Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live

Long Way To Common European Security And Defense – OpEd

0
0

On February 14-15 , 2018 NATO Defense Ministers will meet in Brussels again to discuss the main threats the world faces nowadays. NATO consists of 29 member states but 22 of them are simultaneously the EU member states. Speaking in general, the decisions, taken by NATO, are binding on the EU. On the one hand, NATO and the US, as its main financial donor, and Europe very often have different goals. Their interests and even views on the ways to achieve security are not always the same. The more so the differences exist inside the EU either.

A European military level of ambitions has grown significantly in recent times. Decision to establish a European Union defense pact, known as a Permanent Structured Cooperation on security and defense (PESCO) at the end of the previous year became a clear indicator of this trend. It is the first real attempt to form the EU independent defense without reliance on NATO.

Though the EU member states actively support the idea of closer European cooperation in security and defense, they do not always agree on the European Union’s work in this area. In reality not all the states are ready to spend more on defense even in the framework of NATO, which requires spending at least 2 percent of their GDP.

Thus, according to NATO’s own figures, only the US (not an EU member state), Great Britain (leaving the EU), Greece, Estonia, Poland and Romania in 2017 met the requirement. So other countries probably would like to strengthen their defense but are not capable or even do not want to pay additional money for a new EU military project.

It should be noted that only those countries that have a great dependence on NATO support and have no chance to protect themselves, spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense or show readiness to increase spending (Latvia, Lithuania).

Such EU member states as France and Germany are ready to “lead the process” without increasing in contributions. They have higher level of strategic independence than the Baltic States or other countries of Eastern Europe.

For example, French military-industrial complex is capable of producing all kinds of modern weapons – from infantry weapons to ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers and supersonic aircraft.

The more so, Paris maintains stable diplomatic relations with the Middle East and African States. France also has the reputation of a long-standing partner of Russia and is able to find a common language with Moscow in crisis situations. It pays much attention to national interests beyond its boundaries.

It is also important that recently Paris presented the most elaborated plan of creating by 2020 the integrated pan-European rapid reaction forces primarily for the use in expeditionary operations to enforce peace in Africa. The military initiative of French President Macron contains 17 points aimed at improving the training of troops of the European countries, as well as increasing the degree of combat readiness of the national armed forces. At the same time, the French project will not become a part of existing institutions, but will be implemented in parallel with NATO projects. France intends persistently “promote” the project among the other EU allies.

Other EU member states’ interests are not so global. They form their politics on security and defense in order to strengthen the EU capabilities to protect themselves and attract attention to their own shortcomings. They can offer nothing but few troops. Their interests do not extend beyond their own borders and they are not interested in dispersing efforts for example through Africa.

The EU leadership and member states have not yet reached an agreement on the concept of military integration, the start of which was given since the adoption the decision to establish a Permanent Structured Cooperation on security and defense.

In particular, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, Federica Mogherini, proposes a long-term approach to stimulating a closer integration of the European military planning, procurement and deployment, as well as the integration of diplomatic and defense functions. Such a slow progress is more comfortable for NATO officials, who are alarmed by the revolutionary French project.

That is why Secretary General Stoltenberg warned his French counterparts against rash steps toward European military integration, which could lead to his mind to unnecessary duplication of the alliance’s capabilities and, most dangerous, generate competition between the leading weapon manufacturers (France, Germany, Italy and some other European countries) while reequipping the European army with modern models to bring them to the same standard.

Thus, while supporting the idea of closer cooperation in military sphere the EU member states have no common strategy. It will take long time to come to the compromise and to the balance in creating strong EU defense system, which will complement the existing NATO structure and will not collide with it. A long way to common views means for Europe a long way to own European defense.


Perils Of Being A Muslim Male Feminist – OpEd

0
0

Feminism is quite a loaded term in Muslim societies. Everything from technology to Islamic science and even Islamic banking is acceptable but if I claim to stand for Islamic feminism, frowns begun to appear on faces of every soul who brand every western strand of knowledge as un-Islamic without caring about its epistemology and philosophy. If they would care to introspect at a deeper level they will find out how hollow their analysis and brandings are?

From the failed project of Islamisation of knowledge to Islamic banking most Muslim men of knowledge do adhere to these redundant terms. But would like to term Islamic feminism as a Western extension, conspiracy and project aimed at opening the doors of moral laxity and destroy the structure and institution of family in the Muslim world that is already under strain more because of modernity, globalization and forces of change rather than a grand conspiracy of west. It has become an innocent excuse for Muslims that instead of introspection they brand everything vice as Western and Jewish conspiracy. This conspiracy theory mindset has led Muslims towards self aggrandizement putting a pace on their progress and intellectual development.

The question of women is a tricky one for Muslims as they believe that Islam has bestowed complete set of rights on women hence they do not need salvation in Feminism. Also they may be visionary about this project of Islamic feminism unlike the failed projects of Islamic banking and Islamisation of knowledge that they can surmise about its death, even when it has not matured. Muslim women do not need to be rescued through a legal recourse or a male chauvinist like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi does not need to come to their rescue. What they need is to reclaim their rights that Islam, Quran and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) have already bestowed on them. But over the centuries patriarchy, misogyny and interpretation of Holy scriptures at the hands of men have snatched away these revolutionary rights from Muslim women. Now this patriarchy needs to be fought and Muslim women need to reclaim their rights.

Islamic feminism is a movement to restore those rights and interpret Islam in a gender just manner. Let’s leave the label Islamic feminism or Gender Justice in Islam as they aim for the same goals. I associate myself with the gender justice movement in Islam. It is easy for a woman to be associated as a feminist. But man as a feminist? Nay what are you talking about? How can a male be a feminist? No, he must be gay that is camouflaging his sexuality in the garb of feminism. Your make friends tag you as gay or a womanizer. For some male friends, claiming to be a feminist is the best way to reach out to women, make friends and exploit. Most males think that male-female friendship is not possible but with some sexual angle associated with it. Some clever male friends who are aware of your acquaintance with females want you to act as intermediary who is a ladder to their love tangles, affairs and flirts.

To your female friends, colleagues and acquaintances most of the times you are too effeminate as you are emotional like any human being should be. But patriarchy has reinforced this belief among them that men should not sob or display any emotions or they can’t afford to because they are brave and need to protect women. Most of them do not see gentle and gender just men as future husbands but men who are best suited to act as shoulders, thus friend zoned. Also if you afford to have a girlfriend or a fiancé and she ditches you or is unfaithful and you leave her without punishment, whether physical or psychological then you certainly don’t deserve the right to be called a man. Not to talk of your male friends as for them you are a spineless scoundrel, even the female friends tag you as jackass because you don’t believe in revenge.

I remember a fellow male feminist friend, who hosted two female friends for a week. When they were about to leave one of them intimated him that they guess he was impotent because having every chance for a week to take physical advantage atleast with one of them, he missed the opportunity of exploring gorgeous girls. As if getting physical is the only trait of being a man. Feminist or Gender Just men are not impotent or without physical desires but they cherish the fact that before getting physical love must be there, instead of just animal instincts ruling roost. They cherish the value of being loyal to their girlfriends or wives instead of satiating their sexual hunger whenever they find an opportunity.

To the religious minded patriarchal friends and colleagues you are just opening the flood gates of promiscuity, breaking families and granting limitless freedom to women who already have been condemned to be deficient in reason and religion. Further granting them decision making power that too as wives will create a havoc, as the wives are supposed to be subservient to their husbands because marriage as an institution can run only when there is one head. Marriage according to them is not based on mutual love, respect and understanding but on power relations that they camouflage in the disguise of religion and social norms.

The biggest shock you receive is when your female feminist friends would assign themselves the job of a mullah and begin issuing Fatwas when they seem to disagree with you. The best whip to lash at you is to brand you as patriarchal because you may not be on the same page with them about any issue. I had not encountered this bitter experience from fellow female feminists until recently when in a divorce case after listening to both the parties, I happened to reach out at a solution that for me was pragmatic one. But the feminists had made up the mind to punish the husband as he was male and the wife had rattled that he abused her which was admitted prima facie without authentication. Feminism for me does not stand for male bashing, but gender justice in which both sexes are equal stakeholders. I tried to further my efforts in resolving the vexed problem and tried to enquire about the next steps of the feminist group about which I had the illusion that they considered me a part of it. But to my utter surprise and shock the ‘feminist friend’ rebuked me by saying that they cannot disclose their cards as I am a male and its is difficult for me to be a feminist though I tried to be one, as if her ratification and certificate for me was essential for me to be a gender justice activist or a feminist. So the dilemma and dichotomy is always prevalent about your activism and stance towards gender justice even among feminists.

But if your core beliefs are strong and one believes with head and heart in gender justice then these perils are no threat to your cause. Further one needs to remind oneself that there is little good in the world and it certainly is worth fighting for. Gender Justice is one such cause and you don’t need to be a woman to be a soldier for gender jihad. All you need is a burning desire to smash patriarchy and being different to what patriarchs or feminists say about you. You are there for justice and that is all you need to remind yourself.

*M.H.A.Sikander is Writer-Activist based in Srinagar, Kashmir. This article was published by New Age Islam.

Ancient Trail Of Columbian Mammoths Uncovered In South-Central Oregon

0
0

A fossilized trackway on public lands in Lake County, Oregon, may reveal clues about the ancient family dynamics of Columbian mammoths.

Recently excavated by a team from the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, the Bureau of Land Management and the University of Louisiana, the trackway includes 117 footprints thought to represent a number of adults as well as juvenile and infant mammoths.

Discovered by Museum of Natural and Cultural History paleontologist Greg Retallack during a 2014 class field trip on fossils at the UO, the Ice Age trackway is the focus of a new study appearing online ahead of print in the journal Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology.

Retallack returned to the site with the study’s coauthors, including UO science librarian Dean Walton, in 2017. The team zeroed in on a 20-footprint track, dating to roughly 43,000 years ago, that exhibited some intriguing features.

“These prints were especially close together, and those on the right were more deeply impressed than those on the left-as if an adult mammoth had been limping,” said Retallack, also a professor in the UO Department of Earth Sciences and the study’s lead author.

