The secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council made it clear to France’s foreign minister that Tehran will enhance its missile capabilities as part of a defense strategy which would not be affected by political factors.

In a meeting with French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian in Tehran on Monday, Ali Shamkhani described Iran’s defense power, particularly its missile program, as “an inevitable necessity” in line with the country’s deterrent policies.

“Iran’s defense power is not a threat to any country, and its enhancement is a function of the security needs and (the need to counter) potential threats against the country without being influenced by political factors,” he added.

His comments came after Le Drian’s controversial comments about Iran’s missile program ahead of his trip to Tehran. “There are programs for missiles that can travel several thousand kilometers, which are not compatible with UN Security Council resolutions and which exceed the needs of defending Iran’s borders,” the top French diplomat had told the Journal du Dimanche newspaper.

Elsewhere in the meeting, Shamkhani called on Europe to accelerate the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear agreement between Iran and the Group 5+1 (Russia, China, the US, Britain, France and Germany).

He also criticized Europe’s “wrong” policy of making concessions to the US government to keep it in the nuclear agreement, slamming it as “passiveness and giving in to Trump’s psychological game.”

The top security official further decried France for hosting the members of anti-Iran terrorist groups who have been behind the assassination of thousands of people.

As regards the Saudi-led military campaign against Yemen, Shamkhani decried the West’s double-standards and deliberate ignorance of the humanitarian crisis in the Arab country.

On Syria, the Iranian official stressed the need for the continuation of Syrian-Syrian dialogue and a halt to support for armed opposition groups and terrorists in order to restore calm and stability.

For his part, the visiting French minister praised Iran for its full commitment to the JCPOA, saying France is opposed to the US stances on the nuclear accord and believes they undermine the deal.

Pointing to the “very bright prospect” for Tehran-Paris political and economic ties in the post-JCPOA era, Le Drian said new plans for stimulating monetary and banking interaction between France and Iran would be made public soon.

The French minister’s visit to Tehran comes against a backdrop of criticism of Paris for its push to hold talks on Iran’s missile program.

In comments in October 2017, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei categorically rejected the idea of negotiations on Iran’s defense power, stressing that the country will press ahead with the plans to boost its might and build up its defense capabilities.

“As we have announced several times in the past and announce it once again, the country’s defense capabilities and power are not subject to negotiations and bargaining,” Ayatollah Khamenei said at the time.

A Catholic bishop in the Philippines has demanded the prosecution of those behind reported auctions of Filipino maids by employers in Saudi Arabia.

Bishop Ruperto Santos, head of the Episcopal Commission for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, said it is a “crime that should be condemned” and “the perpetrators should be severely punished.”

Philippine Senator Leila de Lima recently revealed that “maid auctions” involving Filipino domestic workers in Saudi Arabia have been going on for several years.

Bishop Santos said workers should not be treated as commodities. “They are not tools for profit or pleasure. They are persons with rights and dignity,” he said.

He said the Philippine government should immediately lodge a diplomatic protest and facilitate the prosecution of those involved in “these shameful and sinful auctions.”

The prelate said it might also be “high time for the government to discuss and decide” if Filipino workers should be banned from going to Saudi Arabia.

Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello III said Filipino workers having a hard time in Saudi Arabia should seek opportunities elsewhere or go back home.

He said the government may ban the deployment of Filipino maids to the kingdom if it cannot impose protective mechanisms to ensure workers’ safety.

Last year, the Philippine government brought home about 13,000 migrant workers from Saudi Arabia as part of massive repatriation efforts.

Saudi Arabia continues to be the leading destination for Filipino migrant workers. About one in every four or 23.8 percent of Filipino migrants worked in Saudi Arabia last year.

By Arie Firdaus

Indonesia’s new anti-drug czar pledged Monday to carry on with the programs and policies of his predecessor, including gunning down narcotics suspects who violently resist arrest.

Inspector General Heru Winarko, the new chief of the National Narcotics Agency (BNN), spoke to reporters in Jakarta after a formal ceremony during which the outgoing head, Budi Waseso, turned over the reins.

“If they resist and they have a weapon, yes, there is no choice [other than shooting them],” Heru said, referring to suspected drug dealers.

Heru made the statement weeks after rights groups severely criticized the Indonesian national police force for handing its highest award to the Philippine’s top law-enforcement official.

In February, Indonesian Police Chief Gen. Tito Karnavian gave the honor to Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Gen. Ronald dela Rosa and described the general leading Manila’s deadly drug war as a “rockstar-like inspiration.”

Heru’s threat to use violent force came as police also ramped up their anti-narcotics efforts.

On Feb. 12, Karnavian ordered police to shoot drug dealers, especially foreign nationals, dead if they resisted arrest.

“If drug dealers resist, shoot [them] dead on the spot … especially, foreign nationals who target Indonesia as a place to distribute drugs,” the news portal BeritaSatu.com quoted Karnavian as saying. “Take firm action, shoot them dead.”

Karnavian’s comments came after authorities arrested four Taiwanese men who had allegedly tried to smuggle a ton of methamphetamine on a fishing vessel into the country.

‘Be merciless’: Jokowi

The orders to shoot drug suspects came from the very top of Indonesia’s government.

Last year, when President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo said at least 4.5 million Indonesians had become addicted or exposed to drugs, he called for lethal force against foreign drug dealers who resisted arrest.

“Be firm, especially to foreign drug dealers who enter the country and resist arrest. Enough, just shoot them. Be merciless,” he said in a July 21 speech in Jakarta.

High-ranking police officials have recently called for tougher measures against drug-related crimes despite protests from rights groups.

Since 2015, Indonesia has executed 18 convicted drug offenders, Amnesty International said.

In 2017, according to official figures, police shot dead 79 people – 69 Indonesians and 10 foreigners – when they resisted arrest during drug-related incidents.

Police also arrested more than 58,000 drug suspects and authorities seized almost five tons of meth.

Bramantya Basuki, a researcher with Amnesty International Indonesia, cast doubt on the accuracy of the police figures.

Citing Amnesty’s figures, Bramantya said police had shot dead 18 drug suspects, but that number grew to 99 in 2017.

“We have seen no signs of decline this year, because, until the end of February, there have been 13 people shot dead,” he told BenarNews.

