Russian attitudes towards the historical legacy of the Revolution are ambiguous.

By Mira Milosevich-Juaristi*

For the current Russian government, the 100th anniversary of the Revolution is not a happy occasion. The Kremlin links the surge of the Bolsheviks to power to State weakness and to political and social disorder, the reoccurrence of which should not be tolerated.

Nevertheless, since Vladimir Putin took office in 2000, the regime has rehabilitated the historical figure of Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) and in 2016 inaugurated monuments to Ivan the Terrible (1530-84) and Catherine the Great (1729-96), and to Prince Vladimir, who accepted, in his own name and in those of all his subjects, the faith of Byzantine Orthodox Christianity in 988. These four figures –all very different from one another– embody the autocratic, centralised and expansionist state model, based on the values of the Orthodox Church.

The attitude of the Russians towards the historical legacy of the Revolution is ambiguous and confused, leading to a sense of apathy with respect to the current regime, as revealed by the Levada Centre surveys, conducted every October since 1990.

Analysis

Brief balance of the Russian Revolution, 100 years later

One-hundred years later, the Bolshevik Revolution and its ideology have been discredited in the wake of the collapse of the political and economic system of the Soviet Union and the communist regimes around the world. Still, it is worth remembering its roots and the characteristics of the totalitarian regime that emerged from them, given that its lasted for 70 years and decisively influenced the history of the world during the 20th century.

The Russian Revolution brought about the fall of the Czarist autocracy and the radical destruction of the political system between February and October of 1917 (according to the Julian calendar –in use in Russian until 1 January 1918– and 13 days behind the Gregorian calendar). In contrast to previous revolutions, however, it was preceded by decades of intellectual debate over the necessity, possibility and convenience of undertaking a revolution. This could be attributed to several factors: the failure of governmental reforms during the second half of the 19th century, the frustrated attempt to establish a constitutional regime from 1905 until 1917 and a relatively long tradition of revolutionary movements. Nevertheless, what would typically strictly be called the October Revolution was provoked by a coup d’état carried out by a minority group (the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party) from which would emerge the Soviet system and its recourse to permanent terror. Thanks to a powerful propaganda machine, and the work of official historians and the collaboration of many intellectuals and workers from other countries, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union could create the myth of the proletarian revolution.

From 1917 the Bolsheviks –inspired as much by the ideas of historic Russian populism as by those of Marxism– invented a new political, economic and social system: the Soviet state. They aspired to make utopia into reality and to build a world community of emancipated humanity, liberated from all previous political structures. In practice, under Leninism the state authority of the single party was strengthened, along with autocratic ideology, legal nihilism and an ultra-centralised administration, while individual liberties and private property were absent. Stalin preserved the basic elements of Leninism, but introduced some new ones: he further centralised the administration, unleashed the Great Terror of the 1930s and based the legitimacy of his power on the glorification of state power, hierarchical and patriotic values, and in the cult of personality. None of the subsequent Soviet leaders –Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev or Mikhail Gorbachev– was able to completely eradicate Stalinism from Russian society. All three criticised the inefficacy of the communist system, but failed to go any further because they did not challenge its ideological principles. Finally, when Gorbachev opted for the reforms he initiated, it became clear that the Soviet regime could not assimilate them because the democratic and Soviet systems were simply incompatible.

The systematic use of force by the Communist state to eliminate any opposition to the regime was one of the keys to the long life of the totalitarian Soviet state. But there were others. The Soviet communist system was a system of ‘compensations’. The Soviet people did not try to protect their rights –because they had none– but they instead strove to receive significant ‘compensations’, which led to the generalised corruption of society. To this mix of force, remuneration and privileges must be added the element of agitation. Party expulsions, industrial production quotas, regional rivalries, systematic denunciations between neighbours and friends and, in the end, competition with the West, all contributed to maintain euphoria as a stabilisation mechanism. It is undeniable that communist totalitarianism was not a system based on terror alone; it enjoyed a certain amount of collaboration and acceptance amongst Soviet citizenry.

The Soviet order had some extraordinary successes that were indispensable to its survival: progress in education, accelerated industrialisation, the construction of cities, victory in the Second World War and the supremacy that came with being a great military power and epicentre of world communism. The borders of the Soviet Union coincided with those of the Czarist Empire, but its dominion extended far beyond, into Eastern Europe. In contrast with the Czars, the Bolsheviks had two empires, one ‘internal’ (the USSR) and the other ‘external’ (the member countries of the Warsaw Pact).

But the costs of the longevity of communist authority –systematic terror and agitation– outweigh the achievements. The lauded successes of industrialisation and military power were temporary because they could not serve as a foundation for continuing economic modernisation unless the Soviet order were dismantled. The absence of freedom of thought or expression (key ingredients for the reinvention of a society) and the planned economy were counterproductive for economic, political and social development.

Putin and the Czars

The Bolshevik state established by Lenin was far more absolutist and tyrannical that its Czarist predecessor, but it took advantage up, and built upon, the structure of the ‘Patrimonial State’ (a state model whose institutions make no distinction between public powers and private property, with a centralised administration and an absence of individual freedoms or private property for the majority of the Czar’s subjects).

The popularity of Vladimir Putin (before the annexation of Crimea in 2014) came from his success in reconstructing the centralised model of the state. Russian citizens who support him see him as a saviour, a charismatic leader capable of dealing with the traumatic experience of the three great historical ruptures that Russia endured in the 20th century: the October Revolution (1917), the disintegration of the Soviet Union (1991) and the collapse of the Russian state in 1998. Indeed, the fact that the Kremlin introduced, in 2005, the celebration of 4 November as a festival of Russian Popular Unity foreshadows an intention to substitute it for the festival of 7 November –the anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution (following the Gregorian calendar)– and suggests that Putin aspires to become the symbol of the overcoming of all of these historic ruptures.

The date of 4 November is the anniversary of the popular uprising of 1612 and of the expulsion of the Poles and Lithuanians who took advantage of the Smutnoye vremya (‘the time of troubles’, which followed upon the death of Czar Ivan IV the Terrible) to conquer part of the Principality of Moscow and install an imposter, Dmitri, as Czar. The event led to the arrival to the throne of Czar Michael Romanov in 1613, marking the end of the ‘time of troubles’ and the beginning of the long presence of the Romanovs on the throne (1613-1917). The new festival did not enjoy much following among the Russian people until the annexation of Crimea in 2014, when it became an affirmation of the strength and pride of Russia. But the celebration of the festival of Popular Unity in 2016 was marked by the inauguration of the monument to Prince Vladimir (17.5 metres in height) who in 988 adopted the Byzantine Orthodox Christian faith, in the environs of Sevastopol, on the Crimean Peninsula. The statue of Prince Vladimir was installed near the Kremlin and in his address Putin highlighted the centralising role of the prince, and declared that ‘the common duty of Russians today is to face modern challenges and threats, supporting ourselves with the invaluable traditions of unity and agreement, and to carry on, assuring the continuity of our millenary history’.

The inauguration of the monument to Catherine the Great –who in 1783 annexed Crimea into the Russian Empire (from the Ottomans)– took place only a few days before, in August 2016 in Simferopol (the administrative capital of the Crimea). On 14 October 2016, in Oreol, another monument was inaugurated: this one to Czar Ivan the Terrible, an historical figure known not so much for the expansion of the state as for a series of reforms which strengthened central power. In 1549 Ivan established the gleb (taxes), the Zemski sabor (the council of the representatives of the small villages) and the personal guard, or streltsi (‘archers’) –considered the precursors of the Cheka (the secret service created by the Bolsheviks in December 1917) for their cruelty in the repression of the adversaries of the Czar–. Between 1564 and 1572, following the orders of the Czar, the streltsi executed the majority of the boyars accused of conspiracy and treason. The principal objective of this arbitrary and bloody process, known as oprichnina, was to destroy the privileges of the powerful hereditary aristocracy in order to centralise power and extend the authority of the Czar.

These homages to the Russian Czars are the product of decision-making processes, operating at different levels of the administration, that seek to substitute the system of symbolic references from the communist era with other older references from Orthodox Christianity and Czarist autocracy, and insist upon the supposed splendour of imperial Russia.

Putin and the Bolsheviks

The relationship between the Kremlin and the Bolsheviks is very complex and for various reasons: the autocratic model of the current Russian regime maintains elements from the centralised Soviet state, created by the Bolsheviks, in which the security forces constitute the principal instrument for exercising control over the population. But there still is no narrative on the historical memory of the Soviet era, given the difficulty in reconciling the failure of the communist system with the most glorious period of its existence, when the USSR was a superpower.

According to the Levada Centre¹ survey conducted last April, 48% of the Russian population held a positive view of the overthrow of the Romanov dynasty and the October Revolution, while 31% had a very negative view and 21% claimed that it was very difficult to define their opinion. Of those surveyed, 35% consider the arrival to power of the Bolsheviks in 1917 to have been legal (in 2003, the figure had been 42%), while 45% thought it was an illegal act (compared with 39% in 2003). In both 2003 and 2017, 19% did not know how to respond. The results express mixed sentiments: Russians think that the overthrow of the Czarist monarchy ‘was no great loss’ but such a judgement reflects the vacillating, ambiguous and ill-defined attitude of the current government of Vladimir Putin towards the Bolshevik Revolution.

The Russian Revolution is inseparable from the coup d’état, the emergence of the totalitarian state, the millions of deaths from forced collectivisation and the Great Terror of Stalin. The Kremlin views 1917 as a moment of tremendous political and social disorder that had resulted from the weakness of the state.

When Vladimir Putin assumed power in 2000 his priority was to reconstruct a strong and centralised state. To do this, he sought the approval of his compatriots, juxtaposing the restoration of order with the disorder that surrounded the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the chaotic years of the 1990s.

Although the Kremlin does not consider it appropriate to celebrate the anniversary of the October Revolution, it does not deprive itself of the use the image of Stalin and the Soviet victory in the Second World War as symbols for its own autocratic regime. Last year, on 7 November, the 99th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, the Kremlin organised a military parade commemorating that date in 1941. On that occasion, Soviet troops marched through Red Square, departing to fight the Nazis. With this ceremony, Putin substituted Bolshevism with nationalism and pride in the victory in the Great Patriotic War. This gesture not only smacks of a manoeuvre to cloud the memory of a disagreeable historical fact, but also, above all, of the need to adapt Soviet symbols to the traditional version of the Russian state model (the citizen without power in the face of the omnipotent centralised state).

As seen from a survey conducted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Levada Centre in 2012 and 2013, there has been a symbolic recovery of the figure of Stalin –attributed to implicitly Soviet elements within Putin’s regime– although without a direct glorification of his historical role.

In the Soviet Union, in 1989, only 12% of Russians defined Stalin as ‘one of the prominent persons who have had a significant influence on the history of the world’. Stalin ranked 11th among 100 figures, with Lenin occupying first place (72% of those surveyed defined Lenin as the greatest figure in world history), ahead of Marx (35%), Czar Peter the Great (38%) and Pushkin (25%).² Between 1989 and 2012 the perceptions of Russians changed significantly. Since 2012, Stalin has become the most towering figure to 49% of Russians.

Opinions of the historical legacy of Stalin are opposed and contradictory: 50% of those surveyed believe that Stalin was a wise leader who brought greatness and prosperity to the Soviet Union (compared with 37% who do not). Some 68% were in agreement that Stalin was a cruel and inhumane tyrant, and responsible for millions of deaths of innocent people (compared with 15% who disagree with this evaluation); but the same 68% consider that, in spite of ‘his errors’, the most important part of his legacy is the victory in the Great Patriotic War (compared with 16% who deny that this was important).

Such contradiction reflects the paradoxical perception of Stalin as the tyrant responsible for millions of deaths of his compatriots and, at the same time, as the wise and powerful leader who won the war against Hitler. In the post-Soviet psyche, national greatness is inseparable from violence and brutal force. One aspect of this perception is the widespread consciousness among Russians that they belong to a great and victorious nation. This point of view is based on the victory of the Soviet Union in 1945, one of the few cases of consensus memory, and an unimpeachable pillar of national pride. Putin’s government rests upon the centrality of the victory over Nazi Germany in the memory of Russians, and it has intensified the celebration of 9 May (‘Victory Day’) with each passing year.

