Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73742 articles
Browse latest View live

World e-Waste Rises 8 Percent By Weight In Two Years As Incomes Rise, Prices Fall

$
0
0

A new report on global e-waste – discarded products with a battery or plug – shows a staggering 44.7 million metric tonnes (Mt) generated in 2016 – up 3.3 Mt or 8% from 2014.

In 2016 the world generated e-waste – everything from end-of-life refrigerators and television sets to solar panels, mobile phones and computers – equal in weight to almost nine Great Pyramids of Giza, 4,500 Eiffel Towers, or 1.23 million fully loaded 18-wheel 40-ton trucks, enough to form a line from New York to Bangkok and back.

Experts foresee a further 17% increase – to 52.2 million metric tonnes of e-waste by 2021, – the fastest growing part of the world’s domestic waste stream.

The Global E-waste Monitor 2017, launched today, is a collaborative effort of the United Nations University (UNU), represented through its Sustainable Cycles (SCYCLE) Programme hosted by UNU’s Vice-Rectorate in Europe, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA).

Only 20% of 2016’s e-waste is documented to have been collected and recycled despite rich deposits of gold, silver, copper, platinum, palladium and other high value recoverable materials. The conservatively estimated value of recoverable materials in last year’s e-waste was US $55 billion, which is more than the 2016 Gross Domestic Product of most countries in the world.

About 4% of 2016’s e-waste is known to have been thrown into landfills; 76% or 34.1 Mt likely ended up incinerated, in landfills, recycled in informal (backyard) operations or remain stored in our households.

On a per capita basis, the report shows a rising trend as well.

Falling prices now make electronic and electrical devices affordable for most people worldwide while encouraging early equipment replacement or new acquisitions in wealthier countries.

As a result, the average worldwide per capita e-waste generated was 6.1 kilograms in 2016, up 5% from 5.8 kg in 2014.

The highest per capita e-waste generators (at 17.3 kilograms per inhabitant) were Australia, New Zealand and the other the nations of Oceania, with only 6% formally collected and recycled.

Europe (including Russia) is the second largest generator of e-waste per inhabitant with an average of 16.6 kg per inhabitant. However, Europe has the highest collection rate (35%).

The Americas generates 11.6 kg per inhabitant and collects only 17%, comparable to the collection rate in Asia (15%). However, at 4.2 kg per inhabitant, Asia generates only about one third of America’s e-waste per capita.

Africa, meanwhile, generates 1.9 kg per inhabitant, with little information available on its collection rate.

The 3 EEE categories that contribute the most to e-waste are also growing fastest

It is expected that the following three EEE categories, which already constitute 75% of global e-waste by weight (33.6 Mt of 44.7 Mt), will also see the fastest growth:

Small equipment (ie. vacuum cleaners, microwaves, ventilation equipment, toasters, electric kettles, electric shavers, scales, calculators, radio sets, video cameras, electrical and electronic toys, small electrical and electronic tools, small medical devices, small monitoring and control instruments). In 2016: 16.8 Mt generated, with an annual growth rate of 4 % per year to 2020

Large equipment (ie. washing machines, clothes dryers, dish-washing machines, electric stoves, large printing machines, copying equipment, photovoltaic panels). In 2016: 9.2 Mt generated, with an annual growth of 4 % per year to 2020

Temperature exchange equipment (ie. refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, heat pumps). In 2016: 7.6 Mt generated, with an annual growth of 6 % per year to 2020

Expected to grow less quickly by weight due to miniaturization:

Small IT and telecommunication equipment (ie mobile phones, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), pocket calculators, routers, personal computers, printers, telephones). In 2016: 3.9 Mt generated, with an annual growth of 2 % per year to 2020

Little growth expected:

Lamps (ie. fluorescent lamps, high intensity discharge lamps, LED lamps). In 2016: 0.7 Mt generated, with an annual growth rate of 1 % per year to 2020

Expected to decline by weight in years to come:

Screens (ie. televisions, monitors, laptops, notebooks, tablets), with heavy CRT screens being replaced with flat panel displays. In 2016: 6.6 Mt generated, with an annual decline of 3 % per year to 2020

Each product within the six e-waste categories has a different lifetime profile, which means that each category has different waste quantities, economic values, and potential environmental and health impacts if recycled inappropriately. Consequently, the collection and logistical processes and recycling technology differ for each category. European studies show consumers’ attitudes when disposing of types of electrical and electronic equipment also vary.

Fastest growth of EEE sales in developing countries

Higher disposable incomes in many developing countries is evidenced in sales of electronic and electrical equipment. EEE sales in general showed rapid growth from 2000 to 2016, with the fastest growth recorded in emerging economies with low Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).

  • Countries with the highest Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) averaged 1.6% annual EEE growth
  • Countries with high PPP averaged 5.2% annual growth
  • Countries with mid PPP averaged 13% annual growth
  • Countries with low PPP averaged 23% annual growth
  • Countries with the lowest PPP averaged 15% annual growth

More mobile-cellular subscriptions than people on Earth

The report notes several trends and factors fuelling the global growth of information and communication-related electrical and electronic equipment, most notably the increasing number of applications and services in such areas as health, education, government, entertainment, and commerce, delivered at increasingly high speeds attracting more users to a growing number of networks.

The report notes that:

  • With a population of 7.4 billion, the world now has 7.7 billion mobile-cellular subscriptions. More than 8 in 10 people on Earth are covered by a mobile broadband signal
  • Some 3.6 billion people – close to half the world’s population (45.9%) now use the Internet, up from 20.5% in 2007. Roughly half of humanity has a computer and Internet access at home. Some 48% of households have a computer (up from 30.2% in 2007) and 54% have Internet access (up from 23% in 2007)
  • In addition to basic prepaid mobile cellular services and handsets becoming more affordable worldwide, prices are falling for many other types of equipment such as computers, peripheral equipment, TVs, laptops and printers
  • With the recent conversion from analogue to digital broadcasting, many TV sets were unnecessarily trashed. While analogue televisions can receive digital signals simply by using a digital box, many consumers chose to upgrade, leaving the world with mountains of discarded Carbon-Ray-Tube TVs
  • By 2016 in the United States, most people owned a phone; every second person owned a desktop computer; close to 25% also owned an e-book reader. Between 2012 and 2015, the proportion of adult Americans who owned a smartphone, a computer, and a tablet doubled to 36%
  • Between 2013 and 2015, smartphone users started to delay their phone upgrades but the average smartphone lifecycle in the USA, China, and major EU economies does not typically exceed one and a half to two years
  • The weight of all the chargers for mobile phones, laptops et cetera, now produced each year is estimated at 1 million tons, highlighting the need to make power adapters compatible with more devices, following universal standards developed and promoted by the ITU.

Needed: More recycling and global harmonized e-waste measurement and standards

The report calls for stepped up global efforts to better design of components in electrical and electronic equipment to facilitate reuse and recycling (EEE), greater capture and recycling of old (EEE), and better tracking of e-waste and the resource recovery process.

Encouragingly, more countries are adopting e-waste legislation, the report says. Today 66% of the world’s people, living in 67 countries, are covered by national e-waste management laws (up from 44% in 61 countries in 2014), an increase caused mainly by India’s adoption of legislation last year.

Still, only 41 countries quantify their e-waste generation and recycling streams officially and “the fate of a large majority of e-waste (34.1 of 44.7 Mt) is simply unknown.”

Notes the report: “Having a national e-waste management regime in place does not always correspond to enforcement and setting the measurable collection and recycling targets essential for effective policies.”

In countries where there is no national e-waste legislation in place, e-waste is likely treated as any other waste, leading to a high risk that toxic elements in e-waste are improperly managed, sometimes scavenged for e.g. copper or gold by informal enterprises without proper worker protections.

Meanwhile, the type of e-waste covered by legislation differs considerably throughout the world, highlighting the need for harmonization.

“Without better statistics on e-waste, and closing the main data gaps of current e-waste statistics, it is impossible to measure the effectiveness of existing and new legislation to show any potential improvements in the future” the report says.

Such data is also needed to better track illegal international movements of e-waste from richer to poor regions in the world.


Armenia One Of 10 Most Popular Travel Searches Among UAE Residents

$
0
0

Armenia was one of the 10 most popular travel searches among the residents of the United Arab Emirates, Google revealed in its annual list of most searched terms in 2017.

The search giant’s algorithm, which has revealed the most popular travel searches for the year, indicates that France is the most popular travel destination search among the UAE residents, followed by Turkey, Egypt, Greece, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Croatia, Armenia, Montenegro and Cambodia – in that order, The National says.

The list offers a fascinating insight into current travel trends in the UAE and the travel habits of leisure travelers who are influenced by a combination of global trends, geography and the expansion of networks by the world’s best airlines, which offer a choice of direct routes to all these countries.

According to the data, this year saw an increase in the number of new multi-country trips to the South Caucasus region, allowing travelers to take in, for example, both Armenia and Georgia in one cultural tour.

How Well Will Flu Vaccine Work This Winter?

$
0
0

The most effective way of preventing seasonal influenza is to be vaccinated each autumn. The reason that people are encouraged to get vaccinated annually is because flu virus can cause severe disease. One of the problems is that there are many different flu viruses circulating around the world and which ones circulate changes over time.

Each year, pharmaceutical companies produce vaccines against the flu viruses predicted to be dominant during the upcoming flu season. How well the vaccine works varies from year to year because of how much the circulating flu viruses evolve between the time that the vaccine is produced and the beginning of flu season. For this reason, in most years, the flu vaccine is 50 to 70 percent effective.

During the Australian 2017 flu season, the flu vaccine was only 10 percent effective because of the emergence of variant H3N2 that was “vaccine resistant”.

Scientists from UTMB and Biomed Protection have published this prediction almost two years in advance demonstrating that the prediction of flu vaccine efficacy may be possible. In their study, they predicted which H3N2 variants would become “vaccine resistant”, and this prediction has been now confirmed during the 2017 Australian flu season.

“It’s important every year that we monitor the Australian flu season because the following flu season in the U.S. and Europe could be similar,” said Slobodan Paessler, UTMB professor in the department of pathology. “When the flu vaccine isn’t terribly effective in Australia, U.S. and European health authorities prepare for a potentially severe flu season.”

In a new paper published in F1000 Research, Paessler and Veljko Velkovic, co-founder of Biomed Protection, used the same bioinformatics platform to determine how well the current seasonal flu vaccine might protect against H3N2 flu viruses isolated in the U.S and Australia between July and September 2017. Virus gene sequences from currently circulating strains were obtained from the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Database.

The results published suggest that the current flu vaccine will work better during the 2018 U.S. flu season than the 2017 Australian flu season. In Australia, there were two groups of H3N2 viruses circulating, and the vaccine was projected to protect against the minority of viruses but not the majority viruses. In the U.S., the vaccine is projected to be effective against the majority H3N2 flu viruses so far.

On December 8, The U.S. Centers for Disease Control laboratory has published a report showing that the flu vaccine is similar to the flu viruses afflicting people in the U.S. this season, suggesting that the flu vaccine should offer similar protection as past seasons.

“Nevertheless, this situation could change if any of the viruses from the minority group, which is not covered by the vaccine, were to become dominant,” said Paessler and Veljkovic. “For this reason, its very important that we closely monitor the evolution of the H3N2 flu viruses throughout the 2018 U.S. flu season.”

Recently, lack of effectiveness in the flu vaccine has been linked to a specific mutation generated during the vaccine production process. Paessler and Veljkovic analyzed the effect of the mutation and found that it is shifting the vaccine virus from the majority group to the minority group, potentially decreasing the vaccine’s effectiveness.

Robert Reich: The Meaning Of Doug Jones’s Upset Victory – OpEd

$
0
0

Common sense and decency have prevailed in Alabama. It was a vote not just against sexual abuse but also against racism and against those who would ride roughshod over our democratic institutions.

Yes, the margin was small, and Roy Moore was the worst candidate Republicans could possibly have dredged up. But remember, this is Alabama – where Democrats are hated, where minority votes are suppressed, where Trump won overwhelmingly last November.

