A church in northwest China’s Xinjiang region had its crosses, statues, bell towers and other religious features demolished by order of communist authorities.

Using a crane, state-instructed workers removed the exterior religious features from the Catholic church of Yining city in Urumqi Diocese on Feb. 27.

A source told ucanews.com that no reason was given for the action but it is believed to have been carried out because the religious features were “incompatible with sinicization.”

The source said three crosses and two bell towers on the top of Yining Catholic Church were demolished and that all religious symbols, two big statues and any reliefs were removed.

“It was originally said religious features inside the church should been demolished as well but it was suspended without any reasons given,” the source said.

The church received a letter from the authorities the day before informing them the demolition would occur.

The source said he was puzzled by what has happened to the church because of it occurred just before the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and the National People’s Congress are both held in Beijing on March 3 and 5 respectively and while a Sino-Vatican agreement was supposedly being worked out.

The source said that last November a cross on a church steeple in Manas city of Xinjiang was also demolished for sinicization purposes.

“So it appears that crosses should be demolished for sinicization,” said the source. “Maybe one day, all the churches will be demolished since they are so modern and beautiful and are against the purpose of sinicization?” he asked.

In eastern Zhejiang province, more than 1,500 churches, both Catholic and Protestant, have been targeted for demolition or cross removals in recent years, sources have said in a campaign against churches not coming under state control. Chinese authorities are increasingly using property regulations to remove crosses and demolish churches.

The source said he thinks what occurred to Yining Catholic Churchit may be related to local political tensions in the region. The Chinese authorities have long repressed ethnic minorities, especially the Uyghurs, and religions in Xinjiang, often under the guise of fighting “terrorism.” In recent months, tens of thousands of Uyghurs have been forced into reeducation camps and prisons across the region.

Data centres and smartphones will be the most damaging information and communications technologies to the environment by 2040, according to new research from W Booth School’s Lotfi Belkhir.

At the end of winter term in 2014, Lotfi Belkhir was approached by a student taking his Total Sustainability and Management course who asked, “What does software sustainability mean?”

The Entrepreneurship and Innovation Associate Professor at the W Booth School of Engineering Practice and Technology didn’t have an answer.

Belkhir teaches students to think creatively about sustainability tools that can be applied to their entrepreneurial ventures. But his tools, at the time, mainly applied to hardware startups, not software.

The student’s question sparked Belkhir’s latest research on the global emissions footprint of information and communications technology (ICT).

Belkhir, along with Ahmed Elmeligi, a recent W Booth grad and co-founder of the startup, HiNT (Healthcare Innovation in NeuroTechnology), studied the carbon footprint of consumer devices such as smartphones, laptops, tablets, desktops as well as data centres and communication networks as early as 2005. Their findings were recently published in the 2018 Journal of Cleaner Production.

Not only did they discover that software is driving the consumption of ICT, they also found that ICT has a greater impact on emissions than we thought and most emissions come from production and operation.

“We found that the ICT industry as a whole was growing but it was incremental,” Belkhir explains. “Today it sits at about 1.5%. If trends continue, ICT will account for as much as 14% for the total global footprint by 2040, or about half of the entire transportation sector worldwide.”

“For every text message, for every phone call, every video you upload or download, there’s a data centre making this happen. Telecommunications networks and data centres consume a lot of energy to serve you and most data centres continue to be powered by electricity generated by fossil fuels. It’s the energy consumption we don’t see.”

Among all the devices, trends suggest that by 2020, the most damaging devices to the environment are smartphones. While smartphones consume little energy to operate, 85% of their emissions impact comes from production.

A smartphone’s chip and motherboard require the most amount of energy to produce as they are made up of precious metals that are mined at a high cost.

Smartphones also have a short life which drives further production of new models and an extraordinary amount of waste.

“Anyone can acquire a smartphone, and telecommunications companies make it easy for people to acquire a new one every two years. We found that by 2020 the energy consumption of a smartphone is going to be more than that of PCs and laptops.”

Belkir has made policy recommendations based on his findings.

“Communication and data centres have to go under renewable energy now. The good news is Google and Facebook data centres are going to run on renewable energy. But there needs to be a policy in place so that all data centres follow suit. Also, it’s not sustainable to have a two-year subsidized plan for smartphones.”

With his latest research, Belkhir hopes to help students in his Total Sustainability and Management course expand their worldview.

“When they start the course, many students don’t know what sustainability means. When the course ends their worldview has changed and they realize what they want to do and why they want to do it.”

Unique soils data from long-term experiments, stretching back to the middle of the nineteenth century, confirm the practical implausibility of burying carbon in the ground to halt climate change, an option once heralded as a breakthrough.

The findings come from an analysis of the rates of change of carbon in soil by scientists at Rothamsted Research where samples have been collected from fields since 1843. They are published today in Global Change Biology.

The idea of using crops to collect more atmospheric carbon and locking it into soil’s organic matter to offset fossil fuel emissions was launched at COP21, the 21st annual Conference of Parties to review the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris in 2015.

The aim was to increase carbon sequestration by “four parts per 1000 (4P1000)” per year for 20 years. “The initiative was generally welcomed as laudable,” said David Powlson, a soils specialist and Lawes Trust Senior Fellow at Rothamsted.

“Any contribution to climate change mitigation is to be welcomed and, perhaps more significantly, any increases in soil organic carbon will improve the quality and functioning of soil,” he added. “The initiative has been adopted by many governments, including the UK.”

But there have been serious criticisms of the initiative. Many scientists argue that this rate of soil carbon sequestration is unrealistic over large areas of the planet, noted Powlson: “Also, increases in soil carbon do not continue indefinitely: they move towards a new equilibrium value and then cease.”

The Rothamsted scientists used data from 16 experiments on three different soil types, giving over 110 treatment comparisons. “The results showed that the “4 per 1000″ rate of increase in soil carbon can be achieved in some cases but usually only with extreme measures that would mainly be impractical or unacceptable,” says Paul Poulton, lead author and an emeritus soils specialist.

“For example, large annual applications of animal manure led to increases in soil carbon that continued over many years but the amounts of manure required far exceeded acceptable limits under EU regulations and would cause massive nitrate pollution,” noted Poulton.

Removing land from agriculture led to large rates of soil carbon increase in the Rothamsted experiments but doing this over large areas would be highly damaging to global food security, record the researchers.

Similarly, they added, returning crop residues to soil was effective at increasing carbon sequestration but, in some countries, this is already done so cannot be regarded as a totally new practice.

“For example, in the UK about 50% of cereal straw is currently returned to soil and much of the remainder is used for animal feed or bedding, at least some of which is later returned to soil as manure,” said Poulton. “In many other countries, however, crop residues are often used as a source of fuel for cooking.”

Moving from continuous arable cropping to a long-term rotation of arable crops interspersed with pasture led to significant soil carbon increases, but only where there was at least 3 years of pasture in every 5 or 6 years, record the researchers.

“Although there can be environmental benefits from such a system, most farmers find that it is uneconomic under present circumstances,” said Powlson. “To make this change on a large scale would require policy decisions regarding changes to subsidy and farm support. Such a change would also have impacts on total food production.”

The authors of this study conclude that promoting the “4 per 1000” initiative as a major contribution to climate change mitigation is unrealistic and potentially misleading.

They suggest that a more logical rationale for promoting practices that increase soil organic carbon is the urgent need to preserve and improve the functioning of soils, both for sustainable food security and wider ecosystem services.

For climate change mitigation through changes in agricultural practices, they point out that measures to decrease emission of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas almost 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, may be more effective.

By Sean Buchanan

In a region stricken by violent conflicts and dictatorships, corruption remains endemic in the Arab states while assaults on freedom of expression, press freedoms and civil society continue to escalate, reports Transparency International, the global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption.

In its Corruption Perceptions Index 2017 released on February 21, the organisation notes that while there are signs of some small strides being taken to combat corruption, the overall picture is one of stagnation.

It is therefore no surprise, it says, that 19 of 21 Arab states score below 50 in the index, which ranks 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption according to experts and businesspeople, using a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 is highly corrupt and 100 is very clean.

While the majority of Arab countries show no significant change in this year’s index, on the ground, a number of countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, and Tunisia are taking small yet positive steps towards fighting corruption and increasing transparency and integrity.

While not reflected in its index score, Lebanon, for example made small strides in 2017 with the passage of the Access to Information Law. The country also joined the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), the global standard for the good governance of oil, gas and mineral resources. In addition, the Lebanese parliament ratified the national budget for the first time since 2005.

Tunisia, on the other hand, while advancing on some anti-corruption fronts, witnessed a setback with the adoption of a controversial reconciliation law. Despite strong public opposition, the law grants amnesty to corrupt public officials who served during the old regime of Ben Ali.

Although some efforts have been made, corruption still persists in these countries and across the region, and stagnant scores on the index reflect the challenge of political corruption that ravages the Middle East and North African (MENA) region. According to Transparency International, the political systems in Arab states are controlled by ruling elites who abuse power for personal gain at the expense of millions of disadvantaged citizens.

In the absence of separation of powers, and without strong and transparent public institutions and accountability mechanisms, the introduction of anti-corruption laws and regulations becomes more lip service than real and much needed political and institutional reform.

Meanwhile, since the Arab revolutions in 2011, dictatorships in the Arab world have intensified their crackdown on political dissent, free speech, independent media and civil society organisations. Transparency International notes that corruption thrives in environments where speaking truth to power is a risky and daunting task.

Bahrain, which experienced the sharpest drop in the index, is one example. Over the past two years, the Bahraini authorities have escalated their attacks and restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of association and assembly. In mid-2016, the government dissolved the main political opposition group and imprisoned Bahraini human rights defenders.