Ajeng Larasati, coordinator of research and policy at the Community Legal Aid Institute, said the threat of being summarily executed had failed to deter drug-related crimes in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation.

“If the deterrent effect is the goal, the shooting incidents will not happen again,” she told a press conference in Jakarta on Monday. “But this still happens every month.”

The fatalities, she said, are often low-level drug dealers, not drug kingpins.

“If they die, big dealers can hire new ones. This would not stop the drug circulation,” she said. “So, why don’t we arrest them [instead of shooting them dead], so police can get information from them to reveal bigger dealers?”

Jakarta pales in comparison with Manila’s level of extrajudicial killings.

But Heru’s predecessor, Budi Waseso, said he had no objection to being compared with President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, where, according to rights groups, about 12,000 people have been shot dead in an anti-drug clampdown that began in June 2016.

“I’m crazier than Duterte,” Budi said.

By Michael Lelyveld

China’s heavy reliance on trade may make it less likely to launch tough retaliatory measures in response to U.S. tariffs on steel, experts say.

According to World Bank figures, the value of China’s trade accounted for 37 percent of its gross domestic product in 2016, compared with 26.5 percent for the trade ratio of the United States.

The numbers suggest that China would sustain more economic damage if retaliatory measures lead to a trade war following President Donald Trump’s announcement of tariffs on imported steel and aluminum last week.

That calculation could influence China’s decisions on what types of retaliatory steps to take or whether to bring a complaint to the World Trade Organization for settlement under a lengthy process.

Experts say China’s greater vulnerability to trade restrictions would likely be only one of several factors that could temper its response to U.S. tariffs, but it may put Beijing at a disadvantage in the event of a showdown with Washington.

“With equivalent retaliation, China has more to lose than the United States, both because China is more dependent on exports to the United States than vice versa, and because the United States is better positioned to find alternative markets than is China,” said Gary Hufbauer, nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

On March 1, Trump surprised U.S. trading partners by announcing plans to slap tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum from all countries.

While China ranks only 11th among steel exporters to the United States and fourth among aluminum exporters, it is seen as a primary target of the tariffs due to its huge production and influence over world prices.

China produced 49 percent of the world’s crude steel and 56 percent of aluminum, according to industry groups.

Markets have been on alert for retaliation since last April when Trump ordered the Commerce Department to investigate steel imports from China and other countries under provisions of a 1962 trade law dealing with national security risks.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross submitted his findings in January that current imports “threaten to impair the national security,” setting the stage for tariff and quota decisions by April 11 for steel and April 19 for aluminum.

Under the Commerce Department recommendations, tariffs on steel could have risen to “at least 53 percent,” while aluminum tariffs could have reached 23.6 percent.

Retaliatory threats

Last week, Trump jumped the gun by announcing his tariff decision at a White House meeting with industry officials.

“You will have protection for the first time in a long while and you’re going to regrow your industries,” he said.

The statement drew angry responses and retaliatory threats from the European Union and other trading partners. But initial reactions from China were more cautious and restrained.

The U.S. move “seriously damages multilateral trade mechanisms represented by the WTO and will surely have huge impact on normal international trade order,” said Wang Hejun, who heads the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) trade remedy and investigation bureau.

“If the final measures of the United States hurt Chinese interests, China will work with other affected countries in taking measures to safeguard its own rights and interests,” said Wang in a statement cited by the official Xinhua news agency.

The MOC issued a similar statement on Feb. 28 after the Commerce Department made a final determination calling for anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Chinese aluminum foil in response to petitions from U.S. producers last March.

China’s greater dependence on trade for its economy may moderate its retaliatory measures and keep its responses from mounting into a trade war.

“China is not about to enter a trade war,” said Dale Jorgenson, Harvard University economics professor.

“Quite the contrary. China’s five-year-old administration has announced that they plan to increase their role in the global economy both in terms of trade and in terms of investment,” said Jorgenson, speaking before the tariffs were announced.

“I don’t think the determining factor is going to be the trade share. I think it’s the policies that are involved,” he said.

China expects big gains from its “One Belt, One Road” initiative to develop trade routes and infrastructure through Asia and Africa to Europe with projects and investments in more than 60 countries.

But those anticipated gains could be at risk from the unpredictable consequences of a trade war.

Subsequent statements from Chinese officials have been relatively restrained ahead of a formal U.S. announcement this week, perhaps in hopes that terms of the tariffs may be modified.

“China urges the U.S. to use trade protection tools with restraint and comply with multilateral trade rules so as to make a positive contribution to international trade order,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said Friday.

Speaking on Sunday before the start of China’s annual legislative sessions, Zhang Yesui, spokesman for the National People’s Congress (NPC), tempered a warning with a call for cooperation.

“China doesn’t want a trade war with the United States, but if any U.S. moves hurt China’s interests, we will not sit idle,” Zhang said. He added that “differences do not necessarily lead to confrontation,” according to Xinhua.

On Monday, Premier Li Keqiang steered clear of invective as he addressed the opening of the NPC.

“China calls for trade disputes to be settled through discussion as equals, opposes trade protectionism and will resolutely safeguard its lawful rights,” said Li, as quoted by The Sydney Morning Herald.

Tit-for-tat moves

In a Washington Post opinion piece last month, Peterson Institute senior fellow Chad Bown raised concerns over the risk of a trade war after China responded to U.S. tariffs and quotas on solar panels and washing machines by launching an investigation into U.S. sorghum exports.

“Beijing’s reaction resembles a similar retaliatory move in 2009 — and one that ultimately saw U.S. chicken farmers lose out,” Bown wrote. If tit-for-tat retaliation breaks out, “matters could quickly escalate beyond U.S. sorghum farmers and pose a far greater threat to both economies,” he said.

Three weeks later, in a possible sign of moderation, the MOC announced that it had ended anti-subsidy and anti-dumping duties on U.S. broiler chickens, first imposed in 2010, after finding that the measures were “unnecessary.”

Reuters reported that the move followed a WTO ruling against the duties in January, but the Communist Party-connected Global Times quoted an industry official as saying that China’s decision “will help relieve tensions over trade between the two countries.”

