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

Russiagate Targets Black People – OpEd

0
0

There is no last refuge for the scoundrels intent on stoking cold and possibly hot war against Russia. Neocons in both parties and the corporate media have all spent years demonizing Russia’s president even as they commit and abet horrific crimes against humanity at home and abroad. Every charge leveled against Vladimir Putin is a sinister projection of the American rap sheet. That is just one reason the so-called Russiagate story won’t be allowed to die.

The latest and most shameful charge is that Russia has targeted black Americans in an effort to “sow division” in the United States via social media. We are told that the Russian government spent a grand total of $100,000 to undermine the election and American society. Twitter and Facebook posts on issues ranging from the second amendment to police murder are now said to be tools of Russian espionage.

The cynical plot kills several birds with one stone. Democrats can explain away their dismal electoral failures. Democrats and Republicans make the case for imperialism. Now a phony concern for the plight of black Americans will be the rationale for targeting not only the Russian government, but all leftists in this country. From the Propornot campaign to changes in search engine algorithms, leftists and even progressive Democrats are being censored. That attack is committed under the guise of fighting Vladimir Putin and the effort is completely bipartisan.

Corporate giants like Facebook, Twitter and Google go along with the war party. Facebook initially showed little concern regarding the flimsy charges, but Democratic Senator Mark Warner raced off to Facebook headquarters to demand they find something. Facebook complied and is now fully on board with censorship under the guise of fighting Russia.

Now black people are being used in the propaganda effort. A neocon unit called Alliance for Securing Democracy has taken it upon itself to decide who is or isn’t a Russian operative. Led by right wingers like Bill Kristol, Michael Chertoff and Michael Morrell, professional propagandists and former CIA directors ask us to accept their determinations about who is or isn’t working for Russia. Whatever the truth about these social media ads, black people must not defend the system which oppresses them.

There is no American democracy left to undermine anyway. America is not a democracy and nothing proves it like the police killing three people every day or the fact that one million black people are held behind bars in this country.

The United States military budget is ten times the size of Russia’s. It is the United States that invaded Iraq and killed one million people. The United States destroyed Libya and attempted the same in Syria. The president of Ukraine was elected into office but the United States used its power to undermine that country and install neo-Nazis into office.

Americans regularly undermine their own electoral process without any prompting from foreign countries. The Republican Party is committed to keeping black people from voting, and it is they who attempted to hack election results in North Carolina in 2016. It is the Democrats who say little about their most loyal constituency losing voting rights through felon disenfranchisement, voter ID laws and outright vote theft through electronic means.

The Root may join the Democratic Party effort and claim that the Kremlin “never loved black people” but the Russian Federation is under no obligation to prove anything of the sort. Black people were not chattel slaves in Russia and didn’t create a financial powerhouse through unpaid labor in that country as they did here in the United States. It is in this country that the full power of racism and capitalism keep us under literal physical control.

Black people took to the streets in Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland because Michael Brown and Freddie Gray were killed by police. If there is any division to be sown it is because of institutionalized murder and other crimes and not because of any actions on Vladimir Putin’s part.

While the corporate media sow their own dissension the United States government does what it has always done. Its history of meddling in the affairs of other countries is a long one indeed. Cuba is just one country that has been under America’s gun for decades. The most recent effort used Cuban’s text messaging in an attempt to influence that population. No one should comment on the latest assertions against Russia without calling the United States to account too.

It would be an insult to the legacy of the liberation movement if black people allow themselves to become dupes for the bipartisan neocons. Division is the direct result of the racist American project and there should be no confusion about that fact. All the criminality is committed right here by this government. There is no need to look abroad for perpetrators.


Philippines: Church Denies Trying To Undermine Duterte

0
0

By Joe Torres

Philippine Catholic bishops say they are not out to undermine the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte by offering sanctuary to several policemen allegedly linked to drug-related killings.

Father Jerome Secillano, executive secretary of the public affairs office of the bishops’ conference, said the church leaders should not be perceived as plotting against anyone.

“The church is not one to take steps to destabilize the institution [government] or to undermine the president,” said the priest in an interview.

He said some law enforcers sought the help and protection of the church to reveal what they know about drug-related killings.

Close to 12,000 suspected drug users and dealers, mostly from urban poor communities, have been killed since the middle of 2012 following Duterte’s declaration of an intensified war against narcotics.

Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre accused church leaders of hiding witnesses, hampering the investigations of recent killings, particularly that of three teenagers in the Manila suburb of Caloocan.

Aguirre said church leaders have been trying to obstruct investigations by withholding witnesses.

“Why are you intervening? … Aren’t we all in favor of eliminating police scalawags who kill teenagers who are helpless?” he said.

National police chief Ronald dela Rosa also urged the bishops to present the law enforcers who reportedly have information about the killings.

“If it’s true, then present these people. There is no problem,” said Dela Rosa. “We are talking about testimonies,” he said.

The police chief said he would not stop policemen seeking the help of bishops, but warned of “sanctions” if they go absent from their duties.

Senators who are investigating the killings have also offered protection to the police officers.

Senator Panfilo Lacson, chairman of the Senate committee on public order and safety, appealed to the bishops to allow the policemen to testify in the investigation.

“[The bishops] can bring them to us and we will not shy away from our mandated task to conduct the investigation,” said the senator.

He said the police officers should issue sworn statements to back up their stories.

Senator Grace Poe, vice chairwoman of the Senate panel, lauded the church for “opening its arms wide to provide sanctuary” to witnesses.

Archbishop Socrates Villegas of Lingayen-Dagupan, president of the bishops’ conference, earlier announced that policemen wanting to reveal information about the drug war have sought protection from the church.

“They have expressed their desire to come out in the open about their participation in extrajudicial killings and summary executions,” the prelate said in a statement on Oct. 2.

The archbishop declined to say how many policemen were prepared to come forward, or if they included two policemen who earlier testified before a Senate hearing.

He said convents and seminaries in his archdiocese could serve as places of refuge for witnesses and their families after an assessment of the accuracy of their testimonies.

Father Secillano, however, said law enforcers should follow a “process” before they are placed under the church’s protection.

“The initial step is the church will listen to them. They won’t be rejected right away. The determination of the truthfulness of what they are saying comes next,” said the priest.

Turkey: US Consulate Member Arrested Amid Gulen Crackdown

0
0

By Sima Qunsol

The United States Embassy in Turkey released a statement on Thursday condemning Turkey’s arrest of a U.S. Consulate staff member, who was taken in along with suspects linked to the Gulen movement during last year’s failed coup.

Turkey on Wednesday sentenced over three dozen government militants to life in prison for their involvement in the attempted assassination of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan last year.

The U.S. said it is “deeply disturbed” by the arrest of a U.S. citizen working at the U.S. Consulate General Istanbul, emphasizing that the allegations are groundless and “wholly without merit”.

Wednesday’s sentences came after a series of arrests over similar allegations, all part of a probe into the Gülen movement.

On Tuesday, the government issued arrest warrants for 142 members of ministry staff for their suspected use of the By-Lock App, an encrypted messaging system reported to have been used by the targeted movement during last year’s attempted coup.

The U.S. vowed in the statement to ensure its citizens are “accorded due legal process in accordance with the Turkish constitution and international legal norms.”

Original source

After Shaming Aung San Suu Kyi: Then What? – Analysis

0
0

While the UN has described the latest atrocities in Myanmar on the Rohingya minority as textbook ethnic cleansing, the international reaction of shaming Aung San Suu Kyi for the Rohingya crisis is unhelpful to all parties. ASEAN should consider coordinating action to help Myanmar overcome the complex problem.

By Kang Siew Kheng*

In 1991, the international community honoured Ms Aung San Suu Kyi with the Nobel Peace Prize while she was under house arrest. In 2015, her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), won power on a popular electoral mandate. Then, practically overnight, Ms Suu Kyi went from democracy icon to international pariah.

On 4 October 2017, the City of Oxford, where she studied as an undergraduate, decided to withdraw an honorary title it bestowed on her in 1997. This growing disillusionment comes from the sense that Ms Suu Kyi has been too silent too long on the Rohingya issue and not virulent enough when she finally spoke.

Competing Narratives

The scale of the humanitarian disaster is disturbing and haunting. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has condemned the outbreak of violence in Myanmar that triggered the latest outflow of Rohingya refugees into Bangladesh as “textbook example of ethnic cleansing”. Human rights advocates, however, seem to be engaged in a campaign to disparage Ms Suu Kyi and Myanmar.

The New Yorker named her “the ignoble laureate”; Amnesty International accused her of “untruths.and victim blaming”. No less an icon than Desmond Tutu reportedly wrote her that “If the political price of your ascension to the highest office in Myanmar is your silence, the price is surely too steep”.

Yet, against the backdrop of media images of what is an ongoing, overnight, crisis, the international community cannot summarily dismiss Ms Suu Kyi’s counter-narrative of an “iceberg of misinformation” or the wider dispute about ground realities.

One story that has emerged in Myanmar social media is that the attacks on the military posts on 25 August 2017 by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) was timed to provoke precisely the kind of harshest possible response from the Tatmadaw military; the attacks came on the day before the release of the Report by Advisory Commission of Rakhine State.

According to this narrative, they were calculated to doom any prospects in the effort, commissioned by Ms Suu Kyi, to map “a peaceful, fair and prosperous future for the people of Rakhine”. For sure, no deemed past wrongs in history can justify present-day violence, but no present-day policy can bring about reconciliation until the old animosities have been addressed.

Complex and Complicated

The Rakhine situation is too complex for megaphone moral outrage. It is a particularly instructive example of bad communal dynamics, rooted in British colonial divide-and-rule strategy, reinforced by generations of politics and complicated by continuing poverty and economic deprivation that affect both the Rohingya and ethnic Rakhine.

It is easy to forget that Ms Suu Kyi’s NLD was elected to power in 2015 amid a growing tide of nationalism and communal mistrust. Ironically democracy unleashed deep-seated grievances that were more restrained by the iron hand of military rule.

Many of Ms Suu Kyi’s electoral base regard the Rohingya as a late political construct, that many of them were transient migrants on a porous and troublesome border, and were now being used to legitimise old claims for greater autonomy and independence. Significantly, in Rakhine State, the NLD did not perform as well as it largely did in the rest of the country.

Impact of Public Shaming

The international reaction to lambast Ms Suu Kyi and Myanmar is unhelpful to all parties. First, what passes for international moral outrage makes the Myanmar angrily defensive. It serves only to dull the voices of those in Myanmar that are against demonisation of a minority. Instead, it feeds the ultra-nationalist rhetoric that a democratic Myanmar faces an existentialist crisis, which Ms Suu Kyi and her party are ill-disposed to address.

Second, the end of decades of isolation and sanctions has fanned expectations of the economic boom promised by democratic rule. But there are now signs that Myanmar’s economic growth has slowed. Reform has also been slow, not least because Ms Suu Kyi was trying to do too much in too little time. If international opprobrium ends in politically-motivated moves like re-sanctions, it could derail the already very late catch-up in a country that remains one of the poorest in ASEAN.

Third, Ms Suu Kyi has the unenviable task of leading with one hand tied, not possessing all the levers of power, as even her worst critics know. Ultimately her democratically-elected government must find a modus operandi with the military leaders. She needs all the help she can get, inside or outside Myanmar.

Administering a country faced with a multitude of challenges while bringing about national reconciliation is statecraft. It requires political savviness and immense energy for protracted negotiations in a country with a history of communal uprisings that involve not only the Rohingya.

A Role for ASEAN

ASEAN finally issued a predictably anodyne Chair statement on the Rakhine situation following an ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. Not unexpectedly, Malaysia disassociated itself from the statement. Kuala Lumpur, in early 2017, had hosted a special session of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that issued a strong rebuke to the Myanmar government. Malaysia is, after all, host to nearly 60,000 UN-registered Rohingya refugees.

Yet, ASEAN must acknowledge that the Rohingya is no longer just a domestic problem, but has important implications for regional peace and stability. Left alone, the Rohingya will continue to be a festering wound and destabilise the entire operating environment and regional order in ASEAN.

