By Ross Dayton

On November 8, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov announced that Russia would restructure $3 billion of Venezuela’s debts. Reuters later reported that Russia and Venezuela would sign a deal on November 15 that would restructure Venezuela’s payments for 10 years. While the amount is modest compared to Venezuela’s total foreign debt of $120 billion, it provides some relief for the Venezuelan government to make short-term payments and avoid declaring default.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro announced on November 2 that he wants to restructure and refinance Venezuela’s foreign debts. While Maduro did not explicitly say that the government is going into default, the restructuring announcement signals that Venezuela may not be able to continue making payments in the near future. Despite the country’s ongoing economic crisis, the Venezuelan government has continuously made payments on its foreign debts over the years. On November 9, the Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA managed to pay an overdue principal of $1.1 billion. While the payment shows that the Venezuelan government still intends to continue meeting its foreign debt obligations, PDVSA has still not paid $500 million in interest on the principal payment.

Russia’s Investment in the Venezuelan Government

The Venezuelan government has depended on Russian financial support to remain solvent. The Russian state-owned oil company Rosneft has purchased substantial stakes in five major PDVSA oil projects in exchange for credit and cash. In addition, Rosneft made collateral swaps with Citgo, PDVSA’s US subsidiary, giving it a 49 percent ownership share. The Russian government has provided the Venezuelan government with over $10 billion in financial aid over the past three years. Russia has also sold arms and military equipment to the Venezuelan government; in 2009, Russia gave Venezuela a 2.2 billion loan to purchase tanks and anti-aircraft missiles.

Russia’s investment in the Venezuelan government furthers its own geopolitical interests. Moscow’s financial support directly challenges the United States’ sanction regime, which seeks to isolate Venezuela. Propping up the anti-American Venezuelan government helps undermine US influence in Latin America. Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, inspired and supported other anti-American populists throughout the region. The Venezuelan government also courted the US’ global rivals such as Russia, China, and Iran to counter US influence worldwide.

How Russia’s Support Can Backfire

Russian efforts to keep the Venezuelan government financially afloat may not prevail in the long run. Foreign investors are currently unclear as to what the Venezuelan government’s restructuring plans entail. Foreign lenders are unlikely to want to restructure Venezuela’s debt payments due to US sanctions that prevent purchasing government debt or equity. To make matters more complicated, Maduro has appointed his controversial vice president, Tareck El Aissami, to lead the commission in charge of the debt restructuring. Aissami is sanctioned by the US Treasury Department for drug trafficking activities, causing investors to worry about the potential impact of sanctions. Following the restructuring announcement, Fitch downgraded Venezuela’s credit rating from CC to C, citing a high likelihood of default.

It does not appear that Venezuela’s dire economic situation will improve any time soon. While Venezuela holds the largest oil reserves in the world, the glut in global oil prices and economic mismanagement have led to hyperinflation and scarcity of resources such as food and medical supplies. The country’s foreign reserves have dwindled to less than $10 billion for the first time since 1995. The economic crisis has led to widespread protests throughout the country, which the Maduro government has met with violent repression and anti-democratic reforms. Other Latin American governments have condemned Maduro’s actions, and the US implemented sanctions against various government officials and enterprises. Meanwhile, the Venezuelan opposition remains fractured while Maduro continues to consolidate his power via authoritarian measures. As the Venezuelan government becomes further isolated from the international community and financial markets, the costs of Russia’s support may outweigh the benefits.

This article was published at Geopolitical Monitor.com

By Giancarlo Elia Valori*

In the current vision of the Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, the Saudi national anti-corruption Commission “Nazaha” has worked very well. The anti-corruption Nazaha is a complex organization, with a large set of international and local rules, always explicitly referring to the UN – and anyway international – best practice.

It will not be so easy to define Mohammed bin Salman’s fight against corruption as an “ideological operation” or, even worse, “primitive”.

The issue of corruption has been at the core of the Saudi political debate for years.

As early as 2013, the Riyadh Economic Forum had placed the issue of public and private corruption at the centre of Saudi government actions, while the Commission was established officially with King Abdullah’s Executive Order No. A/65 of March 2011.

A wide mandate having strong political impact, designed since its inception – even before the current Crown Prince – to be the main tool for the King’s control over his vast and chaotic ruling class, regardless of their being blue-blooded or not.

So far the Saudi Nazaha, similar to many other anti-graft agencies operating throughout the Sunni Arab world, has collected data on over 2,000 sensitive cases and imposed penalties in 94% of initial reports.

Certainly Prince Muhammad bin Salman is using Nazaha’s power to eliminate his political enemies, but this is quite obvious in a struggle for absolute power following Machiavellian (and Quranic) rules whereby the property of subjects, in particular, must be rescued.

“Nevertheless, a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women “(The Prince, Chapter XVII).

The Quran reads as follows: “Devour not your wealth among yourselves vainly, nor present it to the judges that you may devour a part of the wealth of other men sinfully and knowingly” (Al-Baqarah, Surah “The Cow,” verse 188).

Furthermore, Muhammad’s doctrine on corruption contains many other Quranic and Sunnah verses, which there is no point in quoting here.

The Islamic legal tradition, however, is very strict: in fact, a hadith of the Prophet simply condemns bribery – both those who grant and those who receive bribes, along with the intermediary – all placed by the Prophet on an equal footing.

The granting of illegal assets to favour and facilitate a subsequent transaction, however, is an offense to divine law, not just to corporate law, in the meaning that we Westerners attribute to the concept of “civil law”.

Hence the doctrinal basis on which the Saudi anti-corruption Commission relies is theologically wide and sufficiently complex.

Nevertheless, with a view to understanding the political logic of the Saudi anti-corruption Commission, we must at first see who and how has been hit by the Saudi penalties imposed by the Nazaha in Riyadh, upon Saudi royal orders.

As many as 512 Saudi citizens have been hit – for various reasons – by the anti-corruption sweep of Prince Muhammad bin Salman’s Commission.

Moreover 1,286 private and corporate current accounts have been frozen so far.

It should also be noted that many Saudi people targeted by this anti-corruption probe – which is more rational to define as a bloodless coup – are part of the three branches forming the Riyadh Intelligence Services.

Firstly, as is well-known, there is the General Intelligence Presidency (GIP), the Mukhabarat al-A’amah, whose old leader Khalid Bin Alì al-Humaidan has been put aside.

The other intelligence services, namely the internal security police and, above all, the Mabahit, responsible for counter-espionage and internal and political security, have also been decapitated by the current graft crackdown of the Heir to the Throne.

In particular, Prince Muhammad bin Salman wants to capitalize on the current honeymoon with Trump Presidency, as well as avoid the coup that was probably looming large for Salman and his son Mohammed.

He also wants to acquire absolute hegemony over the Sunni world against the Iranian Shiite operations which will be tolerated at best in Central Asia, but never in the Persian Gulf.

If the Saudi King had abdicated in favour of his son Mohammed – as he had long been planning to do – he would soon have put aside Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, the Interior Minister and direct heir to the Saudi Kingdom in the traditional line of succession.

In fact, on June 21, 2017 Bin Nayef was replaced by Muhammad bin Salman.

Let us better analyse, however, the list of the main people accused of corruption: as already noted, there is Muhammad al-Walid bin Talal, together with the President of the Middle East Broadcasting Center (MEBC), namely Walid Ibrahim al-Ibrahim, who had avoided to sell his broadcasters to the Crown Prince, Mohammed Bin Salman.

Al-Ibrahim was also President of the United Press International (UPI) until the annus mirabilis of the old Saudi power, namely 2000 – the year of Bin Laden’s ambiguity.

However, we will revert to this issue at a later stage.

He also founded Al Arabiya, as an alternative to the Qatari Al-Jazeera, still in the hands of the “Muslim Brotherhood”.

It is worth noting that currently all coups start for and end in the media ownership or control.

The people arrested on November 4 last include also Mutaib bin Abdullah, former Minister of the Saudi National Guard.

He graduated from the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst as a lieutenant in 1974 and was former representative of the Ford Motors Co. He was at the helm of the Saudi military organizations.

The list of arrested people includes also Turki bin Abdullah al Saud, former Governor of Riyadh until 2015, who is charged with corruption in the Riyadh Metro project still to be completed, for having taken advantage of his role and influence to award contracts to his own companies. He is the seventh son of King Abdullah and graduated in “strategic studies” at the University of Leeds, Great Britain. He was also a manager of the King Abdulaziz Foundation, as well as promoter and organizer of various transactions with British and US companies.

Another Prince arrested in the November “corruption crackdown” is Turki bin Nasser al Saud, a prince of the Royal Family and Head of the Saudi National Meteorology and Environment Service.

This agency also deals with environmental protection and pollution control.

This is an important sign: probably Nasser al Saud covered up the environmentally damaging affairs of some Saudi companies, but this is certainly not the reason why Nasser al Saud was arrested.

Rumours are rife about his business in the Lebanon, where he received funds from a local politician, Mohammed Safadi – and he is also reported of having been under scrutiny by the UK Serious Fraud Office as early as 2005.

Old stories about the Saudi Royal Family coming out again when it is more convenient for the new Crown Prince.

Also Fahd bin Abdullah Saud, former deputy-Defence Minister, was arrested.

He studied at the Naval Staff and Command College and was former Commander of the Saudi Navy. He has always played a leading role in the balance of power within the Kingdom and the al Saud Family, by deciding and managing many military and civilian careers.

Also King Fahd’s son, namely Abdul Aziz bin Fahd, was arrested on November 4 last. He is supposed to have been killed during the arrest, but the government denies the police shot him.

He lived mainly in Switzerland and travelled to Saudi Arabia only for official meetings.

Removed from his assignments as early as 2011, he was mainly a businessman: he was the long arm of the Saudi Oger, a real estate company.

Said company was initially owned by Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese leader assassinated in 2005, and went bankrupt on July 2017.

Oger Communications, however, keeps on supplying Internet, fixed and mobile telephone services in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Lebanon, Jordan and South Africa.

Today the power uses and is mainly focused on the Internet and mobile telephone services.

Al Fahd has a “confidential” portfolio of at least one billion dollars in the United States – as recently ascertained by the New York Supreme Court – and other real estate properties in Minneapolis, which have recently gone bankrupt.

He is (was) de facto owner of the already mentioned MEBC.

As already reported in other articles, the non-noble people arrested include Khaled Al Tuwajiri, Head of the Saudi Royal Court with King Abdullah.

In 2012 he had harshly criticized the “Westernization” process underway in Saudi Arabia. He was removed from his post at the Court, on which he had very strong influence, through the old King Abdullah and his son Miteb, the Minister of the National Guard.

Another detainee is Adel Fakeih, former mayor of Jeddah, and later Labour Minister, Health Minister and, since April 2015, Minister for Economy and Planning.