But, as the study reveals, the limping animal wasn’t alone: Two sets of smaller footprints appeared to be approaching and retreating from the limper’s trackway.

“These juveniles may have been interacting with an injured adult female, returning to her repeatedly throughout the journey, possibly out of concern for her slow progress,” Retallack said. “Such behavior has been observed with wounded adults in modern, matriarchal herds of African elephants.”

The tracks were made in a layer of volcanic soil at Fossil Lake, a site first excavated by UO science professor Thomas Condon in 1876 and today administered by the Bureau of Land Management.

“America’s public lands are some of the world’s greatest outdoor laboratories. Localities such as this mammoth tracksite are unique parts of America’s heritage and indicate that there are many special sites still to be discovered,” said study co-author Brent Breithaupt, a paleontologist in the Wyoming State Office of the Bureau of Land Management.

Specimens from the 1876 Fossil Lake excavation-along with the rest of Condon’s extensive assemblage of fossils and geologic specimens-were donated to UO in the early 1900s and form the core of the museum’s Condon Fossil Collection, now under Retallack’s direction and boasting upwards of 50,000 fossil specimens.

Last month a new state law went into effect, making the UO museum Oregon’s default repository for fossils found on state lands. The museum is also a designated repository for artifacts and paleontological specimens collected from BLM-administered lands in Oregon, ensuring they are available to future generations for education and research.

As part of the 2017 study, Neffra Matthews of the BLM’s National Operations Center in Denver, helped survey, map and document the trackway using photogrammetry, which helps scientists perform accurate measurements based on land-based or aerial photographs.

“There is a vast storehouse of natural history found on BLM-managed land, and it’s exciting to work with researchers like Professor Retallack in capturing 3D data on fragile paleontological resources,” she said.

Retallack said that trace fossils such as trackways can provide unique insights into natural history.

“Tracks sometimes tell more about ancient creatures than their bones, particularly when it comes to their behavior,” he said. “It’s amazing to see this kind of interaction preserved in the fossil record.”

Elephants once roamed across much of North America. Woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius) were common in Canada and Alaska. Columbian mammoths (Mammuthus columbi) occupied the region that became Washington state to South Dakota and south into Mexico. Most mammoths went extinct about 11,500 years ago, but some isolated Arctic island populations of woolly mammoth persisted until 4,000 years ago.

Volatility Returns To The Global Economy – Analysis

0
0

The United States, world’s largest economy, adds to global market worries with tax cuts, treasury yields, trade wars and talk of treason.

By David Dapice*

The dramatic single day fall in the US stock market has raised a red flag, but reactions fall along predictable lines: Bears see dark clouds while the bulls dismiss the correction as a mere bump on the road to higher stock prices. For the road ahead, analysis must include a non-market factor – a constitutional crisis that could overwhelm policymaking.

A correction was overdue, given the relentless rise of the market with low volatility and high valuations. Add the consequences of major tax-cut legislation, pressing need to lift the debt ceiling and an incipient trade war promoted by the Trump administration, and economic prospects look less balmy. The markets are also digesting consequences of the investigation on Russian meddling into the US presidential campaign and links with the Trump election campaign.

Stock markets at one point declined about 10 percent from recent all-time highs, but are still up about 20 percent from late 2016 and several times higher than during the worst of the global financial crisis in 2009. Many commentators have correctly pointed out that most major economies are likely to grow this year, corporate profits are strong, and good news of job and wage gains probably played a role in stoking fears of inflation and interest rates rising faster than expected. Investors ponder if the slump is a long-overdue pause in a surprisingly relentless upward trend, or if “the market” is signaling something more troubling.

Start with the major US legislative action that took effect with the New Year – the tax cut. Cutting taxes during a time of near full employment and rising interest rates, as well as growing federal deficits, is not a usual step for rational economic managers. Some groups estimate that next year’s deficits will top $1 trillion during a period of full employment, or 5 percent of GDP. While large deficits may help during periods of high unemployment, balanced or surplus budgets are typical when tax revenues are high because the economy is strong. If a recession did hit, the Federal Reserve would try to stabilize the economy with limited firepower from low interest rates and no help from fiscal policy.

Treasury yields on 10-year debt jumped from 1.5 percent in 2016 to 2.8 percent recently – a huge move in a normally sedate market. Yields on 10-year bonds are usually close to the rate of nominal GDP growth. For example, they were 4 to 6 percent in the decade before the 2007-2009 financial crisis led to huge purchases of debt by the Federal Reserve and plunging interest rates. If real GDP growth and inflation are both about 2 percent, then normal bond yields would approach 4 percent – substantially higher than today’s levels. This would provide competition with stocks and put downward pressure on stock prices. Note too that the Federal Reserve is slowly allowing its trillions of dollars of bonds purchased during its quantitative easing to expire without rolling the money into the bond market. There is a chance that China, a major buyer of Treasury debt, will tire of financing a nation threatening a trade war.

Stock bulls argue that corporate profits are high and growing, boosted by the recent tax cut. But adding demand at full employment shows some signs of driving up wages, which would put pressure on profits. Baby boomers, nearly 30 percent of the labor force, are retiring. Immigration, a major source of labor supply, is diminishing in response to aggressive enforcement measures. These imply labor scarcity going forward. Corporate profits averaged 6 to 10 percent of GDP from 1980 to 2005. Profits, at a record 14 percent share of GDP, may struggle for the projected growth of 11.6 percent a year as GDP grows at 5 percent.

Another argument from optimists: The tax cuts are also tax reform, expected to create higher growth and more tax revenues. Proponents argue that the Congressional Budget Office does not take sufficient account of such growth in its assessment. Yet when the Atlanta Federal Reserve surveyed businesses, only 11 percent said they would increase capacity due to the tax cut. Most cited a shortage of skilled workers as a major constraint. In 2004, the last time there was a tax amnesty allowing overseas profits of multinationals to be brought back to the United States without paying the full corporate tax rate, the main impact was to boost stock buybacks and mergers, not new investment. Most mainstream models do not anticipate a major boost beyond a few tenths of a percent to GDP growth over the next five years. Labor force growth is low; educational levels that boost productivity are not growing much, and productivity growth is sluggish.

Another source of policy uncertainty is President Donald Trump’s stance on trade. Literally trillions of dollars have been invested on the assumption that world trading patterns, or at least rules, would remain relatively stable. If tariffs and quotas are imposed on many products, that leads to higher prices or shortages in importing countries as well as unemployment in exporting countries. Disruptions to the North American Free Trade Agreement or trade with China could test the patience of trading partners. The last time the United States tried a tit-for-tat response was in the 1930s when trade, output and employment collapsed. Most do not want to repeat this experience, but the Trump administration’s brinkmanship seems to accept that some retaliation is likely. No one knows how far the administration may go, but the risks surely give trade partners and corporate investors pause.

Tax cuts during full employment, trade wars and rising interest rates with rich equity valuations are normally bad for stock prices, at least after the exuberance of extra demand wears off and society must confront the policy results.  This is fairly standard economics. But another challenge looms – the possibility of a full-blown constitutional crisis. The president used the word “treason” to describe Democrats reticence toward applause during his first State of the Union address. Trump has also encouraged Republicans in Congress to discredit the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department as they pursue questions about Russian influence and collusion by his campaign. Reports suggest that Trump considered and still wants to fire anyone aggressively investigating these issues or balking at equating loyalty to the constitution with loyalty to him. Republicans control majorities in Congress and while some push back, no legislation protects the special prosecutor and many indications suggest that findings on Trump could become a partisan issue. The resulting constitutional crisis would reach far beyond tax policy.

Volatility in stock prices may simply signal a return to normal risks, signifying little in terms of the prospects for the real economy. Or, the market could be recognizing global risks as a once stable country transforms into a more dangerous and complicated place. Risks do not imply inevitable crises, but do raise red flags about problems that must be handled. A skilled group of leaders and policymakers who understood the risks could reduce the probability of crisis while a partisan group of loyalists living for the news cycle and the president’s approval rating heightens chances. The market may be re-evaluating US leadership and finding the odds are not as good as they had once assumed.

*David Dapice is the economist of the Vietnam and Myanmar Program at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

US Wants To Fund 37 Aegis Missile Defense Systems In Romania And Poland

0
0

The US administration has asked to allocate funds for the construction of 37 Aegis missile defense systems in Romania and Poland, the operations director of the Missile Defense Agency, Gary Pannett, said on Monday.

“Within the framework of the draft budget for the 2019 financial year, we have requested 1.8 billion dollars for the systems. The missile defense agency will provide 37 Aegis SM-3 systems to facilities in Romania and Poland, as well as on ships along the respective coasts,” Pennett said at a special briefing in the Pentagon.

On Monday, the US administration submitted the draft budget for the 2019 financial year, which begins October 1, 2018, for consideration by Congress.

Islamic State Leader Baghdadi Still Alive But In Ill Health – Reports

0
0

(RFE/RL) — An Iraqi official said Islamic State group leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi remains alive and is being treated at a hospital in Syria after being wounded in battle.

“We have irrefutable information and documents from sources within the terrorist organization that al-Baghdadi is still alive and hiding” in Syria’s northeastern Jazira region, Iraqi intelligence chief Abu Ali al-Basri was quoted as saying by the government daily Al-Sabah on February 12.

IS retains a significant presence in northeastern Syria’s Hasakeh province despite having lost most of its self-declared “caliphate,” which once covered a third of Iraq and Syria.

Basri said that Baghdadi is suffering from “injuries, diabetes, and fractures to the body and legs that prevent him from walking without assistance.”

The militant chief was wounded in “air raids against IS strongholds in Iraq,” he said.

Iraqi authorities last week published a list of “internationally wanted terrorist leaders,” headed by Baghdadi, a self-proclaimed”caliph” who was born in 1971 under the name Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim Ali al-Badri al-Samarrai.

Last June, Russia said it had probably killed Baghdadi in an air raid near Raqqa, but U.S. officials said they believed the IS chief was still alive and hiding in eastern Syria’s Euphrates River Valley.