The World Bank’s trade-to-GDP data can be read as a map of China’s development over time. While trade is still a major contributor to China’s economy, it plays a smaller role than it did in 2006, when its share of GDP peaked at 65.6 percent.

The declining share of trade over the past decade coincides with the rise of consumption and services as factors in China’s GDP growth. But these may be only partial explanations for the drop in the trade share to 37 percent.

Based on the raw numbers, China might seem more willing to risk retaliation on trade than it would have been a decade ago.

But Gary Jefferson, a Brandeis University professor of international trade and finance, points to the complex forces of development behind the numbers.

Jefferson draws a distinction between the ways that the trade and GDP numbers are influenced by manufacturing for export as opposed to assembling products such as mobile phones.

If a country manufactures a product like steel, using all the domestic inputs it needs such as energy, iron ore, labor and technology, it can then export the total value of the product, reflected in both trade and GDP.

“Basically, what it’s exporting is all the value added of that steel, starting from scratch,” Jefferson said.

In assembly operations for high-tech goods, a country may import semiconductors or other electronic components and export the finished product, which is highly valued as trade but not so much as GDP.

“Their value added is perhaps only 10 percent of what the total eventual value is,” Jefferson said.

As time passes and the country develops and originates more of the high-tech components used in assembled exports, its economy climbs up the value chain, causing GDP to rise while the trade ratio declines.

That process may account for the steep drop in China’s trade-to-GDP ratio over the past decade, making it a less reliable clue to what China will do.

Aside from such indicators, the trade tensions are taking place in a larger context.

“There are so many other issues swirling around the trade debate that it may be that the tariffs and quotas themselves aren’t going to decide the issue,” Jefferson said.

China’s growing access to Belt and Road countries may make U.S. restrictions on steel imports less of a problem than they would have posed a decade ago, he suggested.

Political cards on the table

Political factors such as China’s willingness to enforce sanctions on North Korea may also play a part in the trade dispute, Jefferson said.

One likely option for China in the event of U.S. trade measures on steel and aluminum would be to bring a complaint to the WTO, where a resolution typically takes two years or more, allowing both sides to cool off.

“They’ve got to do something. They’ve got a lot of political as well as economic cards on the table,” Jefferson said, adding that the WTO process would be consistent with China’s efforts to project the image of a responsible player in world trade.

Dale Jorgenson agreed that China is likely to see the WTO process as an appropriate recourse.

“China has worked through the WTO, so I think they will continue to do that. It’s one of their principle means,” he said.

By Payman Yazdani

(EurActiv) — Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD) decisively backed another coalition with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives on Sunday (4 March), clearing the way for a new government in Europe’s largest economy after months of political uncertainty.

Two thirds of the membership voted “yes” to the deal in a ballot – a wider margin than many had expected.

That means Merkel could be sworn in for a fourth term as early as the middle of the month, in a repeat of the grand coalition that has governed since 2013.

But the chancellor, in power for 12 years, has had to pay a high price to coax the reluctant Social Democratic Party (SPD) back into another loveless “grand coalition”.

Stung by their worst post-war results, the SPD had initially ruled out another four years in Merkel’s shadow.

But after Merkel’s attempt to cobble together a government with two smaller parties failed, the SPD relented.

With the party riven over the way forward, the leadership promised its more than 460,000 members the final say on any coalition deal.

“We now have clarity. The SPD will be in the next government,” said SPD’s caretaker chairman Olaf Scholz, adding his party plans to send three male and three female ministers to the cabinet.

“I think it’s good for our country that this period of uncertainty is over,” German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier said, adding that he would on Monday propose Merkel as chancellor to the lower house of parliament. Merkel is due to be re-elected by parliament as chancellor on March 14, said Volker Kauder, parliamentary chief of her CDU party.

Sigh of relief in Europe

European partners waiting impatiently for Germany to end its longest stretch of coalition haggling since the end of the war heaved a sigh of relief, with French President Emmanuel Macron calling the SPD decision “good news for Europe.”

Some analysts said the common currency would be buoyed by Merkel now being able to partner with France on President Macron’s ambitious euro zone reform plans.

But the challenges are piling up for 63-year-old Merkel, who has been acting chancellor for more than five months since an inconclusive election, with the European Union looking for leadership on economic and security issues.

A statement from Macron’s office added: “France and Germany will work together on new initiatives in the coming weeks to bring the European project forward.”

In a nod to the “GroKo”, as the grand right-left coalition is known in Germany, European Commission vice president Frans Timmermans wrote on Twitter: “GroGO! For solidarity in Germany and EU!”

Clarity at last

In power since 2005, Merkel steered the European bloc through the financial crisis and debt crisis, but her authority was dented by her 2015 decision to open Germany’s borders to migrants, resulting in an influx of more than a million people.

That cost her party dearly in last year’s election, which saw the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party enter parliament for the first time.

Acting SPD leader Olaf Scholz announced the result to activists lining the balconies around the atrium of the party’s Berlin headquarters early on Sunday.

“We now have clarity: the SPD will join the next German government,” Scholz said. The party had initially planned to go into opposition after its worst election result since Germany became a federal republic in 1949.

Merkel took to her party’s Twitter feed to congratulate the SPD. “I look forward to working with the SPD again for the good of our country,” she said.

German business greeted with relief the news that Germany would get a government after its longest-ever post-election interregnum.

“While the United States are starting a trade war and China is challenge our industrial leadership, we have been unnecessarily self-absorbed,” engineering trade union VDMA’s managing director Thilo Brodtmann said.

Leadership contest

The SPD ballot pitted the leadership of the centre-left party against the radical youth wing, which wanted the SPD to rebuild in opposition after its disastrous election showing.

“I’m happy it worked out this way,” Andrea Nahles, the SPD’s likely next leader, told Reuters.

Scholz declined to comment on reports that he would be finance minister, saying only that the SPD would appoint three men and three women to the federal cabinet. As part of the price for its support, the SPD will take the helm at key ministries, including the finance ministry.

Further names of potential ministerial candidates may be floated at the parties’ regular caucus meetings, due on Monday.

Rocky road ahead for Merkel

The SPD was forced to revisit its original plan to go into opposition after the failure of Merkel’s initial attempt to form a coalition with two smaller parties.

