Iran’s Islamic Republic faces the most widespread manifestation of popular dissent in its history.

Itself the product of a popular uprising in the late 1970’s, the Iranian republic basked in universal popularity only for the briefest of periods. It took less than a year for the first signs of popular dissent to manifest themselves.

By 1978 the 2500-year-old Persian monarchy had become an autocratic pro-Western regime. It was the Shah’s authoritarian rule, rather than his pro-Western stance, that aroused rumbling opposition over a long period. This developed into a widespread campaign of civil resistance.  During 1978, strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country. In January 1979 the Shah left Iran, never to return.

On February 1, after 16 years of enforced exile, Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini landed in Iran to a euphoric reception by virtually the entire nation. Just as when Adolf Hitler’s political opponents in 1933 appointed him German Chancellor believing he would be easily controlled, so Iran’s secular and leftist politicians supported the revolutionary movement, ignoring the fact that Khomeini represented the very antithesis of all their values. They chose to believe that he was merely a figurehead for the radical change from monarchy to republic, and that power would eventually be handed to the secular groups.

They could not have been more wrong. On April 1 Iran voted by national referendum to become an Islamic Republic and to approve a new theocratic republican constitution, under which Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country. The revolution replaced an authoritarian monarchy with an authoritarian theocracy.

The first signs of opposition showed themselves very early on, during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war, which started in 1980. The People’s Mujahedeen of Iran, the MEK, a Marxist-inspired organization which had been closely allied to Khomeini and his supporters throughout the 1970s, split from the Supreme Leader largely in frustration at being excluded from power. Marxist ideology was scarcely to Khomeini’s taste.

In 1981, the conflict between the government and MEK fighters descended into street battles. As a result MEK was outlawed. Saddam Hussein gave it a base in Iraq, and supported it in mounting attacks inside Iran.  Currently based in Albania, and with a somewhat dubious past regarding terrorist activities, the MEK is advocating the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime.

Among other opposition groups to emerge in Iran in the 1980s was the Tudeh party, or the “party of the masses”.  The Supreme Leader refused to tolerate dissent such as this, and arrests and executions of Tudeh members continued throughout the 1980s. Intolerance of any but the approved line extended to the Republic’s first president, Abulhassan Banisadr, who was impeached a year after taking office in 1980, and went into exile.

Then, in 1989, another high-profile figure fell foul of the Supreme Leader. Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri, Khomeini’s heir apparent, was fired after he criticized the crackdown on dissent. Montazeri was replaced by the more conservative Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Khomeini upon his death in June 1989, and remains Iran’s Supreme Leader.

Nothing, though, could prevent internal opposition to the regime bubbling to the surface from time to time. In 1999, after the nationwide student paper Salam was shut down, students took to the streets. The protests lasted for six days, during which time at least five people were killed and thousands more were injured and arrested.  Sporadic protests continued in the following decade. but it wasn’t until 2009 that Iranians would, for the first time since the 1979 revolution, witness massive street protests against the government.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elected to his first term as president in 2005, stood for re-election in 2009 against his main challenger, Mir-Hussein Mousavi, a reformer. In the run-up to the elections Mousavi ran a vigorous campaign featuring mass rallies of supporters, who adorned themselves in green garments of various kinds. Popular perception was that Mousavi would be the clear winner. In the event, the published results gave Ahmadinejad more than 64 percent of the vote; Mousavi finished second with just under 34 percent.

On June 13, one day after the elections, protesters turned out in their hundreds of thousands across the country, many chanting and carrying signs around the theme, “where is my vote?” Mousavi’s supporters became known as the “Green Movement”.  The protests lasted for weeks. In the inevitable crackdown more than 100 people were killed and thousands were arrested to face trial. Many were hanged.

When Ayatollah Montazeri died in December 2009, his funeral became a rallying point with tens of thousands of mourners chanting against the government. Just over a year later, in February 2011, the so-called “Arab spring” was under way. The opposition called for protests in solidarity, and leading pro-reform politicians were arrested, but protests went ahead in a number of cities for over a week. Again the crackdown resulted in hundreds being injured and arrested.

And now, once again and apparently out of the blue, Iran is in turmoil.  Rallies and street protests are bursting out spontaneously right across the country. Unlike in 2009, they are not confined to students and the more educated sectors of society. Reports suggest that the uprisings emanate from a wide swathe of the population.

At first the protests centred on the worsening economic situation, and the ever-rising food and commodity prices. This soon morphed into opposition to the regime in general and the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, in particular. Particular dissent was being voiced against the foreign adventures indulged in by the regime, including direct involvement in the Syrian civil conflict, and costly military and logistical support for Hezbollah in Syria, for the Houthis in Yemen and for Hamas in Gaza. The vast sums expended in these foreign adventures are seen as being at the direct expense of the Iranian population.

When Khomenei launched the Islamic Revolution, liberal, democratic and secular values were to have no place in Iran’s brave new world. History teaches repeatedly that these ideas can be suppressed, sometimes for long periods, but they cannot be eliminated. A regime that is too insecure to permit a wide spectrum of political and social expression is a regime doomed eventually to implode.

The United Nations regrets the reported loss of life resulting from the protests in Iran, and hopes that further violence will be avoided, a spokesperson for the world body said on Tuesday.

“The Secretary General has been carefully following the reports of protests in a number of cities in Iran,” Farhan Haq, Deputy Spokesperson for António Guterres, told reporters in New York.

“We regret the reported loss of life, and we hope that further violence will be avoided,” he continued.

“We expect that the rights to peaceful assembly and expression of the Iranian people will be respected.”

According to media reports, several days of demonstrations have left at least 20 people dead.

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

Of the twelve agreements signed with China, during the recent visit of President Yameen to China, the Free trade agreement signed between them is the most important one.

Surprisingly, the agreement that runs into a few hundred pages was passed in an attenuated parliament when the opposition was not present and was over in 30 minutes without any discussion on the merits or the demerits of the agreement.

The present one, is a second such agreement China has with a South Asian country with the other one being Pakistan that has already become a colony of China.

While there was no need for such an agreement with Maldives being able to offer only fish exports that not carry import duty into China, it is China that is going to benefit from this arrangement with all the goods coming into Maldives without any duty. It is just a matter of time before Maldives will be flooded with Chinese goods.

The economics minister of Maldives, who has been negotiating with China behind doors since 2014, justified the agreement that it would be easy to get finance for small businesses and help expansion of financial sector in Maldives. Vague reasons indeed!

On the question whether the Chinese could freely start business in Maldives any time, any where and with any amount, the Minister said that Maldivian laws do not permit such investments. What he did not add and from what we know, the Maldivian laws can be adjusted in any manner with a President who is in full control of the government, the armed forces and the judiciary! Witness the ruling he obtained from the Supreme Court that Parliamentarians would lose their seats if they cross the floor. This was the time (July 13) when several ruling party members joined the opposition with a second no confidence motion being tabled!

Maldives depends on tourism and export of fish to sustain its economy. With a majority of the tourists coming from China that would further increase with this agreement and with all the fish exports going to China, it does not need a rocket scientist to conclude that China in due course will have a stranglehold on Maldivian economy.

The real purpose of China going for such an agreement could be understood from a statement of Global times which it said in criticising India’s stand and I quote- “It won’t be easy for India to maintain its political influence in South Asia if its own economic presence is weakening. If India thinks (that) its position is threatened, it should consider how it can give more benefits to its neighbours through its win-win cooperation.”

This would mean that China’s aim is to have political influence through economic means and it can afford to do so with its deep pockets and aggressive bargaining. Are we to conclude that all the initiatives under the “Belt Road Initiative” are for getting political influence?

But it is still perplexing as to why Maldives has gone for such an agreement that would in due course threaten it sovereignty? With elections coming next year for President ship, Yameen would certainly bid for that post but has to ensure that all credible opposition members are disallowed from contesting. Former President Nasheed is strapped with a fourteen year sentence on terrorism charges and one other possible candidate Gasim Ibrahim who is also not eligible to contest by a constitutional amendment and now in exile after being sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment- the road is now clear for Yameen to have another term. He would need China’s support in international fora if and when he is threatened with sanctions and isolation.

The FTA has been strongly criticised by the opposition in Maldives whose leaders are mostly in exile after being subjected to terrorism charges. Former President Mohamed Nasheed said that Maldives already owes 70 percent of its foreign debt to China and this agreement would leave China to undermine both the foreign policy and sovereignty of Maldives.

For India, it goes against the “India First” Policy” that both countries have assiduously worked for in the last few years. I would go further and say that it goes against the very concept of SAARC with China entering into the region as the “bull in China shop!”

It is said that Delhi was taken by surprise by this agreement. Backdoor talks have being going on between the two countries since 2014 though in secrecy. Yet Male is a very small place and I would be surprised if the Indian intelligence was not aware of it. Certainly the Indian mission there would also be aware of it. The official response that it is all-right if it contributes to the stability of the country!