Iran Says No US License Needed To Buy Sukhoi Superjet-100

0
0

The modifications that Sukhoi has made to its Superjet-100 passenger plane would allow the Russian aircraft manufacturer to sell the plane to Iran without the need for a license from the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), an Iranian official announced.

Speaking to Tasnim on Monday, Secretary of Association of Iranian Airlines Maqsoud Asadi Samani said Sukhoi has made the latest modifications to Superjet-100, and has overcome the limitations to sales to Iran, as less than 10 percent of the aircraft’s components are American-made.

Under the US sanctions, manufacturers selling planes to Iran need a license from the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) if at least 10 percent of the plane’s components are of American origin.

Elsewhere in his remarks, made on the sidelines of a product presentation event in Tehran, Asadi Samani said Sukhoi has held the event as part of efforts to catch up with Western plane makers for a share of Iran’s market.

The official also described Super-100 as a suitable option for Iran, considering that many of the country’s airports remain unused due to lack of regional planes with fewer than 100 seats.

The Russian plane’s price varies from 20 to 25 million dollars, depending on its options, he noted.

Iran is gradually receiving the passenger planes purchased from Airbus, ATR , and Boeing, following the implementation of the JCPOA, a nuclear agreement between Tehran and the Group 5+1 (Russia, China, the US, Britain, France and Germany).

During a January 2016 visit to Paris by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Tehran signed a major contract with Airbus worth about $27 billion to buy 118 planes.

Later in June 2016, Iran sealed another deal worth around $25 billion with the US aerospace heavyweight, Boeing, for the purchase of 100 passenger planes.

In December 2016, the deal with Boeing was finalized, allowing Iran to buy 80 planes within 10 years.

Vucic Hands Files On Missing Serbs To Croatia

0
0

By Filip Rudic

Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic handed over files on Serbs who went missing in wartime to his Croatian counterpart Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic, as both pledged to resolve disputes that have heightened tensions.

On his first presidential visit to Zagreb on Monday, Aleksandar Vucic gave Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic about a dozen packages of files on missing Serbs from the Croatian municipality of Dvor, as they jointly pledged to resolve the issue of missing persons from the 1990s war.

The two presidents also vowed to resolve their continuing border dispute and to fix bilateral relations, which have remained tense amid repeated rows between Zagreb and Belgrade.

“I think Serbia and Croatia will have to have much better relations in the future, regardless of whether everyone in the political [establishment] wants to or not,” Vucic told media after their meeting.

Asked whether Belgrade will also give Zagreb documents from the Vukovar hospital, where Croatians went missing amid a massacre in November 1991, and from Serbian prisoner-of-war camps in order to help locate missing Croatians, Vucic said that every assistance will be provided.

Grabar-Kitarovic also said they had agreed to do everything possible to help resolve the issue of missing persons “as soon as possible”.

“Of course there are many problems in that regard, since a lot of time has passed since the war,” she said.

Serbia and Croatia also agreed to form commissions to try to resolve their border dispute in two years, and if they fail, they will launch an arbitration process.

Belgrade and Zagreb are in dispute over their 136-kilometre border along the Danube. Serbia claims that the Danube should be the natural border between the two countries, while Croatia wants the border to be along the boundaries of the cadastral municipalities located along the river.

Vucic also said that all Serbian officials will “have an obligation” not to insult Croatian officials for the next 100 days, regardless of what their Croatian counterparts do.

“Some could say that was our job anyway. True, but it was hardly the case on both sides,” Vucic said.

At the start of their joint press conference, Grabar-Kitarovic said that the recent tensions made her invite Vucic to Zagreb sooner than she wanted, and that she was happy that he accepted.

Vucic and Grabar-Kitarovic also discussed the issue of minority rights in both countries, and said that progress has been made.

After meeting the Croatian president, Vucic met Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic, who said on Twitter that they talked about “war reparations” and “missing persons”, among other things.

Vucic will also meet Cardinal Josip Bozanic, head of Croatia’s Catholic Church, which is in a dispute with the Serbian Orthodox Church over the beatification of Croatia’s WWII Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac.

Vucic’s visit to Zagreb was organized after a period of tension and sharp rhetorical exchange between Serbia and Croatia.

Several hundred Croatian right-wingers protested in Zagreb against Vucic’s visit.


India: At Least 10 Dead In Back-To-Back Militant Assaults In Kashmir

0
0

By Amin Masoodi

Security forces in Indian Kashmir were on high alert Monday amid two deadly attacks mounted within a three-day span on defense installations by suspected Pakistan-based militant groups, including an assault that was still going on, officials said.

At least 10 people were killed in both attacks. The first one, which targeted an army camp in the Jammu region, began early Saturday and lasted close to 40 hours, followed by an attack on Monday against a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) base in Srinagar, the capital of Jammu and Kashmir state.

A CRPF official was killed and another injured in the Srinagar attack by members of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), authorities said.

“We are going to eliminate them soon. The attackers have taken shelter in an under-construction building near the camp,” CRPF Inspector General Ravideep Sahi told BenarNews, adding that gunfire between at least two militants and Indian security forces had not stopped as of Monday evening.

Security has been heightened across Indian Kashmir in the wake of the back-to-back attacks, he added.

In the first attack, three suspected members of Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) stormed an army camp in Jammu city, killing five Indian security officials and a civilian. The attack was a rare assault by militants on the capital of the predominantly Hindu region of Jammu.

All three gunmen were killed in retaliatory fire late Sunday, Sahi said.

“There are two militants. We are engaged in a gun fight with them. They tried to storm the camp in the early hours of Monday. But we prevented that by opening fire. They then hid in a nearby building,” Sahi said of Monday’s attack.

The army, meanwhile, said that a search and clearance operation was continuing at the Sunjuwan army base in Jammu, where a woman and a child were among the injured during the weekend assault.

India, Pakistan trade accusations

The two attacks have raised tensions between nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan, which both lay claim to the Himalayan region of Kashmir in its entirety. The territory, which is divided by a de facto border called the Line of Control (LoC), has grappled with a separatist insurgency that has claimed over 70,000 lives since the late 1980s.

“Pakistan will have to pay a price for this. Evidence of this terror attack will be handed over to Pakistan although it has never taken an action against perpetrators of such attacks in the past,” Indian Defense Minister Nirmala Sitaraman told reporters Monday.

The day before, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs hit back at criticism from India over the attack in Jammu, saying officials in New Delhi were leveling “unfounded allegations” and “irresponsible statements” toward Islamabad.

“We are confident that the world community would take cognizance of India’s smear campaign against Pakistan, and the deliberate creation of war hysteria,” the Pakistani ministry said in a statement.

It accused India of carrying out “state terrorism in the Indian-occupied Jammu & Kashmir” through incarceration of peaceful and unarmed demonstrators, extra-judicial killings and summary executions.

Elsewhere, LeT chief Mehmood Shah released a statement, claiming responsibility for the Srinagar attack.

“The freedom fighters are in complete control and will give a tough fight to Indian forces,” he said. “A handful of freedom fighters held Indian army’s stronghold for hours in Srinagar. India has always been made to pick up their dead during such fights.”

Indian agency looking into security at Jammu base

The attack in Jammu began around dawn on Saturday when the militants entered the residential area of the army camp and opened fire, police said.

“Three JeM operatives were killed after an intense exchange of fire that lasted almost 37 hours,” S.D. Jamwal, Jammu’s Inspector General of Police told BenarNews.

“Rifles and flags manufactured in Pakistan were recovered from the attackers, who were dressed in combat uniforms. We are still investigating the route they took to enter the camp,” he said without divulging the identities or nationalities of the attackers.

“It was a highly challenging operation as families had to be evacuated from around 150 apartments situated in the vicinity,” Lt. Col. Devender Anand told BenarNews.

The National Investigation Agency, India’s premier counter-terror unit will probe the Jammu attack, an official said.

“[The NIA] will probe how militants managed to barge into a highly fortified army base. And if the attackers took or received help from any locals or security officials,” a senior police officer told Benar on condition of anonymity.

Chinese Catholics Condemn Vatican Official’s Comments

0
0

A Vatican official is under fire from Chinese Catholics after saying that China is the best implementer of Catholic social doctrine.

Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, chancellor of the Pontifical Academies for Science and Social Sciences, heaped praise on China in an interview with the Spanish edition of the Vatican Insider.

He said China has no shabby slums, no drugs and the Chinese people have a “positive national consciousness.”

He praised the Chinese government for its dedication to upholding the Paris Agreement on climate change and said it had taken the initiative to shoulder the responsibility that some other countries abandoned.

The mid-ranking Vatican official said China’s political system is not money-oriented like that in the United States and criticized U.S. President Donald Trump for being “controlled by multinational oil companies.”

He said China is now well developed and urged people not to view China as they used to look at the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The Argentinean bishop’s comments provoked a storm of outrage among China’s long-suffering Catholics and even general people across social media.

An underground priest called John told ucanews.com that “justice is no longer upheld, especially when a Sino-Vatican deal is being made.”

Peter, another priest, said the Vatican is trading with the devil and selling righteousness, and “they do not understand what has really happened in China.”

Retired Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun told ucanews.com that some people in the Vatican do not understand the China Church.

“They [the authorities] know very well that there are many underground priests holding Mass and many people are going to Mass. All the neighbors know that. No people are going to denounce them because they are good people. They do not make any revolutions,” he said.

Cardinal Zen emphasized that in some regions open churches and underground churches are living in peace and cited an example of a bishop’s funeral that “5,000 people both from open and underground churches came to join. All priests co-celebrated. They are always there.”

A China religious expert who asked to be unnamed told ucanews.com that “the Vatican does not understand the China Church but only wants to appease the authorities.”

After reading the news on Bishop Sorondo and the Sino-Vatican agreement on the appointment of bishops, a Chinese Catholic who has emigrated to the United States told ucanews.com: “Why cannot the Holy See see the real China? People will never forgive Bishop Sorondo for being so stupid. How can we evangelize?”

Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters Assume ISIS’ Mantle In Philippines’ Troubled South – Analysis

0
0

By Michael Hart

In the three months since the jihadists of the ISIS-linked Maute group were routed by Philippine troops in Marawi, another radical band of Islamists have risen from the shadows to take their place as the vanguard of Islamic State in western Mindanao. Since the five-month siege of Marawi ended in late-October, the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) have launched a wave of IED attacks and regularly clashed with security forces, whilst their de-facto leader Esmael Abdulmalik has been touted as a possible replacement for slain Abu Sayyaf militant Isnilon Hapilon as ISIS’ new emir in Southeast Asia.

In the post-Marawi climate of heightened threat awareness, the BIFF’s recent spike in activity has garnered an increasing amount of attention not only in the Philippines, but across the wider region as well. Yet the group has been around for almost a decade and has been involved in high-profile incidents before, notably the Mamasapano clash of January 2015 which left 44 Special Forces soldiers dead and sent shockwaves throughout the country. The BIFF has also claimed responsibility for bomb attacks in the past, whilst a small cohort of its fighters are thought to have taken part in last year’s Marawi siege.

What underlies the BIFF’s intensified campaign of terror? And how has this previously little-known militant group emerged from being a mere footnote in Mindanao’s long-running armed Islamist insurgency to positioning itself as the last bastion of ISIS’ ambitions to carve out a regional caliphate?

Background

The BIFF has its roots in the decades-old Muslim separatist insurgency which has been fought on the Philippines’ conflict-plagued southern island of Mindanao since the early 1970s. In its initial stages, the insurgency was fought by the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) founded by Nur Misuari, and later by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) founded by Hashim Salamat, which broke-off from the MNLF in 1981. Both organizations enjoyed support from large sections of the Muslim population in the Mindanao region, which has long suffered from underdevelopment and high rates of poverty in comparison to other parts of the majority-Catholic country, leaving its residents feeling marginalized.

The MNLF and the MILF both started out fighting for a fully-independent state for the Muslim-majority Moro population in the south, leading to a protracted conflict which has caused more than 100,000 deaths. Yet in recent decades their stance has softened as both groups have turned their attention away from armed struggle and toward peace talks with the government, aimed at securing greater autonomy in the south rather than independence. This shift angered hardline elements within the separatist movement, resulting in the formation of several radical groups to revive the campaign for a fully-independent Muslim state. A breakaway faction of the MNLF – Abu Sayyaf – emerged in 1990 and went on to gain global notoriety after launching a spate of kidnappings in the region and brutally beheading several Western hostages. Twenty years later, in 2010, a second splinter group emerged this time from within the ranks of the MILF, and called itself the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters.

The BIFF was formed by Ameril Umbra Kato, who was educated in Saudi Arabia and espoused a more radical brand of Islam, one based on Salafi-Wahhabi ideology and practiced more widely in the Middle East than in Southeast Asia. Frustrated with the MILF’s decision to accept autonomy at the expense of full independence, Kato led around 300 former MILF comrades in a campaign of attacks targeting the military and civilians in rural areas across the provinces of Maguindanao and North Cotabato. The primary aim of the attacks was to disrupt the peace process between the government and the MILF.

Kato was succeeded as leader by Mohammad Ali Tambako after suffering a stroke in 2011, yet Tambako left to establish another militant group two years later. Kato died of natural causes in 2015 and the BIFF appointed Ismael Abubakar as its new figurehead, signalling a new era in which the group separated into factions and became more of a splintered guerrilla organization than a co-ordinated or hierarchical group. The BIFF remains loosely-structured today, and is not thought to have a defined leadership structure or central chain of command.

Impact

The ISIS factor. Amidst uncertainty over its direction and leadership, the group pledged allegiance to Islamic State in late 2014. At the time, this was not viewed as a concern by the authorities and was seen as more of an attention-grabbing ploy aimed at aiding recruitment and boosting the group’s profile. This view changed suddenly in May last year, when militants from the ISIS-aligned Maute and Abu Sayyaf groups launched a brazen assault on the city of Marawi. The threat from ISIS had become visible, having materialized itself on a large scale in Southeast Asia for the first time. The Marawi crisis led the security forces in Mindanao to take pledges of allegiance to ISIS by smaller militant groups far more seriously.

The jihadists from the Maute group and Abu Sayyaf took five months to dislodge. In mid-October, the Philippine military announced the end of the siege after the deaths of militant leaders Omar Maute and Isnilon Hapilon in the main battle zone. More than 900 militants were killed in total, dealing a serious blow to Abu Sayyaf’s capabilities and virtually destroying the Maute group as a fighting force. Whilst a small number of the BIFF’s members were thought to be present in Marawi, many of the group’s fighters remained in its heartlands elsewhere in western Mindanao. These BIFF fighters now constitute the surviving remnants of ISIS in the southern Philippines, and have taken up the mantle vacated by the Mautes with a renewed sense of purpose and authority.

Since the end of the Marawi siege, clashes between government forces and the BIFF have intensified in the provinces of Maguindanao and North Cotabato, where the group has its rural strongholds. Government airstrikes, ground offensives and gun battles resulted in the death of 28 BIFF members in the final three months of 2017, whilst two government troops were also killed. In December, the BIFF launched a series of attacks targeting the indigenous Teduray tribe whilst attempting to seize pockets of territory in rural villages in Maguindanao province, setting fire to houses and killing several tribe members whilst driving thousands more from their homes. The BIFF has also launched a spate of bomb attacks targeting police patrols, military bases, and civilians. On New Year’s Eve, the militants detonated an IED outside a crowded bar in Tacurong city, killing two civilians and injuring twelve, having earlier in the day killed one and wounded five policemen in a bomb blast in Datu Hoffer town.

The BIFF remains split into at least three main factions, the largest and most active of which is led by Ismael Abdulmalik, also known by the alias Abu Turaife. In a particularly worrying development, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has reported seeing ‘foreign-looking’ gunmen fighting alongside BIFF militants in Maguindanao province, indicating that terrorist fighters from elsewhere in Southeast Asia may have joined-up with the group. It is possible that surviving Maute group members, including a number of Indonesians and Malaysians believed to have fought in Marawi, may have bolstered the BIFF’s ranks. At present, the BIFF appears to be the new group of choice for the region’s militants.

Local authorities have said they are monitoring the recruitment activities of jihadist groups in western Mindanao and are bracing themselves for another Marawi-style attack. Cotabato city has been mentioned as a possible second target. President Duterte has responded by extending Martial Law in Mindanao until the end of 2018 and has promised to destroy the BIFF, whilst recently-installed military chief Lt. Gen. Rey Leonardo Guerrero has vowed to redeploy resources from Marawi to tackle Islamist groups across the south. Mindanao’s civilian population remains on edge as its security forces maintain a heightened state of alert, having conducted several urban warfare training exercises in recent months to prepare for a repeat of Marawi. The authorities do not want to be caught off-guard again like they were last May.

The BIFF poses a threat to Mindanao’s peace process. The rise to prominence of radical groups such as Maute, and now the BIFF, comes at a crucial stage in the southern Philippines’ drawn-out peace process with the MILF, which has laid down its weapons since a provisional peace deal with the government was signed in 2014. Currently, lawmakers are debating the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) which would pave the way for a new autonomous region in the south to replace the existing Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), constituting a final negotiated end to hostilities with the largest groups in the Moro rebel movement.

The bill is expected to be passed later this year. Yet after slow progress in getting even to this stage, concerns have been voiced that if the bill is delayed further, or in a worst-case scenario fails to pass through Congress, frustrations will grow and fertile ground for jihadist recruitment will be created. President Duterte and MILF chairman Al Haj Murad Ebrahim have both warned of the radicalization risk. Duterte has talked repeatedly of the importance of correcting ‘historical injustices’ committed to the Moro people, whilst Ebrahim has described the BBL as being of ‘great importance for stability and security in Southeast Asia’. In a November interview with Channel News Asia, the MILF leader said ‘the longer this process takes, the more people are going to be radicalized.’ Despite expressing his own frustration over the slow progress being made, Ebrahim has said the MILF remains firmly committed to the peace process and is staunchly opposed to radical groups such as the BIFF and Abu Sayyaf.

Forecast

Whilst the passage of the BBL may be an important step in quelling the long-running insurgency, it must be noted that previous peace agreements have not succeeded in ending the violence altogether. Despite the creation of the ARMM in 1989 and the signing of separate peace accords with the MNLF in 1996 and the MILF in 2014, several new groups have been spawned and the insurgency has evolved.

At present, it is the BIFF which pose the greatest concern going forward. Radical groups such as the BIFF will remain attractive to those who will never accept autonomy and maintain a desire to see a fully-independent Islamic state created in the southern Philippines. This is especially true for those living in the most impoverished areas of Mindanao, who may feel disenfranchised and excluded from the potential benefits that any political settlement may bring.

As long as the underlying conditions of instability remain present in Mindanao, transnational terror groups such as ISIS and aspiring militants from across the region will seek to take advantage of the situation. These links pose the biggest challenge to the ongoing peace process in the Philippines’ troubled south. Despite efforts on both sides to secure a lasting peace, the spread of ISIS’ global ideology to the region continues to aid recruitment, giving new meaning and impetus to the localized battles fought by formerly little-known militant groups such as the Mautes, Abu Sayyaf and now the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters.

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

 

Jordan Is More Than A Transit Point – Analysis

0
0

By P.R. Kumaraswamy*

In their eagerness to focus on and flag the de-hyphenation of the traditional Israel-Palestinian binary, most commentators have forgotten the pivotal role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. First is the geographical constraint. Whether it is the Gaza Strip or West Bank, one could not visit the Palestinian territories, without transiting through a third country. One could visit either of these areas through Israel; the Gaza Strip is about two hours’ drive from Ben-Gurion airport, and Ramallah, the headquarters of the Palestine National Authority, is about 13 kilometres away from the centre of Jerusalem. But the political distance is larger and more complicated, especially when one intends to travel to Palestine without visiting Israel, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi did last week. That leaves only Egypt and Jordan as possible transit points for the Gaza Strip and West Bank, respectively.