ASEAN’s dialogue partner, India, is already threatening to deport its Rohingya refugees on the grounds of growing security concerns. Even if one doubts the hand of terrorist elements using the Rohingya as shield, the chaos and scale of humanitarian disaster is fertile ground for radicalisation and recruitment, which is something all ASEAN countries must be concerned about.

Time for Coordinated Action

It is time for ASEAN to consider a coordinated course of action, and perhaps work with vested dialogue partners like China and India, which can also engage Bangladesh. Myanmar needs a regional solution. ASEAN would do well to engage in the kind of quiet diplomacy it is best equipped to do, across the spectrum of relations, including military diplomacy.

The Myanmar who only see the Rohingya as a political construct must eventually get past the prison of history, be persuaded to put behind real and perceived historical injustices, and acknowledge the ground realities of generations of people who call Myanmar home.

Yet this conversation cannot happen with the world heaping such derision on, and threats of new economic sanctions against, Myanmar and its popularly elected leader. ASEAN can work to counter the potential international isolation of Myanmar that helps neither Myanmar nor the Rohingya.

* Kang Siew Kheng is Senior Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She was formerly Singapore’s Ambassador to Laos.

The Next Ten Years Of BRICS: Will The Relationship Last? – Analysis

0
0

By Samir Saran

Over the years, many observers have expressed skepticism about the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) initiative – and skeptics within the BRICS member states perhaps outnumber those outside.

The reason is a clear lack of traditional logic behind the coming together of these countries. They are dispersed geographically, their economies are in different stages of development and there is a fair degree of ideological dissonance between them. And unlike other economic associations, BRICS does not seek to set up any common political or security architecture.

However, this should not obfuscate the fact that the purpose of BRICS was clear from its inception: to form a convenient and pragmatic 21st-century relationship that pools the influence of its members in order to achieve objectives agreed to by all five countries. In a multipolar world in which economic and political power is rapidly diffusing, the BRICS nations seek to influence and shape the norms of global governance, which have been fashioned by the Atlantic system in the past. BRICS, then, is a coming together of nation states at a particular geopolitical moment to achieve a set of goals.

Each member of BRICS also has their own reason to sustain this plurilateral movement. Russia sees BRICS as a geopolitical counterweight to the eastward expansion of the Atlantic system. For South Africa, BRICS is a means to legitimize its role as a gateway to and powerhouse of the African continent. BRICS allows Brazil to collaborate in the shaping of the Asian century, despite its geographical location. China participates in the forum because it recognizes BRICS as an important vehicle for fashioning governance systems in which its political influence is commensurate to its growing economic heft. Finally, for India, BRICS is a useful bridge between its rising status as a leading power and its erstwhile identity as the leader of the developing world.

The first decade of BRICS

BRICS’ first decade saw each of the members laying down groundwork for cooperation, from identifying areas of convergence on political issues to improving economic ties. The level of engagement between its members, ranging from high-level summit and ministerial meetings to various working groups and conferences, has only deepened over that time.

Today there is a fair degree of cooperation on issues such as trade, infrastructure finance, urbanisation and climate change. Moreover, the five members have made modest progress in people-to-people connections. Platforms such as the BRICS Academic Forum and Business Council have proved to be useful in improving their understanding of each other’s industry, academia and government.

Undoubtedly, the two most notable achievements of the BRICS have been the institutionalization of the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingency Reserve Arrangement.

The importance of these institutions cannot be understated. For one thing, they mark a shift from political rhetoric to delivering concrete results, alleviating some of the skepticism surrounding the BRICS initiative. More importantly, they represent a partial fulfilment of BRICS’ core raison d’être: to offer credible alternatives to the Atlantic system of global governance.

While such institutions are unlikely to ever replace the IMF or the World Bank, they represent a fundamentally different governance paradigm. By giving equal voting rights to its founding members and improving reliance on local currencies, the BRICS members are attempting to create a new, non-Bretton Woods template for the developing world to emulate.

The end of innocence

Despite achieving a moderate level of success over the last decade, two recent events have brought the divergence between the BRICS members into sharp focus.

The first is the recent military standoff between India and China on the Doklam plateau, which has effectively brought to an end the naive notion that a comfortable political relationship is always possible amongst the BRICS members. The second is China’s efforts at creating a ‘BRICS plus’ model, a thinly veiled attempt to co-opt nation states, which are integral to its Belt and Road Initiative, into a broader political arrangement.

Both of these events highlight how the foundational principles of BRICS – respect for sovereign equality and pluralism in global governance – are liable to be tested as the five member countries pursue their own national agendas.

However, instead of derailing the BRICS project, these developments are likely to inject a level of pragmatism into the initiative. While BRICS itself is unlikely to form the lynchpin of foreign policy for any of its members, it will continue to be an important instrument in their toolkit.

Essentially, the BRICS members are now likely to realise that the group itself is a ‘limited purpose partnership’ in which political barriers will always limit the partnership’s full economic potential.

The next decade?

If BRICS is to remain relevant over the next decade, each of its members must make a realistic assessment of the initiative’s opportunities and inherent limitations.

BRICS did well in its first decade to identify issues of common interests and to create platforms to address these issues. However, new political realities require the BRICS nations to recalibrate their approach and to recommit to their founding ethos.

For one, they must reaffirm their commitment to a multipolar world that allows for sovereign equality and democratic decision-making. Only by doing so can they address the asymmetry of power within the group and in global governance generally. Only this approach will strengthen multilateralism.

Second, they must build on the success of the NDB and invest in additional BRICS institutions. It will be useful for BRICS to develop an institutional research wing, along the lines of the OECD, which can offer solutions distinct from western-led knowledge paradigms and which is better suited to the developing world.

Third, they should consider a BRICS-led effort to meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement on climate change and the UN’s sustainable development goals. This could include, for example, setting up a BRICS energy alliance and an energy policy institution. Similarly, the NDB in partnership with other development finance institutions could be a potent vehicle to finance progress towards the sustainable development goals amongst the BRICS members.

Fourth, the BRICS nations can also consider expanding the remit of their cooperation to address emerging areas of global governance such as outer space, the oceans and the internet.

Finally, the BRICS members must encourage direct interactions between their constituents. In the digital age, seamless conversations amongst people, business and academia can foster relationships, which are more likely to cement the future of this alliance than any government efforts.

For the first decade of its existence, the group was powered by a top-down approach with large investments of political capital. The second decade must ride on the energy and entrepreneurship of the citizens and communities that reside within the BRICS countries.

This article originally appeared in World Economic Forum.

Prehistoric Humans Likely To Have Formed Mating Networks To Avoid Inbreeding

0
0

Early humans seem to have recognised the dangers of inbreeding at least 34,000 years ago, and developed surprisingly sophisticated social and mating networks to avoid it, new research has found.

The study, reported in the journal Science, examined genetic information from the remains of anatomically modern humans who lived during the Upper Palaeolithic, a period when modern humans from Africa first colonised western Eurasia. The results suggest that people deliberately sought partners beyond their immediate family, and that they were probably connected to a wider network of groups from within which mates were chosen, in order to avoid becoming inbred.

This suggests that our distant ancestors are likely to have been aware of the dangers of inbreeding, and purposely avoided it at a surprisingly early stage in prehistory.

The symbolism, complexity and time invested in the objects and jewellery found buried with the remains also suggests that it is possible that they developed rules, ceremonies and rituals to accompany the exchange of mates between groups, which perhaps foreshadowed modern marriage ceremonies, and may have been similar to those still practised by hunter-gatherer communities in parts of the world today.

The study’s authors also hint that the early development of more complex mating systems may at least partly explain why anatomically modern humans proved successful while other species, such as Neanderthals, did not. However, more ancient genomic information from both early humans and Neanderthals is needed to test this idea.

The research was carried out by an international team of academics, led by the University of Cambridge, UK, and the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. They sequenced the genomes of four individuals from Sunghir, a famous Upper Palaeolithic site in Russia, which is believed to have been inhabited about 34,000 years ago.

The human fossils buried at Sunghir represent a rare and highly valuable, source of information because very unusually for finds from this period, the people buried there appear to have lived at the same time and were buried together. To the researchers’ surprise, however, these individuals were not closely related in genetic terms; at the very most, they were second cousins. This is true even in the case of two children who were buried head-to-head in the same grave.

Professor Eske Willerslev, who holds posts both as a Fellow at St John’s College, Cambridge, and at the University of Copenhagen, was the senior author on the study. “What this means is that even people in the Upper Palaeolithic, who were living in tiny groups, understood the importance of avoiding inbreeding,” he said. “The data that we have suggest that it was being purposely avoided.”

“This means that they must have developed a system for this purpose. If small hunter-gatherer bands were mixing at random, we would see much greater evidence of inbreeding than we have here.”

Early humans and other hominins such as Neanderthals appear to have lived in small family units. The small population size made inbreeding likely, but among anatomically modern humans it eventually ceased to be commonplace; when this happened, however, is unclear.

“Small family bands are likely to have interconnected with larger networks, facilitating the exchange of people between groups in order to maintain diversity,” Professor Martin Sikora, from the Centre for GeoGenetics at the University of Copenhagen, said.

Sunghir contains the burials of one adult male and two younger individuals, accompanied by the symbolically-modified incomplete remains of another adult, as well as a spectacular array of grave goods. The researchers were able to sequence the complete genomes of the four individuals, all of whom were probably living on the site at the same time. These data were compared with information from a large number of both modern and ancient human genomes.

They found that the four individuals studied were genetically no closer than second cousins, while an adult femur filled with red ochre found in the children’s’ grave would have belonged to an individual no closer than great-great grandfather of the boys. “This goes against what many would have predicted,” Willerslev said. “I think many researchers had assumed that the people of Sunghir were very closely related, especially the two youngsters from the same grave.”

The people at Sunghir may have been part of a network similar to that of modern day hunter-gatherers, such as Aboriginal Australians and some historical Native American societies. Like their Upper Palaeolithic ancestors, these people live in fairly small groups of around 25 people, but they are also less directly connected to a larger community of perhaps 200 people, within which there are rules governing with whom individuals can form partnerships.

“Most non-human primate societies are organised around single-sex kin where one of the sexes remains resident and the other migrates to another group, minimising inbreeding” says Professor Marta Mirazón Lahr, from the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies at the University of Cambridge. “At some point, early human societies changed their mating system into one in which a large number of the individuals that form small hunter-gatherer units are non-kin. The results from Sunghir show that Upper Palaeolithic human groups could use sophisticated cultural systems to sustain very small group sizes by embedding them in a wide social network of other groups.”

By comparison, genomic sequencing of a Neanderthal individual from the Altai Mountains who lived around 50,000 years ago indicates that inbreeding was not avoided. This leads the researchers to speculate that an early, systematic approach to preventing inbreeding may have helped anatomically modern humans to thrive, compared with other hominins.

This should be treated with caution, however: “We don’t know why the Altai Neanderthal groups were inbred,” Sikora said. “Maybe they were isolated and that was the only option; or maybe they really did fail to develop an available network of connections. We will need more genomic data of diverse Neanderthal populations to be sure.”

Willerslev also highlights a possible link with the unusual sophistication of the ornaments and cultural objects found at Sunghir. Group-specific cultural expressions may have been used to establish distinctions between bands of early humans, providing a means of identifying who to mate with and who to avoid as partners.

“The ornamentation is incredible and there is no evidence of anything like that with Neanderthals and other archaic humans,” Willerslev added. “When you put the evidence together, it seems to be speaking to us about the really big questions; what made these people who they were as a species, and who we are as a result.”

The research paper, Ancient genomes show social and reproductive behaviour of early Upper Paleolithic foragers, is published in the October 5 issue of Science.

Can Local CSR Enhance Global Leadership?

0
0

What if local acts of corporate social responsibility (CSR) helped enhance global leadership?

Academic literature generally considers global leadership a top-down process in which leaders apply a universal set of principles and procedures. But this perspective often neglects the local context.