But India is said to be certainly concerned about the developments. A top delegation from India is expected to visit Maldives very soon to “over come the strained relations” as mentioned in the media in Maldives. There was an editorial recently from “Vaguthu” a mouth piece of President Yameen which said that -I quote “ India is not a best friend but an enemy.” It followed with a direct attack on PM Modi that described the PM as “an extremist Hindu with a history of carrying out extreme actions against Muslims.” The editorial was subsequently removed but the damage has been done.

Former President Gayoom described the editorial as “outrageous.” He said that no Maldivian in his right mind would subscribe to such views. India has been and remains a very close and trusted friend of Maldives”. Former President Nasheed condemned the anti Indian diatribe in foreign policy that is destroying the relationship between the two countries.

China’s intentions are clear. It would like to have political leverage through economic policies as said very openly and blatantly by the Global Times. This is already taking place in Myanmar.

Soon it is going to get too close for comfort for India. It is likely that the new dispensation in Nepal may also go for a free trade agreement with China.

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

It looks that it may take a month for the new government to take over. The delay is mainly due to failure of the political parties to reach a consensus on whether the mode of election to the Upper House should be by “Single transferable Vote” system recommended by the Nepali Congress or by majority vote system as demanded by the UML. Curiously, the Maoist centre which is a part of the government still and now part of the Left Alliance also took the side of the Nepali Congress and pressed for the passing of the ordinance that recommended the STV system.

Finally, after holding a meeting with PM Deuba and the UML leader and former Speaker Subas Nembang, President Bidya Dev Bhandari signed the ordinance on 30th December thus paving the way for the elections to the National Assembly and later for the formation of a new government.

Differences within the Grand Alliance

Meanwhile, significant differences have emerged between the two major parties of the Grand Alliance. The junior partner – the Maoist Centre led by Dahal has begun to openly criticise the UML leadership both on the unification, in the formation of the government and even on sharing of important posts.

The differences are mainly:

1. Whether the unification and formation of the government should be together simultaneously or separately to be considered? The UML is for immediate formation of the government and their view is that unification can wait. The Maoist Centre on the other hand wants both to be done simultaneously. While the government can be formed easily, unification is going to be a complicated issue. It is learnt that the rank and file of the UML are totally opposed to Dahal taking over as Chairman of the unified party and the UML may even face a revolt.

2. The General Secretary of the UML started a controversy that K.P.Oli should not only lead the government but the party also. The Maoist centre wants the principle of “one person- one post” to be followed strictly. There are four important posts to be shared- the President, Prime Minister, the Speaker and the Party Chairman. The Maoist Centre is for a package deal to share the posts equally. The UML would agree to share the Prime ministership by rotation but not the post of party leadership. The problem really is in the internal dynamics of both parties in managing and persuading their middle leaders to accept the new equation!

Composition of the National Parliament

The final position of various parties in the Parliament is likely to be as follows.

UML – 121
Nepali Congress 63
Maoist Centre 53
SSF(N) 17
RJP (N) 16
Independents 5

SSF (N) and RJP (N) are Madhesi based parties.

This would mean that the UML will not have a majority of its own in the Parliament unless it ties up with the Maoist Centre or with a combination of other parties. Dahal therefore became suspicious when the UML leader Oli took the initiative to meet the Madhes parties separately and requested them to join the government. He complained in one of the open meetings that Oli was doing it without consulting him! UML sources say that Dahal was consulted. Subsequently in another gathering at Nawal Parasi, he openly said that the UML leadership has turned to him only after SSF-N of Upendra Yadav rejected the proposal of joining the government!

The two top leaders Oli and Dahal met subsequently on the 27th, but the discussion was on the unification of the parties and not on the government! Kunda Dikshit a well known analyst has said that both Oli and Dahal have suspicion and intrigue in their DNA. Perhaps what he meant was that both having such a character may find it difficult to agree on complicated issues.

If we take the last few years into consideration, I would rather differ – Dahal has been seen to be a person who constantly shifts the goal posts and has proven to be an opportunist whereas Oli has proved himself to be a straight talking and frank person who does not mince words even if it is unpleasant.

The Madhesi Groups

Oli has approached both the Madhesi groups for joining the government and both appear to be willing to join on certain conditions. Upendra Yadav was the first to start from the block and may join the government if he is able to convince Oli to make the constitutional amendments he had asked for. A more positive note was struck by Raj Kishor Yadav of the RJP(N) when he said that they can be part of the UML led government if its chairman K.P. Oli stood positively towards constitutional amendment. He added that the constitutional amendment will not only address the demand of Madhes but will also resolve the current political deadlock in the country.

Indeed, it would be in the interest and stability of the country that the two Madhes groups join the government. It will be in the interest of India too. This would give some freedom to the UML also which need not be too dependent on the Maoists and its leader Dahal.

South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma has reaffirmed government’s commitment to radical socio-economic transformation in 2018.

In his New Year message, the President said the programme of radical socio-economic transformation will be the main focus of government in the year 2018 and it will inform the delivery of government’s programmes.

In the past President Zuma has defined radical socio-economic transformation as a fundamental change in the structure, systems, institutions and patterns of ownership, management and control of the economy in favour of all South Africans, especially the poor, the majority of whom are African and female.

“Through our Industrial Policy Action Plan and other programmes, South Africa will continue to promote investments particularly in key strategic sectors such as energy, manufacturing, transport, telecommunications, water, tourism, the oceans economy, mining and agriculture,” the President said in his message to the nation.

Government will also continue to lay a firm foundation for greater growth through the infrastructure rollout programme.

He called on South Africans to put in an extra effort to reignite the economy and promote growth and also to make it inclusive and beneficial to all.

South Africa’s economic front was turbulent in 2017, which saw the country emerging from the technical recession.

Despite the economic challenges, the country still made inroads in fighting poverty, inequality and unemployment.

“Despite serious challenges on the economic front, together we made substantial progress in providing basic services such as electricity, housing, roads, water and sanitation, health care, social grants as well as accessible education.”

These inroads will continue in the New Year with the government targeting the improvement of the quality of life especially the poor and the working class.

Government will also intensify investment in education in 2018. Already government has announced that it is expanding access to free education for children from poor households.

More than nine million children attend no-fee schools, which represents at least 80 percent of state schools.

Government has also announced the provision of free higher education for young people at universities and colleges who come from poor households earlier this month. “The intervention must be the beginning of a skills revolution in our country, in pursuit of the radical socio-economic transformation programme.”

President Zuma said government will continue to eliminate mud schools and inappropriate school structures, replacing them with state-of-the-art buildings, especially in rural areas and other neglected communities.

He called on South Africans to work harder to build a caring society in 2018 and eradicate crime, drugs and substance abuse as well as violence against women and children in communities.

“Let us work together to build a truly united, non-racial, non-sexist, democratic and prosperous South Africa,” the President added.

Government has dedicated the year 2018 to the late former President Nelson Mandela who would have turned 100 years old on 18 July had he lived.

By Michelle La Rosa

Ongoing protests in Iran could be a sign of hope for repressed religious minorities, if protesters demand that conscience rights be respected, said an Iranian-born journalist who converted to Catholicism in 2016.

Although most of those protesting in the streets of Iran were born after the 1979 revolution that led to the current Islamist regime, “many of them are chanting nostalgic slogans about the pre-revolutionary era,” noted Sohrab Ahmari.

“At the time Iran was no democracy,” he said, but the pre-revolution regime “was far less repressive and people retained many personal and social liberties, if not political ones.”

Ahmari was born in Tehran. He has lived in the United States for two decades and worked for the Wall Street Journal for several years before becoming a senior writer for Commentary magazine.

Ahmari spoke to CNA on Jan. 2, as Iranians protesting economic and social grievances flooded the streets of the Middle Eastern country.

Since the current round of protests erupted on Dec. 28, at least 21 people have died and 450 been arrested, CNN reports.

The protests are the largest in the country since the 2009 Green Movement, when thousands rallied in opposition to a presidential election they claimed was fraudulent.

The Iranian government has responded to the current demonstrations by sending out riot police and restricting access to internet and social media.
The protests began over economic issues. A year after sanctions against Iran were lifted by the United States, United Nations, and European Union, citizens of the Middle Eastern nation have yet to see the economic recovery that many had expected. Unemployment among the youth is high, and food and gasoline prices have risen significantly.

However, as the protests have grown, so have the grievances, with signs and slogans opposing what many see as a corrupt regime that suppresses the civil rights of its people.

“I don’t think you can separate the economic from the political,” Reza Marashi, research director for the National Iranian American Council, told CNN.

Ahmari agreed that the nation’s unrest shows a deep-seated discontent.

“The Iranians who are pouring into the streets have had it with an ideological regime that represses them and can’t even delivery basic economic security,” he said.

And while life is difficult for every Iranian, the situation for Christians and other religious minorities is particularly perilous, Ahmari told CNA.

“They are systematically discriminated against, are barred from various public offices and military posts, are prohibited by law from proselytizing, and so on.”

The regime does grant Christians and Jews a certain level of “second-class protection” as “People of the Book,” Ahmari said, but even this “limited protection only applies to the likes of Armenians and Assyrians, who are considered indigenous Christians.”