The geographic situation is compounded by the infrastructure or lack of it in both these areas. With much fanfare, the Gaza International Airport was opened on 24 November 1998 in the wake of the Oslo agreements and many Palestinians saw it as a tangible sign of statehood. Such optimism was buried when the al-Aqsa intifada broke out in September 2000 and periodic violence saw the radar and runways being destroyed by Israeli air strikes. Thus, the land route from the Rafah Crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip became the only entry point both for the Palestinians and outside visitors if they wished to avoid coming to Gaza through Israel.

Entering the West Bank is, however, more complicated. As a landlocked area, its only access to the outside world has been through Jordan. Prior to the June War, when the West Bank was part of the Hashemite Kingdom, Palestinians travelled abroad through the Allenby Crossing which had been operational since the days of the Ottoman Empire. After the June War and Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Palestinians used this crossing to go to Jordan and from there to other countries. After the Israel-Jordan peace treaty, to facilitate the flow of Israeli tourists, Jordan opened two other border crossings to the North and South of the Allenby Crossing, now called King Hussein Crossing. Unlike the Gaza Strip, however, the West Bank does not have an airport, except a heliport in the Mukata’a or the headquarters of the Palestine National Authority (PNA) in Ramallah.

Prime Minister Modi could thus either opt for a road journey through the King Hussein Bridge or the helicopter ride to Ramallah. Both required transiting through Jordan and, after landing in Amman, Modi was ferried to Ramallah by a Jordanian army helicopter. Thus, even if he managed to de-hyphenate Israel from Palestine, Modi could not de-hyphenate Palestine from Jordan.

While a standalone visit to Israel is indeed possible, a similar effort vis-à-vis Palestine is a logistical nightmare. Indian visitors to the Palestinian territories often included Jordan in their itinerary. The visits of External Affairs Ministers S M Krishna in January 2012 and Sushma Swaraj in January 2016 and President Pranab Mukherjee in October 2015 included Jordan, besides Israel and Palestine. The same is the case with Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Palestine.

Besides transit facilities in Amman, Prime Minister Modi also needed Jordanian logistical support to reach Ramallah. Hence, he stayed overnight in Jordan, including a hastily arranged meeting with King Abdullah. Surprisingly, the pre-visit media briefing by the External Affairs Ministry did not even refer to Jordan and continued to refer to Modi’s trip as a three-nation visit comprising only of Palestine, the UAE and Oman.

How does one explain this turning of the Nelson’s Eye towards objective realities? Since the early 1920s, Indian nationalists were never enamoured of the Hashemites, then the rulers of the Hejaz region which also includes Mecca and Medina. The Arab Revolt of 1916 spearheaded by Sharif Hussein of Mecca—the great-great-grandfather of the present King—did not go down well with the Indian nationalists who saw it as a British-inspired conspiracy against the Ottoman sultan-cum-caliph. In later years, this jaundiced view transformed into Indian disapproval of Jordan being a pro-Western monarchy in the post-Second World War Middle Eastern order.

India’s normalization of relations with Israel in 1992 and the bonhomie generated by the Oslo process meant that the mandarins felt comfortable dealing with Israel and Palestine while disregarding the geographic compulsions. While Amman was used as a transit point for visits to the region, India never recognized the importance of Jordan vis-à-vis the Palestinian cause. Unlike his father, King Abdullah does not wish to return to the pre-June 1967 position of Jordanian rule over the West Bank. With a sizeable number of Jordanians of Palestinian origin, such a policy would be a curse than a blessing. At the same time, a greater Jordanian role is a pre-condition for Palestinian statehood, both for logistical as well as developmental considerations. Bluntly put, Indian assistance to the Palestinians could not be routed through Israel without political controversy both at home and abroad, and India cannot help the Palestinians constructively without coordinating with Jordan.

Since his election in May 2014, the brief late evening conversation in Amman last week was Modi’s first meeting with King Abdullah. Indeed, the Jordanian monarch’s visit to New Delhi has been talked about since late 2016 but has remained stuck in the gridlocks of the Indian bureaucracy. Having enjoyed Abdullah’s hospitality en route to Ramallah, will Modi recognize that Jordan is more than a transit point?

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

About the author:
*P.R. Kumaraswamy
is Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Source:
This article was published by IDSA.

Chinese Extradition Request Puts Crackdown On Uyghurs In Spotlight – Analysis

0
0

A Chinese demand for the extradition of 11 Uyghurs from Malaysia puts the spotlight on China’s roll-out of one of the world’s most intrusive surveillance systems, military moves to prevent Uyghur foreign fighters from returning to Xinjiang, and initial steps to export its security approach to countries like Pakistan.

The 11 were among 25 Uyghurs who escaped from a Thai detention centre in November through a hole in the wall, using blankets to climb to the ground.

The extradition request follows similar deportations of Uyghurs from Thailand and Egypt often with no due process and no immediate evidence that they were militants.

Location of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in China. Source: Wikipedia Commons.
Location of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in China. Source: Wikipedia Commons.
The escapees were among more than 200 Uighurs detained in Thailand in 2014. The Uyghurs claimed they were Turkish nationals and demanded that they be returned to Turkey. Thailand, despite international condemnation, forcibly extradited to China some 100 of the group in July 2015.

Tens of Uyghurs, who were unable to flee to Turkey in time, were detained in Egypt in July and are believed to have also been returned to China. Many of the Uyghurs were students at Al Azhar, one of the foremost institutions of Islamic learning.

China, increasingly concerned that Uyghurs fighters in Syria and Iraq will seek to return to Xinjiang or establish bases across the border in Afghanistan and Tajikistan in the wake of the territorial demise of the Islamic State, has brutally cracked down on the ethnic minority in its strategic north-western province, extended its long arm to the Uyghur Diaspora, and is mulling the establishment of its first land rather than naval foreign military base.

The crackdown appears, at least for now, to put a lid on intermittent attacks in Xinjiang itself. Chinese nationals have instead been targeted in Pakistan, the $50 billion plus crown jewel in China’s Belt and Road initiative that seeks to link Eurasia to the People’s Republic through infrastructure.

The attacks are believed to have been carried out by either Baloch nationalists or militants of the East Turkestan Independence Movement (ETIM), a Uighur separatist group that has aligned itself with the Islamic State.

Various other groups, including the Pakistani Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Islamic State have threatened to attack Chinese nationals in response to the alleged repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

ETIM militants were believed to have been responsible for the bombing in August 2015 of Bangkok’s Erawan shrine that killed 20 people as retaliation for the forced repatriation of Uighurs a month earlier.

The Chinese embassy in Islamabad warned in December of possible attacks targeting “Chinese-invested organizations and Chinese citizens” in Pakistan

China’s ambassador, Yao Jing, advised the Pakistani interior ministry two months earlier that Abdul Wali, an alleged ETIM assassin, had entered the country and was likely to attack Chinese targets

China has refused to recognize ethnic aspirations of Uyghurs, a Turkic group, and approached it as a problem of Islamic militancy. Thousands of Uyghurs are believed to have joined militants in Syria, while hundreds or thousands more have sought to make their way through Southeast Asia to Turkey.

To counter ethnic and religious aspirations, China has introduced what must be the world’s most intrusive surveillance system using algorithms. Streets in Xinjiang’s cities and villages are pockmarked by cameras; police stations every 500 metres dot roads in major cities; public buildings resemble fortresses; and authorities use facial recognition and body scanners at highway checkpoints.

The government, in what has the makings of a re-education program, has opened boarding schools “for local children to spend their entire week in a Chinese-speaking environment, and then only going home to parents on the weekends,” according to China scholar David Brophy. Adult Uyghurs, who have stuck to their Turkic language, have been ordered to study Chinese at night schools.

Nightly television programs feature oath-swearing ceremonies,” in which participants pledge to root out “two-faced people,” the term used for Uyghur Communist Party members who are believed to be not fully devoted to Chinese policy.

The measures in Xinjiang go beyond an Orwellian citizen scoring system that is being introduced that scores a person’s political trustworthiness. The system would determine what benefits a citizen is entitled to, including access to credit, high speed internet service and fast-tracked visas for travel based on data garnered from social media and online shopping data as well as scanning of irises and content on mobile phones at random police checks.

Elements of the system are poised for export. A long-term Chinese plan for China’s investment in Pakistan, dubbed the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), envisioned creating a system of monitoring and surveillance in Pakistani cities to ensure law and order.

The system envisions deployment of explosive detectors and scanners to “cover major roads, case-prone areas and crowded places…in urban areas to conduct real-time monitoring and 24-hour video recording.”

A national fibre optic backbone would be built for internet traffic as well as the terrestrial distribution of broadcast media. Pakistani media would cooperate with their Chinese counterparts in the “dissemination of Chinese culture.”

The plan described the backbone as a “cultural transmission carrier” that would serve to “further enhance mutual understanding between the two peoples and the traditional friendship between the two countries.”

The measures were designed to address the risks to CPEC that the plan identified as “Pakistani politics, such as competing parties, religion, tribes, terrorists, and Western intervention” as well as security. “The security situation is the worst in recent years,” the plan said.

At the same time, China, despite official denials, is building, according to Afghan security officials, a military base for the Afghan military that would give the People’s Republic a presence in Badakhshan, the remote panhandle of Afghanistan that borders China and Tajikistan.

Chinese military personnel have reportedly been in the mountainous Wakhan Corridor, a narrow strip of territory in north-eastern Afghanistan that extends to China and separates Tajikistan from Pakistan since March last year.

The importance China attributes to protecting itself against Uyghur militancy and extending its protective shield beyond its borders was reflected in the recent appointment as its ambassador to Afghanistan, Liu Jinsong, who was raised in Xinjiang and served as a director of the Belt and Road initiative’s $15 billion Silk Road Fund.

Controversy Hits Two Catholic Schools – OpEd

0
0

A student at a Catholic school in Greenwich, Connecticut showed her support for Planned Parenthood by posting one of its stickers on her laptop. She was told to remove it.

A teacher at a Catholic school in Miami was fired following news that she “married” her girlfriend.

In both cases, the media went wild, creating controversy where there wasn’t any. In the case of the former story, even the outgoing president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, chimed in, offering kudos to the girl.