Multinationals operate on a global stage, but they must meet the demands of their various local markets. Tools that allow a deep understanding of the local dimension are invaluable to effective global leaders.

The CSR Path

IESE professors Carlos Rodríguez-Lluesma and Marta Elvira, with Anabella Dávila of EGADE Business School, looked at the potential of using CSR to get involved at the local level. In their opinion, in order to develop a deep understanding of multiple local contexts, global leaders must engage with the company stakeholders and establish horizontal relations with them — rather than a dynamic of superiors and subordinates.

The authors view CSR as an institutionalized practice that formalizes the company’s commitment to its stakeholders and therefore constitutes a natural space for addressing the dilemma of efficiency vs. meaning.

The research focused on “multilatinas” — Latin American firms that operate in multiple countries in the region — and suggests that such companies prioritize initiatives to aid in the development of the communities where they are present and to address the needs of local stakeholders, from the most prominent to minority groups.

However, the study also points out that it is not clear how these companies — which are often characterized by rapid growth and a recent, large-scale internationalization process — incorporate these activities and experiences of corporate citizenship into their training models for the global leadership of employees.

A Strategic Opportunity

This represents an opportunity to integrate CSR in the field of people management, according to the authors, since an interest in developing local communities could fuel initiatives to improve global leadership training programs.

One thing to keep in mind is that a strategic vision of corporate social responsibility is based on two pillars: corporate citizenship behavior and people management practices that connect employees with their surrounding communities.

Although corporate social responsibility has traditionally been an extension of the organization’s main economic activity, the authors point out that Santander, Telefónica and Nestlé, among other multinationals, have recently decentralized their social foundations to better adapt to the needs of emerging markets and to implement farther-reaching CSR initiatives.

Methodology, Very Briefly

The study was based on an analysis of the annual sustainability reports of 10 “multilatina” companies.

The 10 Most Unnecessary And Overused Medical Tests And Treatments

0
0

Unnecessary medication. Tests that don’t reveal the problem, or uncover a “problem” that isn’t really there. Procedures that have more risk than benefit.

A new study by researchers at the University of Maryland School of Medicine (UM SOM) highlights some of the most egregious examples of medical overuse in America. The goal is not to shame anyone, but to make healthcare more effective and efficient.

“Too often, health care practitioners do not rely on the latest evidence and their patients don’t get the best care,” said Daniel Morgan, MD, MS, associate professor of epidemiology & public health and infectious diseases at UM SOM, and Chief of Hospital Epidemiology at the Baltimore VA Medical Center. “Hopefully this study will spread the word about the most overused tests and treatments.”

The paper appears in the most recent issue of JAMA Internal Medicine.

For this study, Dr. Morgan and his colleagues examined more than 2,200 journal articles. He and his colleagues narrow this down to the 10 most influential and relevant articles.

The Top 10 Overused Tests And Treatments

1. Transesophageal Echocardiography

TEE is an invasive test that is used to diagnose heart issues that could lead to stroke. Although the test has a reputation for being more sensitive, a recent study found that it does not improve outcomes over a more simple test. Because it is an invasive procedure that requires sedation, it poses increased risks for patients compared to other alternatives.

2. Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA)

The use of this test in emergency departments has increased markedly in recent years. It is used to help diagnose pulmonary embolism, the blockage of a blood vessel in the lung. Researchers found that the test is overused compared to less risky tests. Overuse of CTPA is likely to result in delays, higher costs, and patient harm from unnecessary exposure to radiation and contrast dye.

3. Computed Tomography in Patients with Respiratory Symptoms

Computed tomography, a high-tech scanning technology, is increasingly used in patients with respiratory symptoms. The study found that it was over used in patients who had non-life-threatening respiratory symptoms. In these cases, CT does not improve patient outcomes and could lead to false positive results. It also poses risks for patients, exposing them to radiation, with between 1.5 and 2 percent of all cancers in the U.S. attributable to radiation from CT.

4. Carotid Artery Ultrasonography and Stenting

This study found that more than 90 percent of carotid ultrasonography for patients without symptoms, who end up having stents or surgery, is performed for uncertain or inappropriate indications. This suggests that many of these procedures may be unnecessary. Given the risk of stenting or surgery, this indicates that the test and the procedure are likely both overused.

5. Aggressive Management of Prostate Cancer

A study of men who had prostate cancer surgery after being diagnosed through a blood test found that the rate of cancer-related death was 1 percent, with no difference between the groups who had been treated and those who had not been treated. Given that prostate cancer treatments can significantly increase erectile dysfunction and other problems, this suggests that the risks of treatment may outweigh the benefits in many men. The researchers argue that blood tests for prostate cancer should generally be avoided because they are more harmful than beneficial.

6. Supplemental Oxygen Does Not Help Patients with COPD and Moderate Lack of Oxygen

This study found that giving extra oxygen to patients with the lung illness chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, who had only mild oxygen deficit, did not improve quality of life or lung function.

7. No Benefit to Surgery for Meniscal Cartilage Tears in the Knee

This research found that having surgery for a meniscus tear did not improve symptoms, even for patients who had clicking in the knee. Because of fewer risks and lower costs, conservative management and rehabilitation are a more effective strategy, the researchers argued.

8. Little Benefit to Nutritional Support in Medical Inpatients

Malnutrition may be associated with worse outcomes for hospital patients. But this study found that giving critically ill patients nutritional intervention, generally oral feeding, made no difference in overall death rate or length of stay in the hospital. The researchers concluded that nutritional support should not be routinely used because it did not have a benefit for patients.

9. Strategies to Reduce Overuse of Antibiotics

Up to half of all antibiotic use is inappropriate, exposing patients to the risk of adverse drug events, and increasing the overall risk of resistant bacteria. This study examined several methods to reduce the rate of antibiotic prescriptions by doctors. The most effective approach was to show doctors comparisons to their peers who prescribed correctly. In this group, inappropriate prescriptions dropped from nearly 20 percent to less than 4 percent. In this context, peer pressure can be effective, it appears.

10. Reducing the Use of Unnecessary Cardiac Imaging

Advanced cardiac imaging for patients with chest pain has more than tripled over the past decade. Many low-risk patients may receive noninvasive testing that could lead to unnecessary hospitalization and intervention. A study in which doctors and patients shared decision-making over whether or not to test found that this approach reduced the number of tests.


Old Faithful’s Geological Heart Revealed

0
0

Old Faithful is Yellowstone National Park’s most famous landmark. Millions of visitors come to the park every year to see the geyser erupt every 44-125 minutes. But despite Old Faithful’s fame, relatively little was known about the geologic anatomy of the structure and the fluid pathways that fuel the geyser below the surface. Until now.

University of Utah scientists have mapped the near-surface geology around Old Faithful, revealing the reservoir of heated water that feeds the geyser’s surface vent and how the ground shaking behaves in between eruptions. The map was made possible by a dense network of portable seismographs and by new seismic analysis techniques. The results are published in Geophysical Research Letters. Doctoral student Sin-Mei Wu is the first author.

This is a portable seismometer used to map the geology beneath Old Faithful. Credit Paul Gabrielsen/University of Utah
This is a portable seismometer used to map the geology beneath Old Faithful. Credit: Paul Gabrielsen/University of Utah

For Robert Smith, a long-time Yellowstone researcher and distinguished research professor of geology and geophysics, the study is the culmination of more than a decade of planning and comes as he celebrates his 60th year working in America’s first national park.

“Here’s the iconic geyser of Yellowstone,” Smith said. “It’s known around the world, but the   complete geologic plumbing of Yellowstone’s Upper Geyser Basin has not been mapped nor have we studied how the timing of eruptions is related to precursor ground tremors before eruptions.”

Small seismometers

Old Faithful is an iconic example of a hydrothermal feature, and particularly of the features in Yellowstone National Park, which is underlain by two active magma reservoirs at depths of 5 to 40 km depth that provide heat to the overlying near-surface groundwater. In some places within Yellowstone, the hot water manifests itself in pools and springs. In others, it takes the form of explosive geysers.

Dozens of structures surround Old Faithful, including hotels, a gift shop and a visitor’s center. Some of these buildings, the Park Service has found, are built over thermal features that result in excessive heat beneath the built environment.  As part of their plan to manage the Old Faithful area, the Park Service asked University of Utah scientists to conduct a geologic survey of the area around the geyser.

For years, study co-authors Jamie Farrell and Fan-Chi Lin, along with Smith, have worked to characterize the magma reservoirs deep beneath Yellowstone. Although geologists can use seismic data from large earthquakes to see features deep in the earth, the shallow subsurface geology of the park has remained a mystery, because mapping it out would require capturing everyday miniature ground movement and seismic energy on a much smaller scale. “We try to use continuous ground shaking produced by humans, cars, wind, water and Yellowstone’s hydrothermal boilings and convert it into our signal,” Lin said. “We can extract a useful signal from the ambient background ground vibration.”

To date, the University of Utah has placed 30 permanent seismometers around the park to record ground shaking and monitor for earthquakes and volcanic events. The cost of these seismometers, however, can easily exceed $10,000. Small seismometers, developed by Fairfield Nodal for the oil and gas industry, reduce the cost to less than $2,000 per unit. They’re small white canisters about six inches high and are totally autonomous and self-contained. “You just take it out and stick it in the ground,” Smith says.

In 2015, with the new instruments, the Utah team deployed 133 seismometers in the Old Faithful and Geyser Hill areas for a two-week campaign.

The sensors picked up bursts of intense seismic tremors around Old Faithful, about 60 minutes long, separated by about 30 minutes of quiet. When Farrell presents these patterns, he often asks audiences at what point they think the eruption of Old Faithful takes place. Surprisingly, it’s not at the peak of shaking. It’s at the end, just before everything goes quiet again.

After an eruption, the geyser’s reservoir fills again with hot water, Farrell explained. “As that cavity fills up, you have a lot of hot pressurized bubbles,” he said. “When they come up, they cool off really rapidly and they collapse and implode.” The energy released by those implosions causes the tremors leading up to an eruption.

One scientist‘s noise is another scientist’s signal

Typically, researchers create a seismic signal by swinging a hammer onto a metal plate on the ground. Lin and Wu developed the computational tools that would help find useful signals among the seismic noise without disturbing the sensitive environment in the Upper Geyser Basin.  Wu said she was able to use the hydrothermal features themselves as a seismic source, to study how seismic energy propagates by correlating signals recorded at the sensor close to a persistent source to other sensors. “It’s amazing that you can use the hydrothermal source to observe the structure here,” she said.

When analyzing data from the seismic sensors, the researchers noticed that tremor signals from Old Faithful were not reaching the western boardwalk. Seismic waves extracted from another hydrothermal feature in the north slowed down and scattered significantly in nearly the same area suggesting somewhere west of Old Faithful was an underground feature that affects the seismic waves in an anomalous way. With a dense network of seismometers, the team could determine the shape, size, and location of the feature, which they believe is Old Faithful’s hydrothermal reservoir.

Wu estimates that the reservoir, a network of cracks and fractures through which water flows, has a diameter of around 200 meters, a little larger than the University of Utah’s Rice-Eccles Stadium, and can hold approximately 300,000 cubic meters of water, or more than 79 million gallons. By comparison, each eruption of Old Faithful releases around 30 m3 of water, or nearly 8,000 gallons. “Although it’s a rough estimation, we were surprised that it was so large,” Wu said.

Further work

The team is far from done answering questions about Yellowstone. They returned for another seismic survey in November 2016 and are planning their 2017 deployment, to begin after the park roads close for the winter. Wu is looking at how air temperature might change the subsurface structure and affect the propagation of seismic waves. Farrell is using the team’s seismic data to predict how earthquake waves might reverberate through the region. Smith is looking forward to conducting similar analysis in Norris Geyser Basin, the hottest geothermal area of the park. Lin says that the University of Utah’s research program in Yellowstone owes much to Smith’s decades-long relationship with the park, enabling new discoveries. “You need new techniques,” Lin said, “but also those long-term relationships.”

