With just weeks to go, Malaysia’s next general election seems to be approaching like an oncoming train. What lies ahead?

By Yang Razali Kassim*

As the 14th Malaysian general election gets nearer, statements by political actors have pointed to the possibility of outcomes beyond the norm. It’s not going to be so straight-forward, thus throwing up some unusual scenarios. The first of these raises doubt whether the polls would even take place at all; emergency rule could be imposed instead by Prime Minister Najib Razak to avoid a general election. The second scenario predicts that should the elections take place, the outcome would be inconclusive, leading to a hung parliament.

The emergency-rule scenario was raised by former premier and now Opposition co-leader Mahathir Mohamad when he talked about Prime Minister Najib possibly using communal tensions to suspend parliament. In other words, he would do what was done in 1969 by his father, the country’s second prime minister Tun Abdul Razak, in the aftermath of the racial riots following a strong showing by the opposition. The prospect of a hung parliament was raised by a veteran UMNO leader Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, a respected fixture in Malaysian politics. Interestingly, the prince had given it an uncanny twist: a hung parliament, if it arose, could pave the way for a unity government, headed by a figure acceptable to both sides.

Emergency Rule?

At a forum of young activists in Kuala Lumpur on 4 Feb 2018 Mahathir was asked what the new opposition coalition, Pakatan Harapan (PH), would do should Najib use racial and religious tensions to justify suspending parliament. Mahathir said Najib would not dare cling on to power via emergency rule should PH win more popular votes in the coming elections, given the uptrend in popularity of the opposition since the 2008 polls.

Nor would Najib be able to declare a state of emergency without the consent of the king, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. In addition, he must also get the support of the chiefs of police and the armed forces, as in the Philippines in the 1980s when the people rose up against President Marcos.But some say the new National Security Council (NSC) Act 2016 may well allow Najib a bypass route.

Should emergency rule be imposed by Najib, Mahathir said, the Malaysian people should similarly take to the streets: “If there was an emergency declaration by Najib, we can go out every day to demand for an end to the emergency rule and for a return of democracy.”

Hung Parliament?

A week earlier, on 27 January, Tengku Razaleigh the UMNO leader predicted that GE14 would end up with no clear winner. Neither the ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional (BN), nor the opposition BH would get enough support to form a government. “In my discussions and exchanges with friends and acquaintances, not a few alluded to the possibility of a hung parliament,” he told a public forum.

“This would mean that the voters are neither for returning the government of the day nor giving power to the coalition offering the alternative. This would mean that the voters want a non-divisive government, comprising all the political stakeholders, to be formed.

“This, if you will, is essentially a national unity government,” Razaleigh asserted. Such a government, he added, could only be led by a leader acceptable to both sides — an MP with a proven record.

Empty Speculation or Loaded Words?

It must be said that both scenarios are not empty words. They have come from seasoned political actors who had been in the ruling coalition for decades. They knew what they were talking about, even though some would dismiss their statements as speculative, at least at this point.

Mahathir in fact had been prime minister for 22 years, been an UMNO politician for longer and has had more than his fair share of political battles. Razaleigh himself is no minnow; indeed he had even challenged Mahathir for the leadership of UMNO and almost toppled him in party elections in the 1980s. Now both of them find themselves on the same side, expressing grave concern for the future of the country under Prime Minister Najib.

Like it or not, the spectre of emergency rule seems to be picking up steam. Some anxiety has emerged among those who have lived long enough to taste life under emergency rule. The leader of the Malaysian army veterans, a retired brigadier-general, has reportedly called on the army and policy to remain neutral in the wake of talk of possible trouble, either before or after the general election, which must be called by August this year.

“When the armed forces and the police adopt a partisan leaning and take instructions from politicians, then the nation is damned,” said the president of the National Patriots Association (Patriots), Mohamed Arshad Raji.

What Could Lie Ahead

The last time emergency rule was declared, then Prime Minister Razak shook up the political landscape and re-engineered the ruling race-based Alliance to form a broader coalition, the Barisan Nasional. As an attempt at forming a national unity government, even the opposition Islamist PAS and the Chinese-dominated Democratic Action Party (DAP) were invited. While PAS joined, only to quit not long after, the DAP refused.

In a way, Razaleigh was predicting a replay of the old scenario of almost 40 years ago. But then a national unity government was preceded by emergency rule. Should an emergency be repeated, the initiator this time, curiously, would be Tun Razak’s son. And Najib is not beyond emulating his father. Notice how he took pride in strengthening ties with China, citing his father’s ground-breaking trip to Beijing in 1974 to establish ties.

To be sure, these are alternative scenarios: alternative to the UMNO-led BN winning, or to PH winning. A BN win would make emergency rule academic, of course, from BN’s point of view. But the same cannot be said should the opposition put up a stiff showing. Still, should a “national unity government” be the compromise outcome, who would be the unifying leader, and which parties would comprise such a “national unity government”? Not so easy. As unpredictable as it already is, what comes out of this general election could prove even hazier.

*Yang Razali Kassim is Senior Fellow with the S.Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Speaking at his alma mater, the University of Texas, on February 1, Secretary of State Tillerson suggested a potential military coup in Venezuela.  Tillerson then visited allied Latin American countries urging regime change and more economic sanctions on Venezuela. Tillerson is considering banning the processing or sale of Venezuelan oil in the United States and is discouraging other countries from buying Venezuelan oil. Further, the US is laying the groundwork for war against Venezuela.

In a series of tweets, Senator Marco Rubio, the Republican from Florida, where many Venezuelan oligarchs live, called for a military coup in Venezueala.

The world would support the Armed Forces in #Venezuela if they decide to protect the people & restore democracy by removing a dictator

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 9, 2018

How absurd — remove an elected president with a military coup to restore democracy? Does that pass the straight face test? This refrain of Rubio and Tillerson seems to be the nonsensical public position of US policy.

The US has been seeking regime change in Venezuela since Hugo Chavez was elected in 1998. Trump joined Presidents Obama and Bush before him in continuing efforts to change the government and put in place a US-friendly oligarch government.

They came closest in 2002 when a military coup removed Chavez. The Commander-in-Chief of the Venezuelan military announced Chavez had resigned and Pedro Carmona, of the Venezuelan Chamber of Commerce, became interim president. Carmona dissolved the National Assembly and Supreme Court and declared the Constitution void. The people surrounded the presidential palace and seized television stations, Carmona resigned and fled to Colombia. Within 47 hours, civilians and the military restored Chavez to the presidency. The coup was a turning point that strengthened the Bolivarian Revolution, showed people could defeat a coup and exposed the US and oligarchs.

US Regime Change Tactics Have Failed In Venezuela

The US and oligarchs continue their efforts to reverse the Bolivarian Revolution. The US has a long history of regime change around the world and has tried all of its regime change tools in Venezuela. So far they have failed.

Economic War

Destroying the Venezuelan economy has been an ongoing campaign by the US and oligarchs. It is reminiscent of the US coup in Chile which ended the presidency of Salvador Allende. To create the environment for the Chilean coup, President Nixon ordered the CIA to “make the economy scream.”

Henry Kissinger devised the coup noting a billion dollars of investment were at stake. He also feared the “the insidious model effect” of the example of Chile leading to other countries breaking from the United States and capitalism. Kissinger’s top deputy at the National Security Council, Viron Vaky, opposed the coup saying, “What we propose is patently a violation of our own principles and policy tenets .… If these principles have any meaning, we normally depart from them only to meet the gravest threat . . . our survival.”

These objections hold true regarding recent US coups, including in Venezuela and Honduras, Ukraine and Brazil, among others. Allende died in the coup and wrote his last words to the people of Chile, especially the workers, “Long live the people! Long live the workers!” He was replaced by Augusto Pinochet, a brutal and violent dictator.

For decades the US has been fighting an economic war, “making the economy scream,” in Venezuela. Wealthy Venezuelans have been conducting economic sabotage aided by the US with sanctions and other tactics. This includes hoarding food, supplies and other necessities in warehouses or in Colombia while Venezuelan markets are bare. The scarcity is used to fuel protests, e.g. “The March of the Empty Pots,” a carbon copy of marches in Chile before the September 11, 1973 coup. Economic warfare has escalated through Obama and under Trump, with Tillerson now urging economic sanctions on oil.

President Maduro recognized the economic hardship but also said sanctions open up the opportunity for a new era of independence and “begins the stage of post-domination by the United States, with Venezuela again at the center of this struggle for dignity and liberation.” The second-in-command of the Socialist Party, Diosdado Cabello, said, “[if they] apply sanctions, we will apply elections.”

Opposition Protests

Another common US regime change tool is supporting opposition protests. The Trump administration renewed regime change operations in Venezuela and the anti-Maduro protests, which began under Obama, grew more violent. The opposition protests included barricades, snipers and murders as well as widespread injuries. When police arrested those using violence, the US claimed Venezuela opposed free speech and protests.

The opposition tried to use the crack down against violence to achieve the US tactic of  dividing the military. The US and western media ignored opposition violence and blamed the Venezuelan government instead. Violence became so extreme it looked like the opposition was pushing Venezuela into a Syrian-type civil war. Instead, opposition violence backfired on them.

Violent protests are part of US regime change repertoire. This was demonstrated in the US coup in Ukraine, where the US spent $5 billion to organize government opposition including US and EU funding violent protesters. This tactic was used in early US coups like the 1953 Iran coup of Prime Minister Mossadegh. The US has admitted organizing this coup that ended Iran’s brief experience with democracy. Like Venezuela, a key reason for the Iran coup was control of the nation’s oil.

Funding Opposition

There has been massive US investment in creating opposition to the Venezuelan government. Tens of millions of dollars have been openly spent through USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy and other related US regime change agencies. It is unknown how much the CIA has spent from its secret budget, but the CIA has also been involved in Venezuela. Current CIA director, Mike Pompeo, said he is “hopeful there can be a transition in Venezuela.”

The United States has also educated leaders of opposition movements, e.g. Leopoldo López was educated at private schools in the US, including the CIA-associated Kenyon College. He was groomed at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and made repeated visits to the regime change agency, the National Republican Institute.

Elections

While the US calls Venezuela a dictatorship, it is in fact a strong democracy with an excellent voting system. Election observers monitor every election.

In 2016, the economic crisis led to the opposition winning a majority in the National Assembly. One of their first acts was to pass an amnesty law. The law described 17 years of crimes including violent felonies and terrorism committed by the opposition. It was an admission of crimes back to the 2002 coup and through 2016. The law demonstrated violent treason against Venezuela. One month later, the Supreme Court of Venezuela ruled the amnesty law was unconstitutional. US media, regime change advocates and anti-Venezuela human rights groups attacked the Supreme Court decision, showing their alliance with the admitted criminals.

Years of violent protests and regime change attempts, and then admitting their crimes in an amnesty bill, have caused those opposed to the Bolivarian Revolution to lose power and become unpopular.  In three recent elections Maduro’s party won regional,  local and the Constituent Assembly elections.

