Trump.

In terms of public health measures, counties shifting towards Trump also had higher teen birth rates and age-adjusted mortality, but lower rates of violent crime. Counties shifting towards Trump also appeared to have fewer health care resources, including around half the number primary care physicians, per capita, than did counties shifting away from Trump. This association between public health and voting patterns was strongest in the West and particularly in the Midwest, where major voting shifts contributed to the Republican victory.

“Even after adjusting for factors such as race, income and education, public health seems to have an additional, independent association with this voting shift towards Trump,” explained Wasfy, who is an assistant professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. “It’s critical to interpret our results as reflecting county-wide ecological associations, rather than individual voting behavior. More than anything, I think these results demonstrate that health is a real issue that can affect people’s lives and their decisions. We all need to focus on improving public health as a means of improving people’s lives.”

A team of Irish scientists has discovered that applying pressure to a protein found in egg whites and tears can generate electricity. The researchers from the Bernal Institute, University of Limerick (UL), Ireland, observed that crystals of lysozyme, a model protein that is abundant in egg whites of birds as well as in the tears, saliva and milk of mammals can generate electricity when pressed. Their report is published today (October 2) in the journal, Applied Physics Letters.

The ability to generate electricity by applying pressure, known as direct piezoelectricity, is a property of materials such as quartz that can convert mechanical energy into electrical energy and vice versa. Such materials are used in a variety of applications ranging from resonators and vibrators in mobile phones to deep ocean sonars to ultrasound imaging. Bone, tendon and wood are long known to possess piezoelectricity.

“While piezoelectricity is used all around us, the capacity to generate electricity from this particular protein had not been explored. The extent of the piezoelectricity in lysozyme crystals is significant. It is of the same order of magnitude found in quartz. However, because it is a biological material, it is non toxic so could have many innovative applications such as electroactive, anti-microbial coatings for medical implants,” explained Aimee Stapleton, the lead author and an Irish Research Council EMBARK Postgraduate Fellow in the Department of Physics and Bernal Institute of UL.

Crystals of lysozyme are easy to make from natural sources. “The high precision structure of lysozyme crystals has been known since 1965,” said structural biologist at UL and co-author Professor Tewfik Soulimane. “In fact, it is the second protein structure and the first enzyme structure that was ever solved,” he added, “but we are the first to use these crystals to show the evidence of piezoelectricity”.

According to team leader Professor Tofail Syed of UL’s Department of Physics, “Crystals are the gold-standard for measuring piezoelectricity in non-biological materials. Our team has shown that the same approach can be taken in understanding this effect in biology. This is a new approach as scientists so far have tried to understand piezoelectricity in biology using complex hierarchical structures such as tissues, cells or polypeptides rather than investigating simpler fundamental building blocks”.

The discovery may have wide reaching applications and could lead to further research in the area of energy harvesting and flexible electronics for biomedical devices. Future applications of the discovery may include controlling the release of drugs in the body by using lysozyme as a physiologically mediated pump that scavenges energy from its surroundings. Being naturally biocompatible and piezoelectric, lysozyme may present an alternative to conventional piezoelectric energy harvesters, many of which contain toxic elements such as lead.

Professor Luuk van der Wielen, Director of Bernal Institute and Bernal Professor of Biosystems Engineering and Design expressed his delight at this breakthrough by UL scientists. “The Bernal Institute has the ambition to impact the world on the basis of top science in an increasingly international context. The impact of this discovery in the field of biological piezoelectricity will be huge and Bernal scientists are leading from the front the progress in this field,” he said.

The ‘myth’ of language history: languages do not share a single history but different components evolve along different trajectories and at different rates. A large-scale study of Pacific languages reveals that forces driving grammatical change are different to those driving lexical change. Grammar changes more rapidly and is especially influenced by contact with unrelated languages, while words are more resistant to change.

An international team of researchers, led by scientists at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, have discovered that a language’s grammatical structures change more quickly over time than vocabulary, overturning a long-held assumption in the field. The study, published October 2 in PNAS, analyzed 81 Austronesian languages based on a detailed database of grammatical structures and lexicon.

By analyzing these languages, all from a single family and geographic region, using sophisticated modelling the researchers were able to determine how quickly different aspects of the languages had changed. Strikingly different processes seemed to be shaping the lexicon and the grammar – the lexicon changed more when new languages were created, while the grammatical structures were more affected by contact with other languages.

One fascinating question for linguists is whether all aspects of a language evolve as an integrated system with all aspects (grammar, morphology, phonology, lexicon) sharing the same history over time or whether different aspects of a language show different histories. Does each word have its own history? The present study, by an international team including researchers from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, the Australian National University, the University of Oxford, and Uppsala University, addressed this question by comparing both grammatical structures and lexicon for over 80 Austronesian languages.