In the most Trumpian of all states, Trump has been delivered the most powerful repudiation to date. First it was Virginia; now, Alabama. I’d like to think this is a precursor of what’s to come next November – the beginning of the end of the nightmare.

Alabama demonstrated that America is better than Trump, and better than House and Senate Republicans who have jumped into the swamp Trump has created. Congratulations, Doug Jones. Congratulations, Alabama. Congratulations, America.

Moscow Threatens To Block Twitter Despite Saying It Views Trump’s Tweets As Official US Policy – OpEd

$
0
0

Roskomnadzor, the Russian government agency which oversees the media, has warned Twitter that it would block the service if it did not remove the account of the Open Russia organization from its lists within a few days (openrussia.org/notes/717247/).

The action follows the agency’s blocking of Open Russia sites as being in violation of Russian law, an action that the Open Russia site has already posted guidance on how to get around this ban (openrussia.org/notes/717233/), yet another case of the offense-defense competition between those who want to control the Internet and those opposed to that.

But this Moscow action is intriguing as it comes on the heels of a declaration by Vladimir Putin’s press secretary that the Kremlin views US President Donald Trump’s tweets official statements of American policy and provides regular summaries of them to the Kremlin leader (tass.ru/politika/4804815 and themoscowtimes.com/news/kremlin-considers-trumps-tweets-as-official-statements-says-putin-spokesman-59913).

“Everything which is published on [Trump’s] official Twitter account,” Dmitry Peskov said, “is considered in Moscow to be an official statement.” The spokesman, however, declined to provide any assessment of Trump’s tweets.

Islam As The Last Word In Monotheism – OpEd

$
0
0

By Abraham Kuyper*

Islam appeared suddenly, like a brilliant meteor, in seventh-century Arabia, and from Mecca it quickly began its miraculous victory march. This is one of the most difficult phenomena in world history to explain, especially from a psychological angle. The puzzling character of its rise has still not been fully unlocked. The growth of Christianity had been equally marvelous. In its fourth century of existence Christianity already had penetrated deep into the heart of Asia and had conquered all of Africa’s north coast and all of southern Europe. Across the entire extent of the once-mighty Roman Empire, it laid claim to spiritual dominion.

But how can this development over the course of four centuries possibly compare to the monumental triumph of Islam in less than one hundred years after the Hegira? With the exception of the greater part of Europe, Islam overran and subdued the same broad terrain of Asia and Africa, not only with its spiritual influence but with the scepter as well. It is all the more remarkable, especially in psychological terms, that whereas Christianity conquered a series of lower-standing religions, Islam was able to settle itself in country after country where the higher religion of the Cross had flourished in such surprising abundance.

Islam burst forth with a force that nothing could withstand. It drove out everything that stood before it. It cast aside the prevailing spirit and put the spirit of Islam in its place. So deep and fast was the stamp it impressed on the people it conquered that fourteen centuries later they still live in the spirit of Islam. They perpetuate its traditions and reject all other cultures out of hand, even those that are more advanced. Even today, where the railway line cuts through fields and the telegraph network spans broad acres and stretches along ancient roads, the Bedouin nomads and the settled population alike still show in form and essence the ancient unchanging stamp that the extraordinary son of Abdullah and Amina impressed, by the power of his personality, upon a small group of followers in Mecca in the seventh century.

By what magic did Muhammad radiate such an unparalleled charisma as to bring about this unprecedented turn in world history? That it was a deliberate act of deception is unthinkable. Charlatans live a lie; they cannot bring about more than a sham state of affairs for a brief time among a small circle of supporters. No doubt Muhammad was an ecstatic-visionary type, but the sudden flaring (and no less sudden dimming) of the visionary’s brilliance does not provide the power that rules the ages. There must have dwelt in the mind of Muhammad a spiritual power of the first order. And however it may have drawn support from factors of a lower order, this spiritual power was the driving force that gave rise to his creation and that still sustains it today. This power was undoubtedly his zealous and resilient call for monotheism.

True, he once had a moment of weakness in Mecca. To save his life he recited Surah 53 as it still reads today: “Do you see Allah and Uzza and Manat as the third? These are the exalted Garanit, on whose help you may rely.” This was a moment of weakness since, after all, Uzza and Manat were idols. But after that, Muhammad always preached, with uncompromising rigor, that Alla-ta-Allah, the god of the ancient Hanifs, is the only true God. And this Allah, the All-Merciful and All-Compassionate, he held up before his followers as the only object of worship. Religion is mightier than any other single factor in the course of our personal life and in the history of the nations because it stirs the deepest part of our being. Monotheism accomplishes this most powerfully because it roots all things in a single cause, propels all of life along a fixed line, and brings together the purpose of all things into a singular, exalted focus.

[With Muhammad] the courage to sever all ties with polytheism and everything connected with it seized hold of all of life, melted virtually all resistance in its radiant glow, and necessarily brought forth a whole new life-animating force. The bravery of such a heroic spirit awakens enthusiasm, and this lofty zeal carries the crowd—indeed, drags it along and enables it to accomplish things far beyond any ordinary measure of strength.

A net over all human existence

Yet even if the nerve of Muhammad’s strength lay in his profound conviction of the sinfulness of polytheism and in his robust confession of monotheism, spiritual power in itself would never have assured his triumph. Rather, he worked out his professed principle not so much by shrewd calculation; he did it as an expression of his personality in connection with his environment and the situation of the people at the time. This opened the way for his spiritual action. Muhammad did not put religion next to life. It was not a mystery consigned to the inner chamber. Rather, he was so deeply and idealistically consumed with the all-embracing, all-encompassing supremacy of Allah’s omnipotence that he stretched his confession of Allah as a net over all of human existence. Not just the personal but the domestic, social, and political domains of life came under the claims of his religion. To Muhammad, religion as a private matter was unthinkable.

Monotheism meant much more than simply the claim that no gods may be indulged next to Allah. It also entailed that no controlling or decisive power was even conceivable, whether beside or under Allah—neither in human will, nor in long-standing custom, nor in the power of the state. Allah alone ruled, and ruled all. The universe was a mighty timepiece which Allah had designed, that he had masterfully assembled, that he had wound up, and that he had set forth to run in accordance with a fixed rule.

Allah’s law and will alone determine life’s being and direction. And not just in the present; it had been so in the past and would be no different down to the most distant imaginable future. This conviction explains Muhammad’s connection to earlier revelations of monotheism. What he introduced was for him not a new religion. Nor was it simply a syncretistic blending of multiple existing religions. Allah had ruled all along, had always revealed his will, had asserted himself throughout history. But humanity had been unable to fathom the full mystery of Allah’s kingdom-rule all at once, so there had to be an always further-striding, ever-progressing revelation. Down through the ages the prophets had been the means to that end. They numbered in the thousands, but most were of little consequence; they were but sparks that had quickly flamed up and were just as quickly extinguished. Yet a few had been the leading and ruling instruments in the service of Allah. The line began with Adam. Then came Noah and Shem. Then above all, Abraham, and after Abraham, Moses, and after Moses, Jesus Christ. These all had not only testified for monotheism and defended Allah’s honor, but by their successive appearances constituted a chain of progressive revelations. Jesus stood as the final and—among those who preceded Muhammad—the highest revelation. But even though he was historically the ultimate and supreme revelation, he was only one of many prophets, alike in rank to Moses and his predecessors.

Therefore, even in Jesus the revelation of Allah was not complete. Did not the gospels themselves speak of another Comforter after Jesus? This final revelation of Allah was what had appeared in Muhammad. Muhammad consummated what began with Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. And even more, Muhammad constituted the final revelation. At the termination of all things, at the close of world history, there will no doubt be further appearances, greater revelation. But these will not belong to history, because history will have reached its conclusion. Until then—for the entire duration of our present life—there will be after Muhammad no further, no higher, no more complete revelation. What began with Adam—or Abraham if you wish—was a single process in which Muhammad was the grand finale. Thus all of faith comes down to two things: first, the confession that Allah governs all things, and second, that Allah gave his full and final revelation in Muhammad.

This commentary was excerpted from Chapter 6, “The Enigma of Islam” in On Islam by Abraham Kuyper (Lexham Press, Acton Institute, 2017). The book is available for purchase in the Acton Shop.

About the author:
*Abraham Kuyper
(1837-1920) is a significant figure in the history of the Netherlands and modern Protestant theology. A prolific intellectual, he founded a political party and a university, and served as the prime minister of the Netherlands (1901-1905).

Source:
This article was published by the Acton Institute

Islamic Nations Agree To Recognize East Jerusalem As Palestine Capital

$
0
0

Malaysia and Indonesia were among Islamic countries that declared Wednesday they were recognizing East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, while collectively condemning the United States for recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

At the end of an emergency meeting in Istanbul, the 57-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) issued a communiqué calling on member-states to “impose political and economic restrictions” on countries, officials, parliaments, companies and individuals recognizing the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The document did not detail how these restrictions might take shape.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement last week about Jerusalem was “a clear desertion” of his administration’s role as a peace broker in the region, the OIC said.

It also warned it would hold the United States responsible for any repercussions over failing to revoke the decision, as demanded by the OIC’s members in the communiqué.

“The OIC calls again on those states that have not as yet recognized the State of Palestine to do so promptly such as to consolidate the foundations of the two-state solution, for justice and international legitimacy to prevail,” OIC Secretary General Yousef Al-Othaimeen said, according to a news release from the inter-governmental body that represents the Muslim world.

‘Today, I am delivering’

Trump reversed decades of U.S. policy by officially recognizing Jerusalem Israel’s capital and saying his administration would begin a process of moving the American embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The move is expected to take years.

For decades, the status of Jerusalem – home to sites holy to Islam, Judaism and Christianity – has been a major obstacle to reaching a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Israel claims all of Jerusalem as its capital, while Palestinians see East Jerusalem as their future state capital. Muslims worldwide see the Al-Aqsa mosque, which sits on Judaism’s holiest site, the Temple Mount, as Islam’s third-holiest site.

Trump’s decision fulfilled a promise he made on the electoral campaign trail.

“I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,” the president said in a speech at the White House on Dec. 6. “While previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise, they failed to deliver. Today, I am delivering.”

Trump said his move was not intended to tip the scale in favor of Israel and that any deal involving the future of Jerusalem would have to be negotiated by the parties.

He insisted he was not taking a position on “any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders.”

Najib, Jokowi speak out

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak was among leaders who addressed the meeting in Turkey.

“The decision by the U.S. is a provocation and has serious consequences on the security of the region. It has inflamed the sentiments of the Palestinians and the Muslim Ummah [community] worldwide,” Najib said.

“We fear that this is a situation waiting to explode as tensions continue to escalate in the region,” Najib told fellow leaders and representatives of OIC countries, noting that unrest and protests had broken out across the Muslim world – including in his country – in response to Trump’s announcement last week.

He said his government condemned and “totally rejected the unilateral decision by the United States.”

“Such a move undermines all efforts toward finding a comprehensive, just and durable solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.”

Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo echoed Najib’s message.

“Once again, President Trump’s recognition is unacceptable and must be strongly condemned,” Jokowi said, according to a news release from his spokesman.

“Indonesia will accompany Palestine in its struggle. In every breath of Indonesian diplomacy, we have our side with the Palestinians,” Jokowi said.  “The OIC must expressly reject the unilateral recognition. The two-state solution is the only solution with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who supports Trump’s decision, said Wednesday that he was not impressed by the OIC’s communiqué, according to Agence France-Press (AFP).

“The Palestinians would do better by recognizing reality and acting in favor of peace and not extremism,” Netanyahu said.

“They should recognize another fact concerning Jerusalem: It is not only the capital of Israel, but we also maintain respect in Jerusalem for the freedom of worship for all religions, and we are the ones in the Middle East who do this like no one else,” he added.

Razlan Rashid in Kuala Lumpur and Zahara Tiba in Jakarta contributed to this report.

Christian Arabs In US Could Be Region’s Hidden Advantage – OpEd

$
0
0

When Donald Trump announced the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, he wasn’t just doing it to appease Israel’s government. He was doing it to appease a significant voter base in America, Evangelical Christians.