The electoral commission announced the presidential election will be held on April 22. Maduro will run for re-election with the United Socialist Party. Opposition leaders such as Henry Ramos and Henri Falcon have expressed interest in running, but the opposition has not decided whether to participate. Henrique Capriles, who narrowly lost to Maduro in the last election, was banned from running for office because of irregularities in his campaign, including taking foreign donations. Capriles has been a leader of the violent protests. When his ban was announced he called for protests to remove Maduro from office. Also banned was Leopoldo Lopez, another leader of the violent protests who is under house arrest serving a thirteen year sentence for inciting violence.

Now, the United States says it will not recognize the presidential election and urges a military coup. For two years, the opposition demanded presidential elections, but now it is unclear whether they will participate. They know they are unpopular and Maduro is likely to be re-elected.

Is War Against Venezuela Coming?

A military coup faces challenges in Venezuela as the people, including the military, are well educated about US imperialism. Tillerson openly urging a military coup makes it more difficult.

The government and opposition recently negotiated a peace settlement entitled “Democratic Coexistence Agreement for Venezuela.” They agreed on all of the issues including ending economic sanctions, scheduling elections and more. They agreed on the date of the next presidential election. It was originally planned for March, but in a concession to the opposition, it was  rescheduled for the end of April. Maduro signed the agreement even though the opposition did not attend the signing ceremony. They backed out after Colombian President Santos, who was meeting with Secretary Tillerson, called and told them not to sign. Maduro will now make the agreement a public issue by allowing the people of Venezuela to sign it.

Not recognizing elections and urging a military coup are bad enough, but more disconcerting is that Admiral Kurt Tidd, head of Southcom, held a closed door meeting in Colombia after Tillerson’s visit. The topic was “regional destabilization” and Venezuela was a focus.

A military attack on Venezuela from its Colombian and Brazilian borders is not far fetched. In January, the NY Times asked, “Should the US military invade Venezuela?” President Trump said the US is considering US military forceagainst Venezuela. His chief of staff, John Kelly, was formerly the general in charge of Southcom. Tidd has claimed the crisis, created in large part by the economic war against Venezuela, requires military action for humanitarian reasons.

War preparations are already underway in Colombia, which plays the role of Israel for the US in Latin America. The coup government in Brazil, increased its military budget 36 percent, and participated in Operation: America United, the largest joint military exercise in Latin American history. It was one of four military exercises by the US with Brazil, Colombia and Peru in Latin America in 2017. The US Congress ordered the Pentagon to develop military contingencies for Venezuela in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act.

While there is opposition to US military bases, James Patrick Jordan explains, on our radio show, the US has military bases in Colombia and the Caribbean and military agreements with countries in the region; and therefore, Venezuela is already surrounded.

The United States is targeting Venezuela because the Bolivarian Revolution provides an example against US imperialism. An invasion of Venezuela will become another war-quagmire that kills innocent Venezuelans, US soldiers and others over control of oil. People in the United States who support the self-determination of countries should show solidarity with Venezuelans, expose the US agenda and publicly denounce regime change. We need to educate people about what is really happening in Venezuela to overcome the false media coverage.

Share this article and the interview we did on Clearing The FOG about Venezuela and the US’ role in Latin America.  The fate of Venezuela is critical for millions of Latin Americans struggling under the domination of US Empire.

A video has shown up on Senator Bernie Sanders’ Facebook page, with his name on it and his face in it making all the familiar (to a small number of people) points about U.S. military spending (how much it is, how it compares to the rest of the world, how it does not produce jobs, what wonders could be achieved with a small fraction of it, etc.).

I wish there were mention of the fact that it kills huge numbers of people, or that it risks apocalypse, or that it damages the earth’s environment. I wish the alternatives proposed were not all of the bring-our-war-dollars-home variety, as if the amount of money under consideration were not enough to radically transform this and every other country.

Still, had Sanders put out this video in 2015, tens of thousands of people wouldn’t have had to petition him in vain to oppose militarism, to fill the glaring gap in his website. I wouldn’t have had to write this or this or even this.

Sanders willingly subjected himself to endless accusations of raising taxes, rather than declare that he would push for a small cut in military spending. Jeremy Corbyn has had greater success — albeit in a different country — by taking the other approach. I continue to think Sanders is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

It’s not as if Sanders doesn’t know the issues. A half-century back he would have said something very close to what I want to hear. There’s no reason why he can’t do so now. But I’m afraid that this video may have slipped through because there’s not a presidential election this year, and that such things will be nowhere to be found in the years ahead.

I hope I’m wrong. I hope that Sanders actually declares himself in favor of a serious transfer of resources from militarism to human and environmental needs. As soon as he does, I’ll start advocating for all of us to work for his election. He can keep promoting the Russiagate nonsense that was primarily invented to distract from the story of the DNC cheating him. He can publicly commit to allowing the DNC to cheat him again. He can ask Saudi Arabia again to kill even more people. But if he comes out against the military budget, that’s the big one. He will deserve the support he could have had last time.

Cyril Ramaphosa has been sworn in as the fifth democratically elected President of South Africa.

In a packed Media Centre in the Presidency precinct at Tuynhuys, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng officiated the swearing in of the President following his election in the National Assembly earlier in the day.

The jovial President, looking dapper in a black suit with white shirt and red tie, took his oath of office during a live broadcast as proud family members looked on.

“In the presence of everyone assembled here, and in full realisation of the high calling I assume as President of the Republic of South Africa, I, Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa, swear that I will be faithful to the Republic of South Africa, and will obey, observe, uphold and maintain the Constitution and all other laws of the Republic…” the President promised.

He further promised to promote all that will advance the Republic, and oppose all that may harm it; protect and promote the rights of all South Africans; discharge his duties with all his strength and talents to the best of his knowledge and ability and be true to the dictates of his conscience.

The event was attended by various Members of Parliament, MPs from the opposition benches, Cabinet Ministers and Deputy Ministers.

This included Ministers in the Presidency Jeff Radebe, Finance Malusi Gigaba, Police Fikile Mbalula, Health Aaron Motsoaledi, International Relations Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, Higher Education and Training Hlengiwe Mkhize, Home Affairs Ayanda Dlodlo, among others, as well as DA leader Mmusi Maimane, ANC Chief Whip Jackson Mthembu, to mention but a few.

Guests erupted into song as he left the venue with the media contingent scrambling for space to ensure they captured the historic moment.

The President is expected to deliver his first State of the Nation Address in the National Assembly on Friday night.

South Africa’s ruling party ordered Jacob Zuma on February 13 to step down as head of state but gave him no firm deadline to go, setting the stage for a potential fight to wrest him from power.

Leading members of the African National Congress now want new party leader Cyril Ramaphosa to replace Zuma. Zuma had promised to respond to the order by Wednesday. That appeared to herald the end of the road for a leader whose near decade in power divided Nelson Mandela’s post-apartheid ‘Rainbow Nation’.

Since mid-November when Ramaphosa emerged as a real ANC leadership prospect, economic confidence has started to pick up. The rand – a telling barometer of Zuma’s fortunes – has gained more than 15 percent against the dollar over that period.

In explaining its decision to order Zuma to leave power, the ANC did not refer directly to the scandals surrounding his presidency. But it said his continued presence could “erode the renewed hope and confidence among South Africans” since the choice of new party leaders in December.

There was confusion over whether Zuma would address the public. Privately owned eNCA TV said Zuma would hold a media briefing at 10:00 a.m. local time (0800 GMT) on Wednesday, but an anchor on the state broadcaster SABC said the presidency had denied plans for such a briefing. Zuma’s spokesman could not be reached for comment.

ANC Secretary General Ace Magashule said he had met Zuma personally to pass on the order to resign “The organization expects him to go.” Zuma had asked the party to give him a notice period of three to six months but that had been rejected, Magashule said. The NEC believes that this is an urgent matter so it should be treated with urgency,” he said.

South Africa’s cabinet meeting set for Wednesday has been postponed indefinitely, the government’s communication service said. ANC chairman Gwede Mantashe told a meeting in the Eastern Cape province that the party had given Zuma an ultimatum to resign or face a motion of no-confidence, the Independent online news service reported. “Once you resist we are going to let you be thrown out through the vote of no confidence because you disrespect the organization and you disobey it, therefore we are going to let you be devoured by the vultures,” Mantashe said in a message to Zuma, according to the Independent.

Zuma is already facing a no-confidence motion in parliament set for Feb. 22 and brought by the opposition Economic Freedom Fighters. The ANC could throw its weight behind such a vote if it lost patience with Zuma. But that would be a painful option for the ruling party. “Instructing MPs to vote with the opposition and against their own leader would add to splits in the party and provide an embarrassing political coup to the opposition,” a leader Ashbourne said.

Zuma himself engineered the ouster of former President Thabo Mbeki in 2008 shortly after taking the helm of the ANC. Mbeki was also “recalled” by the party, ending a nine-year rule marked by economic growth but marred by accusations of abuse of power that he denied.

In power since 2009, President Jacob Zuma has been dogged by corruption allegations. Zuma’s presidency has been overshadowed by allegations of corruption which he has always vehemently denied. In 2016, South Africa’s highest court ruled that Zuma had violated the constitution when he failed to repay government money spent on his private home.

Last year the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that he must face 18 counts of corruption, fraud, racketeering and money laundering relating to a 1999 arms deal. More recently, Zuma’s links to the wealthy India-born Gupta family, who are alleged to have influenced the government, have caused his popularity to plummet. Both Zuma and the Guptas deny the allegations.

Zuma has been living on borrowed time since Ramaphosa, a union leader and lawyer once tipped as Mandela’s pick to take over the reins, was elected as head of the 106-year-old ANC in December.

Zuma has resisted increasing pressure to quit since December, when Cyril Ramaphosa replaced him as leader of the ANC. It is unclear how Zuma will respond to the formal request to step down, which is expected to be issued later on Tuesday. Earlier, Ramaphosa left the meeting of the ANC’s national executive committee to travel to Zuma’s residence, where he is said to have told the president he would be recalled if he did not step down. He later returned to the ANC conclave.

Zuma has survived other such votes but he is not expected to pull it off again. A confidence vote would be considered a humiliating process for him and the party. South African media are calling President Zuma’s seemingly inevitable exit “Zexit”. His predecessor, Thabo Mbeki, resigned in 2008, also after a power struggle with his deputy. The deputy in question was Jacob Zuma, who took over the presidency the following year. Zuma cannot legally return to power in any case.

It will be very difficult for him to resist a formal request to resign but he would not be legally obliged to do so and could technically carry on as president despite losing the faith of his party. However, he would then be expected to face a confidence vote in parliament. This has already been scheduled for 22 February.

Jacob Zuma is the most colorful and controversial president South Africa has had since white-minority rule ended in 1994. He has been a politician of nine lives, surviving a series of scandals which would have surely ended anyone else’s career. But Zuma, the man born into poverty who went into exile to fight apartheid before rising to become “the people’s president”, cannot survive forever.