Converts are not protected, he said, because Sharia law – which is the foundation of Iran’s penal code – views apostasy from Islam as a crime punishable by death.

While the regime generally does not formally charge Christian converts with apostasy, Ahmari said, “it routinely harasses them, monitors and raids their house churches, and arrests and imprisons their pastors on trumped-up ‘national-security’ charges.”

Nearly a week after the start of the protests, it remains to be seen what effect they will have, if any. But Ahmari is hopeful that any changes in the government will include a greater respect for religious minorities.

Life before the 1979 revolution that brought Sharia law to the country “wasn’t ideal,” he acknowledged.

“(B)ut minorities thrived, and there was a sense that Iranian-ness wasn’t just about Shiite Islam but also incorporated pre-Islamic elements. Jews, Christians, Baha’i and others belonged to this identity. They were tolerated and even celebrated,” he said.

“If the protesters can recover something of that inclusive nationalism, then Christians and other ethnic and sectarian minorities will be better off than they are now.”

The six-month-old Gulf crisis has expanded to the Horn Africa, potentially fuelling simmering regional conflicts.

Renewed fears of heightened tension in the Horn, a region pockmarked by foreign military bases that straddles key Indian Ocean trade roots with its 4,000-kilometre coast line, was sparked by Sudan last month granting Turkey the right to rebuild a decaying Ottoman port city and construct a naval dock to maintain civilian and military vessels on the African country’s Red Sea coast.

The $650 million agreement was the latest indication that East Africa was being drawn into the Gulf dispute and associated conflicts in the Middle East. Concern heightened as the Saudi and United Arab Emirates-led diplomatic and economic boycott of Qatar appeared to have become the new normal.

Competition for influence between rival Gulf states stretches beyond the Horn that straddles the strategic Bab-el-Mandeb strait, links the Gulf of Aden with the Red Sea and is plagued by the nearby war in Yemen, into the Sahel as well as Central and West Africa. Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, toured six West African nations last month to shore up support for his country in its dispute with its Gulf brethren.

Africa is a battlefield not only in the Gulf crisis but also in the fierce rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran that is often fought in countries like Nigeria, Senegal, Cameroon and Mauritania primarily as a sectarian struggle between Sunni and Shiite Islam.

The Sudanese-Turkish agreement raised anxiety in capitals on both sides of the Red Sea. Saudi Arabia and the UAE both worry about Turkish military expansion because of its support for Qatar. Turkey has a military base in the Gulf state and has said it would beef up its presence to 3,000 troops in the coming months.

Turkey also has a training base in Somalia and is discussing the establishment of a base in Djibouti, the Horn’s rent-a-military base country par excellence with foreign military facilities operated by France, the United States, Saudi Arabia, China and Japan.

Hinting at a link between the Turkish presence in Sudan and Saudi Arabia, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on a visit to the African nation last month, the first by a Turkish head of state, that the ancient port of Suakin would boost tourism and serve as a transit point for pilgrims travelling to the kingdom’s holy city of Mecca.

Suakin was Sudan’s major port when it was ruled by the Ottomans, but fell into disuse over the last century after the construction of Port Sudan, 60 kilometres to the north. Suakin allowed the Ottomans to secure access to what is today the Hejaz province in Saudi Arabia and home to the Red Sea port of Jeddah.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which has bases in Berbera in the breakaway republic of Somaliland and in Eritrea, fear that the agreement will allow Turkey, with whom they have strained relations because of differences over Qatar, Iran and Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, to station troops close to Jeddah. Saudi Arabia and the UAE suspect Qatar of funding the development of Suakin. Adding to tension is the fact that Turkey suspects the UAE of having supported a failed military coup in July 2016.

The agreement is even more stinging because relations between Saudi Arabia and Sudan had significantly improved after the African country broke off diplomatic relations with Iran in early 2016, an early Saudi victory in its fight for Africa with the Islamic republic.

Sudan has since contributed 6,000 troops as well as fighters from the Janjaweed tribal militia to the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen. The Trump administration eased economic sanctions on Sudan in October at Saudi Arabia’s request.

Saudi Arabia this week agreed to re-establish banking ties with Sudan despite criticism in the Saudi press and on social media of the Sudanese-Turkish agreement. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has insisted that his country would keep its troops in Yemen irrespective of the agreement.

Concern about the agreement is not limited to Qatar’s detractors in the Gulf. Egypt suspects that the agreement will fuel a border conflict with Sudan over the region of Halayeeb. Sudan recently accused Egypt of deploying troops to the Sudanese side of the border and sending war planes to overfly the coastal area.

Sudan last month complained to the United Nations that a maritime demarcation agreement reached in 2016 by Egypt and Saudi Arabia infringed on what it claimed to be Sudanese waters off Halayeeb.

Egypt is further worried that mounting tensions will complicate already sharp differences with Sudan as well as Ethiopia over a massive demand that Ethiopia is building. Egypt believes the dam will reduce its vital share of Nile River waters that are the country’s lifeline. Negotiations over the dam are at an impasse, with Sudan appearing to tilt toward Ethiopia in the dispute.

“Sudanese President Omar Bashir is playing with fire in exchange for dollars. Sudan is violating the rules of history and geography and is conspiring against Egypt under the shadow of Turkish madness, Iranian conspiracy, an Ethiopian scheme to starve Egypt of water, and Qatar’s financing of efforts to undermine Egypt,” charged Emad Adeeb in a column entitled ‘Omar Bashir’s political suicide.’

The Gulf crisis, even without Turkey joining the fray, was putting fragile peace arrangements in the Horn at risk.

Qatar, in response to Eritrea and Djibouti’s decision to downgrade relations with the Gulf state when the conflict erupted last June, withdrew its peacekeeping contingent of 400 troops from the Red Sea island of Doumeira.

Eritrea immediately seized the island that is also claimed by Djibouti in a move that could ultimately spark an armed conflict that may draw in Ethiopia.

While reaping the benefits of heightened interest, the Horn risks increased tension and violent conflict in what has become a high stakes chess game for both Middle Eastern and African adversaries.

“Post-Arab Spring…activism may unsurprisingly contribute to the militarisation of the Horn of Africa and, even more dangerously, alter the existing balance of power in this conflict-ridden region, warned Patrick Ferras, director of the Horn of Africa Observatory (CSBA).

By Mateusz Machaj*

Nowadays, rarely a week goes by free from news about the so-called gender pay gap. There is even now a “wage-gap day” on November 10.  This is the day when women allegedly start to work for free for the rest of the year. The remaining 51 days are 14% of the year — a figure corresponding to the wage gap between women and men.

One can hardly find more mindless approach to this issue, however, as the idea behind the “working for free” narrative is an affront to any serious study of the of the wage-gap issue.

It is usually asserted that the gap is a product of discrimination and sexism. But any scientific approach to the issue requires that if we’re going to make such an assertion, but we must take into account other variables that affect wages, such as the self-sorting by employees,  total work experience (including working time), and education. Once we correct for such variables the adjusted wage gap is generated, which is significantly smaller. It is closer to the 2-5% range, depending on the study. Without such adjustments one is obviously comparing apples and oranges. We could as well say that a truck driver earning 12-times less than a banker is working for free since February, almost for the whole year.

I do not want to deal here, however, with the obvious distinction between the statistical wage gap and the adjusted wage gap — even though the popular press constantly and passionately refuses to learn anything from the existing research. I would like to focus here on what is left after the adjustment: that small, but still positive wage gap of 2-5%.

Let us pause for a while and analyze how the adjustment is made. There are various widely used statistical tools to do it, but their general methodological core is the same. We classify workers according to some objective and easily recognized features such as education, working time, sector and so forth. Furthermore, by using econometric analysis, we try to see the statistical connection of each change (increase or decrease) of a particular objective variable resulting in changes of the wage level. After the filtering is done we can recognize how much education, working time, and experience can contribute to higher income. Yet that does not fully bring the wage gap difference to zero.

What is a proper approach to such residual? There are two approaches: an ideological one and a scientific one. A scientific one is plain and simple: my model is limited. It cannot explain the existing statistical wage gap with reference to some objective and easily measurable data.

The ideological approach is the more commonly used: I cannot explain the gap fully by my model, but I know the answer a priori without further proof! It must be discrimination and bias against women.

The scientific answer can easily be supplemented by a proper economic reflection actually related to the “socialist calculation debate.” As Austrian-friendly readers well know, the most important conclusion of that discussion was that central political owner has no objective means to properly recognize true productivity of the factors of production: machines, land, natural resources and workers too. In order to calculate one has to know the valuation of the factors, which in the market economy is discovered by the competitive process. That is the only way to arrive at a recognition of proper market value.

You probably imagine where it goes from here. The wage-gap debate depends depends on the idea that it is possible to discover some “objective value” of labor, which can then be inserted into an equation.  Can a particular factor of production – i.e., a worker – be reduced to nothing more than adding up formal education, working time, sector, experience, etc.? If so, then we’ve solved the socialist calculation problem! Bureaucrats can then just calculate what each worker should be paid, and hand down those diktats to all employers. In other words, government  “experts” can now calculate everyone’s wages ahead of time. Markets would no no longer be necessary.