According to the Brookings Institute, more than 81 percent of Evangelical Christians voted for Trump and his recognition of Jerusalem as “Israel’s capital” and promise to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem plays into that support.

Yet the Arab world has failed to use its own ace in the hole, or hidden advantage, in America. That advantage is the growing population of Arab Christians who hold positions of influence at every level in politics and business.

Christian Arabs in America are an untapped resource that the Arab world should recognize, and then partner with.

The truth is that, when most Americans use the word “Arab,” they intermingle it with the word “Muslim.” Americans have been blinded to the existence of Christian Arabs.

In part, that blindness comes from a strategic Israeli campaign to falsely claim that they, more than the Arab world, champion the rights of Christians in the Holy Land.

This blindness also comes from the fact that Christian Arabs in America and in the Middle East are often excluded from Arab activities, which focus mostly on Muslim concerns.

Every attempt to elevate the issue of Christian Arab rights is marginalized and excluded from the Middle East and American Arab debate.

This issue goes beyond Evangelical Christians to encompass all Christians in America, who make up more than 70 percent of the population.

Mainstream American Christians support Israel not because history shows Israel has been good to Christians, but because most American Christians have no idea that among those Arabs being brutalized by Israel are Christians, too.

So why doesn’t the Arab world use that powerful affinity to lobby Americans to support Palestinian and Arab rights? Because politicians and pro-Israel activists, and even extremist Muslims, in America work hard to prevent Christian Arab voices from being heard.

The majority of Arabs who live in the US — 63 percent, according to the Arab American Institute — are Christian, yet why haven’t they mobilized as a voting bloc to lobby and influence American foreign policy to put a spotlight on Israel’s many human rights abuses?

Supporters of Israel have continued to block efforts to include the category of “Arab” in the US Census. The reason is simple. In America, you can dilute the power of ethnic groups by preventing them from knowing their true demographic strength.

Under US laws, ethnic and national groups identified in the Census receive many benefits, including financial support through grants to promote their culture and heritage. By preventing Arabs from being counted, they do not receive Federal support to build programs or campaigns to educate Americans about who the Arab people really are.

Secondly, politicians are elected to office from districts at many levels, which include Congress, state legislators and local county commissioners. These districts are defined in a large part by the presence of ethnic and national groups. If the Census recognizes a large concentration of one ethnic or national group in any area, Federal and local laws are compelled to keep that ethnic or national identity cohesive inside a voting district. The idea is to preserve and enhance the voting power of an ethnic group.

By excluding “Arab” from the Census, pro-Israel activists in America’s government are able to prevent concentrations of Arab populations from receiving financial and voting support. They know where we live but, without a census to verify it, they can divide our community and dilute our voting strength, thus squelching our voices.

Christian Arabs have a powerful voice that is untapped in America, but just how strong are American Arab Christians? Population estimates extrapolated from voting rosters show that there might be close to four million Arabs in America, although the official US Government estimate dilutes that to fewer than two million.

Population estimates also show there are 3.3 million Muslims in America. But, of that number, around 25 percent are actually Arab — the largest Muslim group in America is African American, followed by Asian American.

When you compare these two statistics, you can conclude that, of those who are Arab, the vast majority are Christian.

And most Christian Arabs will tell you without hesitation that, despite some issues, Muslims have been the biggest champions of Christian Arab rights.

So why don’t we use the Christian Arab American population as the spearhead of a communications campaign to convince Americans of the rights of Palestinians and the abuses taking places against Palestinian and Arab civilians in the Middle East?

Why is there no strong Christian Arab lobbying group? It’s a question we need to answer, if we hope to one day correct the American public’s misconceptions and lack of knowledge about Palestine, Islam and the Arab world.


Revisiting Dictatorship In Indonesia: The ‘Good Old Days’? – OpEd

$
0
0

By Endy Bayuni

The late Suharto has become something of a poster boy for leadership as the nation searches for a president who can effectively deliver the goods.

Photos of the smiling president, who ruled Indonesia between 1966-1998, appear everywhere, with the caption in Javanese “piye kabare, isih penak jamanku, tho?” (How are you, better in my era, wasn’t it?) – a reminder that, for some, life was so much better then. The Soeharto posters and memes have been going viral since the 2014 election and are still circulating now.

Suharto was a dictator, there is no doubt about it, though his supporters would claim that he was a noble one. But the point of the poster is that Indonesia had a leader who delivered the goods, something that no other president since then has been able to match, so his supporters claim.

Suharto, who ruled with an iron fist, did deliver justice, security and welfare, but it is debatable whether his successors have fared better or worse. Ruling the country for 32 years, he was bound to have delivered something, while his successors have been subject to periodic democratic elections and limited to ruling for no more than two five-year terms.

The bigger question, and this was one of the topics discussed at the recent Bali Civil Society and Media Forum, is whether democracy can deliver justice, security and welfare to the people, all the people.

Indonesia, now a democracy for nearly 20 years, albeit a struggling one, makes a good case study to answer this question, by comparing the ability of the two political systems in bringing greater prosperity to the people.

The track record of Indonesia since 1998 has not been bad, although perhaps underappreciated.

The economy has improved significantly, in terms of overall GDP and per-capita-income growth, and the government today provides many services such as free health care, 12-year compulsory free education, and cash assistance for the poor. Indonesia today is the 16th-largest economy in the world, and many predict that it will be in the top 10 by 2025 and top five by 2040.

We have a growing middle class, reflected by the number cellphones, cars and motorcycles, and a growing appetite for holidays, both at home and abroad.

And there is freedom, all kinds of freedom, something that distinguishes today’s era from that of Suharto’s. Why then do some people still feel that they miss Soeharto?

Perhaps they don’t really miss him, but they miss the certainty, the swift way decisions were made and the security he provided. They miss the effectiveness and efficiency that an authoritarian regime can deliver.

Democracy, unfortunately, is almost anything but.

Decisions are made through an arduous and cumbersome process, and the government is often mired in stagnation. Every single major decision has to undergo the democratic processes, meaning noisy public debates and endless deliberation by legislators.

We also have legislators who are good at grandstanding but ineffective in producing laws that reflect the aspirations of the people. In many ways, Soeharto’s regime produced some better laws because they did not go through the lengthy debates we see today.

On security, Indonesia faces challenges in ensuring protection for people who are attacked or persecuted because of their faith, race, sexual orientation, or even ideological leanings.

The attacks on the Shia and Ahmadiyya followers, the forced closures of places of worship, the recent attacks against people because of their leftist ideological leanings, and the return of anti-Chinese sentiments, reflect that freedom and the protection of freedom have been denied to some.

Suharto would not have tolerated any of this. But then, he would not have tolerated a lot of other things, including dissent and differences of opinion.

Populism, the hallmark of democracy and one way of getting elected, also means leaders addressing only popular issues but avoiding more fundamental problems.

These failings of democracy in Indonesia may have revived our memory of the “good old days” of Suharto (while forgetting the worse aspects of his regime), but they should not be used as a pretext for a return to authoritarianism.

Democracy in Indonesia is still a work in progress. We have been in this game for only 20 years, and it still has not been able to ensure justice, security and welfare for all.

Democracy, as the popular saying goes, is the worst form of government, except for all the others. The alternative, an authoritarian regime, may be swift and efficient. But if authoritarianism comes at the cost of our freedom, an absence of checks and balances and endemic corruption, then yes, give us democracy any time.

We just have to work harder, through the democratic process, to fix these problems. We have to have faith in democracy.

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

Banning Killer Robots Non-Conventional Way: Case For Preventive Arms Control – Analysis

$
0
0

By Alina Toporas*

Pressure is mounting for the UN to outlaw lethal autonomous weapons (LAWS) under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). Notwithstanding the letter signed by 116 Governmental Experts to the United Nations urging it to ban the development and use of LAWS and despite of the fact that the UK government has given various warnings regarding the possibility of terrorists using killer robots to launch deadly attacks around Europe, Russia has made it crystal clear that it will not sign any treaties forbidding their use giving multiple justifications supporting their stance.

Firstly, Russia argues that there is a heightened risk of putting in harm’s way the developing of capabilities from the civilian artificial intelligence sectors which could, in turn, deprive millions of people of the latest technological advancements. In this sense, Russian officials are arguing that it is inacceptable for the legal work on LAWS to ‘restrict the freedom to enjoy the benefits of autonomous technologies being the future of humankind’. Secondly, in a report by DefenseOne.com, the Russian Federation takes a more practical approach by identifying as the biggest obstacle in agreeing with the position adopted by the UN, the fact that not enough ‘working samples of such weapons systems’ are being made available for the military to assess its advantages and disadvantages.

Overall, it has become clear to policymakers and security analysts around the world that Russia’s hard-line position against the ban on LAWS by the UN, together with its actual manufacturing of these sorts of lethal weapons to be used in combat, shouldn’t come as a surprise. At many international forums in which Russian attendees from the government are present, the importance placed on the sovereignty of nations allowing them to ‘pursue their own political/military/economic course’  is stressed by Russian officials which could be used as a way of explaining Russia’s viewpoints on the legal LAWS debate. As unsurprising as that may appear, it is not to say that this highly pressing issue does not merit considerable attention in future high-level discussions.Bearing in mind Russia’s clear stance and the gravitas of the matter, it is imperative to discuss the ways in which we can employ arms control to regulate LAWS which are on the verge of earning the title of the 3rd Revolution in Military Affairs.

To state the obvious,traditional arms control treaties concerning new technologies are not always the panacea they are envisioned to be.As a case in point, Russia continued to use cluster munitions in the Syrian war blatantly disregarding the treaty on cluster munitions adopted in the UN. It goes without saying that these watershed machineries, such as the aforementioned cluster munitions or the LAWS, do not automatically presume supererogatory harm, as opposed to their elderly counterparts (i.e. nuclear weapons).

Given the unique character belonging to LAWS, regulating them requires an overhaul of the current international decision-making process we have in place by bringing to the fore nations from all across the economic spectrum in order for them to have a voice in drafting legislation, regardless of the level of new technology production in each country.Moreover,to further stress the ineffectiveness of arms control treaties, it has been argued that pre-emptive bans in the form of treaties are unlikely to maintain the pace of technological advancements which, in the long run, could even prove counterproductive to the fight against LAWS.

Having established that the (legal) pen is not always mightier than the sword, it’s time to considerthe possibility of soft law regulation through preventive arms control.This strategy encompasses two main action points. Firstly, a prospective scientific analysis of the properties LAWS are embedded with is mandatory in order to gain more intel on propagation, speed, effect and survivability. Secondly, a prospective operational analysis using simulation software and targeting the probable scope and usageof LAWS with an emphasis on abnormal employment and collateral effects is of equal importance in the proper application of a preventive arms control blueprint.

Likewise, it could prove instructive to add a reliable and transparent verification stage of LAWS in the mix. It should contain a high degree of intrusiveness by allowing access to LAWS at anytime and in all countries connected in any fashion with any of these machineries. Nevertheless, does this need for a very intrusive verification process reconcile with military’s stance on secrecy? It might not. The fear of accidentally revealing plans, motivations, technical properties and potential mechanical weaknesses which could be leveraged in enemy attacks might block inspectors in their verification quest.To counteract this, confidence-building measures should go alongside verification.Lastly, in order to ensure that standardised guidelines have not been disregarded, the observance of existing international law norms should also be part and parcel of the preventive arms control package.

Undoubtedly, we know that politics always precedes weapons, regardless of how advanced they are. Also, nobody wants to see slaughterbots running amok unabatedly. Consequently, the tenor of my argument has attempted to address LAWS by opening the scope of investigation on practical arms control policies and procedures catered for new technologies. As the old adage goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Accordingly, preventive arms control strategies can prove to be the elixirs the world has been searching for to the insecurities engendered by the destructiveness of LAWS. They themselves could represent that panacea that the UN has been attempting to find in their quest to ban killer robots which could also be incorporated in the negotiations with the Russian Federation in order to reach a mutually-beneficial agreement.

Part of this essay has been submitted for the Munich Security Conference 2018. 

