Fools and children, it is sometimes said, reveal more of the truth than those more integrated into the normal adult population. Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the outspoken and flamboyant leader of the absurdly misnamed Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, is one of them as a new video clip shows.

Speaking before a Russian audience, the presidential candidate is challenged to give his assessment of the Russian Constitution’s specification that “all power derives from the people.” Zhirinovsky says “no.” That isn’t true now, never has been and never will be (facebook.com/Svobodanaroda/videos/784892058359540/).

The woman who asked that question followed up with another. If that is the case, she said, “why then do you sit there in front of us?” to which Zhirinovsky responds: “I do so to explain the situation so there won’t be any fools like you left around.”

“You were promised power in 1917,” he continued. “Did you get it? Yeltsin promised power and democracy in 1991? Did you get them?” The answer is no, the LDPR head said, because “never in any country of the world has power belonged to the people … No one is ever going to give you power.”

“Power [at least in Russia] is always in the hands of the mafia, criminals and the corrupt – from tsarist times up to now,” he continued. Having won applause for that line, Zhirinovsky turned to his questioner and said: “You little fool. Get out of here. You’re mad.”

Before anyone starts jumping off buildings, let me give you a few items to think about.

1) The stock market is not the economy. It moves in mysterious ways that often have little or nothing to do with the economy. In October of 1987 it plunged more than 20 percent in a single day. GDP grew 4.2 percent in 1988 and 3.7 percent in 1989. The market did recover much of its value over this period, but we don’t know whether or not it will recover the ground lost in the last week either.

2) The market has gone through an enormous run-up over the last nine years. The current level is more than 230 percent above its 2009 lows. That translates into an average nominal return of more than 14.0 percent annually, before taking into account dividends.

The gains have been even more rapid over the last two years. Even with the recent drop the market is more than 40 percent above its February 2016 level. Most people would have considered it crazy to predict the market would rise by 40 percent over the next two years back in February 2016. In other words, people who have invested heavily in the stock market have nothing to complain about. If they didn’t understand that it doesn’t always go up then they should keep their money in a savings account or certificates of deposit.

3) This plunge is not in any obvious way linked to higher interest rates. We can say that because interest rates have not risen that much. The yield on 10-year Treasury bonds stands at 2.71 percent. (It fell sharply today as the market was plunging.) That compares to about 2.4 percent a year ago. It’s pretty hard to tell a story that a 0.3 percentage point rise in long-term interest rates will sink the stock market and the economy. The yield had been less than 1.8 percent two years ago.

4) The plunge in markets is world wide with markets in Europe and Asia also sinking sharply. This undercuts the blame Trump story unless the theory is that Trump is so bad he is going to sink the whole world economy. Also, the markets are still above the levels they were at when Trump took office, so this is really not a good theory for Trump critics to embrace.

In short, calm down. The economy is not going to collapse. If you have less money in your 401(k) than you did last week, just remember, you have far more than you expected to have last year.

This column originally appeared on CEPR.

President Donald Trump has intensified a debate about US national identity and American attitude towards migration since taking office a year ago. Trump’s first State of Union Address in January continues to reiterate tough curbs on immigration which is unsettling to both Americans and believers of globalisation.

By Arunajeet Kaur*

The Trump administration quit the December 2017 talks on a proposed United Nations agreement, the Global Compact on Migration, to improve ways of handling global flows of migrants and refugees. Aides of the United States President Donald Trump described their country’s continued participation as a ‘subversion of American sovereignty’.

Analysts have observed that immigration reform has been a testy issue in the US for more than a century. Trump’s White House predecessor Barack Obama admitted during his term in office that ‘…our immigration system is broken’ but he was unable to execute his plans for immigration reform, including the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), that has largely been referred to as ‘amnesty’ for undocumented immigrants already in the US.

America’s U-turn?

Long-standing problems with the US immigration system being ‘broken’ entail securing borders, addressing visa over stayers, undocumented immigrants and the difficult ‘green card’ administrative process that has complications in areas of taxation and integration.

In a 2014 poll, 74 percent Americans said they did not want more immigration. This is a radical U-turn of the American pro-immigration mindset, which buttressed a policy initiated over two centuries ago when George Washington, the first US president asserted, “the bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions”.

Trump made immigration restriction one of the centerpieces of his presidential election campaign. His logic has the following strands: unauthorised Mexicans bring crime; border security is important to national security; and admitting refugees from the Middle East could be the ‘Trojan Horse’ for terrorism into the US. Within his first 100 days in office, Trump issued several executive orders on immigration restriction, to fulfil his election campaign promises.

Raising the Ramparts

The Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements executive order (BSIEE) directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to plan for the construction of a wall on the 3,200 kilometre border between Mexico and the US. The DHS is to train state and local police officers to detect unauthorised foreigners. In the first two months of the Trump presidency, arrests of “removable” foreigners from the border numbered 21,400.

The executive order of Protecting the Nation from Terror Attacks by Foreign Nationals (PNTAFN) created controversy as it suspended the entry of nationals from Muslim-majority countries, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, halted refugee admissions for 120 days and called for ‘extreme vetting’ of some foreigners seeking visas to enter the US.

The Buy American and Hire American (BAHA) executive order directed federal agencies and the DHS as well as the Departments of Labour, Justice and State to study existing guest worker programmes and recommend changes to primarily protect the interests of US workers. The BAHA order was to ensure that H1-B visas go to the most skilled or highest paid foreign workers, ending the current practice of selecting those who get H1-B visas by lottery.

Polarisation of Sentiments on Immigration

The year 2018 began with President Trump reiterating his four priority areas concerning migration, namely, border security, chain migration, the visa lottery and the DACA. He made headlines when referring to immigrants from African countries, Haiti and El Salvador in an abusive rant, demanding to know why the US should accept citizens from such countries.

There is a parallel between Trump’s victory in the US and the backlash against globalisation. Major global occurrences have led to a rethink on migration and open borders within domestic politics, bilateral and regional relationships and national security policy of states. The post 9/11 era has witnessed a retreat from multiculturalism.

The threat of Islamist terrorism followed by the Arab Spring whereby the wave of political unrest throughout the Arab world, climaxing in the violence in Syria, has generated large flows of refugees to Western countries.

Economic woes that started with the 2008 global economic crisis had also led many states to tighten immigration control measures and to send surplus and undocumented migrants home. European political leaders seeking to curb migration have become popular in polls. This is true in countries like France, Austria and Germany.

Trumpism in Australia?

Although the initial reaction to Trump’s decision to ban the entry of citizens of seven Muslim majority states was met with protest, surveys after the preliminary objections revealed that 55 percent of respondents across ten countries, including those in Europe, agreed that ‘all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped’.

Australia’s Turnbull government, seemingly encouraged by Trump’s attitude towards restrictive immigration, announced in early 2017 that it was cracking down on foreign worker visas and adopting an ‘Australians first’ approach. Both Turnbull’s and Trump’s policy decisions stand to appeal to the nationalist wings of their respective political parties and the right-wing constituencies in Australia and the US.

The first-year scorecard on the Trump presidency by various analysts deem him as an impulsive and erratic leader with no clear direction on domestic as well as foreign policy. However, general trends reveal the increasing aversion governments and the xenophobic segments of their citizenry are demonstrating towards open borders.

There are doubts over reintegration in host lands and opportunities for locals first in jobs and a skilled economy. Considering these growing public sentiments towards immigration, Donald Trump can be seen as simply espousing popular sentiments on the ground, no matter how politically incorrect, crass, undiplomatic or even racist his comments may be.

Meanwhile negotiations in the US remain complex for a coordinated response to deal with border controls and provisions of amnesty-like provisions like the DACA. The January 2018 federal government shutdown in the US demonstrates this split in action and motive towards immigration policy in the US.

It would be simplistic to term this current negativity towards immigration simply as xenophobia when actually it is a moment in time that reveals the tensions between nationalists and globalising forces in the form of open migration.

*Arunajeet Kaur PhD is a Visiting Research Fellow with the Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

By Christopher Westley*

This past Tuesday afternoon, I was speaking with a reporter who was interested in the positive effects of infrastructure spending that occurred in the form of fiscal “stimulus” in my part of the country, back during the dark days of the Great Recession, around 2009 and 2010. How did this help our region, he wanted to know?

My answer: It didn’t help very much, and that if it did, then (a) it didn’t matter because the growth was not sustainable — it would have stopped when infrastructure spending stopped; (b) you would have to balance any seen positive economic activity with unseen, decreased economic activity on the part real people coerced to finance the stimulus; (c) it may have delayed the correction to the extent that it allowed business owners and workers to put off making tough choices based on market signals: and (d) you would have to believe economic growth is something that occurs due to infrastructure spending as opposed to the development of property rights institutions, saving, time preference, the specialization and division of labor, and so on.

Still, I wondered: Why the concern about infrastructure spending? Then I went about my day, ignoring Trump’s State of the Union, like a normal person. It was only this morning that I read about his infrastructure spending proposal:

Tonight I’m calling on Congress to produce a bill that generates at least $1.5 trillion for the new infrastructure investment that our country so desperately needs. Every federal dollar should be leveraged by partnering with state and local governments, and where appropriate, tapping into private sector investment, to permanently fix the infrastructure deficit. And we can do it.