This study applied cutting-edge computational methods to analyze not only a large number of words, but also a large number of grammatical elements, all from languages that were geographically grouped. This allowed for valuable and deep comparisons.

Interestingly, the study found that grammatical structures on average actually changed faster than vocabulary.

“We found striking differences in the overall pattern of rates of change between the basic vocabulary and the grammatical features of a language,” explained Simon Greenhill of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, lead author of the study. “The grammatical structures changed much more quickly and seemed to be more likely to be affected by neighboring languages, while the lexicon changed more as new languages were formed”.

Another of the authors, Stephen Levinson, said, “This is a bit of an unexpected finding, since many have thought that grammar might give us deeper insight into the linguistic past than vocabulary, but there is still some reason for caution: we compared highly conservative vocabulary with an unfiltered range of grammar variables, and the language family is unusual for the way it diversified during colonization of successive islands, But what is clear is that grammar and vocabulary changes are not closely coupled, even within branches of a family, so looking at them both significantly advances our ability to reconstruct linguistic history.”

The researchers found that there were specific elements of both vocabulary and grammar that change at a slow rate, as well as elements that change more quickly. One interesting finding was that the slowly evolving grammatical structures tended to be those that speakers are less aware of. Why would this be? When two languages come together, or when one language splits into two, speakers of the languages emphasize or adopt certain elements in order to identify or distinguish themselves from others. We’re all familiar with how easily we can distinguish groups among speakers of our own language by accent or dialect, and we often make associations based on those distinctions. Humans in the past did this too and, the researchers hypothesize, this was one of the main drivers of language change.

However, if a speaker is unaware of a certain grammatical structure because it is so subtle, they will not try to change it or use it as a marker of group identity. Thus those features of a language often remain stable. The researchers note that the precise features that remain more stable over time are specific to each language group.

The researchers suggest, that although grammar as a whole might not be a better tool for examining language change, a more nuanced approach that combined computational methods with large-scale databases of both grammar and lexicon could allow for a look into the deeper past.

Russell Gray, senior author on the paper, said, “One of the really cool things we found was that this approach might allow us to detect when and where speakers of different languages were interacting many thousands of years ago”.

Under the Spanish Constitution, Sunday’s vote in Catalonia was not legal, the European Commission said in a statement.

For the European Commission, as President Juncker has reiterated repeatedly, this is an internal matter for Spain that has to be dealt with in line with the constitutional order of Spain, the Commission said.

“We also reiterate the legal position held by this Commission as well as by its predecessors. If a referendum were to be organised in line with the Spanish Constitution it would mean that the territory leaving would find itself outside of the European Union,” the Commission said.

Beyond the purely legal aspects of this matter, the Commission said it believes that these are times for unity and stability, not divisiveness and fragmentation.

“We call on all relevant players to now move very swiftly from confrontation to dialogue. Violence can never be an instrument in politics. We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein,” the Commission said.

By Samuel White and Sarantis Michalopoulos

(EurActiv) — Slovenia’s state prosecutor has opened a preliminary investigation into claims that the country’s biggest state-owned bank, Nova Ljubljanska Banka (NLB), may have laundered nearly €1bn from Iran between 2008 and 2010, breaking an international embargo and failing to enforce rules on the financing of terrorism.

Slovenian media reported in July that 40-50 transactions took place every day from NLB bank to more than 30,000 accounts around the world, including some clearly held in fake names, such as Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse. The allegations were not further elaborated until the opposition reopened the case last week.

NLB has not replied to EURACTIV’s questions.

Contacted by EURACTIV, the Slovenian government confirmed that “in the case mentioned, the Office for Money Laundering Prevention (OMLP) received a suspicious transaction report in June 2010 in relation to money laundering and Terrorist Financing Act”.

The finance ministry said in a written reply that, at the time, the OMPL “sent more than 30 requests to different state authorities and obliged entities as well as requests to over 30 foreign Financial Intelligence Units”.

“On the basis of data received and assessed the OMLP established in this case grounds to suspect money laundering under Article 245 of the Slovenian Criminal Code and also some grounds to suspect terrorist financing under Article 109 of the Slovenian Criminal Code, of which the OMLP has informed the competent authorities,” the finance ministry added.

Prime Minister Miro Cerar told parliament last week, after the opposition raised the issue: “At this point, the state prosecution, which has launched pre-trial procedures, still has to confirm or reject the existence of grounds to suspect money laundering. I’m waiting for this piece of information,

Iranian connection

The scandal centres around Iranian and British citizen Iraj Farrokhzadeh, who opened accounts at the bank in December 2008 for the company Farrokh Ltd., after authorities in Switzerland shut down his accounts at UBS.