About the author:
*Alina Toporas
is a recent Master of Science graduate in Global Crime, Justice and Security at the University of Edinburgh Law School. She has previously worked for the European Commission Representation in Scotland, the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA), the Romanian Embassy in Croatia and Hagar International (the Vietnamese branch), an international NGO that deals with the reintegration of victims of human trafficking. Alina Toporas is the winner of various international essay and article competitions on security themes, such as the one organised annually by the University of Houston in partnership with the Brookings Institute on the ‘use of military means as solution to today’s international and national political issues’. She is currently an active EuroPeer in the United Kingdom, working on spreading information on youth opportunities in the EU and creating an alternative for the Erasmus+ programme post-Brexit.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

When Police Kill White People – OpEd

$
0
0

On rare occasions there is some justice in this country. The white South Carolina police officer who shot Walter Scott in the back was convicted of murder and sentenced to a 20-year prison term by a federal judge. The outcome is altogether satisfactory but it is akin to a blue moon. In this country an average of three people are killed by the police every single day. Even when police are charged they are unlikely to be indicted and even then are almost always acquitted.

Just two days after the sentencing in the Scott case was announced the country was reminded of the random terrorism inflicted by law enforcement. In 2016 a white man named Daniel Shaver was killed by a police officer in Arizona and just as with Walter Scott, his murder was caught on video. Shaver had his hands raised, was clearly unarmed, but was still shot and killed by the officer who was acquitted by an Arizona jury.

Thanks to the work of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement we learned that a black person is killed by police, security and vigilantes once every 28 hours. On average there is a yearly tally of more than 1,000 deaths at the hands of American police. It turns out that at least one white person is also killed by the police on an average day, with a grim total of 574 in 2016 alone.

Shaver and other white people are collateral damage but the determination to keep black people under physical control has always had that effect. Black people are disproportionately the victims of police violence because the system demands it. Mass incarceration and brutality are not just flukes of history. They are the rawest forms of white supremacy and thrive because most white Americans want them to.

But an armed and deadly police force is by necessity a loose cannon. It can strike anyone, anywhere, and at any time. It cannot be kept under control. There is no way to ensure that the police will never stray outside of their mandate to brutalize black people. Shaver was not alone in his fate.

The Movement for Black Lives emerged in the wake of the killings of Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Tamir Rice. Black Lives Matter chapters were founded all over the world. The group succeeded in gaining attention and inspiring action. But the mass protest that brought it into being has largely disappeared.

That outcome is hardly surprising. For all of the attention it received, Black Lives Matter was a very apolitical organization. Its leaderless structure and the questionable politics of its founders meant that a precious moment was lost. They had to be pushed by Black Agenda Report and others to reject Democratic Party and other dubious endorsements. Hustlers like Deray McKesson used the popular struggle to make names for themselves and in so doing helped to kill off a righteous movement. The police killing spree and the impunity that goes with it continues unabated.

The jurors in the Shaver case were surely able to see that his shooting was not just unjustified. It was a cold blooded murder. They sided squarely with the police even though the evidence defied any sort of logic.

Convicting the killer cop would have created cognitive dissonance too great for them to bear. If police killing became a punishable offense, even for a white victim, they would have to examine the basis of allowing all police to carry guns. The United States is unique among the nations that considers it civilized to have cops armed to the teeth.

The imperative to control black bodies began during the period of enslavement, continued through the days of Jim Crow and even intensified when American legal apartheid ended. The vortex can catch white people too, but by and large their group is committed to maintaining their racist system. If their own people are occasional victims then so be it.

Black Agenda Report supports the demand for black community control of the police. It is obvious that black lives would be saved if the occupying force weren’t given carte blanche to murder, but other lives would be saved as well. That is the question that white America has to answer for. Are they so committed to the modern day slave patrol that they will allow no one justice, even those who look like them? For now the answer is yes. If white Americans truly believe that all lives matter they have a strange way of proving it.

Understanding The Colombian Peace Agreement Implementation: The Kroc Institute Report

$
0
0

It has been over a year since a peace agreement was signed between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Colombian government. What is the status report on its implementation? A newly released report from the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies may provide the answer.

By Lina María Jaramillo*

A year after a peace agreement was signed between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Colombian government, the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame released a special report highlighting the many advances, gaps and difficulties in the implementation process of one of the most comprehensive and innovative peace agreements in the history of peace processes around the world.[1]

Considering its vast experience in applying innovative methodologies – such as the Matrix Peace Accord Project (PAM) that applies a comparative analysis of peace processes around the world through the collection of quantitative and qualitative empirical data – [2] the FARC and the Colombian government have given the Kroc Institute a mandate to provide technical assistance, as well as to monitor and verify the implementation of the peace agreement.[3]

To monitor the implementation, the Kroc institute has identified 588 stipulations, clustered in 18 themes and 74 subthemes, contain all the compromises agreed by both parties across the six main chapters of the peace accord: land reform, political participation, the end of conflict, the problem of illicit drugs and its victims, truth and transitional justice, and the implementation and verification mechanisms of the peace agreement.

The research team established a coding scale between 0 and 3 to evaluate each stipulation in accordance with analysed and validated information gathered along this first year of implementation.

While a score of means there has not been any progress in implementation, a score of indicates that minimal actions have been implemented, a score of 2 means intermediate implementation on track to full implementation, and a score of indicates that there has been full implementation of the stipulation.

The main conclusions of this report highlight the following:

  • By the end of August, 251 stipulations in the peace agreement – some 45 per cent of its content – have been accompanied by implementation actions, while the remaining 307 stipulations – some 55 per cent – have not led to any implementation activities.
  • 17 per cent of the stipulations have been fully implemented while 22 per cent of the stipulations have been implemented at a very low level.
  • As far as short-term achievements, the report noted significant advances in matters such as disarmament, ceasefire, the implementation of verification mechanisms as well as some advances in normative regulations required to materialise several aspects of the peace agreements.
  • The report made an urgent call to both parties to: prioritise immediate actions in order to overcome some difficulties in some aspects of the peace agreement, such as the implementation of security and protection guarantees for social leaders, human right defenders and former combatants at the territorial level; [4] accelerate the normative and law processes that would sustain fundamental instruments of the agreement like the Special Jurisdiction for Peace bill; [5] create mechanisms to energise the peace agreement’s chapter on land reform; enforce decrees that would improve political participation in isolated regions, and; apply normative instruments that establish differentiated criminal treatment for small crop farmers for the illicit use of their crops.
  • The urgent implementation of a reintegration programme is mandatory along with all related instruments and mechanisms in order to ensure a real economic, political and social reintegration of all ex-combatants.
  • Other aspects of political participation, electoral reform, as well as mechanisms to improve the inclusion and effective participation of women, indigenous communities and victims, are defined as medium-term measures that need to be tackled.
  • There are also 246 stipulations that are considered long-term goals, and their achievement hinges on the effective implementation of short- and medium-term stipulations. With regards to these long-term goals, the report highlights certain concerns around issues such as land distribution, rural reform and the articulation of programmes for the substitution of illicit crops – all of which have shown little progress. Since these issues are directly related to the structural causes of conflict and violence in Colombia, it is imperative that the parties initiate some preventive measures to avoid a rise in violence and the establishment of new criminal organisations.

In a critical time where strong critics from various sectors around the peace process are reinforcing the polarised context in Colombia, the team at the Kroc Institute have made a call to the FARC, the government and Colombian civil society to maintain and strengthen the dialogue spaces that have been created in order to materialise all of their commitments in the peace agreement.

For more information, please refer to the full report (Spanish version) here: https://kroc.nd.edu/assets/257593/informe_kroc.pdf

*Lina María Jaramillo is Peace Insight’s Local Peacebuilding Expert for Colombia. Lina María is a political scientist with Master’s degrees in International Studies and International Development. For the past 8 years she has worked on projects related to peace, security and development issues and is currently with Oxfam as Knowledge Management Officer.

Footnotes

  1. Jessica Villamil Muños (23 November 2017), “’La paz no es hacer muchas cosas, sino construir legitimidad,’ Director Instituto Kroc,” El País Colombia
  2. For more information about the Peace Accords Matrix Project, click here.
  3. Renée LaReau (16 November 2017), “Colombian peace agreement progressing steadily, says Kroc Institute report,” Notre Dame News.
  4. The UN High Commission on Refugees (17 November 2017), “UNHCR concern at increasing murders of local leaders in Colombia,” UNHCR.
  5. RTT News (7 November 2017), “Colombia: UN urges Congress to approve Special Jurisdiction for peace,” Business Insider Inc.

This article was originally published by Insight on Conflict and is available by clicking here. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect those of TransConflict.

Mixed Signals For Spanish Reforms

$
0
0

Can Spain’s political leaders find enough common ground to push forward with needed economic policy reforms? This is a key question for 2017 and beyond, as economists watch for reform measures related to Spain’s labor market, financial system, tax policy and more.

“Growth and recovery appear to be well established with solid medium-term perspectives, but policy reform in most areas remains stalled or advancing only too slowly,” concludes the sixth edition of the Spanish Reform Monitor. The Reform Monitor is part of the SpanishReforms project, an initiative of IESE’s IESE’s Public-Private Sector Research Center (PPSRC) in conjunction with the savings-bank foundation Funcas.

Reasons for Optimism re: Economic Performance

In terms of the performance of the Spanish economy, the news is fairly good, if mixed, with minor improvements in the labor market and in competition and regulation.

There’s also stability in terms of Spain’s fiscal policy.

A Need for Fresh Reform Stimulus

However, when it comes to the evaluation of policies’ goals (i.e., alignment with international best-practices) and progress, traction is slipping. “The deterioration is more significant and virtually pervasive across the policy spectrum,” professors Xavier Vives and Ramon Xifré sum up. Policymakers should take note and keep up pressure to reform.

The lowest scores in the experts’ panel, on a scale of 0 to 10, are associated with progress and delivery on reforms in competition and regulation (2.8), the labor market (2.8), and fiscal policy and public administration (3.0). On labor, for example, professor Sara de la Rica notes that Spain has been adding about half a million jobs per year since 2015, but that “job polarization” has accelerated and long-term unemployment remains an issue.

Look also at Spain’s social security system, a key component of its welfare state that is under stress as the population ages. “Given the demographic projections, there is a clear need for urgent action,” Vives and Xifré declare, noting that the Social Security Reserve Fund used to pay for the pension system’s operating deficit has dwindled to less than a fifth of what it was back in 2012. Another key challenge for policymakers is the mounting debt in Spain’s autonomous regions. In 2017, for the first time, regions’ debt amounted to 25 percent of Spanish GDP.

However, the 2017 results reveal a bright spot. Spain’s financial system scores between 5 and 6 points for its performance, policy goals and progress (i.e., all three dimensions analyzed). “The situation and prospects of the Spanish financial system continued to improve towards the end of 2017,” professor Santiago Carbó, head of Financial Studies at Funcas, sums up.

The Origins of the Reform Monitor and a Look Ahead

It was back in 2010 that the PPSRC published 10 structural reforms Spain needed to overcome the crisis. In the same spirit, the PPSRC launched the SpanishReforms project in 2014 to track progress on the government’s reform agenda for a modernized economy.

Now, hold on for a bumpy ride. “When looking ahead, if uncertainty was a main theme in our last release — at the time the country had an acting government — it is even more central now…. The responsibility of political leaders and policymakers is now even more of the essence,” Vives and Xifré warn.

Methodology, Very Briefly

The Spanish Reform Monitor quantitatively evaluates the performance of the economy, the adequacy of the policy goals set by the government, and the actual progress achieved for six broad economic policy areas, which are further explored in 18 subareas.

Experts set scores for all dimensions and areas and the information reported is the experts’ panel average score. They also provide brief comments on their reform area of expertise.

The Strategic Review Of French National Defence And Security In 2017 – Analysis

$
0
0

By Félix Arteaga*

Although the title of this comment suggests something different, the Strategic Review focuses on the defence and armed forces of France, and not on the country’s national security. As pointed out when the first White Book was published in 2008 with the extended title including both national defence and security, the defence dimension took priority over the non-military aspects of security. Although both Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal announced during their election campaigns that they would concern themselves with national security, in line with the general trend in Europe at the time, the White Book on the National Defence and Security of France was very similar to the previous strategic review. Even the very few mentions of domestic security, diplomacy or civil protection were diluted in the version of the White Book in 2013; but they have practically disappeared in this last edition of 2017. From such omissions, and upon a close reading of the document, one could conclude that, in terms of France’s national security, la Défense et les Armées en sont le tout (‘defence and the armed forces are everything’).