Las Vegas Killing Stumps Media – OpEd

0
0

Pundits on both the right and the left cannot understand why there is no apparent political or religious motive involved in the Las Vegas killings. There doesn’t have to be: Paddock was socially ill, a loner whose boredom was relieved by taking risks—flying single-engine planes and engaging in high-stakes gambling. Consistent to the end, his life ended in a blaze of excitement.

The media have a hard time thinking outside the box. So when politics and religion are taken off the table, one of the few things left for them to chew on is race. Take the Associated Press story, “Terrorism, Race, Religion: Defining the Las Vegas Shooting.”

The AP is impressed that Paddock was “a white gunman” who attacked “a mostly-white country music crowd.” So what? Blacks kill each other in the streets of Chicago all the time. If AP has something it wants to impute to Paddock’s race, it should say so. But it chose not to, and that’s because there is nothing there. However, that didn’t stop it from looking at this story through a political lens.

For example, the AP story mentions the role of Islamic extremists in acts of terror, which is undeniable, but then it tries to “balance” the piece by noting Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik; he is described as a “neo-Nazi” who gunned down 77 people in 2011.

Breivik was never a neo-Nazi. In fact, as Norwegian social scientist Lars Gule said, he was a “national conservative, not a Nazi.” Nor was he a Christian, as some said he was: he put his faith in Odinism. In terms of his politics, the Jerusalem Post called him out for his “far-right Zionism.” So what was he? He was a deranged man who was high on drugs when he struck.

The problem with Breivik, like Paddock, was his persona, not his politics. He was initially diagnosed as having paranoid schizophrenia, and shortly thereafter he became increasingly isolated and withdrawn. He was subsequently declared criminally insane.

A second round of psychiatric evaluations said his problem was best understood as an antisocial personality disorder, not a mental illness; he was also diagnosed as having a narcissistic personality disorder.

Those conditions are clearly reflected in the life of Stephen Paddock (click here to read my account). And just as Paddock had a severely dysfunctional upbringing, so did Breivik. His parents divorced when he was a year old, and his mother brutalized him: she “sexualized” him, beat him, and told him that she “wished that he were dead.”

Obviously, most people raised in a lousy family do not turn out to be mass killers. But when a background like the one Breivik, and Paddock, endured is coupled with other psychological and social factors, it makes a lot more sense to probe these personal experiences than it does to look exclusively at external matters.

There is a whole world out there besides politics, religion, race, sex, and sexual orientation, though this escapes most pundits these days. Unfortunately, those looking to blame anyone or anything but the culprit—”the guns did it”—are totally blind to this reality.

Just as it is important not to simplify complex issues, the temptation to over-analyze must also be resisted. Sometimes the answer is right before our eyes.

Bullet Train In India: Why Not? – OpEd

0
0

The latest scheme of Narendra Modi government to be criticized and objected in democratic India is the recently launched bullet train project.

Whither Indian democracy?

The Indian democracy is now being described in various manners.

Some people call Indian democracy as vibrant and active one where there is no limit for individual freedom, liberty and freedom of speech for all practical purposes.

Others view it as chaotic democracy, where bitter quarrels between various groups and street demonstrations and agitations have become the order of the day.

There is also one more view that Indian democracy is a stalled one, where every scheme and proposal of the government is opposed by one section of people or the other and who rush to the courts to get a stay order for the government proposal. In most cases, Indian courts readily stay the government’s decisions and then take almost endless time to give its verdict, which virtually put the proposals in cold storage.

Of course, there are also charitable descriptions that while Indian democracy may not be a matured one at this stage, it is rapidly gaining maturity and will ultimately emerge out of the present confused state, as a unique democratic model for the entire world to emulate.

Arguments and counter arguments on bullet train project

Those who are aware of the pulse of the present democratic India were not surprised, when the critics made a hue and cry protesting against the launch of India’s first bullet train project between Ahmedabad and Mumbai, which was inaugurated by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Ever since the inauguration, endless debates are now taking place in print and visual media about this project.

The objection of the critics is that government of India owned Indian Railways which is a monopoly, has still miles to go before achieving acceptable level of efficiency and safety standards. The critics say that accidents in Indian Railways are too frequent and therefore, it is premature to opt for high speed bullet trains.

Of course, there are counter arguments that modernization of railways and catching up with international technology practices should not wait and should move on, even as the existing railway system in India are improved. They say that even while keeping the feet on the ground, one should eye on the stars.

While inaugurating the project, Prime Minister Narendra Modi highlighted the fact that Japan has offered India a 50 year loan at just 0.1% interest to fund the 19 billion USD Ahmedabad-Mumbai bullet train link.

But, the critics are not impressed by 0.1% interest. They say that the Japanese government is investing in the bullet train project by way of loan, as it has run out of opportunities to invest at home in a big way. The critics further say that offer of 0.1% interest is due to the fact that Japan has been seeing periods of economic recession and interest rate cut by central bank. Consequently, in the recent years, the interest rate in Japan has fallen from around 2.3% in 1997 to 0.05% today. Japan has now provided such low interest to India out of it’s compulsion is the view of the pledged critics.

In the noisy democracy that India is , the people with different views never agree with each other and they seem to have a huge love for endless and animated discussions on every conceivable subject.

Implementing projects in democratic India an arduous task

The government of India is of the firm view that there are obvious merits in the bullet train project , since it would lead to massive investment and consequent growth of ancillary and supportive industries with modern technology practices and would generate employment. The project would raise the confidence level of the people and kindle expectations to reach greater heights.

Will Modi government have its way?

In today’s democratic India , any project can be successfully implemented only by a determined and highly motivated government, which has the courage to ignore the critics and move on it’s chosen path based on its conviction and approach philosophy.

The bullet train controversy is a case study of how Indian democracy works and how Modi government has to implement its policies in an environment where unanimous view on any matter is a rarity in the country.

Battling For Independence: Small States Stake Their Claim – Analysis

0
0

The Gulf crisis that pits a United Arab Emirates-Saudi-led alliance against Qatar has emerged about more than a regional spat. It is part of a global battle whose outcome will determine the ability of small states to chart their own course in the shadow of a regional behemoth whether that is Saudi Arabia in the Middle East or China in Asia. It also has parallels with efforts by peoples like the Catalans in Spain, the Kurds in Iraq or Ambazonians in Cameroon to secede and form independent small states of their own that is likely to mushroom with Kurds in Syria and others likely to put forward similar demands.

The battle for the ability to make independent choices is easier for existing small states like Qatar, the UAE and Singapore that are fending off varying degrees of political and economic pressure from Big Brothers. Groups like the Catalans and the Iraqi Kurds grapple with a more fundamental obstacle: resistance by nation states like Spain and Iraq to cede economically valuable territory and an international community whose Pavlov reflex is to oppose secession.

Political scientists Alberto Alesino and Enrico Spolaore argued in a book published more than a decade ago, The Size of Nations, that both large and small states have to make cost/benefit trade-offs that determine their ability to provide populations with public goods and services and carve out their place in an international order. The integrity of larger states like Iraq and Spain whose size means that their populations are more heterogeneous is called into question by groups who feel that the state does not serve their interests and needs. Small states are either more homogenous or like Singapore find it easier to cater to different segments of a heterogeneous population but need to manoeuvre more nimbly internationally to ensure their independence.

The struggle of smaller states to escape the yoke of a regional behemoth and various groups to carve out small states of their own may have gained pace because of a realization that the benefits of being big have decreased and an expectation articulated by political scientists Sverrir Steinsson and Baldur Thorallsson that big states will grow increasingly smaller. “Thankfully for small states, it has never been as easy being small as it is in the current international system with its unprecedented degree of peace, economic openness and institutionalization,” Steinsson and Thorallsson said in a recent study entitled The Small-State Survival Guide to Foreign Policy Success.

The Gulf crisis fits the mould of smaller states seeking to carve out their place in the regional and international order, but also breaks it. At stake in the Gulf is more than just the ability of small states to chart their own course. No doubt, that is one aspect of Qatar’s refusal to bow to demands by the UAE-Saudi-led alliance that it radically alter its foreign and security policies that embraces political change for others and align them with those of others in the region.

Yet, the root of the dispute goes beyond that. The Gulf crisis is a clash of diametrically opposed strategies for the survival of autocratic rule fought in ways that threaten independence of choice of others as well as regional stability. It is a battle between two small states with massive war chests garnered from energy exports that have megalomaniac ambitions to shape a swath of land that stretches from North and East Africa into Asia in their own mould. To achieve their goals the UAE and Qatar act not as small states but as big powers, using the kind of tools big powers use: financial muscle, support of opposition forces to stimulate or engineer regime change, foreign military bases, military coups, covert wars, and cyberwar. Buried in their megalomania is a naïve belief that the consequences of their actions will not come to haunt them.

As a result, the parameters of debate sparked by the Gulf crisis about the place of small states in the international order is different when it comes to the ambitions of Qatar and the UAE as opposed to countries like Singapore who rely more on soft power, opt to fly more under the radar, and stick more to strategies generally associated with small state efforts to ensure their independence of choice.

What Singapore, Qatar and the UAE have in common however, is that their quest to jealously guard their ability to chart their own course is driven by fear. Singapore’s fear, unlike that of Qatar and the UAE that face very different demographic challenges involving citizenries that account for only a small percentage of the population, is grounded in race riots surrounding its birth, the perception of living in a volatile neighbourhood, and concern resulting from the fallout of convoluted transitions that have wracked the Middle East and North Africa and fuelled religiously-inspired militancy.

While all three states are in some ways corporations, Singapore in contrast to Qatar and the UAE, has institutionalized its system of government to a far greater degree than the Gulf states in terms of institutions, the rule of law, and checks and balances irrespective of its warts. Qatar has so far ignored the opportunity offered it by the wave of unprecedented nationalism unleashed by the Gulf crisis as Qataris rallied around the ruling Al Thani family that accounts for 20 percent of the citizenry in a nation of 300,000 nationals. As a result, debate in Singapore focuses on survival as an independent state rather than survival of a ruling family. In Singapore, the debate about what it can and should do to stand up for its interests is public; in Qatar and the UAE far more repressive restrictions on freedom of expression stymie debate or drive it into clandestinity.

Similarly, Qatar and the UAE project themselves as regional and global hubs that are building cutting-edge, 21st century knowledge societies on top of tribally-based autocracies in which education, in contrast to Singapore, is designed to ensure that citizens have marketable skills and can interact globally rather than develop the skills of critical thinking that could result in criticism of their regimes. While there is no public debate in either Gulf state about governance, Singapore’s transition away from the Lee family’s dominance and to a post-Lee generation is one that is cushioned by discussion and expression of aspirations.

Both Qatar and the UAE have glimmering and bold skylines that rival that of Singapore. But beyond the trappings of modernity, neither are states that empower their citizens. The limitations of modernity are evident. Criticism after Qatar won the 2022 World Cup hosting rights of its controversial labour regime that governs the lives of migrant workers, a majority of the country’s population, did not resonate among Qataris, largely because of the country’s demographic deficit. In fact, Qataris protested in 2009, when some households hired Saudis as maids, yet never raised their voice about the widespread abuse of Asian maids. Saudi unlike Asian maids were too close to home. If Saudis could be reduced to the status of a maid, so could one day Qataris pampered by a cradle-to-grave welfare state.

Qatar and the UAE share building blocks of soft power creation and the manufacturing of national identity some of which are also employed by Singapore. They include foreign military bases; world class airlines that service global hubs; museums that both attract tourism and manufacture a national heritage; high profile investments in blue chips, real estate and the arts, sports and the ambition of becoming centres of excellence in multiple fields.

While political Islam plays a less important role in Singapore’s management of its heterogeneity, Qatar and the UAE have adopted radically different approaches even though both have developed societies in which religious scholars have relatively little say and Islamic mores and norms are relatively liberally interpreted. This, however, is where the communalities in their survival strategies stop. Whereas Qatar embraced support of political Islam, the UAE has opted to suppress it. Nonetheless, both states project their approach as part of their effort to garner soft power.