The overriding importance of the Second World War and of Stalin as the commander-in-chief who delivered the nation to victory derives from the fact that unequivocal condemnation of Stalinism is impossible in Russia. In Putin’s Russia, no longer a superpower, Stalin also constitutes a form of psychic ‘compensation’ for the loss of status. His image as destroyer of Nazi Germany and leader of the superpower that faced off the US during the Cold War helps Russia to compensate for the humiliation it suffered after the collapse of the communist empire.

The perception of Stalin that is linked to the victimization and impotence of the people in the face of arbitrary governments and brutal leaders is less direct. Russian historical experience has taught people that nothing can be done against the autocratic state and that the best strategy is to adapt to its capricious will. The experience has generated a mentality of dependence and political apathy, and an acceptance of state paternalism as natural.

The surprising resurgence in the popularity of Stalin stems not from a change in the evaluation of his historical role, but rather from the political climate of the present period. The Russia of Vladimir Putin needs symbols of authority and national strength, as controversial as they might be, to validate the new authoritarian political order. Stalin –a despotic leader responsible for the massive shedding of blood but identified with resistance and victory in the Great Patriotic War and national unity– satisfies this need for affirmation of the new Russian political identity.

Conclusion

The Kremlin’s attitude towards the Russian Revolution borders on the schizophrenic: it censures the political and social disorder that it provoked but it praises its model of State, which was incomparably more tyrannical than that of the Czars.

About the author:
*Mira Milosevich-Juaristi, Senior Research Analyst at the Elcano Royal Institute and Associate Professor in the History of International Relations at the Instituto de Empresa | @MiraMilosevich1

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute

Notes:
1. See Survey: The October Revolution, Levada Center.

2. ‘The Stalin puzzle: deciphering post-Soviet public opinion’, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1/III/2013.

By Pedro Rios*

This weekend in San Diego and Tijuana, I gathered with hundreds at Friendship Park, which spans both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. We came together for the 24th annual Posada Without Borders, to remember those who lost their lives crossing the border, and to call for humane and just immigration policies.

The Posada re-enacts the biblical story of Mary and Joseph, who were forced to seek shelter on the night of Jesus’ birth — much like many migrants today seek shelter to protect themselves and their families.

This year’s Posada Without Borders takes on new meaning. Just a few miles away, Trump’s 30-foot border wall prototypes stand facing Mexico.

Ironically, migrants seeking asylum regularly jump the primary border wall here precisely to turn themselves over to Border Patrol agents guarding the towering border wall models. Migrants young and old from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, and even India have recently crossed at this location, seeking asylum.

Policies that prioritize enforcement have separated families, left people to languish in for-profit detention centers, and pushed migrants to cross through dangerous border areas, where they die horribly — over 7,200 men, women, and children since the mid-90s — in desert and mountainous terrain across the Southwest.

As Congress works to avoid a government shutdown, policymakers are considering more of the ill-advised proposals that have created this human rights disaster for migrant communities.

Funding bills put forward by both the House and the Senate include additional money for the ill-conceived border wall, as well as more Customs and Border Protection agents. This places San Diego and other border cities once again at risk from misguided policies that will further militarize our communities.

Polls suggest that U.S. voters oppose the border wall by 2 to 1. Congress should heed their constituents and those most directly impacted by immigration and border legislation.

Upholding the principles of basic human decency means listening to communities across the border region. They’re demanding:

• No increase in Border Patrol agents. This will only expand an unaccountable and corrupt deportation force that can operate 100 miles into the interior.
• Not one additional mile of border wall, as this will exacerbate the destruction of sensitive ecosystems, disrupt ancestral indigenous lands, and put people’s lives at risk.
• No expansion of immigrant detention centers, which have a long record of human rights abuses and are often run by for-profit corporations.

Instead of prototyping border walls, why not prototype friendship by building bi-national parks, as some groups suggest?

In place of expanding unaccountable deportation forces, why not invest in oversight mechanisms that prioritize civil and human rights protections, such as outfitting agents with cameras and turning the Office of the Inspector General into a robust and trustworthy investigative body?

Each year at the Posada Without Borders, participants read the names of migrants who have died crossing the border or while in federal custody. Families stand on either side of the border, reaching fingers through the fence to connect in prayer with loved ones.

This devastating reality can no longer be treated as normal. We must choose to address border and immigration policies with principled ideas, rather than add to the toxicity that has fueled Trump’s unabashed anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Just as the Posada honors the journey that Mary and Joseph took 2,000 years ago, let us today honor the journeys of migrants and refugees with welcome and shelter rather than persecution.

Pedro Rios serves as director of the American Friends Service Committee’s U.S.-Mexico Border Program in San Diego. Distributed by OtherWords.org.

Imagine an app that can calculate the lies per minute (LPM) Trump subjects the American public to on a daily basis. Perhaps there should be a national contest for how many Trump lies per minute can be documented by a contestant in a given week.

When the Republican “tax cuts” reached his desk, in a bill which gives massive handouts to the rich and giant corporations at the expense of working families, Trump enveloped this even more complex tax code in a vast cloud of lies designed to reassure the working class that he daily betrays.

Senator Daniel P. Moynihan once said: “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”

Trump continues to trumpet serial lies about the bill, which was changed repeatedly during the last days to cater even more to commercial interests – in an egregious display of cash register politics. Republican Congressional leaders have also made mendacity their mantra. Moreover, Senator McConnell and Speaker Ryan have kept the bill from the Democrats, who had no chance to carefully read the final draft which they were expected to vote on.

Apparently there is no Senate rule preventing the tyrannical majority from keeping the minority in the dark. Today the Senate, split 52 to 48 in favor of the Republicans, is Senator Mitch McConnell’s dictatorship. There were no public hearings on this legislation, no opportunity for the Democrats and the public to regularly read the changes in the bill and very limited debate on the Senate floor. The Republicans, having circumvented the filibuster and stretched the reconciliation procedure to include opening up the Arctic refuge to oil and gas drilling and having more people lose their health insurance.

None of this means anything to Trump, who probably hasn’t even read a memo by his advisors on the bill’s details. His close aides say he doesn’t like briefing materials. Why should he? The Deceiver in Chief need only lie his way to the signing ceremony:

“Biggest tax cuts in history.” False. “Biggest reform ever passed.” False. “Will create many beautiful jobs.” False. “Biggest middle class tax cut ever.” Totally false. Trump also lies when he says he will take a “big, big hit” to his own wealth from this tax bill. Laughably false.

Tax analysts have exhausted themselves counting the number of intricate ways the legislation elevates Trump and his family’s wealth, real estate holdings and estates. If he had any dignity, he would announce that he would not take tax cuts, directly or indirectly, before he signs the bill into law.

As Trump tries to sell the myth that he is somehow “for the little guy” and fallaciously claims the forgotten men and women of America “will never be forgotten again,” his cabinet secretaries and regulatory agency heads are working overtime to roll back health, safety and labor protections for working people. That is, of course, exactly why these agency heads were picked by Trump.

Trump’s corporatized Department of Education is getting rid of protections for students who have been preyed upon and burdened with huge amounts of debt by for-profit so-called universities (Remember the frauds perpetrated by Trump University and his $25 million settlement last year). He has corporate crime abettor, Mick Mulvaney, running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau into the ground and trying to dismantle its law and order program for corporate financial crooks.

Trump brags about getting rid of “job-killing regulations,” without specifically mentioning any of them. He just keeps repeating over and over again his false claims. These regulations he wants to kill save the lives, health and safety of the American people by limiting toxic chemicals in the workplace, the consumer marketplace and the air, water and soil. He is letting defenseless Americans, including children, get sicker, be injured more and die earlier by continuing his cruel and vicious abandonment of long-considered legal safeguards. The regulations he is leaving alone are the ones providing corporate welfare, or what ideologically consistent conservatives call “crony capitalism.”

Trump heralds “clean, beautiful coal” (a wild lie about a devastating pollutant) and brags about creating 45,000 more mining jobs. Even barons of the declining coal industry know he’s trying to mislead the public.

Trump’s automatic prevarications keep coming, Tweet by Tweet. He says he is helping the little guy and then appoints his bank regulator, Keith Noreika, who helped banks avoid state laws protecting consumers and helped banks charge more fees. Mr. Noreika continues such anti-consumer practices in his new taxpayer-funded job.

In a recent front page article titled “Champion of the ‘Little Guy’? Trump’s Actions Tell Another Story,” the New York Times’ reporters asks Mike Walden, a truck driver for 30 years, what he thought. Having voted for Republicans in Ohio, Walden’s reply should trouble Trump, who is always sniffing for voter trends: “What has he done for the working man?…You don’t get elected by the working class then throw them under the bus.”

Voters who continue to believe in serial political liars are entrenching a tyranny over themselves. If we do not learn to recognize and reject such dishonesty, we will continue to enable dirty to our serious detriment.

For a comprehensive list of Trump’s constantly growing number of LPMs, see Trump’s Lies in the New York Times.

There could not be a greater difference between President Barack Obama’s first White House Christmas and President Donald Trump’s. Obama did not believe in exchanging Christmas gifts with his family; Trump does so lavishly.

The cover story of the July 23, 2008 edition of People magazine set the tone for how presidential candidate Obama would celebrate Christmas, if elected. Here is what it said. “The kids receive no birthday or Christmas presents from Mom and Dad, who spend ‘hundreds’ on birthday slumber parties….”

Trump’s first White House Christmas has the imprint of Melania Trump: she turned several rooms into a colorful display of epic proportions.

The theme “Time-Honored Traditions” included more than 18,000 feet of lights, 3,100 yards of ribbon, 12,000 ornaments and 53 Christmas trees. Most spectacular is the hallway of the East Colonnade: it is decorated like a winter wonderland of twinkling wintery branches. There is also a grand nativity scene in the East Room, and a stunning tribute to the armed forces in the East Wing.

Obama’s first White House Christmas was embroiled in controversy from the beginning. The following is from a news story in the New York Times published on December 7, 2009.

“When former social secretaries gave a luncheon to welcome Ms. [Desirée] Rogers earlier this year, one participant said, she surprised them by suggesting the Obamas were planning a ‘non-religious Christmas….’

“The lunch conversation inevitably turned to whether the White House would display its crèche, customarily placed in a prominent spot in the East Room. Ms. Rogers, this participant said, replied that the Obamas did not intend to put the manger scene on display—a remark that drew an audible gasp from the tight-knit social secretary sisterhood.”

When the reporter, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, asked the White House for clarification, she was told that “there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive and whether to display the crèche.”

After creating this polarizing moment, a nativity scene was reluctantly displayed. But this didn’t end the controversy. Genocidal maniac Mao Zedong, who was responsible for the deaths of 77 million Chinese people, was celebrated by the Obama White House: his picture adorned a Christmas tree ornament. Various drag queens were also honored.

There have been no reports of Trump honoring Stalin or sexual deviants.

Merry Christmas from the Catholic League.

Not 20 minutes had passed following President Trump’s outrageous “Capital offense” declaration recognizing all of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel when shouts were heard in parts of Lebanon of an arriving apocalypse. Some self-flagellations were observed in certain Shia quarters, predications of end of times spread as well as many calls for a Third Intifada to “liberate Jerusalem.”

Ninety out of a hundred US Senators approved of Trump’s statement. None voted against and the ten who abstained are well known hardened Trump detractors. The vote reflects the continuing strong pro- Israel sentiment among both fundamentalist and liberal Americans. On 12/15/2017, Trump administration officials also declared that Jerusalem’s Western Wall is part of Israel, a declaration that will doubtless enflame more passions among Palestinians and others in the Middle East and globally.