In the real world, however, nothing has happened to change the relevance of Mises demonstration nearly a century ago that it is in fact impossible to calculate these values without the marketplace.

So what is the real value of labor when measured on a case-by-case basis? Fortunately there is an Austrian answer to this problem of the wage gap: some price discrepancies are reflections of immeasurable features which entrepreneurs discover in the market process. NBA players’ wages can hardly be fully reduced to such objective measures as: point-scoring, rebounding, height, speed, experience etc. There is simply more to their market value. There is no reason to assume that other labor markets should be any different. Some things just cannot be fully measured.

About the author:
*Mateusz Machaj is Assistant Professor in Economics at the University of Wroclaw. He is the author of Money, Interest, and the Structure of Production: Resolving Some Puzzles in the Theory of Capital, and The Rise and Fall of the First Galactic Empire: Star Wars and Political Philosophy.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

By Sandip Kumar Mishra*

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe might not participate in the inaugural ceremony of the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics because a South Korean task force has stated that the agreement with Japan on the ‘comfort women’ issue, signed in December 2015, has serious flaws. This will be an undesirable start in the new year for Japan-South Korea relations. Abe’s decision will definitely impact his proposal for a Japan-South Korea-Japan trilateral summit meet in April 2018 as Seoul may retaliate with a similar gesture. The trilateral meeting, scheduled to be held in Japan over the past two years, was postponed each time.

If Japan and South Korea are unable to reach an understanding and decline participation at the highest levels at bilateral and multilateral platforms, it would further widen misperception and increase the bilateral trust deficit. This, in turn, will have implications for regional politics as well as US policy in the region, for which both Japan and South Korea, as the US’ closest allies in the region, will have to coordinate their positions on. Their bilateral disagreements will weaken a collective approach towards not only China but also an imminent crisis on the Korean peninsula.

The agreement reached between South Korea and Japan on the ‘comfort women’ issue was contested within the former right from the beginning. It was said that rather than genuinely deliberating on the specifics of the agreement in consultation with all stakeholders in a comprehensive manner, both South Korea and Japan hurriedly arrived at the deal under pressure from the US. Also, the previous South Korean President Park Geun-hye in the beginning of her term over-emphasised the ‘comfort women’ issue, and thus put most of the other exchanges with Japan hostage to its resolution. She even avoided meeting the Japanese prime minister on multilateral platforms in the third countries. When the fallout of this approach began having an impact on South Korea’s economic and other exchanges with Japan, Park Geun-hye moved to reach an agreement at the earliest and instructed her officials to conclude a deal with Japan as soon as possible. Similarly, Japan also showed its eagerness to reach a quick settlement as that meant only a roughly US$ 8.8 million Japanese compensation to be deposited in a fund established for the surviving ‘comfort women’.

It is interesting to note that after the agreement, the South Korean government and media highlighted Japan’s acceptance of its war-time mistakes; the Japanese government and media, however, were more keen on reporting that the agreement was ‘final and irreversible’. Any agreement that is arrived at by following a just and inclusive process becomes ‘final,’ even though it keeps a provision of non-finality. An agreement becomes ‘final’ not by having it in writing, in black and white, but rather by being fair, and genuine in being open to further additions. Unfortunately, this deal cannot be said to have been signed in good faith, given as it was reached without enough domestic consultation in either country. It was almost certain from the very beginning that a change of government in South Korea would lead to its review and that is what is happening now.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in, after coming to power in May 2017, sent his special envoy to Japan to discuss a plethora of mutual concerns and to indicate to Japan that they would be happy to work together to tackle them. However, problematic issues of history, territory and even ‘comfort women’ must be discussed without prioritising the speed at which they ought to be settled. The two-pronged approach to cooperate with Japan on certain issues while with maintaining principled differences on other issues appears to be a mature response which both countries would be best advised to follow. In fact, the spectrum of issues common to the Japan-South Korea bilateral us varied and huge. After the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1965, both countries have taken huge leaps in bilateral exchanges in economic, educational, cultural, and people-to-people domains. Both are the US’ security allies, and share common challenges in the form of North Korea and China. Japan and South Korea, with the US, established a Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group (TCOG) in 1999 to deal with security and strategic issues.

In this context, both the former South Korean President Park Geun-hye and now Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe have made a bad call in reducing their multifaceted relations to cherry-picked issues that are the cause of bilateral friction.

*Sandip Kumar Mishra
Associate Professor, Centre for East Asian Studies, JNU, & Visiting Fellow, IPCS

By Jonathan Power*

It was late 2003, the Liberian war was winding down after taking the lives of 250,000 civilians, spawning a small army of deadly child soldiers, and I was sitting at lunch in Monrovia inside the president’s palatial office and residence with the American ambassador on my right and George Weah, Fifa’s World Footballer of the Year, on my left.

When I introduced myself to the ambassador he made it clear he didn’t want to talk. He wasn’t happy having ended up with a journalist next to him. Every 15 minutes an aide would rush up to him with the latest news on the fighting. We could hear the sound of rifles cracking. I asked him if he was nervous. He ignored me. But Weah was more than ready to chat.

“What brings you to Liberia?” he asked.

“I’m a journalist for the International Herald Tribune”.

“That’s a great paper. I used to read it when I lived in Paris and Milan. How did you get here?”

“I flew in on Obasanjo’s plane. (The president of Nigeria). What do you do?”

“I’m a professional footballer”.

“Oh, I don’t know much about football. I prefer cricket.”

It took a long time for the penny to drop. Later, friends had to tell me I’d been talking to one of the greatest footballers of the world. The eleven year old son of a friend even today re-plays some of his matches on U-tube.

On December 30, Weah won the election for president of Liberia. He enjoys phenomenal popularity especially among the poor in the urban shanty towns in which he grew up. He has spent a substantial part of his own fortune to put thousands of children through school and to pay the traveling costs of the national football team. He won a handsome 60% of the vote.

Weah was one of the silent but influential peacekeepers that President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria was depending on to change the political climate. Obasanjo, the most astute of all African presidents, had forged a peace by luring President Charles Taylor to a luxurious house in Calabar on the Nigerian coast.

No questions were to be asked about his hidden wealth. It was a quid pro quo for Taylor abandoning Liberian politics and also the politics and wars of Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast in which he was the chief gunrunner, diamond smuggler and stirrer up of mayhem. Taylor was arguably the most brutal of all the warlords that Africa has produced. He had his warlord predecessor as president tortured to death on camera.

Liberia, the country carved out of West Africa by freed slaves returning from America, has long been one of Africa’s poorest. The retiring president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Africa’s first female head of state (and Nobel Peace prize winner to boot) has done a lot to right the ship after decades of civil war.

But there is a long way to go before normality will be the country’s every day condition. Power is still almost non-existent outside the capital, the health care system is in pieces following the Ebola outbreak in 2014 and the schools are manned by teachers who have no training.

Despite the slow economic and social progress Liberia has taken to democracy. It was a sober election with no ballot stuffing, intimidation or demonstrations and a graceful concession by Weah’s opponent.

I recall Obasanjo’s speech at the lunch at which I met Weah. “You must forgive each other – the only thing that can bring peace is love.” Obasanjo was a fervent Christian. I looked around the large dining hall. It was full of ex-murderers in dark suits and ties. But something rubbed off and with Ms Sirleaf at the helm Liberia has progressed without violence or without locking up those opposed to the new dispensation.

As for Charles Taylor he is now serving a 50 year sentence in a British jail, having been convicted by the Sierra Leone affiliate of the UN’s International Criminal Court. He thought Obasanjo would honour his deal. But as I discovered in conversation on his plane back to Nigeria that time, Obasanjo had some reservations and caveats from the beginning. One was if Taylor broke his promises – like not keeping in touch with his old warlord pals – the deal was off.

After nearly three years of living in exile Taylor picked up some vibes that he had made Obasanjo angry. One night he got into his Land Rover and drove to the Cameroon border. But Obasanjo’s soldiers were waiting for him.

In Liberia there was an audible sound of relief from high and low. Their country could not be threatened again. They could not be threatened again. People smiled. People forgave. People worked. And George Weah is now running to kick the ball. I suspect that although it is a long kick it will go straight into the net. [IDN-INPS – 02 January 2018]

*Note: For 17 years Jonathan Power was a foreign affairs columnist and commentator for the International Herald Tribune – and a member of the Independent Commission on Disarmament, chaired by the prime minister of Sweden, Olof Palme. He is the author of a newly published book, “Ending War Crimes, Chasing the War Criminals” (Nijoff). He also authored “Like Water on Stone – the History of Amnesty International” (Penguin). He forwarded this and his previous Viewpoints for publication in IDN-INPS. Copyright: Jonathan Power.

By Pieter-Jan Dockx*

A widely debated aspect of the Doklam standoff was the US’ apparent lack of support for India during the impasse. Considering the alleged strengthened ties between both countries and their 2015 Joint Strategic Vision for the region, analysts expected Washington to firmly back New Delhi. However, apart from a negligible remark calling for a peaceful resolution to the standoff, no statements in support of New Delhi were issued. Based on interview data, this article demonstrates that the various arguments that seek to explain this lack of support are inconclusive, and suffer from an implicit overestimation of the US-India strategic partnership. The standoff has shown that despite President Trump’s discourse of a strengthened strategic connection with India, the US administration still gives precedence to its interests with regard to China, and prioritises regional partners like Japan. India is much lower on the order of priorities than popularly understood.