As a result, the UAE has backed regime change in a number of countries, including Egypt and reportedly Turkey; supported anti-Islamist, anti- government rebels in Libya; joined Saudi Arabia’s ill-fated military intervention in Yemen; and in the latest episode of its campaign, driven imposition of a diplomatic and economic boycott of Qatar.

In contrast to the UAE, Qatar has sought to position itself as the regional go-to go-between and mediator by maintaining relations not only with states but also a scala of Islamist, militant and rebel groups across the Middle East and northern Africa. It moreover embraced the 2011 popular Arab revolts and supported Islamist forces, with the Muslim Brotherhood in the lead, that emerged as the most organized political force from the uprisings. Qatar’s support for the Brotherhood amounted to aligning itself with forces that were challenging Gulf regimes and that the UAE alongside Saudi Arabia was seeking to suppress. Qatar did so in the naive belief that it could encourage transition everywhere else without the waves of change washing up on its own shores.

What puts the Gulf crisis in a bracket of its own in the discussion about the place of small states in the international pecking order is the fact underlying the crisis are issues that go far beyond the debate. One root cause of the crisis is Qatar and the UAE’s radically different definitions of terrorism that is enabled by the international community’s inability to agree on what does and does not constitute terrorism and anchor that agreement in international law. The failure to do so fuels differences in perceptions of national security threats, undermines governments’ ability to effectively combat political violence, and allows them to shy away from advancing greater accountability and transparency, and ensuring protection of basic human rights.

As a result, the Gulf crisis has a pot blaming the kettle quality. It pits autocracies against one another. None of the protagonists advocates a more liberal system of government for its own people. Their differences are rooted in their histories of independence and concepts of national security that are defined by geography and differing threat perceptions.

Qatar, the UAE and Singapore are all unique in their own ways. In many ways, they don’t fit the mould of the world’s average small state. Yet, they all offer lessons for other small states or territories aspiring to join the international community as independent countries. Singapore, unlike Qatar and the UAE has established itself as a model of good governance and of a small state that turned the liability of having no resources but its human capital into an asset. The UAE has so far succeeded in positioning itself as the small state most capable of punching above its weight. Qatar has become the example of a small state capable of resisting heavy external pressure. Ultimately, however, Singapore may prove to have a more sustainable survival strategy by grounding it in institutions, performance and human capital rather than the wielding of financial muscle in an effort to shape the world around it in its own mould.

Catalonia PR Official Insists ‘We Will Be Independent And EU Member’– Interview

0
0

By Georgi Gotev

(EurActiv) — The EU may be reluctant now but it will inevitably accept to mediate in the separation of Catalonia from Spain and the presence of the new Catalan state within the EU, Joan Maria Piqué told EURACTIV in an interview.

Joan Maria Piqué is the director of international communications for the Government of Catalonia.

He spoke to EURACTIV’s Senior Editor Georgi Gotev.

What are your plans? Is independence going to be declared on Monday?

We haven’t decided yet. A lot of things are under consideration. The transition law that was approved by the Catalan parliament is clear and we will fulfil it, but the president, the government and the parliament will decide how they accomplish what is stated in the law. On Monday the parliament will be in session, President [of the government] Puigdemont is called to explain to the chamber the results of last Sunday’s referendum, and then the parliament will decide.

In what terms is he going to explain the results? I’m asking because it looks like there is no majority of people who have voted for independence, given the turnout.

I have to disagree. The result is clear for us. Every analysis shows there is a majority for the independence of the country. I can understand your doubts, but they are not your responsibility, they are the responsibility of the brutal aggression by the Spanish government, who sent riot police to beat and humiliate, and to torture peaceful voters. Their only crime was that they wanted to cast a vote. This should be the shame of Europe. Of course, this is the shame of Spain. Nothing like that has ever happened in a Western democratic country – riot police to be sent to beat, not even peaceful demonstrators, but peaceful voters. People who were just queuing in front of a polling station and wanted to cast a vote. This should not be tolerated. Europe should take a stance. Every country, every leader should take a position so that this never happens again. Authoritarianism in Europe should not be tolerated.

The vote took part with normality in almost 95% of the polling stations, and the others suffered the aggression of the Spanish military police. The turnout at the places where there was no aggression was 50-60-70%. And the majority for independence was clear. And the Spanish government knew it was going to lose the referendum if it were to take place in normal conditions. This explains the harsh brutality of the Spanish police, the images are there for all to see, we don’t need to add anything to that.

I understand your way of presenting the case, but at the same time, the referendum is illegal according to the Spanish constitution…

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. The referendum was not illegal. Calling a referendum is not illegal under Spanish law. The Constitution says nothing about referendums. And in the penal code, there is nothing about calling a referendum illegal. [Former PM] Zapatero took this out from the penal code. And in any democracy, when something is not in the penal code, it’s not illegal. That’s how it should be. This is our first point. Our second point is that it was not illegal, because there was a law in the Catalan parliament that governed it. But even in the case that it would be considered illegal by some, which it is not, and I insist, this does not justify beating, mistreating, insulting people, as the Spanish police did.

The three major political forces in the European Parliament are siding with Madrid on the issue of the constitutionality of the referendum. ALDE leader Guy Verhofstadt calls the referendum irresponsible, he says it will create a fracture in your society that is impossible to heal…

Saying that democracy creates fractures is the favourite argument of the totalitarians. This was an argument being used very intensively by Franco. This is why they didn’t vote in Spain for 40 years. This is pure nonsense. We know that Europe is not fast in adapting, we remember all the warnings Europe sent to the Baltics, or to Slovenia, or to other new countries that arose in the 20th century in Europe, against proclaiming independence. But most of those countries are now EU members and even preside the EU when is their due time.

But in the case of Catalonia, it will be the other way around. If your independence becomes effective one day, Catalonia will find itself outside the EU.

I completely reject this affirmation.

But this affirmation comes from the Commission…

I’m sorry, but these are personal opinions from spokespersons from the Commission who are expressing their personal views. The European Commission has never pronounced itself by text, and there is no memorandum about this, because no country has asked for such a position.

I can send you a text recently published by the Commission…

You can send me lots of personal opinions by spokespersons, by Romano Prodi, by Barroso…

In any case Margaritis Schinas said…

I know Margaritis Schinas and we have a good personal relationship, but he is nothing more than an employee of the European Commission.

Would it make a difference if Commission President Juncker repeated it?

What would make a difference is if the Commission gets an official petition from a member state, asking what would happen if a member state split, what would happen with the two parts of it. And then the Commission should make an official statement, and a lot of analyses and a paper on that, this would be an official position. Apart from that, everything else is personal opinions intended to scare voters, because we understand that Europe doesn’t want another problem on the table. But the situation is that 80% of the Catalan people want to vote in a referendum about self-determination. This referendum took place last Sunday, it was clearly won by the ‘Yes’ side, and now the Catalan government, the Catalan parliament, have a mandate from the Catalan people.

Catalonia could be expelled from the European Union only if Spain recognises it as an independent state. But this would mean there is an agreement between Catalonia and Spain, because recognition comes from an agreement. But if there is such an agreement for recognition, what is the point of expelling Catalonia from the EU? It’s in the benefit of no-one. It’s not for the benefit of Spain – 55% of all exports of Spain go through Catalonia. Are they going to pay tariffs? There are 9,000 multinationals in Catalonia, most of them European. Are they going to pay tariffs? What is the point of expelling 7.5 million Europeans from a country that is a net contributor to the EU budget? Expelling a country that has Barcelona, the most dynamic and attractive city in the south of Europe? The only point would be revenge. But revenge doesn’t serve the common interest. So this is not going to happen.

I’m not so optimistic, because the situation is likely to worsen, and the only thing that can prevent a very serious aggravation is mediation. And it looks like your government would like the EU to be involved, although the EU doesn’t want to, because Spain is a member country and such mediations have never been the case before.

They never thought of bailing out Greece and they didn’t have a mechanism to do this, they never thought of approving sanctions against Austria, they never thought of changing the prime minister in Italy. The EU has done a lot of things they thought they will never do. And again, they have done them. Because this is what reality is all about. Reality is not something contained in textbooks. Reality is something that is in motion. The EU will do what it has done always, with initial reluctance and after that, with pragmatic acceptance. Remember how Cyprus entered the European Union – it’s a country that is divided. And how Eastern Germany joined, overnight, without complying with any of the European regulations. The EU always finds a solution for every problem. And they will do it when they see the interests of the member states are at stake.

We are starting to realise that the respect for fundamental values, for democracy, civil rights, are not in the core business of the EU anymore. And it is in the hands of the EU to change this perception. In the end, things are very simple. If there is a majority of the Catalan people who want Catalonia to become an independent state, this will happen. Full-stop. Because in a democratic Europe the will of the people cannot be forced. You cannot tell the Catalans they are forced to stay with Spain, a country that sent its riot police to beat them when they wanted to vote, with a country whose head of state makes shameful statements, aligning himself with one party in government. You cannot force the Catalans to remain with Spain because this is not democracy. If the EU is not about democracy, what is it about?

I’m really not sure the EU believes a majority of Catalans want independence.

OK, this I can understand…

Therefore many consider that what you are doing is like a coup d’état…

This is pure nonsense. How do you do a coup d’état with ballot boxes and peaceful voters? A coup d’état was done by sending riot police to beat people.

People might say you are provoking such a scenario.

The Catalan government wasn’t queuing at the polling stations. Peaceful people were there, and they faced aggression. And you are not saying a single word about that. In which world do you live? You are in Brussels. In which world do you live?

What I can tell you is that in the Brussels pressroom there was enormous outrage at the violence, and also outrage for the lack of strong condemnation on behalf of the Commission. But there is a feeling in Brussels that you are at loggerheads, you, an extremist type of government in Catalonia with an extremist type of government in Madrid, and that this is going nowhere. A lot of people here think Catalonia may find itself outside the EU, the question being ‘didn’t you learn from Brexit’? This divorce is such a messy thing.

Brexit has nothing to do with us. Of course, I don’t like Brexit, I would have voted Remain. I still believe in a European project, although not this one, which is highly cynical and irresponsible. Brexit could have been avoided if the EU had been involved a long time before. In the case of Spain, they should have distributed the charges of austerity in a more fair way. But they never did that. We went to Brussels several times. We met a lot of commissioners. We warned them about what was going to happen. Yesterday the Spanish market fell heavily. It’s going to fall more because this is what happens when there is no solution for the problems. The sooner the EU gets involved in a mediation, the better everyone.

You need the EU, but you just called it cynical. It’s going to be difficult.

When you see the reaction of the European Commission to the images we saw on Sunday, and imagine your mother, your sister, your brother being pulled by the hair out of a polling station by Spanish riot police, what would you say?

So what would be the ideal solution, a divorce like in Czechoslovakia?

This is indeed a model for everyone. Things can be done in a civilised way.

Yes, but in Czechoslovakia, the will of the whole population was taken into account. If the whole of Spain votes there will be no divorce.

This is complete nonsense because we are only 16% of the population. This means that the brutal majority of the Spanish people would impose itself over Catalonia again. We are a national minority but we are not respected as one. Did the whole of the EU vote for Brexit? Did the whole of the UK vote for Scottish independence? Did the whole of Canada vote for the Quebec independence? This is nonsense and Spanish propaganda.

Spain has a lot of influence in the EU, I’m sure you’re aware…

Of course, and states help each other, this is quite logical, but we continue to think that in a project founded on democracy, if the Catalan people make their voice heard, it will be heard. We will prevail, as Slovenians, Czechs, Slovaks have done in the past. I know it’s going to be difficult, because all the international relations are created by the states, and it’s not easy to become members of the club. In the last century, 21 European countries have become independent. This is something that happens all the time. If Austria can be a state, if Malta can be a state, if Finland can be a state, why not Catalonia, if the Catalans want to?

Aren’t you afraid that members of the Catalan government, you included, may end up in jail?

Nobody wants that. But you have seen the massive mobilisation of people. If this is the only way they know, so be it. But this will not solve the problem. You cannot stop a spring just with your hands.