It also revoked the citizenship of those who criticised the government, and subjugated civil society and anti-corruption activists to arbitrary travel bans and interrogations. This, in conjunction with the absence of a national strategy to fight corruption and an independent corruption agency, resulted in the country sliding swiftly down the index.

Similarly, the human rights situation and assaults on freedom of expression and civil society engagement deteriorated in Egypt and Morocco. During protests in 2017 in the Rif region of Morocco, the government responded with an iron fist to people’s call for dignity, social justice and an end to corruption and power abuse.

Anti-terrorism and cybercrime laws are also used by governments such as those of Jordan and United Arab Emirates to criminalise free speech on the internet.

The Corruption Perceptions Index, while giving an overview of the perceived levels of public sector corruption in a country, does not capture the whole and varied picture of corruption. For example, in this year’s index, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar rank higher on the index than in previous years.

This, says Transparency International, may be due to good and efficient management of public finances, improved public procurement and better access to public services and infrastructure.

However, despite their high ranking, these monarchies place severe restrictions on civil and public freedoms and suppress any form of political dissent or criticism placed on the ruling families. Both countries could perform better if civic space became more open and free.

Extensive research by the anti-corruption organisation shows shows that long-term reduction in corruption requires the full and active participation of civil society and media.

The worst performing Arab states in the index – Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – all suffer from weak public institutions, internal conflict and deep instability. Such situations allow corruption to become rife with little to no checks on official abuse. Amid ongoing violence, as well as internal wars and conflicts, all forms of good governance have eroded.

To break away from politically corrupt institutions, Transparency International says that Arab governments must take long-term action to establish transparent and accountable institutions, prosecute wrongdoing, and allow for citizen engagement and participation.

They must also promote the participation of civil society and protect activists and journalists in exposing and fighting corruption, and the cracking down on political dissent, enabled by draconian laws such as anti-terrorism and cybercrime laws, must end.

Without serious reform, corruption will continue to flourish, further exacerbating the political and economic instability of the region and hindering its social and economic development.

By Maria Rodriguez-Dominguez*

Hosting the Brazilian version of The Apprentice had made millionaire João Doria a popular figure among voters in the city of São Paulo before the 2016 mayoral elections were staged. Nevertheless, the jetsetter and PSDB (Brazilian Social Democracy Party, Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira) candidate made headlines when he was elected to the post with 53% of the vote in the first-round of the mayoral race on October 2, 2016. Incumbent mayor Fernando Haddad from the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Worker’s Party, PT) finished in a distant second place with only 16%.

Despite running on a platform that included broad privatization and concession plans, Doria won in all but two electoral districts. His success among low income voters came as little surprise, as Doria presented himself during his campaign as “O João Trabalhador” (Working João), a self-made man who had overcome hardship and built his own a media empire on grit. Doria’s key to success was not so much based on his own merit as his preceding lobbying-breaking between businessmen and politicians. However, due to having to face the current discrediting of Brazil’s political class derived from the Lava Jato investigation, Doria was successful in portraying himself as an outsider and a savvy businessman with the managerial skills to provide effective solutions to the city’s most pressing issues.

Currently, Doria is considered among the major PSDB politicians most  likely to be delivered a presidential bid. His name may be less well known at the national level when compared to other PSDB heavyweights such as Sao Paulo Governor Geraldo Alckmin. Nevertheless, his unexpected victory in Brazil’s largest city could serve as proof that political outsiders can play a role in the 2018 race.

Lobbying his way to the upper tiers of politics

João Doria’s links to distinct political groups date back to the early 1980’s when he was appointed as São Paulo’s tourism secretary in his mid-twenties. Later, he served as president of the Brazilian Tourism Board. Doria Group, his communication company and the Group of Business Leaders (Grupo LIDE) that he founded became famous for bringing together high-level politicians and businessmen at extravagant social events, private meetings and seminars such as the Fórum de Comandatuba. Doria’s association with Brazil’s political elite, particularly PSDB politicians, goes beyond organizing conferences or hosting dinner galas at his mansion. According to Folha de S.Paulo, one of Brazil’s major newspapers, between 2010 and 2016, ten PSDB governors paid more than $3 million USD in publicity to his media company.

His opposition to PT governments and proximity to right-wing politicians has been evident for more than a decade. In addition to openly supporting Geraldo Alckmin during the 2006 presidential election, Doria was one of the founders of the Cansei (“I’m tired”) movement in 2007, that protested corruption and insecurity in Brazil and where the Fora Lula (Lula Out) chants played an important part in the demonstrations. Moreover, coinciding with the 2015 anti-government protests, the 14th edition of the Fórum de Comandatuba gathered right-wing personalities, celebrities and business tycoons to discuss the role of leaders in overcoming the “social and economic crisis” affecting Latin America and Brazil. Among those who attended were former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, the infamous former speaker of the Brazilian House, Eduardo Cunha, and the then-Senate president Renan Calheiros. The last two were ousted in 2016 under corruption charges.

Explaining Doria’s success in the mayoral elections

João Doria’s nomination emerged after a power struggle within the PSDB that tilted the scale in favor of São Paulo’s Governor, Geraldo Alckmin, who is considered Doria’s “political godfather.” As a result, other PSDB members such as one of the defeated contenders, Andrea Matarazzo, accused Doria of buying the votes of his fellow party members to secure the nomination. Despite some internal divisions, Doria’s nomination and eventual election were seen at the time as positive signs for Alckmin in his quest to get the PSDB presidential bid.

Throughout his political campaign, the PSDB mayor embraced an anti-PT rhetoric that helped him gain votes and recognition among São Paulo’s conservative electorate. Doria repeatedly has called former president Lula a thief and accused him of living off other people as opposed to working from an early age, as he allegedly did. This anti-petismo was successful in gathering the support of São Paulo’s conservative electorate, where the largest anti-government protests were hosted throughout Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment process.

Nevertheless, Doria’s victory in the first round of elections, particularly in low-income neighborhoods, came as a surprise to many observers. As a member of São Paulo’s elite, it was expected that poor, left-leaning voters would find it hard to relate to him and opt to re-elect incumbent Fernando Haddad. Haddad’s policies targeted poor sectors and offered a progressive solution to the some of the city’s challenges through more affordable social services and improved mobility.

Doria’s appeal to poor voters may be explained by several factors. For instance, the Lava Jato corruption investigation impacted PT politicians more negatively than others due in part to a media campaign that connected that party more sharply to the scandal and portrayed its leaders as corrupt and inefficient. In addition to the disorientation of the PT, the image of Doria as a self-made man resonated among many poor audiences who looked up to him as an epitome of the “Brazilian dream.” This served to reveal that despite the social advances obtained under PT administrations, the party was unable to more effectively politicize poor and new middle-class sectors, and instead focused on the rise of a consumer class that endorses a distorted perception of meritocracy and rejects progressive socio-economic and redistributive policies. Finally, Doria’s management approach and the vision that he was an outsider to politics seduced some voters who saw him as capable of providing rapid solutions to São Paulo’s problems. This reasoning illustrates that the current discontent with Brazil’s political class influences political parties to opt for political newcomers, although not necessarily without links to the political system as in the case of João Doria.

Despite this, while the election of a mayor in the first round was historic for the city, São Paulo was the State capital with the lowest turnout in the country. Almost 2 million of the approximate 9 million registered voters chose not to vote and blank and null ballots reached over 1 million, regardless of compulsory voting.  This abstention corroborates the dissatisfaction of Brazilian society with the current political landscape, as well as an apparent apathy and the inability of political parties to mobilize the electorate.

Privatizing the city while paving the way for the presidential nomination

A year after his election, Doria’s performance has not escaped controversy. For example, his wife Bia Doria has been criticized for her shallow remarks and for her ignorance on the challenges affecting poor people. In addition to stating that “all poor people need is a hug”, she has also praised herself for improving the life of the workers of her art studio by making them her assistants.  The condescension of those statements is particularly significant given that during his tenure João Doria has reduced social services by making deep budget cuts to the health, sanitation, housing, and cultural sectors. This reveals a vision shared by an important part of the Brazilian elite that believes that the state should be reduced and that the poor have to rely on the rich people’s generosity.

Doria has also secured legislative support to advance comprehensive privatization, concessions, and public-private partnership programs as a way to make the government “more efficient” and reduce financial costs. Those plans include São Paulo’s largest public venues, such as the Interlagos race tracks, the Anhembi carnival arena, the Pacaembú stadium, numerous municipal parks, cemeteries, and 27 bus terminals. Civil society organization have warned that the privatization of public spaces can increase the risk of exclusion and marginalization in one of Latin America’s most unequal cities. In addition, they have also criticized the absence of public participation in the discussion, as well as the lack of transparency in the entire privatization process.

Recent polls show that Doria has been unable to retain the image of the efficient manager that allowed him to win the election.  His approval rate has fallen from 41% in July to 32% in October of 2017. According to recent polls, some of his voters, now recognize that he has underperformed and regret having voted for him in the first place. However, despite his decrease in popularity, Doria has embarked in recent months on a tour of  many Brazilian cities, hoping to rally support for an upcoming presidential bid. In the case, he is not able to get a PSDB nomination, he seems open to courtship from other political parties. For instance, it was reported that he has been approached by the Democrats (Democratas, DEM) party and the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (Partido do Movimento Democrático Brasileiro PMDB) in order to discuss a potential nomination.