Besides his public service (although the watershed between these two worlds is somehow blurred in the Saudi Kingdom), he worked for the Al Marai Group, operating in the food, building and finance sectors, as well as President of the Aljazira Bank. Later he also worked for the Saudi Glass Company and as top manager of the Savola Group, a food company selling sugar, cooking oil, dairy and catering products in Africa, Saudi Arabia, the whole Middle East, Africa and Turkey.

Incidentally, we will shortly witness large economic and political movements in Turkey, just as a result of the Saudi “bloodless coup”.

Fakeih was also in charge of the global and Middle East markets for the Saudi British Bank.

Said banking network is supposed to have organized the coup against Salman and his son under the banner of “return to traditions” and, possibly, by raising the old issue of social justice.

The “purged” people – almost as in an old Soviet palace coup – include Amr al-Dabbagh, President and founder of the Al Dabbagh Group, who graduated in management in California and is very active in the non-profit sector.

The Al Dabbagh Group controls 57 companies in the food, oil, automotive, real estate and packaging sectors.

In all likelihood, Mohammad bin Salman wants to hit precisely the old Saudi “global enterprises” in order to avoid an overlapping of financial and political power, with a highly enterprise-oriented elite.

Another detainee is Ibrahim Abdulaziz Al Assaf, former Saudi Finance Minister and State Minister of the Saudi Kingdom.

He was arrested on charges of purchasing land around the Great Mosque of Mecca, in view of its planned expansion, by taking advantage of his public role and influence.

Former Saudi Arabia’s representative to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and later vice-Governor of the Saudi Monetary Authority, Al Assaf is still member of the Board of Directors of Saudi ARAMCO – the “jewel of the crown” of the future privatization advocated by Prince Muhammad Bin Salman – and, before his arrest, also President of the Saudi Development Fund.

He had attended the recent G20 Summit in Hamburg, but it did not bring him luck.

Another detainee is Khalid Abdullah al-Mohem, who had studied electrical engineering in the United States and was later appointed General Manager of Saudia, the commercial airline of the Kingdom.

Manager of the well-known Saudi British Bank and of the above-mentioned Almarai, a large food and dairy company, he held countless assignments in the food, catering, telecommunications and cement sectors, as well in the HBSC, the Saudi Investment Bank, and in the airlines of the Kingdom.

The list of people arrested include also Saleh Abdullah Kamel, founder of the Dallah al Baraka Group, a multinational dealing with healthcare (private hospitals), financial investment, real estate, banks, transport and logistics.

President of the General Council of Islamic Banks and Financial Institutions, he also led the Arab Thought Foundation and the Saudi Chambers of Commerce.

Another too powerful tycoon to be tolerated by the new Heir to the Throne.

The Crown Prince no longer wants the Islamism naïvely defined as “radical”, but rather the pursuit of Saudi national interest.

Muhammad bin Salman’s “bloodless coup” has put an end to the geopolitical link between Saudi interest and global jihad.

From now on, the “holy war” will be regional or waged wherever the Saudi interest is focused, at least as to the share of jihad funded by Saudi Arabia.

Another well-known personality arrested is Bakr bin Laden, the true “King of Jeddah” – as people call him – and also half-brother of the much more notorious Osama bin Laden.

It should be made very clear that this is not an “anti-terrorism” operation.

Bakr bin Laden currently works in Qatar for his family-run company operating in the traditional real estate sector, but he is still one of the primary economic links between the United States and the Saudi world.

The detainees include also Abdullah bin Sultan bin Mohammed al-Sultan, the founder of the already mentioned Almarai.

A country and the education and training of its ruling class, in particular, may also be controlled through the distribution of food and its organization.

He was also Admiral of the Saudi Royal Navy.

Also Mohammad al-Tobaishi, former Head of Protocol at the Royal Court of Riyadh, was arrested.

He was an old partner of “Valia Investments” based in Boston and Dubai, a merchant bank dealing with venture capital in Tunis, California’s West Coast, Rabat and Casablanca – in short, a Saudi dominance network between the Middle East and the United States.

Probably the United States should better analyse what this “bloodless coup” means for its new equilibria in the Middle East.

The former CEO of the “Saudi Telecom Company”, namely Saoud Al Dawish, was arrested.

He had already been convicted of bribery in 2012. This is another sign that the Crown Prince is catching in his net both the economic leaders who are most interesting for him in the telecom, banking, real estate and retail sectors, and the old corrupt bribers already well-known to the Royal House and the Saudi people, with whom Muhammad bin Salman wants to recreate a charismatic bond.

It is certainly an advertising operation, albeit well-studied, regardless of the real faults of the arrested people.

Last but not least, we must also mention Nasser Al Tayar, President and CEO of the Al Tayar tourist Group.

With a view to targeting the relations between Saudi Arabia and the rest of the world, also the management of tourist companies must be undermined.

Furthermore, until his arrest on November 4 last, Tayar was also President of the Arab Publisher House, “Medina Press”, but the Al Tayar Group operates also in the real estate, hoteling, aviation and food sectors.

Crown Prince’s current anti-graft sweep is focused on the food, real estate and telecommunication sectors. The aim is to hit and decapitate the primary sectors of economic and media consensus to rebuild a new network of relations in the Middle East and respond to the Shiite operations even with a military clash.

The primary goal of the West – firstly the United States and secondly the now irrelevant Europe – will be to avoid the clash, as well as mediate, defuse and use it for its own purposes.

I am not optimistic that it will pursue said goal.

About the author:
Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “La Centrale Finanziaria Generale Spa”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group and member of the Ayan-Holding Board. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title of “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

Since the early 1970s, Australian Governments have been strongly supportive of nuclear non-proliferation under the definitions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed by the McMahon Government in 1970 and ratified by the incoming Labor Whitlam Government in 1973. Australia’s anti-nuclear position was even strengthened under Liberal-Coalition Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, as the “green/anti-nuclear” movement was quickly growing in Australia at the time. With the exception of Prime Minister John Howard, who saw a changing Asia-Pacific nuclear balance, subsequent prime ministers Hawke, Keating, Rudd, and Gillard also strongly followed the non-proliferation line.

Paradoxically, every prime minister supported to various degrees, the development of uranium mining and export as an economic driver. The Fraser and later Rudd Governments argued that uranium exports should be used as a means to strengthen non-proliferation by demanding safeguards from customers.

Uranium exports have been controversial, with strong domestic protests over the years, governments trampling over indigenous wills, and deep party rifts within the Labor movement. Yet on the issue on non-proliferation, Australia had always been at the forefront in international forums.

Prior to the 1970s, Australia took a different view towards nuclear non-proliferation. In 1944, Australia supplied uranium ore to the Manhattan Project. Australian physicist Mark Oliphant played a major role in pushing the atomic bomb program in both Britain and the US before the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941.

However after World War II, the US Government reneged on its agreement to share nuclear technology with its allies. Then Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies, granted Australia’s assistance to Britain in its quest for autonomous nuclear weapons, giving technical assistance and allowing nuclear tests in the Mont Bello Islands, Emu Field and Maralinga, on Australian soil between 1952 and 1963. Australia also participated in the development of the Blue Streak and bloodhound missiles, which were potential nuclear weapon delivery systems with Britain during this era.

The significance of Australian participation, which didn’t go unnoticed by Australian bureaucrats and politicians at the time, was that under section IX.3 of the proposed NPT, Australia would be able to claim nuclear status as it had participated in the production and detonation of nuclear weapons prior to 1st January 1967. Historical reports indicate that the Australian Government’s main motivation at the time, (including US pressure), was to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the local hemisphere, rather than seeking the abolishment of nuclear weapons.

Bureaucratic support from within the Australian defence and security establishment for a nuclear hedging position was strong at the. Wikileaks publication of diplomatic cables between Australia and the US on Iran’s bid to develop nuclear weapons indicated this. Notable Australian diplomat and former Director-General of the Office of National Assessments, Peter Varghese was reported as saying in his briefings to the United States that Australia didn’t see Iran as a ‘rogue state’ in its development of nuclear weapons as “Tehran’s nuclear program (was) within the paradigm of the laws of difference, noting that Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon may be enough to meet it’s security objectives”.

Attempts during the 1950s and 1960s were made by a number of defence personnel, high placed public servants, academics, and right wing elements of the Liberal-Country Party to acquire nuclear weapons. Initially purchasing them from either Britain or the United States was advocated. Later developing an independent nuclear deterrent was favored.

Most of the active proponents for nuclear weapons were defence related personal. They developed a number of plans to acquire nuclear weapons from the British, or have the United States deploy them on Australian soil. Sir Philip Baxter, who was head of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) at the time, operated a clandestine research program to isolate the isotope U-235 from uranium, the quality needed in the production of nuclear weapons.

Some academics like Professor A. L. Burns of the Australian National University also advocated an Australian nuclear option which was aired by the Australian media at the time, especially in relation to the Chinese testing a nuclear bomb and the belief that Indonesia was also developing nuclear weapons. Pressure groups like the Democratic Labor Party and Returned Soldiers League which were both influential during the 1960s also strongly advocated an Australian nuclear weapon option.

The reluctance of the Australian Government to go ahead with the development of its own nuclear weapons all changed after Prime Minister Menzies retirement, when John Gorton unexpectedly became prime minister after the disappearance of Prime Minister Harold Holt in 1967. John Gorton, an ex-RAAF pilot strongly believed that Australia should have its own independent nuclear deterrent with the Chinese in possession of nuclear weapons in the region. Plans went underway to develop a nuclear facility at Jervis Bay on the South Coast of New South Wales that would house both a nuclear reactor, which could produce weapons grade plutonium, and bomb manufacturing facilities.

Gorton tried to develop an Australian nuclear weapon capability before the NPT was signed. However in March 1971, he was disposed by William McMahon, who cancelled all nuclear weapon development plans. It will always remain a matter of conjecture how much influence the US had in his decision.

Moving back to the present day, two recent reactions to recent events by the Turnbull Government could hint of a change in thinking about Australia’s strong non-proliferation position.

Firstly, Australia’s tradition of supporting non-proliferation in international forums has been broken. Australia failed to support the recent United Nations resolution to outlaw nuclear weapons on the floor of the General Assembly last month to the surprise and astonishment of many interested in this issue. Secondly, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull failed to give Melbourne based International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) director Beatrice Fihn a congratulatory call after been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. This seems significant in what can be considered Austria’s first Nobel Peace Prize.

In addition Foreign Minister Julie Bishop’s rhetoric about nuclear weapons soon about to spread through the region indicates a change in Canberra’s world view.

This is not yet a policy shift, but perhaps recognition that nuclear weapons for Australia may need to be an option. However, even if nuclear weapons were to be an option, the road ahead for any government would be rocky, if not almost fatal without a need the public would accept.

The regional environment has changed dramatically over the last few years. China is rising rapidly economically and will become the world’s largest economy very soon. China’s military capacity is rising in accordance with her aspirations, and is asserting itself in the South China Sea, a region it has historically seen as its sphere of influence.