Increased Korean Tensions: Time For Concerted Non-Governmental Efforts – OpEd

0
0

Today there is a need for a coming together of non-governmental organizations who are primarily focused on the resolution of armed conflicts such as the International Crisis Group, International Alert, and the Association of World Citizens with those groups concerned with the abolition of nuclear weapons.

By Rene Wadlow*

An escalation of verbal exchanges between the Presidents of the USA and North Korea, missile flights over Japan, US war planes close to the sea frontier of North Korea – one can hardly think of additional ways that governments can increase tensions short of an armed attack which probably all governments want to avoid. But there are always dangers of events slipping out of control. The Security Council of the U.N. has voted to tighten economic sanctions on North Korea. However, to date, sanctions have diminished the socio-economic conditions of the majority without modifying government policy.

For the moment, we look in vain for enlightened governmental leadership. The appeals for calm by the Chinese authorities have not been followed by specific proposals for actions to decrease tensions.

The one positive sign which may help to change the political atmosphere both for governmental negotiations and also for Track II (non-governmental) discussions is the large number of States which have signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons on 20 September, the first day that the Treaty was open for signature. Signature is the first step in the process of ratification. As a light in the darkness, the Holy Sea (the Vatican) both signed and ratified the Treaty at the same time. Guyana and Thailand also signed and ratified the Treaty, the three first ratifications of the 50 needed for the Treaty to come into force.

The Vatican leads by moral example; its Swiss Guard army is only lightly armed. The Holy Sea, although a State, is a bridge to the world of non-governmental organizations. The torch of action must now be taken up by a wider range of organizations than those, which had been in the lead for the abolition of nuclear weapons. The strength of “one-issue” NGOs is that its message is clear. This was seen in the earlier efforts to ban a single category of weapons: land mines, chemical weapons, cluster munitions and the long-running efforts on nuclear weapons.

Some of us have long worked on the abolition of nuclear weapons. I recall as a university student in the early 1950s, I would cross Albert Einstein who liked to walk from his office to his home. I would say “Good evening, Professor Einstein”, and he would reply “Good evening, young man”. I knew that he had developed some theories, which I did not understand but that were somehow related to atomic energy. I was happy that we were both against atomic bombs under the slogan “One World or None!”

The current Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons did not grow from the usual arms control negotiations, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons or the chemical weapons ban, both of which were negotiated in Geneva, both over a 10 year period. The Nuclear Weapon ban was largely negotiated elsewhere, Vienna and New York, in the humanitarian law tradition of banning weapons that cause unnecessary suffering, such as the ban on napalm after its wide use in the Vietnam War. The contribution of both “ban-the-bomb” groups and the humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross was great in reaching the successful outcome.

Thus, today, there is a need for a coming together of non-governmental organizations who are primarily focused on the resolution of armed conflicts such as the International Crisis Group, International Alert, and the Association of World Citizens with those groups concerned with the abolition of nuclear weapons. The current Korean tensions are based on the development of nuclear weapons and missile systems and the pressures and threats to prevent their development.

One proposal which seems to me to be a common ground on which many could cooperate has been called a “double-freeze” – a freeze on North Korea’s nuclear-weapon and missile programs with a reciprocal freeze on the yearly US-South Korea war exercises and a progressive reduction of US troops stationed in South Korea and elsewhere in Asia, especially Japan.

There are also proposals for economic cooperation, greater meetings among separated family members, and cultural exchanges. However, given the heat of the current saber rattling, the “double-freeze” proposal seems to be the one that addresses most directly the security situation. We need to build on this common ground.

*Rene Wadlow is President and a Representative to the United Nations, Geneva of the Association of World Citizens.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of TransConflict.

European Leaders Discuss Future Of The Baltic And Beyond At Riga – Analysis

0
0

By Lukas Milevski*

(FPRI) — Since 2006, the Baltic states have hosted two major annual conferences on defense and security: the Annual Baltic Conference on Defense (ABCD) and its larger sibling, the Riga Conference. These flagship conferences present the cutting edge of Baltic thought on defense and security topics, and specifically of thought on Baltic defense and security. The Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinķēvičs, in closing the Riga Conference, described it as an annual global and regional health check on the economy and security situation. What did this year’s Riga Conference reveal about the current state of thinking?

Latvian President Raimonds Vējonis opened the conference by describing today’s geopolitical climate as a time of change and uncertainty, as the comfortable years of the post-Cold War world are gone and democratic institutions and infrastructure are under attack. Although hard security remains a straightforward concern, the softer side of security requires greater investment to protect the West’s information space, to improve media literacy, and to assure social cohesion among various ethnic groups. Vējonis’ words spoke to the breadth of topics discussed at the Riga Conference, which extended from what to expect from NATO’s summit in Brussels in 2018 to the future of globalization, the future of Russia, the agenda of the wider Nordic-Baltic region, and the question of populism.

Discussion on the future of Russia pivoted largely around a single question: will 2018 inaugurate Putin’s final term as Russian president, and what might that mean? Putin carried such weight in the discussion due primarily to his unique position among the Russian political and economic elite and their system of rule, which bears his name: “Putinism.” This type of governance was described as the distribution of rents among the various elites, distribution of which could be trusted only to Putin, in part because Putin has turned himself into the indispensable man over the past seventeen years, especially since 2012. Some discussants predicted that if Putin were elected in 2018 to a final term, he would become a lame duck president while jockeying for power and position among the Russian political and economic elite would begin on the first day as everyone sought to prepare themselves for a post-Putin Russia.

Others disagreed, arguing that Putin has become so successful at turning himself into the indispensable man among the Russian elite that there was no option for him to leave power. Putin has become a prisoner of the Kremlin, as well as its ruler. Russia’s current political system simply could not function without Putin in the center. This appraisal is reinforced by the Medvedev experiment, which was considered by the Russian ruling elite to be a dangerous failure, one which culminated in the irresponsible abstention from the UN Security Council vote on the Libya intervention in 2011. There was some speculation on Putin’s position after his fourth term as president. Would he change or break the constitution by serving a third consecutive (and fifth overall) term? Given the powers of the presidency, this was deemed a possibility. Another possibility is Putin’s potential ascension beyond the presidency to become a semi-mystical father of the nation figure, beyond the formal political system yet still presiding over it.

Beyond Putin, Russia’s modernization was also discussed. Russia is not ready for the 21st century—economically, militarily, in terms of human capital, and so forth. It was suggested that Putin himself recognizes this, but that little will happen before the conclusion of the March 2018 elections at the very earliest. A parallel was drawn between the widespread structural reforms which Putin would have to effect to modernize Russia for the future and those which faced Gorbachev in the 1980s, emphasizing the scale and political contentiousness of the challenges which now face Putin in this realm. However, on the specific point of military modernization, the Russians have been approaching the issue far more intelligently than in the 1980s. Instead of seeking to match the United States weapon system for weapon system, Russia today is far more focused on key capabilities which can effectively challenge the United States—such as electronic warfare—and other core military capabilities required to defend Russia from potential future threats.

Russia’s continued involvement in Ukraine was also a subject of significant discussion, largely due to Russia’s recent promotion of a facsimile of a previous Ukrainian proposal to introduce peacekeepers into the Donbas region. Key differences were highlighted between the original Ukrainian hope for peacekeepers and the Russian proposal, of which the most significant was the Ukrainian requirement that the border between the Donbas and Russia also be manned by peacekeepers, as opposed to the Russian plan which anticipated peacekeepers only on the line of contact between Ukrainian forces and Russian and separatist forces in the Donbas, a deployment which would only freeze the conflict indefinitely. There was much speculation whether the Russian proposal represented an opportunity which might be exploited or simply a diplomatic tactic to divide Ukraine from the West.

Some suggested that the proposal represented a recalibration of Russian calculations regarding the Donbas, particularly considering the possible provision of lethal aid—defensive systems such as anti-tank armaments and anti-artillery radar—by the United States to Ukraine. Economic arguments to explain the Russian proposal were also raised, including the sheer cost of maintaining Crimea and the Donbas both through military and non-military aid and investment, as well as the cost of sanctions. The former costs account for approximately 0.7% of Russian GDP per year, and the latter another 0.5-0.7%, sums of money which together are nearly equivalent to the entire anticipated growth of the Russian economy in 2017. There was little concern about the supposedly escalatory potential of American lethal aid, which in any case could only be more symbolic than real, given the defensive character of the systems proposed and the reality of Russia’s own aid and interventions in the Donbas since 2014.

Finally, looking forward to the NATO summit in Brussels in 2018, the Ministers of Defense of Latvia and Canada, Raimonds Bergmanis and Harjit Singh Sajjan, respectively, produced a long list of concerns which they hoped the summit would address. Their lists focused primarily on specific questions of military capability, such as more effective logistical systems and new logistical concepts, a greater emphasis on air and maritime security in the Baltic Sea region, improving the public’s engagement in defense, a more flexible command structure, and a reflection on whether NATO member states are acquiring the right capabilities to be ready for future security threats. The 2% of GDP defense spending target was also questioned, given that it focuses on expense rather than on capabilities. Nevertheless, others defended it as a catchy and publicly digestible encapsulation of the expectations which NATO places upon its member states, and therefore as being irreplaceable, albeit not enough.

Alongside the immediate future of NATO came discussion about the future of European—as opposed to NATO—defense. The European Union is currently experiencing momentum and initiative in defense, but there was concern that this momentum would weaken European defense efforts through excessive enthusiasm and optimism, resulting in skipping vital steps in defense reform and consolidation. Questions were posed, but not answered, as to whether Europe has a stable basis for a real common defense, and whether it would be able to sustain its development in defense. Ultimately, if the United States were absent, as it would be in the case of European defense, who would take the lead? Germany could not be expected to step up. Yet is a leader even necessary? Without the United States, and with the United Kingdom leaving the European Union because of Brexit, European nuclear capability and security becomes a far more pressing question as well, and is one for which Europe currently has no satisfactory answer.

This essay reports on discussions held at the Riga Conference, September 29-30, 2017.

About the author:
*Lukas Milevski
is a Baltic Sea Fellow in the Eurasia Program at FPRI.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.


Amid Usual Cultural Controversies UNESCO Selects New Leader – Analysis

0
0

By James Borton*

The campaigns are now in full swing for the selection of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) new director general. This is no small matter since the World Heritage Committee and the director is chosen every four years; together, they decide the fate of the world’s natural and human-made wonders in greatest need of protection.

A committee, comprised of 21 members, who are elected by the General Assembly, decides upon inscribed heritage designations. Established in 1945, UNESCO is the leading agency in the United Nations’ system dedicated to education, culture and communications, information, and natural and social sciences.

The organization’s impressive conservation efforts of world sites include the relocation in 1954 of the ancient Egyptian twin Abu Simbel temples, once carved out of a mountainside in the 13th century BC on the orders of Pharaoh Ramses II, and later rescued from the floodwaters of the Aswan Dam at a cost of $80 million. This project has been followed by other high-profile international conservation efforts like the heritage recognition of Venice, the ruins of Mohenjo-Daro in Pakistan’s Indus Valley, and even the extraordinary Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Mexico, where at least one billion butterflies winter each year.

The first World Heritage Conference dates back to 1972. It was built on the idea of America’s national parks system, established to protect a wild landscape before it disappeared.  The next treaty, the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, appeared in 2003. It was meant to defend traditions, not places, and is more controversial.

Almost 188 nations have ratified the first convention and to date there are now 1073 World Heritage Sites located in 167 nations. Of these, 832 are cultural, 206 natural, and 35 mixed properties. Each year there’s a historic beauty pageant among possible sites, like the following from 2017: Aphrodisias, a third century Greco-Roman archaeological site in southwestern Turkey; the temples of Sambor Prei Kuk in Cambodia, heralded for their natural forests and birds; and the Los Alerces National Park in Argentina, noted for protecting some of the last stands of the native Patagonian forest.

According to the UNESCO website, China leads the world in heritage sites with 52, surpassing Italy’s 51, followed by Spain (46), France (42) and Germany (41). In Southeast Asia, Indonesia and Vietnam lead with eight sites each, followed by the Philippines with six and Thailand with five.