Conclusion

As the presidential race approaches, Doria is still considered as one of the top political figures more likely to secure a presidential nomination. The mayor is favored by part of the conservative media and the Brazilian elite, due to his managerial approach to politics and because he is seen as a less radical option when compared to Jair Bolsonaro. Vis-à-vis the uncertainty of Lula’s presidential run, the Brazilian right will probably select a scandal-free candidate. Their goal is to get the votes of those dissatisfied with the current state of Brazilian politics, as well as of those influenced by the selective anti-corruption movement that is taking place.  That said, it remains uncertain whether Doria will be successful in convincing the national electorate to vote for a privatization model, such as the one implemented in São Paulo. Likewise, it remains to be seen whether the majority of voters will opt for a political outsider or will favor the return of a more progressive and redistributive model.

*Maria Rodriguez-Dominguez, Extramural Contributor at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Additional editorial support provided by ALINE PIVA, Research Fellow, and LILIANA MUSCARELLA, Extramural Contributor at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

Taking us another step closer to the computers of the future, scientists show that the transfer of quantum information from an electron spin to a photon is possible in a silicon quantum chip.

Quantum theory began to take shape over a century ago and has since been the focus of many studies and observations. Yet, it’s only in recent years that scientists began to envision the use of quantum mechanics in technology, and more specifically in computing. TU Delft, the university hosting the QC-LAB project, has joined the race to build efficient quantum computers, with significant results.

The quantum phenomena that allow us to speak of revolutionising the world of computers as we know it are superposition and entanglement. In a classical computer, a bit can have one of two values: a one or a zero. In a quantum computer, the basic unit of information, known as a quantum bit, or qubit, can be a one, a zero, or both a one and a zero at the same time. This condition of being in multiple possible states is known as superposition.

As qubits are added to a computer, its power increases exponentially. But, to benefit from this increase in power, qubits need to be linked, even if they are separated by a large distance. This phenomenon is referred to as quantum entanglement.

The computer of the future

By harnessing phenomena such as superposition and entanglement, tomorrow’s quantum computers will be able to solve problems that would take current mainframe computers countless years to do, such as factorising large prime numbers or searching extensive unsorted data sets.

However, for a quantum computer to be able to make such useful computations, it would require lots of qubits, and it’s precisely this need for large numbers of qubits that poses a challenge. These fragile units of quantum information must be able to communicate well if these computers are to be a success.

The promise of silicon

Quantum chips store information in qubits and are made of silicon. Widely used in electronic devices, silicon makes lengthy storage of information possible and therefore holds promise as a quantum technology material. But, scientists have yet to figure out how to increase the number of physics (spin) qubit systems. As described in their paper published in the journal ‘Science’, the project’s researchers have taken a step towards addressing this issue by showing that a single electron spin and a single microwave photon can be coupled on a silicon chip. In the authors’ own words, ‘[t]he electron spin is trapped in a silicon double quantum dot and the microwave photon is stored in an on-chip high-impedance superconducting resonator.’ They add: ‘The electric field component of the cavity photon couples directly to the charge dipole of the electron in the double dot, and indirectly to the electron spin, through a strong local magnetic field gradient from a nearby micromagnet.’ Researchers said that their results provide a route to realising large networks of quantum dot-based spin qubit registers.

This quantum chip with reliable silicon qubits is an important milestone on the road to achieving scalable quantum calculations. The QC-LAB team’s goal is to develop a 13-qubit circuit that will demonstrate back-and-forth quantum state transfer between qubits.

Source: Based on project information and media reports

By Pier Francesco Zarcone*

It is not being dealt with by major media, but there appear to be new and dangerous winds of war about to blow in the eastern Mediterranean.

On October 15, 2016, in a speech at the university that (modestly) bears his name, Turkish President Recep Erdoğan outlined some lines of his new foreign policy, announcing the intention to regain territories lost by the Ottoman Empire following defeat in the First World War, with specific reference to Western Thrace and the Dodecanese, all areas belonging to Greece, in theory an ally of Turkey in NATO.

In December 2017 he was echoed by the head of the secular neo-Kemalist opposition, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, leader of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), who announced that Turkey would invade eighteen Greek islands in 2019 – as then Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit had done with Cyprus in 1974 – stating that “there is no document” demonstrating that these islands belong to Greece. This was to happen – and here lies the gravity of the situation – if his party (apparently Social Democratic) were to win the next elections.

Another sign came in Erdoğan’s speech on February 17 at a congress of his party (Justice and Development Party – AKP) held in Eskişehir. Speaking of the military action against Syrian Kurds, he proclaimed:

“Those who think that we have erased from our hearts the lands from which we withdrew in tears a hundred years ago are wrong. We say at every opportunity we have that Syria, Iraq and other places in the geography [map] in our hearts are no different from our own homeland. Wherever the call to prayer is understood, we fight so that we do not brandish a foreign flag. What has been done so far is nothing compared with the even more imposing attacks that we expect for the coming days: God wills it!”

Then, on his recent visit to Athens, Erdoğan had addressed – albeit only at the diplomatic level – the problem constituted by those Aegean islands situated near Anatolia that the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 had assigned to Greece, expressing the need for a review of that agreement.

In the meantime, it is worth noting, the final touches were being put to the sale to Turkey of the ultramodern Russian S-400 anti-missile system, an initiative highly criticised by NATO also because it is not compatible with other weapon systems used by the Atlantic Alliance.

It should be recalled that the Treaty of Lausanne – replacing the previous Treaty of Sèvres, which had been degrading for what remained of the Ottoman Empire – recognised the reconquest of the whole of Anatolia by Kemalist forces, and that in view of this the attribution to Greece of the now contested Thracian islands and territories was acceptable.

It was also a sort of sop to Athens, ruinously defeated by Atatürk after being installed with British support in the area of Smyrna, in the crazy dream of partly rebuilding the Byzantine Empire (it was the so-called Megali Idea).

The worrying episodes that form part of this pre-war climate are not lacking, and the recent confrontation in the Aegean between the Greek offshore patrol vessel 090 and the Turkish patrol boat Umut was only one element of the series. On July 28, 2017, for example, a Turkish CN-235 spy plane was intercepted by the Greeks, and shortly afterwards, on August 12, eleven Turkish F-16 planes trespassed in Greek air space over a twelve-hour period, resulting in thirteen occasions on which as many Greek planes engaged in interception. The trespassing took place in the skies of Limnos, Lesvos, Samos and Chios.

That belligerent revanchist intentions also rub off on the Turkish opposition is serious both in and of itself, and because the neo-Kemalists would be expected to have it clear why Atatürk had warned several times not to make enemies on the borders: the good and security of Turkey.

Today, Ankara’s troops (and as many enemies) are outside the borders of the Turkish Republic, in the occupied part of Cyprus, northern Syria and Iraq.

In the Iraqi area of Mosul area, Turkish troops are present once again without the permission of the Baghdad government, which in fact speaks of invasion. In the Mosul region, according to former Greek Chief of Staff General Fragkos Fragkoulis, Turkey intends to secure access to Iraqi oil. Would it be a surprise if, sooner or later, Erdoğan were to claim (perhaps resorting also to military action) the entire territory of the former vilayet of Mosul, to which Kemalist Turkey effectively aspired but which was assigned to Iraq by British will?

At this point the current operation in Syria presents disturbing connotations, which could lead to international complications and bloodshed. The problem is to understand against whom the “imperial” intentions of Erdoğan are really directed.

It is now so evident that the doors of Europe are closed for Turkey that the majority of Turks themselves have stopped taking it into account, and perhaps – with the Islamist wind that is blowing – they no longer want to enter.

Another example of how political myopia strikes “indirectly”: if instead of closing up (hypocritically, without saying so) into racist xenophobia and paranoid anti-Islamism – yet having a higher, clearly deficient cultural level – European leaders had taken the opportunity to allow that country in when the assertively “moderate” Muslims still did not have power, today we would perhaps have a different situation and different problems.

And probably the AKP could have counted on one less card: dangerous wounded Turkish pride, which inevitably falls back on the old saying: “the Turk has no friend but the Turk”.

Today Erdoğan, whose popular consensus does not seem to have waned, is angry with so many: Germany, the European Union, NATO and the United States, partly because of the failed coup against him – most likely triggered by his Western “allies” – with the addition that archenemy Fethullah Gülen continues to live peacefully in the United States. It cannot be ruled out that the hostile attitude towards Greece is part of a plan to create difficulties for NATO, of which both countries are part.

An article recently appeared in the Turkish newspaper Yeni Şafak (perfectly aligned with Erdoğan) which, while on the one hand it increased Greek concerns, on the other it may provide elements of interpretation. Its author, İbrahim Karagül – an AKP “hardliner” considered the President’s unofficial spokesperson – writes that Erdoğan’s latest move follows the persistence of Western ambiguities and especially of the United States, false friend of Turkey and accomplice of the Kurdish enemy.

At this point, once the country had reunited around him, he would lead it to a new “war of independence” (after that of Atatürk), having all those who dared not to follow him classed as traitors of their country. In theory there could be neo-Kemalists among them, and perhaps (stressing perhaps) this would explain Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s “putting on a fierce face”. But this is not necessarily the case, because Turks are very sensitive to hyper-nationalist contagion.

On the fringes there are Erdoğan’s nods to Russia, it being understood that in Moscow it is well known how unreliable the Turkish president is. But he is not behaving well even as far as Russia is concerned, as shown by the “Olive Branch” operation, which can also be seen as part of a broader strategy in which the neo-Ottoman dreams of Islamic “moderate” Erdoğan can turn into a nightmare for others.

Recent events on the battlefield of Afrin make the possibilities of an extensive confrontation between Turkish and Syrian troops unrealistic.

Since it does not appear that the recent mass purges in the armed forces have reinforced its efficiency, if Syria reacts with the aid of Moscow, Erdoğan could end up calling on NATO for help, regardless of having previously pontificated that the obligations of the Atlantic Alliance do not extend to the Near East.