Zuma’s bid for the presidency was written off before he had even really started. In the run-up to the 2009 election, he was simultaneously battling allegations of rape and corruption. He was acquitted of raping an HIV-positive family friend in 2006 – although the fact he told the court he had showered in order to avoid catching HIV would continue to haunt him throughout his presidency. His second – and final – term in office is coming to an end. He is no longer leader of the ruling African National Congress (ANC). And those charges of corruption – always vehemently denied – appear to be catching up with him. President Zuma, whose poor roots, charisma and strength in adversity partly explain his ability to hold on to power, is set to face his ninth vote of no confidence in parliament – if his own party doesn’t succeed in removing him first.

South African economy is tatters although cricket matches with India are in full swing to make extra money. The rand currency weakened, with traders blaming uncertainty caused by the lack of a clear timetable.

Since becoming president in 2009, Zuma has been dogged by scandal. He is fighting the reinstatement of corruption charges that were dismissed before he became president over a 30 billion-rand (now $2.5 billion) government arms deal arranged in the late 1990s. More recently, the country’s anti-corruption watchdog wrote in a 2016 report that the Gupta family, billionaire friends of Zuma, had used links with the president to win state contracts. The Guptas and Zuma have denied any wrongdoing.

South Africa’s economy has stagnated during Zuma’s nine-year tenure, with banks and mining companies reluctant to invest because of policy uncertainty and rampant corruption.

The party’s national executive was split on precisely when Zuma should step down. The ANC was badly rattled by its performance at the 2016 local elections when it won its lowest share of the vote since coming to power under the late Nelson Mandela in 1994. It wants to project a fresh image for next year’s general election. Having served two terms in office (South African presidents are elected by parliament), On Monday, opposition parties called for an early election to lead this country, must get their mandate from the people of South Africa

Though he has survived several no-confidence motions in the past, now his time is up. Zuma’s entire cabinet would have to step down if a parliamentary vote went through.

South African presidency is not for life time of Zuma who is no more wanted as president and he knows the signals.

By Tomas Liutkus*

n what looks set to become the ‘dieselgate’ of the tobacco industry, a French anti-smoking organization has filed a lawsuit against four major tobacco brands for knowingly selling cigarettes with tar and nicotine levels that were between 2 and 10 times higher than what was indicated on the packs. Because the firms had manipulated the testing process, smokers who thought they were smoking a pack a day were in fact lighting up the equivalent of up to 10, significantly raising their risk for lung cancer and other diseases.

According to the National Committee Against Smoking (CNCT), cigarettes sold by the four companies have small holes in the filter that ventilate smoke inhaled under test conditions. But when smoked by a person, the holes compress due to pressure from the lips and fingers, causing the smoker to inhale higher levels of tar and nicotine. According to the lawsuit, the irregularity “tricks smokers because they are unaware of the degree of risk they are taking.”

It was only the most recent example of what appears to be a deeply entrenched propensity for malfeasance in the tobacco industry. And unfortunately, regulatory authorities across Europe still appear unprepared to just say no to big tobacco.

Earlier this month, for instance, Public Health England published a report which shines a positive light on “tobacco heating products” and indicates that electronic cigarettes pose minimal health risks. Unsurprisingly, the UK report has been welcomed by big tobacco, with British American Tobacco praising the clear-sightedness of Public Health England.

Meanwhile, on an EU-wide level, lawmakers are cooperating too closely for comfort with tobacco industry executives in their efforts to craft new cigarette tracking rules for the bloc.

The new rules are part of a campaign to clamp down on tobacco smuggling, a problem that is particularly insidious in Europe and is often attributed to the tobacco industry’s own efforts to stiff the taxman. According to the WHO, the illicit cigarette market makes up between 6-10% of the total market, and Europe ranks first worldwide in terms of the number of seized cigarettes. According to studies, tobacco smuggling is also estimated to cost national and EU budgets more than €10 billion each year in lost public revenue and is a significant source of cash for organized crime. Not surprisingly, cheap availability of illegally traded cigarettes is also a major cause of persistently high smoking rates in the bloc.

To help curtail cigarette smuggling and set best practices in the fight against the tobacco epidemic, the WHO established the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in 2005. The first protocol to the FCTC, the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, was adopted in 2012 and later ratified by the EU. Among other criteria, the Protocol requires all cigarette packs to be marked with unique identifiers to ensure they can be tracked and traced, thereby making smuggling more difficult.

Unsurprisingly, the tobacco industry has come up with its own candidates to meet track and trace requirements, notably Codentify, a system developed by PMI. From 2005 through 2016, PMI used Codentify as part of an anti-smuggling agreement with the EU. But the agreement was subject to withering criticism from the WHO and other stakeholders for going against the Protocol, which requires the EU and other parties to exclude the tobacco industry from participating in anti-smuggling efforts.

The EU-PMI agreement expired in 2016 and any hopes of reviving it collapsed after the European Parliament, at loggerheads with the Commission, overwhelmingly voted against a new deal and decided to ratify the WHO’s Protocol instead. Codentify has since been sold to the French firm Impala and was rebranded as Inexto – which critics say is nothing but a front company for PMI since its leadership is made out of former PMI executives. Nonetheless, due to lack of stringency in the EU’s draft track and trace proposal, there is still a chance that Inexto may play a role in any new track and trace system, sidelining efforts to set up a system that is completely independent of the tobacco industry.

This could end up by seriously derailing the EU’s efforts to curb tobacco smuggling, given the industry’s history of active involvement in covertly propping up the black market for cigarettes. In 2004, PMI paid $1.25 billion to the EU to settle claims that it was complicit in tobacco smuggling. As part of the settlement, PMI agreed to issue an annual report about tobacco smuggling in the EU, a report that independent researchers found “served the interests of PMI over those of the EU and its member states.”

Given the industry’s sordid history of efforts to prop up the illicit tobacco trade, it’s little surprise that critics are still dissatisfied with the current version of the EU’s track and trace proposal.

Now, the CNCT’s lawsuit against four major tobacco firms gives all the more reason to take a harder line against the industry. After all, if big tobacco can’t even be honest with authorities about the real levels of chemicals in their own products, what makes lawmakers think that they can play a viable role in any effort to quell the illegal cigarette trade – one that directly benefits the industry?

Later this month, the European Parliament will have a new chance to show they’re ready to get tough on tobacco, when they vote on the pending proposal for an EU-wide track and trace system. French MEP Younous Omarjee has already filed a motion against the system due to its incompatibility with the letter of the WHO. Perhaps a ‘dieselgate’ for the tobacco industry might be just the catalyst they need to finally say no to PMI and its co-conspirators.

This article was published by Modern Diplomacy.

By Vijay Sakhuja*

Two recent developments in the domain of disruptive technologies have invited the attention of naval planners and the strategic community. These relate to US and Chinese investments in unmanned vessels that can shape future naval operations as also impact security dynamics in the South China Sea (SCS).

First, the US Navy inducted an Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV) designated as Sea Hunter-I. Developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the vessel is designed to conduct “missions spanning thousands of kilometers of range and months of endurance under a sparse remote supervisory control model” and also be compliant with “maritime laws and conventions for safe navigation, autonomous system management for operational reliability, and autonomous interactions with an intelligent adversary.”

Although the potential roles for the Sea Hunter-I have not been made public, its multi-payload capability has been tested during trials. In 2016, it towed a parakite “packed with communications equipment from a parachute connected to a vessel” called Towed  Airborne Lift of Naval Systems (TALONS), and in 2017 it was put to mine-countermeasure trials. The US Navy has now placed an order with DARPA for Sea Hunter-II, and the Office of Naval Research (ONR) has begun to explore new uses for the platform.

Second, China has begun work on the world’s biggest test facility for unmanned vessels in waters around Zhuhai, which is a gateway to SCS. The test site designated as Wanshan Marine Test Field, covering an area of 771.6 sq km, will be developed in phases – however, in the first phase, only 22 sq km will be available for trials. The announcement of this test facility comes close on the heels of successful trials in January 2018 of the Huster-68, a 6.8-metre unmanned vessel developed by Shenzhen Huazhong University of Science and Technology.

Similarly, in December 2017, Beijing Sifang Automation (Sifang), a research and manufacturing company, announced that it was ready to commence production of its SeaFly unmanned surface vessel (USV). The 4.5-tonne SeaFly-01 can carry a payload of 1.5 ton comprising a variety of electro-optical and infrared (EO/IR) imagers and other electronic support measure (ESM) sensors. Interestingly, it can also be “equipped with a retractable unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) launch and recovery system, which enables the SeaFly to function as a ‘mothership’ for small vertical take-off and landing UAVs.” Another interesting feature of the SeaFly is its line of sight control for up to 50 km using a “shore-based mobile or fixed command-and-control (C2) centre, while beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) control is supported by the indigenous BeiDou satellite navigation system as well as satellite communication (SATCOM) equipment.”

Meanwhile, during the All China Maritime Conference and Exhibition in Shanghai in December 2017, a Chinese developer of unmanned vessels unveiled a 7.5 ton unmanned vessel – Tianxing-1 – and claimed it to be the fastest unmanned vessel with a speed of 50 knots. Further, the vessel can be put to operations for maritime law enforcement and support naval operations.

These developments clearly demonstrate that unmanned platforms offer new capabilities for operations at sea, and in the case of the US’ Sea Hunter, it offers enormous payload flexibility for a variety of potential missions including anti-submarine warfare and intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) duties, thus expanding the range, flexibility and effectiveness of the US Navy’s operational capability. According to DARPA, “ACTUV represents a new vision of naval surface warfare that trades small numbers of very capable, high-value assets for large numbers of commoditized, simpler platforms that are more capable in the aggregate.”

The Chinese high speed Huster-68 can be an effective platform for maritime law enforcement duties without putting personnel at risk and can also be creatively put to use for ISR duties. Although the SeaFly unmanned surface vessel (USV) boasts of a number of unique features such as launch and recovery of UAVs, it remains to be seen how it performs at sea, where the operating environment is much more severe. Further, its small size precludes sustained operations and it has to remain close to the ‘mother ship’ for  recovery, unlike the US’ Sea Hunter-I which is a prototype for “an entirely new class of ocean-going vessel—one able to traverse thousands of kilometers over the open seas for months at a time, without a single crew member aboard.”

It is fair to argue that these technology demonstrations signal, at three levels, the unfolding of a new naval competition between the US and China. First, at the technological level, China is pitted against the US’ technological superiority and is attempting a ‘catch up’ given that at present it cannot neutralise the US’ scientific advantage despite its unprecedented investments in building disruptive technologies.

Second, the US has chosen to develop large size unmanned vessels that can stay at sea for longer durations whereas the Chinese prefer smaller USVs, clearly suggesting their intention to use these in swarm configurations.

Finally, at the level of freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) in SCS, it is plausible that the US may prefer to deploy unmanned naval platforms both as an alternative or as complementary to the guided-missile destroyers and shallow draft trimaran Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) deployed for countering China’s excessive and expansive maritime claims. This scenario poses new challenge for both the US Navy and the PLA Navy to operate and respond to unmanned naval operations by either side.

*Vijay Sakhuja
Former Director, National Maritime Foundation (NMF), New Delhi

The global threat of a severe influenza pandemic is inevitable, and the world, while informed, is poorly prepared.