The US’ failure to explicitly support India has been explained in a number of ways. One argument suggests that the lack of a statement can be explained through a combination of factors like the Trump administration’s preoccupation with domestic politics, and the absence of a US ambassador to India at the time. However, this seems rather unlikely given that the US is always quick to point out others’ misconduct, especially the Trump administration and the President’s Twitter diplomacy. It is hard to believe that the absence of an ambassador would stop the US president from taking a dig at China as he continuously did during the election campaign.

Another argument suggests that the US did not want to antagonise China because it needs the country to pressure North Korea to end its nuclear ambitions. However, this hypothesis also lacks cogency in some ways. The current North Korea episode started in January 2017, and in February, President Trump extended support to Japan’s claims over the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, a move not received well in Beijing. Even in August during the Doklam standoff, the US administration stepped up its naval campaign in the South China Sea, again angering China. Thus, Washington’s Korea policy has not stopped them from provoking Beijing in the recent past.

Then there is also an explanation that suggests that India asked the US not to issue any statements, fearing that the country’s involvement would lead to an escalation of tension, which New Delhi wanted to avoid. The US’ point of view was that while Washington was eager to comment, India did not ask the US to issue a statement, and thus they refrained from doing so. While some experts agreed with this analysis, most expressed serious doubt about the justification. They stated that India should not have to ask the US to comment; the US was at liberty to support India, and they chose not to.

Further evidence seems to support this analysis. The Japanese Ambassador to India firmly backed New Delhi in the conflict. Considering Japan’s troublesome relationship with China, their expression of support could equally antagonise China and escalate the conflict. Going by the argument that India should have asked partners for support, the events still do not match up. Japan voiced support and the US did not – indicating then that India asked only Japan to offer its backing. This scenario seems highly unlikely. On the other hand is the argument that India asked the US not to comment. Again, this would lead to the assumption that India either forgot to inform Japan to also not comment, or Japan blatantly rejected said request. Given the strong ties between both countries, a Japanese rejection seems improbable.

As no existing argument offers a conclusive answer, a more plausible explanation of this lack of support is that despite President Trump’s emphasis on the importance of the US-India strategic relationship, the ties are not as robust as suggested. The relationship is not yet comparable to those with other partners like Japan, and US’ interest in China still trumps the New Delhi-Washington relationship. Hence, all the aforementioned arguments mistakenly tap into the US narrative of an enhanced strategic partnership between both countries. While sceptics of the US-India strategic partnership in India’s policy circles had been fading into the background, the Doklam crisis, reaffirmed by President Trump’s recent China visit, has brought these unconvinced voices back to the fore.

Finally, although it is impossible to accurately determine China’s motives behind the road construction, some analysts have suggested that China sought to test the allegedly improving US-India strategic relationship. If that was the case, Beijing achieved its objective and was able to sow doubt in Indian strategic circles. However, this goal could come at a high cost as China’s assertiveness may ironically have the unintended consequence of driving New Delhi closer to Washington.

* Pieter-Jan Dockx
Research Intern, IPCS

The attempt to tease, weave and develop a narrative against President Donald J. Trump over a Russian connection began almost immediately after his victory in November last year. This was meant to be institutional oversight and probing, but in another sense, it was also intended to be an establishment’s cry of hope to haul the untenable and inconceivable before some process.  No one could still fathom that Trump had actually won on his merits (or demerits).  There had to be some other reason.

Central to the Trump-Bannon approach to US politics has been the fist of defiance against those entities of establishment fame.  There is the Central Intelligence Agency, which Trump scorned; there is the FBI, which Trump is at war with.  Then there is the Department of Justice, which he regards as singularly unjust.

The FBI investigation into Trumpland and its reputed nexus with Russia remains both bane and opportunity for Trump. As long as it continues, it affords Trump ammunition for populist broadsides and claims that such entities are sworn to destroy him.

To watch this story unfold is to remember how a soap opera can best anything done in celluloid. The New York Times has given us a New Year’s Eve treat, claiming that former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos spilt the beans to former Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer at London’s Kensington Wine Rooms in May 2016.

The two men had, apparently, been doing what any decent being does at such a London venue: drink.  Papadopoulos’ tongue started to wag as the imbibing continued.  There was a Russian connection.  There was dirt to be had, featuring Hillary Clinton.

Downer, however hazed, archived the discussion.  He could make a name for himself with this decent brown nosing opportunity.  Australia, Washington’s ally with an enthusiastic puppy dog manner, wanted to help, to tip off US authorities that a great Satan, Russia, might be involved.  So commenced the long road to the fall of Trump’s former aide, who conceded, in time, to have lied to the FBI.  Trump’s response was to degrade Papadopoulos as a “low-level volunteer” and “liar”, giving him the kiss of unimportance.

Australian ex-officials were by no means the only ones involved in providing succour to the anti-Trump effort.  A picture was being painted by other sources – British and Dutch, for instance – pointing to the Kremlin as central to the Democratic email hacks.  The FBI probe, in time, would become the full-fledged investigation led by a former director of the organisation, Robert Mueller.

This provides the broader context for the Trump assault on all manner of instruments in the Republic.  Earlier in December, Twitter was again ablaze with the president’s fury. The blasts centred on the guilty plea by former national security advisor Michael Flynn.  He had, in fact, had conversations with the former Russian ambassador.

Trump’s approach was two-fold: claim that Flynn’s actions had been initially, at least, lawful, while the conduct of the FBI and Department of Justice had been uneven and arbitrary.  “So General Flynn lies to the FBI and his life is destroyed, while Crooked Hillary Clinton, on that now infamous FBI holiday ‘interrogation’ with no swearing in and no recording, lies many times… and nothing happens to her?”

He then reserved a salvo for the DOJ. “Many people in our Country are asking what the ‘Justice’ Department is going to do about the fact that totally Crooked Hillary, AFTER receiving a subpoena from the United States Congress, deleted and ‘acid washed’ 33,000 Emails?  No justice!”

The persistent inability to understand Trumpland as a series of bullying an exploitative transactions  blunts the value of the FBI investigation.  Whatever it purports to be, it smacks of desperation, an effort in search of an explanation rather than a resolution. The Trump Teflon remains in place, immoveable.

More to the point, Trump is certainly right in questioning the historic inability of the FBI to be a credible instrument of justice, even if history is not his strong suit.  The Bureau under J. Edgar Hoover was a monster of surveillance, its reputation, despite being in deserved tatters, defended by one president after the other.

As for bias, Trump is certainly right on the score that certain FBI officials, foremost amongst them lawyer Lisa Page and FBI special agent Peter Strzok, were demonstrably favourable to Clinton over him.

The Trump campaign, keen to find chinks in the Clinton camp, was always going to be indiscriminate and characterised by ruthlessness: the provenance of the information was hardly going to matter.  Be it a hack, a disclosure; be it legitimately or illegitimately obtained, information in this context proved to be advertising power.

To that end, anything against Hillary would have been treated as rich mineral, whatever quarry it might have been hewn from.  That it stemmed from Russian sources gave fever to those still gripped by Cold War nostalgia.

In the new year, the antics will continue and Trump will, as he has all year, continue to receive blows with a certain nonchalance.  He will also retaliate in kind.  The establishment forces have been busy on various fronts, but the Trump machine, authoritarian, unreflective, but resolute, continues to function with indignant disdain. As long as that lasts, he will thrive.

Nobody described the outbreak of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict better than the historian Isaac Deutscher.

A man lives in a house that catches fire. To save his life, he jumps out of the window. He lands on a passer-by in the street below and injures him grievously. Between the two a bitter enmity arises. Who is to blame?

Of course, no parable can reflect reality exactly. The man who jumped out of the burning house did not land on this particular passer-by by chance. The passer-by became an invalid for life. But on the whole, this parable is better than any other I know.

Deutscher did not provide an answer to the question of how to solve the conflict. Are the two condemned to fight each other forever? Is there a solution at all?

Common sense would say: of course there is. True, the injured person cannot be restored to his former condition. The man who caused the injury cannot return to his former home, which was destroyed by the fire. But…

But the man can – and must – apologize to his victim. That is the minimum. He can – and must – pay him compensation. That is what justice demands. But then the two can become friends. Perhaps even partners.

Instead, the man continues to harm the victim. He invades the victim’s home and throws him out. The victim’s sons try to evict the man. And so it goes on.

Deutscher himself, who fled the Nazis from Poland to England in time, did not see the continuation of the story. He died a few days after the Six-day War.

Instead of quarreling endlessly about who was right and who was wrong, how wonderful we are and how abhorrent the others are, we should think about the future.

What do we want? What kind of a state do we want to live in? How do we end the occupation, and what will come after?