This means Merkel faces a far rockier road ahead.

A crushing majority enjoyed by her conservatives and the SPD in the last coalition has been trimmed to a slim 56% of seats (399 out of total 709) in parliament this time round.

Both sides had been weakened as voters angry about the arrival of more than a million asylum seekers in Germany since 2015 turned to the far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD).

The AfD, which would be the biggest opposition party in Germany as the SPD joins the government, vowed to go after Merkel’s CDU over its “continuation of the immigration policy without imposing a limit.”

The party’s parliamentary group leader Alice Weidel predicted that “the bill will come at the latest in 2021.”

Dissenting voices in the SPD also promise to keep the long-time partners on their toes.

The SPD’s youth chief Kevin Kuehnert, who ran an impassioned campaign against the planned coalition expressed disappointment at Sunday’s vote result.

“When criticism is necessary, then it will come from us,” he vowed, adding that young Social Democrats won’t rest until there is a “fundamental renewal” in the party.

The tension within the party over its partnership with Merkel was illustrated by the silence that met news that the “Yes”-camp prevailed, prompting Spiegel Online to headline its story “Hardly any rejoicing”.

Within the ranks too, Merkel, who once seemed invincible, is looking increasingly vulnerable as calls grow louder for change.

Renewal sought

Opponents of her liberal refugee policy have grown more outspoken, while the conservative wing of her party is seething at having lost control of the powerful finance ministry to the Social Democrats as part of the coalition deal.

For the chancellor,who is under pressure within her party to rejuvenate the ranks, the clock is essentially ticking to groom her successor.

In a bid to tamp down criticism, Merkel has brought one of her most outspoken CDU critics, Jens Spahn, into her next cabinet as health minister.

Spahn, 37, a former deputy to hardliner Wolfgang Schäuble at the finance ministry, has repeatedly slammed Merkel’s centrist policies, particularly on immigration.

He has also advocated a sharp conservative shift in a bid to woo back voters from the AfD, which garnered nearly 13% in the September election.

But crucially, at a congress this week, her party also formally appointed its new general secretary, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, tapped by Merkel to kickstart the renewal process.

Sueddeutsche daily noted that “she is the one who has made it clear that the CDU is now no longer without a successor for Merkel”.

(RFE/RL) — President Vladimir Putin has claimed that Russia thwarted nearly 500 spies in 2017, and urged the Federal Security Service (FSB) to step up cybersecurity efforts and strengthen measures to protect secret communications.

Putin spoke to senior FSB officials at a meeting on March 5, less than two weeks ahead of an election that appears certain to hand him a new six-year term.

His remarks came amid acrimony between Moscow and many Western countries over what the United States and others say are Russian efforts to use cyberattacks as one of several tools to sow discord and interfere in elections abroad.

“In recent years, as you know very well, there has been an increase in foreign intelligence agency activity,” said Putin, who critics accuse of using government meetings to campaign ahead of the March 18 vote.

“They are working diligently on Russia, using the most modern methods, spy craft, and technical espionage means,” he said, adding that “last year alone, the activities of 72 career intelligence officers and 397 agents of foreign spy services were thwarted.”

Speaking at a separate meeting on March 5, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov repeated Russian accusations that the United States was seeking to meddle in the Russian election.

Ryabkov asserted that the United States was using “totally biased and baseless” allegations of Russian meddling as a pretext to interfere in the Russian vote. The United States denies it has done so.

Protection Against ‘Radicalism’

In his comments, Putin said that “Russia’s information space must be protected from modern cyberthreats,” Russian news agencies reported.”

“It is necessary to improve the state system for detecting, preventing, and dealing with the aftermath of computer attacks against Russia’s information resources,” he said.

The FSB must “increase the reliability of confidential communication networks in bodies of public authority and defense and security structures,” Putin said.

Putin, a former Soviet KGB officer who headed the FSB during his rise to power, has brought many people with similar backgrounds into high-level positions.

He has frequently portrayed Russia as a country encircled by Western adversaries bent on weakening it, undermining its sovereignty, and setting some of its citizens against the government.

At the FSB meeting, he said that young Russians must be protected from “radicalism” of all kinds, a remark that critics are likely to interpret as aimed at least in part against political foes.

“It’s necessary to protect people, but primarily young people, from those trying to infect society with aggression and intolerance, xenophobia, and nationalism,” Putin said.

“Whatever its political and ideological tinge might be, radicalism is destructive in its essence, and we have to safeguard the country and the people’s future from this threat,” he said.

Russian officials have portrayed Aleksei Navalny, a prominent opposition leader who has been barred from the ballot because of a criminal conviction he contends was engineered by the Kremlin, as a radical.

Putin’s popularity, his control over the levers of power, and what critics say have been years of steps to suppress dissent and marginalize opponents virtually ensure his victory in the election.

By Christopher J. Bolan and Joel R. Hillison*

(FPRI) — Colleagues at the U.S. Army War College recently published a piece making important arguments that largely echo the competitive approach emphasized in the Trump administration’s new National Defense Strategy (NDS). They correctly argue that U.S. strategy since 9/11 has been obsessively focused on counterterrorism and that U.S. military power has been drained by exhausting and largely unproductive deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their conclusion, however, that this has left the United States at a distinct disadvantage with respect to the revisionist powers of Russia and China, is exaggerated. Moreover, an imbalanced U.S. strategy that is excessively reliant on military force fails to capitalize on America’s significant advantages in the non-military instruments of power. Furthermore, an overemphasis on building ever more offensive military capacity risks provoking even more aggressive counterbalancing by adversaries that will ultimately lead to a self-fulfilling and dangerous security dilemma, in which the international system and the United States will actually be less secure. Finally, a more muscular military strategy will do little to address the central challenges posed by Russia and China as they expressly avoid directly confronting U.S. military strengths and instead seek asymmetric advantages in the “gray zone” below the threshold of open military conflict.