Then it made sense. Infrastructure spending and its effects on the economy were pre-speech talking points, as were the Keynesian biases that this spending tempered the severity of the Great Recession, and would likely provide an economic boost in the future.

The assumption is current levels of public infrastructure spending are deficient, and that as a result, highways, bridges, airports, trains, and waterways are today dilapidated, dirty, and dangerous. But if this were true, the more accurate conclusion would be that public infrastructure spending is among the biggest scams of the century.

Rest assured, it’s not true. The fact is that federal, state, and local spending on transportation infrastructure is well into the tens of billions each month. As the chart below shows, this spending increased to over $25 billion a month in 2011, during the heyday of QE2. This number has only increased over time, as the average spending over the last two years has been just under $30 billion a month.

Monthly public spending on infrastructure in the US exceeds the annual GDP of Paraguay. Annually, we spend more on infrastructure than the GDP of Hong Kong.

Let’s admit it: If infrastructure spending promoted economic growth, the US economy would resemble a modern day Incan Empire. But to argue as much would be to claim that industrial revolutions occurred in the past mostly because the mass of workers were relieved, by force, of a portion of their wealth to finance new turnpikes, canals, and railroads.

This isn’t the case. The Industrial Revolution moved from England to the United States because capital became more secure in the latter relative to the former. Tom DiLorenzo points out in his book How Capitalism Saved America that most roads in the 19th century — when the Industrial Revolution moved from England to North America — were privately financed.

It would take the advent of the 20th century Progressivism and the overweening nation-state that transportation functions became the domain of public-sector cartels. We should view this development as the exception, not the rule. As Walter Block wrote in The Privatization of Roads and Highways, “we must realize that just because the government has always built and managed the roadway network, this is not necessarily inevitable, the most efficient procedure, nor even justifiable.”

To be fair to Trump, he is at least promoting an issue that was a common talking point as a presidential candidate. At the time, my reaction was twofold. On the one hand, if the Feds must waste billions of dollars, better it be within our shores than overseas.1 (Why should the military-industrial complex always get the loot?) On the other hand, Candidate Trump’s focus on infrastructure expansion contradicted his criticisms of the ruling class, which he considered subservient to special interests. To assume that special interests don’t similarly influence infrastructure spending is naïve, in the least.

People who are “like, really smart,” like Trump, get this better than anybody. But why the regime focus on infrastructure? A couple of possibilities come to mind.

First, wasteful infrastructure spending is at least visible. When taxpayers read about billions of dollars being misplaced in Afghanistan, for instance, it is seen as a zero-sum game. With the exception of “bridges to nowhere,” many people believe domestic infrastructure spending provides at least some net benefit — even when they acknowledge its unseen costs. The federal government has long had a difficult time justifying its very existence in the post-Cold War world. Infrastructure might then serve the propaganda purpose today that the Space Race served in the 1960s.

Second, the political class loves infrastructure spending because it can be so easily targeted, even down to the level of zip code. The ability to direct tens of millions of dollars in conscripted capital to politically important regions of the country is a godsend to a ruling class that depends on the support of key constituencies. While politicized spending dates back to the Washington administration, I have always admired the late Jim Couch’s important research on its effects in centralizing power during the New Deal.

Given that infrastructure projects most always employ large numbers of local workers, this spending serves as a way for the State to maintain popular support by a large class of workers whose livelihoods now depend on federal spending. If a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul, then Trump’s proposal guarantees a good number of Pauls — a bought-and-paid-for voting bloc.

While the Pauls can be identified, they should nonetheless be ignored. As Rothbard wrote in For a New Liberty (p. 387), “the chances of converting those who are waxing fat by means of State exploitation are negligible, to say the least. Our hope is to convert the mass of the people who are being victimized by State power, not those who are gaining by it.” Trump is at his populist best when he appeals to the victims. Unfortunately, he is at his populist worst when he adds to infrastructure spending already out-of-control by creating new divisions in society between the productive and parasitical classes.

Why is this? Because in this new political era, a divided, unproductive government is one of the few things that most unites us, while a government united behind welfare or warfare boondoggles — including infrastructure spending — sow division. It’s no mistake that these divisions have increased as the institutional constraints on the redistributive state have been removed.

Infrastructure is an effect of wealth creation, not its cause. Confusing this point is the road to hell, not prosperity, which is, as The Donald might say, “Sad!”

• 1. This is a very weak justification for such spending to the extent that it still justifies many billions of dollars’ worth of coercive wealth redistribution. Furthermore, as Rothbard often argued, such spending on welfare always seems to result in increased spending on warfare, given the symbiotic relationship between the two types of government expansion.

About the author:
*Christopher Westley a professor of economics in the Lutgert College Business at Florida Gulf Coast University and an associated scholar at the Mises Institute.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

By Pramod Jaiswal*

On 2 February 2018, India’s Minister of External Affairs, Sushma Swaraj, made a surprise visit to Nepal at a time when the Left Alliance in Nepal is set to form a new government under KP Sharma Oli’s leadership. What does the visit mean? How will it impact Nepal’s politics?

An Agenda-less Visit?

Soon after landing in Kathmandu, Swaraj said that she did not have any specific agenda for the visit and that the visit was to meet friends from all political parties and strengthen friendship. During her 24-hour long visit, she had one-to-one meetings with the Chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist) [CPN-UML], KP Sharma Oli; Chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Center) [CPN-MC], Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’; and the Chairman of the Federal Socialist Forum, Nepal [FSFN], Upendra Yadav. She also attended a dinner hosted by KP Sharma Oli and lunch by Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. Additionally, she also called on Nepal’s President Bidhya Devi Bhandari and met with the leaders of Rastriya Janta Party, Nepal (RJPN).

There are reasons Swaraj chose to hold talks with CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli first. Oli is the unchallenged leader of Nepal’s Left alliance and is likely to be the next prime minister. The relationship between India and Oli soured in 2015 when India voiced concerns over Nepal’s then-newly promulgated constitution, which encouraged Madhesis to create obstruction at the India-Nepal border resulting in an acute shortage of fuel and other essential goods in Kathmandu. Oli signed a trade and transit agreement with China with the objective of ending India’s monopoly over Nepal’s supply of daily essentials. India saw Oli as an adversary, playing the “China card” and creating anti-Indian sentiments in Nepal, who needed to be kept out. This encouraged the Nepali Congress and CPN-MC coalition, as a result of which the Oli government collapsed and CPN-MC Chairman Prachanda and Nepali Congress Chairman Sher Bahadur Deuba served as the prime minister for the remaining term.

However, India faced setback when CPN-UML and CPN-MC — two of the largest communist parties in Nepal — announced that they would contest provincial and federal parliament elections in alliance and would step towards forming a single Left party in the country. Unsurprisingly, the Left Alliance claimed a thumping victory, assuring a second term for Oli. India was thus left with limited options. New Delhi realised that ignoring the largest party could give a free hand to China in Nepal and that engaging with Oli and the Left Alliance is necessary to secure its interests in Nepal. China has already taken advantage of India-Nepal tensions since September 2015. As a result, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi telephoned Oli twice. In the second conversation, Modi expressed his eagerness to work with Oli’s government and invited him to come to India after taking over as prime minister; and Oli invited Modi to visit religious sites of Nepal such as Muktinath, Janakpur and Lumbini.

In a letter sent on India’s Republic Day, Oli assured Modi that he is keen to work with his Indian counterpart on bilateral issues. Thus, the main objective of Swaraj’s visit was to mending relations with Oli, who may take over as prime minister in March 2018. She wanted to reassure Oli that India wants to be friends with him, desires to work together with his government, and extend India’s invitation to him. This was the primary the reason why Swaraj held a one-to-one meeting with Oli for more than an hour.

Responses to the Visit in Nepal

There were mixed reactions about the visit in Nepal. While the CPN-UML look excited about playing the “China card” and causing India to take a reconciliatory approach, the Nepali Congress and the RJPN felt isolated. Nepali Congress leader Shekhar Koirala remarked that Swaraj’s visit to Nepal was untimely. He said Swaraj should have come a little later to meet the next prime minister as there is no point for her to meet the incumbent government. He even claimed that Swaraj visited Nepal after Oli requested India to send a ‘special envoy’. The RJPN felt betrayed as Swaraj skirted discussion on the matter when they raised the questions regarding constitutional amendment. Similarly, the Maoists were unhappy because they felt India’s reconciliatory approach to engage with the Oli-led government has emboldened Oli to take a rigid stance over the power sharing arrangement with the Maoists during the negotiations on government formation.

Looking Ahead

By sending its external affairs minister to Nepal, New Delhi has sent a symbolic message to Beijing that India enjoys cordial relations with Nepal despite the victory of the Left Alliance. China was upbeat after the favourable results of Left Alliance in the provincial and federal elections, believing that the results would be helpful to advance its influence in Nepal. While the visit has been successful in bringing a thaw in the India-Nepal tensions to some extent, New Delhi must be cautious about hurting the sentiments of a small state in the future by not interfering in the internal matters of Nepal. It is time for India to focus more on economic cooperation by forging equal partnership with Nepal for mutual benefits.