By Joseph Chamie*

A century ago, people woke up ill in the morning and fell dead by evening. Considered the deadliest pandemic in human history, global influenza infected a third of humanity, killing no less than 50 million and perhaps as many as 100 million people. In one twelve-month period, one out of every 100 people on the planet died from the flu.

The world has achieved impressive gains in extending human life with the world’s average life expectancy at birth now standing at 72 years, more than double the level a century ago. Nevertheless, another global influenza pandemic is likely, if not inevitable.

Following the initial outbreak, massive troop deployments in densely packed quarters and numerous civilian travelers facilitated the spread of the virus to every corner of the globe. In India, the pandemic killed as many as 17 million people, or about 5 percent of the population. Another region hit hard was Iran, with no less than 8 percent of the population killed. In Africa, the pandemic is estimated to have killed nearly 2 percent of the continent’s population within six months. The pandemic’s impact was deadly and sudden. In the United States, the demographic outcome was a 30 percent spike in the death rate in 1918, resulting in a drop in life expectancy of about 12 years.

In a typical season, the elderly, young children and those with chronic medical conditions generally face the highest risk of serious complications and death. The 1918 pandemic, in contrast, disproportionately impacted healthy young adults, ages 20 to 40. Death rates in 1918-19 from flu and resulting pneumonia were 20 times greater among persons aged 15 to 34 than they had been during prior flu seasons. Mortality peaked at age 28 years. Young adult men in the military, especially those in close quarters in frontline trenches, were hit hard. Up to 40 percent fell ill due to the, and it is estimated that the flu killed more US soldiers and sailors than enemy weapons during World War I. A year after its initial outbreak, the global pandemic had killed more than double the 10 million who had died in World War I.

At the start of the 20^th century, a leading cause of death in many countries, including more developed ones, was influenza/pneumonia. Influenza/pneumonia was the top killer in 1900 for the United States, accounting for 12 percent of all deaths. By the beginning of the 21st century, deaths due to influenza and pneumonia had declined substantially. In 2015 the top 10 causes of death worldwide did not include influenza/pneumonia.

Still, seasonal influenza sickens millions, and this year appears to be worse than usual. For many healthy young adults, a bad case of the flu is their first intimation of mortality. Each year influenza kills hundreds of thousands of people globally. Recent estimates suggest roughly between 300,000 to 650,000 people die from seasonal influenza-related illnesses annually, higher than previous estimates of up to 500,000. Many countries including Australia, China, India, the United States and United Kingdom report that this year’s outbreak is the worst in years.

Antibiotics only became available after the Second World War. Considerable improvements have also been made in sanitation, nutrition, hygiene, housing and worldwide supply of influenza vaccines. However, vaccines may have limited effectiveness depending on the influenza strains which constantly change, mutate and evolve. Consequently, another pandemic similar to the one a century ago remains a serious global public health threat.

Since the 1918 influenza pandemic, world population has more than quadrupled to 7.6 billion. The world population shifted from being largely rural to predominately urban, with many millions living in close quarters. People are more mobile with modern air travel. An estimated 258 million migrants live abroad, and no less than a billion border crossings occur annually. Such demographics combined with strained health services in some nations and close human proximity to domestic animals, particularly poultry, in others facilitate the rapid spread of influenza.

Estimates suggest that seasonal influenza epidemics can affect up to 15 percent of the population with enormous economic consequences. Estimated costs of a US influenza pandemic, for example, would be more than $100 billion. Vaccinating 60 percent of the US population would substantially reduce the costs and the number of deaths. Such a high vaccination rate may be difficult to achieve within the time period required for vaccine effectiveness. Another challenge: opposition to vaccinations by some groups and individuals.

Health recommendations widely promoted are too often not followed. The most effective way to prevent the disease’s spread is comprehensive influenza vaccination programs across countries, and the World Health Organization urges people, especially those in high-risk groups such as the elderly, to get a yearly vaccine. Other precautions include regular hand washing and cough etiquette. The healthy should avoid people who are sick, and the ill should stay at home – resting and drinking plenty of fluids are advised until at least 24 hours after fever is gone, consulting a physician for complications.

In 2003 the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution urging countries to increase influenza vaccination coverage of all people at high risk and to attain 75 percent coverage among the elderly by 2010. Available data for 2015 on seasonal influenza vaccination rates for the elderly show wide variation among countries. Among 26 OECD countries, for example, none achieved the recommended vaccination rate of 75 percent for elderly except South Korea at 82 percent. Only five countries, the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Israel, had vaccinated at least two-thirds of their elderly populations.

Research suggests another influenza pandemic is inevitable, remaining a global threat, and the world is poorly prepared, even wealthy advanced economies. US hospitals, for example, lack adequate medical supplies for a serious flu epidemic and have contended with funding cuts in public health budgets over the past 15 years. Despite repeated recommendations from military, national security, biodefense and public health experts, political leaders fail to increase funding to prepare for an influenza pandemic.

Consequences of an influenza pandemic are expected to be more severe in developing countries than developed countries. More people in wealthier countries are likely to have access to influenza vaccines and can afford antiviral drugs while poorer countries do not. In short, the wealthy countries will be too busy dealing with the pandemic among their own populations to address the needs of the poor nations.

Public health specialists have already identified the only solution to avoiding a devastating global influenza pandemic – a universal flu vaccine that protects people against essentially all or most strains of flu, with protection lasting for years or perhaps even a lifetime. Such a vaccine is likely in the near future, based on recent medical advances. For years, researchers have sought a “super-shot” that could replace the annual vaccination and protect the world’s population against most influenza strains – a herculean task against a virus that constantly evolves. Despite the formidable challenges, a universal flu vaccine is humanity’s only way to avoid a global influenza pandemic. Until then, robust immunization programs in all countries are urged.

*Joseph Chamie is an independent consulting demographer and a former director of the United Nations Population Division. 

As the terrorism landscape in Southeast Asia evolves, regional governments must deepen their collaboration post-Marawi.

By Joseph Liow Chin Yong*

In October 2002, bombings on the Indonesian resort island of Bali catapulted terrorism to the top of the list of security priorities for the governments of maritime Southeast Asia. In the ensuing years, security agencies across the region were seized with the transnational and cross-regional dimensions of this threat. There was good reason for this. Investigation into the Bali bombings uncovered links to Al Qaeda.

It also emerged that Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), the Southeast Asian militant group, was attempting to create a Daulah Islamiyah, a regional Islamic state, in maritime Southeast Asia by means of violence. While their vision failed to materialise, Southeast Asian militants have persisted in their pursuit of cross-regional cooperation.

The Afghanistan Incubator

This pursuit has precedents that predate Bali or Daulah Islamiyah. It was incubated in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border between 1985 and 2000, when Southeast Asian militants crossed paths with fighters from other parts of the world while training alongside Mujahideen fighters then waging jihad against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It was during this time that bonds were built among the Southeast Asians who would go on to form the backbone of JI.

Yet while JI did possess a regional footprint by dint of active cells in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Singapore, the establishment of an operational cross-regional network proved a difficult proposition due to geography, culture, language, and divergent strategic objectives.

This was evident from conflicts such as Ambon (1999-2005) and Poso (1998-2007), where coordination proved elusive despite the presence of a range of militant groups, most of whom preferred to wage their own “jihad” independent of each other. Even at the height of Al Qaeda’s interests in Southeast Asia, the group’s priorities were more as a base for operational planning and the movement of funds than a key theatre for operations of a cross-regional nature.

Syrian Catalyst

It is against this backdrop that the outbreak of conflict in Syria in 2011 catalysed a new cycle of terrorist and militant acitivity in Southeast Asia and raised fresh concerns for the prospects for cross-regional cooperation between militant groups.

At the forefront this time stood ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, also known as IS. The interest of ISIS in Southeast Asia is evident not only from regular coverage of the region in ISIS media but also in its introduction of Malay language propaganda, clearly tailored for a regional audience, and its creation in September 2014 of Katibah Nusantara, the Southeast Asian fighting unit operating under its umbrella.

Indeed, Katibah Nusantara was an effort by ISIS to bring together Malay and Indonesian-speaking fighters to overcome the language barrier that impeded effective tactical deployment of Southeast Asians (most of the Indonesians couldn’t speak Arabic or English while the Malaysians fared slightly better in English but couldn’t speak Arabic).

Yet the existence of this Southeast Asian unit belied differences that prevailed between the Malaysians and Indonesians in its ranks.

Indonesians were dismissive of their Malaysian counterparts based on the perception that their religious knowledge was inferior. Malaysians were relegated to menial roles in the Indonesian-led Katibah Nusantara. This explains the reluctance of Malaysians to even join Katibah Nusantara in the initial stages, preferring instead to fight with other militant groups operating in Syria and Iraq (Malaysians did join eventually).

In fact, even the Indonesians within Katibah Nusantara could not quite get along: one faction under Abu Jandal eventually split to form Katibah Masyaariq.

Comparing Syria and Afghanistan

The reality remains that engaged in the selfsame conflict, they were bonded together, however imperfectly. The valid concern is whether these ties will be transplanted back into Southeast Asia as some battle-hardened militants return with new skills, renewed ideological commitment, and established international connections. Indeed, this was precisely the scenario that Afghanistan presented two decades ago, and it certainly doesn’t take too many hardened returnees to create problems.

The Jakarta-based Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict (IPAC) estimates that among Indonesians who returned from foreign conflict zones prior to ISIS’ existence, 42 were veterans of the Afghanistan conflict, 50 were alumni of the Moro struggle in the southern Philippines, and three had fought in Kashmir with the Pakistani group, Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Of the three conflicts, Afghanistan stands out for the fact that, unlike the southern Philippines which was mostly regional in scope, it was in Afghanistan that Southeast Asians came to be acquainted with – and exposed to – not only each other but foreign fighters from all over the world.

But we should also consider differences inherent in the Afghanistan-Syria comparison.

Afghanistan-Syria Divergence

First, for Indonesian fighters in Afghanistan, the largest group in the Southeast Asian contingent by far, their experience in the liberation of Afghanistan from Soviet occupation prepared them for armed struggle back in Indonesia against the Suharto government upon their return. Most Southeast Asian fighters who left for Syria, on the other hand, did so with no intention of returning.

Second, Southeast Asians in Afghanistan comprised able-bodied males who went alone, whereas a sizable number of women and children went to Syria with their husbands and fathers to live in the self-styled Islamic State.

Finally, while Southeast Asian fighters were funded to go to Afghanistan, many of those who went to Syria, especially in the initial stages, had to raise their own funds. Having liquidated property and cashed out bank accounts to make the trip, not many will be able to afford the cost of return on their own.

Not all who went to the Middle East went to join ISIS, or for that matter, even to fight. While some were doubtless drawn by the desire to live in an “authentic” Islamic state, this does not automatically mean they were prepared to fight for it (not by choice anyway).

All this is to say that regional authorities should take care not to paint all returnees with the same broad brushstroke.

Changing Nature of Militancy

The audacious five-month seige of Marawi, the most recent high profile conflict in the region, suggests that Islamist militancy in Southeast Asia is evolving on a number of counts.