Farrokhzadeh is thought to have moved money for Iran’s Export Development Bank (EDBI), which was blacklisted by the European Council over its connection to weapons proliferation and payments to front companies run by Iran’s ministry of defence.

“The Export Development Bank of Iran (EDBI) has been involved in the provision of financial services to companies connected to Iran’s programmes of proliferation concern and has helped UN-designated entities to circumvent and breach sanctions,” the EU officially recognised in its restrictive measures against Iran.

In addition, Farrokhzadeh himself was on Interpol’s most wanted list at the time.

The Bank of Slovenia issued an order banning the transactions in December 2010, which NLB took nine days to implement. By that time, Farroukhzadeh had moved his operations to Russian banks.

Opposition up in arms

The Slovenian parliament unanimously adopted two reports on 26 September, calling for a further investigation into the money-laundering case that could potentially open a Pandora’s box in Slovenia politics.

Opposition parties, led by the centre-right Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) of former Prime Minister Janez Jansa, say certain politicians did everything in their power to hide the transactions.

“While British, French, Italian and other investigating authorities, tried to investigate the Slovenian money laundering scheme, their Slovenian counterparts and the political leadership at the time did everything they could to sweep the operation under the rug, hide it from the Slovenian public and the international institutions and enable further transactions for the Iranian regime,” SDS wrote in a statement last week.

SDS also cited findings of EU member state institutions and the US institutions, claiming that Iran has used Slovenian laundered money to buy the materials needed to build atomic and chemical weapons components, pay the agents who carried out these purchases and infiltrate Iranian spies in nuclear, security and defence institutions in the EU and the US.

The centre-right party, which is affiliated with the European People’s Party (EPP), suspects political backing in the case, stressing it was impossible that all the relevant control mechanisms, as well as law enforcement authorities, could have simultaneously failed to handle the situation.

Romana Tomc, an MEP from the Slovenian Democratic Party, told EURACTIV that the opposition sees “great political and also personal” responsibility behind the case.

“Some of those who are directly responsible for the money laundering, are today in the position where they should investigate their own actions in the past,” the centre-right MEP warned.

Prime Minister Cerar told the parliament he would monitor the issue carefully.

“If there were some irregularities or abuse, we have to confirm them beyond doubt and then punish. If it is established that someone is responsible for this in the eyes of the law, appropriate procedures will be launched,” Cerar said on 26 September, according to 24ur.

Slovenia has a three-party government after Cerar’s SMC party (ALDE) won a snap general election in July 2014 and formed a coalition with the pensioners’ party Desus (ALDE) and the Social Democrats.

A source close to the government told EURACTIV there were persistent doubts about whether the parliamentary reports contain all the relevant information that had been compiled in the documents received by the banking inquiry and the Intelligence Oversight Commission.

The source said that the justice ministry had been notified in 2012 “by a foreign justice body” of suspicion of fraud, tax evasion and money laundering at NLB. The source also said that parliamentary elections in Slovenia were drawing near so “the timing is not accidental. That’s why it is necessary to conduct a serious investigation”.

Bank’s privatisation

The government, which controls more than 40% of the Slovenian banking sector, was due to sell 50% of NLB this year and another 25% in 2018 in exchange for the European Commission’s approval of state aid to the bank in 2013, which had helped avert a major banking crisis in the eurozone country.

In May this year, the Commission approved a revised plan to sell 50% of the bank, and in September the government announced it would not sell the bank at all.

“We are not going to sell NLB,” Cerar said in June. But the Commission shares a different view.

Contacted by EURACTIV, a European Commission spokesperson said: “We are in constructive contact with the Slovenian authorities.”

Under EU rules, as also confirmed by EU courts, in order to approve state aid to a bank, the Commission can accept a member state’s commitment to sell its stake in the bank in order to ensure the bank’s long-term viability.

Generally, such a sale should take place within the deadline set in the original decision, which is often linked to the five-year restructuring period.

EURACTIV was informed that if a member state wishes to modify commitments, the Commission assesses such requests on a case-by-case basis. A prolongation of a sale deadline, for example, would require compensatory measures so as to ensure that the overall balance of the initial decision is preserved.

The U.S. Army has approved the installation of Israel’s Trophy active-protection system on a number of its M1A2 Abrams tanks, making it the first army aside from the IDF to use the system.

The Pentagon said last Thursday the decision was made following “an urgent material” request.

Designed to detect and neutralize incoming projectiles, the Trophy system has four radar antennae and fire-control radars to track incoming threats such as anti-tank guided missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. Once a projectile is detected, Trophy fires a shotgun-type blast to neutralize the threat.