The Review was ordered by President Emmanuel Macron to be undertaken by the Minister of Defence, Florence Parly, and it was meant to serve as a basis for a future Law of Military Programming 2019-25. It was prepared in a record time of three months. The sequence followed –strategy first, budget later– reveals the primacy of military power in France. Instead of adjusting strategies and forcing structures to the budget available (as small and medium power must do), the French President has decided to try and maintain France among the great powers. It will not be cheap, as the defence budget would need to rise from €32 billion in 2018 to €50 million in 2025, if the budget is to reach 2% of GDP by then, a goal established in the Strategic Review. Such an investment is being justified by growing insecurity and by the economic and social dividends it would generate. However, it is actually being undertaken because France has a President with both vision and the will to lead, along with a national security culture that supports him.

The Strategic Review identifies how and for what such budgets should be used for. The money should be spent to provide the French armed forces with the means needed to carry out the missions to which they are assigned. These are precisely the means which have been skimped upon in the budgets of recent years and that were again cut in 2017, prompting the resignation of the previous Chief of the Defence Staff, Pierre de Villiers. The objective is also very clear: to preserve and even to augment the strategic, technological and operational autonomy of France, as Minister Parly declared to Le Monde (13/X/2017). The Strategic Review is a coherent document: but more cannot be done with less, and it is up to the political and military leadership to recognise this inconsistency and to correct it.

Autonomy is the most repeated word found in the Review; it is a concept that carried forward the Gaullist tradition of reserving final decisions for France. The Review places emphasis on autonomy because it recognises that France cannot depend on a multilateralism which is languishing in the face of proliferating challenges and threats. This situation obliges France, on the one hand, to reinforce its capacities to act unilaterally or in coalition with other partners sharing its global vision, and, on the other hand, to strengthen the development of the collective capacities of the EU and NATO, which would provide an additional complement to France’s strategic autonomy. France preaches and leads by example: it puts more money into the defence budget, invests more in technology and capacities, and widens its operational ambitions because it aspires to mobilise the will of partners and allies to share both challenges and opportunities. Mobilisation is pragmatic in that France supports any kind of cooperation that helps its national defence and security, regardless of the form it takes: bilateral, European, Atlantic, sub-regional, cluster or ad hoc.

The 2017 Strategic Review has pointed to some important changes in the industry. In contrast to the 2013 White Book’s broader focus on the defence and security industries, the latest review emphasises the technological and industrial base of defence. This change is more than mere semantics and highlights how the defence industry has reached into all areas of security and defence. This State-controlled industry is the pillar of French strategic autonomy and the driving force of its national industry. The Strategic Review considers this industrial base to be essential for French sovereignty and therefore establishes very clear criteria for its future development. No one can expect France to share technologies critical to its defence industry and that are considered essential for maintaining its strategic autonomy. One could expect France to cooperate with others, however, as long as it does not put its sovereignty at risk or generate a mutual dependence. France would preferably seek cooperation within a European framework, but it does not rule out other associations beyond Europe, and even to enter the commercial market, as shown in Figure 1.

Similar criteria guide French cooperation in the operational sphere. France wants to have armed forces that can undertake as wide a spectrum as possible of missions and that possess the highest possible level of operational capacities. The country aspires to preserve its autonomy in the domains of intelligence, territorial protection, military operations, other security and cybersecurity operations, and in the realm of special asymmetric missions and missions of influence. The French do not rule out the possibility of receiving contributions from third parties to complement their autonomy, but they do not want to depend on them to undertake operations because they do not trust the slowness and complexity inherent in the resulting decision-making process. This explains their interest in implanting agile decision-making procedures within the permanent structured cooperation of the EU and their willingness to put to the test the solidarity of cooperative partners in the face of decisions taken. The French armed forces will operate and cooperate with those others with whom France coincides in terms of interests and inter-operability, and always so long as it complements French operational autonomy. In this sense, France will lead any bi/mini/multilateral configuration of forces as long as it has been articulated beneath its own planning control, mustering of forces, operational command and control, and inter-operability.

Now that it has been published, the Strategic Review still faces the inherent difficulties involved in transforming the Review’s lines of orientation into specific policies. France will have to confront controversial issues –from deficit and debt levels to the inevitable delays and lags which mediate between desired goals and action and execution– but one cannot deny the merit and valour of recognising reality and trying to change it. France shows a will to enable strategic transformation, and that should cause us a salutary envy.

About the author:
*Félix Arteaga
, Senior Analyst for Security and Defence, Elcano Royal Institute | @rielcano

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute. Original version in Spanish: La Revisión Estratégica de la defensa y la seguridad nacional de Francia en 2017

The Contours Of Negotiated Nuclear-Missile Deal With North Korea – Analysis

$
0
0

By Dr. G. Balachandran*

North Korea’s Hwasong-15 missile test on November 28 has intensified international concerns about the developments in North East Asia. The missile, fired in an almost vertical trajectory, reached a height of nearly 4500 km before falling in the East China Sea, within Japan’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), after travelling 860 km downrange. The total flight time was reported to be 53 minutes. No additional details of the test, such as the weight of the payload for instance, were given. However, preliminary calculations suggest that if the Hwasong-15 launched on November 28 had been flown on a normal missile trajectory, it would have reached distances of up to 13,000 km with the same payload, enough to cover the whole of the continental United States from West Coast to East Coast. If, however, the test had been conducted with no payload, the range would have been 8500 km with a 500 kg payload.

In addition, there are conflicting statements about the test from the North Korean and South Korean/US sides. After the test, the North Korean State news agency, KCNA (Korean Central News Agency), called its so-called new missile “the most powerful ICBM” and said it “meets the goal of the completion of the rocket weaponry system development.” It further quoted the North Korean leader as saying that the country had “finally realized the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force.”

South Korea, however, had a different take on the test. The South Korean presidential spokesman Park Soo-hyun said, after a phone call between the US and South Korean Presidents, that “The launch on Wednesday was apparently the most advanced one so far, but North Korea’s re-entry and terminal guidance capacities have not yet been proven. It is also unclear whether the North has mastered the technology of miniaturizing a nuclear warhead.”

Notwithstanding any doubts that one may have about the missile test itself, there are a few factors which one can safely assume without fear of much contradiction.

The first of these is that the North Korean leadership, which essentially means Kim, will not cease testing – nuclear or missile – till it is sure that the country has an assured deliverable nuclear weapon and an equally assured means of delivery. Second, notwithstanding the State news agency’s report, North Korea may feel the need to continue with its tests – missiles certainly and nuclear warheads most likely. Therefore, it is most likely that tensions will increase in the coming period, unless North Korea ceases all testing or agrees to a moratorium on all testing.

Third, such testing will increase the degree of existential nuclear threat posed by North Korea to the US. North Korea’s current nuclear and missile capabilities are probably sufficient only as a deterrent in its immediate neighbourhood and its nuclear threat to the US is an uncertain one. It is not certain whether North Korea has miniaturized its nuclear arsenal or has perfected the re-entry vehicle technology or the accuracy of its missiles. Nevertheless, it is equally certain that, with continued testing, North Korea will overcome these deficiencies.

Fourthly, at the moment, the size of the North Korean nuclear arsenal is low at a mid-two digit level. This small size of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal with a not yet fully developed delivery capability does pose a degree of nuclear threat to the US. But it does not in any manner offer North Korea any semblance of parity with the US on the issue of nuclear deterrence, let alone with respect to MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) capability. However, North Korea’s unchecked and continual production of fissile material for weapon purposes will, over a period of time, degrade the current US nuclear deterrent superiority. It is even possible that in such a scenario North Korea might gain parity with the US in terms of MAD. That will inevitably lead to greater instability in the US-North Korea nuclear deterrence relationship.

Finally, given the historically unpredictable and tempestuous nature of the North Korean, and the current American, leadership, the near term prospects of improving the North East Asian security environment does not look encouraging.

Therefore, left unchecked, the probability of a military conflict arising in North East Asia will only increase. While such a military conflict may arise in a non-nuclear environment – either because of an act of misadventure by North Korea or a non-nuclear pre-emptive missile attack by the US to degrade the North Korean nuclear and missile assets – it will most likely end with a nuclear exchange between North Korea and the US. Any such military exchange will certainly result in the total devastation of North Korea. But others in the neighbourhood are equally likely to suffer, in particular, South Korea whose capital Seoul is within range of North Korea’s conventional artillery as well as Japan which is very likely to suffer extensive damage. The damage to the US is likely to be non-crippling. And the international security environment will deteriorate in a major way.

It is, therefore, in the interest of the international community that such a military option is not exercised by any party and instead a diplomatic solution is forged. It is possible to outline the contours of such a diplomatic solution – the basic essentials that must form part of such an agreement.

First, the major factor driving the North Korean nuclear and missile programme has been its extreme fear about the US wanting to effect a regime change. This fear has to be removed.

Two, North Korea’s continued efforts to improve its nuclear and missile capabilities is the factor that is propelling the fears of the US and its allies in the region. These fears must be addressed in a concrete and meaningful fashion by suitably constraining North Korea’s nuclear and missile programmes.

These two objectives can be met through an UN-led multinational dialogue with North Korea. It must include the five permanent members of the UN Security Council along with the two countries most concerned with the North Korean nuclear programme, namely Japan and South Korea. This would be not unlike the recently concluded and successful EU-led Iran nuclear agreement.

What are the essential elements of such a deal that would make it attractive to North Korea? First, the final agreement, in particular the provision guaranteeing North Korea’s sovereignty and non-interference in its internal affairs, must be underwritten by the UN Security Council.

Two, the North Korean nuclear programme should come under IAEA full scope safeguards, with the country declaring all its peaceful and non-peaceful nuclear material and bringing the former along with all nuclear facilities under IAEA full scope safeguards. North Korea must also sign and ratify the IAEA Additional protocol. In addition, it must agree to certain negotiated conditions on its missile programme with verification procedures.

Three, under a specified and agreed time framework, all UN non-proliferation related sanctions on North Korea must be removed.

Finally, the duration of the agreement needs to be specified, depending on the results of these negotiations on the future of the nuclear weapons already manufactured by North Korea.

While the other parties to such an agreement, including China, should have no political issues with such an arrangement, North Korea may initially have some (perhaps even total) opposition to such an agreement especially if all the benefits are not given at the very beginning. That may not be acceptable to the other parties. However, a graded release of the benefits to be negotiated along with the required actions by North Korea may not be difficult to reach an agreement on especially if North Korea’s most trusted allies, China and Russia, as part of the guarantors to the agreement, convince it of the benefits of such an agreement. Incidentally, the much acclaimed Iran nuclear deal also adopted such a graded approach. It is most likely that no diplomatic agreement falling short of these basic principles will find acceptance with all the concerned states.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

About the author:
*Dr. G. Balachandran
is Consulting Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.

Source:
This article was published by IDSA


The ‘Fall’ Of Islamic State, More Than Its Rise, Challenges Global Diplomacy – Analysis

$
0
0

The Syrian crisis, at its current juncture, looks set for a prolonged battle.

By Kabir Taneja

With the disintegration of the Islamic State’s territorial control in both Iraq and Syria, the ground situation in both countries remains precarious despite narratives suggesting otherwise. While it is true that the IS has lost control nearly all of its geographical strongholds, the organisation and the jihadists that constitute it are still very much there, and in what shape and form they reemerge will prove to be a pivotal factor on how the political landscape of Iraq and Syria will look like in future.