The contest to select a new director general

Some UNESCO sources contend that the competition for this new position weighs heavily in China’s favor since their nominee, Qian Tang, is currently Assistant Director General for Education. This favoritism is not because his credentials outweigh others, but mainly attributed to China’s globalization and financial largesse. It also helps that China is now the leading exporter of cultural goods, followed by the United States. In 2013, the total value of China’s cultural exports was $60 billion; more than double of the U.S. at $27.9 billion according to a report from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

As part of the increasing wider struggles against the global pressures for the commercialization of culture, the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions was framed in 2005. It would be a mistake to interpret China’s earlier attempts to draw on the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity in disputes with America’s film industry as part of a strategy to “protect” culture from the market, or as an expression of sentiments about “cultural imperialism.”

As China’s international clout increases, their cultural campaign is widely seen in the proliferation of Confucius Institutes, now approaching 455 worldwide, that serves Beijing’s ideological objectives and seems in direct opposition to UNESCO’s principles.

Vietnam’s Pham Sanh Chau is among the top nine final candidates. He’s an assistant foreign minister and has served UNESCO for more than 18 years. He remains in active service, including two different posts as ambassador and as secretary general of UNESCO’s National Commission for two terms. His candidacy reflects Vietnam’s rich and evocative history, their impressive economic gains and international rehabilitation of a once war-torn country, now at peace and an active and responsible member of ASEAN and host country for this year’s Asia Pacific Economic Conference (APEC).

To many, Vietnam is a success story, not only in terms of national construction, economic development, but also especially in the valued UNESCO principles of heritage preservation and literacy development fueled by an educational reforms. Pham knows that the UNESCO heritage recognition is never about driving tourism but rather demonstrating an “outstanding value to humanity.” He claims that UNESCO has made significant contributions to the preservation of Vietnam’s culture, heritage, education, and freedom of expression.

Other candidates like Egypt’s Ms. Moushira Khattab also received high marks and she is actively touring a number of countries that are members in the UNESCO executive board. She was formerly a part of the administration of former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq in 2011. She is framing her role and candidacy around a greater tolerance in the Middle East and has stated,“From the Middle Ages, Egypt has a history of bringing together Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scientists, and that is what UNESCO needs to do.”

The 58 members of UNESCO’s executive board hold their 202nd session from October 4 to 18, chaired by Ambassador Michael Worbs of Germany at UNESCO’s Paris headquarters.

Voting for a candidate starts on October 9 and will be conducted by secret ballot. A majority is required to win the nomination. All nominees know that UNESCO is not free from controversy. In a closer examination of these two candidates, China’s Tang’s deficits include an inability to speak French and China already occupies many executive positions across the UN system.

Controversy swirls around new UNESCO site selections

Some of UNESCO’s sites are not without controversy, like the 19th-century Valongo Wharf in Rio de Janeiro, where slaves were traded. Archaeologists and construction companies discovered mass graves attributed to this bitter and dark portrait of slave trade. The UNESCO website reveals: “ From a historic point of view, this is a testimony to one of the most brutal episodes in the history of mankind.” The implication is that these unearthed mass graves offer not only bitter traces of that era’s dark past but also a moral justification for the designation.

In another contentious decision, UNESCO approved China’s request for special recognition for a vast, traditionally Tibetan region known as Hoh Xil or Kekexili, that is part of the high-altitude plateau in Qinhai Province roamed daily by nomads. Advocacy groups, and NGOs like The International Campaign for Tibet, challenged the inclusion of this place and unsuccessfully argued that it would only serve to bolster Chinese efforts to resettle tens of thousands of Tibetan nomads into villages.

Furthermore, more global UNESCOs critics believe this decision violates the values and guidelines of the international cultural organization and will only accelerate the severe dilution of the site’s centuries-old Tibetan cultural heritage and their way of life.

After celebrating UNESCO’s approval of the Kekexili National Nature Reserve in Qinghai Province and the Gulangyu, a pedestrian-only island off the coast of Fujian province, as world heritage sites during its World Heritage Committee session in Poland earlier this summer, a Chinese official admitted in state media that many of its now 52 world heritage sites receive poorer protection after being listed, since the designation seems to encourage tourism over the protection of cultural relics.

The final decision of who will be UNESCO’s new  executive director to replace Irina Bokova at the end of her second term will be officially announced on November 10. By all accounts, Bokova’s record has been exemplary despite having to deal with the withdrawal of US funding from the organization.

Of course, the global organization has many critics. “UNESCO’s elevated and idealistic sense of purpose—constructing “defenses of peace” in human minds—often does not translate well into a pragmatic set of goals and strategies. The broad mandate allows the organization to take on a variety of issues, often with little underlying connections and meager resources,” claims J.P. Singh, professor of Global Affairs and Cultural Studies at George Mason University in Virginia.

There remain many 21st century challenges for the next director overseeing 2,100 staffers, with half based in Paris and the others scattered throughout 58 field offices worldwide, and responsible for an annual operating budget averaging nearly $2.5 billion.

In an assessment of dark horse candidates, it’s noteworthy that Vietnam has assumed vaulted roles in UNESCO since it is a member of the Executive Board and of the World Heritage Committee that determines the sites to be listed annually.

With more than 1,000 historical and natural sites in the world, UNESCO has recognized the importance of Vietnamese culture through the classification of eight sites for their unique architectural, historical, and natural value for mankind. Some of these include: Hue monuments, Ha Long Bay, Hoi An, My Son Sanctuary and Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park, to name but a few.

Despite its proximity to China, Vietnam’s distinct social and cultural heritage reflects their independent spirit and this may be evident when the UNESCO final votes are counted.

 

The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the authors are theirs alone and don’t reflect any official position of Geopoliticalmonitor.com, where this article was published.

Can California Bill Bring Back Deported Veterans? – OpEd

0
0

By R. O. Niederstrasser*

Behind his desk in a small office decorated with United States flags and other military memorabilia sits Hector Barajas. He is dressed in U.S. military uniform and surrounded by paperwork. The scene suggests an ordinary veteran’s centre in the United States awaiting servicemen and women for meetings and assistance, but the Deported Veterans Support House in Tijuana, Mexico offers help to veterans who have been deported from the United States and are scattered around the world.

Founded by Barajas after being deported to Mexico in 2004, the “Bunker” is currently helping over 100 veterans from 30 nations that have served in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He helps them find a “path to self-sufficiency by providing food, clothing, and shelter assistance as they adjust to life in their new country of residence.” [i]

“I was born in Fresnillo, Zacatecas,” he says. “I came to California illegally at the age of seven. Eventually, I moved with my family to Compton, CA. I grew up there like a regular American kid.” At the shelter, Barajas’ initial one-man mission focused on finding other veterans, bringing them together, and advocating for their return to their families in the United States.

In June 2017 he received a visit from U.S. Congressman Joaquin Castro at the Veterans Support House. Castro and seven other members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus are trying to get support from other representatives for legislation to allow servicemen and women to return and prevent future deportations from occurring. [ii] “Representative Vicente Gonzales met with the POTUS in regards to our case,” he says. “Congress will probably be the only way we can go home as a group. We are really hoping they continue to advocate for our way back home.” The legislator’s support didn’t come easy. After years of them reaching out and knocking on doors, his story started to be featured first by small, then mainstream news agencies like CNN, Al-Jazeera, and Univision.

“Over the years the awareness has grown significantly due to our advocacy through social media. We have caught the eye of the ACLU, for example. We also have profited from VA benefits to get legal aid, counsellors, help find work for the guys, and organizing other bunkers.” Around 60 of the deported veterans live in Tijuana. [iii] Many initially struggled to adjust, but with their English skills, many found work at English call centers in cities like Monterrey.

For Barajas, every small victory counts. “Awareness is key. If enough people read and know about us, eventually the tide will change.” In April of 2017 he was one of three deported veterans who received a pardon from California governor Jerry Brown. According to the governor’s spokesperson, the pardon was “a recognition that the individuals served their country and deserve a second chance and a second look.” [iv]

In July, Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif), a vice ranking member on the House Committee’s Veterans Affairs, introduced legislation called “Second Chance to Serve Bill” to prevent veterans from being deported. [v]

An official statement by his office announced that Rep. Takano will be meeting with Barajas at the Deported Veterans Shelter at the beginning of October. The congressional visit of the veteran’s committee will be focused on VA benefits for Deported veterans. Additionally, the bill “amends the Immigration and National Act to provide that applicants for citizenship who served honorably in the Army Forces of the United States are not barred from becoming a citizen of the United States for having committed crimes.” [vi] This could prove beneficial for Barajas’ immigration status. At the moment, he is awaiting response from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regarding his prospects for citizenship application.

Barajas served as a paratrooper in the Army 82nd Airborne Division from 1995 until 1999. He had two Army commendation medals, a national defence ribbon, and a humanitarian award. Not long after he was honorably discharged, he pled guilty to a felony in Los Angeles: firing a gun into an empty car. After he served his sentence, he was deported to Mexico. [vii] The “Second Chance to Serve Bill” establishes as a prerequisite to being of “good moral character” to qualify. According to Rep. Takano, “America is a country that believes in second chances, and few deserve a second chance as much as these veterans.”

 

*R. O. Niederstrasser, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Additional editorial support provided by James Baer, Senior Research Fellow, and Jordie Conde and Maria Alejandra Silva, Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

[i] Barajas, hector, Deported Veteran Support House Mission Statement, http://www.deportedveteranssupporthouse.org

[ii] Nelson, Aaron, “Vets Seek return to U.S.,” Houston Chronicle, June, 3, 2017, http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Vets-seek-return-to-U-S-11194107.php#photo-13024900

[iii] Dibble, Sandra, “U.S. military veterans deported to Mexico say they want to come back home,” Los Angeles Times, June, 4, 2017, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-deported-vets-20170604-story.html

[iv] Cadelago, Christopher, “Jerry Brown pardons three veterans deported to Mexico,” The Sacramento Bee, April, 15, 2017, http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article144824909.html

[v] Calif. Rep. Mark Takano website, TakanoHouse.gov, July, 20, 2017,   https://takano.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/rep-takano-introduces-bill-to-prevent-deportation-of-american-veterans_

[vi] Calif. Rep. Mark Takano website, TakanoHouse.gov, “Second Chance to Service Act,” July, 20, 2017, http://takano.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Second%20Chance%20for%20Service%20Act.pdf

[vii] Godfredson, David, “Banned from America: U.S. veterans deported to Mexico,” April, 23, 2017, http://www.cbs8.com/story/22092596/banned-from-america

The Curious Case Of USS McCain – Analysis

0
0

By Vijay Shankar*

On 21 August 2017, in the darkness of astronomical twilight, USS John S McCain, a destroyer bound for Singapore after a sensitive ‘freedom-of-navigation’ operation off one of China’s illegal man-made islands in the South China Sea (SCS), collided with a 30,000-ton oil and chemical tanker, Alnic MC, in the eastern approaches to Singapore. 10 sailors lost their lives in the collision while the hull of the ill-fated McCain was stricken by a large trapezium-shaped puncture on its port quarter abaft the after stack. The greater base of the trapezium was below the waterline and extended at least 40 feet along the hull to a height of 15 feet. Two months earlier, a similar collision involving another Arleigh Burke destroyer could advance a more-than-accident theory.

Initial reports suggest a loss of course-keeping control caused the McCain’s fatal collision. That, and the computer-aided nature of the ship’s steering and navigation system, has led to the conjecture that McCain’s manoeuvring system may have been ‘hacked’ and then manipulated to force a deliberate collision.