The Russians have so far maintained a cautious attitude, but as a successful ally of Assad they could not lose face by leaving the field open to Turkey. The fact is that it would not be Turkey that had been attacked – bearing in mind that the fighting is in Syrian and not Turkish territory – but it would not be strange if, by turning the tables, Erdoğan were to argue (in the Israeli way) that his was a preventive action to prevent Kurdish aggression.

The Turkish president proves to be a good student of the U.S. school of international politics – under which, when it is convenient, international law is waste paper – as well as in the uninhibited violations of other countries’ borders, as shown by the case of armed intrusion in energy exploration in the sea around Cyprus, a sovereign country and member of the European Union, at whose door Erdoğan pretends to keep knocking.

For several days, Turkey has blockaded the Saipem, a drilling vessel chartered by the Italian multinational oil and gas company ENI and duly authorised by the Cypriot government, citing completely unfounded claims based on international treaties.

The 1982 Treaty of Montego Bay establishes that the sovereignty of a State extends up to 12 nautical miles from its coast; however for the specific case of the exclusive exploitation of minerals and hydrocarbons it is extended to the whole of its continental platform, to be understood as the natural extension of landmass until it is at a more or less constant depth before sinking. But arrogance always pays.

And the poor and crippled Greece, left high and dry by the European Union? It has asked the United States for protection! In fact, its right-wing Minister of Defence, Panos Kammenos, has offered the Americans new bases in the Aegean; this is a risky move given the high rate of Washington’s betrayal of its allies in their moment of need, and then because it was done precisely to infuriate the Turks.

At the worst, hope costs nothing, but in this case what the object of hope might be is not clear. Hope for Turkey getting bogged down in Syria? But even if that were the case, can we be sure that Erdoğan would not seek revenge on the very weak Greece?

Hope that, in the meantime, he will satisfy his imperial appetites in the Near East? Apart from the fact that it does not go without saying that this will happen, nevertheless, even if it were to happen, there is no guarantee that his imperial appetite would be satisfied, especially if he were really intent on reconquering former Ottoman territories lost in the Near East and Europe.

A seemingly insane design, but considering all the factors in the field – including the tried and tested unwarlike nature of the various players – it is not certain that it really is, even if the consequences would be crazy.

* Pier Francesco Zarcone, with a degree in canonical law, is a historian of the labour movement and a scholar of Islam, among others. He is a member of Utopia Red (Red Utopia), an international association working for the unity of revolutionary movements around the world in a new International: La Quinta (The Fifth). This article was originally published in Italian under the title Il Neo-Ottomanesimo di Erdoğan a Una Svolta Pericolosa in Red Utopia. Translated by Phil Harris.

By Ryan McMaken*

Now that I have several children, I’m often in the company of other parents who talk about the way things “used to be.” When the issue of child safety comes up, I hear parents sadly shake their heads and say things like “it’s not like it was when we were kids…the world is so much more dangerous now.”

Usually, the sentiment behind this idea is that there are more murders now than there used to be.

Now, I’m not exactly known for being a Pollyanna, but I am willing to admit when things are not, in fact, getting worse.

And when it comes to things like homicides, there is no evidence that things are getting worse. It is indeed true that things aren’t like they were “when we were kids,” but that’s a good thing. There were far more homicides in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s than there are today. Things were even worse than that during the 1970s. In fact, the homicide rate in the US was cut in half between 1991 and 2014. And while the homicide rate has inched up over the past two years, it is nowhere near where it was “when we were kids.”

For anyone familiar with these trends, it should not be shock to hear that a subset of those homicides — school shootings — have decreased over that period as well.

In response to the latest shooting in Florida, Northeastern University released a preview of new research by James Alan Fox slated for publication this fall which shows, quite clearly, that there is no growing trend in school shootings. The university notes:

Mass school shootings are incredibly rare events. In research publishing later this year, Fox and doctoral student Emma Fridel found that on average, mass murders occur between 20 and 30 times per year, and about one of those incidents on average takes place at a school.

Fridel and Fox used data collected by USA Today, the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Report, Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence Archive, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries, Mother Jones, Everytown for Gun Safety, and a NYPD report on active shooters.

Their research also finds that shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the 1990s.

Four times the number of children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today, Fox said.

“There is not an epidemic of school shootings,” he said, adding that more kids are killed each year from pool drownings or bicycle accidents. There are around 55 million school children in the United States, and on average over the past 25 years, about 10 students per year were killed by gunfire at school, according to Fox and Fridel’s research.

In a February 22 article, New York Magazine came to a similar conclusion, noting:

Schools in the United States are safer today than at any time in recent memory. Criminal victimization in America’s education facilities has declined in tandem with the nation’s collapsing crime rate. Meanwhile, as of 2013, the year after the Newtown massacre, mass shootings accounted for only 1.5 percent of all gun deaths in the United States, or 502 total fatalities.

New York was drawing on research from the US Justice Department showing that “school victimization” rates have plummeted since 1992, as a graph provided by the Justice Department shows:

Fox, the author of the Northeastern University research, does not oppose policy changes like increasing the age for purchasing guns. But he notes it’s unlikely to impact the numbers very much:

The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround,” Fox said, adding that over the past 35 years, there have been only five cases in which someone ages 18 to 20 used an assault rifle in a mass shooting.

Ironically, those most familiar with the data on shootings are often less likely to assume that gun control measures are are an easy solution to the problem of homicide.

For example, last year, Leah Libresco at the Washington Post — hardly an organ of the NRA — concluded that gun control measures are of extremely limited value:

…my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence…

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths…

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them.

What Libresco did conclude, was that a host of societal issues are driving much of what we hear about in terms of so-called gun violence. Mental illness, suicide, gang violence, and domestic violence are all important factors that drive gun violence. The problem, Libresco admits, is that simply prohibiting certain types of guns doesn’t really address these issues.

Accepting the “Crisis” Narrative

In the wake of last month’s Florida shooting, many opponents of gun control made the mistake of simply accepting the claim that school shootings are getting worse, and are more deadly overall.

According to Fox’s research, though, this is simply not the case. And we also certainly know that homicides overall are way down from where they were in the good ol’ days of my youth.

These apparent facts, of course, don’t stop even rightwing professional Cassandras like Rod Dreher from authoring articles like this one called “Underestimating American Collapse” which uses school shootings as evidence that American civilization is basically on the brink of collapse:

Why are American kids killing each other? Why doesn’t their society care enough to intervene? Well, probably because those kids have given up on life — and their elders have given up on them. Or maybe you’re right — and it’s not that simple. Still, what do the kids who aren’t killing each other do? Well, a lot of them are busy killing themselves.

Maybe American society is in a more perilous position that in the 1980s. But if we’re looking for evidence of that, the homicide data won’t help the argument. Dreher is right to question why American kids are killing each other. But an equally relevant question might also be “why are fewer American kids killing each other now than 25 years ago?”

School Shootings and Opportunity Cost

Part of the problem with accepting the crisis narrative is that it ignores other priorities and other problems that may deserve our attention elsewhere.

After all, resources for schools — or anything else — are not unlimited, and it is unclear that extremely rare events like school shootings can be put forward as a priority.

This problem of priorities can be seen in the fact that cities where snow falls irregularly do not maintain a huge fleet of snowplows. In Naples, Italy last week, for example, the city experienced the largest snowfall it’s seen in 50 years. According to the Daily Mail, the snowfall were seen as a citywide emergency and “[r]esidents have been told not to leave their homes unless it is ‘strictly necessary.'” One man was said to have even frozen to death in the unexpectedly frigid temperatures.

Now, if even a few inches of snow can bring the city to a standstill and endanger the lives of residents, why does the city not have far more snow plows than it does? Why is there not a network of emergency workers to ensure that residents are not caught in the cold where they can be injured or even killed by cold temperatures?

The answer, of course, is that the opportunity cost of such measures would be extremely high. By maintaining personnel and equipment designed to address a rare snowfall, the city would be foregoing the opportunity to train people or purchase equipment for a wide variety of other activities that are no doubt also deemed essential.

While school shootings no doubt have a greater psychological impact than frigid temperatures, it is no less true that spending large amounts of resources on anti-shooting measures carry with them their own costs.

Now, in the US, many organizations, both public and private have elected to devote sizable amounts of resources to security. But none of them deny that there is an opportunity cost to doing so.

Indeed, opponents of added security in schools have been quick to point out the costs of more security measures.

And yet, proponents of more gun control act as if there are no opportunity costs to these measures. In reality, of course, the costs of enforcing government prohibitions can be very high, both in terms of tax dollars and costs imposed upon otherwise law abiding citizens. The drug war has made this quite clear. In the absence of individual gun ownership, professional security will become more necessary, and in many cases more costly. This imposes a real cost on citizens, especially on those who cannot afford professional security. Relying on the police for protection, of course, has been shown to be unwise at best.

What Are We Doing Right?

Many observers will still point out that even a small number of school shootings is too many. That’s true enough, but when the multi-decade trend is downward, it would hardly be honest to attempt to frame the current situation as a “crisis.” Indeed the challenge should be to discover what factors have led to the decline in violence, and act accordingly. Given that gun ownership has greatly increased in recent decades, it may be that the answer lies somewhere beyond a simply government prohibition on guns.

About the author:
*Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is the editor of Mises Wire and The Austrian. Send him your article submissions, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado, and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

(EurActiv) — The European Union reached a tentative agreement on Thursday (1 March) to tighten employment rules for workers who move to richer member states in order to earn more money but also risk undercutting wages in their adopted country.

French President Emmanuel Macron has spearheaded the initiative to reform the system known as “posted workers” to quell discontent among his voters, arguing that it was undercutting salaries and social standards in wealthier states.

Currently, workers from poorer EU countries can be employed in other member states on contracts that only need to guarantee the host country’s minimum wage, while social security charges – much higher in western states like France – are paid back home.