First, there has been a discernible shift in militant tactics. Motivated by a desire to prove their credentials to ISIS, which continued to withhold formal recognition of southern Philippines as a “wilayah” (province), Marawi marked the first attempt at seizing and holding urban territory by pro-ISIS militants in Southeast Asia. It is not likely to be the last.

Second, recruitment patterns and profiles have changed. Barely a decade ago, militancy in the region mostly revolved around a network of radical groups. While these groups remain active today, a pattern has emerged that sees a new generation of recruits, many educated and from middle-class backgrounds, being drawn to the ideas of a radical transformation of society through the puritanical implementation of Islamic law, yet who do not have any prior affiliation to the known radical groups.

In other words, many of these new recruits have been radicalised less via connections to known groups than by exposure through the Internet.

This leads us to the third change: technology is featuring more prominently. The use of digital and social media as a means of encrypted communication, recruitment, and propaganda has been both rampant and crucial. Through platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Whatsapp, and Telegram, militants have managed to capture the imagination and augment the pool of sympathisers and potential recruits.

Technology As Enabler?

In prisons, extremist preachers who sow the ideological seeds that militancy reaps continue to enjoy access to their followers via smartphones. Technology has not only been leveraged for the purposes of communication and propaganda. During the Marawi seige, militants used commercially-acquired quadcopter drones for surveillance, and advanced heavy firearms to hold off Philippine military units.

The fact that digital media technology enables the creation of a sense of belonging that transcends geography circles us back to the important point about cross-regional cooperation and networks. Marawi is also noteworthy for the fact that it was a devastating example of cooperation on a considerable scale.

Evidently the brainchild of the Maute Group led by brothers Omarkhayyam and Abdullah, Marawi nevertheless involved other Philippine groups such as Isnilon Hapilon’s Basilan faction of the Abu Sayyaf Group, as well as Malaysians and Indonesians.

Philippine authorities also reported the presence of fighters from Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Yemen, and Singapore in Marawi, all of whom worked together under an apparent central command. The Malaysian, Mahmud Ahmad, a fund raiser for the Marawi operation, reportedly played an instrumental role in bringing Southeast Asia’s pro-ISIS groups together in the conflict.

Whether this is a harbinger of things to come remains to be seen. But there is already evidence of chatter among Southeast Asian militants exhorting unity like that which was evident in Marawi.

Indeed the reality is that Southeast Asian militants will continue to attempt cross-regional cooperation, notwithstanding the proven difficulties this entails. For this reason alone, regional governments should hasten efforts to widen and deepen their own cooperation. Indeed, the seige of Marawi may be over and ISIS in its death throes, but only the most foolhardy would dare say the same about the problem of terrorism and militancy in Southeast Asia.

*The writer is dean and professor of comparative and international politics at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University. An earlier version appeared in The Straits Times.

India has the third largest higher education system in the world, and is behind only the US and China in this area. Our higher educational institutions churn out around 2.5 million graduates every year. However, this caters to just about 10 per cent of India’s youth and the quality of this output is considered below par.

By Harsh V. Pant

Amidst all the commotion about the focus on the agriculture sector and the seeming neglect of the middle classes, education did manage to get some attention of the Finance Minister this year. To enhance quality of higher education in India, the government plans to launch the ‘‘Revitalising Infrastructure and Systems in Education (RISE)” with a total investment of ₹1,00,000 crore in next four years. The focus is on stepping up investments in research and related infrastructure in premier educational institutions in the country. The RISE initiative will be funded by a restructured Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA). Launching of the ‘‘Prime Minister’s Research Fellows (PMRF)’’ Scheme for 1,000 best BTech students each year from premier institutions being provided facilities to do PhD in IITs and IISc is also a welcome step to enhance the quality of technical research in the country. It was satisfying to see some attention being given to the quality of teaching in India with an integrated BEd programme for teachers being planned and amending of the Right to Education Act to enable more than 13 lakh untrained teachers to get trained. At the level of primary education level, the government is proposing Ekalavya model residential schools on the lines of Navodaya schools for every block with more than 50% ST population and at least 20,000 tribal persons.

The government has been highlighting the woeful state of education in the country for some time now. Last October, stressing on the need for universities to give more emphasis on “learning and innovation” and give up old teaching methods which focused on “cramming students’ minds with information,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi had underscored his government’s intention to ‘unshackle’ these institutions and provide ₹10,000 crore to 20 varsities to ensure that they are counted among the best in the world. Around one hundred institutions have applied for this process to be placed in the list of 20 “Institutions of Eminence.”

While these are noble goals, it is instructive to point out that the focus seems largely to be on quantity and on science and technology education. This is understandable for a number of reasons. Knowledge is the key variable that will define the global distribution of power in the 21st century and India has also embarked on a path of economic success relying on its high-tech industries.

While India’s nearest competitor, China is re-orienting and investing in higher education to meet the challenges of the future, India continues to ignore the problem as if the absence of world-class research in Indian universities is something that will rectify itself on its own. True, India produces well-trained engineers and managers from its flagship IITs and IIMs, but their numbers are simply not enough. There is also a growing concern that while private engineering and management institutions are flourishing due to a rising demand, the students they produce are not of the quality that can help India compete effectively in the global marketplace.

India has the third largest higher education system in the world, and is behind only the US and China in this area. Our higher educational institutions churn out around 2.5 million graduates every year. However, this caters to just about 10 per cent of India’s youth and the quality of this output is considered below par. Apart from our premier institutions — the IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, the Indian Institute of Science, and Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, to name a few — our higher education sector is increasingly incapable of meeting the rising expectations of an emerging India. Indian universities, which should have been the centre of cutting edge research and a hub of intellectual activity, are more often in the news for political machinations than for research excellence. Years of low investment in higher education along with a mistaken belief that providing uniform support to all universities irrespective of their quality have led to a situation where neither our academics nor our students have any incentive to undertake cutting-edge research.

Matters have not been helped by the institutions we have created to administer our system of higher education. For instance, the UGC has tried to increase its control over the Indian higher education system, making it impossible for universities to shape their own courses and determine their research agenda. This top-down approach in the mistaken belief that homogenisation of institutions will produce greater pedagogic creativity leaves no room for competition among higher education institutions. Indian universities have become moribund institutions run by cloistered, change-resistant bureaucracies where curriculi are not updated for years, teaching methods remain obsolete, and students are not exposed to cutting edge research and ideas. Political interference in selections, appointments and day-to-day administrative of universities has become common, eroding autonomy to such an extent that a university is now considered a sort of government department. Our universities are being held hostage to the imperatives of identity politics, encouraging parochialism rather than countering it. Indian universities are seen today to be serving every conceivable social, political and economic purpose except the one that they were designed for: the cultivation of the intellect.

Unless we recognise this and empower out students and faculty, we will continue to tinker with the superficialities while the foundations of India’s education system will continue to get eroded​.

This article originally appeared in Business Standard.​

Timor-Leste’s revenue from oil and gas is rapidly declining due to diminishing resources and withdrawals from the Petroleum Fund for infrastructure projects. However, following recent negotiations with Australia, there is a window of opportunity for long-term sustainable development.

By Viji Menon*

The oil and gas sector is the mainstay of Timor-Leste’s economy, with almost 90% of government revenue coming from oil. The non-petroleum economy, which scarcely existed at Independence is still very small, only about a quarter of the GDP. It is mostly generated by state spending for public administration, procurement, and infrastructure construction. Currently, the only non-oil export is coffee, whose value fluctuates with the weather and the global market.

Nearly all the petroleum revenue Timor-Leste earns at present comes from the Bayu-Undan field in the Joint Petroleum Development Area established by the Timor Sea Treaty with Australia in 2002. To manage the oil revenue, Timor-Leste established the Petroleum Fund (PF) not long after it gained independence from Indonesia in 2002.

Declining Fund for Development

Every year, the Ministry of Finance calculates an estimated sustainable income (ESI) benchmark. The ESI informs the decision of how much to withdraw from the PF each year to finance the state Budget; it was exceeded every year from 2008 to 2012, and again from 2014 onwards. Overspending the ESI has lowered the balance in the Fund, reducing its future investment earnings.

In May 2016, the IMF warned that “withdrawals from the Petroleum Fund remained above the level consistent with the estimated sustainable income (ESI), in part to finance front-loaded capital investments. This, coupled with lower oil receipts and negative net investment returns due largely to foreign exchange valuation losses, saw the balance of the Fund decline for the first time, to US$16.2 billion at the end of 2015”.

In line with the government’s Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for 2011-2030, the bulk of the infrastructure spending so far has been for roads, bridges, electricity, airports and ports. There is a need for improved roads and infrastructure to link the rural populations to urban centres and improve access to schools, health services, markets and employment.

Then Prime Minister Rui Araujo in his statement to Parliament in November 2016 on the 2017 budget explained what front-loading was. He said “front-loading” for capital expenditures — taking more than the sustainable amount from the Petroleum Fund — was justified because they will produce social, economic and financial returns in the medium and long term.

Zero Fund by 2026?

However, since 2011, the government embarked on two capital-intensive projects in isolated areas which have come under criticism from several quarters. Foremost among these is the Tase Mane project, on the south coast of the island. The project is based on plans for a future petroleum industry and includes a supply base, a refinery, an LNG plant, a 156-km highway, oil pipelines, and the Suai airport (already built). Critics of the project say that it will make Timor-Leste even more dependent on the oil and gas sector.

The second large project is in the enclave of Oecussi (bordering Indonesian West Timor). This enclave is geographically isolated and the project includes the development of an airport (already completed), a multi-storey hotel, a hospital and a university, among others. Many NGOs and other Timorese fear that the project may not benefit the local population as the country lacks the necessary skills required to participate in the project.

The Ministry of Finance has been reducing its predictions for future oil and gas revenues from Bayu-Undan which will end production by 2020 or 2022. Petroleum experts, economists and politicians differ as to whether the savings in the Petroleum Fund will run out in another 10 or 15 years, depending on how much the government withdraws from the Fund and the world demand for oil.

The local NGO, La’o Hamutuk which follows the Petroleum Fund closely, has predicted that “if projected levels of spending are carried out…the Fund could be drawn down to US$10 billion by 2020 and to zero by 2026.”

More Oil In Future?

Timorese officials however are upbeat about Timor-Leste’s future because of the untapped oil resources in the Greater Sunrise field and in areas onshore. On the former, since January 2017, Timor-Leste and Australia have had several rounds of discussions on maritime boundary delimitation between them in the Timor Sea.

In December 2017, a press statement issued following the latest round of talks stated that the parties had reached agreement on the text of a treaty which delimited the maritime boundary between them in the Timor Sea. It also addressed the legal status of the Greater Sunrise gas field, the establishment of a Special Regime for Greater Sunrise, a pathway to the development of the resource, and the sharing of the resulting revenue.

The treaty is expected to be signed in March this year. The details of the agreement have not been made public but there are indications that the Timorese government is satisfied with the outcome: Timor-Leste will receive a greater percentage of the revenue from Greater Sunrise than under the old treaty between the two countries, which has now been terminated. Exploration is also ongoing for possible oil resources onshore in several places in the country.