*Pramod Jaiswal
Visiting Research Fellow, IReS, IPCS

The outcome of a power struggle in the Maldives that has sparked declaration of an emergency, military control of parliament, and arrests of senior figures, is likely to shape the geopolitical designs of China, India, the United States and Saudi Arabia at a strategic interface of the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea.

The struggle between authoritarian president Abdulla Yameen and exiled former president and onetime political prisoner Mohamed Nasheed, a staunch critic of Chinese and Saudi interests, has a direct bearing on the future of the two countries’ significant investment that has already reshaped the archipelago’s social and political life.

The struggle also involves Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, the politician who served longest as the country’s leader, Mr. Gayoom’s son-in-law, Mohamed Nadheem, and senior figures in the judiciary, including Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed. All were detained last week on charges of corruption and attempting to overthrow the government.

Mr. Yameen, in what United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein dubbed an “all-out assault on democracy,” declared the state of emergency after the Supreme Court ordered the release from prison of opposition politicians and their retrial. The state emergency, gives the government sweeping powers to make arrests, search and seize property, and restrict freedom of assembly.

The court ruling appeared to enhance Mr. Nasheed’s chances of challenging Mr. Yameen in elections scheduled for later this year by giving the opposition a majority in the country’s legislative assembly.

Politics in the Maldives, a strategically located 820-kilometre-long chain of atolls with a population of 420,000 that is best known as a tourism hotspot threatened with demise by climate change, are convoluted. Mr. Gayoom is Mr. Yameen’s half-brother and opposed to the president together with Mr. Nasheed, who unseated Mr. Gayoom in the country’s first democratic elections in 2008.

Mr. Yameen, who came to power in 2013 in a disputed election that opponents say was rigged and has since been accused of eroding democracy, allowing Islamic militancy to flourish, cracking down on dissent and jailing opposition leaders, has been amenable to Chinese and Saudi interests that analysts believe could lead to the establishment of military bases in the archipelago.

China sees the islands as a node in its “string of pearls” – a row of ports on key trade and oil routes linking the Middle Kingdom to the Middle East – while for Saudi Arabia, the atolls also have the advantage of lying a straight three-hour shot from the coast of regional rival and arch-foe, Iran.

The possible building of Chinese and/or Saudi military bases in the Maldives would complement the independent development of both nations’ military outposts in Djibouti, an East African nation on a key energy export route at the mouth of the Red Sea.

They “want to have a base in the Maldives that would safeguard trade routes – their oil routes – to their new markets. To have strategic installations, infrastructure,” Mr. Nasheed charged last year.

The United States. through its Sri Lanka-based ambassador, and India have primarily sought to counter China’s growing influence by pressuring on Mr. Yameen to adhere to democratic principles. Mr. Nasheed was in the Sri Lankan capital of Colombo when the state of emergency was declared and like incarcerated Judge Saeed, who was appointed by Mr. Nasheed, has maintained contact with Indian authorities.

Mr. Yameen’s election in 2013 derailed negotiations with the United States for a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), that would have tightened military cooperation with the Maldives and given the US military greater access to the archipelago. A return to power by Mr. Nasheed, who in 2009 became the Maldives’ first democratically elected president, would have likely revived the negotiations.

Mr. Yameen, in a further turn towards China, in 2016 withdrew the Maldives from the Commonwealth of Nations after the association of former British colonies threatened to suspend it for chipping away at democratic institutions.

Saudi Arabia sees its soft power in the Maldives as a way of convincing China it is the kingdom rather than Iran that is the key link in China’s Belt and Road initiative that aims to link Eurasia to the People’s Republic through Chinese-funded infrastructure.

Saudi Arabia, to lay the ground for the investment, has in recent years funded religious institutions in the Maldives and offered scholarships for students wanting to pursue religious studies at the kingdom’s ultra-conservative universities in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

The funding has pushed the Maldives towards greater intolerance and public piety. Public partying, mixed dancing and Western beach garb have become acceptable only within expensive tourist resorts.

The Maldives is, moreover, believed to have contributed more Islamic State fighters in Syria and Iraq on a per-capita basis than any other country that was not a party to the conflicts.

The Saudis, despite being bitterly opposed to the Islamic State, have had, according to Mr. Nasheed, “a good run of propagating their world view to the people of the Maldives and they’ve done that for the last three decades. They’ve now, I think, come to the view that they have enough sympathy to get a foothold.”

Messrs. Nasheed and Gayoom have urged India to intervene to force Mr. Yameen to release the judges and other political prisoners. Mr. Nasheed went a step further by calling on India to deploy a “physical presence” in the archipelago. India, which rarely intervenes in the affairs of foreign countries, helped put down an attempted coup in the Maldives in the 1980s.

In a statement, India advised Mr. Yameen to abide by the rule of law. “In the spirit of democracy and rule of law, it is imperative for all organs of the Government of Maldives to respect and abide by the order of the court,” the statement said.

The US State Department charged that “President Yameen has systematically alienated his coalition, jailed or exiled every major opposition political figure, deprived elected members of parliament of their right to represent their voters in the legislature, revised laws to erode human rights… and weakened the institutions of government.”

Mr. Yameen, backed by China and Saudi Arabia, and in the absence of more strident Indian and/or US action, is likely to maintain the upper hand. He appears to enjoy the support of his military and police despite the sacking of the police commission immediately after the declaration of the state of emergency. To drive the point home, state television showed pictures of military and police officers pledging to sacrifice their lives “in the defense of the lawful government.”

U.S. Vice President Mike Pence visited Japan’s defense ministry Wednesday — part of a multi-day Asia tour that will end with him in South Korea for the Winter Olympics opening ceremony.

Pence surveyed Japan’s Patriot PAC-3 missile battery — Tokyo’s last line of defense against possible North Korean missile strikes — was accompanied by Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera and Japan’s highest-ranking military officer, Admiral Katsutoshi Kawano.

Onodera said he was “happy” to deepen U.S. understanding of Japan’s security environment.

In joint remarks with Japanese President Shinzo Abe, Pence referred to President Donald Trump as a “great friend” to the people of Japan.

“Security in the Indo-Pacific is the main reason I came to Japan,” he said.

The vice president also pledged that the Trump administration is committed to aiding Japan handle any future threats from Pyongyang.

“I’m announcing today that the United States of America will soon unveil the toughest and most aggressive round of economic sanctions on North Korea ever,” he said. “We will continue to isolate North Korea until it abandons its nuclear and ballistic missile program once and for all.”

Pence’s remarks allude partly to a number of ballistic missile tests conducted by North Korea in the past year, as well as a new type of ICBM that was test-fired about 2,500 miles high before hitting the sea within Japan’s economic zone.

Abe said the U.S.-Japan alliance was “more robust and unwavering than ever,” adding that the two countries could not expect and “meaningful dialogue” from North Korea.

Pence is scheduled to address U.S. military personnel at Yokota Air Base Thursday before flying to Pyeongchang for the start of the 23rd Winter Olympic Games on Friday. He and second lady Karen Pence, will lead the U.S. Delegation.

The White House said in a statement that the Pences’ presence at the Olympics will “reinforce the strong U.S. presence on the Korean Peninsula and send a clear message of American resolve to the North Korean regime.”

Before beginning his trip to Japan, Pence visited Alaska with a stop at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson on Monday, where he reviewed U.S. military capabilities.

“I thought it was altogether fitting to begin here at Elmendorf, the first line of defense for the American people,” Pence said at the base.

“Missile defense begins here in Alaska. And the American people and the world should know that our nation is secure. Our nation’s defenses from potential inbound missile attacks is the best in the world.”
Original source

By Joshua Kucera

South Korea’s President Moon pursues any chance of peace, balancing harsh US rhetoric, threat of catastrophic war and North Korean Olympic shenanigans.

By Shim Jae Hoon*

North Korea’s decision to participate in the 2018 Winter Olympic Games at South Korea’s PyeongChang, an east coast town 50 miles from the heavily fortified border, has raised hopes that the isolated regime might be open for resumption of peaceful contacts with Seoul. But the North Korean gesture also complicates South Korea’s relations with the United States, a principal ally itching to teach Pyongyang a lesson.

Inter-Korean relations turned frosty during the past two years, with dictator Kim Jong Un focusing on development of a nuclear and missile program in defiance of global sanctions. Straining under heavy UN sanctions and realizing the rest of the world fears prospects of another war erupting on the peninsula, Kim may be seeking a chance to resume economic ties through the so-called Olympic thaw.

In a January New Year statement, Kim declared he was prepared to “help” South Korea bring about a successful Olympics by participating under a joint team marching under one flag. His offer was pegged to the “unity” theme, describing the Olympics as an honorable event for all Koreans, north and south. The North’s ultimate intention is to use nationalism as a cover for fanning anti-US sentiments aimed at undermining the US-South Korean military alliance.

Kim moved swiftly on his proposal, sending a 32-member sports team including skiers, skaters and a women’s ice hockey team. He also offered to dispatch a 240-member cultural delegation including orchestra and taekwondo martial arts performers. The display of goodwill marks a sudden reversal after a year of 20 ballistic missile tests including three long-range intercontinental missiles.