The Catholic Church’s teachings on abortion maintain that life begins at conception. Therefore, elective abortion is immoral. Planned Parenthood is the leader of the pro-abortion industry in the United States. To support it is to support abortion.

The Catholic Church’s teachings on marriage do not recognize a union between two people of the same sex as a marriage. Teachers who choose to work at a Catholic school typically sign a contract, as the lesbian teacher at the Miami school did, saying they will uphold Church teachings.

What is troubling about these cases—there are many of them across the nation—is the contempt that some in the media, and some activists, have for respecting the First Amendment rights of Catholic institutions to practice their teachings.

If the Greenwich school sanctioned a student for posting a racist sticker on her laptop, there would be no news. If the Miami teacher was fired for living with two spouses, there would be no news. But because the major media are rabid supporters of abortion and homosexual marriage, both of these “news” items got big play.

The FBI And The President: Mutual Manipulation – OpEd

0
0

Few government organizations have been engaged in violation of the US citizens’ constitutional rights for as long a time and against as many individuals as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  Seldom has there been greater collusion in the perpetration of crimes against civil liberties, electoral freedom and free and lawful expression as what has taken place between the FBI and the US Justice Department.

In the past, the FBI and Justice Department secured the enthusiastic support and public acclaim from the conservative members of the US Congress, members of the judiciary at all levels and the mass media.  The leading liberal voices, public figures, educators, intellectuals and progressive dissenters opposing the FBI and their witch-hunting tactics were all from the left.  Today, the right and the left have changed places:  The most powerful voices endorsing the FBI and the Justice Department’s fabrications, and abuse of constitutional rights are on the left, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and famous liberal media corporations and public opinion makers.

The recently published Congressional memo, authored by Congressman Devin Nunes, provides ample proof that the FBI spied on Trump campaign workers with the intent to undermine the Republican candidate and sabotage his bid for the presidency.  Private sector investigators, hired by Trump’s rival Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, worked with pro-Clinton operatives within the FBI and Justice Department to violate the national electoral process while flouting rules governing wiretaps on US citizens.  This was done with the approval of the sitting Democratic President Barack Obama.

The liberals and Democrats and their allies in the FBI, political police and other elements of the security state apparatus were deeply involved in an attempt to implicate Russian government officials in a plot to manipulate US public opinion on Trump’s behalf and corrupt the outcome of the election.  However, the FBI, the Justice Department and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller have produced no evidence of collusion linking the Russian government to a campaign to undermine Hillary Clinton’s candidacy in favor of Trump.  This is despite thousands of interviews and threats of long prison sentences against former Trump campaign advisers.  Instead, they focus their attack on Trump’s early campaign promise to find common ground in improving economic and diplomatic ties between the US and Russia, especially in confronting jihadi terrorists.

The liberal-progressive FBI cohort turned into rabid Russia-bashers demanding that Trump take a highly aggressive stance against Moscow, while systematically eliminating his military and security advisors who expressed anti-confrontation sentiments.  In the spirit of a Joe McCarthy, the liberal-left launched hysterical attacks on any and every Trump campaign adviser who had spoken to, dined with or exchanged eyebrows with any and all Russians!

The conversion of liberalism to the pursuit of political purges is unprecedented.  Their collective amnesia about the long-term, large-scale involvement by the FBI in the worst criminal violations of democratic values is reprehensible.  The FBI’s anti-communist crusade led to the purge of thousands of trade unionists from the mid-1940’s onward, decimating the AFL-CIO.  They blacklisted actors, screen writers, artists, teachers, university academics, researchers, scientists, journalists and civil rights leaders as part of their sweeping purge of civil society.

The FBI investigated the private lives of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, even threatening their family members.  They illegally spied on and infiltrated civil liberties organizations, and used provocateurs and spies in anti-war groups.  Individuals lives were destroyed, some were driven to suicide; important popular American organizations were undermined to the detriment of millions.  This has been its focus since its beginning and continues with the current fabrication of anti-Russian propaganda and investigations.

President Trump: Victim and Executor

President Trump has pursued an agenda mirroring the police state operations of the FBI – only on a global scale.  Trump’s violation of international law includes collaboration and support for Saudi Arabia’s tyrannical invasion and destruction of the sovereign nation of Yemen; intensified aid and support for Israel’s ethnic war against the Palestinian people; severe sanctions and threatened nuclear first-strike against North Korea (DPRK); increased deployment of US special forces in collaboration with the jihadi terrorist war to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria; coup-mongering, sabotage, sanctions and economic blockade of Venezuela;  NATO missile and nuclear encirclement of Russia; and the growing naval threats against China.

Domestically, Trump’s response to the FBI’s blackmail has been to replace the original political leadership with his own version; to expand and increase the police state powers against immigrants; to increase the powers of the major tech companies to police and intensify work-place exploitation and the invasion of citizens’ privacy; to expand the unleash the power of state agents to torture suspects and to saturate all public events, celebrations and activities with open displays of jingoism and militarism with the goal of creating pro-war public opinion.

In a word: From the right to the left there are no political options to choose from among the two ruling political parties.  Popular political movements and mass demonstrations have risen up against Trump with clear justification, but have since dissolved and been absorbed. They came together from diverse sectors: Women against sexual abuse and workplace humiliation; African-Americans against police impunity and violence; and immigrants against mass expulsion and harassment.  They staged mass demonstrations and then declined as their ‘anti-Trump’ animus was frustrated by the liberal-democrats hell-bent on pursuing the Russian connection.

In the face of the national-political debacle local and regional movements became the vehicle to support the struggles. Women organized at some workplaces and gained better protection of their rights; African-Americans vividly documented and published video evidence of the systematic brutal violation of their rights by the police state and effectively acted to restrain local police violence in a few localities; immigrant workers and especially their children gained broad public sympathy and allies within religious and political organizations; and anti-Trump movements combined with critics of the liberal/democrat apparatus to build broader movements and especially oppose growing war-fever.

Abroad, bi-partisan wars have failed to defeat independent state and mass popular resistance struggles for national sovereignty everywhere – from North Korea, Iran, Yemen, Syria, and Venezuela and beyond.

Even the fight within the two-headed reactionary party of the US oligarchy has had a positive effect.  Each side is hell-bent on exposing the state-sponsored crimes of the other.  In an unprecedented and historic sense, the US and world public is witness to the spies, lies and crimes of the leadership and elite on prime time and on the wide screen.  We head in two directions.  In one direction, there are the threats of nuclear war, economic collapse, environmental disasters and a full blown police state.  In the other direction, there is the demise of empire, a revived and renewed civil society rooted in a participatory economy and a renewed moral order.


Lauri Love, Hacking And Extradition – OpEd

0
0

“Horse-trading determines who goes to jail and for how long.  That is what plea bargaining is.  It is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system.” — US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy (2012)

The February 5 decision of the British court refusing to permit the extradition of hactivist Lauri Love was more than an opinion. It was a reproach.  While a quiet confidence had been expressed that the decision would go his way, not permitting his extradition might also dint various trans-national security efforts.  Prosecutors were taking note.

Love had been accused of hacking into the systems of various US institutions: the FBI, NASA and the US Central Bank.  Such accusations were so grave as to endanger Love with a potential prison sentence of 99 years – provided the US authorities could convince the courts that extradition from the UK was warranted.

They were initially successful, convincing District Court Judge Tempia sitting at Westminster Magistrates’ Court that any harm Love might suffer was conjectural.  Despite being diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome, antibiotic resistant eczema and major depression, not to mention finding that Love was a high suicide risk, the 2016 ruling favoured extradition.  Love’s appeal was heard on November 29-30 by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon and Mr Justice Ouseley.

US prosecutors do not take kindly to hactivists.  Aaron Schwartz, known for developing the RSS software undergirding the syndication of information on the Internet, remains one of the most notable, and tragic, casualties in this instance. What he faced was a weapon commonly used in such instances, the brutally all capturing Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.  His alleged crime was to have enabled free access to an academic website, JSTOR through the MIT computer network.  This anti-capitalist sin meant a possible fine of up to $1 million with a princely jail term of 35 years. Schwartz preferred suicide.

Supporters of Love preferred to focus on keeping the trial local, citing the case of Gary McKinnon, who was also pursued for computer hacking offences.  Attempts to seek McKinnon’s extradition failed due to the refusal by the then Home Secretary and current UK Prime Minister Theresa May, to do so.

“After careful consideration of all the relevant material,” May explained in October 2012, “I have concluded that Mr McKinnon’s extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite him would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon’s human rights.”  In light of that case, vulnerable defendants can make the claim for a forum bar, thereby preventing the extradition from going through in cases where it “would not be in the interests of justice”.

With all that said, adding the “forum bar” to the UK Extradition Act 2003 in 2013 did not alter the reluctance on the part of judges to prevent extradition requests on grounds of forum.  Prosecutorial wisdom, it seemed, was to be respected. They, the assumption went, would have a deeper sense of the facts.

Central to the entire process was the possibility that Love would, in reaching the United States, even have access to a fair trial.  Would he, for instance, be fit to plead?  The pre-trial detention facilities at the Metropolitan Correctional Centre, located in Manhattan, or the Metropolitan Detention Centre at Brooklyn were cited as inadequate in supplying mental health care.  This was even more significant given that Love has been found to be a suicide risk.

A crucial factor in the Love case was the absence of the prosecutor’s belief as to whether the United Kingdom was not the most appropriate forum to try the defendant.  Previous decisions had essentially deemed this a neutral matter.  As the High Court explained in Shaw v Government of the United States of America [2014] EWHC 4654 (Admin), “The judge has to ask whether there is a belief; but if there is not, then he cannot have any further ‘regard’ to this factor.”

The judges in Love’s case effectively repudiated this approach, claiming that the absence of prosecutorial belief on the subject of the appropriate forum was a more than telling factor in considering extradition.  Such “silence is a factor which tells in favour of the forum bar”.