Many pundits would claim that these actions should be expected with China’s re-emergence. However with this expansion of Chinese forces, the balance of power between China vis a vis the US is rapidly shifting.

This is by no means a direct threat to the security of Australia. It’s a new equilibrium that the region should be able to get comfortable with. Many are. However China’s rise in military force is prompting countries like India to upgrade its nuclear arsenal to much more powerful thermonuclear weapons.

The unstable part of the equation is North Korea’s development of thermonuclear weapons and delivery systems which may prompt nuclear latent states like Japan and South Korea change their status. This would make the Asia-Pacific on a par with Europe in regards to the nuclear of nuclear players.

Another important issue of the strategic equation is Australia’s relative decline in military capacity against other countries within the region. Australia’s ability to project itself militarily is almost non-existent now. Australia’s prestige as a ‘coldwar’ middle power is a long gone myth in the region today. Here, it is more Australian prestige rather than security that is of threat here.

The US extended nuclear deterrent (END) is another myth Canberra must contend with. Unlike Canada which is part of Continental North America and covered by the US nuclear umbrella, Australia is an isolated country in another part of the world. The US sound surveillance system (SOSUS) which is a nuclear submarine early warning system is not deployed around Australia’s continual shelf. In addition, Australia should learn the lesson of US involvement in the Falklands War between Britain and Argentina, where the US was primarily neutral. Australia cannot depend on direct US military assistance in any future potential regional military conflict.

It should also be said here, that Japan and South Korea pay enormous amounts of money for US protection. Australia has been expecting to get it virtually free for too long.

Australia’s capability to develop nuclear weapons is better than most. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO) at Lucas Heights, replacing the AAEC in 1987 is an internationally renowned centre of nuclear research. Australia has also developed some advanced indigenous uranium refining technology, the SILEX process using lasers, which is much more economical and cheaper than the traditional centrifuge technology. Australia has large reserves of uranium and a stockpile of semi-refined uranium at Lucas heights. Australia also has a certain degree of bomb making technology that it gained from participation with Britain in the nuclear tests during the 1950s and its own endeavours back in the 1970s. Australia has the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fighter, Boeing F/A-18a & B Hornet, and the F/A 18F Super Hornet as capable medium range delivery systems. Australia also has a range of nuclear capable cruise missiles which can be launched from aircraft, ships, and submarines.

However, this doesn’t mean developing a nuclear arsenal would be an easy project for any future government. The project would be a major one requiring special budgeting, which would mean curtailing other budget expenditure. This could be very difficult in today’s economic environment.

In addition, public opinion would most likely be against the idea, unless a major threat was collectively perceived against the nation. North Korean threats against Australia were not enough. The establishment of Japanese and South Korean nuclear arsenals would not be enough. Maybe an event closer to home such as Indonesia developing nuclear weapons would change public opinion. Maybe that might not even be enough. It may take something drastic like a nuclear Indonesia and some sort of Iranian like revolution taking place before public opinion would shift towards favoring a nuclear deterrent for Australia.

This is an unlikely scenario in the short term, but not so remote in the medium to long term. Acting after the event however would just be too late.

In the absence of some form of threat to Australia’s security, public debate would probably be one of the most heated and passionate within Australian society. This would be reflected in the finely balanced Australian Parliament. This debate would have the potential to bring down the Government.

In the absence of bi-partisanship between the major parties on the issue, a Labor Government on current policy would firmly squash any potential nuclear program. It may not even need a change of government, a change of leader within the Liberal Party maybe enough to force the cancellation of any nuclear program.

The nuclear weapon debate is an issue politicians can use to gain power, which would prevent Australia developing nuclear weapons. That’s the dynamics of a democratic system. If France or Britain had to develop nuclear weapons from scratch today, it would almost be impossible through their democratic processes.

Even if Australia decided to go ahead with a nuclear program, tacit approval would be needed from the United States. The US has for years been hedging on this. However with the Trump view of the world (a view that will almost certainly for economic reasons outlive Trump), the US may support allies in the Asia-Pacific taking more responsibility for their own defence. The proposal by Australia to develop its own nuclear arsenal may bring big offers of concessions from the US, where a future administration may offer alternatives.

An indigenous Australian nuclear arsenal would allow Australia to be more independent in foreign policy, something that is needed to handle the changing China-US balance in the region. It would most probably bring the respect of China and free Australia from the need to unquestionably follow the US line. Iraq after all was a disaster that Australia could have avoided. Both Australian bureacrats and government see this.

France is a precedent in Europe which follows an independent foreign policy, and Israel is a precedent in the MENA, where it could be argued that the country has been able to survive in a hostile region due to the deterrents it has in place.

The writer is not arguing that the Turnbull Government has made a complete turn towards a nuclear hedging policy. The writer is arguing that the Turnbull Government understands the possibility of an independent nuclear arsenal may be an option in the near to medium future. It could be preparing the way. It’s the responsibility of defence and the public service to prepare these positions and the government of the day to consider them.

Watch this space and expect to see the concept of an Australian nuclear deterrent discussed more in the media in the near future, particularly when major events favour such a response.

An abridged version was first published in the Asia Sentinel

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday rejected accusations that he had lied to lawmakers when he previously testified he knew of no contacts Donald Trump’s election campaign had last year with Russian operatives.

Sessions told the House Judiciary Committee he had no recollection of a 2016 meeting with Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos, who discussed his contacts with people who said they could arrange a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, until recent news reports showed he had chaired the meeting.

“In all of my testimony, I can only do my best to answer all of your questions as I understand them and to the best of my memory,” Sessions said. “But I will not accept and reject accusations that I have ever lied under oath. That is a lie.”

Since his last appearance before a congressional panel in mid-October, news surfaced that Papadopoulos had pleaded guilty in early October to lying to federal agents investigating Trump campaign links to Russia and is cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller’s criminal investigation.

Prosecutors said in court records that at a March 2016 meeting, about seven months before the presidential election, Papadopoulos told Sessions, Trump and others that he had connections that could arrange the Trump-Putin meeting. Sessions said he “pushed back” against Papadopoulos’s idea and the Trump-Putin meeting never occurred in the midst of the campaign.

At his January confirmation hearing to become attorney general, the top U.S. law enforcement position, Sessions said he was unaware of communications between the campaign and Russia, but later acknowledged he himself had met then Russia’s then-ambassador to Washington, Sergei Kislyak.

Sessions attributed his failure to remember the Papadopoulos meeting, as well as a contact with Carter Page, another Trump aide who was making overtures to Russia, to the chaos of the Trump campaign.

“It was a brilliant campaign in many ways,” Sessions said. “But it was a form of chaos every day from day one. We traveled all the time, sometimes to several places in one day. Sleep was in short supply.”

One Sessions critic, Democratic Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, told the Senate Monday, “Attorney General Sessions has misrepresented the truth…time and time again.”

Sessions also defended his directive for senior federal prosecutors to examine issues raised by Republican lawmakers connected to Trump’s election challenger, Democrat Hillary Clinton.

He said any new probes would be conducted “without political influence. They will be done properly.”

Committee chairman Rep. Robert Goodlatte, asked Sessions in July and September to appoint a special counsel to investigate allegations of collusion between Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, issues linked to her use of a private email system while serving as secretary of state, contributions to her family’s Clinton Foundation, and an Obama-era purchase of American uranium mines by a Russian-backed company.

The letter also asked for an examination of certain aspects of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd responded in a letter to Goodlatte on Monday that prosecutors would report directly to Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “as appropriate” and recommend whether any investigations should be opened or expanded. He further pledged the Justice Department “will never evaluate any matter except on the facts and the law.”

President Donald Trump has strongly criticized an investigation by former FBI chief Robert Mueller into allegations of Russia’s role in the election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign. U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in a January report Putin directed an effort to help Trump’s chances of winning and to undermine American democracy.

Trump has repeatedly called for more law enforcement scrutiny of Clinton.

“Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn’t looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems…” Trump tweeted last month.

The president’s comments and the move by Sessions brought complaints from Democrats about executive interference with the judicial branch.

“If the AG bends to pressure from President Trump and his allies, and appoints a special counsel to investigate Trump’s vanquished rival, it could spell the end of the DOJ as an independent institution,” Rep. Adam Schiff said on Twitter.

Rep. Gregory Meeks said the attorney general’s actions were a “political smokescreen” meant to distract from collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

“The President & Sessions just politicized the Dept. of Justice, trampling on this country’s sacred rule of law,” Meeks tweeted.

Rep. Andy Biggs, who was one of the Republicans who signed onto Goodlatte’s letter, said the Justice Department’s response is “encouraging,” but not as decisive as the lawmakers would have liked.

“We must have an unbiased, independent special counsel to investigate the matters we have raised. We have spent long enough on meaningless evaluations and empty promises,” Biggs said in a statement.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on Tuesday officially established the ‘Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently”‘.

The Task Force will report to the President by July 15, 2018, making recommendations on how to better apply the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, identifying policy areas where work could be re-delegated or definitely returned to Member States, as well as ways to better involve regional and local authorities in EU policy making and delivery.

President Juncker announced the creation of the Task Force in his State of the Union address, on 13 September, saying, “This Commission has sought to be big on big issues and small on the small ones and has done so. To finish the work we started, I am setting up a Subsidiarity and Proportionality Task Force to take a very critical look at all policy areas to make sure we are only acting where the EU adds value.”

The Task Force will start its work on January 1, 2018, and it will be chaired by Frans Timmermans, Commission First Vice-President in charge of Better Regulation, Interinstitutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It will be composed of 9 additional members, with 3 members from national Parliaments, 3 from the European Parliament and 3 from the Committee of the Regions. In letters sent out today, President Juncker has invited the Presidents of the European Parliament, of the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC) and of the Committee of the Regions to nominate Members from their institutions for the Task Force.

In his State of the Union Address on September 13, 2017, President Juncker presented his vision for the future of Europe, based on the debate launched by the White Paper on the Future of Europe by 2025.

One of the Scenarios presented – Scenario 4 – was “Doing les more efficiently” under which the European Union should step up its work in certain fields while stopping to act or doing less in domains where it is perceived as having more limited added value, or as being unable to deliver on its promises. The work of the Task Force will contribute to the further evolution of the European Union in the context of the Commission’s Roadmap for a more united, stronger and more democratic Union. The Roadmap will be completed in time before the European Parliament elections at a Leaders’ meeting in Sibiu (Romania) on May 9, 2019.

The Political Guidelines of President Juncker, presented on July 15, 2014, have bound the Commission to focus on 10 priority policy areas, shaping the work of the Institution for the past 3 years and ensuring that as much work as possible is left in the hands of Member States. The Commission further developed this concept in its White Paper on the Future of Europe on March 1, 2017, which presented 5 scenarios, including one entitled ‘Doing Less More Efficiently’.

For these words, Steve Bannon, the former chief strategist to President Donald J. Trump and currently Executive Chairman of Breitbart News Network, received standing ovations at the annual gala of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) at the Hyatt in New York City.