Timor-Leste’s leaders now have a window of opportunity to make full use of its potential oil resources for sustainable development. It has a young population, and ensuring that they are educated, healthy and productively employed are the biggest development challenges facing the country. The World Bank has advised the country that it “needs to diversify its economy and sources of revenue, elevate the quality of health and education services, and equip the population with viable skills”.

In July 2016, Prime Minister Araujo, in a speech to Timor-Leste’s development partners, stated that the government “is aware of the challenges we continue to face. We are striving to improve public service delivery, promote the diversification of our economy, and improve the quality of our infrastructure”. With far-sightedness, wisdom, and courage, Timorese leaders can make the best decisions for their people’s future and avoid the pitfalls that have befallen other countries with easy access to non-renewable wealth.

*Viji Menon is a Visiting Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. The former Singapore Foreign Service Officer has worked with the United Nations in Timor-Leste for several years.

The Dignitatis Humanae Institute has signed an accord with the Italian Ministry for Culture to become the official Leaseholder of the ancient Abbey of Trisulti.

The original monastery, whose ruins still stand nearby, was built in AD 996. Pope Innocent III ordered the current structure built in 1204 after the Virgin Mary appeared to a hermit in the grotto beneath what later became the monastery, and whose appearance produced a miraculous spring which still runs to this day. Innocent’s summer palace was the building that today includes a national library of some 38,000 volumes.

Presiding Abbot of the Cistercian Congregation of Casamari, Dom Eugenio Romagnuolo O.Cist – of the outgoing community – is an active member of the DHI’s Board of Trustees, thus ensuring continuity with the past as Trisulti goes forward into the future under its new leadership.

H.E. Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, Honorary President of the DHI, said, “I would like to thank Caterina Bon Valsassina and her colleagues on the Adjudicating Commission at the Ministry for Culture for their competence and diligence with which they have performed their difficult task, and we are proud and honoured to have been selected. I would also like to thank Minister Dario Franceschini for his pioneering policy of cooperation between the Ministry and private institutions for the greater promotion of the common good.”

Benjamin Harnwell, President of the Board of Trustees, said that, “Trisulti will be the home of a number of projects that underscore the fact that man is made in the image and likeness of God, and that recognition of the imago Dei is the cornerstone of the Judaeo-Christian foundations of Western Civilisation. We are praying for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary over this new chapter in our mission as we go forward.”

Someone in the Trump administration blew it big time when Chai Feldblum was selected to remain at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Her name was forwarded to the Senate in December for renomination; her term expires July 1.

The Catholic League stands with Senator Mike Lee who on February 14th called on President Trump to withdraw her name. No doubt the president would, if only he knew how extremist she is.

When Chai Feldblum taught at Georgetown University Law School, she distinguished herself by saying that in a conflict between religious liberty and sexual rights (read: gay rights), the former should yield to the latter. This despite the fact that religious liberty is a First Amendment right and sexual rights are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.

Feldblum is so radical that she didn’t say most of the time religious liberty should take a backseat to sexual liberty, she said all of the time. “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win,” she said. (My italic.)

Feldblum is so far gone that she contends that homosexual men and lesbians—whom the lesbian professor calls queers—should be able to adopt a child and be given exactly the same kinds of governmental benefits afforded conventional marital unions, even if they don’t live under the same roof.

In 2006, Feldblum signed a statement, “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” that included the following gem. “Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couples, in two households,” should be given all the benefits that accrue to married men and women.

This is not normal. It is a bastardization of marriage, the ultimate losers of whom are children. If this needs to explained, it is too late. When common sense has been abandoned, no amount of discourse can work. The clueless should stay in places like Georgetown Law, or the local asylum, and not wander out, at least not without a GPS ankle bracelet.

Trump needs to withdraw Feldblum’s name immediately. Kudos to Senator Lee for revisiting her renomination.

By Viljar Veebel*

(FPRI) — In 1997, when Estonia first began building its digital society through an e-governance system to provide public services online, the general population had limited access to the internet.  Twenty years later, the possibilities offered by digital technologies seem endless. With Estonia’s subsequent introduction of e-taxes, internet voting, e-healthcare, and, most recently, e-residency, 99.5% of all public services are now available online. It’s therefore unsurprising that many consider Estonia an international trailblazer in digital solutions. In 2017, the Wired magazine called the country “the most advanced digital society in the world.” E-solutions are integral to Estonia’s identity, and the country is keen to maintain its image as the world’s digital pioneer.

The European Union is following Estonia’s lead by now emphasizing e-solutions. In early 2017, the European Parliament published a report “On e-democracy in the European Union: Potential and Challenges,” which discussed methods to support traditional democratic systems through information and communications technology (ICT). By using these so-called e-democracy tools to increase the public’s participation in EU-level decision-making processes, lawmakers aim to decrease the “democratic deficit” within the bloc. Yet, while this task appears relatively simple on paper, it will be difficult to implement. As a digital pioneer, Estonia faced many challenges along the path of developing its e-society. This experience could prove valuable to the EU’s latest digital endeavor.

Estonia’s experience highlights two issues in implementing digital solutions. First, e-solutions will only work if people trust the system. Second, extensive coordination both in planning and resource allocation is necessary.

Estonia’s digital authorities have long emphasized that the success of e-solutions hinges not only on the systems’ technical operations, but also on public perception. The biggest technical “failure” of Estonia’s digital solutions occurred in the autumn of 2017 when a security risk was discovered in Estonia’s identity cards, the personalized access keys to the state’s digital services. While the vulnerability was an easily-resolvable hardware problem with the card’s chips (as opposed to a security breach or software malfunction), the episode caused public outcry and remained unresolved for over a week. Authorities blocked ID cards with outdated security certificates, yet thousands of professionals—doctors, notaries, policemen, administrators, etc.—still had to use the cards daily to register their services. This impeded 750,000 card holders from accessing public services. Stories of the crisis catalyzed by the failure of a single, yet central, component of Estonia’s digital system circulated across Europe.

While many understand that no complex systems are perfect, the event damaged the reputation of Estonia’s digital program. It reminds policymakers that the larger and the more complex digital systems become, the higher the risk of a technical failure. As Estonia’s experience shows, the breach of a super database is not the only digital vulnerability lawmakers should be concerned about. Rather, the malfunction of a single hardware component vital to the system can have serious effects. This lesson thus underscores the importance of operationally robust technical solutions—resistant to overloading, cyber-attacks, and other digital threats—in efforts to bring the EU’s democratic processes closer to its citizens.

Yet, as Estonia’s experience also shows, there exists a threat outside of technical errors. Even if no significant glitches occur, many still find digital solutions uncomfortably opaque. Discussion surrounding Estonia’s internet voting system offers an example. Despite the system being used extensively (in the October 2017 municipal elections, more than 180,000 people—about 15% of the electorate—cast their vote electronically) and demonstrating no reason for concern, e-government is criticized from time to time for not being sufficiently credible. There are two common arguments from opponents of e-voting: validity and credibility. First, in electronic voting, there is no possibility to confirm who is voting. Second, there is no way to confirm after the fact if the vote has been manipulated. Additional doubts about the credibility of e-solutions could partly be related to technical issues. For example, in Estonia’s 2011 national parliamentary elections, the electronic vote-counting system froze for several hours. This spurred concerns that the system had been hacked, thus rendering the results untenable.

More recently, the United States presidential elections demonstrated how easily individuals’ preferences can be influenced using the internet and information tools. Thus, a second lesson is that it is not only important to minimize technical errors when introducing digital solutions, but to build public confidence that these systems are safe and credible. Particularly as the EU faces internal tensions between national governments and the bloc’s institutions, policymakers should think carefully about how to supplement the introduction of extensive e-solutions with strategic communication. Most importantly, this communication should focus on increasing the public’s feeling of ownership over the online platforms.

Lastly, to make these digital solutions a reality, the EU must enhance its logistic and budgetary coordination. Estonia’s experience introducing digital health services—that is, digital receipts, registration, and medical data, including medical imaging—was rather negative in early years. Authorities later recognized that the system suffered from an overly broad focus, a lack of overall coordination, and the unnecessary duplication of activities and resources. The road to a fully functional system took several years, and it included temporary returns to paper-based solutions, consuming more than twice the resources than initially expected. Success came not primarily through revolutionary solutions but because the national government was prepared for painful corrections and open to redesigning the system.  These same issues could easily occur at the European level. Thus, to successfully implement EU-wide digital solutions, officials will need to address the delicate issue of coordination mechanisms and the division of both power and responsibilities within the bloc.

Bearing in mind these potential downsides, there is much to be gained by increasing the accessibility of bureaucratic services through digitalization. The EU should focus on two main priorities: opening legislative processes with e-tools and implementing the once-only principle. This principle has already been investigated by a pan-European consortium under the leadership of the Tallinn University of Technology which advocates its implementation at the EU level. This principle assumes that collecting the same data multiple times is more expensive than sharing and reusing data already gathered. The once-only principle project aims to reduce the administrative burden. According to the European Commission, the project will ensure that information is supplied to public administrations only once regardless of country of origin.

Twenty years ago, Estonia decided to take a “tiger leap” forward. Today, it is the shining example of bureaucratic efficiency. Filing a tax return takes five minutes, national voting occurs online, and no one has to track down medical records. Officials report that Estonia saves over 800 years of working time and 2 percent of GDP annually through its digitized public services. Of course, the journey to this point was far from perfect, and in fact, this imperfection is advantageous today. By drawing on Estonia’s experience, the EU can more effectively implement e-solutions. The EU’s path of digital development will still encounter challenges. Yet, the Baltic e-Tiger has demonstrated the benefits of moving towards e-governance that citizens and enterprises will receive should the EU prioritize reducing its bureaucratic burden via digital solutions

About the author:
*Viljar Veebel is a researcher and consultant who has been researching in the University of Tartu, The Estonian School of Diplomacy and The Tallinn Technological University.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

The decisive victory of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa in the local government elections in Sri Lanka on February 10 has caused considerable surprise to the political observers around the world. Rajapaksa’s party Sri Lanka People’s Front won in 239 out of the 341 councils pushing his rivals far behind.

This victory has caused huge surprise, since Rajapaksa was voted out of power only a few years back and he was accused of indulging in nepotism, corrupt practices and favoring his family members and providing them plump positions in the government. Many felt that Rajapaksa’s government just became a family affair. The defeat of Rajapaksa in the last Presidential poll was hailed as vindication of people’s unhappiness about the quality of the governance that he provided and was considered as a rebuke for many unsavory happenings during his tenure.

Then, given this recent past scenario, how is it that Rajapaksa has come back with such decisive victory in the local government polls now?

The admirers of Rajapaksa inevitably argue that the President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe who have been ruling the country together for the last few years could not meet the expectations of the people and could not give better governance than Rajapaksa. The disagreement between them on various matters relating to governance and their lack of personal equation left the people disappointed.

Independent discerning observers may be of the view that what Rajapaksa secured in the local polls were negative votes caused due to the disappointment of the people about the government led by Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe and cannot be considered as positive endorsement for Mahinda Rajapaksa. Further, though both the President and Prime minister are together running the government, they chose to contest the local government polls without an alliance between them and as independent entities. The growing differences between the President and Prime Minister and the uneasy coalition has been too evident when the polls took place.