As is well-known by now, every Arab country and more than 100 others have strongly condemned Trumps decision to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem despite weak sounding White House pledges to increase its support for the Palestinian cause. Mild protests from the EU, UK and many US allies also quickly followed. Egypt’s UNSC draft resolution affirmed that any decisions on the status of Jerusalem were “null and void and must be rescinded”, and urged all states to “refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the holy city” would have passed with 14 yea votes but for the American veto. A similar indictment of the Embassy move did pass the UN General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace resolution on 12/21/2017 with 128 states in favor, 35 abstaining and nine voting against.

It’s quite likely that every 5th year Palestinian youngster in Lebanon’s 13 camps knows that the United Nations partition plan drawn up in 1947 planed that Jerusalem would be a separate “international city.” But the 1948 war that followed Israel’s declaration of independence cut the city in two and as part of an Armistice, drawing with green ink on a map, the Green Line creating East and West Jerusalem. Israel controlled the western half, and Jordan controlled of the eastern half, including the Old City. In 1967 Israel took over all of Jerusalem and declared it to be its eternal undivided capital. And that’s the cause of today’s problem because it is claimed as the capital of Palestine.

Trump’s moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, which hopefully will not survive the next Presidential election, has created much politically calculated hand wringing in Lebanon and this region and the manipulation of the struggle to make Jerusalem the capital of Palestine. Palestinian leaders are adamant that an embassy move to Jerusalem is a violation of international law, and a huge setback to the “peace process”.

The first claim is accurate, certainly it’s an egregious violation of international law which the UN must work to block with Security Council resolutions urging all countries to refrain from moving embassies to Jerusalem. With respect to the ‘peace process’ there is no such thing today and arguably there has never been a serious one.

For the past quarter century, American presidents, both Democrats and Republicans get secure more Jewish and Fundamentalist Christians, have declared Jerusalem to be Israel’s capital and promised to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv.

In 1992, Bill Clinton declared, “Jerusalem is still the capital of Israel and must remain an undivided city accessible to all.”

In 2000, entrenched in a tight race with Albert Gore, Clintons Vice President, George W. Bush promised: “As soon as I take my office I will begin the process of moving the United States Ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital, Jerusalem.”

During his 2008 election campaign, Barack Obama made an even stronger commitment to the Israeli position on Jerusalem than his predecessors declaring his support for Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, emphasizing that ”

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and must remain undivided.”

Since Trumps announcement, plenty of anti-Palestinian politicians seeking to cash in politically, including Lebanese President, Michel Aoun who is only in that post because Iran installed him by instructing Hezbollah to break its deadlock of Parliament, are wringing their hands and seeking political advantages from Trumps provocative action.

Aoun, is widely known for his anti-Palestinian views and actions and is thought to care less about Jerusalem being the Palestinians capital, rather he just wants every Palestinian out of Lebanon, the sooner the better. And so do the Palestinians—they want to return to their homes in Palestine. One anti-Palestinian tactic Aoun regularly uses in many of his speeches is to insist that “Lebanon needs to be freed from the 600,000 Palestinians in our country who seek naturalization.” Sometimes he uses the figure 500,000. Truth told, fewer than 175.000 Palestinians remain in Lebanon today and Aoun knows this. A just released census of Palestinians in Lebanon, the first counting every taken, confirms this. Tens of thousands have emigrated because by law, Lebanon bars them from the elementary civil rights to work or to own a home. Of those who remain very few would accept naturalization. The noted above first ever official census of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon was released on 12.21.2017, and it established that 174,422 Palestinian refugees are living in the country, much lower than anti-Palestinian politicians have been telling their followers that past few decades.

Also, being heard are renewed promises by the Hezbollah led “Resistance” that it will withdraw its forces fighting in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere and make Palestine its top priority, promising that if it is necessary Iran/Hezbollah will import Shia militia from across the region to help “liberate Al Quds.” Shortly after Trumps declaration, Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah announced that his fighters would return from abroad and focus its fighting on behalf of Palestinians, since Hezbollah’s fighters had already defeated its enemies in several other regional battles against Syrian “terrorists”.

Addressing a 12/11/2017 rally in South Beirut via a video feed, Nasrallah declared “Jerusalem, Palestine and the Palestinian people will return to be the priorities” for Hezbollah, adding that the group would “dedicate all its time to Palestinian resistance.”

Nasrallah’s promise that the “Resistance” will dedicate all its time to Palestinians comes as good news to the Beirut-Washington DC based Palestine Civil Rights Campaign (PCRC) volunteers who have been pressing Hezbollah over the seven years in Syria to arrange 90 minutes of Parliaments time to grant the elementary civil right to work and to own a home for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Sixty of the minutes would be required to enact the right to work for Palestinians without Kafkaesque restrictions that prevent them from working and thirty minutes to repeal the 2001 racist law that criminalized home ownership for Palestinians in Lebanon.

A few days later, Sheikh Nabil Qaouq, deputy head of Hezbollah’s Executive Council, also declared that his party “will give full support for the resistance in Palestine and liberate Al Quds.”

On 12/11/2017 Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s Quds Force, called the leaders of the military wings of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to offer military support. According to the pro-Iran Beirut-based Al-Mayadeen TV Soleimani ordered Hezbollah to defend Jerusalem. He expressed Iran’s full support for the Palestinian cause Hezbollah has quickly sought to take a leadership role in response to Trumps decision and the reaction it caused among Palestinians in Lebanon and elsewhere. After of break regarding the Palestinian cause since Hezbollah entered the civil war in Syria in March of 2011. Killing, it is reported by some Syrian Palestinian leaders, more Sunni Palestinians over the past seven years than Israel has killed since the 1948 Nakba, nearly 70 years ago, Nasrallah claims Hezbollah will help Palestinians.

Nasrallah was emphatic on 12/11/2017:

“And I declare today that I speak not only on behalf of Hezbollah, but on behalf of the entire Resistance Axis (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Iraq, Yemen). I know their opinion and their position very well, being in constant contact with all. Previously Nasrallah has insisted that Hezbollah had nothing to do with Yemen and had no fighters, military training centers or even contacts there.)  to the Palestinian people and ready to stand by them.” Nasrallah assured the Palestinians in Lebanon’s 12 camps that Hezbollah will “liberate Al Quds (Jerusalem)!”

It’s quite unlikely that the “Resistance,” as Nasrallah claims will expel Israel from Jerusalem anytime soon. Such boasts fall these days on skeptical ears in Lebanon because to date Hezbollah has done very little for Lebanon’s Palestinians. In June of 2010 Hezbollah pulled out of a Palestinian march for civil rights near Parliament and in August of 2010, blocked, in Parliament, an effective proposal to grant Lebanon’s Palestinians the most elementary civil rights to work or own a home.

But at the South Beirut Hezbollah rally after the Trump announcement, the Shia assembly from my neighborhood who came to listen to Nasrallah via video feed, were excited and on que would look at the media cameras and offer the following chants when signaled by rally organizers:

*        “We are moving towards Al-Quds by the millions, seeking martyrdom, (death) !”
*        “We are at your command, O Nasrallah”,
*       “Death to Israel, Death to America”,
*      “I will never abandon you, O Hussein!”( ed: Hussein is Aba Abdallah al-Hussein (grandson of the Prophet Mohammad and the 3rd of the 12 Imams of Shiism. He killed at Karbala on October 10, 680 fighting rival Sunni Muslim forces during an Umayyad military victory)
*      “ O Allah! Protect Nasrallah for us!”

Among the crowd listening to Nasrallah were many relatives of the 10,000 plus Lebanese Shia men from Lebanon who were either killed or wounded over the past seven years, all being victims of Hezbollah’s wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. For their families, maybe during the short emotional period of the event and while hearing and seeing the popular Nasrallah, they experienced a brief respite the grief of losing their loved ones in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Yet increasingly they express that the reasons for their irreplaceable loses were for no other purpose than what very few Shia believe in these days. And that is Tehran’s insistence that the Lebanese and other Shia from half a dozen countries “seek Martyrdom” carrying out a revenge ritual against Takfiris for the death of Hussein at Kabala, nearly fifteen hundred years ago.

As of 12/17/2017, a week after Nasrallah’s announcement, there are no signs of Hezbollah’s withdrawal from Syria. Hezbollah fighters joined Syrian government forces and entered parts of the Idlib province in north-west Syria, one of four “de-escalation” zones which foreign powers including Turkey, Iran and Russia established. Fighting was to stop along with the targeting of civilians. Government forces, including Hezbollah, took control of the Tahrir al-Sham Organization’s villages, including the village of Tal al-Khanazir south-east of Idlib.

But for all its “Resistance” commitment exhortations to liberating Palestine, Tehran does not want Hezbollah to ignite any war in Lebanon, which is far too important to Iran’s main goal in Lebanon. Rather is wants Hezbollah to tighten its grip on Lebanon during the run-up to the coming May 2018 elections in which Hezbollah plans make a clean sweep and virtually control all the Lebanese leadership posts including President, Prime Minister, the Army, all Security Services, Parliament, and even change the constitution which it is reportedly planning to if it wins the coming election. For example, Hezbollah could discard the current the power-sharing distribution in parliament from half Christian/half Muslim to a three-way system between Christians, Sunnis, and Shia. If so Hezbollah would have achieved perpetual power in Lebanon’s institutions. It has wanted to do this for years but lacked the Parliamentary majority which it may now achieve in the May 2018 elections.

It’s not been just Arab politicians who playing the Jerusalem card, some perhaps ironically, depending on one’s sense of humor includes the Turks. Turkey’s President Erdogan has taken a leading position as spokesman for the Palestinians claim to Jerusalem, yet it was the Ottoman Turks who colonized the Arabs for over 600 years and ignored Jerusalem as a backwater city of no religious importance and of little value. Earlier, when Caliph Omar captured Jerusalem in 637, it had nothing to do with the Koran or Prophet Mohammad ordaining that it was to be Islamic. Jerusalem just happened to be in the geographical area of the war between Arabs fighting the Byzantines. For a period, Muslims did pray towards Jerusalem because of its connections to Abraham and because Mecca was in pagan hands, but when Jews rejected Prophet Muhammad as the promised messiah, and Mecca was cleared of idols, Muslims largely lost interest in Jerusalem.

Such is history– with a fair bit of the devil rising from the details of the ill-advised White House preemption of an explosive issue that will continue to ignite unpredictable conflicts in this region and beyond.

Viewed one way, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan looks unassailable: He weathered last year’s coup attempt, jailed more than 50,000 opponents, fired more than 100,000 civil servants, beheaded the once powerful Turkish military, eviscerated much of his parliamentary opposition, dismissed almost half of the county’s elected officials, and rammed through a constitutional referendum that will make him an all-powerful executive following the 2019 election. In the meantime, a seemingly never-ending state of emergency allows him to rule by decree.

So why is the man running scared?

Because the very tools that Erdogan has used to make himself into a sort of modern day Ottoman sultan are backfiring. The state of emergency is scaring off foreign investment, which is central to the way the Turkish economy functions. The loss of experienced government workers has put an enormous strain on the functioning of the bureaucracy. And the promises he made to the electorate in order to get his referendum passed are coming due with very little in the till to fulfill them.

Part of the problem is Erdogan himself. In that sense he is a bit like US President Donald Trump, who has also alienated allies with a combination of bombast and cluelessness. The Turkish President is in a war with Washington over a corruption trial, at loggerheads with Germany (and most of the European Union) over his growing authoritarianism and, with the exception of Russia, China, Qatar and Iran, seems to be quarreling with everyone these days. It is certainly a far cry from a decade ago when the foreign policy of Ankara was “Zero problems with the neighbors.” As one Turkish commentator put it, it’s now “No neighbors without problems.”

What has thrown a scare into Erdogan, however, is not so much the country’s growing diplomatic isolation, but the economy and how that might affect the outcome of presidential elections in 2019.

In the run up to the constitutional referendum last year, the government handed out loans and goodies to the average Turk. Growth accelerated, unemployment fell, and the poverty rate was reduced. But the cost of priming that pump has come due at the very moment that international energy prices are on the rise. Turkey imports virtually all of its energy, but when the price of oil was down to a little more than $30 a barrel, the budget could handle it.