ZOA, the extreme right-wing Zionist organization, has been for Trump and Bannon right from the start. Besides Bannon, other Zionist extremists attended the event, among them Alan Dershowitz, a former Harvard law professor,  and Tom Cotton, Rep. Senator from Arkansas and the darling of the Zionist Israel lobby. He earned some fame initiating a childish letter to the Iranian leadership defaming the Iran nuclear deal. Joe Liebermann also attended who is famous for his extreme one-sided Israel support. And last but not least, America’s ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, who de facto serves instead as Israel’s ambassador to the US.

When Bannon joint the Trump campaign and rose to influence in the White House, liberal Jewish organizations and the liberal political class, in general, libeled Bannon an “anti-Semite,” “Racist”, “White Supremacist” you name it, whereas the ZOA stuck by Bannon, especially Alan Dershowitz.

In his speech he targeted the Republican establishment and the “permanent political class in Washington. He called on the crowd to act together against the establishment and their “double deals”. “President Trump needs our back because we’re a nation at war, and this war is only going to be won if we bind together and work as partners.” And he continued saying: “It is time for us to act, and I believe the only way to act is not through moderation. I am not a moderate, I’m a fighter. And that’s why I’m proud to stand with the state of Israel. That’s why I’m proud to be a Christian Zionist. That is why I’m proud to be a partner of one of the greatest nations on earth and the foundation of the Judeo-Christian West.”

Bannon attributed Trump’s victory to a great deal to Sheldon Adelson, the casino mogul of Las Vegas. Victory wouldn’t have come without him. When the “Access Hollywood” tape was released in which Trump boasted about sexually assaulting a women, “Adelson did not cut and run.” Bannon continued with his praise: “Sheldon Adelson had Donald Trump’s back. Sheldon Adelson offered guidance and counsel and wisdom on how to get through it. He was there for Donald Trump about how to comport oneself and how to dig down deep, and it was his guidance and his wisdom that helped get us through it.”

Being a Christian Zionist means belonging to the Christian Right in the US, which wages a culture war against secularism. Moral and religious issues have deeply polarized American society and have supplanted economic controversies, which have been dominating the US up until recently. For the fundamentalist, moral authority comes from above once and for all. For progressives, however, intellectual influence is equated by a spirit of rationalism, modernity, and subjectivism. Keywords in this fight are abortion, creationism versus evolution, values in schools, defense of the traditional family, homosexuality, to name a few.

No other than John Nelson Darby laid the foundations for a development of Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian Zionism, whose influence in the US is mighty and utilized by the Zionist establishment to further Israeli interests. Darby did not subscribe to the view that the church had replaced Israel, he claimed that Israel would supplant it, which means that God continues his covenantal relationship with Israel.

The mixing of a divine concept of Israel with real Zionism results in blind support of Catholics such as Steve Bannon. What attributes to the silencing of any criticism is the Holocaust. Especially Christians have been dominated by Holocaust theology, with its suffering and empowerment, which makes Christians silent bystanders to the brutality of Israeli policy towards the Palestinian people. A strong influence on the thinking of the Christian Right exerted the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, who commemorated the establishment of Israel as a triumph of justice and liberation. This terminology corresponds to the Zionist myth of returning after 2000 years of exile. The Israel lobby or their political surrogates within the power elite silence any critics of Israel’s cruel policy within the Christian community.

Does being proud to be a “Christian Zionist” means to Bannon that he is pleased to support an oppressive occupation regime that robs the land of a colonized people and lock them up behind massive ghetto walls? Perhaps Bannon couldn’t care less regarding his anti-Muslim fervor. For him, there is a long struggle ahead. “Iran, Turkey, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood. The Middle East right now is on a knife’s edge.” To fight these countries, it will take a “strong leadership,” says Bannon. Does he mean the rogue leaders of the “Axis of Evil,” the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia? Has the former chief strategist forgotten that the US got a bloody nose in the Middle East and Donald J. Trump wanted to end this kind of adventurism? Or is Netanyahu the guy who calls the shots?

Big data and Artificial Intelligence (AI) financial management can increase market transparency, and as such the financial institutions could render investors with more pertinent services, and assist their clients to diversify investment risk, improve operation efficiency for financial institutions and sustain the real economic development, according to Greg Gibb, Co-Chairman and CEO of Lufax .

According to Gibb, big data and AI financial management can increase market transparency, and as such the financial institutions could render investors with more pertinent services, and assist their clients to diversify investment risk, improve operation efficiency for financial institutions and sustain the real economic development. Gibb made the comments on November 4, in a keynote speech at the 2nd Annual Conference on “The Chinese Era of Digital Finance” at the Institute of Digital Finance, Peking University, where he specifically analyzed the financial impact of big data and AI.

Gibb pointed out that big data and AI have great impact on the financial sector, For example, they keep institutions to understand the credit standing of individual borrower from multiple perspectives so that a speedy judgement can be made.

“It only takes a few minutes or even seconds to make decision on loan, which in turn will increase the loaning opportunity for each borrower,” Gibb said.

AI and big data will lead the market to a higher level of transparency and standardization. Therefore, financial institutions could have a faster understanding on corporations, including market changes within the respective industry, corporate position and cash flow status, etc., according to Gibb.

Big Data and AI can also help the platform to better understand the specific needs of the investors in order that a better choice of products can be arranged.

“We found that the accuracy of the traditional (questionnaire) method of assessing the customers’ need is relatively low. In the past few years, we found that the data from the clients’ end, including their answers to a few psychological issues, we can grasp even more understanding of their ability to withstand risk,” Gibb said, adding, “Therefore, in the future, not only that AI and big data can enable us to attain a thorough understanding of our clients and companies from the asset end, but also enable us to know if the investors are suitable participants of the market and which investment products are most appropriate from the investment end.”

“The development on big data and AI will lead to the emerging of many new product portfolios for clients to invest in diversified sectors; or if adopted dynamically, clients’ fund can be allocated to diversified areas, with relevant market trends taken into consideration in order to reduce overall investment risk and to increase overall investment return,” Gibb added.

The growing popularity of the US Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) in recent years has served as evidence of the trend. ETF was originally a passive investment tool, while with the development of big data, it has been transformed into a more active and less costly way of investment. ETF had been gradually replacing the largest fund market.

The future development of big data and AI will also have a major impact on matching mechanism.

“If there are clear rating standards on the asset end and lots of automatic investment tools with detailed understanding of individual investor, the market can actually achieve automatic matching,” Gibb said.

The automatic matching mechanism can greatly reduce labor costs as well as financial costs and bring about inclusion in financial services.

“In the past five years, we think the internet has only exerted its influence on channel extension, but big data will affect the whole financial market in all aspects in the next five years. Firstly, AI and big data will enhance market transparency and standardization and support development in real economy; secondly, it can help investors to attain more diversified investment strategies, and clients can attain higher returns. This is a relatively big help to the society as a whole, yet a great challenge for the financial sector in itself,” Gibb said.

Gibb also put forward that there could be induced-risk coming along with big data and AI. Firstly, short-term accuracy does not guarantee the long-term one; secondly, as large number of transactions will be assigned to computerized automation mechanism, this can bring different problems.

“We cannot conclude that large data and AI must necessarily be good. We must be careful in controlling risk,” Gibb added.

One of the first opera houses of Anatolia was built in 1912 by French contractors in Trabzon. Opera house architecture was designed by an Italian architect in accordance with the European art-Noveau art movement of that period. It was built near the Meydan park at the city center of Trabzon. The local Greek Pontus population had organized the construction financing. The opera building could house 1000 audience and operated as opera theater. The Greek families migrated to Greece in year 1922 in accordance with Turkish Greece population exchange agreement. Now we have no documentation about opera, we have only verbal pale memoirs from the elderly.

Between 1922 and 1935, this beautiful stone building was used as a venue for public performance events. In 1937, a local businessman initiated the commercial activity as “Summer” Cinema. In 1958, the municipal authorities demolished in the magnificent stone building within two weeks with the intention to open a greater road from the square to seaside Tangent road. That place has been empty until today.

Administrators who are even quite distant to the art of opera, still want to have an opera house in their city. Because, like the winners of the hotel stars, the opera house earns more credibility in the marketing fair-conference evaluation for the city. An opera house is an additional criterion in selecting a site for the Olympics, fairs, or conferences.

Istanbul has the Kadikoy Süreyya, Beşiktaş Fulya, Bakırköy Leyla Gencer Opera locations. The new Atatürk Cultural Center (AKM) will be reconstructed by 2019 elections. There are the State Opera House and the Ostim Leyla Gencer Opera House in Ankara. There are six different opera houses in Izmir, including Alhambra.

But the Trabzon Opera building is no longer. The magnificent image stands just in black and white sepia photos. The front facade resembles Izmir’s Alhambra Opera. From time to time, in the printed media, as well as on the internet pages, the Trabzon Opera House is mentioned. The Opera building was used as cinema hall until 1958. Then there was an instant demolition. Elderly immigrant people who migrated from Trabzon to North America have it in their memories as a distant dream. Pontus Heritage Libraries in Greece may have some logbook documentations.

Can this gorgeous stone building be rebuilt? What happened here between 1912-1922? Who played? What opera groups came, what was staged? Which artists were there? What did they do? We do not know anything.

The Trabzon Opera Days were held on April 18-21-23, 2017 in the Hasan Saka Hall of the Black Sea Technical University Cultural Congress Center. The program covered “Lend me a Tenor” musical by Ken Ludwig, Harem Ballet, and Nasrettin Hodja Children’s Opera.

A NATO defense ministers meeting that took place in Brussels on November, 8-9, resulted in the new and very important decisions for the future of Europe.

Speaking at a meeting, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said it is vital that European roads, ports, bridges and rail networks are able to carry tanks and heavy military equipment. Stoltenberg also added that NATO countries have agreed to cooperate to improve civil infrastructure objects to make them usable for military needs. What does it mean in practice for Europe in general and for the Baltic States in particular?

Lithuanian authorities, for example, will for sure try to attract NATO attention to the capabilities of its largest sea port – Klaipėda. As it is well known, that Klaipėda is one of the few ice-free ports in northernmost Europe, and the largest in Lithuania. It serves as a port of call for cruise ships as well as freight transport. The port was always an important gateway of trade between East and West. But times have changed. The gateway is open now only for the West. The East day by day refuses services because EU economic sanctions against Russia that Lithuania actively supports have caused Moscow response – redirection of its traffic to other ports.

The more so Russian Ministry of Transport has declared that the redirection of Belarusian oil products from the Baltic ports to Russian ones will begin already in 2017.
Lithuanian government has to seek new partners to raise money in order to support Klaipėda port experiencing difficulties due to loss of Russian and Belarus transit.