While such views may be there, one fact that cannot be ignored is that most of Sri Lankans still seem to have some level of admiration for Rajapaksa for the type of strong leadership that he provided when Sri Lanka was facing the grim problem of internal war with LTTE. Most Sri Lankans feel grateful to Rajapaksa for protecting the territorial integrity of the country by conclusively defeating LTTE. This aspect may have made many voters to give the benefit of doubt to Rajapaksa and voting for him.

While President Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe have now met after the local government elections and have agreed to work together to end the uncertainty over the coalition government’s future after the recent poll debacle, many people may now seem to conclude that Rajapaksa’s march towards power is unstoppable.

In any case, it all depends on how Rajapaksa would conduct himself in the coming days and whether he would be able to talk the appropriate political language to win back the confidence of the people. Obviously, people’s annoyance about the corrupt dealings of family members of Rajapaksa would not go away that soon and therefore, hard efforts are required on Rajapaksa’s part.

The ultimate question is that will Rajapaksa’s return as President of Sri Lanka, if it were to happen would do good for Sri Lanka. One cannot be sure on this.

So far, Rajapaksa has not regretted about the several acts of corruption in his government. He has not disowned his family members and they all would march back into the government in various capacities , if Rajapaksa were to return to power.

With Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe wasting the time and opportunity given to them by the people now having little credibility to put a united front against Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka appears to be moving towards the cross road.

Apparently, some Jewish racists have been hunting through the photo archives to find pictures of Louis Farrakhan or other known anti-Semites, which also include other prominent African-American leaders.

They then trot the photos out to right-wing media outlets like the Wall Street Journal, Algemeiner, Free Beacon or even Breitbart (which has become an honorary pro-Israel shmatteh), which splash them across the front page.

Reporters then dutifully call national Jewish leaders and ask them to express their outrage at the temerity of Barack Obama or Keith Ellison having lunch or dinner or cocktails privately with Louis Farrakhan.

Anything to smear the reputations of African-American leaders and force them to toe a pro-Israel line.

It’s unseemly, it’s hypocritical, it’s pure unadulterated chutzpah.  Barack Obama owes neither Greenblatt nor anyone an explanation for why he attended a Congressional Black Caucus luncheon in 2005 (three years before he ran for president) at which Louis Farrakhan was an invited guest.

Similarly, Ellison owes no one an apology for attending a dinner hosted by Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani in New York City, along with hundreds of other Iranian-Americans, Muslims, and many others–just because one of those hundreds of individuals was Louis Farrakhan.

1/5 Still gathering information about this mtg. Based on what we know, its extremely disturbing that Dem reps or members of any political group would attend a session hosted by hatemongers. https://t.co/LIlMXNyQev

— Jonathan Greenblatt (@JGreenblattADL) February 12, 2018

Haaretz described the event as a “private dinner” with Farrakhan and Ellison.  It was only private in the sense that people were invited to attend, thousands of people were invited.  So in that sense it was quite a public dinner.  I know people who were invited and believe me I’m not the best connected person in the world when it comes to such things.

The Wall Street Journal wrote this misleadingly alarming description: “In September 2013…Messrs. Ellison and Farrakhan dined together.”  Yeah, they dined together with 1,000 of their closest, most intimate friends.  People, this is much ado about nothing.

To blame Ellison or claim he’s insensitive to anti-Semitism because a single guest held views offensive to Jews is beyond ridiculous.  I, for example have attended scores of similar major fundraising dinners when I was a fundraiser for several Jewish community federations, a hospital, and university.  Did I vet all guests to determine whether they’d ever made racist, misogynist or anti-Semitic remarks, or even whether they’d committed criminal acts?  Of course not.  Is it possible there were such individuals at such dinners?  Sure. What does Greenblatt expect?  That prominent guests at such events must demand the guest list from the hosts to determine whether they’re rubbing shoulders with unsavory characters?  Or should such guests demand veto power over who attends the events lest someone embarrass them?

In Israel catching up on news about 2005 photo of Obama & Farrakhan. Over his career, @barackobama has denounced the bigotry of Farrakhan. Time to do so again. Leaders always should make sure that there’s no doubt: America is no place for those who advocate #antisemitism or hate

— Jonathan Greenblatt (@JGreenblattADL) January 29, 2018

Greenblatt had the chutzpah to tweet that Obama owed him (or us) an apology (his actual words were “it’s time [for Obama] to denounce bigotry again,”) but he was essentially demanding an Ashamnu from the former president for his “gaffe” in showing his face at an event featuring Farrakhan.  Get over it, Greenblatt.  He’s a former president of the United States.  He doesn’t owe you anything.  He doesn’t owe me anything.  He doesn’t owe American Jews anything on this score.

I strongly advise the Jewish leaders having hissy fits over this to calm down, take a deep breath, go study a blatt of gemara, and find other ways to spend their time.  This doesn’t do the Jewish community any good.  It’s Jewsplaining of the worst sort.  If Jews want to stay alert for real, dangerous, toxic anti-Semitism take a look at the White House or Breitbart or Orange County, where a nice Jewish college boy was murdered by a neo-Nazi thug (not a word from Greenblatt about that heinous murder).  Because telling Black leaders who they can and can’t consort with is obnoxious.  Cut it out, now.

This article was published by Tikun Olam.

Following last month’s protests challenging Iran’s theocratic regime, including women across the country climbing on telecom boxes, taking off their headscarves and waving them aloft on sticks, police quickly arrested 29 women accusing them of protesting against a law that makes wearing the hijab compulsory.

When Vida Movahed, a 31-year-old mother, clambered up an electrical box and was pictured waving her head scarf from a stick on a busy street in Tehran, this courageous lady was arrested and held for about a month before being released, according to activists. Thousands of social media users have shared messages, dubbing her the “Girl of Enghelab Street” after the area in central Tehran where she staged the protest, and using the hashtag “Where_is_she?” “Before even being tried by legal authorities, [women] are taken to a place called ‘Gasht-e Ershad’ [Guidance Patrol], where they can be harshly beaten up. Whether a case is opened for them or not is not important,” she said. “The illegal punishment they have had to bear has always been much more than what is foreseen in the law.” Sotoudeh accused the police of frequently going beyond the law.

New waves of protests continue to draw more support with hijab flying still spreading across the country focusing on demands for personal freedoms. Iran’s socio-economic malaise can explain neither the way protesters mobilized in such scattered local sites nor the velocity by which the protests have spread.

Iran’s anti-hijab campaigners grow bolder weekly with spreading public demonstrations of defiance. The demonstrations, which included dozens of women on 2/7/2018 according to the Wall Street Journal continue as they expose deepening differences between Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, a relative “moderate” who has courted women’s support, and “Supreme Leader” Ali Khameini who opposes any easing of strictures on the head scarf, or hijab.

“Iranian society is squarely in a post-revolutionary phase,” according to Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the nonprofit International Crisis Group. Among the images and videos shared on social media one 2/7/2018, one showed a woman with hair dyed pink. Others stood in parks or the middle of busy roads and flashed peace signs at passersby as they waved their hijabs, in the air. The January demonstrators and those protesting the hijab “have been frustrated with the government’s empty promises, which haven’t been fulfilled at all,” said Shadi Sadr, an Iranian lawyer and women’s rights activist based in London who runs nonprofit Justice for Iran.

Soheila Jolodarzadeh, a female member of the Iranian parliament, said the protests were the result of longstanding restrictions. “They’re happening because of our wrong approach,” she said, according to the semi-official Ilna news agency. “We imposed restrictions on women and put them under unnecessary restraints. Therefore, women from Enghelab Street and now across Iran are putting their hijab on a stick.”

Iran’s ‘morality police’ released statistics claiming that they arrested or sent to court 3.6 million women over the recent past because of how they wear the hijab, so these arrests are not new. People are protesting exactly because of such a crackdown, according to MP Soheila Jolodarzadeh.

Many religiously conservative Iranians are among those now supporting the protests, with many insisting that religious dress should be a personal choice.

Photos shared on Twitter increasingly show women in traditional black chador robes, standing on pillar boxes with signs supporting freedom of choice for women. One held a sign reading: “I love my hijab but I’m against compulsory hijab.”  Female activist Azar Mansouri, a member of the reformist Union of Islamic Iranian People party, said attempts to control female clothing will continue to fail.

President Hassan Rouhani, in a break with “Supreme Leader” Ali Khameini, insists that authorities must listen to protesters behind the Hijab unrest, hinting that it risked another revolution if their demands are ignored. Rouhani, insisted that popular support will crumble if his fellow elites did not listen to protests that have swept the country in recent weeks. “The previous regime thought monarchical rule would last forever, but it lost everything for this very reason — that it did not hear the criticism of the people,” he added, Rouhani said at the shrine of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in southern Tehran, flanked by Khomeini’s grandson, Hassan Khomeini, a prominent reformist.

Rouhani has now clearly allied himself with reformists including the release of political prisoners. “No one can stop the great people of Iran from expressing their views, criticism and even protest,” he said. The shah’s regime “did not hear the voice of reformers, advisors, scholars, elites, and the educated,” said Rouhani. “It only heard the voice of revolution and by then, it was too late.” His comments echoed the sharp criticism a day earlier from jailed reformist Mehdi Karroubi, who has been under house arrest for the past seven years for leading protests in 2009. Karroubi lashed out at Ali Khamenei in an open letter, saying major reforms were needed “before it is too late”.

The charge against Rouhani is that he has failed to deliver reforms as promised. More than 10 million Iranians, among 80 million, now live in absolute poverty, according to official figures.

Against the Ayatollah and the Mullahs, the charge is that what they have delivered — power and wealth only to the clerics, social repression, foreign wars — are not what the Iranian people want. Yet it is also meaningless in retrospect to call the recent protests inevitable. Iran’s larger socio-economic malaise can explain neither the way protesters mobilized in such scattered yet small local sites nor the velocity by which the protests spread so widely.

Opposition figure Mahdi Karroubi, who is currently under house arrest, has voiced rare criticism of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, blaming him for the “disastrous results” of the Revolutionary Guard’s vast political and economic influence. In a rare open letter published recently, Mahdi Karroubi claims that Khamenei violated the constitution, and called on him to order the Revolutionary Guard to loosen its grip on the economy.

Karroubi further insists that the nationwide street protests “corruption and discrimination” are an alarm bell for the authorities to reform the economic and political system. Pressured by soaring food prices, the protests – the biggest in Iran since the post-election unrest of 2009 – took on a rare political dimension, with a growing number of people calling on Khamenei himself to step down. He added that by vetting candidates in elections, Khamenei had reduced parliament to “an obedient assembly” under his thumb and the influence of Revolutionary Guards lobbies. he added that the Assembly of Experts, a council of elected clerics charged with electing, supervising and even disqualifying the Supreme Leader, has turned into a “ceremonial council that only praises the Leader.”

Karroubi further said December’s nationwide street protests “corruption and discrimination” were an alarm bell for the authorities to reform the economic and political system. Pressured by soaring food prices, the protests – the biggest in Iran since the post-election unrest of 2009 – took on a rare political dimension, with a growing number of people calling on Khamenei himself to step down.