“At the heart of our proposal was the principle of equal pay for equal work in the same place, and we now confirm this in legislation,” EU Social Affairs Commissioner Marianne Thyssen told a news conference.

Thyssen, who has been holding talks with representatives of member states and the European Parliament, declined to give details of the tentative accord before reporting back to EU national governments. The deal must still win the approval of member state governments and EU institutions to become law.

Poorer EU member states in the ex-communist east have been reluctant to change a system that has given them a competitive advantage over richer neighbours and allowed their nationals on assignment abroad to earn more than they could back home.

“The negotiators managed to overcome the difference between East and West, left and right and employers and employees,” said Agnes Jongerius, a negotiator on behalf of the European Parliament, who also declined to provide details on the accord.

The debate among richer and poorer member states over cost competition is not limited to workers on assignment abroad.

Recently, the case of a white goods maker relocating from Italy to Slovakia stirred emotions ahead of Italy’s national election on Sunday (4 March).

By Arman Sidhu*

Following news of Jacob Zuma’s resignation from office, Jessie Duarte, the Deputy Secretary General of the African National Congress (ANC) party, struck a tone that was more elegiac, rather than energetic about the former president’s departure. During a press briefing immediately after Zuma’s speech, Duarte noted that the ANC’s “decision to impose a recall was taken only after exhaustive discussions,” lauding Zuma as a “disciplined member” of the ANC. That the decision to remove Zuma, whose epoch is best characterized by economic mismanagement, rampant unemployment, increased crime, and corruption took so long spells trouble for the ANC.

Cyril Ramaphosa, who succeeded Zuma as the president of the ANC in December and will take over the reins from Zuma once more in the office of the presidency, inherits a nation that has seen the erosion of its democratic institutions and has slipped into irrelevance among the world’s notable emerging economies. Furthermore, as the only majority party in power during the youthful history of South Africa’s democracy, the ANC has seen its brand blemished by recalls that took down Zuma and his predecessor, Thabo Mbeki. As demonstrated by voters in the past two general elections, the appetite for undisputed ANC control has declined.

With a general election slated for next year, Ramaphosa and the ANC face a perfect storm for a populist rebuke: acute unemployment, backlash against the “establishment,” and tepid economic prospects for the lower and middle-class. Filling the void regarding these issues is the adept Democratic Alliance (DA) party and the burgeoning newcomer, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF). While in opposition, both parties have proven to be deft in organizing and successfully shifting focus toward the rampant cronyism perpetuated by Zuma, which has become portentous enough to warrant a “state capture” inquiry. With the centrist DA party in position to siphon votes from moderates, the EFF taps into a burgeoning base of South Africans who, facing limited economic prospects, have become aggravated with the bureaucracy and sense of entitlement emanating from the ANC.

In his first State of the Nation address, Ramaphosa attempted to allay the anger of South Africans who see Zuma’s departure as long overdue and a lazy attempt to repackage the ANC’s product ahead of elections. Ramaphosa unveiled his policy goals which focus heavily on alleviating the unemployment epidemic through the introduction of a minimum wage, temporary employment programs, and free higher education. Ramaphosa also referenced the mining and tourism industries as critical to reinvigorating an economy that was once held in the same regard as India and China as an addendum to the “BRICS” designation.

Nevertheless, unemployment in the country remains pinned at nearly 27%, with informal work providing economic sustenance for many poor South Africans. Estimates of youth unemployment reach figures as high as 60%, leading many young, black South Africans susceptible to parties promising radical reform and an upending of South Africa’s political and economic systems. Perhaps no party in South Africa is in better place to improve its results in 2019 than the EFF, which received 6% of the vote in the 2014 general election, after having been founded only a year earlier. It’s leader, Julius Malema is a former President of the ANC’s youth wing and can proudly exclaim his expulsion from the ANC as verification of his dedication to reform. Branding itself as Pan-Africanist, the EFF incisively invokes the teachings of Frantz Fanon and Thomas Sankara, figures who, decades after their deaths, resonate positively on the continent. Their platform, which prioritizes universal healthcare and education, nationalization of key industries, and land expropriation possesses enough pathos to tap into disgruntled voters. Prophetic signals of the EFF’s influence can be seen in the EFF’s successful lobbying efforts to pass a motion in parliament that moves forward a constitutional amendment that would permit uncompensated land expropriation.

As a former labor union leader turned businessman, Ramaphosa exudes the aura of a pragmatic technocrat, a trait that delights investors but will not be enough to placate the general populace. The prolonging of Zuma’s tenure had a schismatic effect on the party and only served to cement factions within the ANC that Ramaphosa will need to transcend in the year he has left to govern before elections. The absence of Zuma alone is insufficient in unwinding the structural damages that have sullied the probity of South Africa’s public entities.

While the electoral math still supports the ANC obtaining a majority of some kind in 2019, to curb the ascending influence of the DA and the EFF, Ramaphosa will need to speed up what have been languid economic reform efforts by the ANC. At the same time, countering the opposition’s growth will require striking a balance in the seemingly Manichean conflict between capitalizing on investor confidence and mollifying voters who will not hesitate to remind the ANC that its relevance is not eternally guaranteed. A changing of the guard, while welcomed, is only the first step to reversing a potential populist uprising spearheaded by the EFF.

The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the authors are theirs alone and don’t reflect any official position ofGeopoliticalmonitor.com.

As I waited for my first Social Security check, I decided to push the envelope with swimming, a sport I had practiced for six decades. I read about the Gibraltar Crossing and realized that the idea of swimming from Spain to Morocco allayed my worries about turning 70. For me, when I am in the sea, all is well with the world.

It all started inauspiciously at the Bowman Gray pool, an ancient structure at the University of North Carolina. I was four and my swim teacher was squeezing my chest too tightly. Later that day, my mother yelled, “You bit his wrist like a damned dog. What a mean boy you are!”

At 17, as a summer volunteer in Newfoundland, I was surprised that cod fishermen were drowning from panic and water aspiration. The next day, I invited local kids to drown-proofing classes, and, by August, they were equipped to survive in freezing water. Over the years that followed, I found a hero, Lynne Cox, the author of Swimming to Antarctica and the woman who pioneered the use of swimming to “establish bridges between borders.”

The 15K Strait of Gibraltar is one of the world’s great passages, connecting the Atlantic to the Mediterranean. On one side of the Strait is Morocco and Africa and on the other is Spain and Europe. The Gibraltar Crossing is one of the Oceans Seven, a group of marathon swims that includes the English Channel. Gibraltar’s challenges include freighters, mountainous swells and gale-like winds. Spaniards Laura and Rafael Gutierrez created ACNEG (the Strait of Gibraltar Swimming Association) and assured the governments of Spain and Morocco that swimmers would be monitored and they’d have passports. I applied to ACNEG for three years, and, one day, ACNEG emailed me: “You’ll be the first swimmer in 2017. It will be cold. You have a ten-day window and during that time either the sea calms down or we cancel. But no need to worry.”

When I told my wife, Kim, that I had been accepted, she yelled, “Wow! I can throw food and water bottles to my hubbie! Yay! And I get to see Andalusian horses!”

I called Iva Anderson, a.k.a. IvaHawk, an ex-Marine pilot who humors me with Cross Fit. His curiosity awoke when I offered an air ticket: “A free trip? Hell, yeah!” I took my medical form to a University of North Carolina physician who frowned, “Forget it. Much too dangerous. I won’t be a part of this.” So I went to Duke University physician Mark Messick, an Iraq vet who decorates his office with pictures of attack helicopters. He smiled, “Sure, I see no reason not to do this.”

The ACNEG website suggests that no one can be completely prepared: “In principle…crossing the Gibraltar Strait may seem simple but many swimmers have had to abandon due to the peculiar problems of the zone (currents, winds, fog and so on). Due to this, the happy outcome of the Gibraltar Strait crossing must be accompanied by a great dose of good luck.”

I hired Anne Cleveland, a coach from San Diego whose email address begins with “Wishuponastar.” She laid out a regimen that included 10K workouts, ice baths and speed work. I found a swim partner, Lesley Fanning, a Charlestonian who was forced to abort her 2016 Crossing and wanted a second chance. Lesley shared what she had learned: “Buy the best wetsuit and sit in tubs of ice.” She and I swam through the winter at Wrightsville Beach, despite once having to rescue her kayaker/husband in 48° surf.

On another occasion, two waves collided on me and I found my nose and forehead getting pounded by the ocean’s floor.

By February, my 100-yard times eclipsed my personal records from decades earlier, but, by early March, my blood pressure rose 30%, and Cleveland warned that I was over trained.

Cleveland counseled me on how to eat, sight clearly, motivate myself while seasick and have fun. The last part seemed less attainable than the others. Then she encouraged me to start planning for an English Channel crossing in 2019. I declined to respond to this suggestion.

In the third week of March, 2017, we flew to Spain and took buses to the wind-ravaged village of Tarifa. On March 30, Lesley and I met ACNEG’s Laura Gutierrez who told us we’d cross on the 31st, the very next day.

So, the next morning, pilot Antonio Montiel told us the three cardinal rules: “To get past shore currents there’s no eating for the first hour. If you can do so, sprint your butts off. Stay close to each other since we can’t watch you if you drift apart. Most of all, always follow the lead boat since we know the wind direction and wind speed, the currents and the dangers.”

Over the next fifteen minutes, as if by magic, the gusts heading toward the Atlantic dropped to zero, and, at a certain instant, they began to move in the right direction, i.e. into the Mediterranean. The Crossing was on. I leapt ahead, happy that I was reaching for something beyond anything I’d ever attempted. Below me, sunlight spread its shafts through the green depths and I was in synch with the sea. I saw brilliantly colored fish congregating at the coastal rocks but not one sea animal appeared in the deeper waters. It was cold and whales prefer warmer seas.