Lithuanian government supposed to propose NATO the more active use of its largest port for NATO military purposes. Evidently that is the easiest way to cope with the economic problems by means of somebody else. As usual the authorities do not think about the consequences of such steps. The Baltic States have firmly established themselves as the most begging countries in Europe. Every new step in their foreign policy worsens image of States as the independent units on the international arena. The more so they continue to teases a Russian bear that will see in Klaipėda’s militarization the serious threat to its security.

The image of main potential victim of Russia doesn’t make Lithuania stronger in the eyes of large political players and the time will come when nobody will take Lithuania as a self-sufficient partner. Making Klaipėda a military port Lithuania puts an end to any possibility to return Russian and Belarus goods to the port.

NATO promises new roads, bridges, new railway networks, airports and sea ports but do not warn about new wave of misunderstanding and increasing security risks in the region.

The story of the Chinese economy is truly miraculous – how this nation of over 1 billion people transformed itself into the mega-global powerhouse Belt and Road Initiative, also known as the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road development strategy, proposed by China’s paramount leader Xi Jinping that focuses on connectivity and cooperation between Eurasian countries, primarily the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”), the land-based Silk Road Economic Belt (“SREB”), and the oceanic Maritime Silk Road (“MSR”).

The strategy underlines China’s push to take a larger role in global affairs with a China-centered trading network.

In the past few years, the focuses were mainly on infrastructure investment, construction materials, railway and highway, automobile, real estate, power grid, and iron and steel.

However, while China spent the better part of the past 50 years as a relatively closed society, it has now recently flowered to bloom and is now actively engaging with the West as well as with Africa and South America to expand its influence and engage in project finance and loans, flush with billions in cash, ready to take on the world.

Ironically, the United States is going in the opposite trajectory, adopting a more protectionist and closed-off society, like Britain’s Brexit phenomenon, after having spent the past 50 years openly engaging with the world, but now retreating into the shadows of “America-First” philosophy, focusing on taking control of its own economy and people.

This of course is paving the way for a Chinese-dominated global society, which can be both good and bad for global society.

Even though the Chinese are poised to take on the world as its economic global leader, there are still many things that they can learn from the United States:

(1) The rule of law;
(2) checks and balances within government;
(3) an end to dynastic wealth transfer and uber-oligarchy society;
(4) tolerance of different races, religions, viewpoints, and creeds;
(5) independence in starting and building business;
(6) healthy skepticism of government; and
(7) the spirit of ingenuity and invention.

China can also learn a great deal from America when it comes to placing human rights and civil liberties at the forefront of their culture, but this can also prove to be disastrous as Americans are currently experiencing a distinct balkanization of its people hitherto never seen before, with different factions of society at each other’s throats on a seemingly endless and daily basis – blacks versus whites, women versus men, gays versus straight, muslims versus jews versus christians, and other myriad social problems such as epidemic opioid addiction, breakdown of the nuclear family, sexually transmitted disease, and wide scale poverty.

Things aren’t helped when it seems that the rich newly emerging oligarchs in America seem to be actively fomenting and funding America’s recently visible deep fractures in society on behalf of their foreign brethren in international high-level business and banking.

This was the major reason China closed itself off in the first place, healing itself and licking its chops after the colonial plundering of its wealth and society by the Europeans, British, Japanese, Germans, Russians, French, and Portuguese.

China continued to be divided up into these spheres until the United States, which had no sphere of influence, grew alarmed at the possibility of its businessmen being excluded from Chinese markets.

In 1899, Secretary of State John Hay asked the major powers to agree to a policy of equal trading privileges. In 1900, several powers agreed to the U.S.-backed scheme, giving rise to the “Open Door” policy, denoting freedom of commercial access and non-annexation of Chinese territory. In any event, it was in the European powers’ interest to have a weak but independent Chinese government. The privileges of the Europeans in China were guaranteed in the form of treaties with the Qing government. In the event that the Qing government totally collapsed, each power risked losing the privileges that it already had negotiated.

The erosion of Chinese sovereignty and seizures of land from Chinese by foreigners contributed to a spectacular anti-foreign outbreak rebellion in June 1900, when the “Boxers” (“the society of righteous and harmonious fists”) attacked foreigners around Beijing. The Imperial Court was divided into anti-foreign and pro-foreign factions.

Extraterritorial jurisdiction was abandoned by the United Kingdom and the United States in 1943. Chiang Kai-shek forced the French to hand over all their concessions back to China control after World War II. Foreign political control over leased parts of China ended with the incorporation of Hong Kong and the small Portuguese territory of Macau into the People’s Republic of China in 1997 and 1999 respectively.

China then closed off behind its Communist Iron Curtain, and the rest is history.

America’s pre-occupation and entanglement in foreign wars and the idiotic self-defeating “war on terrorism” after September 11, 2001 exhausted both its economy and its people, until the clamor grew so loud that the people began to rebel and demanded that its doors be closed to immigration and foreign entanglements.

Enter President Donald Trump who rose to power based on these American sentiments demanding that the doors be closed and that focus be paid to its own people and societal problems.

Now with the recent meeting by and between Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping in November 2017, no starker contrast could be shown – and the roles of both super global powers have been dramatically reversed – one side protectionist and cautious (United States) and the other engaged and poised to take on the world (China).

However, just like China can learn from the United States, the exact opposite is also true. America can also greatly learn from China in:

(1) focusing on educating its people and encouraging study, rather than just having fun drinking, doing drugs, and having promiscuous sex without respite;
(2) encouraging strong family values and the nuclear family unit, as this fosters stronger, more balanced children and citizens, while warding away dependency on the state;
(3) curtailing organized and systemic corruption by jailing and punishing those business and government leaders who enrich themselves and their coffers at the expense of the populace;
(4) limiting addictions to social media, mindless video games, and brain rotting entertainment fanfare;
(5) zero tolerance policy for addictions of any kind;
(6) encouraging hard industrious work and focus on the self and family;
(7) avoiding stupid foreign wars, colonial behavior, and entanglements with other nations’ internecine conflicts and policies, and focusing on building and strengthening the nation itself;
(8) encouraging and fostering responsible mature behavior, rather than abject and self-destructive social stupidity;
(9) patriotism and love of country above all else.

It is important that China and the USA meet somewhere in the middle, and learn to cross-pollinate to cooperate with one another, and lead the inevitable global community into the future, supporting and encouraging each other as they go, without encroaching on or offending one another as time passes down through the centuries.

Notwithstanding political animosity between Centre and Chief Minister of West Bengal Mamata Banerjee, the state has a distinct advantage to become pivot to Modi’s Act East policy. Its geographical proximity to eight states of North East and four nations (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal and Myanmar) opens up ample opportunities to become the gateway to East and South East Asia. Its land proximity to North East can act a potential axis  to North East – Myanmar connectivity, which emerged a new dimension of Indo – Pacific outreach after Myanmar attained full democracy in November 2016.

Myanmar is the gateway to ASEAN. It is the only nation in ASEAN that has both sea and road borders with India, covering 1,643 kilometer. Analysts consider that West Bengal can act as Indian Silk Road to Myanmar, and then to ASEAN.

West Bengal has unique advantage to become a lever to ASEAN connectivity and other East Asian countries by virtue of its economic potential and industrialization. It can catalyze Bengal land for economic and business opportunities between India and ASEAN and other Asian countries. In the wake of China loosing cost competitiveness, resulting the business enterprisers looking for alternatives, West Bengal can provide a propitious land to establish a strong foundation for global value chain (GVC) manufacturing operations between India and ASEAN.

GVC is an unique system to take the advantage of low cost production at multinational level. According to World Bank’s “Global Value Chain Report”, GVC provides opportunities for developing countries to diversify their exports and intensify integrity into global economy. With the rise in GVC model in manufacturing practices, which are component based, world honchos are in search for low cost producing nations and have the advantage of close geographical proximity. The developing countries can produce a slot under GVC, without having to produce a complete and final product. As a result, the developing countries can export mostly manufacturing value –added products. This helped the developing countries to leverage their rapid productivity growth and employment generation, the World Bank report said.

West Bengal, which is considered to be one of the lowest in the cost competitiveness manufacturing place in India and having the advantage of geographical proximity, can act an ideal place for GVC partnerships for businesses in ASEAN and other Asian countries. Like developing countries, West Bengal can offer an unique opportunity to be the hub for exports to ASEAN and other Asian countries in the east for their entrepreneurs, who dependent on multinational GVC operations for manufacturing.
Further, GVC operations can unleash more leg up for low cost manufacturing if the nations in the GVC network are engaged in FTAs.

Japan has been the frontrunner in utilizing the GVC network in ASEAN and other Asian countries to reap the advantage of low cost production. Toyota’s Asian car model is a case in point for successful GVC operations in ASEAN and India. Toyota Motor Company established multinational GVC network for production of strategic components for cars in ASEAN and India. It established diesel press parts and axle manufacturing facilities in Thailand, manual transmission (medium type) and switches in Philippine, engine computer in Malaysia, gasoline engine and door rock in Indonesia and manual transmission (large type) in India  in Bangalore).

One of the attractions for the Japanese company to establish multinational GVC network in ASEAN was AFTA (Asian Free Trade Association). It was launched in 1992 with free and preferential tariff for trade among the ASEAN – 10 countries.

On the similar perception, West Bengal can also be portrayed an important partner for GVC network in ASEAN and other East Asian countries. West Bengal qualified for both low cost competitiveness and low cost logistic operations, having the advantages of geographical proximity, particularly the land connectivity.

In addition, entrepreneurs in ASEAN can reap the benefits of duty preferences, locating their production units in West Bengal, under India- ASEAN FTA arrangements
West Bengal continues to reel under the fever of languishing industrialization despite the Communist government was uprooted six years ago. The initial euphoria of the investors to invest in the State faded, even though not abandoned. Political adversary engulfed the State’s potency for industrialization and the hey day has become a distant future for the State. Given the lackluster situation, West Bengal warrants alignment with ASEAN countries through GVC for revitalization of industrialization. Production of electronic and automobile components are suited for GVC applicability.

Had Tata’s Nano car project in Singur fructified , the industrial map of West Bengal would have been different by now. Till the situation like Tata’s Nano project resurrect, West Bengal’s good days for industrialization depend upon GVC network with ASEAN and East Asian countries.

According to Economic Survey of West Bengal, the State is ahead of many states in establishing strong small scale sector base . And, one of the requirements for GVC partnership is that the it should belong to SMEs (Small and Medium Scale Enterprise) , as it is producing a slot of the final product. In this perspectives, West Bengal can prove an ideal place for manufacturing as Supporting Industry base for the industries in ASEAN.

Besides, West Bengal has a distinct advantage to become a trading hub for India to export to East and South East Asia. Here again, the geographical proximity to Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar spur ample opportunities for trading with India’s neighbors. The road connectivity provides enough potential for border trade with these countries. With low cost logistic, border trade unleashes greater opportunities to augment trade with neighboring countries. A larger part of trade with these countries is through border trade. West Bengal is the main entry route for border trade with these countries. Besides, huge volume of unofficial trade flows through West Bengal borders.