The social and political fractures in Syria today are larger and more ingrained than ever before. Over the past four years, the juggernaut of violence and chaos orchestrated by the Islamic State has both brought together and disintegrated global order simultaneously. The war against the IS, and the potentials of its success and failure could be divided into two main fronts, global diplomacy and local sectarian and ideological divisions prevailing Syria and Iraq. Somewhere in the middle of the global anti-IS discourse, diplomacy’s failures have managed to reflect negatively on the prospects of what a post-IS region would look like. To put this in perspective, we can observe two outcomes, that of the multiple Syria negotiation processes in Astana, Riyadh and Geneva and the developing situation in northern Syria, around the region of Idlib, to highlight how a post-IS regional dynamic is not going to be any easier than the battle against the IS itself.

Over the month of November, diplomacy around the attempts to come to a reconciliation on the Syrian crisis was in overdrive, almost exclusively led by Russia. On 19 November, the foreign ministers of Russia, Iran and Turkey met in the Turkish coastal town of Antalya to lay the groundwork for the leaders of the three countries to meet on discussions over the future of Syria. A day later, in a rare event (which, is expected to become normal in the near future) Syrian President Bashar al-Assad travelled to Sochi, Russia, to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin. Two days later, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani and President of Turkey Recep Erdogan met with Putin to chalk out the future of the conflict after the trio had orchestrated a ceasefire in December 2016 (followed by the Astana peace talks in January along with twelve Syrian rebel factions), success of which remains questionable.

Meanwhile, as the three leaders met, Syrian opposition leaders, looking to dislodge the Assad government from Damascus and posing a defiant counter to Russia and Iran’s plans, met in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, where they reiterated their demand for the Syrian leader to abdicate his position. On the other end of global diplomacy spectrum, the longstanding and increasingly irrelevant Geneva round of talks on Syria, largely narrated by the West and United Nations with feeble support from both the Syrian government and opposition leaders headed towards another stalemate.

This multi-diplomacy approach where vested interests launch their own respective peace talks with little to no sense of universal urgency to bring the conflict to an end can only be seen as geopolitical tactics to serve what researchers Raymond Hinnebusch and William Zartman of the International Peace Institute (IPI) describe as a “soft, stable, self-serving stalemate.” Throughout former US President Barack Obama’s presidency, under whose leadership much of the crisis unfolded, America’s commitment-via-distance by providing limited number of military personal under the guise of “advisors” only added to confusion, not just over America’s long-term policy on the crisis, but its long-term military commitment towards the region as well. The transition in Washington from Obama to the new administration of president Donald Trump has not aided the policy vacuum, and in fact has magnified the challenges as an already confused approach gets more muddled, with America grapples with its own domestic political questions.

The fact that recent reports suggest the Pentagon may start withdrawing support from Kurdish fighters, buying into a false-pretext that the ground situation in Syria is amicably in favour of the anti-IS coalitions, showcases a longstanding strategic flow in American thinking, one that repeats itself, and fails, repeatedly, pushing military operations against adversaries in a cycle of apathy. This longstanding anomaly is correctly highlighted by Mara Karlin, Associate Professor at Johns Hopkins SAIS and non-resident senior fellow at Brookings Institution as “ad-hoc assistance programmes,” that are often devoid of long-term solutions that emit from the ground of the conflict zone, and not parachuted from above as temporary fixes. This may be difficult for the West to comprehend, as it would have to acknowledge that the IS was ‘defeated’ by a mix of their own air campaign, Russian air campaign and Iranian-backed Shiite militias on the ground that did much of the legwork and now themselves control sizeable amounts of territory and political influence.

The battle against the IS and the premature victory dance that is now unfolding is already ignoring the sectarian fractures that are ready to take over in parts of Iraq and Syria. One of the most glaring examples of the same is visible in northwestern Syria, around the region of Idlib where former Al Qaeda-backed jihadists from Jabhat al-Nusra broke ranks to create Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and setup their own proto-state. With the IS in retreat, other jihadi groups are now elbowing for territory and narrative, with intra-insurgency rivalry and friction within groups amounting to a greater civil war narrative, one that the US may find to become a quagmire for international terrorist movements.

The region of Idlib and HTS’s hold on it is not without foreign influence, but one without an American hand. Turkey has played a critical part in the Idlib area, looking to prop up the likes of HTS in order to make sure a larger, and stronger Kurdish narrative, specifically one backed by the PKK and Kurdish PYD, is not allowed to flourish. In an event that would create ruffles both in the HTS and other players in the regional, Turkish troops were photographed in the Idlib region accompanied by HTS in return for Ankara to agree that members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) within the Euphrates Shield, an alliance of Turkish military and militias aligned with Turkey, will not be allowed into the province.

However, during this period, the leader of HTS, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, started to face heat from Al Qaeda’s top brass along with other hardline jihadist groups that had joined HTS over the past months. Jolani’s deal with Turkey was seen as a betrayal of core jihadist dictates. Meanwhile, Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of Al Qaeda who had come out of hiding after months, released an audio clip damning HTS and its breakaway from Al Qaeda. Zawahiri denounced the group, and in return, HTS arrested a host of Al Qaeda operatives creating further divide for Jolani to handle. For now, HTS in Idlib viewed Turkish mission in northern Syria with more of a threat than internal rivalries, viewing the latter as fixable within the jihadist discourse. However, Russia, Iran and Turkey, as part of the Astana process, had by this time gained significant leverage over northern Syria (important to remember here Ankara has repeatedly called for Assad’s ouster), threatening military action against a host of groups if they did not conform to their immediate agendas.

These various negotiation processes on the Syrian crisis are in fact working on different trajectories all together, with each farther away from before to achieve some sort of solution that bring the civil conflict to an end, or at least, implements a lasting ceasefire. While the US looks to recede its influence, the rise of Iranian-backed Shiite militias in both Syria and Iraq may force it back into significant play with the likes of Saudi Arabia and Israel ready to cooperate with each other to counter Tehran’s clout. A Saudi-led counter to Iran will most likely come from Sunni-Wahhabi groups that ideologically are not too far from what ISIS preached. In the meantime, ISIS itself, may look to seep into these political uncertainties to regroup and relaunch.

Despite the available multilateral forums for conflict resolution available, none have come through for the common people stuck in the mores of this war. The various peace processes have become promotional utilities for vested interests looking for a solution for millions of people that have no direct representation over the course of their own fate.

The Syrian crisis, at its current juncture, looks set for a prolonged battle, with Assad almost entirely dependent on his allies, Russia and Iran. This, however, gives Moscow and Tehran the precedence to fast-forward towards a lasting solution, one if orchestrated, will in most certainty not sell with Western powers. With alliances in the Middle East shifting at a faster pace that one can keep up, predicting political future of the region and its states is fast becoming more of a guessing game than trends based political predictions, and this is puncturing holes in the very backbone of multilateral diplomacy that has been preached in the post-World War II era.

India’s Steel Industry, Like US, Dominated By Electric-Based Processes

$
0
0

India is the third-largest steel producer in the world after China and Japan, having surpassed other large steel-making countries such as the United States, Russia, and South Korea over the previous decade, according to the World Steel Association.

In 2016, about 57% of India’s steel was produced using electric-based methods, which is the second-highest proportion of electric-based steel production among major steel producers, behind only the United States. Most other large producers use basic oxygen steelmaking processes.

 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on World Steel Association, World Steel In Figures 2017
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on World Steel Association, World Steel In Figures 2017

Two unique features of the steel industry in India are the large-scale use of electric induction furnaces for electric-based steelmaking and the reliance on coal, rather than natural gas, to produce direct reduced iron (an intermediate input in the steelmaking process).

About half of India’s electric-based process steel is made using electric induction furnaces rather than the internationally more common electric arc furnaces.

Electric induction furnaces use induction to convert materials such as scrap, direct reduced iron, or pig iron into steel. These furnaces use alternating magnetic fields to induce an electric current, which then heats up because of electric resistance.

Electric induction furnaces tend to operate at much smaller scales compared with other more common basic oxygen furnaces or electric arc furnaces.

Electric induction furnaces typically produce less than 20 tons per batch; basic oxygen furnaces can produce approximately 250 tons per batch; and electric arc furnaces produce approximately 170 tons per batch.

Although China and Japan produce more steel, India is the largest producer of direct reduced iron (DRI) in the world.

Direct reduced iron can be used in all major types of steel furnaces.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on India Ministry of Steel, Annual Report 2016–2017 Note: India’s fiscal years run April 1 through March 31.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on India Ministry of Steel, Annual Report 2016–2017
Note: India’s fiscal years run April 1 through March 31.

Unlike direct reduced iron-making facilities in other countries, which largely use natural gas, most of the direct reduced iron produced in India is powered by coal. For this reason, DRI produced in India is much more carbon intensive than DRI produced in facilities in other parts of the world.

According to EIA’s International Energy Outlook 2017, India’s coal consumption is projected to grow by nearly 3% per year between 2015 and 2040 as a result of iron and steel industry growth and relatively intensive coal use in DRI.

Principal contributor: Kelly Perl

No Neutral Ground: The Problem Of Net Neutrality – OpEd

$
0
0

By Brian Dellinger*

On November 21, the Federal Communications Commission announced plans to revisit its Obama-era internet regulations. It seems likely that the resulting vote will repeal the policies often referred to as net neutrality. The name is, perhaps, misleading; to support net neutrality is to support placing the internet more fully under government supervision. The related political debate often divides traditional allies with arguments for free expression pitted against defenses of small government.

To understand net neutrality, one must see its position in technical history. Traditionally, internet service providers (ISPs), such as Comcast and Verizon, have guaranteed their customers a certain quantity of bandwidth – that is, a certain amount of data per unit of time. It was assumed that even a voracious user would rarely use his maximum bandwidth, and services were priced under this assumption. ISPs also de facto allowed customers to access whatever websites they wished; while there was no legal protection for this behavior, technical complexities made discrimination by website infeasible. The result was a largely open web: anyone with a blog could potentially reach millions.

In the early 2000s, the situation changed. Technological innovations enabled providers to determine which site a user visited and so potentially to restrict access. In principle, an ISP could now sell “packages” of websites, in a fashion resembling cable television: “basic internet” for news and Facebook, say, or “premium internet” for those who wanted more. These years also saw the rising popularity of streaming video services like Netflix and YouTube. Users now binge-watched videos, consuming their maximum available bandwidth for hours at a stretch. Such trends increased costs for the ISPs, leading them to investigate new responses: restricted access to high-usage sites, artificially slow downloads, and so on.

Net neutrality stands in opposition to these changes. Broadly, under net neutrality, the government requires ISPs to treat all web traffic in the same way: no limiting access, no reducing speed. Since 2005, the FCC has several times established net neutrality regulations; inevitably, the courts struck down such rules on the grounds that the FCC lacked the authority to regulate ISPs. In response, in 2015 the FCC redefined broadband internet as a telecommunications service, placing it under FCC jurisdiction, and promptly passed net neutrality rules. With the political shift of the 2016 elections, new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai began rolling back these regulations – hence the upcoming vote.

Both sides of the debate have merit. Concerns that ISPs might slow targeted websites are not idle speculation; Comcast did precisely thatto Netflix in 2014. Indeed, Comcast and others have done little to engender public trust in their behavior. Comcast had pledged for years not to “prioritize Internet traffic or create paid fast lanes.” That pledge disappeared from its website less than a day after Pai announced policy changes.

It is also true that the meritocratic nature of the internet – its enabling of anyone to win a following through quality work – has been one of its most notable virtues. A world of “basic internet,” in which new entrants might be simply unreachable, would reduce its value as a platform for new ideas.

Despite these fair concerns, arguments against the FCC rollback seem insufficient. It is difficult to deny that price incentives have drastically shifted over the last decade; if streaming video is generating much of the ISPs’ expenses, it makes intuitive sense that providers might demand Netflix share those costs, or might price service by total consumption rather than maximum bandwidth. Nor are the corporations supporting net neutrality any more trustworthy than the ISPs. Setting Netflix aside, supporters such as Google and Facebook seek to block ISPs from trading in users’ private information – a trade on which these companies themselves depend. For them, net neutrality eliminates the competition.

Other objections rely too heavily on speculation. While a “fast lane” internet would be a marked shift, the brief history of the web is one of constant change. Indeed, the rise of mobile browsing, which often limits the user to app-specific websites and now constitutes a majority of all web usage, may produce a greater alteration than that net neutrality would prevent.