The price of oil in December, however, was close to $60 a barrel, and a recent agreement between the two largest producers—Saudi Arabia and Russia—to curb production will drive that price even higher in the future. Rate hikes for gasoline and heating will be up sharply in the coming months

Turkish unemployment is over 13 percent, inflation is close to 12 percent, and the Turkish lira has fallen 12 percent against the dollar. With energy costs rising and currency value declining, Turkey is struggling through an economic double whammy.

Economist Timur Kuran of Duke University says the Turkish economy is in serious trouble. “The AKP (Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party) is doing massive long-term damage to the Turkish economy. Corruption is up, the quality of education has fallen, the courts are massively politicized, and the people are afraid to speak honestly.”  Kuran argues that any growth is based on short-term investments, so–called “hot money,” drawn in by high interest rates. “This is not a sustainable strategy. It makes Turkey highly vulnerable to a shock that might cause an outflow of resources.”

Under Erdogan Corruption does seem to be increasing. In 2013 Transparency International ranked Turkey 53ed out of 175 countries on its Corruption Perception Index. By 2016 the country had risen to 75^th out of 176 countries.

Turkey’s economy is highly dependent on foreign money, but the continuing state of emergency and rule by decree is scaring off investors. Figures by the Central Bank show that Turkey is losing $1 billion a week in foreign investments. Britain, a major investor in Turkey, has reduced its investments by 20% since the declaration of the state of emergency.

The uncertainly has spread as well to Turkish citizens, who are putting their money into foreign investments in order to preserve their savings. From the end of 2016 to this November, Turks moved $17.2 billion to foreign firms.

Erdogan is blaming Turkish banks—in particular the Central Bank—for rising interest rates and the downturn in the economy. But Kemel Kilicdaroglu, leader of the centrist and secular opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) argues that “The real reason why foreign investments other than real estate purchases are decreasing is that [foreign investors] feel insecure in a country where law, justice and press freedom are non-existent.”

The state of emergency allows the government to suppress trade union strikes, but it has been less successful in damping down what was once a AKP strong suit: rural farmers.

One of Erdogan’s economic “reforms” was to open Turkish markets to foreign competition, which has resulted in losses for the country’s live stock and agricultural growers. Meat producers are up in arms over an agreement with Serbia to import 5,000 tons of red meat, and tea, grape, tobacco and apricot growers have been hard hit by falling prices and foreign competition. Hazelnut growers were so incensed at the government’s base price for their produce that they organized a large march under the banner of “Justice for Hazelnuts.”

A study found that foreign imports had reduced the number of families involved in growing tobacco from 405,882 families in 2002 to 56,000 in 2015.

It is not so much the marches that worry Erdogan, but the fact that some 20 million rural Turks are up in arms against the government, anger that might translate into votes in 2019. In the April 2017 referendum, rural votes solidly supported the AKP, while urban centers—particularly their youth—voted no. Losing cities like Ankara and Istanbul—the city where Erdogan began his political career—was a shock for the AKP, but losses in rural areas would be a political train wreck.

While Erdogan strains to keep the economic lid on long enough to get through 2019, there are fissures opening within his own party. A wing of the AKP is not happy with Erdogan’s foreign policy disputes and the impact that they are having on the economy.

On his right, former interior minister Meral Aksener has formed the Iyi Parti or “Good Party” and says she plans to challenge Erdogan for the presidency. Aksener appeals to the more nationalist currents in the AKP and hopes to attract support from the extreme right wing National Action Party (MHP). She is currently polling around 16 percent.

Polls indicate that the “Good Party” is cutting into the AKP’s support, which has dropped to 38 percent. Erdogan needs at least 51 percent, the figure that he claims he got in the referendum (outside observers called the election deeply flawed, however). Aksener could split Erdogan’s support within the AKP and the MHP, thus denying him a majority.

Nor has the CHP thrown in the towel, Besides organizing marches by angry rural residents, Party leader Kilicdaroglu pulled off a 25-day, 280-mile “Justice March” last summer that may have involved as many as a million people.

The Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), Turkey’s leftist party closely tied to its Kurdish population, has been decimated by arrests and seizure of its assets, but it is still the third largest party in parliament. “It may appear that injustice has won, but this will not last,” HDP parliament member Meral Danis Bestas told Al-Monitor. “Turkey’s future truly lies in democracy, rights and freedom.”

Erdogan has enormous power and has out muscled and out maneuvered his opponents for the past 20 years. But Turks are growing weary of his rule and, if the economy stumbles, he may be vulnerable.

That’s why he is running scared.

*Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and middleempireseries.wordpress.com.

By Doug French*

Americans loved their houses. Their four walls and a roof always went up in value, until it ended. But, now housing is back: 2008 was just a bad dream. Jared Dillian has written a dandy piece for Bloomberg making the case for housing to be taken from its preferred status in the tax code. Mr. Dillian has the website The Daily Dirtnap and wrote the wonderful book Street Freak.

Eliminate deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes and tax any capital gains the way Uncle Sam does on stocks and other assets, says Dillian. Encouraging people to go into hock for 30 years to buy an illiquid asset is nonsense, he says. This makes the economy “more fragile. We should instead think about ways to make it more anti-fragile,” Dillian writes.

He continues,

So, sure, it’s nice that homeownership forces people to build equity in an asset, even if it is a profoundly crappy asset, because left to their own devices, they probably wouldn’t save anything at all. But, ideally, wouldn’t we want people diversified across a range of assets, instead of having all their eggs in one basket?

The real nub of his argument is people should be encouraged to save and invest, not consume and take on years of debt. However, this continues to be the age of Keynesianism, where saving is bad, while consumption is good for the economy.

Gregory Bresiger explained Keynesian fallacies on mises.org, “Yet penalizing thrift, the lifeblood of job creation and better tools that make current workers more efficient, has hurt the nation’s ability to grow and employ millions of young people looking for jobs. That’s because Keynesianism, according to its modern interpreters, amounts to a celebration of consumption. It is a belief that government spending combined with low savings rates lead to permanent booms.”

“The growth in wealth, so far from being dependent on the abstinence [savings] of the rich, as is commonly supposed, is more likely to be impeded by it,” John Maynard Keynes wrote in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.

“The more virtuous we are, the more determinedly thrifty, the more obstinately orthodox in our national and personal finance, the more incomes will have to fall,” he writes. “Saving,” Keynes wrote in his Treatise on Money, “is the act of the individual consumer and consists in the negative act of refraining from spending the whole of his current income on consumption.”

Before Keynes published The General Theory in 1936, The U.S. government’s push for homeownership had already started with Herbert Hoover, which I chronicle in Chapter 4 of Walk Away.

“Hoover attached home ownership with independence and initiative, believing that an American must own a home to truly be considered an American,” I explain. “Home ownership was sold to Americans with ‘carefully calculated governmental policies that proselytized Americans about the virtues of suburban home ownership while opposing outright market intervention,’ explains Janet Hutchison.”

Hoover’s election to the White House in 1928, put the government even more firmly behind housing. All the tax advantages, Dillian complains about began then. Achim Duebel explained, “with income tax relief for mortgage interest paying homeowners, and ‘public guarantees and regulatory privileges that benefit the mortgage industry. The approach is unchanged since the New Deal era of the 1930s when it was designed to rescue a failing private mortgage industry and fight the Depression through construction-led growth.”

“The government has set standards for construction, for financing, for land-use planning, and, to a certain extent, for family and community life,” wrote Gwendolyn Wright.

By 1992, Congress insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loosen their underwriting standards so more low and moderate income people could borrow their way to Hoover’s “independence.”

Mr. Dillian picks up the story right before the crash. The dense thicket of federal housing policies had taken the “homeownership rate from 63 percent to 70 percent by increasing the availability of credit. We soon found out that those 7 percent of people at the margin had no business owning a house.”

Now 100 million households have access to HGTV, which overtook CNN as the third most-watched cable channel in the United States, behind Fox News and ESPN.

The network is devoted to home improvement shows and is home to such shows as “Property Brothers” and “Flip or Flop.”

Per Wikipedia, “HGTV’s current programming focuses primarily on home-buying, renovation, and reality shows following the business of house flipping. SNI CEO Ken Lowe stated of the programming strategy that ‘We’re not going to surprise you. We’re not going to throw you a curve ball. It’s not easy to create content that people are passionate about and somewhat addicted to that is somewhat repetitive.’”

Americans are addicted to housing and the government is the pusher.

About the author:
*Douglas French is former president of the Mises Institute, author of Early Speculative Bubbles & Increases in the Money Supply , and author of Walk Away: The Rise and Fall of the Home-Ownership Myth. He received his master’s degree in economics from UNLV, studying under both Professor Murray Rothbard and Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

One day after the United Nations voted to revoke the U.S. government’s inflammatory decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said he no longer views the “dishonest” nation as a mediator between his government and Israeli authorities.

“The United States has proven to be a dishonest mediator in the peace process and we will no longer accept any plan from the United States,” Abbas said after meeting with his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, in Paris.

He criticized U.S. President Donald Trump and his ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, for hurling threats at General Assembly members prior to the vote, conditioning financial aid to lapdog adherence to orders meted by the boys in Washington.

While Macron took care to avoid acknowledging Palestine as a free, independent state, opting to say that France will make a decision “at the right time,” he shared Abbas’ sentiments on U.S. policy in the region.

“The Americans have marginalized themselves and I am trying not to do the same thing,” Macron said, noting that Washington’s mistake was to “want to unilaterally manage from afar a situation whose solution is in the hands of the Israelis and Palestinians,” according to Haaretz.

Taking a more diplomatic approach, the French president has committed himself “very clearly to doing everything” in his power to further peace. He wrapped up his comments by saying he plans to visit the Palestinian territories in 2018, according to PressTV.

Abbas praised Macron for his statesmanlike outlook, responding that he has the “trust” of Palestinian authorities which “respect the efforts made by you and we count heavily on your efforts.”

The international community has galvanized in protest after Trump, going one step further than his predecessor and other former presidents, announced plans to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Demonstrations have been held in Palestine, Lebanon, Indonesia, Colombia, France, the United States and elsewhere.

By Rodney Reynolds

The politics of the Trump administration are being increasingly governed by the twin policies of unilateralism and isolationism.

After Donald Trump was elected president in November 2016, he withdrew from a historic 2016 climate change agreement signed by 195 countries – and the only signatory to do so.

And this year, he announced plans to dilute the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal signed by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC), namely the U.S., UK, France, China and Russia, plus Germany and the 28-member European Union (EU) – much against warnings by all the other signatories.

The latest unilateral act came in early December 2017 when Trump announced his decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and threaten to eventually move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to the disputed city – the only country, so far, to do so.

And on December 18, the U.S. vetoed a one-page Security Council resolution, crafted by the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and sponsored by Egypt, which reiterated the longstanding view of the UNSC: that no country should establish an embassy in Jerusalem and that its status has to be resolved by the Palestinians and Israelis.

In a statement before she exercised the U.S. veto, Ambassador Nikki Haley told delegates: “I have been the proud Representative of the United States at the United Nations for nearly a year now. This is the first time I have exercised the American right to veto a resolution in the Security Council. The exercise of the veto is not something the United States does often. We have not done it in more than six years. We do it with no joy, but we do it with no reluctance.”

“The fact that this veto is being done in defense of American sovereignty and in defense of America’s role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the Security Council,2 she added.

Of the 15 members of the UNSC, the remaining four permanent members, UK, France, China and Russia, voted for the resolution. So did the 10 non-permanent members proving once again how isolated the United States is in the far reaches of the international community – and particularly at the United Nations, in this case, characterized by a vote of 14:1.

Responding to the U.S. decision, and reacting to Haley’s statement, Nadia Hijab, Executive Director of Al-Shabaka, The Palestinian Policy Network, told IDN: “If the issue were not so serious, Nikki Haley’s comments would be the subject of slapstick comedy.”

“Why does America’s sovereignty need defending all the way out in the Middle East, and how does Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, in violation of international law, defend that sovereignty?,” she asked pointedly.