Seoul officials are not surprised. The North endures worsening economic hardships from global sanctions imposed by UN Security Council resolutions, and Chinese and Russian participation, even half-heartedly, makes the pressure harder to bear, suggest analysts. A bigger concern is China reducing imports of coal and other resources from the North, slashing Pyongyang’s foreign-exchange income by nearly 90 percent, according to one private calculation. Beijing has also reduced oil supplies, limiting the North’s military’s capability.

Other analysts suggest the regime is alarmed by the Trump administration’s relentless harsh rhetoric. US President Donald Trump’s “fire and fury” statement plus his controversial speech at the UN General Assembly promising to “completely destroy” North Korea in the event of war drive fear. North Korea has not forgotten the massive bombing campaigns inflicted by US airpower during the 1950-53 Korean War. Fearing an unpredictable move by Trump and perhaps hoping for some secret influence, Pyongyang has recently taken to sending high-level emissaries to Moscow – notably not to Beijing which is no longer trusted – pleading for intervention. Recently, North’s Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho also wrote to the UN secretary-general, urging the United Nations to restrain the United States from starting a war on the Korean Peninsula.

South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in is keen to prevent war. In the face of accusations of pandering to the dictator’s whims, Moon seizes every opportunity to underscore that the United States and South Korea should explore peaceful means to press the North for denuclearization.

Trump’s controversial statements exacerbate tensions, and reports of US readiness to level a punishing “bloody nose” attack on the North undercut Moon’s position. Moon is as dismayed by reports of US war plans for the North as he is by Kim’s military provocations. Moon’s chief concern is to achieve denuclearization by nonmilitary means, such as economic sanctions. “I have made it in no uncertain terms to [Trump] that no war is going to start here without our consent,” he declared soon after his June visit to Washington.

To his utter frustration, however, he must juggle threats and reports that are unconducive to dealing with North Korea. Most recently, Trump backed off from nominating Victor D. Cha as ambassador to Seoul. Cha, with a hardline reputation on the North from his days on the national security team under George W. Bush, is said to have been rejected by the White House for the position after opposing the notion of “limited” or “preventive” airstrikes against the North. In an essay for The Washington Post shortly after reports that he had been sidelined, Cha said that he not only opposed such strikes, but the so-called “bloody nose” strike could prompt the North’s retaliation.

US and South Korean military planners have long conceded that war on the peninsula would have horrific consequences – Seoul, South Korea’s capital with a 10 million population, is 25 miles from the border. The North, with more than 350 long-range artillery pieces deployed along the border, could hit Seoul with 350,000 shells a day. That makes Seoul a North Korean hostage. The principal problem posed by a preventive airstrike is the certainty of a North Korean response, assert military planners. This sobering scenario of extensive casualties presumably stops Moon from endorsing Trump’s war plans. “It would be a terrible mistake to assume Kim is irrational enough to start a war that will annihilate his country,” one analyst said. “Nor is it realistic to expect North Korean military not to retaliate in the event of a surgical strike.” Given the potential for a devastating war and the balance of fear on the peninsula, Seoul does not expect Kim to accept denuclearization talks.

While the North shows every sign of worrying about the consequences of sanctions, few analysts expect these to force Kim to accept denuclearization without major reward in return. One indication of that price might be Kim’s recent support for China’s so-called “Double Freeze” proposal, under which the North would stop missile and nuclear tests in exchange for ending the annual US-South Korean military exercises. For Washington, that’s hardly a deal. The United States opposes any option not including prior commitment to denuclearization. That being the case, Seoul can only hope that sanctions will achieve what the US achieved with the Iran agreement.

By participating in the Olympics, North Korea challenges the US-South Korean alliance and global sanctions. For example, the North announced that a ferry will deliver the pop orchestra, and this requires Seoul making an exception to an established rule banning North Korean aircraft or ships entering South Korean territory. Another abrupt move: North Korea is sending Kim Yong Nam, titular head of state, to represent the country, joining Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe and US Vice President Mike Pence at the opening ceremony. The visit exacerbates Moon’s already embarrassing position at home, exposing him to wider attacks from conservative media and the opposition labeling him an appeaser who panders to an aggressive dictatorial state. Criticism will intensify if the delegation includes regime officials under sanction.

The scheme is working. The Trump administration has signaled displeasure over the presence of North Korean officials in PyeongChang, and reports suggest Pence will bring a guest to the games: the father of Otto Warmbier, an American college student who returned home in a coma in June and died after a 17-month of incarceration in North Korea. Warmbier’s presence could discomfort Moon more than the nonchalant North Koreans.

Meanwhile, North Korea plans to steal thunder from the opening ceremony with a massive military parade, including tens of thousands of goose-stepping troops and a mockup the Hwasong-15 intercontinental missiles capable of hitting the US mainland. The Olympics is only a temporary thaw as the North tries to divide allies and hopes that South Korea and other regional neighbors lose patience with Trump.

*Shim Jae Hoon is a journalist based in Seoul. 

By George W. Croner*

(FPRI) — After touting its content with almost breathless anticipation, the Republican majority of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) last week secured President Donald Trump’s⁽¹⁾approval to declassify and publicly release the memorandum prepared by the Republican majority’s staff provocatively titled “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation” (the “HPSCI Memorandum”). In the end, the HPSCI Memorandum, all three and a half pages of it, revealed little that should impact either the ongoing probe headed by Robert Mueller or the conduct of foreign intelligence surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The Extensive Nature of FISC Applications

By law, a significant purpose of every electronic surveillance approved under FISA must be the acquisition of foreign intelligence. FISA is not used for law enforcement; its purpose is to allow the United States to acquire, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence. Any FISA surveillance directed at a U.S. person requires an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and that order is secured through the submission to the FISC of an application. FISA contains extensive requirements for an application,⁽²⁾including, among other requisites: (1) the identity of the federal officer making the application; (2) the identity of the target; (3) a statement of the facts relied on by the applicant to conclude that the target of the surveillance is a “foreign power” or an “agent of a foreign power;”⁽³⁾(4) a statement of the proposed minimization procedures⁽⁴⁾to be used with the surveillance; (5) a description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications subjected to surveillance; (6) a summary of the means by which the surveillance will be effected; (7) if applicable, a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made and the action taken on each previous application; (8) a statement regarding the period of time for which the surveillance is required to be maintained;⁽⁵⁾ and (9) a certification (and statement of the basis for the certification) by certain designated senior government executives (defined in FISA) that the information sought is foreign intelligence information, that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information, and that such information cannot be reasonably obtained by normal investigative techniques.

The recounting of these FISA application requirements is offered to provide context: context demonstrating that FISA applications are detailed documents, generally consuming 25+ pages of information, and often considerably more. There are no CliffsNotes versions of FISA applications, especially where a U.S. person is the target of the surveillance, and, consequently, despite its efforts at synopsis, the HPSCI Memorandum’s assessment of the FISA surveillance of Carter Page is necessarily incomplete without knowing precisely what was presented to the FISC in the FBI’s applications.

The Necessity of the FISA Application

Lacking those applications complicates any effort to pronounce judgments on the FISA process used with the Page surveillances particularly because FISA mandates a probable cause standard to decide whether to authorize the surveillance. As specified in FISA, the FISC “shall” enter an order approving the surveillance if the court concludes that there is probable cause to believe that the target is an agent of a foreign power and that each of the facilities at which the surveillance is directed is being used by this agent of a foreign power.(6)

Probable cause is a flexible standard that emphasizes common sense requiring a reasonable basis for conclusions based on articulable facts. Probable cause is neither “beyond a reasonable doubt” nor unsubstantiated speculation, but it is predicated on reasonable conclusions drawn from trustworthy facts. FISA specifically provides that, in determining whether or not probable cause exists, the FISC may consider “past activities of the target, as well as facts and circumstances relating to current or future activities of the target.”⁽⁷⁾Although the authors of the HPSCI Memorandum have seen the Page FISA applications, those applications themselves remain highly classified and have not been approved for public release. Only those actual FISA applications provide the full scope of what was presented to the FISC by way of probable cause, and how it was described. Consequently, given the relative flexibility of the probable cause standard and the detail statutorily required in a FISA application, it is speculative to draw conclusions regarding the complete presentation provided to the FISC in the Carter Page FISA applications—and relying on the 3+ pages of partisan distillation of those FISA applications in the Memorandum does not seem conducive to reaching informed judgments regarding the FISA process used to gain FISC approval to surveil Carter Page.

The Role of Carter Page

Caution seems particularly warranted given what the HPSCI Memorandum does reveal about the Page FISA surveillance. What the Memorandum confirms is that the Carter Page FISA process did not initiate the FBI’s counterintelligence probe into Russian election meddling—according to the Memorandum the “trigger” for that investigation was George Papadopoulos talking to a professor linked to the Russians about obtaining political dirt on Hillary Clinton. Based on this Papadopoulos information, an investigation was opened in July 2016, months before the FBI sought the October 2016 FISC approval to surveil Carter Page that is described in the HPSCI Memorandum. While the Memorandum points out that there is “no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulus,” there is certainly a connection—they both worked for the Trump campaign at some point in 2016.