America’s comparative advantage since World War II has been, and continues to be, in the realm of values, enduring beliefs, and the perception that the United States is the key to a more cooperative and peaceful world. In erecting this institutional and intellectual framework, the United States committed itself to underwriting and supporting a rules-based international system and providing the global public goods that were necessary to promote greater prosperity, cooperation, and peace. This edifice was built upon and effectively reinforced and extended U.S. dominance in diplomatic and informational power, economic strength and vitality, and military might. Indeed, the U.S. today retains the most lethal and globally deployable military force on the planet. Even before the Trump administration’s call for a larger defense budget, the U.S. spent more on defense than the next eight countries combined. Economically, the U.S. still accounts for nearly 25% of global economic output with less than 5% of the global population. Moreover, it boasted the fastest recovering economy in the wake of 2008 global financial collapse and maintains significant advantages in technological developments and innovation. Finally, the United States enjoys the advantages of an unparalleled network of political and military alliances and extensive economic partnerships spanning the globe.

How to Address the Challenges Posed by Russia and China

First, U.S. policymakers should be careful not to exaggerate the hard power or global influence of Russia or China. The NDS correctly observes that both countries are revisionist powers intent on undermining U.S. dominance in Europe and the Pacific regions, respectively. Yet, both states confront external and internal challenges that will place practical limits on their ability to exert decisive influence beyond their immediate vicinities. Russia is a much diminished political, economic, and military power when compared to the Soviet Union. President Vladimir Putin resides over a shrinking Russian population and oil-dominated economy that is suffering under low oil prices at a time when the U.S. will surpass both Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world’s number one producer of oil. Meanwhile, even as President Xi Jinping consolidates his power in Beijing, China faces serious environmental degradation, and satiating China’s growing middle class will pose enormous economic and political challenges to his leadership abroad and at home. Moreover, the U.S. already enjoys strong and enduring political, economic, and security alliances with regional powers including Japan, South Korea, and India who will serve as natural checks to Chinese power and influence in the Pacific. This is not to say that Russian or Chinese goals and ambitions do not represent challenges to the U.S., but rather to remind policymakers that Moscow and Beijing—like all actors—will face important constraints and limitations on their ability to extend their influence to far-flung regions of the globe.

Second, U.S. policymakers must be sensitive to the risks of an overly ambitious strategy that is principally dependent on military superiority. There is little doubt in Moscow or Beijing that the U.S. would be the ultimate victor in any military confrontation. This is precisely why they pursue strategic advantages through asymmetric competition with the United States in their respective regions. The risks of U.S. military overreach are particularly acute with Russia. In Syria, the prospect of direct U.S.-Russian military confrontation—something that was avoided during the entirety of the Cold War—is a concrete reality as U.S. military strikes recently killed dozens of Russian military contractors. But recent suggestions to arm Ukraine with more lethal weapons, in a geographical area where Moscow enjoys escalation dominance, only feeds Russia’s paranoia and fears of NATO encroachment, increasing prospects for retaliation that risks direct U.S.-Russian conflict. Similarly, in addition to the perennial risks of conflict with China over American military support to Taiwan, regional analysts have warned of a growing risk of military confrontation in the East China Sea as the U.S. and its allies move to contest Chinese construction of artificial islands intended to solidify Beijing’s expansive territorial claims in these resource-rich waters.

Third, the primary gap in U.S. strategy is not a deficiency in military capability, but rather, it is the need to re-build the diplomatic, economic, and informational tools that have atrophied in the glow of U.S. military primacy. Certainly, there is a role for U.S. military actions designed to contain and restrain Russian and Chinese activities that genuinely endanger vital U.S. national interests. For instance, the United States and NATO have smartly bolstered military deployments and exercises in Europe in order to underscore America’s commitment to the defense of NATO allies. It has similarly increased so-called freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea to demonstrate America’s willingness to guarantee access to the global commons.

However, the challenge for U.S. policymakers will be to place these military activities within a broader strategy that maximizes the contributions of diplomacy, economics, and informational measures. With Russia, this should include enforcing the punishing set of sanctions that have already been imposed by the U.S. Congress in response to Russia’s occupation of Crimea and its destabilizing activities in Ukraine. Additionally, the United States can simply not tolerate Russian efforts to undermine its democratic process and exacerbate existing societal and political divides in the country. This will certainly require defensive measures to protect electoral systems and minimize the ability of any foreign power to infiltrate and manipulate U.S. social networks and information sharing platforms. Additionally, U.S. policymakers must also consider offensive cyber actions to punish and cripple the foreign officials, institutions, and individuals that participate in these malicious activities.

With respect to China, U.S. policymakers should focus efforts on building diplomatic support for regional institutions that will foster economic and commercial growth consistent within existing international trading norms and rules. For instance, the U.S. should support the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (formed after U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership), which builds a multilateral framework supporting and amplifying existing economic and security cooperation efforts in Asia.

Moreover, U.S. policymakers should be confident in the moral case for U.S. global leadership. The U.S. Information Agency once played a vital role in articulating American values, trumpeting the benefits of American political and economic models, and promoting cultural and educational exchanges. Those capabilities need to be restored and programs robustly funded. Francis Fukuyama was certainly overly optimistic when he assessed that America’s victory at the end of the Cold War represented the end of history. But neither Russia nor Moscow has offered a better political, economic, or ideological alternative to the unmatched successes of the American story.

Finally, U.S. policy should not be wholly confrontational. It is also important for U.S. policymakers to recognize that cooperation with both Moscow and China will be essential to achieving American security objectives in battling terrorism; rolling back nuclear and missile programs in North Korea and Iran that threaten regional and global stability; adhering to arms control agreements that reduce the risk of nuclear confrontation; and facilitating a political resolution to the civil wars plaguing the Middle East. Moreover, the United States need not necessarily fear Chinese investment in Africa, Latin America, or the Middle East as these regions are in desperate need of developmental assistance that the United States is both unwilling and unable to provide on its own. Rising to the challenge of better integrating both carrot and stick into a coherent U.S. national security strategy will require a much deeper investment in the non-military instruments of power. Prioritizing the filling of key senior diplomatic posts such as U.S. ambassadors to South Korea and Saudi Arabia is a minimal prerequisite. In a complex and increasingly integrated world, U.S. policymakers should be seeking to bolster investment in American diplomacy and foreign aid programs quite in contrast to the budget reductions proposed by the Trump administration.