The utterance sent legal analysts into a spin of speculation.  The absence of a prosecutor’s belief regarding the appropriateness of forum had certainly been a common practice.  The decision in Love, claimed Ben Lloyd, suggested that prosecutors had to show greater diligence in making their claim for extradition, certifying, for instance, that the UK was not appropriate. The lack of involvement of a domestic prosecutor, for instance, “could be taken as a factor in favour of the operation of the forum bar” (§34).

The judges did not stop there.  The lower court had, in their view, erred in not accepting the seriousness of the material supplied by Professor Kopelman, Emeritus Professor of Neuropsychiatry.  According to that medical assessment, Love’s custody in the United States would be crippling.  “His ability to cope with the proceedings in the trial, to make rational decisions, and to give evidence in a satisfactory manner would be severely compromised.”

In the words of the judges,  “it is clear from the rest of his evidence that severely worsening depression, with the possible onset of psychotic imagery was exactly what Professor Kopelman anticipated” (§31). Such factors were more than mere conjectures.

Love also had a demonstrable connection to family and home.  “His entire wellbeing is bound with the presence of his parents.  This may now have been enhanced by the support of his girlfriend.  The significance of breaking those connections… demonstrates their strength” (§43).

Having been foiled in both the McKinnon case and that of Love, US prosecutors will have to identify different routes when nabbing their quarry.  Hacktivists weighed down by the baggage of mental health will prove a particularly difficult proposition.  The greatest challenge remains: convincing British judges of the suitability of a judicial forum beset by decline and ruin.

Brexit Has Reached The Point Of No Return – Analysis

0
0

By Alasdair Macleod*

The actual negotiations could easily run right up to the deadline in March 2019, when Britain is due to leave. If no agreement is forthcoming by that date, both sides might agree to extend negotiations, but that only seems likely if there is a good prospect of an agreement. Otherwise, Britain leaves and falls back on WTO trading rules, or does away with tariffs altogether. This is seen by the EU negotiators as a threat to Britain, believing it is Britain which is running out of time. Therefore, if Britain wants a trade deal, she must make it clear that a no-deal option is attractive to her. And, be it clearly understood, the negotiations only cover a minor part of the UK’s overall economy.

It’s Much Ado About Not Much Trade

WTO tariffs apply to physical goods, involving only £143bn exported from the UK’s £2,000 billion economy to the EU, and imports from the EU of a larger £235.5bn. Excluding agricultural products of some £5bn (net of spirits), average trade-weighted tariffs on goods imported into the EU from non-member states without a trade agreement is only 2.3%.[i] Therefore, the EU’s external tariffs which will be applied to UK non-agricultural goods exports to the EU involves only 7.5% of the UK’s GDP, and is a tax on EU citizens amounting to roughly £2bn. Is this really worth arguing over, and paying massive divorce fees?

The larger issue is services, and here we must differentiate between services sold to consumers, such as retail investments, and wholesale services, such as capital market operations, commercial lending, legal services, architectural services, etc. The retail services involved are not material, and in any event are easily distributed through locally-incorporated subsidiaries in Dublin and Luxembourg. Wholesale services are generally excluded from trade agreements for practical reasons.

Therefore, if a trade agreement is not forthcoming, the cost to British business as a whole is not as material as the Remainers and lobbying businesses have it, and certainly less than the implied cost of normal currency volatility on cross-border settlements. One should conclude that the absence of a trade agreement costs considerably less than the UK Government paying money to the EU for an implementation period.

The Current State of the Brexit Debate

It is becoming clear that the Remainers are driven by little more than a desire to prevent change while distrusting free markets. Nick Clegg, who was Deputy Prime Minister in the Conservative/Liberal-Democrats coalition, has recently published a book entitled How to stop Brexit (And make Britain great again)[ii]. There are no substantive arguments in favour of Remain, not even a neo-Keynesian discourse. Make Britain great again? The book is miss-sold. There is nothing on the subject of the book’s subtitle at all.

Mr Clegg’s unquestioning assumption, which he appears to share with other leading Remainers, is Brexit is just plain wrong. He makes much of the Brexit campaign’s supposed lies about the extent of the rebate when Britain leaves the EU. There was no lie: it merely failed to differentiate between the funds Britain would save, and the money that is spent by the EU in the UK funded by the UK taxpayer. The latter amount is decided by the EU, not the UK, so all the Brexiteers were quoting was a gross figure sent to Brussels, which on Brexit would become available to the Government to save or spend as it sees fit.

Furthermore, there was no mention of “project fear”, the Remain campaign’s concerted effort to frighten voters into voting Remain. But, as we saw only this week, the pro-Remainers in the establishment are at it again. They prepared and leaked another negative report based on the same economic modelling. A reasonable person would have been so embarrassed by the failure of the first attempt at economic propaganda, as to not repeat it. But we are dealing with ingrained beliefs, not reason.

On the evidence, Remainers cannot argue their case effectively. Furthermore, the cost of backtracking on Brexit, which receives too little attention, is now considerable, and almost certainly unpalatable to the electorate. Unless Britain does achieve a proper Brexit, she becomes, taking the words of Jacob Rees-Mogg,[iii] a vassal state, having lost considerable political credibility and the ability to influence EU policy as she has done before.

Realistically, bridges have been burnt, even though the panjandrums in Brussels want Britain to change her mind. The Thatcher rebate would certainly be lost, and Brussels is preparing more onerous regulations in the knowledge Britain can no longer obstruct the EU executive’s plans. The Tobin tax on financial transactions can now be introduced, which would kill the City, if Britain remained, more certainly than any threat from Paris and Frankfurt as rival financial centres. A Tobin tax introduced in Euroland after Britain leaves would see Eurozone wholesale financial business migrate to London.

If Britain backtracks or compromises on sovereignty, it will be disastrous for her, and little account has been taken of the new opportunities for the City, operating from outside the EU.

Enter the European Research Group

The ERG, unlike its name might suggest, is the grouping of pro-Brexit backbench Conservative MPs determined to ensure Britain truly leaves the EU. The recent appointment of Jacob Rees-Mogg, as its new high-profile chairman, promises a new dynamism in the battle between the Brexiteers and the Remainers. The ERG has considerable power, being comprised of sixty MPs while Mrs May commands no overall majority.

Further pressure is being applied through the 1922 Committee, which officially represents all backbench Conservative MPs. Amongst them are Remainers and those without well-defined opinions, the latter becoming increasingly alarmed at the lack of a clear government policy. If forty-eight of them formally write to the 1922 Committee expressing no confidence in Mrs May, an election for a new leader (and therefore prime minister) is automatically triggered. It is rumoured that forty such letters have already been received. Between the ERG and the 1922 Committee, the Brexiteers’ ability to pressure the Government into sticking with a firm Brexit policy is increasing.

All this lends support to Mrs May’s original Lancaster House declaration, which is what the ERG is seeking to achieve. In the Commons, opposition to Brexit has been subdued enough to get the required legislation through the House, without major concessions. This is not the case, however, in the Lords, which by sending legislation back to the Commons for reconsideration threatens to delay the whole process at a time of tightening deadlines.

Mrs May’s greatest problems are likely to be in dealing with her own advisors, senior civil servants whose only world is one of bureaucracy, and the Treasury, populated with staunch neo-Keynesians. Bureaucrats resist change, particularly when it involves a whole new paradigm, which is always seen as risky. And the Treasury believes in manipulating the economy to enhance tax income, the antithesis of any free market proposition, with which it has little empathy.

These operators are unhappy at the prospect of past agreements being torn up to be replaced by, in their view, uncertainty. Thus, Oliver Robbins, whose job is to coordinate negotiations with the EU from Downing Street, and Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, are seen by the ERG to be pursuing a policy of fudging the changes required for a true Brexit. And Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is now being downright obstructive.

However, governments have a duty to represent the electorate, not the permanent establishment, which is there to serve ministers in pursuing government policy. Individual ministers are meant to toe the agreed policy line. Mrs May, in trying to accommodate the Remainers, appears to be in danger of siding with the permanent establishment and the Treasury, against her own stated policy, instead of firmly instructing it to do the Cabinet’s bidding. Doubtless, the ERG will ram this point home.

Keeping the Broader Picture in Sight

It is always difficult for a prime minister at the coal-face of day-to-day problems to retain a broader vision. The ultimate prize for Mrs May would be to go down in history as having laid the foundations for a prosperous Britain. To achieve this, she must have a proper understanding of free trade, as Robert Peel acquired when he sided with Richard Cobden and abolished the Corn Laws in the 1840s. Unfortunately, Mrs May has little option but to listen to risk-averse advisors and central planners who deny the primacy of free markets, not just for handling day-to-day issues, but also, it appears, to guide her for the broader picture. In short, she has to have an independence and resolve to act despite her advisors’ advice.

Some members of Mrs May’s Cabinet do understand free trade. They include heavyweights such as Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, David Davis and Liam Fox. Even though Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, has been persuaded against it by his permanent staff, the ERG does have powerful allies in the Cabinet.[iv]

The European Research Group understands, to a reasonable degree at least, the fallacies of central planning and the faults of the socialism of the European project, while understanding the benefits of free trade. Its leadership should be well placed for the task. This is where the position of Mr Rees-Mogg is important. He personally appears to understand the benefits of free markets, has a good grasp of the individual Brexit issues, and argues his case well. This is in sharp contrast with the Remain camp, and the middle ground of lobby-fodder on both sides of the House.

That middle ground is his to win, but time is severely limited. To do so he must not only argue his case well, but also get the following points across, loud and clear:

  • The best outcome for the British consumer is no tariffs, and their removal is the responsibility of the UK Government. The best outcome for the economy is not found in protecting business through trade tariffs, because that is to the detriment of the consumer.
  • Current EU trade tariffs disadvantage the poor most. This point will become increasingly relevant when price inflation gathers pace ahead of the final Brexit date (March 2019), as the global credit cycle progresses. An appreciation of this simple fact makes tariffs indefensible, and a clean break Brexit becomes more obviously the best solution.
  • No separation payments should be made to the EU, unless they are specifically itemised and contractually justified. The capital payments demanded by the EU in any political compromise are not only a needless expense, but an imposition on the Treasury’s finances which are already in deficit. Furthermore, the loss of revenue from the removal of all tariffs is a considerably smaller sum than the amounts demanded by the EU negotiators.
  • The Treasury must be persuaded that free trade leads to a stronger economy, which will be reflected in higher tax revenues. Moreover, a botched compromise, effectively being advocated by the Treasury, is a significant threat to the government’s finances.
  • There is no need for an implementation or transition period. These extensions do not encourage businesses to adapt to Brexit so much as they delay the necessary changes. Any such period should be firmly restricted to be as short as possible and involve no payment.