Carter Page’s role with the Trump campaign has always been somewhat amorphous. In March 2016, candidate Trump, in an editorial board interview meeting with the Washington Post, listed “Carter Page, PhD” among his foreign policy advisors, but Page had resigned this position by September 2016. The timing may be significant since the HPSCI Memorandum cites to an October 2016 FISC order authorizing surveillance of Page. This suggests that FISA surveillance against Page did not begin until after Page had resigned his position with the Trump campaign, but the Memorandum acknowledges that there were at least four FISA applications submitted regarding the Carter Page surveillance and it is unclear where the October 21, 2016 application falls in this sequence.⁽⁸⁾ Consequently, if the October 2016 application is the first seeking an order to surveil Page, then no FISA surveillance was sought against Page until after he resigned from the Trump campaign. However, the more likely chronology suggests that the October 2016 FISA application was not the first directed against Page, and earlier application(s) sought surveillance authority while Page was still “officially” connected with the Trump campaign in some capacity.

Aside from his connection to the Trump campaign, however, there was plenty of information about Carter Page that would pique the FBI’s interest. Page first came to the FBI’s attention in 2013 in connection with a counterintelligence investigation into clandestine intelligence activities conducted by the SVR, the Russian foreign intelligence service. Page had lived in Russia from 2004 through 2007 while working for Merrill Lynch; he conducted business activities and provided consulting services to Russian companies; and, perhaps most significantly, he was talking to Russian “diplomats” who were, in fact, Russian intelligence operatives. Page met at least twice with one of those “diplomats” in particular, Viktor Podobnyy, who the FBI had identified as an SVR operative. Podobnyy operated under diplomatic cover as an attaché to the Russian mission at the United Nations but, as the FBI later charged, was actually an undeclared SVR intelligence officer who, due to his purported diplomatic status, was never tried but was forced to leave the United States. In connection with its 2013 investigation into Podobnyy and other Russian SVR agents, the FBI interviewed Page, but he was never accused of wrongdoing. Later, in July 2016, Page returned to Russia and delivered a speech critical of U.S. policy towards Russia, a trip that, according to the Memorandum, was documented in a September 23, 2016 article by Michael Isikoff appearing in Yahoo News.

All of this was known to the FBI by the fall of 2016 and almost certainly has been documented in one or more, and perhaps all, of the four FISA applications approved by the FISC. However, given the objectives that seem to have motivated the preparation of the HPSCI Memorandum, none of this pertinent information about the life and activities of Carter Page, other than the September 2016 Isikoff article, is mentioned in that Memorandum.

The Memorandum’s Focus on the Steele Dossier

Instead, the Memorandum’s bête noire is the now famous “Steele dossier.” I make no effort here to parse the particulars of that document but, notably, neither does the Memorandum in any productive manner. The focus of the Memorandum is not on what the Steele dossier says, but on who financed Steele’s efforts and Steele’s encounters with the media (including Yahoo News) that, the HPSCI Memorandum insists, “violate[d] the cardinal rule of source handling – maintaining confidentiality – and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.”

Unmentioned is that Steele did have a prior record of reliability dating back to the FBI’s 2010 investigation of FIFA, the international governing body of soccer. The FBI also knew that Steele’s research had initially been funded by a conservative, Republican-leaning sponsor (i.e., the Washington Free Beacon) before it was adopted by Democratic sources once Trump secured the Republican nomination. Further, the FBI could not help but notice that Steele’s basic information about Russian connections tracked the FBI’s own investigative efforts that already had revealed, for example, Papadopoulos’s disclosures that the Russians were offering “political dirt” on Hillary Clinton, information that the HPSCI Memorandum concedes was also included in the Page FISA application. Moreover, it bears noting that the basic premise of the HPSCI Memorandum—that the FBI disclosed nothing about Steele’s “unreliability” to the FISC—has been refuted in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post, all of which have reported that the October 2016 Page FISA application included information to the FISC that Steele’s work was “politically motivated.”

Consequently, there is ample reason to question what the HPSCI Memorandum says about how Steele’s “reliability” was addressed in the Page FISA applications, but, equally importantly, the Memorandum’s insistence that FISA applications should “include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application” mistakenly seeks to graft a law enforcement-type disclosure requirement onto a foreign intelligence mechanism. There is no Brady rule⁽⁹⁾ associated with FISA applications because FISA is a foreign intelligence—not a law enforcement—process. Certainly, overt misrepresentation or deliberate concealment of pertinent facts in a FISA application is as unacceptable as it would be in a Title III criminal wiretap application, but there is nothing that requires, or prudently should require, the disclosure of “information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application.” There is no “defendant” looking at a possible criminal trial in the FISA process, a distinction historically recognized by excluding foreign intelligence and counterintelligence investigations from Department of Justice guidelines applied to the use of confidential informants.

As noted at the outset, without access to the Carter Page FISA applications, it is impossible to undertake an informed analysis of the basis for the FISC’s probable cause conclusions. However, the existence of four separate FISA applications confirms that the FISC found sufficient probable cause to approve the Page surveillance four separate times. FISA specifically contemplates such extensions, but each extension requires “new findings made in the same manner as required for the original order.”⁽¹⁰⁾ Carter Page is a U.S. person, and no FISA surveillances draw more scrutiny or are more rigorously reviewed than those directed at U.S. persons. Consequently, it seems highly unlikely that the FISC would have authorized three extensions of the Page surveillance without the FBI furnishing specific facts demonstrating to the FISC’s satisfaction that the surveillance was, in fact, producing foreign intelligence information as described in the various applications.

If you are a devotee of political conspiracy, then the HPSCI Memorandum is for you, but, it offers no sustenance as meaningful commentary on FISA or the FISA application process—which no doubt explains why the Memorandum fails to articulate any suggested policy changes to correct the “abuses” trumpeted as the “Subject” of its dissertation. Coming as it does from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, this dearth of genuine policy consideration is disappointing—although not surprising in today’s fractious political environment.

About the author:
*George W. Croner, a Senior Fellow at FPRI, previously served as principal litigation counsel in the Office of General Counsel at the National Security Agency. He is also a retired director and shareholder of the law firm of Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., where he remains Of Counsel, and is a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

Notes:
(1) The president authorized the Memorandum’s release despite the FBI expressing “grave concerns” about the “accuracy” of the document.

⁽²⁾ 50 U.S.C. § 1804.

⁽³⁾ “Foreign power” and “agent of a foreign power” are defined terms in FISA. 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) and (b).

⁽⁴⁾ “Minimization procedures” are specific procedures that, in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, are designed to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting U.S. persons consistent with the need of the U.S. to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(h).

⁽⁵⁾ FISA surveillance orders targeting U.S. persons are limited to the time needed to accomplish the purpose of the surveillance or 90 days, whichever is less. 50 U.S.C. § 1805(d)(1).

(6) 50 U.S.C. § 1805(a).

⁽⁷⁾ 50 U.S.C. § 1805(b).

⁽⁸⁾ Interestingly, but not specifically acknowledged in the HPSCI Memorandum, the Page FISA applications spanned both the Obama and the Trump administrations. The Memorandum reports that one of the Page applications was signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee.

⁽⁹⁾ Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the prosecution has an affirmative duty to turn over all exculpatory evidence to a defendant in a criminal case.

⁽¹⁰⁾ 50 U.S.C. § 1805(d)(2).

The recent participation and involvement of regional countries in the solution process is an important milestone in the path towards a final resolution in the Syrian crisis.

Furthermore, the visible change in the attitude of the parties involved also raises hopes for an approaching peace. For instance, groups that would not even discuss the thought of sitting at the same table until two years ago came together at Sochi. Indeed, there have been heated debates and exchanges, but it was clear that all the parties involved were willing to find some middle ground. After the mostly failed Geneva talks, the Astana and Sochi talks made up for lost time and managed to bring the parties one step closer to the solution.

However, certain circles who have always been skeptical about the Sochi efforts, seem to be happy that the talks started on a tense note and especially after certain opposition groups left the talks due to a flag crisis. However, this certainly does not mean that the talks will fail because the opposition groups that refused to enter the country in protest against the pictures and flags of the Assad regime asked Turkey to represent them and also requested Turkey deal with the process of building the anticipated Constitutional Committee. This is an important step in terms of the continuance of the resolution talks. It is clear that meetings between the quarreling parties do not produce any results. For this reason, negotiations held between Russia and Turkey, which represent the Syrian regime and a part of the opposition respectively, are more likely to achieve fruitful results. Russia and Turkey are two countries that understand and appreciate the importance of friendship and alliance. Therefore, negotiations held under their auspices have a higher likelihood of success.

According to the reports, more than 1,500 delegates attended the congress to which Syrian government authorities, as well as the representatives of ethnic and religious opposition groups, with the exception of terrorist groups, were invited.

To everyone’s surprise, the conference ended with belligerent parties meeting on a common ground. Once again, it was Turkey and Russia’s involvement that made the final joint statement possible, which is crucial for a real solution in the Syrian crisis.