While the United States must be cognizant of the competition posed by Russia and China, it should also be careful not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of conflict with those countries if it wishes to promote international stability and maintain its comparative advantage as the largely benign leader of the liberal international order.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. government. This article is written in response to History Begins (Again) for the Pentagon by John R. Deni, R. Evan Ellis, Nathan P. Freier, and Sumit Ganguly published on February 22, 2018.

*About the authors:
Dr. Chris Bolan is Professor of Middle East Security Studies at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College where he researches and teaches graduate level courses on U.S. national security, foreign policy, and Middle East security issues.

Joel R. Hillison, Ph.D., is the Professor of National Security Studies at the U.S. Army War College and an Adjunct Professor at Gettysburg College. Dr. Hillison has a Ph.D. in International Relations from Temple University and a Masters in Economics from the University of Oklahoma. Hillison retired after 30 years of service in the U.S. Army.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

By Lawrence Husick*

(FPRI) — A recent analysis of a new variant of a widespread ransomware attack illustrated just how sophisticated, yet simple, breaching computer security has become. The attack, known as “Emotet,” hit the Pennsylvania city of Allentown, breaking through firewalls, evading the latest antivirus software, and costing the city more than $1 million at last count. The city cannot process financial transactions, and its police department cannot access key crime databases. Although the city is working to fix its systems, the end is still not in sight.

Donald Trump once said he identified with Ayn Rand’s character Howard Roark in “The Fountainhead,” an architect so upset that a housing project he designed didn’t meet specifications he had it dynamited.

Others in Trump’s circle were influenced by Rand. “Atlas Shrugged” was said to be the favorite book of Rex Tillerson, Trump’s secretary of state. Rand also had a major influence on Mike Pompeo, Trump’s CIA chief. Trump’s first nominee for Secretary of Labor, Andrew Puzder, said he spent much of his free time reading Rand.

The Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, required his staff to read Rand.

Uber’s founder and former CEO, Travis Kalanick, has described himself as a Rand follower. Before he was sacked, he applied many of her ideas to Uber’s code of values, and even used the cover art for Rand’s book “The Fountainhead” as his Twitter avatar.

Who is Ayn Rand and why does she matter?  Ayn Rand – best known for two highly-popular novels still widely read today – “The Fountainhead,” published in 1943, and “Atlas Shrugged,” in 1957 – didn’t believe there was a common good. She wrote that selfishness is a virtue, and altruism is an evil that destroys nations.

When Rand offered these ideas they seemed quaint if not far-fetched. Anyone who lived through the prior half century witnessed our interdependence, through depression and war.

After the war we used our seemingly boundless prosperity to finance all sorts of public goods – schools and universities, a national highway system, and healthcare for the aged and poor (Medicare and Medicaid). We rebuilt war-torn Europe. We sought to guarantee the civil rights and voting rights of African-Americans. We opened doors of opportunity to women. Of course there was a common good. We were living it.

But then, starting in the late 1970s, Rand’s views gained ground. She became the intellectual godmother of modern-day American conservatism.

This utter selfishness, this contempt for the public, this win-at-any-cost mentality is eroding American life.

Without adherence to a set of common notions about right and wrong, we’re living in a jungle where only the strongest, cleverest, and most unscrupulous get ahead, and where everyone must be wary in order to survive. This is not a society. It’s not even a civilization, because there’s no civility at its core. It’s a disaster.

In other words, we have to understand who Ayn Rand is so we can reject her philosophy and dedicate ourselves to rebuilding the common good.

The idea of the common good was once widely understood and accepted in America. After all, the U.S. Constitution was designed for “We the people” seeking to “promote the general welfare” – not for “me the selfish jerk seeking as much wealth and power as possible.”

Yet today you find growing evidence of its loss – CEOs who gouge their customers, loot their corporations and defraud investors. Lawyers and accountants who look the other way when corporate clients play fast and loose, who even collude with them to skirt the law.

Wall Street bankers who defraud customers and investors. Film producers and publicists who choose not to see that a powerful movie mogul they depend on is sexually harassing and abusing young women.

Politicians who take donations (really, bribes) from wealthy donors and corporations to enact laws their patrons want, or shutter the government when they don’t get the partisan results they seek.

And a president of the United States who lies repeatedly about important issues, refuses to put his financial holdings into a blind trust and then personally profits off his office, and foments racial and ethnic conflict.

The common good consists of our shared values about what we owe one another as citizens who are bound together in the same society. A concern for the common good – keeping the common good in mind – is a moral attitude. It recognizes that we’re all in it together.

If there is no common good, there is no society.

By Frank Shostak*

On Thursday March 1, the Trump administration announced plans to impose 25% tariffs on imports of steel and 10% tariffs on imports of aluminum.

The US President is of the view that without the required protection, the US steel and aluminium industries are likely to follow the deteriorating path and this in turn will undermine the US labor market.

The steps announced by the US President raises the likelihood of a global trade war. President Trump seems to believe that war is great and that the US will emerge triumphant.

One would have thought that out of all people, President Trump, who prides himself of placing America first, would never consider imposing tariffs. After all a tariff on any imported good implies curtailing the supply of less costly goods and encouraging the supply to the domestic market of more costly domestically produced goods i.e. punishing the domestic consumers i.e. the Americans.

Furthermore, by raising a protection wall to various inefficient domestic industries, Trump’s policies are going to promote inefficiency, thereby undermining the process of real wealth generation.

Also, the employment data contradicts the logic of Trump’s tariff policy. According to CNBC, while there are about 200,000 workers in the steel, aluminum and iron industries, there are 6.5 million people employed by businesses that use steel. This raises the risk of undermining rather than benefiting the US labor market.1

Given that President Trump prides himself as a successful businessman, he surely must be well aware that the ultimate goal of every business is to make profit. Hence, to succeed in this task as a businessman, Donald Trump will now allow government policies that are going to undermine the net worth of his company.

Yet for some strange reason the President is of the view that this is ok for the economy as a whole.

It did not occur to him that there is no such thing as an economy without individuals. If planned policies such as imposition of tariffs are going to weaken the process of wealth formation and undermine individuals wellbeing, obviously this is going to be bad news for the economy as a whole i.e. for America, which President Trump holds as number one on his priority list.