During the hours that followed, towering freighters loomed above us. Three hundred go through the Strait every day. They look like boxy skyscrapers, too top heavy to do anything but roll over. The constant churning swells were so high that I lost sight of Lesley and then the lead boat. An earplug fell out and I knew one half of my brain would be give me a sense of equilibrium and the other half would make we wallow is seasickness. Knocked around by the curling breakers, I couldn’t hold the water bottles and barely sipped the electrolytes and Gu. Lesley and I swam across each other’s legs and slapped arms. Things were getting crazy.

Then Antonio yelled for us to aim for ledges straight ahead. Morocco! I slid through the waves and lunged for the black cliffs. We both touched Africa, but just to be sure, I jumped up and down until I heard the boat’s siren announcing that we’d completed a sanctioned crossing. I clambered up the boat’s ladder and vomited my breakfast of Scottish oatmeal over the side. Pilot Antonio whispered, “Drink electrolytes. Everything’s going to be ok.”

My four-hour 57-minute crossing was faster than I had hoped for and I was happy to be the fourth oldest to have crossed the Strait. My wife told me: “I learned so much in that Zodiac. Life is full of things I didn’t know existed.”

In the days that followed, I decided to postpone an English Channel crossing, since I cannot face such a regimen anytime soon. I also was so debilitated that, within two weeks, I got a nasty case of pneumonia, something that was no doubt caused by the swim and lessened resistance to infection.

As I look back, I see that swimming to Morocco is a shared adventure, dependent on training and luck. And it helps to have a team of pros like Rafael, Antonio, Anne Cleveland and IvaHawk. In the weeks that followed, both Anne Cleveland and Rafael Gutierrez, ACNEG’s founder, died of cancer. Their lives remind me that none of us knows how much time is left, but we can take advantage of every hour we have.

By Jay Syrmopoulos*

On February 27, the Cronos Group Inc., a major Canadian medical marijuana producer, began trading on the NASDAQ exchange under the ticker symbol “CRON” — making it the first cannabis company to attain a listing on any major U.S. stock exchange.

“It’s very significant for the company and the whole industry,” said Mike Gorenstein, Cronos founder and CEO, according to Bloomberg. “It’s a huge moment— just shows the stigma is continuing to erode on cannabis.”

The Toronto-based Cronos Group, which is listed in Canada on the TSX Venture Exchange, is the first company that produces and sells marijuana to be approved for trading on Wall Street, although other businesses with indirect ties to cannabis are traded.

“We’re the only pure play marijuana company” to be traded on a U.S. exchange, Gorenstein told CNN.

The listing was seen by some analysts as a milestone for the entire marijuana industry.

“The fact that Cronos was able to have its application approved speaks volumes regarding the company’s governance and the ability of its management team to think outside the box and execute,” said Beacon Securities’ analyst Vahan Ajamian in a note to investors.

“We imagine the SEC would have gone through a very thorough review/vetting process before allowing a cannabis company to list on a major U.S. exchange,” he wrote.

The process to gain a listing however, was long and arduous, Gorenstein told VICE Money.

“It’s complicated and intense because of their securities rules. We started building a relationship with the NASDAQ sometime last year, and we had to go through many audits and reviews by different independent committees to make sure that our governance was up to snuff,” he said.

Gorenstein added, “It’s more than just getting on the exchange. We wanted to be the first company that went about this the right way.”

According to a report by Investopedia:

Cronos has an edge over many of these small startups in that it serves an international market. It ships its products to Germany, is building a facility in Israel and has a license through a joint venture in Australia. So far, it does not have a presence in the U.S. because of legal issues.

CNN Money reports that Canada is expected to legalize the retail sale of recreational marijuana in August. Gorenstein said his company will begin producing recreational cannabis for the Canadian market once legalized.

In the U.S. recreational marijuana has been legalized in 9 states and in Washington, D.C., while medical marijuana is legal in 30 states. The U.S. federal government continues to maintain prohibition of cannabis, denoting it as a Schedule 1 controlled substance with no known medical usage, thus companies like Cronos maintaining a holding pattern on the U.S. market until federal legality is established.

About the author:
*Jay Syrmopoulos is a geopolitical analyst, freethinker, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at the University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs and holds a BA in International Relations. Jay’s writing has been featured on both mainstream and independent media.

Source:
This article was published by Truth In Media.

By John Zaw

Ethnic Rakhine have told Myanmar’s government that they are opposed to Rohingya refugees being resettled in southern Maungdaw in restive Rakhine State.

Some 80 people from civil society groups across Rakhine held a meeting in capital Sittwe on Feb. 24 to discuss the resettlement of Rohingya returning from Bangladesh.

Soe Naing, from the Rakhine Social Network and organizer of the meeting, said the government is planning to resettle Rohingya refugees at six places in southern Maungdaw that have seen outbreaks of violence since the 1940s.

“We are very concerned for the security of local ethnic people if Rohingya refugees are resettled into the area as the two communities living together is not possible,” Soe Naing, an ethnic Rakhine, told ucanews.com.

He said part of the area is coastal and a wall cannot be built along the border, raising concerns about illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.

“We want the government to scrutinize and verify all returnees from Bangladesh because militants are among the people, so we worry for our sovereignty,” Soe Naing said.

Rakhine people held a meeting with Win Myat Aye, union minister for relief and resettlement, in early January but said they did not get a clear response to their questions about the resettlement plan.

Zaw Win, an ethnic Rakhine from Buthidaung town in northern Rakhine, said they did not want conflict to erupt again.

“We don’t oppose the government’s plan of repatriation but the returnees must be former inhabitants of Rakhine and obey the laws and regulations of Myanmar,” he told ucanews.com.

Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh have demanded citizenship and other rights and have a political agenda of occupying Rakhine land, Zaw Win said.

“We worry for the security of our ethnic people and the sovereignty as they [the Rohingya] have a political agenda of taking land from Rakhine,” he added.

Myanmar’s parliament recently approved a budget of about US$15 million for construction of a fence along the border with Bangladesh in Rakhine State.

Hatred and bigotry toward the minority Rohingya Muslims is deeply rooted in Rakhine. Most people in Myanmar insist on referring to the Rohingya as Bengalis, implying that they are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. However, vast numbers of Rohingya have lived in Myanmar for decades.

Bangladesh and Myanmar agreed a plan for the return of refugees to Rakhine in January.

More than 688,000 Rohingya fled into Bangladesh following Myanmar’s military operations against Rohingya militants who attacked several border posts in August 2017.

Human Rights Watch said on Feb. 23 that new satellite imagery reveals the government has been bulldozing scores of depopulated Rohingya villages in northern Rakhine.

Since late 2017, the government has cleared at least 55 villages of all structures and vegetation using heavy machinery. Most of these villages were among the 362 villages completely or partially destroyed by arson since Aug. 25.

Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said on Feb. 23 that “bulldozing these areas threatens to erase both the memory and the legal claims of the Rohingya who lived there.”

Three Nobel peace laureates — Mairead Maguire of Northern Ireland, Shirin Ebadi of Iran and Tawakkol Karman of Yemen — visited Rohingya camps in Bangladesh on Feb. 25.

“It’s our appeal to our sister Aung San Suu Kyi to wake up,” Karman was reported as saying by the Dhaka Tribune. “Otherwise she will be one of the perpetrators of this crime. If she can’t stop all this crime, then she has to resign now.”

Myanmar State Counselor Suu Kyi, herself a Nobel laureate, has been widely criticized for her failure to speak out in support of the Rohingya and prevent the military’s atrocities.

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order to extend the National Emergency with respect to Venezuela. The executive order was originally signed by President Barack Obama on March 8, 2015, the White House said.

Obama issued Executive Order 13692, declaring a national emergency with respect to the situation in Venezuela based on the Government of Venezuela’s erosion of human rights guarantees, persecution of political opponents, curtailment of press freedoms, use of violence and human rights violations and abuses in response to antigovernment protests, and arbitrary arrest and detention of antigovernment protestors, as well as the exacerbating presence of significant government corruption.

On August 24, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13808 to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13692, particularly in light of recent actions and policies of the Government of Venezuela, including serious abuses of human rights and fundamental freedoms; responsibility for the deepening humanitarian crisis in Venezuela; establishment of an illegitimate Constituent Assembly, which usurped the power of the democratically elected National Assembly and other branches of the Government of Venezuela; rampant public corruption; and ongoing repression and persecution of, and violence toward, the political opposition.

“The circumstances described in Executive Order 13692 and Executive Order 13808 have not improved, and they continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,” said President Trump in the executive order, adding, “Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13692.”

President Donald Trump has extended the sanctions against Russia and Russian individuals by another year. The sanctions were imposed by former President Barack Obama in March 2014, in response to the political crisis in Ukraine.

In a letter required under the National Emergencies Act, Trump notified Congress that the White House will continue treating the situation in Ukraine as “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,” as defined by Obama’s Executive Order 13660, dated March 6, 2014.

The US has been gradually expanding the list of people and entities under its Russia sanctions over the years. The latest addition of 21 individuals and nine companies was announced in January 2016.

President Donald Trump has extended the sanctions against Russia and Russian individuals by another year. The sanctions were imposed by former President Barack Obama in March 2014, in response to the political crisis in Ukraine.

In a letter required under the National Emergencies Act, Trump notified Congress that the White House will continue treating the situation in Ukraine as “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,” as defined by Obama’s Executive Order 13660, dated March 6, 2014.

The US has been gradually expanding the list of people and entities under its Russia sanctions over the years. The latest addition of 21 individuals and nine companies was announced in January 2016.