Israel is divided between “Left” and “Right”. I don’t like these terms – they are obvious misnomers. They were created in the French National Assembly more than two hundred years ago by the accidental seating of the parties in the hall at the time, as seen by the speaker. But let’s use them for convenience sake.

The real division is between those who prefer the people to the land, and those who prefer the land to the people. Which is more sacred?

In the early days of the state there was a joke making the rounds. God summoned David Ben-Gurion and told him: you have done great things for my people, make a wish and I shall grant it.

Ben-Gurion answered: I wish that Israel will be a Jewish state, that it will encompass all the country between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River and that it be a just state.

“That is too much even for me,” God said. “But I will grant you two of your three wishes.”

Since then we have the choice between a Jewish and just state in part of the country, or a Jewish state in all the country that will not be just, or a greater and just state, that will not be Jewish.

Ben-Gurion must be weeping in his grave.

So what are the solutions proposed by the two major forces in Israeli politics?

The “Left” has by now an orderly program. I am proud of having contributed to it. It says, more or less:

(a) A State of Palestine will come into being next to the State of Israel.

(b) Between the two states there will be peace, based on an agreement that will provide for open borders and close mutual relations.

(c) There will be joint institutions as necessary, by consent.

(d) The united city of Jerusalem will be the capital of both states, West Jerusalem the capital of Israel and East Jerusalem the capital of Palestine.

(e) There will be a limited, agreed, one-to-one exchange of territory.

(f) There will be a limited, symbolic return of refugees to Israel, all other refugees will receive generous compensation and “return” to the State of Palestine or remain where they are.

(g) Israel will remain a mainly Jewish state, with Hebrew as its first official language and open for Jewish immigration according to its laws.

(h) Both states will join regional institutions.

This is a clear picture of the future. Both ardent Zionists and non-Zionists can accept it wholeheartedly.

What is the program of the “Right”? How do its ideologues see the future?

The simple fact is that the Right has no picture of the future, no program, not even a dream. Only vague sentiments.

That may be its strength. Sentiments are a strong force in the life of nations.

What the Right would really like is the endless continuation of the present situation: the military occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the indirect occupation of the Gaza Strip, enforced by blockade.

Cold logic says that this is an unnatural situation that cannot go on forever. Sooner or later it has to be institutionalized. How?

There are two possibilities, and only two: an apartheid state or a binational state.

That is so obvious, that even the most fanatical right-winger cannot deny it. No one even tries to.

There is a vague hope that the Arabs in Palestine will somehow pack up and just go away. That will not happen. The unique circumstances of 1948 will not and cannot repeat themselves.

A few well-to-do Palestinians may actually leave for London or Rio de Janeiro, but their demographic weight will remain negligible. The mass of people will remain where they are – and multiply.

Already now, there live between the sea and the river, in the Greater Israel of the dream, according to the last count (July 2016): 6,510,894 Arabs and 6,114,546 Jews. The Arab birthrate is bound to fall, but so will the Jewish one (except for the Orthodox).

What would life be like in the Israeli apartheid state? One thing is certain: it would not attract masses of Jews. The split between Jewish Israelis and Jews in the USA and other countries would widen slowly and inexorably.

Sooner or later, the disenfranchised majority would rise, world opinion would condemn and boycott Israel, and the apartheid system would break down. What would remain?

What would remain is the thing almost all Israelis dread: the binational State. One person – one vote. A country very different from Israel. A country from which many Israeli Jews would depart, either slowly or rapidly.

This is not propaganda, but simple fact. If there is a right-wing ideologue somewhere who has an answer to this – let them stand up now, before it is too late.

I cannot resist the temptation of telling again the old joke:

A drunken British lady stands on the deck of the Titanic, with a glass of whisky in her hand, and sees the approaching iceberg. “I did ask for some ice,” she exclaims, “but this is ridiculous!”

By Wael Mahdi*

There is a simple way to understand how Saudi policymakers perceive the future of oil: Much is revealed by how the Kingdom builds its fiscal budget forecasts.

Bloomberg News reported last month, based on sources it did not name, that Saudi planners expect to see the first fiscal surplus in 2023 as oil revenues increase by a forecast 80 percent from 2017.

Why is that? It is because they expect oil prices to average $75 and KSA’s production to increase to 11.03 million barrels a day from about 10 million in 2017.

What does this tell us about what the Saudis think about the future oil? There are three things that can be concluded.

The first is that, despite efforts to diversify the economy away from oil, Saudi Arabia will still rely on oil income.

Based on the numbers quoted by Bloomberg, Saudi Arabia’s total revenues in 2023 will reach SR1,138 billion while government spending will reach SR1,134 billion. This means the surplus recorded will be around SR4 billion only.

Looking at the revenue numbers, SR801.36 billion of the total is expected to come from oil revenues and SR336.6 billion from non-oil sources, Bloomberg reported. This would be an increase from the SR256 billion in non-oil revenues the government expects for 2017. That would mark a significant improvement — but still not enough to free the economy entirely from oil sales.

With this in mind, Saudi policymakers will still be concerned about the health of the oil market for years to come, even as they further diversify the economy. That will mean the Kingdom will work closely with other producers — as it is doing now — to restore the balance of the market.

Second, Saudi Arabia is bullish on oil prices as it expects to see them increase over the coming five years. But being bullish goes against the thesis nowadays that oil prices will stay “lower for longer.” So how can these two views be reconciled?

When analysts and oil executives like Bob Dudley, CEO of energy giant BP, refer to “lower for longer,” they are in fact referring to the environment in which they need to operate in order to make profit.

No one seems to expect that oil will go back to the $100 level in the foreseeable future.

The reason for that is the ability of shale oil producers in North America, and a few others outside the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), to pump more over the next five years.

Under the International Energy Agency’s “New Policies Scenario” published in November, which is based on existing legislation and announced policy intentions relative to emissions and climate change, the oil price should continue to rise toward $83 a barrel by the mid-2020s.

Looking at the developments in the oil market, there is a chance that oil prices could go above $70 even before 2023.

Three factors support such an idea: The low levels of investments in oil and gas exploration and production since 2014; the healthy expected increase in demand for oil over the next five years; and the relatively low number of reserve discoveries.

The third conclusion about the Saudi view on oil is that policymakers see a need to increase production to historic levels in the future. Going from 10.058 million barrels per day in 2018 to an unprecedented average of 11.03 million barrels in 2023 shows that Saudi Arabia is ready to share the burden with other producers to meet future demand.

For those who understand the nature of the business, this cannot be done without huge investments and that is why Saudi Aramco unveiled a plan to spend at least $300 billion over the next decade.

The future of oil prices and supply will rest on few producers and Saudi Arabia is one of them. Saudi policymakers are aware that despite all the talk of abundant supply from outside OPEC, the reality might be different and the global rate of new hydrocarbons discoveries illustrates that.

Shale oil is bridging the supply gap for now but Aramco’s CEO said recently that he does not expect this to go on forever — and at some point there will be no more “sweet spots” to drill for. So the next five years might seem like “business as usual” for Saudi Arabia after all. Beyond that, no one can tell for sure what will happen.

• Wael Mahdi is an energy reporter specializing on OPEC and a co-author of “OPEC in a Shale Oil World: Where to Next?” He can be reached on Twitter @waelmahdi

The FBI believed Hillary Clinton and her aides broke the law by using an insecure server to email classified data, yet drafted an exonerating statement even before the probe was over, according to several Republican senators.

The unnamed Republicans on key congressional committees looking into the Clinton probe have uncovered passages in FBI documents stating that large amount of classified data that passed through Clinton’s private emails was proof of criminality, The Hill reported. By doing so, the lawmakers have confirmed and expanded on earlier reports in the US media.

“The sheer volume of information that was properly classified as Secret at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the “up classified” emails) supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information,” said a draft FBI statement from May 2, 2016, according to a source who has seen it. The “grossly negligent” wording, supporting a criminal charge for mishandling classified information, was changed to the more palatable “extremely careless” in later versions of the statement, according to The Hill.

In July 2016, then FBI Director James Comey said he would not pursue charges against Clinton despite more than 110 pieces of classified data transmitted through her insecure private email server. The decision was explained by the fact that the agency was unable to prove that there was an intent to break the law by Clinton and her staff.

The Republican sources also told The Hill that a key witness in the case has admitted to making false statements. His name was redacted from the FBI documents, but the person in question reportedly worked for a computer firm that helped maintain Clinton’s personal server after she resigned as secretary of state in 2013.

The witness, who initially denied deleting any data, confessed to permanently erasing a whole archive of Clinton’s emails shortly after they were demanded in a congressional subpoena in March 2015, according to the lawmakers. He acknowledged the wrongdoing in May 2016, describing it as an “oh sh*t moment.” The FBI decided not to press charges against the witness over his false testimony, and gave him immunity instead so that the man could correct his story, congressional investigators told The Hill.

The FBI also began crafting a statement acquitting Clinton of any crime when evidence demanded by the subpoenas was still outstanding, and when over a dozen key witnesses, including the above mentioned witness and Hillary herself, were yet to be interviewed, the senators said.