The final statement is perhaps one of the most important steps ever taken with regards to the Syrian problem. The statement read: “To that end we agreed to form a constitutional committee comprising the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic delegation along with wide-represented opposition delegation for drafting of a constitutional reform as a contribution to the political settlement under the UN auspices in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2254.” It also said that the Constitutional Committee would include the regime, the opposition, Syrian experts, independents, tribal leaders and women. It was agreed that women should have a representation of at least 30% in the government and government agencies and that the level should be increased to 50% after a certain amount of time. It was also stated that the UN-led Geneva process would see the final agreement on the mandate and terms of reference, powers, rules of procedure and selection criteria for the composition of the Constitutional Committee. The statement ended with a call to the United Nations Secretary-General to assign the Special Envoy for Syria for the assistance of the Constitutional Committee work in Geneva.

The fact that UN representatives and European allies were invited to the talks showed that the parties were in search of a genuinely global, not regional, solution to the Syrian problem. Even though Britain and France may not seem very happy with this crucial achievement, where Russia is the main player in association with Turkey and Iran, the West’s ambitions to protect Western interests weren’t taken into account in Sochi.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said after the meeting that they informed the UN of the outcome, hoping that it would revitalize the Geneva process, and that the UN would achieve results in line with the decisions made in Sochi. All these steps clearly show that unlike certain Western allies, Russia is not trying to be in the spotlight and is not selfishly pursuing its own interests. It is clear that Russia and the countries of the region are sincerely working to build peace in Syria.

One of the most important parts of Sochi final statement was the determined stance about the preservation of Syria’s integrity. Some highlights from the statement are below:

“A strong, unified, meritocratic and national army that carries out its duties in accordance with the constitution and the highest standards [is required]. Its functions are to protect the national boundaries and the people from external threats and terrorism, with intelligence and security institutions to maintain national security subject to the rule of law, acting according to the constitution and the law and respecting human rights. … equal citizenship irrespective of religion, ethnicity and gender…  The Syrian people alone shall determine the future of their country by democratic means, through the ballot box.”

‘Protecting the national boundaries’ and ‘equal citizenship irrespective of religion, ethnicity and gender’ are no doubt crucial for the future of Syria. These phrases show that cantons or federal structures in the country will not be allowed and terror groups that seek to capitalize on differences in religion and ethnicity will not be given leeway.

President Putin’s remarks about the congress presenting an opportunity for Syria to return to a peaceful, normal life were important. Referring to the clashes that have been going on since 2011, Putin said that conditions to close this tragic page of history have now emerged. Indeed, it is very important that guarantor countries stepped in and reached an agreement on the main principles regarding a constitution, which marks an important step in the resolution process of the Syrian crisis. There is no doubt that the alliance of three friendly allies played a crucial role in this achievement. The three friendly countries, Russia, Turkey and Iran, represented different sides and showed that it was possible to find a middle ground.

Turkey’s Afrin operation, carried out in coordination with Russia, was a show of determination in defiance of the West and particularly the USA. Necessary and justified steps taken with regards to the region and the alliance of NATO-member Turkey with Russia has shown certain groups that it was not the West that made all the decisions.
The Sochi talks and the resulting steps showed to the world that Russia was the main player when it came to Syria. It is clear that Russia’s steps, made after consultation and agreement with Turkey, involves a solution that also embraces the opposition. This week, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu had once face-to-face and six phone conversations with his Russian peer Sergey Lavrov. This intense dialogue is due to the desire of these two allies to build the most positive and healthy peace process in Syria.

We hope that a constitution where all the groups of Syrian society are represented can be quickly created and country can be rebuilt after being completely purged off terrorist groups. This is going to be an achievement made possible by means of an alliance of regional countries built for the salvation of the Syrian people. Such an outcome will also quiet those circles that are keen on controlling everyone and prove wrong those who insist that ‘it is good to be divided’.

*Harun Yahya has authored more than 300 books translated into 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He tweets @harun_yahya.

By Nick Cunningham

Oil prices fell back suddenly over the last few trading sessions, dragged down by some forces beyond the oil market.

The steady decline of the U.S. dollar has helped drive up crude prices for weeks, but that came to an abrupt halt last week. A rebound for the greenback led to a steep decline in oil prices on Friday.

At the same time, sudden turmoil in the broader financial system also bled over into the oil market. Volatility in the stock market flared up on Friday, sparking the sharpest single-day upheaval in years.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 600 points, only the ninth time in history that a fall of that magnitude has occurred. “The stock market and interest rates can really affect oil a lot,” Mark Waggoner, president of Excel Futures, told The Wall Street Journal. “It’s spilling over into the energy markets and causing these ripple effects.”

The stronger-than-expected job growth and wage increases fueled speculation that the Fed would tighten interest rates more than previously thought. Bond yields continue to rise, undercutting equities. Signs of higher inflation also led to speculation of interest rate hikes from the central bank. The dollar gained 0.7 percent on Friday.

That led to a selloff for Brent and WTI. And if the turmoil continues, the trouble for oil benchmarks will also linger. “The potential is present for a big move lower should fear return to the stock market and spark liquidations across the board,” analysts at TAC Energy said Friday, according to The Wall Street Journal. “The cross-asset class correlations have returned over the past several weeks.”

The problem for oil is that both oil prices and broader stock indices are seen as overvalued by some analysts. Hedge funds and other money managers have piled into bullish bets on crude, leaving positioning in the futures market overextended.

“The price slide is due to a general worsening of sentiment. Stock markets around the world are under pressure, which confirms that the steep price rise in the preceding weeks was for the most part sentiment-driven,” Commerzbank wrote in a note. “There is only limited fundamental justification for the high price level … It is therefore conceivable that the correction in oil prices will continue.”

An unraveling of positions from major investors could expose WTI and Brent to sudden losses. That correction tends to occur when a spate of news goes against existing sentiment. The broader financial system is finally facing some questions after a remarkable bull run, which is magnifying the danger for crude benchmark prices.

“A global selloff in risk assets is gathering pace and sending the energy complex lower amid a sea of red,” PVM Oil Associates Ltd. analysts Tamas Varga and Stephen Brennock wrote in a report. “The risk-off environment throughout the energy complex comes as U.S. drillers added oil rigs for a second consecutive week.”

“You’re starting to see a whiff of what I call the GMO trade — get me out,” Bill O’Grady, chief market strategist at Confluence Investment Management, told The Wall Street Journal.

It isn’t all sentiment trading, however. We now have several catalysts that could provoke a liquidation of bullish bets: inventories rose last week for the first time in months, the rig count continues to rise and U.S. production is breaking records. Seasonally, oil demand is at a lull, pushing up inventories. These trends were expected, but still present downside risk to what is looking like an overvalued oil price.

Perhaps most importantly, supply growth from the Permian looms large over oil prices. Ed Morse, global head of commodities research at Citigroup, told The Wall Street Journal that U.S. shale could wreck the oil market once again. He argues that the industry is ramping up production, and that assurances over a more cautious drilling approach from shale executives should not be trusted. As production increases continue unabated, oil prices could collapse again. “2018 could turn out to look a lot like 2014 — a year that started with very high prices and ended at very low prices,” he said.

Source: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Oil-Prices-Ravaged-By-Financial-Turmoil.html

Two years ago, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted for the adoption of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, but that was before the onset of the Trump administration that, sadly, is not even rhetorically committed to disarmament and, instead, seeks a costly modernization of its nuclear arsenal, per the latest US Nuclear Posture Review Report.

Clearly, gone are the days of Barack Obama when, e.g, in his April 2009 speech in Parague President Obama highlighted the dangers of the 21st century and declared that to overcome those threats, the United States reaffirms its enduring commitment “to seek peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons;” three years later in Seoul, Obama reaffirmed US’s commitment for this lofty goal and highlighted the practical near-term steps the US was taking to move in that direction.

That was then, and now, we are witnessing a whole new US attitude that openly rationalizes its quest for new smart “tactical weapons,” ostensibly to deter the Russians who supposedly are not sufficiently scared enough of US’s big nukes, as well as a number of other non-nuclear contingencies, such as cyberattacks on the US, thus substantially lowering the bar for use of nuclear weapons. Over time, this will amount to new nails in the coffin of the (troubled) test ban treaty and the onset of a brand new, and highly dangerous for peace and planetary survival, chapter in nuclear arms race where it is increasingly fashionable to introduce the warfare-friendly small nukes in conventional theater. Also, it raises new questions about the US-Russia nuclear arms reductions agreements that have provided a modicum of stability in the nuclear arms race, in light of the US’s new, and more aggressive, nuclear posture that has been condemned by Moscow as a sign of Washington’s overt hostility.

One of the major flaws of this new report is that, much like the previous ones, it avoids the “no first-use” posture of countries such as China and India and, instead, relies on first-use capability as a deterrence, whereas a more globally-conscious approach would have recognized the sheer destabilizing ramifications of such an aggressive nuclear posture, one that contemplates use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear adversaries (in violation of the UN Charter).