Kolkata and Siliguri can serve the main hubs for exporting to these countries across the borders. They can pitch for major inventories and wholesale trading hubs for border trade.

Given the potential of West Bengal, the State can serve India’s Rotterdam for warehousing. The State government should develop SMEs who can take part in GVC manufacturing and infrastructure for warehousing facilities.

In summing up, the verdict of people of West Bengal’s people to support Mamata for second term was to perk up the State’s economic health and generate more employment. In this perspective, the state’s natural advantages should be exploited for revitalization of industrialization.

A few months ago, Pakistan successfully managed to secure the membership of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) which is, doubtlessly, a measureable accomplishment of Pakistan. Credit must be given to the drivers of Pakistan’s foreign policy because this membership is significant achievement of Pakistan owing to the multitude of reasons.

However, Pakistan has much more to achieve via SCO platform because this membership has not only strengthened the regional position of Pakistan but has also opened up the various avenues of liabilities for Pakistan. Therefore, this achievement is required to be capitalized further as frequently quoted “With great powers come great responsibilities”.

SCO membership is significant triumph for Pakistan for number of reasons. Pakistan and China are already enjoying the amicable relations in almost all spheres of affairs especially in economics. China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is the landmark economic project which is being materialized and taking this mutual relationship to the heights. China is leading the Shanghai Club and Pakistan’s inclusion in this club is the remarkable addition to Pak-China relations.

Besides, Eurasian countries were not spotted up earlier on Pakistan’s radar for economic ventures at larger level. This membership may provide an opportunity for Pakistan to enhance the trade volume and to launch the economic projects with Eurasian countries. This success is also being considered as economic success because through this membership, Pakistan is getting back on the right economic track. Along with that, Pakistan may boost the cooperation in the fields of transportation and tourism as these fields are still untapped in Pakistan. Eurasian countries are also considered rich for tourism. Therefore, there is a wider space for joint ventures in tourism.

The fact also implies the significance of SCO-membership achievement that certain countries who were attempting to diplomatically isolate Pakistan have got clear message that they will not bear fruit in this regard. Pakistan’s inclusion in SCO was the extension of arms by member-states which explicitly illustrate the diplomatic strength of Pakistan. Moreover, India was also included in Shanghai Club and Pakistan may sort out the bilateral issues by utilizing the SCO forum. Pakistan flew in parallel with India in foreign policy paradigm and secured the membership that also notify the importance of achievement.

However, this achievement brought the major liabilities with it. Pakistan is, now, ascribed of major roles to perform. Speaking at a briefing in Beijing on June 1, spokesperson of Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Hua Chunying said that China hoped Pakistan and India would improve bilateral relations after becoming the full members of SCO. “We hope that Pakistan and India will inject new impetus to the development of SCO.”

Pakistan must share its counter-terrorism experience with SCO member-states, especially Russia and the Central Asian states, for whom ‘terrorism, extremism and separatism’ have become an imminent threat. Such sharing on the part of Pakistan may boost its position in SCO. Undoubtedly, sharing of this experience might be the most refined impetus to the development of SCO. The Member-states, with help of Pakistan, may propel to build a regional structure to counter the rising terrorism in which Pakistan may assume the leading role owing to its vast counter-terrorism exposure.

When it comes to the cultural world, Pakistan has more to do than India in SCO. Pakistan is enjoying the diversity of socio-culture emanating from domestic diverse socio-ethnic structure. Pakistan may offer the exchange cultural ventures to deepen the ties with member-states, particularly with Eurasian belt.

As far as global scenario is concerned, SCO is eight member-states with two of its member are permanent members of United Nation Security Council and fourth members are the nuclear power countries. SCO even can influence the global order with these potential member states. Regional order and peace is so less to achieve. SCO can ensure long-lasting peace and stability in the region by making joint efforts. Pakistan must endeavor to lead such efforts.

Pakistan should establish an institute devoted to formulate the policies of role attributed to member-states. Furthermore, institute can work out to propose different initiatives for Pakistan that may play critical role. Pakistan can advance itself in club by utilizing those initiatives that may serve the region in terms of peace and prosperity. Expanding the role of SCO, Pakistan and member states may also work for peace in Afghanistan. In short, by securing the membership, Pakistan ascribed itself with greater responsibilities and it must be looking forward to fulfill these responsibilities with epitome standards.

*Baber Ali Bhatti, associated with Strategic Vision Institute (SVI), a think-tank based in Islamabad.

“My family’s water well has dried up,” 18-year-old Surkh Gul said.

“Ours too,” echoed 13-year-old Inaam.

A distressed Surkh Gul lamented, “We have to fetch water from the public well along the main road, but that water is muddy, not fit for drinking. I get bottled water for my two-year-old daughter. At least someone in the family should stay healthy.”

Inaam chipped in, “Fortunately, for now, the water that we fetch from a nearby mosque is clean.”

A U.S. and Afghan Geological Survey of Kabul Basin’s water resources found that about half of the shallow groundwater supply wells could become dry by 2050 due to declining recharge and stream-flows under projected climate change.

For years, the Danish Committee for Aid to Afghan Refugees has also highlighted this water crisis to the Afghan government.

But, the U.S./NATO/Afghanistan coalition and mainstream media have been so occupied with the business of a failed ‘war on terror’ that basic human development and needs are glossed over or ignored.

Because of worsening security, Surkh Gul’s husband and in-laws left Afghanistan to seek asylum in Europe, abandoning her and her daughter in Kabul. Surkh Gul can’t find any job. She stopped schooling when she got married, and though she re-enrolled herself in school this year, she couldn’t attend classes on many days. “I have to take care of my daughter and find some income sewing ‘odds and ends’ for people in the neighbourhood.”

It’s no wonder that on some days, she feels like she’s going mad. Sometimes, when she visits us, we can tell she’s stressed and moody: she speaks in edgy bursts, her voice is harsh and her eyes are restless, underlined by tear stains.

“Last year, the 28-metre-deep well in the house we rented dried up. The rich landlord hired well-diggers, whose cranes and shafts are everywhere these days. They dug 70 metres below ground to reach the dropping water table,” Zekerullah recounted. As such, Zekerullah had immediately understood the threat which an oil pipeline poses to the water resources of the Standing Rock community. On behalf of the Afghan Peace Volunteers, he sent a video message in solidarity with Standing Rock’s ‘water protectors’. “The oil companies and the U.S. government are just thinking about money,” Zekerullah concluded.

Other than token words, little is being done to address climate change or to save the people of Kabul from running out of a basic requirement of life, water. Instead, to extract profitable minerals like copper, the elite are ready to compromise on water protection.

Trump had suggested that Afghanistan’s vast mineral wealth can be a good justification for the continued U.S. war. He was in discussion with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, ex-World Bank staff about this war-mineral business opportunity.

In 2013, the Alliance for the Restoration of Cultural Heritage and an Afghan resident ‘requested’ for an investigation of the World Bank’s management, oversight and funding of the copper mine at Mes Aynak just outside of Kabul. Supported by 110,000 Afghan signatories, the ‘requesters’ stated that the World Bank’s negligence “in not ensuring that environmental safeguards are in place, imminently endangers the health of the population living there, the quantity and safety of their water supply and (…) the Kabul River….”. The mine will cause ‘’heavy losses’’ to community members and to the culture and history of Afghanistan.

A Panel evaluated the ‘Request’ and concluded that it “does not recommend an investigation” of the World Bank.

We have ample evidence of the lack of transparency and integrity in such enterprise in many parts of the world. In the recently leaked 13.4 million documents called the ‘Paradise Papers’, Glencore, a huge Anglo-Swiss mining and commodity trading company involved in copper and other mining in conflict-ridden DR Congo, had made a loan to a corrupt Israeli billionaire middle man with close ties to the DR Congo government, asking him to negotiate for mining rights.

The eyes of potential investors and benefactors, corporations and governments alike, are fixed on ‘profit’, not on the potentially disastrous pollution and depletion of the water supply to Mes Aynak and Kabul residents! This does not auger well for Surkh Gul, Inaam, the estimated 6 million residents of Kabul.

Crises like these have roots in our capitalistic belief that a ‘bottom-line’ policy of generating ‘profit and growth’, private or government, is good for a country’s economy, and that this would benefit everyone. But math, science, evidence and experience prove that this predatory ‘profit’ is inequitably directed to the pockets of the ‘1%’, many of whom are corrupt, leaving the vast majority of people deprived even of their basic human needs. Such profit is often secured from wars, and from exploiting Mother Earth and Nature. Wars have destroyed many irrigation and water retention systems. Only 2% of Afghanistan is forested, her trees extensively cut down through logging.

Kabul’s life-threatening water crisis will not illicit any action unless we dismantle our oligarchic practices and understand that when fellow human beings like Surkh Gul and Inaam don’t have access to water, each of us will hurt too, if not now, then eventually. We, Mother Nature and the human family, are all related.

We can empathize, just as Inaam did with villagers in Zambia, whose drinking water, rivers, streams and underground aquifers have been contaminated by a London-listed copper mine. Inaam remembers the photos or turbid water he saw in the nonviolence class at the Borderfree Street Kids School he attends.

I asked Inaam why governments and big businesses don’t respond to such images and human tragedies.

Inaam answered, “Because they’re only concerned about their own profit. They never think for the people.”

I thought, “Don’t I have a responsibility to create a kinder and fairer world for children like Inaam and Surkh Gul’s daughter to live in?”

I fear for the decent survival of Afghans, our Earth and the human family, as we have become so attracted to ‘profit’ that we mistake it for ‘progress’. Such ‘profit and progress’ has no respect for science or life, so it may very well lead to our species’ eventual extinction. Stephen Hawking warns us that we may need to vacate to another planet in the next 100 years. More than 15,000 scientists have warned us that our current ways of living could destroy us.

If our ‘thinking as usual’ and ‘business as usual’ continue, we will leave no historical traces at Mes Aynak or Kabul except for mining and digging machines, in a parched desert of war ruins.

Surkh Gul, her daughter and Inaam will have to flee for their lives, but where to, on our warming and warring Earth?

Something very strange is going on in Saudi Politics.

The heir apparent of the monarchy, Muhammad bin Salman, has jailed his own cousins and others influential people in the kingdom in what the regime describes as an anti-corruption crackdown. In a kingdom where personal fortune and national wealth means the same thing, this war on corruption is hard to understand, especially in the context where there are hardly any rules governing the conduct of members of royal family.

But this is not the only war which Muhammad bin Salman has opened up. Even since he has assumed position of importance, he is conducting a brutal campaign of state terror in Yemen, where thousands of women and children have died or are starving to death. He recently orchestrated the resignation of the Saudi vassal, Saad Hariri, as the prime minister of Lebanon, a move in which the Saudi hand became apparent as the announcement was made on a Saudi allied television and in Saudi Arabia. In between all this, he tried to reduce Qatar as his appendage much like Bahrain but then Qatar resisted and clearly the Saudi blockade against the tiny country has evaporated with the deluge of support which Qatar received.