One could only hope that most countries such as China, the Eurozone and Canada will not retaliate to Trump’s tariffs and start a trade war to feed the ego of politicians.

By lifting tariffs on American imports, these countries will only make things much worse for themselves.

What is the point of punishing your own citizens because of a misguided economic policy of the US President? By curbing imports from the US to the domestic markets, one does not fix the negative side effects of US tariffs.

If all countries in the world were to impose tariffs on imports, this would quickly arrest international trade and lead to massive economic impoverishment.

In the words of Murray N. Rothbard,

The tariff principle is an attack on the market, and its logical goal is the self-sufficiency of industrial producers; it is a goal that, if realized, would spell poverty for all… It would be a regression from civilization to barbarism.

About the author:
*Frank Shostak’s consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments of financial markets and global economies.

Source:
This article was published by MISES Institute

Notes:
1. See: “Trump’s tariff plan leaves blue-collar winners and losers,” specifically: “The mills and smelters that supply the raw material, and that would directly benefit from the tariffs, have been shrinking for years. Today, those industries employ fewer than 200,000 people. The companies that buy steel and aluminum, to make everything from trucks to chicken coops, employ more than 6.5 million workers, according to a Heritage Foundation analysis of Commerce Department data.” (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/04/trumps-tariff-plan-leaves-blue-collar-winners-and-losers.html)

Xi has been steadily accumulating and centralising power ever since he took office as General Secretary in November 2012 and President in March 2014.

By Manoj Joshi

Ten years is about the most in which a leader can provide effective governance, in a democratic system. Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, was Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990. Her policies transformed Britain. But in the end, with her popularity declining, her Conservative Party forced her out of office. Some years later, Tony Blair suffered the same fate. In 1951, the US legislated a two term limit for its president. France arrived at the same spot in 2008, after some experiment. As for authoritarian states, it’s more difficult to assess a Stalin or a Mao but as rulers they overstayed their time to the detriment of their country.

Xi Jinping’s move to remove term limits for the office of the president is portentous since, the Communist Party of China (CPC) Constitution has no limits for his other arguably more important hat, General Secretary of the Party. Till the 1990s the Chinese presidency was really a symbolic office. The person who mattered was Mao Zedong, General Secretary from 1949 to his demise in 1976. His rule was a disaster. That experience persuaded Deng Xiaoping, his next effective successor in the 1980s to insist on term limits, which were written into the PRC Constitution.

For Party offices there were norms but no rules, and likewise there were none for the Chair of the Central Military Commission (CMC) which runs the PLA. Jiang Zemin served in that position for 15 years. Though Deng had held various high posts in the Mao era before being purged, as the paramount ruler in the 1980s Deng himself did not hold any position when he led China into far-reaching economic reforms. His only official position was honorary chairman of the China Bridge Association, though, importantly, he was Chairman of the CMC.

It was in the Jiang Zemin era that the party boss or General Secretary also became concurrently the President of PRC (and Chairman of CMC). Xi has been steadily accumulating and centralising power ever since he took office as General Secretary in November 2012 and President in March 2014. He used an anti-corruption campaign to bring down powerful politicians like Bo Xilai, Zhou Yonkang and Sun Zhengcai, and bring the PLA under his control. By taking personal charge of key Leading Small Groups — supra ministerial institutions — on foreign policy, economic reform, internet security, military reform he has immeasurably tightened his grip on the government.

Over the years, the CPC propaganda machine has seen him being addressed as “a leader of the core” and “lingxiu” or revered leader, a term used previously only for Mao. China stands at the cusp of a very complex transformation. Having largely eliminated poverty through its economic miracle, it must now become a rich country, or stagnate in the middle-income trap. Also, as a rising power it must avoid the Thucydides Trap of conflict with the US.

CPC knows its authority depends on continuing economic prosperity in the country. But the old economic model is no longer sustainable, and though CPC has taken impressive steps to take the country to higher economic and political levels, it faces huge headwinds. In the global game of Snakes and Ladders China has so far hit the ladders up, but higher up the board is populated by snakes.

We need to place these developments in context. Altering the term limits today does not mean Xi will automatically follow through as President for life. Xi, an authoritarian leader, is no monster like Mao. He is a diligent, hardworking leader who has systematically advanced China’s interests. There is always a worry, though, of the “Bad Emperor” syndrome indicated by Francis Fukuyama, and the hubris that comes with power. Things go well to start with, then things get out of control, a leader loses his touch, and the country gets stuck with him. Thereafter it sometimes becomes an excruciatingly long and costly haul.

This article originally appeared in The Times of India.

Before I turn to Jared Kushner, let me ask: Do you believe the U.S. government does the right thing all or most of the time?

The Gallup organization started asking this question in 1963, when over 70 percent of Americans said they did. Since then, the percent has steadily declined. By 2016, before Trump became president, only 16 percent of Americans agreed.

Why the decline? Surely various disappointments and scandals played a part – Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, “weapons of mass destruction,” the Wall Street bailout.

But the largest factor by far has been the rise of big money in politics. Most people no longer believe their voices count.

That view is backed by solid research. Princeton professor Martin Gilens and Professor Benjamin Page of Northwestern University analyzed 1,799 policy issues that came before Congress, and found “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

Instead, Gilens and Page concluded, lawmakers respond to the policy demands of wealthy individuals and moneyed business interests – those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns.

It’s likely far worse now. Gilens and Page’s data came from 1981 to 2002, before the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to big money in its Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions.

Trump and Bernie Sanders – authoritarian populist and progressive populist, respectively – based their shockingly successful campaigns on the public’s outrage at the corruption of our democracy by big money. Sanders called for a “political revolution.” Trump promised to “drain the swamp.”

Trump hasn’t drained it, of course. He’s turned the entire government into a giant bog of lobbyists, real estate moguls, Wall Streeters, and billionaires.

Which brings us to Jared Kushner, the putative swamp-drainer’s son-in-law, and major advisor.

Kushner may yet be indicted in Robert Mueller’s investigation. But it could turn out that Kushner’s most significant contribution to the stench of this administration will come from his financial conflicts of interest.

When he took the White House job, Kushner chose not to follow the usual practice of wealthy people when they join administrations – putting their assets into blind trusts managed by outside experts.