The Singapore Strait extends between the Strait of Malacca and the SCS in the east. The Strait is about 8 nautical miles (15 km) wide and lies between Singapore Island and the Riau Islands (Indonesia) to the south. It is one of the world’s busiest shipping routes. The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) periodically warns mariners of the special rules applicable for safe pilotage in these waters. In one of its marine circulars, it draws attention to the traffic separation scheme (TSS) and the hazardous character of these waters. By law, the significant burden placed on vessels is: to proceed in the appropriate traffic lane in the general direction of flow; to keep clear of traffic separation lines or zones; and cardinally, masters of vessels are warned to take extra precautions and proceed at a safe speed. In determining safe speed, experience advocates several factors be considered, which, in addition to traffic density, include: state of visibility; manoeuvrability of the vessel; state of wind, sea and current; proximity of navigational hazards and draught in relation to the available depth of water. In the circumstance, the prudent mariner very quickly appreciates that the primary hazard presented by the narrows is not geography, but density of traffic and the perils of disorderly movement. On an average, 200-220 ships transit this passage daily of which more than 100 are restricted in their ability to manoeuvre due to deep draught.

The organisation on board a warship for negotiating such waters are the Special Sea Dutymen; a group of highly specialised and trained personnel charged with manning critical control positions involved in evolutions that potentially could endanger the ship, such as berthing, transiting pilotage waters and close-quarter manoeuvring. Instancy of human judgement and fail-safe control are key.

A standard fit on most United States Navy (USN) warships is the Integrated Platform Management Systems (IPMS). It uses advanced computer-based technology comprising sensors, actuators, data processing for information display and control operations. Its vital virtue is distant remote control through commercial off-the-shelf elements (some may argue its ‘critical vulnerability’). Modern shipping, for reasons only of economy, was quick to adopt the system. Warships systems, however, demand redundancy, reliability, survivability and unremitting operations; all of which militate against cost-cutting expediencies. Incidentally, the Indian Navy, as early as May 1997, introduced the IPMS as a part of Project ‘Budhiman’ with the proviso that it would not intrude into critical control and combat functions.

The extent to which the IPMS had penetrated systems on-board the USS McCain is not entirely clear, but it is well known that in the last two decades, the USN has resorted to deep cuts in manpower and invested heavily in control automation. Inferences are evident.

On 21 August, nautical twilight was at 0618 hrs (all times Singapore standard), the moon was in its last quarter, and moon rise was at 0623 hrs. It was dark, however, visibility was good and the sea calm. Collision occurred at 0524 hrs; USS McCain was breached on the port side causing extensive flooding. Examination of the track generated by the Automatic Identification System (AIS) video indicates the Alnic MC approaching Singapore’s easternmost TSS; about 56 nautical miles east of Singapore, at a speed of 9 knots, when it suddenly crash stopped and turned hard to port, could be assumed to be the result of the collision. Unfortunately, as military vessels do not transmit AIS data, the track of the McCain is not available. However, since the McCain was headed for Singapore it is reasonable to assume that it was overtaking the slow tanker from the latter’s starboard side when it lost steering control and effected an unbridled turn over the tanker’s bulbous bows. The trapezoid form of the rupture and elongation aft would suggest events as mentioned rather than a north south crossing by the destroyer at the time of collision (after all, the destination was Singapore).

Coincidentally, two Chinese merchantmen, the Guang Zhou Wan and the Long Hu San, were in close proximity through the episode. Was that a chance presence? Or, does it add to the probability of deliberate cyber engineering of the mishap? And, why else other than to damage the strategic credibility of the USN deployed in tense conditions in the South and East China Seas? Or was it, indeed, a case of gross crew incompetence? While time and ‘sub-rosa’ inquiries could put to rest speculations, vulnerabilities of highly computerised warship systems to cyber attacks may well remain the albatross around the operational commander’s neck.

*Vijay Shankar
Former Commander-in-Chief, Strategic Forces Command of India

German Elections Results: Impact On Foreign Policy – Analysis

0
0

By Kai Furstenberg*

The 2017 German federal election produced results partly anticipated by analysts but were shocking nevertheless. For the past five decades, the Bundestag (federal parliament) was dominated by the two major parties, the Christian democrats Christian Democratic Union of Germany/CDU, and the Christian Social Union in Bavaria/ CSU) on the conservative side and the social democrats (Social Democratic Party of Germany/SPD) on the left, with both parties overlapping in the middle, the liberal spectrum. Since re-unification in 1990, there were also three smaller parties from the liberal-left (Free Democratic Party/FDP, and the the Greens/green party) to the radical left spectrum The Left/Left party) in the Bundestag. Up until now, the bundesrepublikanische Konsens (federal republican consensus) was that there are not to be any parties to the right of the CDU/CSU at the federal level.

The 2017 elections have made this consensus obsolete. The two major parties, which usually commanded a two-thirds majority of seats between them, shrank down to just a little over half the parliamentary seats. And with the Alternative für Deutschland (alternative for Germany/AfD), a right-wing party has entered the Bundestag for the first time in fifty years; and with a stunning, if not completely unexpected result of almost 13 per cent of the votes.

With the worst electoral result in the history of federal elections, the SPD had almost no choice than to become an opposition party to find its own way away from the consensus-seeking grand coalition. That, however, limits the CDU/CSU’s options to form a government. The party also achieved the worst result in their history, but remained the strongest party with about a third of the seats. Without the SPD as an option, the CDU/CSU under Chancellor Angela Merkel can only form a coalition with the FDP and the Green Party. That will be a difficult task, however, since the FDP and the Green Party have fundamental differences and both are strongly opposing many policies proposed by the CSU. The only consensus so far is not to include the AfD in any coalition talks.

The AfD’s success is the second major fallout of the elections. The party, originally built around the rejection of the Euro, has steered to the right, trying to cash-in on the protest against immigration policies. Since then, the party stood for increasingly right-extremist positions, being anti-Islam, anti-immigration, anti-remembrance and anti-liberal. The party was able to mobilise voters who were dissatisfied with the grand-coalition politics, had irrational fears of migrants (the party was especially strong in areas with a low percentage of migrants) and feared economic and social decline. While their success is certainly very worrying, their position is already unstable. Party leader Frauke Petry has already announced quitting the AfD parliamentary group and some of her allies of the national-conservative wing of the party are likely to follow suit. Many of the more than 90 representatives belong to the extreme right and, often openly, despise parliamentary proceedings. Most of them have little political experience. The likely outcome for the AfD faction will be an unproductive fundamental-opposition if not a complete breakdown and separation in at least two competing factions.

How will this impact Germany’s foreign policy, especially towards South Asia and India?

The exact impact is difficult to estimate. The next German government, likely a coalition of CDU/CSU, the FDP and the Green Party will have to deal with the unusual situation of having a right-wing party in the Bundestag. That is already a challenge that will take away a lot of attention from other topics.

On the foreign politics level, the next German government faces huge challenges in Europe itself. The ongoing Brexit negotiations are a source of anxiety, especially with a British government unable to present clear and realistic options for the Brexit and half a year of the two year negotiation period already gone. The next battlefield is the European Union itself, with institutional challenges, like the proposed reforms by French President Emmanuel Macron, and the challenge of European integration of nationalist governments in Poland, Hungary and other eastern European states. The third major challenge will be the immigration from Africa, especially with a government participation of the Green Party. The Greens are likely to oppose solutions like refugee-camps in Libya and military support for states like Chad and Mali that are currently involved in immigration strategies by European governments.

All this would mean that South Asia in general and India in particular will not be a top priority of the next German government. That might not be such a bad thing for the Indian government, since the internal European problems take attention away from the negative consequences of demonetisation and the shrinking economic growth that might deter economic involvement by Germany. Also it might be politically advantageous if the German government does not look too closely into human rights issues in India. India might come into focus, however, when Brexit is actually finalised and the German government is pushing for trade agreements with India. The pro-business FDP might play an important role in pushing for such agreements.

* Kai Furstenberg
Independent researcher, Germany

Kabul Security: The NUG’s Achilles Heel? – Analysis

0
0

By Bismellah Alizada*

On 29 September, terrorists attacked a Shia mosque in Kabul’s district 10, when civilians were mourning Muharram, killing seven and wounding over 20. On 27 September, even as US Secretary of Defense James Mattis and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg were visiting Afghanistan, the Taliban attacked the Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul. This is the ninth major attack in the city this year. A closer look at the security situation in the city suggests that the present state-of-affairs has the potential to pose bigger problems for Afghanistan’s ruling National Unity Government (NUG).

Overview

2017 has been the deadliest year for the residents of Kabul due to incessant suicide attacks. Since March 2017, nine major suicide attacks have taken place in the capital. One of these attacks was so severe that it triggered protests by the residents in which they demanded security and called for resignation of heads of the security institutions and the national security advisor. In response, the police opened fire at the protestors, killing seven protestors and injuring several others, leaving them with the resentment that they are targeted by the government as well as by terrorists.

On 3 June, a triple suicide attack took place at the funeral of those killed during the protest, a ceremony at which Afghanistan’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Abdullah Abdullah, former Chief of the National Directorate of Security (NDS) Amrullah Saleh, Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani and several MPs and Senators were present. This attack left 20 killed and over 87 wounded – merely days after the truck explosion in the ‘green zone’. More recently, a Shia mosque was attacked where several men and women were offering their Friday prayers. The attack claimed over 100 lives, mostly women. This attack highlights yet another aspect of the ongoing war in Afghanistan: targeting religious minorities to fuel religious divide. Moreover, kidnapping of foreigners is another major security threat in the city.

The NUG’s Response

Following a series of deadly attacks, the NUG decided to fortify Kabul’s so called green zone to provide security for the presidential palace, the diplomatic quarters, and several ministry buildings. However, this knee-jerk reaction has done little to reduce violence and might in fact prove to be counter-productive for the NUG.

The fortification of the green zone was carried out by installing ‘security gates’ — metal frame-gates that accommodate the height of small cars and SUVs — at the main intersections and entrances leading to the green zone. This is a highly naïve response and extremely counterproductive in that it narrows down the government’s focus on the overall security situation in the country and gives the impression that the government is obsessed with providing for its own security rather than that of the citizenry.

Recently, when a fire broke out, fire trucks could not get through the security gates to extinguish the fire in time. Not only have these metal gates failed to provide any security, it has caused massive traffic jams and added to the erosion of local morale, because it suggests that the government is unable to prevent attacks and instead redirects them. At least four suicide attacks have taken place outside the metal-gate protected zone since they were set up. According to an April 2017 editorial by Daily Outlook Afghanistan, the Afghan security forces are unprepared to face the increasing insecurity and the NUG remains divided as far as devising a comprehensive security strategy is concerned.

Moreover, the fortification of the green zone implicitly sends the message to the Afghan public that the government is only concerned about ensuring the security of a small enclave that houses local and international elites while ignoring the rapidly deteriorating security situation experienced by residents living and working outside these metal-frame gates.

In February 2017, the Afghan government presented a four-year security plan to the Resolute Support (RS) mission headquarters, outlining how the combat capacity of the Afghan security forces should be enhanced, flagging changes like elevating commando units to a corps and incorporating the Afghan Public Protection Forces of the Ministry of Interior to the Ministry of Defense. Seemingly, the rise in insecurity in Kabul, and across the country, witnessed a rise after the introduction of the plan.

Looking Ahead

Across the country, the situation is only worsening, with fewer districts under government control and more falling to the Taliban. The situation requisites a thorough and serious rethink of the security policies in place and the general leadership of the security ministries. To complement that, the NUG also needs to swiftly and effectively address corruption in the security sector.

The NUG has a ready ground now. The US ‘Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia’, announced in August 2017 by US President Donald Trump, clearly addresses where the safe havens of terrorists are located and which state is providing them support. Since the announcement of the strategy, the US officials have been loud and clear against Pakistan. Moreover, the US has also pledged US$ 7 billion in aid to strengthen Afghanistan’s air force. Therefore, building on the efforts made since 2011 for peace talks, the NUG needs to continue its efforts on the diplomatic front to find a political solution for the war on the one hand, and step up its efforts to strengthen its defence capacities, (including of its air force) on the other.

Merely focusing on the security of the green zone and the Presidential Palace, and according less importance to the general public has but tightened the noose around the NUG’s neck, because the government will not be able to sustain itself if it loses public confidence beyond a certain point.

* Bismellah Alizada
Deputy Director, Organization for Policy Research and Development Studies (DROPS), Afghanistan

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images