In fact, what has happened at the Security Council has stalled the first step in Israel’s campaign to legalize its occupation of Palestinian land, she added.

The other four permanent members and the remaining 10 members who represent all world regions have made it clear that they are not ready to shake a core foundation of the international system – the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war – to serve Israel’s colonial appetite, Hijab said.

Earlier, there were concerns that the statement jointly issued on December 8 by five European countries – including two veto-wielding Security Council members – was somewhat mealy-mouthed, she pointed out.

Although they upheld international law, they “disagreed with” rather than condemned Trump’s recognition and softened even that by noting commitment to a two-state solution, Hijab declared.

The UK, one of the strongest Western allies of the U.S., stood firm.

Ambassador Matthew Rycroft, the UK’s Permanent Representative to the UN, told delegates: “The status of Jerusalem should be determined through a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and should ultimately be the shared capital of the Israeli and Palestinian states.”

Quoting previous UNSC resolutions, he said that in line with those same resolutions, “we regard East Jerusalem as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”

“As we have previously said, we disagree with the US decision unilaterally to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel before a final status agreement and to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. As recent events in the region have shown, these decisions are unhelpful to the prospects for peace in the region, an aim that all of us in this Council remain committed to.”

“The British Embassy to Israel is based in Tel Aviv and we have no plans to move it,” Rycroft declared.

Riyad Mansour, Permanent Observer for the State of Palestine, told delegates “it was reprehensible that the United States had chosen to disregard international law and undermine its own role in any future peace process.”

Affirming that East Jerusalem was the capital of the State of Palestine, as recognized by the majority of States, he urged “all peace-loving nations to stand firm for the rule of law on that issue and to reject Israel’s settlement policies.”

He said Palestinians would never accept occupation as a permanent reality, pointing out “those who want peace do not recognize illegal actions and measures but rather recognize the rights of the Palestinian people as enshrined in international law.”

Asked about the role of the Quartet (comprising the United Nations, U.S., the European Union, and Russia), following the extraordinary OIC summit meeting in Istanbul on December 13 where the Palestinian Authority said it will no longer recognise a U.S. role in the search for peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, UN Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq told reporters December 13 that the United States remains one of the partners in the Quartet, and the Quartet will remain involved in the search for a solution, a two‑state solution, in the Middle East.

“What our concern is we want to make sure that the parties themselves are willing to hold talks with each other. And, in line with that, the United Nations, both in its independent role and through the Quartet, will work to do what it can to bring the Israelis and Palestinians back to the table for talks,” he added.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres said he had consistently spoken out against any “unilateral measures” that would jeopardize the prospect of peace for Israelis and Palestinians.

Jerusalem is a final status issue that must be resolved through direct negotiations between the two parties on the basis of the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, taking into account the legitimate concerns of both the Palestinian and the Israeli sides, he noted.

“I understand the deep attachment that Jerusalem holds in the hearts of so many people. It has been so for centuries and it will always be. In this moment of great anxiety, I want to make it clear: there is no alternative to the two-state solution. There is no Plan B.”

It is only by realizing the vision of two states living side-by-side in peace, security and mutual recognition, with Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and Palestine, and all final status issues resolved permanently through negotiations, that the legitimate aspirations of both peoples will be achieved, he added.

An Asian diplomat told IDN that Trump’s “dangerous and provocative move” regarding Jerusalem can not only trigger violence in the Middle East but also lead to a conflict.

Ironically, this provocation comes at a time when Guterres is aiming at “preventive diplomacy” following the appointment in September 2017 of a High-Level Advisory Board on Mediation to guide him on the road ahead. (Read > UN Chief Opts for Preventive Diplomacy Over Post-Conflict Peacekeeping.)

The primary mandate of the Board is based on the age-old axiom that prevention (diplomacy) is far better than the cure (post-conflict peacekeeping).

At the same time, the Secretary-General is also determined to help achieve the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. And Goal 16 is aimed are reducing violent conflicts worldwide with better access to peace and justice.

The UN has warned that a few high-intensity armed conflicts have caused, and are causing, large numbers of civilian casualties.

But progress promoting peace and justice, together with effective, accountable and inclusive institutions, remains uneven across and within regions, according to the UN.

The crisis over Jerusalem may well be the next spark for another armed conflict.

EU ambassadors (Permanent Representatives Committee) on Friday endorsed the deal concluded with the European Parliament on November 29 on revised common safety rules for civil aviation and a new remit for the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The reform includes the first ever EU-wide rules for civil drones, that will allow remotely piloted aircraft of all sizes to fly safely in European airspace and will bring legal certainty for this rapidly expanding industry.

The purpose of the new rules is to create the right conditions so that the EU has the capacity to handle the expected air traffic increase of 50% over the next 20 years and to ensure that the EU aviation sector is prepared for tough global competition.

“It is our responsibility to ensure that civil aviation safety rules are adapted to take account of new developments, including the increasing use of drones. With this agreement, we have new rules which meet today’s need,” said Kadri Simson, Estonia’s Minister for Economic affairs and Infrastructure.

The regulation on EU civil aviation safety covers all key areas of aviation including airworthiness, aircrew, aerodromes, air operations and the provision of air navigation services. It also sets out a division of tasks between the EU and national authorities.

The reform introduces proportionate and risk-based rules designed to reduce red tape and encourage innovation. For example, sport and recreational aviation will be subject to simpler and cheaper approval procedures than those applicable for commercial air transport.

The rules on drones will provide the basic principles to ensure safety, security, privacy and the protection of personal data. There will also be rules on the noise and emissions generated by drones, as is the case for any other aircraft. Higher-risk drone operations will require certification, while drones presenting the lowest risk will simply need to conform with the normal EU market surveillance mechanisms. Drone operators must be registered if they operate drones which can transfer more than 80 Joules of kinetic energy upon impact with a person. This threshold can be amended in the future without lengthy procedures by means of delegated act to take account of developments in this area.

In relation to areas other than the registration threshold, the EASA will develop more detailed rules on drones on the basis of the principles laid down in the regulation, and these detailed rules will be enacted through a Commission implementing act. The EASA has already published a ‘prototype’ regulation for drones.

The agreement extends the EASA’s mandate to safety-related aspects of security, such as cyber security, and to the protection of the environment. It establishes a framework for the pooling and sharing of aviation inspectors and other specialists to support member states in certification and oversight tasks. The agreement will also create a new support mechanism for member states that will include technical assistance for certification, oversight and enforcement tasks.

In addition, the text provides new rules for the safe provision of ground-handling services and closes a number of other safety gaps.

Once the agreed text has undergone legal-linguistic finalization, it must be formally approved first by the Parliament and then by the Council (agreement at first reading). The procedure is expected to be completed in spring 2018. Following adoption, the regulation will be published in the EU’s Official Journal. It will enter into force twenty days after publication.

Are you struggling with getting your child to school? Here is some advice on what you should do as a parent – and what you should not do.

Not attending school for longer periods can have negative effects on the child’s psychological, social and academic development. Post-doctoral researcher Trude Havik at the Norwegian Centre for Learning Environment and Behavioural Research in Education at the University of Stavanger has been studying the phenomenon of school refusal. She gives us ten ways to prevent it and help pupils back to school.

1. Talk with your child

Try to find out why he or she refuses to go to school. Has something happened? Ask if your child has any friends at school. Take your time and be specific when asking questions.

2. Contact the school as soon as possible

“Ask if they have noticed any change of behaviour in your child, both regarding school work and in social interchange,” said Havik.

Parents should contact the school, and they should together find out why the child does not want to or is unable to attend school.

3. Make an agreement

Complaints about stomach pain or headache are often among the first indications of school refusal. In case of such complaints, you should make an agreement that your child will attend school, but can return home if the pain gets worse during the day. The teacher must also be informed about the agreement.

“Going to school rarely worsens the child’s condition. Making sure that children go to school is important because non-attendance leads to more of the same,” said Havik. “The longer a pupil is absent, the harder it is to come back.”

4. Exert mild pressure

Stay firm.

“However, parents can’t be expected to force their children if the school does not follow up. This might apply if a child is subjected to bullying, feels unhappy or does not get the follow-up he or she needs.”

“If the teacher does not respond to your concerns, you should ask for a meeting with the headmaster,” said Havik.

5. Don’t make staying at home an attractive option

“If children are allowed to sleep in and for example bake together with their mothers, staying at home during school time might be too enjoyable,” said Havik.

“Make staying at home resemble a normal school day to make it less tempting. When the school day is over, you can enjoy yourselves.”

6. Take your child to the doctor

A child that complains about stomach pain or headache should undergo a medical examination. However, he or she should still try to attend school during the examination period,” Havik said.

7. Business as usual

If your child stays at home, it is important to get up at the usual time and prepare for a new day in the same way as when she or he goes to school. Get your child to do his or her school work, and try to follow the class’ curriculum.

8. Be positive about school

When at home, focus on the positive aspects and what your child likes about school, teachers and classmates.

9. Good routines

It is important that the same thing happens every night at bedtime and in the morning. Your child should go to bed at a regular time and get enough sleep. Children should not be allowed to spend a lot of time on their mobile phones or digital tablets before bedtime.

10. Don’t feel guilty

“When a child refuses to go to school, this is never down to one person or one simple reason. It is often a complex matter. Feelings of guilt will not make things better, neither for the adults nor the child,” said Havik.

Parents of children who refuse to go to school need to know that they are not the only ones in this situation.

“They also need to know that early help, working together with the school and being open about difficult issues, including conditions at home, is important for getting the child back to school as soon as possible.”

The U.S. may recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh said Saturday.

Speaking at a local convention in Gaza City, Haniyeh said his group had obtained information that Washington may take new decisions regarding Jerusalem and the Palestinian cause.

“We have information that the U.S. administration may recognize Israel as a Jewish state, annex settlements and abolish the Palestinian right to return,” he said, without explaining where he got the information from.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demanded recognition of Israel as a Jewish capital for reviving peace talks with the Palestinians, which collapsed in 2014.

Palestinians fear that accepting Netanyahu’s demand could negate any right of return of Palestinian refugees from wars since 1948 to what is now Israel.

The Hamas chief called for a review of the Middle East peace process.

“The Palestinian Authority is requested to take a clear position regarding the Oslo peace accords and security coordination with Israel,” he said.

Haniyeh stressed that Jerusalem would remain the capital of Palestine. “Every step taken by the Israeli occupation is invalid,” he said.

On Dec. 6, U.S. President Donald Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital despite worldwide opposition. The decision has sparked angry demonstrations across the Muslim world. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other top Turkish officials have been at the international forefront opposing the U.S. move.

On Thursday, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly passed a resolution against Trump’s Jerusalem decision by a vote of 128-9.

Original source

By Cornelia Meyer*

The voters of the Spanish region of Catalonia went to the polls last week to elect a new regional parliament. The vote took place against the backdrop of high drama that had unfolded since the regional president of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont, held an independence vote on October 1.

That referendum contravened Article 155 of the Spanish constitution, which forbids actions directed against the unity of the Spanish state. Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy acted swiftly and sent the police and the civil guard in to close down voting stations, which aggravated the situation further.

Puigdemont then poured oil on the fire by declaring independence, which in turn led the central government to dismiss the Catalan executive branch and take interim control. Finally, Rajoy called tye regional election on December 21. In the meantime, several Catalan leaders were either arrested for constitutional disobedience or joined Puigdemont in exile.

The people of Catalonia came out to vote in droves; participation was 82 percent. Alas, the result was inconclusive, the conflict lingers on and the population of Catalonia remains split down the middle. Puigdemont and Rajoy still talk at cross purposes, with the former indicating willingness to meet outside Spain and the latter refusing to engage.

Calling the election has backfired on Rajoy. Pro-government parties won the popular vote narrowly with 52 percent, but his own Partido Popular was badly beaten and won only three seats in the regional assembly. The biggest faction in parliament is the Citizens’ Party (Ciudadanos) of Ines Arrimadas, who want to remain in Spain.