Another flaw is the noticeable absence of any concrete plan of action for a “world without nuclear weapons;” any such plan would entail the next steps for nuclear disarmament, including gradual involvement in reductions by all states possessing nuclear capabilities, prevention of placement of weapons in space, abandoning unilateral missile defense system plans, elimination of imbalances in conventional weapons, and entry into force of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT); the latter requires a positive reconsideration by the US Senate, which is nowadays crowded with hawkish Republican senators backing Trump’s nuclear modernization plan. The net result will be a new nuclear arms race between US and Russia and the elimination of the NEW START that has brought the nuclear stockpile of the two countries to their lowest level since the 1950s. As a corollary, a number of other US-Russia agreements, such as the 2011 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement have already been jeopardized.

Of course, none of this bodes well for the non-nuclear weapons states (NNWS), some of whom might feel an enhanced national security syndrome as a result of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the lack of any tangible progress toward disarmament. At the ritual NPT review conferences, the NNWS states have focused on implementing the past NPT action plans on disarmament, moving forward with bilateral reductions, reducing the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines, and negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, i.e., all lofty objectives further and further removed from the realm of possibilities in today’s environment — that is bereft of any movement between US and Russia to pursue a future agreement with Russia for broad reductions in all categories of nuclear weapons. But, then again, as stated above, US has its eyes focused on a number of other adversaries as well, as reflected in the report’s statement: “The United States will enhance the flexibility and range of its tailored deterrence options… Expanding flexible U.S. nuclear options now, to include low-yield options, is important for the preservation of credible deterrence against regional aggression.”

Clearly, in a word, the biggest lacunae of the US’s nuclear posture is not that it is confrontational and addicted to nuclear weapons, but that it also is infected with an over-deterrence symptom that, logically speaking, can only sow the seeds of (regional) proliferation by countries threatened by the US.

All eyes are on the 23rd Olympic Winter Games and 12th Paralympic Winter Games in PyeongChang this February. Top athletes will carry their national flags in an opening ceremony which has come to epitomize the international community. Sports fans worldwide eagerly await the Olympics, and this time there is cause for cautious optimism that sport diplomacy may lower tensions on the Korean Peninsula itself.

Leaders, diplomats and citizens from the world over will witness North and South Korean athletes walking side by side. For this, there could be few better places than PyeongChang, which means peace (Pyeong) and prosperity (Chang): goals integral to the mission of the United Nations and the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

The Olympic and Paralympic Games attract people from around the world and help reinforce a set of unifying objectives. The goal of Olympism, as the Olympic Charter states, is “to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity”. Achieving sustainable peace and sustainable development are critical objectives and the Games in PyeongChang offer promise of peace and prosperity.

In this spirit, the first Olympics in South Korea held in 1988 served to foster relationships at a time of rapid geopolitical shifts. These games featured many participating nations, including sizeable delegations from both the USA and USSR. The thaw in relations to which the Olympics contributed led to the establishment of diplomatic relations with neighbors such as Russia and China in the years following the games. The Republic of Korea became a member of the United Nations in 1991.

The Olympics also heralded the economic transformation of the South Korean economy that is now known as “the Miracle on the Han River.” For the decade after the games, its economy grew at an average rate of around 8.5% per year, transforming the country from an aid recipient country to a key aid donor. The material improvement in the lives of people in South Korea was nothing short of a miracle. From 1960 to 1995, GDP per capita increased more than one hundred-fold, virtually eliminating absolute poverty from more than half of the population to less than 5%.

This miracle was linked with another key value of the Olympics and the United Nations – international collaboration. South Korea successfully leveraged international aid, international trade, and international investment with its domestic ingenuity, to show the world it is possible to transform in one generation an agrarian economy into a dynamic technological and cultural producer.

Along with the rapid economic transformation, social and environmental concerns have also risen to the fore. In recent years, we have seen South Korea make commendable steps towards environmental sustainability and inclusive social policies such as the aged pension. Integrating the economic, social and environmental dimensions is the cornerstone of the Sustainable Development Goals. South Korea is once again demonstrating to the world a way to achieve a more inclusive and sustainable prosperity.

South Korea now stands as a valued member of the international community, generating cultural phenomena appreciated by young people around the world, playing a leadership role at the UN, and as a significant contributor of aid to developing countries. Olympic sports can support cultural, political and economic diplomacy in its efforts to achieving and sustaining peace.

The Olympic Truce Resolution adopted by the United Nations is an example of using a momentous occasion in international sports, to build a stronger foundation for a more peaceful and inclusive world. The resolution urges all countries to respect the truce by creating a peaceful environment during the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and calls on all countries to work together, in good faith towards peace, human rights, and sustainable development.

Opening of the direct dialogue between two countries of the Korean peninsula after the 2018 Olympics show cases a commitment to peace and prosperity. I wish South Korea a promising future and success in its endeavors to foster lasting peace and prosperity.

*Shamshad Akhtar is the Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Secretary of Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

If the public were asked about Lisa Page, most would not know who she is. If those who know who she is were asked in a word association game to identify what she is known for, they would likely name “FBI agent” and “adulteress.” They should now add someone who hates pro-lifers.

On p. 13 of the Interim Report by Senator Ron Johnson, “The Clinton Email Scandal And The FBI’S Investigation Of It,” released yesterday, there is an exchange between FBI senior lawyer Peter Strzok, Page’s co-adulterer, and her about pro-life Americans. Referring to the 2016 March for Life, Page admits that she “truly hate[s] these people.”

Notice that Page did not merely disagree with the purpose of the March for Life, which is to protect the life of the unborn. No, she made it personal, expressing her hatred of pro-life men and women.

The media are not reporting on this at all. Why? One, as we have long known, most of the big media reporters and commentators are decidedly in the pro-abortion camp, and at least some of them share Page’s hatred for pro-life Americans. Two, it would not make their side look good to report it.

If someone in the Trump administration were caught saying that he “truly hates these Planned Parenthood people,” it would surely be reported; some would call for that person to resign.

The FBI’s reputation has been seriously damaged over the past several months, and this only adds to it. This kind of rank partisanship is what we would expect from a law school chapter of the ACLU. That it is occurring at the FBI, in top-level positions, is a disgrace.

EIA’s February Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) raises forecast crude oil prices in 2018 by nearly $3 per barrel (b) compared with the previous STEO. Average monthly Brent prices have increased for seven consecutive months, and, on January 11, spot prices moved higher than $70/b for the first time since December 2014.

EIA forecasts Brent spot prices will average about $62/b in both 2018 and 2019, compared with an average of $54/b in 2017. EIA expects West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil prices to average $4/b lower than Brent prices in both 2018 and 2019 (Figure 1).

The upward revision to 2018 prices results in higher U.S. crude oil production throughout the forecast. However, with relatively little production growth from members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and higher global consumption, the global oil balances remain largely unchanged from the forecast last month.

Crude oil prices have increased over the past seven months as oil inventories, both in the United States and globally, have fallen steadily.

In January, oil prices may have received some support following the OPEC monitoring committee meeting, where some oil ministers suggested extending the production cut agreement in some form beyond the currently scheduled expiration at the end of 2018.

Rapid declines in Venezuelan crude oil output are also likely contributing to higher crude oil prices. Average U.S. imports of crude oil from Venezuela declined to less than 0.4 million barrels per day (b/d) for the four weeks ending January 26, approaching the lowest level in decades.

EIA estimates that U.S. crude oil production averaged 10.2 million b/d in January 2018, up 100,000 b/d from December 2017.

EIA estimates that total U.S. crude oil production averaged 9.3 million b/d in 2017 and will average 10.6 million b/d in 2018, which would mark the highest annual average U.S. crude oil production level, surpassing the previous record of 9.6 million b/d set in 1970. EIA forecasts that 2019 crude oil production will average 11.2 million b/d.

OPEC total liquids production is expected to grow modestly through the forecast period, averaging 39.4 million b/d in 2018 and 39.9 million b/d in 2019. As a result, EIA estimates that global inventories will build by 0.2 million b/d in both 2018 and 2019, indicating that global markets are largely in balance.

Although EIA expects oil prices to decline in the first half of 2018, the timing and magnitude of price moves are uncertain. Global economic developments and geopolitical events in the coming months have the potential to push oil prices higher or lower than the current STEO price forecast. Uncertainty remains regarding the adherence to and duration of the OPEC and non-OPEC production cuts. Another key unknown in the oil market is the continued dynamism of the U.S. shale sector and how it responds to recent oil price increases with regard to capital outlays and potential input costs escalation. Although the pace of economic growth is forecast to quicken this year, there are both downside and upside risks to that forecast, and significant deviations could influence oil prices.

U.S. average regular gasoline and diesel prices increase

The U.S. average regular gasoline retail price rose 3 cents from the previous week to $2.64 per gallon on February 5, 2018, up 34 cents from the same time last year. West Coast prices increased nearly six cents to $3.15 per gallon, East Coast and Midwest prices each increased nearly three cents to $2.61 per gallon and $2.54 per gallon, respectively, Gulf Coast prices increased two cents to $2.37 per gallon, and Rocky Mountain prices increased over one cent to nearly $2.50 per gallon.