READ MORE: Leaks of top FBI official’s secret House testimony on Trump fuel dueling accusations

“Making a conclusion before you interview key fact witnesses and the subject herself violates the very premise of good investigation. You don’t lock into a theory until you have the facts. Here the evidence that isn’t public yet shows they locked into the theory and then edited out the facts that contradicted it,” an unnamed Republican senator told The Hill.

Lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee also pointed out that Clinton’s case was handled in accordance to the so-called “special” scenario, which was confirmed by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe during a closed-door hearing on December 21. The agency’s field officers were barred from taking part in the investigation, with both the probe and possible charges controlled by a small group at the FBI’s headquarters in Washington, they said.

The Hill also interviewed an undisclosed intelligence official familiar with the case, who confirmed the FBI “did have evidence of statutory violations” by Clinton and her staff. He also acknowledged that the agency kept collecting data after Comey began working on the draft statement on Clinton’s innocence, saying, there was belief among the FBI leadership that the document could be altered in case of new evidence being uncovered.

The congressional investigators have also found contradictions between the FBI’s official account of events in the Clinton’s case and the data provided by the newly released documents. The most glaring inconsistency revolves around Comey’s 2016 statement that the agency investigated the unlawful destruction of federal records by Clinton and her aides. However, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told the publication that he has obtained sworn testimony from an FBI agent, given under the penalty of perjury, that this issue wasn’t addressed in the Clinton email case.

Grassley is also concerned by the FBI’s handling of another deletion of emails from Clinton private server, which occurred just days after a subpoena by a congressional committee investigating the 2012 attack on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi.

“The emails were State Department records under subpoena by Congress. What did the FBI do to investigate this apparent obstruction? According to affidavits filed in federal court — absolutely nothing,” he said.

The FBI opened a case against Clinton following revelations in March 2015 – while serving as secretary of state between 2009 and 2013 – that she failed to make use of official State Department email accounts on secure federal servers and used her personal account, transferring classified data.

On July 6, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch followed Comey’s recommendations and announced that no charges would be filed against Clinton. The FBI reopened its case against the former secretary of state in late October, after an investigation into disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner’s sexting scandals led to the discovery of emails of his wife and Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, on his laptop. However, Comey again said no charges will be pressed against Clinton, just days before her loss to Donald Trump in the November 8, 2016 presidential election.

Media coverage of the email scandal delivered a huge blow to the Democratic candidate’s chances of making it to the White House. The senators, meanwhile, launched their own probe in order to clarify how the investigation was handled by the FBI and why the Bureau’s head Comey was so lenient towards Clinton, demanding access to the State Department emails and FBI files.

Leaders of a Catholic monastery in north-central Vietnam’s Thua Thien Hue province are protesting authorities’ interference in the life of their community, accusing local officials of seeking to have their senior priest removed from his office, sources say.

In a Dec. 31 letter sent to top-level authorities in the province, priests at Thien An asserted their legal right to construct buildings on nearby village land owned and managed by the church since the 1940s.

They also accused members of the Thua Thien Hue People’s Committee of abusing their power by proposing the transfer to another province of monastery head Father Nguyen Van Duc, who had protested the seizure last year of monastery land.

By declaring in a Dec. 23 report to higher-ups that Duc had broken the law, the province’s People’s Committee had offended the dignity of the priest and had illegally interfered in the monastery’s internal affairs, the priests’ letter said.

Founded by French missionaries in June 1940, Thien An monastery is home to a community of priests, nuns, and seminarians who perform pastoral activities in three different churches.

In June, police dressed in plain clothes attacked Thien An priests and their followers when the Catholics attempted to defend a cross they had put up on land claimed by the church, sources told RFA in earlier reports.

“They threw stones at the priests and beat three or four of them,” one source said, adding that the attackers were accompanied by women and unidentified civilians who helped police to pull down the cross.

In June 2016, police stopped Thien An priests from building a road leading to the monastery’s garden, prompting Duc to petition national and foreign officials in Vietnam and at the U.S. embassy in Hanoi over what he called the illegal seizure of church land.

Authorities in Vietnam have long repressed the Catholic Church in the one-party state and subjected it to forced evictions, land grabs, and attacks on priests and their followers, sources say.

The U.S. State Department’s 2016 International Religious Freedom Report, issued in August 2017, said that Vietnamese government authorities restricted the activities of religious groups, assaulting and detaining church members, restricting their travel, and confiscating church land for development projects.

Groups not registered with the state were especially severely treated, the State Department said.

Reported by RFA’s Vietnamese Service. Translated by Emily Peyman. Written in English by Richard Finney.

By Michael Sainsbury, Phnom Penh and Thomas Ora

Timor-Leste has lurched into a constitutional crisis after Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri’s minority government failed to pass key legislation, including a fresh budget bill, in the week before Christmas.

Asia’s most Catholic nation is facing the prospect of a new government, or a second election inside nine months, as the country’s parliament remains in gridlock after the July 22 poll failed to deliver a workable majority in parliament.

Alkatiri’s Fretlin Party, which won the most seats in the election, and its coalition partner, the Democratic Party, hold 30 seats in the 65-seat legislature and must rely on the support of opposition MPs to have legislation passed.

Alkatiri who replaced party colleague Rui Maria de Araujo as PM following the July 22 election, had originally stitched together a workable majority coalition.

But only days ahead of being sworn in, the coalition’s third partner, Kmanek Haburas Unidade Nasional Timor Oan (Khunto), walked away taking with it its five seats and Alkatiri’s majority.

Alkatiri, a Muslim in a country that is more than 90 percent Catholic, was forced to step down in 2006 before his term as the nation’s first ever prime minister was complete.

During a televised press conference from Singapore on Nov. 19, Timor-Leste’s opposition leaders assured the public that they were prepared to take over the leadership.

The broadcast featured the country’s elder statesman and former president and prime minister Xanana Gusmao who was accompanied by Taur Matan Ruak, president of Popular Liberation Party (PLP) and Jose do Santos Naimori of Khunto Party.

“If the president gives us the responsibility to lead the country out of the current crisis, we will take it,” Gusmao said.

Alkatiri refused to convene parliament and claimed the opposition was trying to stage a coup, despite the fact that it is the president who swears in parliament.

Australian academic Damien Kingsbury has described it as a “government of national disunity” and Alkatiri as having a “controlling political style.”

Gusmao has been negotiating a new treaty with Australia over the spoils of the estimated A$50 billion ($US39 billion) maritime oil and gas reserves in the so-called Greater Sunrise deposit in the waters between the two nations.

He has not been in the country and it’s widely considered that his presence is needed for the political impasse to either be resolved or the government dissolved.

What happens next is now very much with President Francisco Guterres, a Fretilin colleague of Alkatiri .

Manuel Tilman, a Timor-Leste lawyer, agreed saying a political crisis would be precipitated if the government’s program is rejected by parliament again.

“This is in line with Article 112 of the constitution. If the government’s program is denied for a second consecutive time the government will fall,” Tilman told ucanews.com

Under Article 112, according to Tilman, President Guterres will have to consider how to form a new government if the current one is disbanded.

Options include offering it to Gusmao’s National Congress for Timorese Reconstruction (CNRT) who gained the second largest amount of votes in the July 22 polls, or forming a “national unity” government.

If the dialogue between the political elites fails, the president can dissolve the national parliament as early as Jan. 22, Tilman said.

“The election could be in April 2018, but since that date coincides with Lent and Easter in the deeply Catholic nation, it is most likely to be in May 2018,” he added.

In the event of early elections in May, Timor-Leste could experience a financial crisis because the state budget has not been approved.

“I will make decisions according to the constitution so as not to burden the people and there will be no blood or injury, let alone deaths,” President Guterres said Dec. 4.

Further complicating matters was the Dec. 26 announcement, Australia and East Timor will sign a new treaty this year setting maritime boundaries in an effort to settle lingering disputes over lucrative oil and gas fields in the East Timor Sea.

The new treaty would be signed in March according to a directive from the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. But this needs the ratification of parliament which, by then, may be dissolved. Timor-Leste’s parliament is due to reconvene on Jan. 8.

Timor-Leste officially declared independence in 2002 after 24 years under Indonesian rule. But fifteen years after independence it continues to struggle to cope with poverty, lack of education and health services.

By Kamran Reza Chowdhury

Bangladesh has the necessary forms to begin the process of repatriating hundreds of thousands of Rohingya to Myanmar and will start collecting data next week, the nation’s refugee relief commissioner told BenarNews on Wednesday.

Commissioner Mohammad Abul Kalam said he had received the forms earlier this week and would lead a committee collecting the information required by Myanmar.

In late November, the two neighboring nations agreed to begin the voluntary repatriation of Rohingya refugees to their home state of Rakhine, in Myanmar, by Jan. 22.

“Hopefully, we can start collecting data sought in the repatriation form beginning after Sunday,” Kalam said.

His office will employ staff to collect the data, he said, adding that the forms would not be distributed among the refugees.

“We have already formed a nine-member technical committee to collect the data about the potential returnees. The committee includes members from the home ministry, disaster management ministry, bureau of statics and other relevant departments of the government,” said Kalam, leader of the technical committee.