This is the first time loyalists have emerged as the largest party in Catalonia. They are only narrowly ahead of Puigdemont’s party with their 37 seats. The idiosyncrasies of the voting system gave the three pro-independence parties a narrow majority in the assembly (70 out of 135 seats). Technically they could form a government, but they are ideologically far apart. Moreover, seven of their elected members are either in jail or in exile, and risk arrest if they return. This brings their total down to 63 seats, which narrowly misses the required majority.

Once more Europe has produced an inconclusive election result and coalition negotiations that may drag on for months and result in new elections (Germany springs to mind). Once more a national leader has misjudged the situation by calling an election and having it backfire (UK Prime Minister Theresa May fell into that trap this year).

Once more populists have done well, although this time they are not of the ultra right-wing persuasion, but separatists, like the Scots.

For Spain, this is a difficult situation, because Puigdemont and Rajoy need to find a way to deescalate the situation for the good of both the country and of Catalonia. The region’s economy is feeling the effects of political instability. Tourism is down. About 3,000 companies moved their headquarters from Catalonia to other parts of Spain, a substantial number that represents a little over 30 percent of Catalonia’s economy. On Friday, after the election, Madrid’s IBEX 35 benchmark stock market index fell by 1 percent and the two big Catalan banks, Caixa General and Banco Sabadell, fell by 3 percent, in spite of having moved their headquarters in October.

The Catalan dilemma also puts the EU in a tight spot. The EU and the European Court of Justice had declared the independence vote illegal and therefore did not accept the subsequent declaration of independence. If one looks at the situation from the vantage point of Brussels, it is clear that there are too many centrifugal forces at work. The Scots, the Basques, Corsica and many others might want to follow suit and declare independence. The EU has little interest in a plethora of small new states built on economies that are not independently viable. Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy have proved to be enough of an economic headache over the past decade. It is true that Catalonia’s population accounts for 16 percent of Spain’s, and that its economy represents 19 percent of Spain’s GDP and 25.6 percent of the country’s exports.

However, the situation would look different if the region had to service its fair share of Spain’s national debt and lacked access to EU markets and preferential finance.

The EU also has to deal with Brexit and strong populist movements that endanger cohesion, the status quo and the very existence of the organisation. If Puigdemont and Rajoy therefore count on mediation from Brussels, they may be in for a long wait.

• Cornelia Meyer is a business consultant, macro-economist and energy expert. Twitter: @MeyerResources

President Trump’s acknowledgment of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital a week ago made him controversial once again. Though it persists Muslim phobia. Such decisions are very harmful to everlasting peace. People believe that Trump’s decision will lead to chaos and inferiority among Muslims countries and definitely soon after the decision a battery of protests have been observed in every nook and corner of the Muslim world. Jerusalem is bone of contention between Palestine and Israel while Trump’s move had added fuel to the fire. It will undermine US-relations with Muslim worlds as well as credibility.

Due to the deliberate stance of Trump emergency meeting of UN General Assembly was called on the request of Arab and Muslim states. Though president Trump threatened the countries that he will cut off there aid if they voted against US move but The UN General Assembly has decisively backed a resolution effectively calling on the US to withdraw its recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Trump’s extraordinary intervention marked the latest escalation of diplomatic tensions over a decision that has seen the US widely criticized and isolated. It came after a day of high drama.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had promised to reject the results of the vote, calling the UN a “house of lies” while Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called the vote “a victory for Palestine”. US is still adamant that US embassy would be shifted to Jerusalem. Niki Hali said that “America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do. And it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that. This is what how US and Israel show respect for UN resolution? Now the issue is in Security Council and any breach of resolution will undermine the credibility of the organization.

Jerusalem, which houses holy places of all three Abrahamic religions and is claimed by both Israelis and Palestinians, is at the very heart of the dispute. Israel assembled its seat of energy in West Jerusalem decades back and involved the East amid the 1967 war, and later annexed it. Palestinians demand that East Jerusalem ought to be the capital of their future state. Despite the fact that there is a Congressional determination in the U.S asking Washington to move its government office from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Past American Presidents abstained from doing as such given the legitimate, moral and political ramifications of the issue, other than their sense of duty regarding an arranged two-state settlement. By breaking with this accord, Mr. Trump has supported the Israeli cases to East Jerusalem.

This Trump’s step has serious implications and will further complicate the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It will also obstruct the ongoing efforts to revive the peace process.” The status of Jerusalem is one of the most contentious issues of the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ahead of Trump’s speech, Arab and Muslim leaders spoke about the potential for violence. In Gaza, hundreds of Palestinian protesters burned American and Israeli flags. They also waved Palestinian flags and banners proclaiming Jerusalem as their “eternal capital,” language that Israelis similarly use for their nation. Even America’s closest allies in Europe questioned the wisdom of Trump’s radical departure from the past US position, which was studiously neutral over the sovereignty of the city.

Trump’s move is not less than an act of terror. It hurt people’s sentiments and definitely divert people toward terrorism and Jihad. Generally, this move was to create another front against the Muslim world and especially was against the existence of Palestine. The US has no such authority to decide the fate of Palestine. US decision to accept Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is seen as “Might is Right” concept. It will definitely affect US relations with Muslim world in long run. Moreover, Trump decision is not a rational approach, so, it will strengthen resentment and hatred against the US.

The European Union also warned that Trump decision to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and shifting the US embassy toward Jerusalem have serious repercussions. The EU, which supports a two-state solution to the conflict, warned against doing anything that would jeopardize the peace process.
The Palestinian Armed Movement Hamas has threatened to launch another “intifada,” or uprising. Palestinians called for three days of challenges or “days of wrath” beginning on Wednesday. Expecting challenges, US government authorities and their families were requested to maintain a strategic distance from Jerusalem’s Old City and the West Bank, however the circumstance remained to a great extent quiet on Wednesday.

Pakistan also expressed its concerns over US Move. The Foreign office said that, Trump’s decision will definitely undermine the efforts of enduring peace in the Middle East. Any such move would be against norms of international law and the resolution of UN Security council. The spokesman also reiterated that Pakistan’s resolve to express solidarity with the people of Palestine, adding that Pakistan fully endorses the concluding statement of Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on the move.
By summarizing up, the antagonism behavior of Trump will give birth to chaos and worsen the crisis but it would be important for US and its allies to avoid such action which create escalation.

*Haleema Ajmal is MPhil Scholar at International Islamic University Islamabad and she can be reached at haleemaajmal6@gmail.com

Ever wondered how the Sun will come to an end, and in the process, destroy Earth and the rest of the planets in the solar system? Based on observations of a red giant star outside of our solar system, scientists have noticed giant bubbles on its surface, indicating that it is in the process of dying, Times Now says.

Images taken from the Very Large Telescope in the European Space Observatory reveal the giant bubbles on the surface of the ‘Gruise’ star that sits away nearly 500 light years in the Grus constellations.

Stars are giant masses of hydrogen, and when they burn through their reserves, they shrink and become extremely hot. The outer layer of the star then expands when it comes in contact with the burning central core, explaining why stars expand as they age into red giants. The expansion process continues resulting in it becoming hundreds of time its original size, but with a thinner density.

When the ageing process kicks in, the ‘convection cells’ on the surface of a star are altered. These are essentially stores of liquid held in place by the movement of heat. By definition of convection, as the hot fluid moves towards the centre of each spot, cool fluid moves down from the edges, thus suspending the fluid in bubbles on the surface.

With the sun shedding its outer layers over tens of thousands of years, creating a nebula, the liquid on Earth, particularly in the form of oceans will boil, clogging the atmosphere with nitrogen and carbon dioxide. As a result, life on Earth will cease to exist even before the solar explosion destroys the entire solar system.

No reason to panic, however, scientists calculate that the Earth has around five billion years before the Sun turns into a red giant.

(RFE/RL) — Macedonia’s prime minister says he is ready to renounce his country’s claim to be the sole heir of Alexander the Great’s legacy, a potential concession that could lead to the easing of a longstanding dispute with Greece.

“I give up [the claim] of Macedonia being the sole heir to Alexander,” Prime Minister Zoran Zaev told TV station Telma in an interview late on December 22.

“The history belongs not only to us, but also to Greece and many other countries,” the left-leaning prime minister added.

Alexander the Great is the famed ruler of the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia.

Greece has objected to Skopje’s use of the name “Macedonia” since its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991, arguing that it implies territorial ambitions on the part of the country.

Athens’ objections have complicated Skopje’s aspirations to join NATO and the European Union.

Greece in 2008 blocked Macedonia’s bid to join NATO under its provisional name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) because of the dispute.

Zaev did not indicate how or if the country’s name would change if it were to give up the claim as Alexander’s sole heir.

Macedonia’s former conservative government pushed the use of the name, naming the country’s main highway and airport after Alexander and building a 28-meter-high monument in Skopje’s main square.

Former Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski blamed his VMRO-DPMNE party’s fall from power on his refusal to compromise with Athens in the dispute. Gruevski has stepped down as party leader and was replaced by technocrat Hristijan Mickoski at the party convention on December 22.

Matthew Nimetz, the United Nations special representative for the naming dispute, said on December 12 that the issue “can and should be resolved” next year after the parties met for the first time in three years in Brussels.

Nimetz, a U.S. diplomat who is the personal envoy of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, said after a meeting with Greek and Macedonian envoys that “the atmosphere is a much better one and from both Skopje, and Athens there is an indication that we should make an intensive effort to resolve this issue that has been outstanding for so many years.”

In his interview, Zaev also said he was optimistic Macedonia would be rewarded for its reform process with an invitation soon to begin EU membership talks.

“If we continue with reforms at a good pace, Macedonia will get a date for starting negotiations with the EU at the June summit,” he said.

Pyongyang considers the latest round of UN sanctions, which severely crippled its remaining imports and exports, to be an “act of war,” the country’s foreign ministry has said.

“We define this ‘sanctions resolution’ rigged up by the US and its followers as a grave infringement upon the sovereignty of our Republic, as an act of war violating peace and stability in the Korean peninsula and the region and categorically reject the resolution,” a foreign ministry spokesperson said in a statement Sunday, as cited by state news agency KCNA.

On Friday, the UN Security Council unanimously imposed a new round of sanctions on North Korea following its latest ballistic missile test launch on November 29.

The fresh sanctions are “tantamount to [a] complete economic blockade of the DPRK,” the ministry fumed, pointing out that “those countries that raised their hands in favor of this ‘sanctions resolution’ shall be held completely responsible for all the consequences to be caused by the ‘resolution’ and we will make sure for ever and ever that they pay [a] heavy price for what they have done.”

By Ambassador (Ret.) Adam Ereli and Dr. Theodore Karasik*

Over the last eight years, considerations of politics and national security have come to play an influential role in the decision-making of Gulf sovereign wealth funds.

In 2015, the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) — Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund (SWF) — declared its intention to invest $35 billion in the United States over the coming five years. In making the announcement, a senior Qatari official noted that the state was taking this step not because of politics, but because it “made good business sense.”

He was half right. While it was certainly true that the US market offered strong rates of return, it stretched credulity to argue that political considerations did not factor into Qatar’s investment decision. For the past decade or so, disagreements between Qatar and the United States over a host of issues, from terror financing to regional power dynamics, had soured the bilateral relationship. Qatar’s former ruler, Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, had transferred power to his son, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, a little over a year earlier, and the new emir was keen to turn a page in his nation’s relationship with arguably its most important ally. The opening of a QIA office in New York City in December of 2014 was accompanied by great fanfare and served to demonstrate Qatar’s seriousness of purpose.

Qatar is not alone in using its national wealth to advance national interests. In at least four ways, changing regional power dynamics have injected geopolitics into the strategic decision-making of the Saudi, Emirati and Kuwaiti sovereign funds to an unprecedented degree.

First, regional conflict and political instability: Governing structures and national authorities are under assault as never before. The Arab Spring, the potency of ISIS and other extremist jihadist movements and the attendant conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya have upended the region’s political order. While always a concern, the issues of regime stability and internal security have taken on new saliency and have compelled rulers to take enhanced measures to protect themselves.