Even in the case of the war in Syria, the prince has not been successful in dislodging Asad from power, partly because of the support that the Asad regime received from Russia and Iran. All in all therefore, all of the prince’s strategic overtures have ended up in failures. If the motive of all this was to break the Shia influence, then it has roundly failed. Iran is now perhaps even more powerful than it was before and it will take the Saudis many more years to silence its arch-rival.

Events in Lebanon all point to the fact that the stage is being set up for countering Iran and forcing it to go to war. In its pursuit of blind hatred towards the Shias, the Saudis are even considering an alliance with the state of Israel to bomb parts of Lebanon which have Hizbullah influence. If true, then this will surely force Iran to retaliate in ways which can be other than diplomatic. In the meantime, during the proxy war between Saudis and the Iranians, common Muslims have been suffering from Yemen to Syria and Qatar to Bahrain.

This was coming for a while. The Saudi establishment wanted powerful allies to put their war architecture in place. That exercise has been going on for some time. The visit of Jared Kushner followed by Donald Trump to Saudi capital must be read as part of the design to put together that architecture. After having sold war machines worth billions of dollars, the American establishment was all praise for the Saudis, calling them a beacon of stability in the Middle East. After all, who cares for war crimes in Yemen and Syria, who talks about the illegal invasion of Bahrain by Saudi forces when billions of dollars are involved? Who cares when the same Trump called out the Saudis as sponsors of terrorism when he was running for the presidency? All is forgotten over a good business deal. In fact, Trump’s attempt to dismantle the Iran nuclear deal which was put together by various countries should also be understood as his part of the bargain where he is supposed to project Iran as the great Satan.

In return, the Americans wanted some progressive looking statements from the new prince. And he did make them: talking about giving women the right to drive, for instance. A media blitzkrieg followed that announcement. As if, all of a sudden, the word had discovered a new messiah in him, someone who would change Saudi Arabia from a medieval horror to a new enlightened despotism. But the other observations made by the prince in the same press conference of business leaders exposed his motive. He argued and perhaps rightly so that Saudi Arabia needs to move ahead because 30% of its population was young. But his analysis as to why the country is struck in the morass gave away his pretensions that he was serious about effecting a real change in Saudi society and polity. Sounding out all the right notes about a new generation which expects the society to change but then quickly getting round and saying all the problems which beset the country are because of the Iranian influence is too much.

The Iranians did have their revolution which threw out the monarchy and while there can be hundred things wrong with it, Iranian government was and continues to remain an expression of popular will unlike Saudi Arabia which still boasts of being a divinely ordained monarchy. It is an old saying that if we want to change something, then first we need to look inwards. It is highly hypocritical of Saudi Arabia not to look inwards and blame its ills on Shiite Iran.

As commentators have pointed out, the prince should have started with the chief ideologue of the Saudi monarchy: Mohammad Ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab. It is Wahhabism and the theology of Abdul Wahhab’s ideological mentor Ibn Taimiyya which is responsible for much which is wrong with the Saudi society today. Their teachings being patronised by the House of Saud has led to the repression of women and the minority Shia population within Saudi Arabia. Moreover, it is the same ideology which has produced so many terrorists not just within the Saudi society but all over the world. Jihadism is after all an offshoot of the Wahhabi ideology.

Not content with being so backward and medieval in terms of their religious outlook, the Saudis exported this nefarious ideology to other parts of the world, often making it a part of their diplomatic outreach to much of the Muslim world. At times, even aids to poor Muslim countries were dependent on their acceptance of this pernicious worldview.

This ideology which considers that those opposed to or having different interpretation should be put to the sword is the state ideology of Saudi Arabia. Any criticism of the past or the present has to factor in this pervasive ideology within Saudi Arabia and its export abroad. In not doing so, the prince was trying to fool the world. And it will be the Saudis and other Muslims who will pray the price of this foolishness.

*Arshad Alam is a columnist with www.NewAgeIslam.com, where this article was published.

Despite all the ways Russian firms and officials have of minimizing unemployment – cutting hours, not paying workers and simply lying – independent Moscow economic experts say that the condition of the economy is now so dire that unemployment may double to ten percent by the beginning of next year.

Anna Pestevera of Kommersant reports that these cuts are likely because it is at the end of the year that companies compile their earnings and losses for the year and make plans for the year ahead, including for the new range of sanctions that the United States is set to impose on February 2 (kommersant.ru/doc/3466194?tw).

Alena Vladimirskaya of the Anti-Slavery Project said that major reductions “from five to fifteen percent” are now expected in companies in various branches as a result of the changing economic situation. “Traditionally,” she adds, “reductions in force take place when organizations sum up their financial results,” something that happens from December through March.

Georgy Dzagurov of Penny Lane Realty says cutbacks are likely among workers like Uber and other taxi drivers but now among those in the IT sector. Irina Rys of Lanta Bank says they will occur in firms doing business abroad who can tell that their activities are likely to decline in the new year.

And Sergey Vikulin, director of the Raschini Fashion House, says that as economic conditions have deteriorated, managers are looking to weed out people who are not being as productive as needed for their companies to survive.

Hong Kong’s chief executive Carrie Lam has been criticized for citing her Catholic faith during her lukewarm response on how she feels about the territory winning the rights to host the 2022 Gay Games.

Lam was asked in an off-the-record event organized on Oct. 31 by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club if she was pleased that the bid was successful.

According to HKFP, Lam told diplomats that she had “noted” the news.

The online media also quoted sources saying that Lam claimed that Hong Kong was still divided on the issue of same-sex marriage and went on to cite her Catholic faith.

Peter Lewis, the journalist from RTHK radio, who asked her the question during the event wrote on Facebook that Lam’s effort to try and use her faith as an excuse is not good enough.

“It’s fine if you are the pope (and even he has more tolerant views on the subject than some members of the current HK administration) but as head of government, laws should not be implemented on the basis of religious beliefs, especially when the HK SAR and China is not even a Christian country and both have no established religion,” Lewis wrote.

Karen Chan Pui In, a layperson, also said that mixing up the games with the issue of same-sex marriage policy was irrelevant.

“Because the games is to promote communion, inclusiveness and acceptance of multiculturalism rather than narrowly concentrating on the issue of homosexuality,” she said.

Hong Kong will be the first Asian city to host the Gay Games.

By Ramesh Jaura

When world leaders approved ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, as an outcome document of the United Nations summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development two years ago, they designated it as “a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity” that “also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom”.

The document, which includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets, is based on a consensus emerging from protracted discussions within the Open Working Group. It meticulously avoids words such as “a world free of nuclear weapons”.

However, the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly includes a Declaration, which explains “the interlinkages and integrated nature” of SDGs: “Sustainable development cannot be realized without peace and security; and peace and security will be at risk without sustainable development.” The Peace, Security and Development Nexus was stressed by a meeting organised by the UN jointly with the African Union on September 28-29, 2017.

That nexus was boldly highlighted by the International Symposium organized by the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Promotion of Integral Human Development on November 10-11 on Prospects for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons and for Integral Disarmament.

In a Vatican communique, Cardinal Peter Turkson, prefect of the dicastery, said the event “responds to the priorities of Pope Francis to take action for world peace and to use the resources of creation for a sustainable development and to improve the quality of life for all, individuals and countries, without discrimination.”

The Dicastery brought together religious leaders and representatives of civil society, officials of States and international organizations, eminent academics and Nobel Laureates and students, to highlight the linkages between integral disarmament and integral development, and to explore the links among development, disarmament and peace. In doing so, it was acting on the maxim of Pope Francis: “Everything is connected.”

At a time when North Korea and the United States continue to flex their nuclear muscles, Pope Francis told participants on November 10 that “in the light of the complex political challenges of the current international scene, marked as it is by a climate of instability and conflict,” the prospect of a world free of nuclear weapons might “appear increasingly remote.”

“Indeed the escalation of the arms race continues unabated, and the price of modernizing and developing weaponry, not only nuclear weapons, represents a considerable expense for nations.

“As a result, the real priorities facing our human family, such as the fight against poverty, the promotion of peace, the undertaking of educational, ecological and health care projects, and the development of human rights, are relegated to second place,” said the pontiff stressing the Peace, Security and Development Nexus.

Nuclear weapons reflect a “mentality of fear,” he added, while insisting that an effective and inclusive effort nevertheless can lead to the dismantling of arsenals. “International relations cannot be held captive to military force, mutual intimidation, and the parading of stockpiles of arms,” the Pope continued. “Weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, create nothing but a false sense of security. They cannot constitute the basis for peaceful coexistence between members of the human family, which must rather be inspired by an ethics of solidarity.”

In this context, he referred to the Hibakusha, the survivors of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, together with other victims of nuclear testing such as those on the Marshall Islands.

The Pope regretted that nuclear technologies are spreading, also through digital communications, and the instruments of international law have not prevented new states from joining those already in possession of nuclear weapons. “The resulting scenarios are deeply disturbing if we consider the challenges of contemporary geopolitics, like terrorism or asymmetric warfare,” he added.

“At the same time, a healthy realism continues to shine a light of hope on our unruly world.” In this context, he referred to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which was “mainly the result of a ‘humanitarian initiative’ sponsored by a significant alliance between civil society, states, international organizations, churches, academics and groups of experts.

The Vatican conference was the first major global gathering on disarmament since 122 countries signed a new UN treaty on July 7 that calls for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. The Vatican is one of three signatories that have already ratified the agreement. None of the nuclear powers and no NATO members have signed on to the Treaty.

Cardinal Turkson in his opening remarks said, while the desire for peace, security and stability is one of the deepest longings of the human heart, “and it is understandable that people, moved by fear, desperately demand more safety and security,” the way to respond to such a demand is not through the proliferation of arms of mass destruction in general, nor through nuclear weapons in particular. “This not only increases the problem of security, but also reduces nations’ financial capabilities to invest in matters that are conducive to long-term peace, such as health, the creation of jobs, or the caring for the environment.”

He recalled that the nations of the world, emerging from World War II, resolved in the Charter of the United Nations, “to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources” (Article 26).

Cardinal Turkson also drew attention to an alarming analysis of military spending former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower, a five-star general of World War II, provided in his “Chance for Peace” speech in 1953, delivered shortly after the death of the Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

“The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities or two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population or two fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people… This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. […] Is there no other way the world may live?”

Pointing to modern day contradictions, 2006 Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus said: “We are fortunate enough to have been born in an age of great possibilities – an age of amazing technologies, of great wealth, and of limitless human potential. Now the solutions to many of our world’s pressing problems – including problems like hunger, poverty, and disease that have plagued humankind since before the dawn of history – are within reach.