Further, the internet is historically the result of market activity rather than top-down regulations. If one approves of its remarkable evolution to this point, it seems peculiar to assert that this is the moment to freeze it through government action. Given how few accurately predicted that evolution, it seems hubristic to assert how it will change next. Perhaps, as the ISPs argue, the increased revenue from a non-neutral internet would enable the expansion of broadband networks, ending regional monopolies of service providers. Such a change might ultimately produce a faster, more accessible internet – or it might not, but the experiment seems worth the risk.

Finally, whatever one’s feelings on net neutrality, the 2015 rules should be seen for what they are: a staggering expansion of bureaucratic power, by decree of the bureaucracy itself. The result is an ugly patchwork of overlapping authority between the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission, with ISPs disfavored over similar services. This reclassification can never be a stable solution; it will always be vulnerable to precisely the kind of unilateral repeal currently occurring. If the public supports net neutrality, then let it be defended through the proper channel: by laws, and not bureaucratic fiat.

About the author:
*Dr. Brian Dellinger
is an assistant professor of computer science at Grove City College. His research interests are artificial intelligence and models of consciousness.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

US-Saudi Nuclear Talks: Barometer For Whither The Middle East? – Analysis

$
0
0

Talks aimed at transferring US nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia serve as an indicator of where the Saudi-Iranian rivalry is heading as well as the strength of the informal Saudi-Israeli alliance against Iran. The possible transfer could spark a new arms race in the Middle East and constitutes one explanation why Saudi responses to President Donald J. Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel were muted and limited to rhetorical statements.

Mr. Trump’s decision was perhaps most challenging for the Saudis, who as custodians of Islam’s two holiest cities, would have been expected to play a leading role in protecting the status of the city that is home to the faith’s third holiest site. Saudi Arabia was represented at this week’s summit of Islamic countries in Istanbul that recognized East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine by its foreign minister, Adel al Jubeir, rather than the king, crown prince or another senior member of the ruling family.

The difficulty for the Saudis is not only their close cooperation with Israel, willingness to increasingly publicly hint at what long was a secret relationship, and their position as the US’ closest friend in the Arab world, who reportedly was willing to endorse a US Israeli-Palestinian peace plan in the making that would fail to meet the minimum demanded by Palestinians and Arab public opinion.

With Mr. Trump backing Saudi efforts to counter Iranian influence in a swath of land stretching from Asia to the Atlantic coast of Africa despite mounting US criticism of the kingdom’s conduct of its military intervention in Yemen, Riyadh has a vested interest in maintaining its close ties to Washington. While having been put in an awkward position, international condemnation of Mr. Trump’s Jerusalem move has also increased Saudi leverage.

Mr. Trump’s support for Saudi Arabia as well as his transactional approach to foreign policy that aims to further US business interests holds out the promise of tipping the Middle East’s military balance of power in favour of the kingdom.

In the president’s latest effort, his administration is weighing allowing Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium as part of a deal that would ensure that bids by Westinghouse Electric Co. and other US companies to build nuclear reactors in the kingdom are successful. Past US reluctance to endorse Saudi enrichment and reprocessing of uranium has put purveyors of US nuclear technology at a disadvantage.

Saudi Arabia agreed with the US in 2008 not to pursue enrichment and reprocessing but has since backed away from that pledge. “They wouldn’t commit, and it was a sticking point,” said Max Bergmann, a former special assistant to the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

Testifying to Congress in November, Christopher Ford, the US National Security Council’s senior director for weapons of mass destruction and counterproliferation, refused to commit the Trump administration to the US restrictions. The restrictions are “not a legal requirement. It is a desired outcome.” Mr. Ford said. He added that the 2015 international agreement with Iran that severely restricts the Islamic republic’s nuclear program for at least a decade, made it more difficult for the United States to insist on limiting other countries’ enrichment capabilities.

Saudi Arabia plans to construct 16 nuclear power reactors by 2030 at a cost of an estimated $100 billion. Officially, Saudi Arabia sees nuclear power as a way of freeing up more oil for export in a country that has witnessed dramatic increases in domestic consumption and contributing to diversification of its economy. It would also enhance Saudi efforts to ensure parity with Iran in the kingdom’s ability to enrich uranium and its quest to be the Middle East’s long-term, dominant power.

Saudi Arabia has large uranium deposits of its own. In preparation of requesting bids for its nuclear program, Saudi Arabia in October asked the US, France, South Korea, Russia and China for preliminary information. In addition to the United States, the kingdom has in recent years concluded a  number of nuclear-related understandings with China as well as with France, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea and Argentina.

Mr. Trump’s apparent willingness to ease US restrictions services his campaign promise to revive and revitalize America’s nuclear industry and meet competition from Russia and China. Saudi contracts are crucial for Westinghouse, a nuclear technology pioneer whose expertise is used in more than half of the world’s nuclear power plants. Westinghouse declared bankruptcy in March because of delays in two US projects.

A deal that would lift US restrictions in return for acquiring US technology could enmesh Saudi Arabia in bitter domestic political battles in Washington evolving around alleged Russian interference in the election that brought Mr. Trump to office. Controversial Trump campaign aide and short-lived national security advisor Michael Flynn sought to convince Israel to accept the kingdom’s nuclear program as part of his efforts to promote Russian nuclear interests in the Middle East.

Mr. Trump’s willingness, against the backdrop of uncertainty about his readiness to uphold US adherence to the 2015 agreement with Iran, could unleash an arms race in the Middle East and North Africa. Mr. Trump recently refused to certify to Congress that Iran was compliant with the agreement.

Dropping restrictions on Saudi enrichment could not only fuel Saudi-Iranian rivalry that has wreaked havoc across the region, but also encourage other recipients of US nuclear technology to demand similar rights. The United Arab Emirates and Egypt have accepted restrictions on enrichment in their nuclear deals with US companies as long as those limitations were imposed on all countries in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia has long been suspected of having an interest in ensuring that it would have the ability to develop a military nuclear capability if ever deemed necessary. For decades, Saudi cooperation with nuclear power Pakistan has been a source of speculation about the kingdom’s ambition.

Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, asserted that Saudi Arabia’s close ties to the Pakistani military and intelligence during the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan in the 1980s gave the kingdom arms’ length access to his country’s nuclear capabilities.

“By the 1980s, the Saudi ambassador was a regular guest of A. Q. Khan” or Abdul Qadeer Khan, the controversial nuclear physicist and metallurgical engineer who fathered Pakistan’s atomic bomb,” Mr. Haqqani said in an interview.

Similarly, retired Pakistani Major General Feroz Hassan Khan, the author of a semi-official history of Pakistan’s nuclear program, has no doubt about the kingdom’s interest.

“Saudi Arabia provided generous financial support to Pakistan that enabled the nuclear program to continue, especially when the country was under sanctions,” Mr. Khan said in a separate interview. Mr. Khan was referring to US sanctions imposed in 1998 because of Pakistan’s development of a nuclear weapons capability. He noted that at a time of economic crisis, Pakistan was with Saudi help able “to pay premium prices for expensive technologies.”

The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) said in a report earlier this year that it had uncovered evidence that future Pakistani “assistance would not involve Pakistan supplying Saudi Arabia with a full nuclear weapon or weapons; however, Pakistan may assist in other important ways, such as supplying sensitive equipment, materials, and know-how used in enrichment or reprocessing.”

The report said it was unclear whether “Pakistan and Saudi Arabia may be cooperating on sensitive nuclear technologies in Pakistan. In an extreme case, Saudi Arabia may be financing, or will finance, an unsafeguarded uranium enrichment facility in Pakistan for later use, either in a civil or military program,” the report said.

The report concluded that the nuclear agreement with Iran dubbed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) had “not eliminated the kingdom’s desire for nuclear weapons capabilities and even nuclear weapons… There is little reason to doubt that Saudi Arabia will more actively seek nuclear weapons capabilities, motivated by its concerns about the ending of the JCPOA’s major nuclear limitations starting after year 10 of the deal or sooner if the deal fails,” the report said.

Rather than embarking on a covert program, the report predicted that Saudi Arabia would, for now, focus on building up its civilian nuclear infrastructure as well as a robust nuclear engineering and scientific workforce. This would allow the kingdom to take command of all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle at some point in the future.

“The current situation suggests that Saudi Arabia now has both a high disincentive to pursue nuclear weapons in the short term and a high motivation to pursue them over the long term,” the Washington Institute said.

Rise And Decline Of The Welfare State – OpEd

$
0
0

The American welfare state was created in 1935 and continued to develop through 1973. Since then, over a prolonged period, the capitalist class has been steadily dismantling the entire welfare state.

Between the mid 1970’s to the present (2017) labor laws, welfare rights and benefits and the construction of and subsidies for affordable housing have been gutted. ‘Workfare’ (under President ‘Bill’ Clinton) ended welfare for the poor and displaced workers. Meanwhile the shift to regressive taxation and the steadily declining real wages have increased corporate profits to an astronomical degree.

What started as incremental reversals during the 1990’s under Clinton has snowballed over the last two decades decimating welfare legislation and institutions.

The earlier welfare ‘reforms’ and the current anti-welfare legislation and austerity practices have been accompanied by a series of endless imperial wars, especially in the Middle East.

In the 1940’s through the 1960’s, world and regional wars (Korea and Indo-China) were combined with significant welfare program – a form of  ‘social imperialism’, which ‘buy off’ the working class while expanding the empire. However, recent decades are characterized by multiple regional wars and the reduction or elimination of welfare programs – and a massive growth in poverty, domestic insecurity and poor health.

New Deals and Big Wars

The 1930’s witnessed the advent of social legislation and action, which laid the foundations of what is called the ‘modern welfare state’.

Labor unions were organized as working class strikes and progressive legislation facilitated trade union organization, elections, collective bargaining rights and a steady increase in union membership. Improved work conditions, rising wages, pension plans and benefits, employer or union-provided health care and protective legislation improved the standard of living for the working class and provided for 2 generations of upward mobility.

Social Security legislation was approved along with workers’ compensation and the forty-hour workweek. Jobs were created through federal programs (WPA, CCC, etc.). Protectionist legislation facilitated the growth of domestic markets for US manufacturers. Workplace shop steward councils organized ‘on the spot’ job action to protect safe working conditions.

World War II led to full employment and increases in union membership, as well as legislation restricting workers’ collective bargaining rights and enforcing wage freezes. Hundreds of thousands of Americans found jobs in the war economy but a huge number were also killed or wounded in the war.

The post-war period witnessed a contradictory process: wages and salaries increased while legislation curtailed union rights via the Taft Hartley Act and the McCarthyist purge of leftwing trade union activists. So-called ‘right to work’ laws effectively outlawed unionization mostly in southern states, which drove industries to relocate to the anti-union states.

Welfare reforms, in the form of the GI bill, provided educational opportunities for working class and rural veterans, while federal-subsidized low interest mortgages encourage home-ownership, especially for veterans.

The New Deal created concrete improvements but did not consolidate labor influence at any level. Capitalists and management still retained control over capital, the workplace and plant location of production.

Trade union officials signed pacts with capital: higher pay for the workers and greater control of the workplace for the bosses. Trade union officials joined management in repressing rank and file movements seeking to control technological changes by reducing hours (“thirty hours work for forty hours pay”). Dissident local unions were seized and gutted by the trade union bosses – sometimes through violence.

Trade union activists, community organizers for rent control and other grassroots movements lost both the capacity and the will to advance toward large-scale structural changes of US capitalism. Living standards improved for a few decades but the capitalist class consolidated strategic control over labor relations. While unionized workers’ incomes, increased, inequalities, especially in the non-union sectors began to grow. With the end of the GI bill, veterans’ access to high-quality subsidized education declined.

While a new wave of social welfare legislation and programs began in the 1960’s and early 1970’s it was no longer a result of a mass trade union or workers’ “class struggle”. Moreover, trade union collaboration with the capitalist regional war policies led to the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of workers in two wars – the Korean and Vietnamese wars.

Much of social legislation resulted from the civil and welfare rights movements. While specific programs were helpful, none of them addressed structural racism and poverty.