Second, great power rivalry: Since independence, the nations of the Gulf have regarded the United States as their security bulwark. The policies of the Obama administration fundamentally altered this calculus. Rightly or wrongly, regional leaders interpreted the nuclear agreement with Iran, the US drawdown in Iraq, the US handling of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s transfer of power and its failure to assert power in the Syrian conflict as evidence of a weakening of America’s commitment to the region. Russia’s growing military and diplomatic role in regional affairs, combined with persistent and more potent Iranian influence, have transformed the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) into a new front in great power competition, which regional leaders must take into account.

Third, a new generation of leadership: Millennials now rule Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The UAE has been governed by an exceptionally forward-looking and interventionist leadership for over 10 years. With this generational change has come a new approach to national power. These leaders are not content to let others fight their battles for them and are resolutely developing indigenous force projection capabilities. They are both adept at and inclined to use all elements of national power — economic, political and military — in an integrated and mutually reinforcing way to protect their interests.

Fourth, the GCC rift and zero-sum thinking: The ongoing dispute between Qatar and the “quartet” (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt) will have a spillover effect on the region’s relations with external actors. Hard as it may be for outsiders to fathom, each of the parties to this dispute believes the other presents a credible threat to its national survival. As a result, all are taking steps to protect their sovereignty, and this includes where they invest their national wealth. Moreover, gain for one side is necessarily regarded as a loss for the other, which injects a level of acrimony and intransigence that will persist for a considerable time to come.

Impact on Investment Decisions

Two areas in particular are indicative of this accelerating trend in GCC strategic investment: Russia and Islamic Asia. Even if allowances are made for sectorial and geographic diversification, the level of allocations to these markets is out of proportion to their size and viability.

In the case of Russia, the Gulf states are using their investments as leverage to advance their respective interests with regard to Iran, Syria, Yemen and Libya; as a hedge against great power competition in the region; and as a political tool in the context of their intra-GCC rivalries. As the world’s largest Muslim nation, Indonesia, along with Malaysia and Thailand, hold special interest for Saudi Arabia — which is perennially concerned with asserting its primacy as leader of Sunni Islam — as well as for the UAE, which seeks to make common cause with like-minded leaders sympathetic to its policies of limiting the role of political Islam and countering radical extremism.

In 2011, Russia established the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), with seed capital of $10 billion. Since then, Gulf sovereign wealth funds have earmarked at least $20 billion for investment in Russia, according to RDIF’s CEO Kirill Demetriev. These placements include: a 2015 commitment of $10 billion by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) in a partnership with RDIF to invest in Russian infrastructure and agricultural projects; $5 billion in 2013 from the Abu Dhabi Investment Fund for infrastructure projects; allocation of $2 billion by QIA to a joint investment fund with RDIF; the contribution of $1 billion by the UAE’s Mubadala Development Company to a co-investment fund with RDIF; and allocations of $500 million in 2012 and 2015 by the Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA) to an automatic co-investment mechanism with RDIF. In addition to a $2-billion commitment to RDIF, QIA has taken a 9.75 stake in Rosneft valued at $6.83 billion, a 24.9% stake in St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Airport and a $500-million stake in VTB, a Russian bank currently under international sanctions.

In February 2016, the governments of Russia, the UAE and Egypt announced the creation of joint investment fund to finance large-scale infrastructure projects in Egypt and seeded the fund with $500 million in July of the same year.

As a signal of Indonesia and Malaysia’s importance, King Salman of Saudi Arabia included them, along with China and Japan, on his tour of Asia in March of this year. Indonesia’s ambassador to the UAE stated in October that his country was aiming to increase the level of Emirati investment from its current level of $2 billion to $10 billion. Qatar has invested $15 billion in Malaysia. In 2011, Malaysia and Qatar announced a $2-billion joint investment fund. Two years later, Qatar began investing $5 billion in the Pengerang Integrated Petroleum Complex development in Johor and another $5 billion in Malaysia’s tourism, real estate, banking and other sectors.

Qatar and Indonesia created a similar fund in 2008, now worth roughly $1 billion. The Qataris are investors in Indonesia’s energy, infrastructure, banking, telecommunications and mining sectors. Such investments have included $350 million in a gas power plant in North Sumatra, as well as an agreement between QIA and PT Saran Multi Infrastructure worth $1 billion.

Downside Risk

Money and politics make a combustible mix: If you don’t get the formula right, it can blow up in your face. Foreign governments, corporate leaderships and the investment community face serious issues of financial risk and legal liability in the current investment climate. The UAE’s experience with 1MDB and IPIC is a case in point. In April, 1MDB agreed to pay IPIC $1.2 billion to settle a complaint that it reneged on the terms of a bailout IPIC provided in 2015. The two companies also agreed to enter into good-faith discussions about other disputed payments, which may total as much as $3.5 billion. Last July, investigators at US Justice Department alleged that former officials from both IPIC and 1MDB had benefited from fraudulent financial transactions related to the investment.

Due diligence on SWFs has always posed a challenge. As the Gulf states come into their own as strategic investors on the international scene, the need for greater transparency and accountability becomes more salient. What are the political risk factors? Who are the sovereign and corporate co-investors? What are their track records and governance structures? Who really controls them and what could change? How willing are they to open their books for review and analysis? Will they accept and be bound by internationally recognized dispute resolution mechanisms and authorities?

Such questions are all the more timely, given the scope and complexity of today’s deals. Take the NEOM project for example. In October, Saudi Arabia’s SWF, the Public Investment Fund (PIF), hosted the Future Investment Initiative, at which Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman unveiled his country’s plans to build a 10,230-square-mile business and industrial zone that links with Jordan and Egypt and focuses energy and water, biotechnology, food, advanced manufacturing and entertainment industries.

The project will be backed by more than $500 billion from the Saudi government, PIF and local and international investors. RDIF CEO Demetriev immediately pledged “several billion dollars” to the project. NEOM is ambitious, transformative and potentially lucrative. When considered in the context of multi-party investments, sovereign participation, oversight, regulatory and political constraints and geopolitical tensions, however, NEOM poses a potentially tangled web of risk and possible conflicts of interest.

Understanding SWFs

In weighing the viability of such projects, international investors would do well to investigate thoroughly the interconnective tissue between Arab sovereign wealth funds and Middle East states undergoing rapid transformation.

Every sovereign wealth fund is different, requiring each to be understood individually in the context of the particular transaction being entered into. It is critical to conduct proper due diligence and have comprehensive and accurate information about the SWF and how it operates. This information is often not disclosed publicly or, if disclosed, does not tell the whole story, as SWFs are generally highly protective of their confidential information and typically do not reveal information that could cause embarrassment or political problems.

The differences among SWFs can be quite dramatic. For example, there are some very sophisticated and well-established SWFs that generally make investments solely on the merits and have excellent internal analysts and deal-making teams to vet and complete deals. They can make decisions quickly and are not subject to the slow decision-making process that stems from lack of familiarity or experience. This makes them ideal partners for private equity funds, co-investors or debt providers.

Others are newly formed and relatively unsophisticated and therefore rely primarily on third parties to analyze and bring them investments. In some cases, governments or ruling families may exert undue influence on the decision-making process, leading to expensive purchases of “trophy” assets and other questionable economic decisions. SWFs can also be excessively bureaucratic, leading to delays and unpredictable decision-making, in which no one accepts responsibility for a decision and everyone plays the blame game. Therefore, depending on the circumstances, a particular SWF’s commitment to a transaction may be of greater or less probative value in accessing the merits of the deal.

Some SWFs have been formed with potentially conflicting incentives, not only to make profitable investments, but also to further political and social objectives. Others can be used for political purposes even though that is not their mandate. This can cause a fundamental divergence between the interests of the SWF and the other purely economic investors. This analysis becomes more complicated because the investment of a local or regional SWF in project finance in some contexts can constitute a stamp of approval and protection against governmental risks.

For example, if the investment is in an infrastructure project that relies on governmental cooperation and support, the commitment by local SWFs may provide insurance against unfriendly government actions. However, this alignment of interests is far from perfect and not automatic in all cases. Even if the SWF is a principal investor, if the local government needs money, it may decide to impose taxes or other impositions on the project. This could be because different factions within the government have competing priorities or the government could earn more from the increased tax revenues/assessments than the SWF would make from its investment.

There is also the risk of bribery or corruption. SWFs are improving internal controls, but several recent events have shown that the protections in place have not always been adequate. A SWF investment may create the perception of legitimacy, while the real reasons for the investment may be hidden and much more nefarious. In addition to the 1MDB and IPIC scenarios, the poor investments by the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) during the financial crisis are cases in point. A third party would be wise to study this aspect carefully as there are the possibilities of economic loss, legal liability and the loss of reputation.

With good reason, SWFs are generally viewed as stable long-term investors with deep pockets. However, this depends on history, geography and other factors. Politics can change very quickly in countries that rely primarily on mineral resources for their wealth and do not have long histories of stable governance. In the Middle East, this is true more now than ever, with myriad potential threats amid the current upheaval. A new regime often has little use for the projects sponsored by the prior government, and the consequences on third party investors can be devastating.

The policy and financial communities would benefit greatly from enhanced research and analysis by academia and think tanks of the issue  relating to the geopolitics of SWF investments. There already exists a nascent community of observers in this field, but current trends make clear that a deeper understanding of SWF activity and its implications for a wide variety of stakeholders is needed.   

Risk Mitigation Strategies

Bearing in mind that sovereign investment decision-making is increasingly influenced by considerations of national security and recognizing that each SWF and each transaction is unique, what can actions can concerned parties (e.g., debt or equity investors, SWF counterparties or service/technology providers) take to mitigate risk?

First, local political due diligence: A sophisticated knowledge of the political risks at the local level needs to be factored into any business decision. This should include an understanding of geospatial conditions such as family ties, social status and previous and existing business relationships. The geopolitics of sovereign investing also requires scrutiny. Arab states are using their SWFs as political tools, often in tandem with Russia’s efforts at regional power projection. What are the respective political and economic interests of the SWFs or other national institutions involved in a project, and what potential conflicts do these relationships entail if circumstances change?

Second, global political due diligence: Any investor would do well to understand the position of and consult with US and European governmental entities before the commitment of resources in a deal involving a SWF. In most scenarios involving significant levels of investment, the US government will have an interest and could present obstacles. Ventures with connections, however tangential, to Russia, Iran or entities related to those countries will come under increasing scrutiny. The ever-expanding reach of US sanctions policies, which include not only named entities but any outside entity doing business with them, can ensnare even the most well-intentioned investor. For these reasons, it is advisable to seek the view of concerned agencies (State Department, Treasury, Congress) on transactions in potentially sensitive countries and/or sectors. Officials in Brussels need to be also contacted to guarantee a safe and secure way forward in the transaction, especially if EU and US policy are not in sync on sanctions.

Third, economic forensics: For those who analyze the financial aspects of sovereign activity, capturing the relevant data requires the peeling away of many layers of opaqueness. Given that each SWF is structured differently, there is a strong requirement to focus on their individual operations and especially joint ventures. Who are the beneficial owners? What is the amount of commitment and who are the owners of the fund? What are the sources of their assets, and are you confident in your compliance with know your customer requirements? The issue here is that if there are funds involved that are directly or indirectly derived from illegal activities, it can have a devastating impact on the investment and result in the seizure of assets.

Fourth, comparative advantage: Investors considering joint ventures or other forms of partnerships that involve the building or establishment of local facilities (infrastructure, manufacturing, research and development, re-export, etc.) should comparison shop among the various jurisdictions seeking foreign investment and technology. What are the comparative advantages/disadvantages of respective countries and regulatory regimes for the outside investor, even if the deal is being done in conjunction with a sovereign partner? Beyond apparent factors such as tax incentives, availability of skilled labor, energy costs, repatriation of profits, dispute resolution mechanisms, labor markets, legal and intellectual property rights protections, etc., what are the “unknowns,” and how does all of this compare with regional competitors? A thorough study of these and related issues is one of the best ways to avoid buyer’s remorse.