By  Boris Johnson

It was 73 years ago — almost to the day — that Winston Churchill travelled to Fayoum Oasis in Egypt for a meeting with the king of Saudi Arabia.

“His own cup-bearer from Mecca offered me a glass of water from its sacred well, the most delicious that I had ever tasted,” wrote Churchill of this encounter with King Abdulaziz al Saud.

If that meeting in the desert was an early chapter in relations between Britain and Saudi Arabia, then we will turn a new page on March 7 when his grandson, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, visits London.

There will be those who would object to engaging with a kingdom that is a powerhouse of the Middle East and, incidentally, one of Britain’s oldest friends in the region.

If you have any sympathy with such views, then let me highlight a few salient facts.

In the eight months since Mohammed bin Salman became crown prince, Saudi Arabia has introduced exactly the kind of reforms that we have always advocated.

The ban on women driving has been overturned. Gender segregation has been relaxed. The kingdom has adopted an official target for women to account for 30 per cent of the workforce: in February women were allowed to register their own businesses. Women now attend sporting events and from next month cinemas will open their doors to everyone.

If you are inclined to dismiss these advances, then I will respectfully suggest that you are making a profound mistake. Change does not come easily in Saudi Arabia. In a matter of a few months, genuine reform has taken place after decades of stasis.

And that fact tells an important story. The crown prince and his father King Salman have together embarked on the social and economic renewal of Saudi Arabia, launching a national programme known as Vision 2030. In October the crown prince said that the overarching goal was to build a “country of moderate Islam that is open to all religions and to the world”. He also promised to “eradicate promoters of extremist thoughts”.

If you are tempted to brush off those phrases as platitudes aimed at outsiders, consider that the crown prince was speaking not in English in some western capital but in Arabic to an audience in Riyadh. His words have been given meaning by the establishment in his capital of a new centre to counter the financing of terrorism.

What conclusion should we draw? I believe that the crown prince, who is only 32, has demonstrated by word and deed that he aims to guide Saudi Arabia in a more open direction.

The worst response would be for Britain to criticise from the sidelines or shun the kingdom altogether; instead our role must be to encourage him along this path.

Be in no doubt: the future of Saudi Arabia — and indeed the region and the wider Muslim world — depends on his success.

Hence the importance of the crown prince’s visit to London. This will be a chance to strengthen our relationship with Saudi Arabia, both as an end in itself and as the best means of promoting reform.

I will not minimise Britain’s differences with the kingdom. I want Saudi Arabia to do more to protect human rights. But we cannot deliver these messages or resolve our disagreements unless we meet the kingdom’s leaders.

Nor can we uphold the British national interest. Remember that tens of thousands of British jobs depend on our exports to Saudi Arabia, which climbed to £6.2 billion in 2016, a 41 per cent rise since 2010. When it comes to keeping Britain safe, intelligence from Saudi Arabia has been crucial in the struggle against terrorism. The simple truth is that British lives have been saved and attacks prevented because of our security cooperation with Saudi Arabia.

This relationship has long been important for global security. Saudi Arabia was a firm ally during the Cold War and, amid all the turbulence of the Middle East, the kingdom has generally acted as a force for stability and moderation. It was the late King Abdullah who threw his diplomatic weight behind a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict by proposing the bold Arab Peace Initiative.

Today Britain and Saudi Arabia are working together to counter Iran’s disruptive behaviour in the Middle East and bring the war in Yemen to an end. Last year King Salman took the far-sighted decision to pursue a rapprochement with the Shia-led government in Iraq, something that will help to stabilise the country after the defeat of ISIS.

You might reply that far more needs to be done to reach a peaceful settlement in Yemen and ensure that aid gets through to everyone in need. I agree. That is exactly why we need to discuss these vital matters with the crown prince during his visit to the UK.

Our foreign policy is designed to promote the safety and prosperity of the British people while upholding our values as a force for good. We cannot achieve any of these goals unless we meet the leaders of Saudi Arabia on equal and friendly terms.

That was true when Churchill drank the spring water of Mecca with Ibn Saud in 1945, and it remains true today.

*Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom

By Gjergj Erebara

Albania’s President on Friday signaled continuing reluctance to give the government the authority to negotiate a sensitive maritime border agreement with Greece – despite fears that delays could affect the country’s EU membership prospects.

Albania President Ilir Meta on Friday met parliament’s foreign affairs committee, seeking more talks on the government’s request for authorization to negotiate a new maritime border deal with Greece.

A press release after the meeting said the President had “informed MPs of his stance on this issue, emphasizing that achieving a fair and sustainable agreement requires the collaboration and seriousness of all institutions”.

Earlier, his spokesperson denied that by refusing to grant the government authority to negotiate a deal, the President was attempting to disrupt negotiations between the two sides.

Albania’s Foreign Minister, Ditmir Bushati, and his Greek counterpart held two preparatory meetings last year on resolving relations between two countries, some of which are decades old and very sensitive, including the maritime border and the property rights of ethnic Albanians, known as Chams, expelled from Greece at the end of the Second World War.

On February 14, Bushati asked Meta for authorization to negotiate the sea border. After holding consultations with former presidents, however, Meta requested further clarification on February 20.

The government said it had met this request this week, but the President is still holding out.

The opposition centre-right Democratic Party wants the country to go to an international court to resolve the issue and is already accusing the government of planning a sell-out on the sea border.

The government sees resolving the matter as urgent, however, as the European Council is expected to discuss relations with Balkans later this month, and the outcome of the talks with EU member Greece could affect a possible decision to open EU membership negotiations.

Meta was elected President last year by the votes of the Socialist Party. However, his party, the Socialist Movement for Integration, LSI, now led by his wife, Monika Kryemadhi, went into opposition in last year’s elections.

Relations between Meta and the Socialist-led government remain difficult. He has refused to appointment a new head for the secret services since the previous head resigned last October, for example.

By N. Nantha

An internal inquiry cleared Malaysia’s chief crimes investigator of “any form of indictable offenses,” national police said Friday, after Australia had seized AUS $320,000 from his Sydney bank account on suspicion that it held laundered money or criminal proceeds.

Deposits in the account of Ahmad Najmuddin Mohd, chief of Malaysia’s Federal Criminal Investigation Department (CID), were proceeds from the sale of his house in Shah Alam, Malaysian Police Inspector General Mohamad Fuzi Harun said, citing an internal probe. The deposits amounted to the equivalent of some U.S. $248,000 or 969,700 ringgit.

“It is baseless to assume that the source of the money was from questionable origins or Ahmad Najmuddin was involved in any form of indictable offences,” Fuzi said in a statement.

Najmuddin initially opened the bank account in 2011 to support his son’s education in Australia, and it was subsequently reactivated in 2016 to also help his daughter obtain a master’s degree in Sydney, Fuzi said, adding that the officer had provided enough documents to justify his deposits.

But according to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald, Australian police launched an investigation after bank officials discovered a “flurry of suspicious cash deposits” into Najmuddin’s Commonwealth Bank “Goal Saver” bank account. It had been dormant after being opened seven years ago. Australian police then froze his accounts.

“There does not appear to be any apparent lawful reason for the form and manner of the deposits,” an Australian police officer said in an affidavit cited by the newspaper.

Najmuddin, 59, was previously the police chief in the southern Malaysian city of Johor. He was appointed to head the Federal CID in August last year.

BenarNews could not immediately reach Najmuddin for comment. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that he had not tried to wrest the money back from Australian authorities, quoting him as denying any wrongdoing but saying that court action was too expensive.

The newspaper said deposits below AUS $10,000 (U.S. $7,750 or 30,300 ringgit) had started coming in a week after Najmuddin visited Australia in 2016, and multiple deposits were made at different branches and ATMs around the country.

The SMH report said Najmuddin’s account balance quickly grew within a month, leading authorities to suspect that the money had been laundered or came from proceeds of a crime.

By Andrea Gagliarducci

At the Chinese Communist Party’s 19th National Party Congress in October 2017, the country’s president, Xi Jinping, promised to “sinicize religions” in the country.

The promise came at the same time as the introduction of new, more restrictive rules on religious practice.

The new regulations on religious activities in China came into effect Feb. 1. Worship can be practiced only in designated churches, and according to a schedule approved by government administrators, while every other place, including private houses, is designated “illegal for worship.”

Group prayer is forbidden in private houses: if one if caught while doing that, he can be arrested. The regulations also require that every church must display at its entrance a notice that the building is “prohibited to minors under age 18,” and that children and teenagers are not allowed to take part in religious rites.

In light of these regulations, the idea of sinicizing religion has met considerable resistance.

The idea of sinicization is to imbue “religious theories with Chinese character,” as president Xi Jinping stressed at October’s party congress.

“Sinicization” has been a core topic for the Chinese leadership in the last three years.

In February, Daniel Mark, chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, wrote in First Things that sinicization of religion is “a process of manipulating and subduing faith so as to render it compatible with the state’s totalitarian aims.”

In the midst of this resistance, a Jesuit priest in China, Fr. Benoit Vermander, has penned a proposal, a pathway, for “sinicization” of religion, in the March 3 issue of the Jesuit-run journal La Civiltà Cattolica, whose publication is overseen by the Vatican’s Secretariat of State.

Vermander argued that Catholics of China ought not neglect the push for the “sinicization” of Catholicism merely because it comes from the government.

Vermander noted that zhongguohua, the Chinese word for sinicization is hard to translate, and that it has been rendered to reflect the idea of “having a Chinese orientation. He generally stressed that, despite the problems provided by the doctrine of sinicization, especially since it is accompanied by new regulations on religious activities, dialogue between Catholics and the Communist government is needed.