The Last Wave of Social Welfarism

The 1960’a witnessed the greatest racial war in modern US history: Mass movements in the South and North rocked state and federal governments, while advancing the cause of civil, social and political rights. Millions of black citizens, joined by white activists and, in many cases, led by African American Viet Nam War veterans, confronted the state. At the same time, millions of students and young workers, threatened by military conscription, challenged the military and social order.

Energized by mass movements, a new wave of social welfare legislation was launched by the federal government to pacify mass opposition among blacks, students, community organizers and middle class Americans. Despite this mass popular movement, the union bosses at the AFL-CIO openly supported the war, police repression and the military, or at best, were passive impotent spectators of the drama unfolding in the nation’s streets.

Dissident union members and activists were the exception, as many had multiple identities to represent: African American, Hispanic, draft resisters, etc.

Under Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, Medicare, Medicaid, OSHA, the EPA and multiple poverty programs were implemented. A national health program, expanding Medicare for all Americans, was introduced by President Nixon and sabotaged by the Kennedy Democrats and the AFL-CIO. Overall, social and economic inequalities diminished during this period.

The Vietnam War ended in defeat for the American militarist empire. This coincided with the beginning of the end of social welfare as we knew it – as the bill for militarism placed even greater demands on the public treasury.

With the election of President Carter, social welfare in the US began its long decline. The next series of regional wars were accompanied by even greater attacks on welfare via the “Volker Plan” – freezing workers’ wages as a means to combat inflation.

‘Guns without butter’ became the legislative policy of the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The welfare programs were based on politically fragile foundations.

Debacle of Welfarism

Private sector trade union membership declined from a post-world war peak of 30% falling to 12% in the 1990’s. Today it has sunk to 7%. Capitalists embarked on a massive program of closing thousands of factories in the unionized North which were then relocated to the non-unionized low wage southern states and then overseas to Mexico and Asia. Millions of stable jobs disappeared.

Following the election of ‘Jimmy Carter’, neither Democratic nor Republican Presidents felt any need to support labor organizations. On the contrary, they facilitated contracts dictated by management, which reduced wages, job security, benefits and social welfare.

The anti-labor offensive from the ‘Oval Office’ intensified under President Reagan with his direct intervention firing tens of thousands of striking air controllers and arresting union leaders. Under Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and William Clinton cost of living adjustments failed to keep up with prices of vital goods and services. Health care inflation was astronomical. Financial deregulation led to the subordination of American industry to finance and the Wall Street banks. De-industrialization, capital flight and massive tax evasion reduced labor’s share of national income.

The capitalist class followed a trajectory of decline, recovery and ascendance. Moreover, during the earlier world depression, at the height of labor mobilization and organization, the capitalist class never faced any significant political threat over its control of the commanding heights of the economy.

The ‘New Deal’ was, at best, a de facto ‘historical compromise’ between the capitalist class and the labor unions, mediated by the Democratic Party elite. It was a temporary pact in which the unions secured legal recognition while the capitalists retained their executive prerogatives.

The Second World War secured the economic recovery for capital and subordinated labor through a federally mandated no strike production agreement. There were a few notable exceptions: The coal miners’ union organized strikes in strategic sectors and some leftist leaders and organizers encouraged slow-downs, work to rule and other in-plant actions when employers ran roughshod with special brutality over the workers. The recovery of capital was the prelude to a post-war offensive against independent labor-based political organizations. The quality of labor organization declined even as the quantity of trade union membership increased.

Labor union officials consolidated internal control in collaboration with the capitalist elite. Capitalist class-labor official collaboration was extended overseas with strategic consequences.

The post-war corporate alliance between the state and capital led to a global offensive – the replacement of European-Japanese colonial control and exploitation by US business and bankers. Imperialism was later ‘re-branded’ as ‘globalization’. It pried open markets, secured cheap docile labor and pillaged resources for US manufacturers and importers.

US labor unions played a major role by sabotaging militant unions abroad in cooperation with the US security apparatus: They worked to coopt and bribe nationalist and leftist labor leaders and supported police-state regime repression and assassination of recalcitrant militants.

‘Hand in bloody glove’ with the US Empire, the American trade unions planted the seeds of their own destruction at home. The local capitalists in newly emerging independent nations established industries and supply chains in cooperation with US manufacturers. Attracted to these sources of low-wage, violently repressed workers, US capitalists subsequently relocated their factories overseas and turned their backs on labor at home.

Labor union officials had laid the groundwork for the demise of stable jobs and social benefits for American workers. Their collaboration increased the rate of capitalist profit and overall power in the political system. Their complicity in the brutal purges of militants, activists and leftist union members and leaders at home and abroad put an end to labor’s capacity to sustain and expand the welfare state.

Trade unions in the US did not use their collaboration with empire in its bloody regional wars to win social benefits for the rank and file workers. The time of social-imperialism, where workers within the empire benefited from imperialism’s pillage, was over. Gains in social welfare henceforth could result only from mass struggles led by the urban poor, especially Afro- Americans, community-based working poor and militant youth organizers.

The last significant social welfare reforms were implemented in the early 1970’s – coinciding with the end of the Vietnam War (and victory for the Vietnamese people) and ended with the absorption of the urban and anti- war movements into the Democratic Party.

Henceforward the US corporate state advanced through the overseas expansion of the multi-national corporations and via large-scale, non- unionized production at home.

The technological changes of this period did not benefit labor. The belief, common in the 1950’s, that science and technology would increase leisure, decrease work and improve living standards for the working class, was shattered. Instead technological changes displaced well-paid industrial labor while increasing the number of mind-numbing, poorly paid, and politically impotent jobs in the so-called ‘service sector’ – a rapidly growing section of unorganized and vulnerable workers – especially including women and minorities.

Labor union membership declined precipitously. The demise of the USSR and China’s turn to capitalism had a dual effect: It eliminated collectivist (socialist) pressure for social welfare and opened their labor markets with cheap, disciplined workers for foreign manufacturers. Labor as a political force disappeared on every count. The US Federal Reserve and President ‘Bill’ Clinton deregulated financial capital leading to a frenzy of speculation. Congress wrote laws, which permitted overseas tax evasion – especially in Caribbean tax havens. Regional free-trade agreements, like NAFTA, spurred the relocation of jobs abroad. De-industrialization accompanied the decline of wages, living standards and social benefits for millions of American workers.

The New Abolitionists: Trillionaires

The New Deal, the Great Society, trade unions, and the anti-war and urban movements were in retreat and primed for abolition.

Wars without welfare (or guns without butter) replaced earlier ‘social imperialism’ with a huge growth of poverty and homelessness. Domestic labor was now exploited to finance overseas wars not vice versa. The fruits of imperial plunder were not shared.

As the working and middle classes drifted downward, they were used up, abandoned and deceived on all sides – especially by the Democratic Party. They elected militarists and demagogues as their new presidents.

President ‘Bill’ Clinton ravaged Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and Somalia and liberated Wall Street. His regime gave birth to the prototype billionaire swindlers: Michael Milken and Bernard ‘Bernie’ Madoff.

Clinton converted welfare into cheap labor ‘workfare’, exploiting the poorest and most vulnerable and condemning the next generations to grinding poverty. Under Clinton the prison population of mostly African Americans expanded and the breakup of families ravaged the urban communities.

Provoked by an act of terrorism (9/11) President G.W. Bush Jr. launched the ‘endless’ wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and deepened the police state (Patriot Act). Wages for American workers and profits for American capitalist moved in opposite directions.

The Great Financial Crash of 2008-2011 shook the paper economy to its roots and led to the greatest shakedown of any national treasury in history directed by the First Black American President. Trillions of public wealth were funneled into the criminal banks on Wall Street – which were ‘just too big to fail.’ Millions of American workers and homeowners, however, were ‘just too small to matter’.

The Age of Demagogues

President Obama transferred 2 trillion dollars to the ten biggest bankers and swindlers on Wall Street, and another trillion to the Pentagon to pursue the Democrats version of foreign policy: from Bush’s two overseas wars to Obama’s seven.

Obama’s electoral ‘donor-owners’ stashed away two trillion dollars in overseas tax havens and looked forward to global free trade pacts – pushed by the eloquent African American President.

Obama was elected to two terms. His liberal Democratic Party supporters swooned over his peace and justice rhetoric while swallowing his militarist escalation into seven overseas wars as well as the foreclosure of two million American householders. Obama completely failed to honor his campaign promise to reduce wage inequality between black and white wage earners while he continued to moralize to black families about ‘values’.

Obama’s war against Libya led to the killing and displacement of millions of black Libyans and workers from Sub-Saharan Africa. The smiling Nobel Peace Prize President created more desperate refugees than any previous US head of state – including millions of Africans flooding Europe.

‘Obamacare’, his imitation of an earlier Republican governor’s health plan, was formulated by the private corporate health industry (private insurance, Big Pharma and the for-profit hospitals), to mandate enrollment and ensure triple digit profits with double digit increases in premiums. By the 2016 Presidential elections, ‘Obama-care’ was opposed by a 45%-43% margin of the American people. Obama’s propagandists could not show any improvement of life expectancy or decrease in infant and maternal mortality as a result of his ‘health care reform’. Indeed the opposite occurred among the marginalized working class in the old ‘rust belt’ and in the rural areas. This failure to show any significant health improvement for the masses of Americans is in stark contrast to LBJ’s Medicare program of the 1960’s, which continues to receive massive popular support.

Forty-years of anti welfare legislation and pro-business regimes paved the golden road for the election of Donald Trump

Trump and the Republicans are focusing on the tattered remnants of the social welfare system: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. The remains of FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society— are on the chopping block.

The moribund (but well-paid) labor leadership has been notable by its absence in the ensuing collapse of the social welfare state. The liberal left Democrats embraced the platitudinous Obama/Clinton team as the ‘Great Society’s’ gravediggers, while wailing at Trump’s allies for shoving the corpse of welfare state into its grave.

Conclusion

Over the past forty years the working class and the rump of what was once referred to as the ‘labor movement’ has contributed to the dismantling of the social welfare state, voting for ‘strike-breaker’ Reagan, ‘workfare’ Clinton, ‘Wall Street crash’ Bush, ‘Wall Street savior’ Obama and ‘Trickle- down’ Trump.

Gone are the days when social welfare and profitable wars raised US living standards and transformed American trade unions into an appendage of the Democratic Party and a handmaiden of Empire. The Democratic Party rescued capitalism from its collapse in the Great Depression, incorporated labor into the war economy and the post- colonial global empire, and resurrected Wall Street from the ‘Great Financial Meltdown’ of the 21st century.

The war economy no longer fuels social welfare. The military-industrial complex has found new partners on Wall Street and among the globalized multi-national corporations. Profits rise while wages fall. Low paying compulsive labor (workfare) lopped off state transfers to the poor. Technology – IT, robotics, artificial intelligence and electronic gadgets – has created the most class polarized social system in history.

The first trillionaire and multi-billionaire tax evaders rose on the backs of a miserable standing army of tens of millions of low-wage workers, stripped of rights and representation. State subsidies eliminate virtually all risk to capital. The end of social welfare coerced labor (including young mother with children) to seek insecure low-income employment while slashing education and health – cementing the feet of generations into poverty. Regional wars abroad have depleted the Treasury and robbed the country of productive investment.

Economic imperialism exports profits, reversing the historic relation of the past.

Labor is left without compass or direction; it flails in all directions and falls deeper in the web of deception and demagogy. To escape from Reagan and the strike breakers, labor embraced the cheap-labor predator Clinton; black and white workers united to elect Obama who expelled millions of immigrant workers, pursued 7 wars, abandoned black workers and enriched the already filthy rich. Deception and demagogy of the labor-liberals bred the ugly and unlikely plutocrat-populist demagogue: labor voted for Trump.

The demise of welfare and the rise of the opioid epidemic killing close to one million (mostly working class) Americans occurred mostly under Democratic regimes. The collaboration of liberals and unions in promoting endless wars opened the door to Trump’s mirage of a stateless, tax-less, ruling class.

Who will the Democrats choose as their next demagogue champion to challenge the ‘Donald’ – one who will speak to the ‘deplorables’ and work for the trillionaires?

Viewing all 73742 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images