Developed by Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aircraft Industries’ Elta Group, it is the only fully operational and combat-proven APS in the world.

Michigan-based General Dynamics Land Systems was contracted to add the system to an Armor Brigade Combat Team’s M1A2 SEPv2 at a cost of close to $10 million with an expected completion date by the end of March 2019.

The estimated cost per tank is $350,000.

With its troops operating in theaters such as Syria and Iraq, the U.S. has understood that ground forces and armored vehicles are sitting ducks without active protection systems due to the proliferation of antitank weaponry in the hands of both state militaries and insurgent groups.

Outside the Middle East, pro-Russian rebels in the Ukraine have been reported to be using Russian-made Kornet missiles, which can strike targets more than five kilometers away using a laser beam to direct the missile and which can pierce standard armor 1,000–1,200 millimeters thick.

Maj.-Gen. David Bassett, who is in charge of the U.S. Army’s programs in the area of ground combat systems, was quoted by the DefenseTech website in August as ultimately envisioning “a brigade’s worth of capability of Trophy on the Abrams” – one of the most heavily armored vehicles in existence.

The Trophy has been installed on Israel’s Merkava tanks since 2009 and also has been installed on the IDF’s Namer heavy infantry fighting vehicle and new armored personnel carrier, the Eitan, which is set to enter operational use for infantry battalions in the coming year.

The Trophy System received its “baptism by fire” on March 1, 2011, when it neutralized an RPG anti-tank rocket fired from a short range toward an IDF Merkava Mark-IV tank close to the Gaza border.

The system has since proved its efficacy in several operations, especially during Operation Protective Edge when IDF tanks operated in the Gaza Strip without suffering any losses.

Rafael declined to comment on the report.
Original source

As the proportion of the older persons across the Asia-Pacific region increases exponentially, we must seek out new and innovative approaches to turn this demographic trend into an opportunity to be harnessed to help achieve the ambitious targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The number of older persons in the region is expected to more than double, from 535 million in 2015 to about 1.3 billion by 2050, we need to consider the myriad impact of this phenomenon on our economies, societies, and livelihoods.

Ignoring this challenge is likely to have profound consequences. We cannot leave the care of older persons to families alone nor can we ignore the need for progressive health care and income security schemes. Future economic growth cannot be assured by the current and projected working-age population. The ratio of people of working-age to older persons is decreasing sharply, and in most countries of the Asia-Pacific region, less than a third of the working-age population contributes to a pension scheme.

Traditional systems rely on the family to support their ageing relatives – both financially as well as providing care for those who need it. However, with smaller families, there will be fewer family members in working-age to shoulder this responsibility. Declining support ratios also have implications on existing social security schemes, particularly pay-as-you-go pension systems, under which the contributions paid by current workers support the pensions of retirees.

When one considers the differences in the average age at marriage, coupled with the longer life expectancy of women, women outlive their spouses on average by a range of 4 to 10 years. Yet, as the proportion of women in the population increases with age, women are less likely than men to have adequate pension benefits or control over assets, such as land, in their old age. Special social protection measures are required to redress the feminization of poverty, in particular among older women.

There is a linear relationship – although not a causality – between GDP per capita and the level of population ageing, which shows that countries with higher incomes tend to be more advanced in the ageing process. Some countries became old before becoming rich, such as Georgia, Armenia and Sri Lanka with per capita incomes between $3,500 and $4,100 and a proportion of older persons between 13 and almost 20 percent.

To economically benefit from our ageing populations, we must ensure that older persons who want to work have the right to and are provided with opportunities for re-employment. The statutory retirement age across Asia and the Pacific is low, considering the current and increasing life expectancies, resulting in long retirement duration. Eliminating age barriers in the formal labour market would help to ease the fiscal pressure on pension schemes and health care systems. Allowing older persons to work as long as they are able and willing would sustain their self-sufficiency and reduce their social alienation. We can turn the phenomenon of population ageing into a second demographic dividend, with financially-secure, healthy older persons, empowered to focus their decades of accumulated experience, wisdom and wealth to stimulate new economic growth.

With the right preparation, we can benefit from a golden generation of healthy, wealthy and active older persons. In 2002, the United Nations brought countries together in Madrid to agree on a global way forward: to treat older persons as actors of development; to ensure their health and well-being; and to create enabling and supportive environments for them. A few weeks ago, representatives from 29 governments in our region assembled in Bangkok to add new resolve to their existing commitments during the Asia-Pacific Intergovernmental Meeting on the Third Review and Appraisal of the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing.

The Economic and Social Commission of Asia and the Pacific is working to support countries to turn their commitments into action, to secure increasingly inclusive and sustainable economies and societies for all ages across the region.

We grow wiser, together.

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