“But the same technologies that can transform human civilization for the better, can also eliminate us all. This brings us to the subject of this conference at which we have assembled. The nuclear arms build up and race can lead us to a human disaster of proportions that we cannot imagine. It is time we work collectively stop this race. Just as we want to create a world without poverty we would also want to create a world without nuclear weapons, where the only place where they could be found is in a museum.”

Calling a spade a spade, Alexei Arbatov, formerly a member of the State Duma and deputy chairman of the Duma Defense Committee, and now a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences said: “Whether nuclear deterrence in the past had saved the world or not – it will not provide such assurance in the future. Human civilization, which is sustaining its security with the ability to exterminate itself during several hours of nuclear warfare, does not deserve the title of ‘civilization’. It is high time to find an alternative insurance.”

Izumi Nakamitsu, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs United Nations (UNODA), focussed her remarks on November 10 “on the role of the disarmament and non-proliferation regime as a diplomatic pillar that reinforces international peace and security.”

Disarmament was a founding principle of the United Nations, Nakamitsu said. It is reflected in both the Charter, which calls for “the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources” and for a system to regulate armaments, and the very first General Assembly resolution, which sought to eliminate “atomic weapons and all other weapons adaptable to mass destruction”.

Hiromasa Ikeda, Vice President of Soka Gakkai International (SGI), a lay Buddhist organization based in Tokyo, stressed in his remarks on November 11 the need to “help people awaken from the mad nightmare” of nuclear deterrence, by which the world’s citizens are held hostage and “peace” is maintained by a balance of terror.

“We need to awaken people from the present nightmare with the bright lights of a new vision. Concepts such as integral disarmament, human security and human development all indicate the orientation for such a vision,” Ikeda said.

“Within the disarmament field, humanitarian concerns have provided such orientation. They have helped introduce a human perspective to the security discourse. The humanitarian discourse has led to an explicit recognition within the international community of the impermissible nature of nuclear weapons, contributing importantly to the realization of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW),” he continued.

“Underlying the humanitarian discourse has been the assertion that the nuclear weapons issue is not just a question of international law, but has a distinctly ethical and moral dimension,” Ikeda asserted.

“Here the role played by the world’s religious traditions has been noteworthy,” said Ikeda, adding that Pope Francis issued a statement to both the 2014 Vienna Conference and the TPNW negotiating conference held in New York this year, positively impacting the debate. “For its part, the SGI actively participated in the initiative by Faith Communities Concerned about Nuclear Weapons, which issued a total of eight joint statements to the UN General Assembly, the NPT Review Conference and TPNW negotiating conference, urging the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons.”

“The Preamble of the TPNW recognizes the efforts made by religious leaders,” Ikeda pointed out. “This is a clear acknowledgement that the voices raising ethical or moral concerns have been an indispensable element in the international discourse over the years.”

Ikeda said: “Within the SGI, we have given sustained consideration to the kind of approach that would most effectively engage a broad-based public constituency in the debate on nuclear weapons abolition. The concept we developed is expressed in the phrase, ‘Everything You Treasure’.”

The Vatican said in a 12-point preliminary document summarising the highlights of the conference: “Everything is connected; and everyone is connected. Together we can rid the world of nuclear weapons, invest in integral human development, and build peace.” It added: “These preliminary conclusions do not represent the end of the conversation, but rather the beginning of future dialogue and action.”

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Encyclical Letter written by Pope Paul VI on the topic of “the development of peoples”. Pope Francis told the Vatican conference participants that the letter released in March 1967 had set forth the notion of integral human development and proposed it as “the new name of peace”.

Pope Paul VI stated succinctly: “Development cannot be restricted to economic growth alone. To be authentic, it must be integral; it must foster the development of each man and of the whole man.”

Speed money, grease payments and tea money are among the ways to describe those facilitating payments given to expedite procedures or services.

It is a form of petty corruption that is widespread and generally tolerated — and one that must be combated, says Professor Antonio Argandoña, holder of the CaixaBank Chair of Corporate Social Responsibility.

In his chapter in the book The Handbook of Business and Corruption: Cross-Sectoral Experiences (Emerald, 2017), Argandoña analyzes the causes and effects of these types of payments and identifies milestones in the fight against them.

No Matter How It’s Disguised, It’s Still Corruption

Facilitating payments are often considered “unavoidable, inconsequential, inexpensive and even beneficial, insofar as they facilitate necessary procedures or services,” Argandoña explains. And they are distinct from other types of potentially suspicious payments given to maintain a business-friendly climate (such as gifts or favors), as they are from bribes, hefty commissions or extortion aimed at influencing business decisions.

With facilitating payments, the person or company that requires the service or procedure has the right to whatever they are requesting. They do not seek to gain something illegal or tip a discretionary decision in their favor. In fact, the civil servant receiving the payment does not usually have such power, but can make the process more difficult, expensive or drawn out.

Paying to make sure this doesn’t happen is a common practice in some countries and situations, and inaction is often justified on the grounds that the costs of eradicating petty corruption far exceed the benefits.

Undesirable Consequences

Nevertheless, the comprehensive analysis of the causes and effects of facilitating payments reveals pernicious effects that go far beyond the specific act:

• They perpetuate a culture of corruption and noncompliance with the law.

• They are damaging to those who do not play the game.

• They hurt the reputation of the countries and administrations that tolerate them.

• They slow down administration and make it less efficient, with high, arbitrary and irregular transaction costs that undermine public trust in institutions and administrative procedures.

• They are often integrated within more or less formal networks, which include cascaded payments, conspiracies of silence and mafia-like activities or acts of corruption on a larger scale.

• Despite generally involving small sums, they make a noticeable impact on economic efficiency, especially in the long run and in aggregate terms.
  

From Tolerated to Prosecuted

Greater awareness of these effects and their impact on corporate reputations have led to more targeted legislative and private initiatives to detect, prosecute and denounce the practice.

Hence, what in recent decades was seen as a local issue, revolving around the inefficiency of the public sector, is now considered an international problem. And as such it calls for coordinated global responses.

Instead of tolerating petty corruption, the author stresses the need to continue developing effective public and private strategies to prevent and punish such practices.

Methodology, Very Briefly

This chapter defines “facilitating payments” and draws from the academic literature to analyze the approach being used to combat them at the global level.

American football has sunk to a new low with officials investigating the prospect of hosting a “fake” tournament to rival the most watched sporting event on the planet.

It is just over one month since the USA’s men’s team were bundled out of contention for the 2018 World Cup finals in Russia when they were stunned by a series of results that conspired to dump them from a qualification spot in the CONCACAF zone.

The US were beaten 2-1 by Trinidad and Tobago on the final match day in the Northern and Central American qualification region, allowing Honduras and Panama to leap into qualification spots.

Honduras’ fourth-place finish was enough to earn a final play-off against Australia, while Panama secured direct qualification and the United States crashed and burned.

The disaster comes after Fox Sports in the United States paid an astonishing $500 million for the rights on the 2018 and 2022 events.

Before America’s Russia 2018 hopes were dashed, Fox Sports President Eric Shanks joked America failing to qualify for FIFA’s showpiece “would (be) like $200 million flushed down the toilet”.

It has got real ugly, real quick.

The scale of the disaster at least partly explains the desperate decision from US Soccer to investigate the sad prospect of staging a tournament to rival the World Cup — made up of the teams that failed to secure a spot in the final list of 32 teams heading to Russia next year.

If you don’t laugh, you’ll cry.

It could always be worse of course. Can you even imagine the Italian Football Federation (Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio) officials being invited to compete in a tournament made up of World Cup qualification losers?

That’s what’s on the cards for Italy, the Netherlands, Chile, Ireland and the many other high-profile countries that failed to earn a spot at the Russia 2018 table.

Australia could also be invited if the Socceroos fail to progress past Honduras in Wednesday night’s crunch playoff second-leg at ANZ Stadium in Sydney.

The US Soccer Federation (USSF) is looking into the possibility of hosting the tournament on the eve of the World Cup made up of unlucky qualification losers.

USSF has confirmed reports it’s marketing arm (Soccer United Marketing) is putting together a plan which includes bribes to “persuade” FIFA and the individual national football governing bodies interested in participating, into agreeing to the concept.

There remains a long list of potential deal-breakers to the concept, with European leagues unlikely to be willing to let their stars miss matches to play in a made-up tournament on the eve of the World Cup, beginning in June next year.

FIFA is reportedly also likely to shoot down any proposal which may distract from its showpiece in Russia.

The idea that American football has sunk so low to be desperate enough to consider staging such a tournament has left football commentators in the USA red faced for their country’s standing on football’s global stage.

(RFE/RL) — U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions says he may soon appoint a special counsel to investigate an Obama-era deal in which a Russian company bought a Canadian firm that owned about 20 percent of U.S. uranium supplies.

In testimony on November 14, Sessions told the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee that he would decide quickly on whether a special investigation is merited.

“We will comply with the law with regard to special-prosecutor appointments,” and make a decision “without political influence,” Sessions said.

President Donald Trump and some Republicans in Congress have called on the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to look into the 2010 sale of a controlling stake in Canada’s Uranium One to Russia’s Rosatom state nuclear company.

Trump last month complained that the news media had ignored the uranium deal while focusing on whether any of his campaign aides colluded with Russia during last year’s presidential campaign.

“That’s your real Russia story,” Trump said. “Not a story where they talk about collusion and there was none.”

The department informed the committee on November 13 that Sessions had directed senior federal prosecutors to look into allegations that Hillary Clinton — Trump’s Democratic opponent in last year’s presidential election — and the Clinton Foundation family charity benefited from the 2010 transaction.

Uranium One had mines and owned land in a number of U.S. states that altogether accounted for about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity.

The deal was reached while Clinton was secretary of state. Some Republicans have charged that Clinton approved the deal after the foundation received a $145 million donation from executives involved in the uranium deal.

The State Department was one of nine federal agencies and a number of additional independent federal and state regulators that had to sign off on the deal.

Democrats say that several committees of Congress have already examined the deal closely and found that Clinton had very little say in the transaction and that President Barack Obama, not Clinton, was the only person who could have vetoed it.

Moreover, since Russia doesn’t have the legal right to export uranium from the United States, analysts have said its main goal in acquiring the Canadian firm was likely to gain access to its uranium assets in Kazakhstan.

Democrats said that the timing of the department’s move to reopen a probe into the years-old Uranium One deal suggests it is intended to distract attention away from the ongoing special-counsel investigation into possible connections between Trump’s campaign and Russian officials.

The move was announced as Sessions, a key adviser during Trump’s campaign, was testifying under tough questioning from Judiciary Committee Democrats about meetings and contacts with Russian officials he knew about during the campaign.

“When everything is going wrong, what’s the Republican response? Investigate Hillary! Familiar refrain,” tweeted Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

“If the [attorney general] bends to pressure from President Trump and his allies, and appoints a special counsel to investigate Trump’s vanquished rival, it could spell the end of the [Department of Justice] as an independent institution,” Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Relations Committee, said on Twitter.