The U.S. average diesel fuel price rose nearly 2 cents to $3.09 per gallon on February 5, 2018, 53 cents higher than a year ago. West Coast prices rose nearly three cents to $3.46 per gallon, East Coast prices rose two cents to $3.13 per gallon, Midwest and Rocky Mountain prices each increased over one cent to $3.04 per gallon and $2.98 per gallon, respectively, and Gulf Coast prices increased less than one cent, remaining at $2.87 per gallon.

Propane/propylene inventories decline

U.S. propane/propylene stocks decreased by 4.1 million barrels last week to 48.9 million barrels as of February 2, 2018, 8.4 million barrels (14.7%) lower than the five-year average inventory level for this same time of year. Gulf Coast, Midwest, and Rocky Mountain/West Coast inventories decreased by 2.2 million barrels, 1.9 million barrels, and 0.2 million barrels, respectively, while East Coast inventories increased by 0.2 million barrels. Propane/propylene non-fuel-use inventories represented 6.1% of total propane inventories.

Residential heating oil prices decrease, residential propane prices flat

As of February 5, 2018, residential heating oil prices averaged $3.20 per gallon, almost 2 cents per gallon lower than last week but 56 cents per gallon higher than last year’s price at this time. The average wholesale heating oil price for this week averaged $2.19 per gallon, 8 cents per gallon lower than last week but 46 cents per gallon higher than a year ago.

Residential propane prices averaged nearly $2.60 per gallon, virtually unchanged from last week but 14 cents per gallon higher than a year ago. Wholesale propane prices averaged $1.14 per gallon, almost 3 cents per gallon less than last week but 15 cents per gallon higher than last year’s price.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry has summoned South Korean’s ambassador to protest the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics organizers’ “immoral” move to exclude Iranian athletes from the list of competitors receiving smartphones because of what they have cited UN sanctions, a spokesman said.

According to Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qassemi, South Korea’s ambassador to Tehran was summoned to the ministry on Wednesday evening in the wake of reports that Iranian athletes, together with North Koreans, would not receive high-end smartphones being handed out by the sponsor of the Winter Olympics in South Korea to all competitors.

While the games sponsor Samsung Electronics has donated 4,000 “Olympic edition” handsets of its flagship Galaxy Note 8 device to be distributed among athletes and IOC officials free of charge, a Pyeongchang organizing committee spokeswoman told AFP that “North Korean and Iranian athletes will be excluded because of existing UN sanctions” against the two countries.

Qassemi said the South Korean envoy was notified of Iran’s strong protest at such an “immoral behavior that runs counter to the prevailing spirit in the Olympic games” which he said is founded on inclusion of all athletes irrespective of race, color, religion or political issues.

The ambassador was also told that Samsung’s refusal to apologize for “such an unwise measure” would “seriously affect” Iran’s trade ties with the South Korean company, the spokesperson added.

The envoy has assured Iran of frequent contacts with South Korea’s foreign ministry and government to pursue the case, Qassemi added, quoting the ambassador as saying that South Korean government authorities and Samsung officials have denied any involvement in handing out the smartphones.

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has said that if it weren’t for his dictatorial style, his country would stagnate and never improve.

Opposition leaders have railed against Duterte’s proposal to revise the Philippines’ constitution. Currently the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of each state in a body of states are contained within a central authority, but the proposal aims to switch these over to a federal system.

“If you say dictator, I am really a dictator. If I don’t act (like a) dictator, son of a b****, nothing will happen to this country,” the president said at the meeting in Visayan, as cited by The SunStar Manila. Duterte made the inflammatory remarks when speaking to a gathering of former Communist rebels, insisting that his style of governance was necessary in order to sustain progress and growth in the country.

“That’s true. If I don’t act (like a) dictator, which is my style now, nothing will happen to this country,” he added. “I had to (act like a dictator). Besides, you have chosen me as your president. Why won’t you follow me when my dreams are all for you?”

Critics have long accused Duterte of authoritarian tendencies, given his abrasive and combative rhetoric when dealing with opponents, coupled with his tough stance on drugs, which has become the hallmark of his presidency.

He also came under intense criticism for declaring martial law on the southern island of Mindanao last year during the Islamist insurgency in Marawi City.

Duterte’s latest comments come just days before the country celebrates the 32nd anniversary of the Edsa People Power Revolution, February 22–25, 1986, which ultimately toppled the brutal Marcos dictatorship.

However, Duterte has publicly stated that he does not intend to become a dictator and called on the people to shun any potential dictatorship. True to form, he even ordered the military and the police to shoot him if he extends his term as president – which is due to end in 2022 – by even one day.

By Konradus Epa

Indonesia has persuaded Google to pull 73 applications and shut down 169 websites related to the country’s LBGT community.

The crackdown comes on the heels of proposals in parliament in January to outlaw gay and premarital sex. It also follows a year in which more than 300 men were arrested in raids on gay venues across the country.

The apps removed from Google’s Play Store included the gay dating app Blued, which boasts 27 million users worldwide.

“We blocked the sites and applications because the contents disturb our society, and people have complained about them,” communications ministry spokesman, Noor Iza, told ucanews.com.

He said that the ministry was also working with Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms in Indonesia to crack down on negative content, including LBGT-related items.

Mami Yuli, a Catholic transgender woman, likened the crackdown to an all out war against the LGBT community.

“The government should not arbitrarily block sites because we have the law. If the LGBT people violate the law they should be sanctioned according to the law,” she told ucanews.com.

Hartoyo, chairman of Suara Kita (Our Voice), an LGBT advocacy group, said shutting down the applications shows that the government does not know how to educate its citizens any more.

“It shows more about panic on the side of the government, particularly the Ministry of Communication and Information,” said Hartoyo who like many Indonesian uses only one name.

“Blocking sites is ineffective. It’s just like when the government blocked porn sites. It was unsuccessful,” he said.

He suggested the government focus more on sex education, just like many developed countries, to prevent sexual violence.

Azas Tigor Nainggolan, coordinator of the human rights desk of the Indonesian bishops’ Commission for Justice, Peace and Pastoral for Migrant-Itinerant People, said the crackdown was the result of the government refusing to recognize an LGBT community exists.

He said the moral “goal of the government was good but it should not violate the privacy and rights of people or discriminate against them.”

The moves against Indonesia’s LGBT community, including the proposals to outlaw gay and premarital sex, have drawn swift rebuke from rights groups, including ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR).

In a Feb. 7 statement, APHR board member Teddy Baguilat from the Philippines, said the draft amendments, if approved, severely violate the rights to privacy.

“It is extremely worrying that private affairs between two consenting, law-abiding adults could very soon be opened to government interference and scrutiny,” Baquilat said.

“If passed, these changes to the criminal code will reinforce existing prejudices and discrimination faced by an already vulnerable community in Indonesia, and legitimize ongoing bullying, homophobic violence, and police abuse,” Baguilat said.

By Dennis Jay Santos

Sixteen helicopters that the Philippines is buying from Canada will not be used in combat, Manila’s defense chief insisted Thursday after Canadian officials ordered a review of the deal, saying it could violate Ottawa’s strict regulations on weapons sales.

The decision to review the sale over concerns that the Philippines could breach the rules by deploying the helicopters in counter-insurgency operations came a day after the two countries signed the deal valued at U.S. $233 million (12 billion pesos), reports said. Manila agreed to purchase the 16 aircraft to replace reconfigured Vietnam War-era Huey helicopters.

Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana denied that the Bell 412 helicopters would be used in combat operations against insurgents.

“The 16 brand new Bell 412 helicopters, which we are procuring for the Armed Forces of Philippines, will primarily be used for the transportation of personnel and supplies, ferrying wounded and injured soldiers, and the conduct of humanitarian assistance and disaster response operations,” Lorenzana said in a statement. “They are not attack or close support aircraft.”

While the aircraft might be deployed to support the government’s international security operations, “their role is limited to those that I mentioned,” he added.

“Should the Canadian government choose to discontinue their sale of the aircraft to us, then we will procure them from another source,” Lorenzana said.

Meanwhile, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his government had strict regulations on weapons sales.

“We are going to make sure before this deal or any other deal goes through that we are abiding by the rules,” Trudeau told reporters during a university tour in Chicago, according to media reports.

Canada’s trade ministry said the deal was agreed upon about five years ago under the understanding that the helicopters would be for search-and-rescue missions.

Elsewhere, the Toronto Globe and Mail quoted Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland as saying she was prepared to block the sale of the helicopters to the Philippines, if necessary.

Confusion arose on Tuesday after Manila’s military chief of plans, Maj. Gen. Restituto Padilla, said the choppers would be used in the government’s internal security operations, according to reports.

Internal security operations can include air support against Islamic State-linked militants in the south and against communist rebels in the countryside.

Asked to comment on the controversy, Padilla told BenarNews that the government had specified in the contract that it required “combat utility helicopters (CUH)” and they would be used primarily for humanitarian-related assignments.

“The Canadians were among those who helped us following the wrath of Supertyphoon Yolanda and employed similar helicopters,” he said, using the local name of a storm that cut through the Philippines in 2013, causing massive destruction and leaving at least 6,300 dead across the Philippines.

“We are confident that they are fully aware of the utilization of the CUH,” he said. “Having said that, we hope this deal will not be politicized.”

Felipe Villamor in Manila contributed to this report.