Fifth, legal safeguards: The transaction should be structured in such a way as to provide the maximum legal and economic safeguards possible. Among other requirements, an investor is wise to attempt to negotiate tight and comprehensive contracts, effective dispute resolution mechanisms and access to substantial assets in the event of a default. Treaty protections and the support of the home government of the investor can also be quite helpful.

*About the authors:
Adam Ereli (@Erelija) is a former US ambassador and an advisor at Gulf State Analytics (@GulfStateAnalyt), a Washington, DC-based geopolitical risk consultancy. He is currently the founder and principal of The Ibero American Group, a strategic advisory firm based in Washington, DC. Ambassador Ereli is a proven leader and innovator in the fields of foreign government relations, business development, commercial advocacy, public diplomacy, media relations and crisis communications. As a diplomat for 24 years with the US Department of State, he established a network of close relationships at the senior levels of government and business in the United States and the Middle East. He served as US ambassador to the Kingdom of Bahrain (2007-2011); deputy State Department spokesman (2003-06); principal deputy assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs (2011-13); minister-counselor for public affairs in Iraq (2008-09); and deputy chief of mission in Qatar (2000-03), in addition to diplomatic postings in Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Ethiopia.

Theodore Karasik (@Tkarasik) is a senior advisor to Gulf State Analytics and an adjunct senior fellow at the Lexington Institute. For the past 30 years, Karasik worked for a number of US agencies examining religious-political issues across the Middle East, North Africa and Eurasia, including the evolution of violent extremism and its financing. He lived in the United Arab Emirates from 2006 until 2016 where he worked on Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) foreign policy and security issues surrounding cultural awareness, cybersecurity, maritime security, counter-piracy, counterterrorism, and infrastructure and national resilience. GCC relations with Russia and implications for the Arabian Peninsula states were also under Karasik’s mandate.

Source:
This article was published by GSA and Fair Observer originally published this article on December 22, 2017

Incarcerated for almost two months in a gilded cage in Riyadh’s luxurious Ritz Carlton Hotel, Saudi billionaire businessman Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal appears to be putting up a fight that could challenge Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s assertion that his two month-old purge of scores of members of the ruling family, senior officials, and businessmen constitutes a campaign against corruption.

Many of those detained in Prince Mohammed’s purge, dubbed by critics as a power and asset grab dressed up as an anti-corruption effort, have bought their release by agreeing to surrender significant assets. The government has said it hopes to recover up to $100 billion in allegedly illegitimately acquired funds and assets.

Prince Mutaib bin Abdullah, a favoured son of the late King Abdullah who was deposed as commander of the National Guard in a bid to neutralize the Saudi crown prince’s most potent rival, secured his release by agreeing to pay $1 billion and signing a document in which he confessed to charges of corruption.

In what appears to be the largest settlement demand, Prince Al-Waleed has, according to The Wall Street Journal, resisted pressure by the government to hand over $6 billion.

Instead, the prince has reportedly offered the government a significant stake in his Riyadh-listed Kingdom Holding that has invested in blue chips such as Citibank, Twitter, Four Seasons hotels, and Disney, and operates a media and entertainment empire. Kingdom Holding has lost 14 percent of its $8.7 billion market value since Prince Al-Waleed’s detention. The prince has also insisted that he retain a leadership position in his conglomerate.

With a fortune estimated by Forbes at $16.8 billion, Prince Al-Waleed reportedly believes that the cash settlement demanded by the government would put his empire at peril and amount to an admission of guilt.

That may indeed be the purpose of the exercise. A social reformer, who already years ago implemented within his own company changes of women’s status announced in recent months by Prince Mohammed, is Saudi Arabia’s most prominent entrepreneur who is continuously welcomed around the world by heads of state and government and business moguls.

The son of Prince Talal bin Abdulaziz, a liberal nicknamed the Red Prince, who in the 1960s and again in the first decade of the 21^st century publicly criticized his family’s rule, Prince Al-Waleed is believed to have no political ambitions.

In resisting Prince Mohammed’s demands, Prince Al-Waleed is challenging an opaque and seemingly arbitrary process in which despite assertions by the government that it has conducted extensive investigations and collected substantial evidence of corruption, bribery, money laundering and extortion, there has been little, if any, discernible due process and no proof publicly presented.

Quoting sources close to Prince Al-Waleed, The Wall Street Journal reported that the businessman was demanding a proper investigation and was willing to fight it out in court. “He wants a proper investigation. It is expected that al-Waleed will give MBS a hard time,” the Journal quoted a person close to Prince Al-Waleed as saying. The person was referring to Prince Mohammed by his initials.

A court battle would put the government’s assertions of due process to the test and would also shine a spotlight on the integrity of Saudi Arabia’s judicial system. The risk involved in a legal battle is that the charges levelled against Prince Al-Waleed and others were common practice in a kingdom in which there were no well-defined rules governing relationships between members of the ruling family and the government as well as ties between princes and princesses who wielded influence and businessmen.

There is little doubt that Prince Mohammed’s purge is popular among significant segments of the population, half of which is classified as low- or middle-income families, that has long resented the elite’s seemingly unbridled perks.

Prince Mohammed has so far been shielded against questions of the source of his own wealth and that of his tack of the ruling family. Several immediate relatives of Prince Mohammed were last year identified in the Panama Papers leaked from the files of a law firm in the Central American nation that handled offshore business and transactions by the world’s mega-rich.

Media reports have since suggested that the prince had spent in recent years $1.25 billion on a $500 million yacht, a $300 million mansion in France, and a $450 million Leonardo da Vinci painting. Prince Mohammed has denied buying the art work that was acquired by a close associate of his allegedly on behalf of the Abu Dhabi Department of Culture and Tourism.

Shining the spotlight on the anti-corruption campaign in a legal battle with Prince Al-Waleed would come at a time that the government is unilaterally rewriting the kingdom’s social contract that involved a cradle-to-grave-welfare state in exchange for surrender of political rights and acceptance of Sunni Muslim ultra-conservative and Bedouin moral codes.

The government this week paid $533 million into a newly established social welfare fund to help families offset the cost of the imminent introduction of a five-percent value-added tax on goods including food, and services, as well as subsidy cuts that would substantially raise the price of electricity and gasoline. The government was forced earlier this year to reverse a freeze on public sector wage increases and perks and slowdown its austerity program because of anger and frustration expressed on social media.

Labor and Social Development Minister Ali al-Ghafees told the state-run Saudi Press Agency that approximately three million families or 10.6 million beneficiaries had already been paid the maximum relief of 938 Saudi riyals ($250) out of the newly created fund.

The government, moreover, this month announced a $19bn stimulus package that includes subsidised loans for house buyers and developers, fee waivers for small businesses and financial support for distressed companies. It also presented its new budget involving record spending in which funding of defense outstrips that of education in a country with a 12.7 percent unemployment rate. A Bank of America Merrill Lynch report predicted last year that youth unemployment could jump from 33.5 to 42 percent by 2030.

Prince Mohammed is banking on continued public support for his economic and social reforms, and on the fact that once the dust has settled foreign investors will forget whatever misgivings they may have had about the lack of due process and absence of rule law in the anti-corruption crackdown. Foreign diplomats in the kingdom noted that the businesses of those detained or penalized continued to operate and that no foreign interests were caught up in the purge.

However, to maintain his popularity, Prince Mohammed will have to manage expectations, deliver jobs, continue to massage the pain of austerity and the introduction of a new social contract, and ensure that the public continues to perceive his purge as an anti-corruption campaign in which the high and mighty are no longer above the law.

A legal battle with Prince Al-Waleed that publicly puts to the test the government’s assertions could upset the apple cart. That may be the leverage Prince Al-Waleed hopes will work in his favour as he negotiates his settlement from the confines of the Ritz Carlton.

China has done little in reducing the earlier tensions of Doklam, while India has taken no action, other than protecting its national security concerns. Doklam is likely to again become a spoilsport between the two nations.

By Harsha Kakar

Doklam was in the news for almost three months this year, until the standoff concluded in August. In recent days, it is back again, with reports of Chinese enhancing its activities in the area close to Doklam plateau, including construction of buildings, gun emplacements and enhancing its deployment in the region. Speculations are ripe on possible Chinese intent, including recommencing road construction or resorting to offensive actions. These speculations are based on the analysis of satellite images of the region.

The recent meeting between Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, in Delhi, underlined the fact that Doklam ‘severely tested’ the bilateral relationship between the two countries. They accepted that its peaceful resolution avoided a major confrontation. It also brought home the fact that there is lack of mutual trust between the two nations, which should be amended.

Resolving this complex issue may be the agenda of the next round of talks between Indian NSA Ajit Doval and the Chinese Special Representative. Recent press statements indicate India’s unwillingness to separate Doklam from border talks, which China desires. The distance between the two nations has also increased in recent times as China has become more assertive in its territorial claims with all its neighbours and India has indicated its intent on not backing down from what it considers as being against its national security. Hence enhancing confidence building measures between the two nations becomes all the more important.

There are other issues which also add to differences between the two countries. These include the Chinese veto on Hafiz Saeed, its unwillingness to change its stance on India’s entry into the NSG and Indian reluctance to join the BRI, including claiming that the CPEC flows through disputed territory. The growing trade deficit is also a matter of concern for India. Indian growing proximity to the US, supplying military hardware to Vietnam and continued Chinese support to Pakistan, adds to the distrust. However, it is Doklam which has again come into the limelight as a possible flashpoint.

China has done little in reducing the earlier tensions of Doklam, while India has taken no action, other than protecting its national security concerns. Doklam is likely to again become a spoilsport between the two nations. Winters are severe in the area and hence little offensive action could be expected during this period. However, this sudden interest by China, enhancing its troop density, building infrastructure and increasing its firepower resources in the region has been raising eyebrows in Indian strategic circles.

The questions being debated include likely Chinese intent in the region of reigniting the Doklam fire or pressurising Bhutan to dump India in its favour. China has presently confined all its activities to the region under its control and has not commenced any offensive action to provoke India. Will it take another step to provoke India or only hold its own area in strength to continue to apply pressure on India? Most importantly, even if Doklam reoccurs, it may again be a localised action, rather than an across the Line of Actual Control (LAC) action, spread along the front.

Doklam was closely monitored by all nations of the region with varying intent. Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal were observing Indian support to Bhutan and its determination to withstand a belligerent China. Other nations in Southeast Asia were observing Chinese reactions, as a possible lesson to resolving their own border disputes in the future. Hence, both countries needed to hold onto their stance, for ensuring their international stature and reputation.

Satellite images do not indicate any enhanced force levels across the LAC, other than Doklam. Hence, any action by China is aimed at being a localised action, likely to offset its decision to withdraw prior to the BRICS summit in August. China has never repeated an action, and hence it may not recommence road construction. It may attempt something different. This would be aimed at countering Indian defensive advantage as also to offset any counteraction by India.

It may adopt options including nibbling disputed Bhutanese territory, which India would not be able to officially counter, akin to its actions in Doklam, thus pushing Bhutan to seek talks, moving them into the Chinese fold. This would, over time, reduce Indian control and support to Bhutan. It could also commence employing the Doklam plateau as a training ground, increasing force presence in the region, denying India the ability to counter. Regular movement of vehicles in the region would create tracks, which could be converted to a road at an earliest opportunity.

It could also aim at enhancing the quantity and quality of patrols to regions it claims as its own, including those under dispute. These as a sign of assertiveness would be countered by India, but would provide them with the advantage as they have taken the first step. India has no claims beyond the watershed, hence would remain on the defensive.

The infrastructure that it is creating in the Doklam region would always be to its advantage in future operations, an action which should compel India to re-evaluate its defensive strategy, its existing deployment and infrastructure development. China historically has never easily backed down and is unlikely to especially when it has increased its assertiveness. It was compelled to this time for political reasons, but unlikely every time.

Tensions and disagreements, despite a series of meetings, may not end soon. India needs to be wary of  wargame options China may adopt, from the advantage it has gained by enhancing force levels and infrastructure in Doklam and be prepared with contingency plans. India should also realise that the possibility of China repeating its earlier mistake of undertaking an activity, which could be easily countered by India, is unlikely and hence may attempt something different.