Khamenei’s power is also financial. A major portion of Iran’s national budget goes to the office of the supreme leader and its affiliated institutions. This funding is not subject to government oversight, and no one but Khamenei himself knows how much money he receives. Nor does anyone control how he spends it. Since 1979 revolution, the office of the supreme leader has laid out billions of dollars to expand the influence of his faith, Shia Islam, across the Middle East. War is a key part of that foreign policy. Since 2011, Ali Khamenei has sent Iranian troops into Syria’s civil war to keep his favored regime in power. The supreme leader is also behind Iran’s controversial nuclear program and the country’s insistence on processing nuclear-grade uranium  which has brought international sanctions, invasive inspections and global political criticism to Iran.

Reformers have publicized a series of eight nonnegotiable demands:

• Organizing financial policies and increasing the effect of national budget
• Protecting human rights and people’s privacy
• Improving women’s social status
• Nationalizing oil profits
• Supporting NGOs
• Supporting the right of religious or tribal minorities
• Supporting the domination of law and opposing and criticizing illegal behavior
• Supporting the press and free access to the information and internet

Increasingly Iranians are demanding the end to Supreme Leadership and to govern themselves. Under Ali Khamenei’s total control, institutions established at the beginning of the 1979 Revolution to wipe out poverty have turned into conglomerates that own half of Iran’s wealth without a supervisory organization to question their actions. Iranians generally see no future with a theocratic dictatorship.

By Sabahat Khan*

On January 20, Turkish Armed Forces launched air and ground maneuvers with in Operation Olive Branch to target U.S.-backed Kurdish YPG (Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units) and so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL) targets. Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighters then began moving into areas Kurdish militias were pushed out from by Turkish firepower.

Although ISIL has been hit hard in recent months and lost substantial ground in Syria and Iraq, Turkey has become increasingly concerned with Syrian Kurdish militias it identifies as Turkey’s primary national security threat. Turkey has long criticized the U.S. policy of arming and training Kurdish militias and President Erdogan recently raised the stakes by saying Washington is fomenting terrorism along Turkish borders while Istanbul is denied defense cooperation in the form of drones and weapons it has been requesting.

While the Syrian government of President Assad categorized the Turkish incursion as “aggression” and a violation of Syria’s territorial integrity, Russia has remained largely mute and called for restraint. Note that Operation Olive Branch was only possible because Russia provided conditional access to Syrian airspace for the Turkish Air Force. Nonetheless, President Erdogan remains vehemently opposed to President Assad, recently labeling him a ”terrorist,” while President Assad holds President Erdogan responsible for fueling the Syrian civil war.

Turkey hopes its military operations are swift in displacing and rolling back Syrian Kurdish militias but any success here is only tactical at best. Although unlikely, the threat of a prolonged campaign and casualties for the Turkish Armed Forces will only harden nationalist sentiments in Turkey and potentially embolden Ankara into taking more aggressive steps inside Syria.

In any case, the latest Turkish intervention into Syria – which Ankara may see and portray as a last resort – nonetheless strains its relationships with several partners and stakeholders, including the U.S. and even Russia. However, U.S.-Turkish tensions are strategically desirable for Moscow as neither Washington nor Istanbul can effectively pursue their strategic interests in Syria without the support of the other. Nonetheless, Turkish intervention in rolling back U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish groups potentially jeopardizes future U.S. influence and credibility as a consequence, which is helpful to broader Russian goals.

Moscow understands that the Kurdish threat for Turkey is a red line beyond negotiation – and not accommodating Ankara at this stage of the conflict can complicate Russia’s own efforts especially as its military operations progress deep into a “draw down” phase. After all, as James Jeffrey, a former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and Iraq, recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, around a third of Syria is effectively controlled between the U.S. and Turkey – with Turks being crucial to enabling American access to Syria.

The U.S. has been less sensitive to Turkish concerns over its policy in Syria with regards to supporting Syrian Kurds – providing NATO-member Turkey a compelling rationale to cooperate more closely with Russia. The U.S. has nurtured close ties with Syrian Kurdish militias to fight ISIL over the past two years, infuriating Turkey in the process. However, wary of supporting religiously-inspired Sunni Arab rebel groups, even relatively moderate types that oppose Al Qaeda and ISIL affiliates, and short of alternative partners, the U.S. looked towards working with Syrian Kurdish militias as a way of staying relevant in the Syrian theatre and in any future peace process.

It is believed that a U.S. announcement, later retracted, to arm and finance a Kurdish “border force” hastened the Turkish intervention into Afrin with Operation Olive Branch. Russia later blamed U.S. unilateralism for forcing the latest Turkish intervention, which Moscow reluctantly tolerated but could not be seen to endorse.

Moving forwards, the capture of Afrin by the FSA from Syrian Kurdish militias could prove a coup for Turkey – situated in Aleppo Governorate, Syria’s most populous province, Afrin also provides a gateway to the city of Idlib largely under FSA control but contested by Syrian government forces. Turkey is focused most seriously on these northern areas of Syria – where the FSA is strongest and where a significant Turkmen also resides – to reshape the local balance of power between warring factions in favor of pro-Turkey groups.

There have been rumors and conspiracy theories for months that the Russians, Turks, and Iranians have agreed on a de facto partitioning of Syria. While the “Balkanization” of Syria is far from a foregone conclusion or endgame, the latest Turkish intervention could well be part of a loosely coordinated, quid-pro-quid Turkish-Russian-Iranian effort to reorient the war-torn Syrian theatre in preparation for future political peace talks.

It was inevitable that the U.S. would eventually be forced to decide between Turkey or Syrian Kurds as its main ally or driver of its somewhat paradoxical Syria policy but the current Turkish operations have swung much momentum back into its favor. On January 27, Turkish media reported U.S. National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster confirming that the U.S. was ending weapons transfers to the YPG in what would amount to a major policy change. However, U.S. forces are holding the city of Manjib, also in Aleppo Province, which was retaken from ISIL in 2016 by Syrian Kurdish militias and has since become one of their safest operating camps.

As such, beyond the tactical fluidity in Syria it remains a largely gridlocked theatre at the strategic level. Moreover, as none of the four major external players in Syria – Russia, Iran, Turkey and the United States – have completely aligned or completely divergent agendas either among themselves or with the Assad government, any cooperation will continue to come in short bursts, be highly transactional and remain sharp-edged.

*Sabahat Khan, Senior Analyst, INEGMA

By Riad Kahwaji*

Ballistic missiles repeatedly fired by the Houthi rebels in Yemen against Saudi Arabia might be more than a mere retaliation against the Kingdom for leading an Arab coalition against them to restore the legitimately elected Yemeni government to power, according to observers and diplomatic and military sources in the Arabian Gulf. “The Houthi ballistic missiles could be an attempt by the party (Iran) providing them to the rebel militia to either trigger a bigger regional conflict or to test the missiles’ performance and efficiency against U.S.-supplied missile defense systems deployed in Saudi Arabia,” according to a Western diplomat based in the region.

Houthis have increased in the past couple of months the frequency of firing the ballistic missiles against Saudi Arabia in an apparent reaction to the big advances the Saudi-led coalition has made on the ground in the same period, progressively edging towards the capital Sanaa and the Houthi stronghold of Sa’adah.

According to the Saudi-led Arab Coalition and press reports the Houthis have fired at least 90 ballistic missiles against targets in Yemen and Saudi Arabia over the past three years of the Yemeni war. In the past, Houthi fired ballistic missiles were limited to ranges of around 350 kilometers but since November 2017 the Houthis have been launching ballistic missiles with ranges of up to 800 kilometers – placing the Saudi capital, Riyadh, within reach.

The United Nations is conducting an investigation into the allegations made by the representatives of the United States and Britain at the Security Council that Iran was the source of ballistic missiles being used by the Houthis. The U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley presented at a presser in December 2017 fragments of a ballistic missile that crashed near Riyadh stating they constituted a solid proof that Iran was smuggling weapons to the Houthis in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions that forbade Tehran from exporting such weapons. Iran has denied the charges.

However, a growing number of observers and officials in the region and the West have asserted that Iran has indeed been supplying Houthis with various types of weapons. Several ships carrying Iranian weapons to the Houthis have been intercepted by Arab and Western naval ships in the Red Sea and in Gulf waters over the past two years. Moreover, Iranian officials have boasted about aiding Houthis and supplying them with missiles like the Zilzal-3.

“Why has Iran supplied more advanced ballistic missiles with a longer range to the Houthis knowing the possible consequences of such a move?” asked a Western diplomat in the region. “Tehran knows that if these missiles do hit a strategic target in Riyadh, the Saudis might retaliate against Iranian targets. So why take such a chance?” In November 2017, Houthis claimed to have launched a cruise missile against the United Arab Emirates’ capital, Abu Dhabi. but the missile fell some distance short of its target.

According to a senior military official in the Saudi-led coalition, messages were passed to Tehran via diplomatic channels that if any of the Houthis’ ballistic missiles hit strategic targets in any of Arab Gulf capitals they will retaliate against Iran directly.

Some Western diplomats worry that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards might be seeking to widen the conflict in Yemen into a limited regional confrontation with the Arab Gulf States in order to escape growing domestic turmoil, push oil prices dramatically upward and improve the position of their Houthis allies in Yemen.

“An exchange of missiles with Arab Gulf States will increase nationalist feelings in Iran and subdue current internal unrest, and will also push oil prices close to $100 a barrel which will suit the ailing Iranian economy and ease pressure on the Houthis and improve their bargaining position vis-à-vis the Yemeni government and the Saudis,” the diplomate said. “Besides, getting a foreign party to trigger the war will give Tehran plausible deniability of starting it.”

However, the senior Arab military official believes that Iran is actually using Yemen as a testing ground for its missiles. “The Iranian advisors who are helping the Houthis fire these missiles are basically testing their accuracy and efficiency as well as their performance against the missile defense systems the Arab Coalition has deployed in Yemen and Saudi Arabia.” Saudi Arabia and the UAE are both operating the Patriot Pac-3 missile defense system as the main line of defense against ballistic missiles.

Iran has an advanced ballistic missile program that is now a serious cause of concern to the United States and other countries in Europe and the Middle East region. Iran continues to conduct missile tests despite a U.N. Security Council ban on the testing of missiles believed to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Iran is believed to have conducted some 23 missiles tests since the signing of the nuclear agreement better known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with the five permanent representatives to the U.N. Security Council plus Germany. Many regional officials and observers do not discount the possibility of Iran using Yemen as a testing ground for its missiles, which in such a case means Iran has actually conducted way much more than the recorded 23 official missile tests on Iranian territories.

The U.S. Administration of Donald Trump is now demanding a full review of JCPOA to add clauses imposing restrictions on Iran’s advancing ballistic missile program. Washington has threatened to walk away from JCPOA if the agreement is not amended. It is not yet clear whether Iran has agreed to renegotiate the agreement but so far that appears to be the only way to salvage a deal that ended international sanctions against Iran and eased huge pressure on its economy.

*Riad Kahwaji, is the founder and director of INEGMA with a 28 years of experience as a journalist and a Middle East security analyst.