“We maintain a database of the Myanmar nationals entering Bangladesh. We will match the data collected with the database before handing the filled forms over to the Myanmar,” he said.

Repatriation will begin after the Myanmar government verifies data including name, age, gender, parents, children and home village. Bangladesh officials expect to hand over about 100,000 Rohingya in the first phase.

Kalam responded to questions from BenarNews after a Myanmar official said that his government was waiting for Bangladesh to send the completed forms to start the verification process before repatriation can begin.

“We have sent the forms for the refugees to fill out, but we haven’t received any of the [completed] ones from Bangladesh yet,” Myint Kyaing, permanent secretary of the Ministry of Labor, Immigration, and Population under Myanmar’s civilian-led government, told Radio Free Asia (RFA), a sister entity of BenarNews, this week.

“We are ready to accept them back,” he added. “We will begin doing so on the day we receive the forms from Bangladesh.”

Repatriation agreement

On Nov. 23, Bangladesh and Myanmar signed the agreement stipulating that repatriation would begin within two months. At that time, the governments agreed to form a 30-member joint working group, headed by their foreign secretaries, to oversee the process.

The working group has not held its first meeting.

Myanmar has proposed holding it on Jan. 9, but Bangladesh officials have not responded to the proposal, a Bangladesh foreign ministry official told BenarNews on condition of anonymity.

Shahriar Alam, Bangladesh’s state minister for foreign affairs, told BenarNews that the first meeting could take place by Jan. 15, a week before the first Rohingya are due to leave for Myanmar.

“The joint working group meeting can take place either in Bangladesh or Myanmar,” Manjurul Karim Khan Chowdhury, the director general in-charge of the Southeast Asia desk at the foreign ministry, told BenarNews.

More than 655,000 Rohingya entered Bangladesh since Aug. 25, 2017, amid a brutal crackdown by Myanmar’s military that followed coordinated attacks carried out by Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) insurgents on security posts in Rakhine state.

Human rights groups and Rohingya refugees have accused Myanmar military personnel and civilian militia of committing widespread atrocities against Rohingya civilians during the crackdown. The United Nations and United States have described the situation as “ethnic cleansing,” but Myanmar officials have denied that its forces committed atrocities.

The repatriation agreement includes tens of thousands of Rohingya who fled Myanmar following an outbreak in violence in October 2016 as well, driving the number of refugees who are eligible to return home to as many as 700,000.

In all, about one million Rohingya are sheltering in southeastern Bangladesh, where they are mostly concentrated in refugee camps in and around Cox’s Bazar district.

“Repatriation does not happen overnight; it is time consuming. We will provide Myanmar necessary data from here. They can return only when the Myanmar government gives green light after verification,” said Chowdhury, a member of the joint committee.

Abdul Masood, a Rohingya who fled to Bangladesh with his wife and three children late last year, told BenarNews that he would not return to Myanmar, and feared being forced to do so.

“If we are sent back, there is no hope for us. We will all be killed, or worse, tortured to death. Ask any Rohingya, and they will tell you they don’t want to go back, no matter the promises the Myanmar government makes regarding our safety,” Masood, 28, told BenarNews last week.

Curfew: ‘To ensure people’s safety’

Last week, Myanmar authorities announced they would process returning refugees during daylight hours only because of an extended curfew in the Rakhine state.

Returning refugees who will be processed at two reception centers in Taung Pyo Let Wae and Nga Khu Ya villages must adhere to the curfew, meaning they cannot go out after 6 p.m., Win Myat Aye, Myanmar’s minister in-charge of social welfare, relief and resettlement, told RFA.

“Authorities did it to ensure people’s safety,” he said.

Kalam, the refugee relief commissioner in Bangladesh, told BenarNews that his government likely would not oppose the curfew enforced on the other side of the border.

“The repatriation is our focus, no matter whether it takes place by day or at night. We will discuss the proposal at the joint working group and decide,” Kalam said.

Meanwhile, some Rohingya refugees expressed mixed views over the issue.

“I do not see any problem. Daytime is better. Risks of snake and insect bites are there. Besides, women and children may go missing at night,” Mohammad Hafez told BenarNews in a phone call from Ukhia, a sub-district of Cox’s Bazar.

A Rohingya who was repatriated at night in 1993 and asked to remain anonymous, gave a different opinion.

“Myanmar wants to limit the number of returnees. A lesser number of people will go if repatriation only takes place by daytime. This is their strategy to delay our return,” he told BenarNews.

Materials scientists at Duke University have developed a method to create hybrid thin-film materials that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to make. The technique could be the gateway to new generations of solar cells, light-emitting diodes and photodetectors.

The research team described their methods Dec. 22, 2017 in the journal ACS Energy Letters.

Perovskites are a class of materials that — with the right combination of elements — have a crystalline structure that makes them particularly well-suited for light-based applications. Their ability to absorb light and transfer its energy efficiently makes them a common target for researchers developing new types of solar cells, for example.

The most common perovskite used in solar energy today, methylammonium lead iodide (MAPbI3), can convert light to energy just as well as today’s best commercially available solar panels. And it can do it using a fraction of the material — a sliver 100 times thinner than a typical silicon-based solar cell.

Methylammonium lead iodide is one of the few perovskites that can be created using standard industry production techniques, though it still has issues with scalability and durability. To truly unlock the potential of perovskites, however, new manufacturing methods are needed because the mixture of organic and inorganic molecules in a complex crystalline structure can be difficult to make. Organic elements are particularly delicate, but are critical to the hybrid material’s ability to absorb and emit light effectively.

“Methylammonium lead iodide has a very simple organic component, yet is a very high-performing light absorber,” said David Mitzi, the Simon Family Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Duke. “If we can find a new manufacturing approach that can build more complex molecular combinations, it will open new realms of chemistry for multifunctional materials.”

In the new study, Mitzi teams up with colleague Adrienne Stiff-Roberts, associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at Duke, to demonstrate just such a manufacturing approach. The technique is called Resonant Infrared Matrix-Assisted Pulsed Laser Evaporation, or RIR-MAPLE for short, and was developed by Stiff-Roberts at Duke over the past decade.

Adapted from a technology invented in 1999 called MAPLE, the technique involves freezing a solution containing the molecular building blocks for the perovskite, and then blasting the frozen block with a laser in a vacuum chamber.

When a laser vaporizes a small piece of the frozen target about the size of a dimple on a golf ball, the vapor travels upward in a plume that coats the bottom surface of any object hanging overhead, such as a component in a solar cell. Once enough of the material builds up, the process is stopped and the product is heated to crystallize the molecules and set the thin film in place.

In Stiff-Roberts’s version of the technology, the laser’s frequency is specifically tuned to the molecular bonds of the frozen solvent. This causes the solvent to absorb most of the energy, leaving the delicate organics unscathed as they travel to the product surface.

“The RIR-MAPLE technology is extremely gentle on the organic components of the material, much more so than other laser-based techniques,” said Stiff-Roberts. “That also makes it much more efficient, requiring only a small fraction of the organic materials to reach the same final product.”

Although no perovskite-based solar cells are yet available on the market, there are a few companies working to commercialize methylammonium lead iodide and other closely related materials. And while the materials made in this study have solar cell efficiencies better than those made with other laser-based technologies, they don’t yet reach those made with traditional solution-based processes.

But Mitzi and Stiff-Roberts say that’s not their goal.

“While solution-based techniques can also be gentle on organics and can make some great hybrid photovoltaic materials, they can’t be used for more complex and poorly soluble organic molecules,” said Stiff-Roberts.

“With this demonstration of the RIR-MAPLE technology, we hope to open a whole new world of materials to the solar cell industry,” continued Mitzi. “We also think these materials could be useful for other applications, such as light-emitting diodes, photodetectors and X-ray detectors.”

(RFE/RL) — A U.S. federal jury in Manhattan has found a Turkish banker guilty of helping Iran evade U.S. sanctions, convicting him on five of the six charges he faced.

The jury on January 3 found Mehmet Hakan Atilla, an executive at Turkish state-owned bank Halkbank, guilty of bank fraud and conspiracy, but he was found not guilty on a money-laundering charge.

A defense lawyer said Atilla will appeal.

Prosecutors said Atilla, 47, participated in a scheme to launder $1 billion of Iranian oil and gas revenue through U.S. banks in violation of U.S. sanctions, saying he conspired with trader Reza Zarrab, 34, by using fraudulent gold and food transactions.

Zarrab pleaded guilty and testified against Atilla in the criminal case.

Seven other people have been charged, but only Atilla and Zarrab were in U.S. custody.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has publicly dismissed the case as a politically motivated attack on his government.

A senior Turkish official was quoted by Reuters news agency as claiming the U.S. jury ruling was not valid and that it violated international law. He said the verdict would not impact Halkbank or the country’s banking system.

Joon Kim, the acting U.S. attorney in Manhattan, said after the verdict that “foreign banks and bankers have a choice: You can choose willfully to help Iran and other sanctioned nations evade U.S. law, or you can choose to be part of the international banking community transacting in U.S. dollars.

“But you can’t do both,” he added.