“Making religions more Chinese,” Vermander argued, does not mean developing local rites and doctrine, but instead adhering “to the definition of Chinese culture” as president Xi Jinping put it during the 19th Congress of the Communist party.”

Many critics have argued that Xi Jinping’s vision of Chinese culture is synonymous with the aims of the country’s communist regime.

In October, Xi Jinping said that the Chinese must “tap into the great Chinese traditional culture, keeping alive and developing its vision, notions, values and moral norms,” and doing that “in a way that fit to our times.”

Vermander conceded that there are “evident dangers” in “following a policy imposed from above, that can bring to a substantial loss of identity.”

“No religion,” he added “can become a mere tool of the political apparatus, as noble as the apparatus’ goals might be.”

He wrote that “Christian churches have often walked into this trap and had the experience of its deception, no matter which political system required the subordination of religions.”

However, Fr. Vermander underscored that “Christian churches should not neglect the appeal for sinicization because it comes from government,” but they should rather “listen to that appeal and examine which kind of changes it could lead them to imagine and undertake,” albeit “being aware of the danger.”

The Jesuit argued that “evangelization conducted by Protestant and Catholic missionaries since 1842 often lacked of cultural sensitivity,” as it combined “the message of the Gospel with cultural items stranger to the Gospel,” showing that Western civilization exported “their conflicts together with the faith they wanted to spread.”

He further said that “inculturation is the result of a process of popular appropriation that no one can really govern,” and made the example of the rosary and litanies, that cannot be labeled as “western” by Chinese Catholics who have learned them in their family. He also mentioned the Chinese devotion to Our Lady of Sorrows, an outcome of the story of Zheng Fentao, a Catholic women executed in prison for “counterrevolution” in 1970.

“Can the devotion to Our Lady of Sorrows be considered essentially western? Was not it fully inculturated through the experience and the collective memory of this Chinese village?”

Fr. Vermander said that “for the Church in China, inculturation is synonymous with kenosis and humiliation.” Kenosis is a Greek word that in theology refers to the self-emptying of Jesus, and is used in general terms to describe a process of emptying out of the one’s identity.

Fr. Vermander proposed three areas Christians in China can develop in order to practice a “creative inculturation.”

First, he said, is spiritual theology, “as there is still so much to do to express, through the resources of confucian and taoist traditions, the ways God makes people experience His presence in their interiority.”

Secondly, culture and art, because “getting into the current cultural trends, and trying to develop cultural ways to speak to a wider audience, would be of great benefit for Chinese Christianity and for the society in general.”

And finally, Christians “can better emphasize the Chinese current situation through awareness and social action.”

He noted that, in his speech to the Communist Party conference, Xi Jinping emphasized inequalities and social imbalances of China.

Xi Jinping said that he is aware that religious groups are concerned about the Chinese attempt to support a sort of new “civil religion,” promoting a set of symbols and story “to be respected and preserved.”

On the other hand, he said “if the state open a space of dialogue on some issues, in particular on ways and means through which religions can better contribute to the cultural and social development of the country, this will favour the future stability of China and will confirm the ever more important position of this country in the world.”

“Christianity,” Fr. Vermander argued, “can certainly become more Chinese; at the same time, it can help China to become more open and harmonious.”

Is Vermander right? Is there a path for the Church in China to become less “western,” at the encouragement of Beijing, without becoming controlled by the Chinese government, or compromising Catholic identity? Is Beijing a trustworthy partner for “dialogue?” Those facing persecution would likely express more reservation. La Civiltà Cattolica, reflecting the apparent disposition of the Vatican, seems optimistic.

Time will tell.

President Donald Trump’s first extensive visit to Asia in November 2017 ignited a public rivalry between the ‘Indo-Pacific’ and the ‘Asia-Pacific’ frames of diplomacy. However, the ‘Indo-Pacific’ is way behind the ‘Asia-Pacific’ in terms of being tried and tested.

By Alan Chong and Wu Shang-Su*

The recent uptick in rivalry between the Trump-Abe supported idea of the ‘Indo-Pacific’ region and the status quo diplomatic circuit popularly embraced as the ‘Asia-Pacific’ merits analysis as to what it means for the future of Asian security.

In the past few weeks, an aspiring constellation of middle and great powers, namely the United States, India, Japan and Australia, who call themselves the Quad, have thrown down the gauntlet to the Asia-Pacific order by indirectly challenging China’s Belt and Road Initiative. What does the rivalry between these two templates of trans-Asian regionalism foretell?

Asia-Pacific Rising

The idea of the Asia-Pacific is as old as the Second World War. This war had left the Indian subcontinent relatively untouched. But the tides of nationalist awakening nonetheless connected the Indian anti-colonial movements, along with a handful of Arab nationalists, to Southeast Asia, China and Japan.

Initially, an anti-colonial solidarity that joined newly decolonised states and non-state independence movements was expressed through ‘Pan-Asianism’, ‘Asian Relations Conferences’ or the ‘African-Asian Conference’. The onset of the Cold War rapidly compelled all the newly decolonized states of Asia to define their political identities and security alignments more clearly.

This momentum led to defining the Asia-Pacific as we know it. The needs of Washington’s containment strategy against communism drove the Americans to initiate the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). Both contained the overlapping memberships of Pakistan, the United Kingdom and the United States, rendering these two regional projects the closest manifestation of an ‘Indo-Pacific alignment’.

SEATO ambitiously linked Pakistan to the Philippines and Thailand, excluding all of the pro-western Middle Eastern states, while the rest of SEATO comprised US, Australasia and two European powers. Both Cold War ‘Asian’ alliances failed ultimately due to the divergences in strategic vision between the ‘outside powers’ and those contiguously located within the actual region.

Buds of Regionalism

The ‘Asia-Pacific’ was born incrementally after Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and belatedly Singapore, attempted various projects for Southeast Asian regional organisations that culminated in ASEAN’s establishment in 1967.

From across the Pacific, the US had in any case initiated what has become known as the ‘Hub-and-Spokes’ security system with the signing of the San Francisco Treaty of 1951 formally terminating the US postwar occupation of Japan and the implementation of a US-Japan security alliance.

These two ‘buds’ of regionalism, that is, the US ‘underwriting’ security against Communism through bilateral pacts with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and the Philippines, spearheaded the nascent Asia-Pacific regional security architecture, followed by the ASEAN driven process of setting up dialogues with the major East Asian and Australian states.

Today, we see this reality manifested in terms of the assortment of ASEAN’s special dialogues with China, South Korea, Japan and the US, with a sole extension to India within South Asia, plus a purely economic-centred ASEAN-Closer Economic Relations dialogue with Australia and New Zealand.

Additionally, the overlapping ‘alphabet soup’ approach to creating omnibus diplomatic, economic and security regionalisms such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum, the ASEAN Plus Three, the ASEAN Regional Forum, the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus and the East Asia Summit, firmly anchors the centrality of the ‘Asia-Pacific’ as the primary diplomatic arena within Asia.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative

China’s ambitious infrastructure-driven plan titled the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) can be understood to be locating its ‘centre of gravity’ within the Asia-Pacific region since most of its start-up projects such as dam building, road building, residential construction and high speed railway construction take place within China’s southern and western neighbours’ territories.

In this sense, the ‘Asia-Pacific’ can be said to be China-dominated through the BRI while also being pluralistic and open to inclusion of other Asian states. With developments in Central Asian railway and container hub construction, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan stand to gain valuable commercial access to the sea via Iranian ports if the BRI manages to link their major economic centres through overland routes.

In this way, the BRI may even be said to reopen an Indo-Pacific rail route by stealth with rail termini based in China. Additionally, the loudest reaffirmation of the ‘Asia-Pacific’ idea is the January 2018 announcement of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), taking in 11 of the original signatories of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and minus Trump’s USA.

Notably, the CPTPP’s current membership of Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam ensures that the Asia-Pacific will remain the ‘hegemonic’ diplomatic framework for a very long time even if China is currently not a signatory.

The Quad and Indo-Pacific leadership

The idea of the Indo-Pacific diplomatic zone could well be explained as the turn not taken after the end of World War Two in Asia. Although some news commentators have suggested that then US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton had employed the phrase ‘Indo-Pacific’ in 2010 and 2011 to emphasise India’s importance to American interests, it was really President Trump’s trip to Asia in November 2017 that raised it to prominence.

Both the president’s speech as well as comments made by his National Security Adviser and Secretary of State reaffirmed a distinct emphasis in redrawing Asia’s diplomatic geography.

Moreover, the link between the Trump Administration’s preference for the Indo-Pacific frame and the revival of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or the Quad, is obvious. The Quad comprises a coalition of powers that are either wary or ambivalent towards China and its BRI: Australia, India, Japan and the US.

On several occasions in 2017, and again in early 2018, the Quad’s ministers postulated a vision of a ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy’ based on respect for freedom of navigation on the seas, observance of the rule of international law, and support for inclusive economic cooperation. In mid-February 2018, Quad officials had even floated the idea that the four countries could offer to fund infrastructure projects across the Indo-Pacific and as far afield as African states bordering the Indian Ocean.

However, with the exception of Japan, both Trump’s US and Modi’s India have yet to burnish their credentials as either dependable or generous infrastructure builders for developing states on par with China’s efforts.

Therefore, the ‘Asia-Pacific’ idea can boast a reliable path dependence while the ‘Indo-Pacific’ is merely taking baby steps. Over time, given the geographical expanse of China’s BRI, the Asia-Pacific might even assimilate the ‘Indo-Pacific’ into developmental goals through road, rail and maritime extensions. At the heart of this rivalry, which can only benefit all of Asia’s development, is a contest of credibility.

*Alan Chong is Associate Professor in the Centre for Multilateralism Studies and Wu Shang-Su PhD is Research Fellow in the Military Studies Programme, at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.