In any event, time is short, not only given the Brexit timetable, but ideally it must be concluded, or at least set in stone, before the disruption of the next crisis of the global credit cycle.

About the author:
*Alasdair Macleod
is the Head of Research at GoldMoney.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute.

No Love For Working Families This Valentine’s Day – OpEd

0
0

By Josh Hoxie*

Love is in the air. Or so the marketers want us to believe, as Valentine’s Day ads sweep the nation into a frenzy of buying flowers, greeting cards, and confections to communicate our affection.

Washington is less forthcoming with the adoration, especially for working people.

You’re probably tired of hearing about the tax plan passed by Congress late last year. If not, just wait for the media barrage coming your way from the Republican donor class, which is guaranteed to make the Super Bowl Tide ads look like child’s play.

In case you missed it, Republicans jammed through a comprehensive reform of the tax code in December without a single congressional hearing or Democratic vote. The plan was a massive gift to the ultra-wealthy — a money grab by any measure, with just a few peanuts tossed to the rest of us.

Next, Republican lawmakers and their backers announced plans to spend tens of millions of dollars promoting said peanuts, to distract from the huge windfalls going to millionaires and billionaires.

They’ve got their work cut out for them in promoting the most unpopular legislation in recent history.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan took to Twitter to celebrate the reported tax savings of a secretary in Pennsylvania resulting from the Trump tax cuts. Her take of the $1.5 trillion cut? A whopping $1.50 per week added to her paycheck, Ryan boasted.

It’s safe to say this PR effort is off to poor start.

Ryan didn’t explain why he quickly deleted his tweet shortly after posting it. I suspect it had something to do with the Twitter users who pointed out that the billionaire Koch brothers stand to gain as much as $1.4 billion annually, according to Americans for Tax Fairness.

That’s $1.50 a week for the secretary in Pennsylvania, versus about $27 million per week for the Koch brothers.

The Koch brothers jab might’ve hit a bit close to home for Ryan — who, just days after the Trump tax cuts became law, accepted $500,000 from Charles Koch for his fundraising committee. If it looks like corruption, smells like corruption, and tastes like corruption… Well, you get the idea.

The author and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel taught us, “The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.” What we’ve witnessed from Ryan and his billionaire backers, as well as Trump, is complete and utter indifference to the needs of working families.

The $1.50 tweet is indicative of just how out of touch Washington has become with ordinary families. The only group that matters is the wealthy. They get the love, the adoration, and the huge handouts.

Meanwhile, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will expire without re-authorization this year. SNAP, sometimes called food stamps, serves one in seven low-income Americans, over 20 million households.

This is just one of many vitally important programs on the chopping block of Trump’s proposed budget. Given the rhetoric coming from the Republican majority in Congress, prospects look dim.

Maybe this Valentine’s Day, Cupid’s arrow will strike our greedy Koch brothers as they sit in their private jets looking down on the working families for whom they hold such deep disdain. Maybe they’ll find a little love and compassion for the less-well off and stop doing everything they can to make themselves richer and everyone else poorer.

Maybe.

*Josh Hoxie directs the Project on Taxation and Opportunity at the Institute for Policy Studies. Distributed by OtherWords.org.

Why The Oil Market Is Looking Robust – OpEd

0
0

By Wael Mahdi*

The recent sell-off in oil futures, following the rout in equities, was worrying to some and good news for others who saw oil prices overshooting upward, paving the way for an inevitable correction.

Oil prices in New York on one single day (Friday, Feb. 9) lost most of the gains they had made so far this year, the main reason being very bearish data for US oil production compound- ed by an immense increase in the number of drilling rigs searching for crude in shale oil basins in Texas.

As futures contracts of crude oil on the London and New York stock exchanges traded in red almost the entire day on Friday, I recalled Saudi Arabia’s energy minister, Khalid Al-Falih, telling CNBC in Davos last month that he was not convinced that the oil market had returned to balance, despite rising prices. “While I’m still anxious about the fragility of the mar- ket … by and large we think we’re on our way, but we’re not there yet,” he said.

Is the oil market really still fragile or has it improved after more than a year since the OPEC and its allies came together to save the market?

The answer to this question depends on which half of the cup one is looking at. I’m looking at the full half, and I see a robust market guided by strong fundamentals despite all the worries that speculators and traders in paper contracts of oil might have.

There are four factors making the oil market robust at the moment, or until June when OPEC meets next. First, commercial oil inventories are down considerably in the member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The OECD stocks, the main gauge for measuring global inventories, stood at around 340 million barrels of oil above the seasonal norm or the five-year average in January 2017. By the end of the year, OPEC reported that they had fallen to 98 million barrels, while the International Energy Agency saw it at around 70 million barrels. However, according to Goldman Sachs’ calculations, the glut in OECD inventories is now cleared.

 

In January 2018, the OECD stocks seem to be in better shape, especially in the United States, which accounts for 75 percent of OECD inventories. They even reversed their normal trend of building up during January and witnessed a drawdown, although many analysts differ on the extent of the drawdown. One estimate made by Cornerstone Analytics, an energy research firm in the US established by veteran Michael Rothman, puts the US stocks drawdown last month at 24 million barrels. This is counter to their normal average buildup of 11 million barrels at this time of the year. It is also counter to last year’s buildup of 25 million barrels.

With these numbers, Cornerstone expects the glut in OECD stocks to be cleared by April. The second factor that makes the oil market robust is that demand is still very encouraging this year, or at least for the first half of the year. Oil demand is expected to grow by at least 1.5 million barrels a day this year. To add more optimism in the market, China imported record crude in January.

Third, supply response from US shale to higher oil prices this year is not expected yet to have a negative impact. Two reasons behind this belief: Firstly, with more self-restraint from OPEC and its allies on cuts, US crude oil is finding more markets worldwide and it will meet all the incremental demand. Secondly, many think that shale oil producers will not invest greatly to bring new supplies this year. Ian Taylor, the chief executive of the world’s largest oil trading company, is among those who think shale producers will apply capital discipline this year.

Another factor is that many members of OPEC are unable to add more production this year owing to political security, or lack of adequate investments to bring new capacities. Venezuela is at the forefront of this. The country’s production has dwindled this year and that will create shortage of heavy and sour crude oil grades for US refiners who prefer this type of crude.

That means new Canadian and Brazilian supply can find a home in the US Gulf of Mexico and that will add balance to the market. Nigeria and Libya are also struggling to keep their production stable around current levels. For all of the above reasons it’s fair to say that the market is head- ing toward balance in the first half of this year. In fact, analysts such as Goldman Sachs are arguing that the market might be tighter than expected this year if fundamentals remain as strong as they are.

What will happen in the second half of the year is still not clear. Risks are always there, from slow demand owing to an increase in oil prices, to uncontrollable increases in shale oil production. But these worries are more for the second half, and OPEC and its allies have another meeting in June when they can decide what to do next to stabilize the market in case they need to. And OPEC shouldn’t worry about oil prices as long as fundamentals are strong, as they will dictate the right price.

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

Star Architecture And Its Impact On The City

0
0

The Guggenheim Museum by star architect Frank Gehry led to an economic boom in the Spanish city of Bilbao. This “Bilbao Effect” is appealing to many urban planners and politicians who look to better position their cities in economic and social terms by building exceptional architectural projects. Researchers at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) have studied three projects to investigate whether or not the desired effects materialize.

Can star architecture have a positive impact on the future of a city? The Guggenheim Museum made it possible for the city of Bilbao to re-invent itself. The Spanish industrial city was experiencing economic decline. After the opening of the museum the city was able to reposition itself economically, transforming itself into a cultural metropolis.

Many cities are hoping to reap similar benefits by means of star architecture. “The impact of these architectural projects on small and medium-sized cities in particular remains underinvestigated,” explains Prof. Alain Thierstein of the TUM Chair for Urban Development. A team comprising members from the Chair, HafenCity University Hamburg and the Technische Universität Berlin has thus examined three case-studies: the Kunsthaus Graz, the culture and convention center Luzern (KKL) and the phaeno science center in Wolfsburg. Since these structures have already been in existence for over 15 years, observation of long-term effects is also possible.

Positive effects, but no repositioning

The scientists analyzed the interaction of economic factors, the design of the buildings and its socio-cultural effects. They determined that although the projects have positive economic effects, for example expansion of tourism and cultural programs, these effects do not result in a clearly evident repositioning.

A causal relationship between the economic effects of the projects and the socio-economic changes, for example in the labor market or in terms of tourism, could not be identified. Furthermore, not all economic effects are immediately visible, said Dr. Nadia Alaily-Mattar, project manager and research associate at the TUM Chair for Urban Development. “In Wolfsburg, the realization of phaeno led to an increase in the self-confidence of the politicians and local administrative authorities.” This social effect may also have positive economic effects on the city in the long term.

Architecture should not be overlooked

In all three cases the researchers observed a shift in the spatial relationships of the city. In Graz the Kunsthaus forms a bridge linking urban districts which were previously perceived as separate and evaluated differently in social terms. In Lucerne the KKL has strengthened the convergence of countryside and city. The phaeno had a similar impact on Wolfsburg: The area across from the city’s main train station was of significant importance for the city, but was underutilized. The phaeno integrated this area into the rest of the city.

These structural changes are the most sustainable effects of the projects, Alaily-Mattar points out, adding that economic and socio-cultural effects can often be temporary and ephemeral.

“Morphological effects are usually more stable and less dependent on the ‘Star Factor’. The desire on the part of urban planners and politicians to achieve certain impacts by means of star architecture must not overlook the contribution made by the architecture itself. In addition to economic and socio-cultural effects, the influence of star architecture on the city is spatial as well.”

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images