Instead, Kushner retained control over the vast majority of his interest in Kushner Companies, worth as much as $761 million, according to government ethics filings.

So how has Kushner separated his business dealings from his dealings on behalf of the United States? He hasn’t.

The Times reported last week that after the CEOs of Citigroup and Apollo Global Management attended White House meetings set up by Kushner, the two firms loaned the Kushner family business more than $500 million.

Furthermore, once the loan was received, the Securities and Exchange Commission dropped an inquiry of Apollo Global Management.

Last spring, Kushner’s real-estate firm sought hundreds of millions of dollars directly from the Qatar government, for its distressed property on Fifth Avenue, reports the Intercept.  Soon after Qatar turned down the request, Kushner supported a diplomatic assault on Qatar that sparked a crisis continuing today.

Kushner is such an easy mark that officials in at least four countries have privately discussed ways to manipulate him with financial deals, according to U.S. intelligence.

Kushner insists that he’s done nothing wrong, and there’s no direct evidence he has profited off his position in White House or put personal financial interests ahead of the interests of the American public.

But that’s not the point. Conflicts of interest are always difficult to prove, which is why we have ethics rules to avoid even the appearance of such conflicts.

And it sure looks as if Kushner is using his White House perch to make money for himself, just as is his father-in-law.

It’s as bad for a government official to look as if he’s lining his pockets as for him to actually do so, because the appearance of corruption undermines public trust just as readily as the real thing. And trust is what distinguishes an advanced democracy from a banana republic.

But Trump and the members of his family he’s brought into his White House don’t give a hoot about public trust. They have utter contempt for the common good.  Government ethics officials have compared Trump’s administration to a game of whack-a-mole – go after one potential violation, and others pop up.

Perhaps Kushner tells himself that the American public is already so cynical about big money’s takeover of our democracy that his own apparent, or real, conflicts are chicken feed by comparison.

Which may be true. But by adding to the distrust, Kushner is doing his own bit to destroy American democracy – actions almost as treasonous as if he colluded with Russians to make his father-in-law president.

Apparently there is nothing worse in America than the act of shooting white people. Ever since the latest attack at a Florida high school there has been talk of little else. The school shooting enveloped every other issue and was used to vilify Russia, the FBI, Bernie Sanders and the National Rifle Association all at once. One cannot watch a Youtube video without being subjected to the NRA’s public relations juggernaut meant to quiet a population which had forgotten about shootings for a while.

America has a unique history with firearms. The settler colonial state enshrined gun ownership into the constitution because of a determination to maintain chattel slavery and the violent enforcement which had to go with it.

More than two hundred years later that imperative remains. All the sound and fury about gun control is useless because this society demands that the slave patrol never disband. There are even arguments made to expand it. Not only must we live with armed police officers but there are new proposals to arm teachers in the classroom. These same teachers target black students for punishments and “zero tolerance” policies made necessary by the deeds of violent white people. Everyone from the buffoonish president to members of Congress weigh in with ridiculous proposals because the obvious solution will not be permitted in this country.

The latest shooter was diagnosed with mental illness but there are psychiatric patients all over the world. Only in this country does illness beget periodic blood baths that do nothing to change public policy. Unfortunately the Florida case is unlikely to be the last public massacre.

The mass shooting brings into high relief the grotesque nature of American violence. It far supersedes that of other nations called “free” and “advanced” and “civilized.” The terms are hyperbole but surely do not apply to this country which has little connection with any of these ideals.

While the hand wringing goes on about high body count events in public places, little is said about the 1,000 fatalities which are committed every year by the police. The police, who are now to be trusted with keeping black children safe, kill an average of three people every day.

The white students who survived the massacre are rightly speaking out about their experience and attempting to break the institutional support for killing sprees. But black protest against hyper policing and its inevitable death toll is dismissed. So is anyone who opposes U.S. military violence or that of its allies which take place in any number of places around the world.

The cause of the anomalous death toll here is not difficult to understand. This country is awash in violence because of angry, entitled white people. One would think that they were the aggrieved party. They certainly seem to think so with their explosive anger which can be directed at anyone at any moment. It is a lethal combination in a society on the edge of financial and ecological collapse without any principle which might unify the population to struggle together. As Glen Ford points out the opposite is true. Anti-black racism tears even white people from one another. The past history of a racialized polity makes solidarity almost impossible and chaos all too likely.

It is sad to wonder where the next example of sick carnage will take place but mass shootings are inevitable here. The combination of racist mental illness, denial and adherence to white supremacy will ensure that firearm violence continues.

The kabuki theater of the crazed duopoly system also puts guns in the hands of dangerous people. Republicans are rightly identified with the NRA, which donated $20 million to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. But Democrats have passed up opportunities to make good on their supposed desire to establish some form of gun control. Who can forget John Kerry in 2004 wearing hunting gear that made him look like cartoon character Elmer Fudd. Or that Barack Obama ended the ban on firearms in national parks. White voters in rural Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin who were courted by duplicitous Democrats ran straight to the arms of Trump and ignored the fakery.

Gun fatalities are emblematic of so much that is wrong in this country. Racism creates hypocrisy and a climbing death toll. The open lovers of white supremacy make their voices heard while two faced cowards court them in secret. The tragic public drama will go on and the bloodshed will too.

By Ajit Kumar Singh*

Four cadres of the ‘Madhya Zone’ (Central Zone) of the Bihar-Jharkhand Special Area Committee (BJSAC) of the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist), including ‘sub zonal commander’ Rakesh Bhuiyan, were killed in an encounter with the Security Forces (SFs) at Malanga Pahad (hill) under Chhatarpur Police Station in Palamu District, on February 26, 2018. The SFs, who had launched an operation on a tip off that Rakesh Bhuiyan was hiding in the area along with 20 others, were attacked by the Maoists. The encounter started at 8.50am and lasted for just 20 minutes, leaving four Maoists dead. The slain Maoists were identified as Bhuiyan, Lalloo Yadav, Ruby Kumari and Rinki Kumari. SFs also recovered two SLRs (Self Loading Rifles), five magazines, 219 bullets, eight cell phones, back packs, uniforms, Naxal [Left Wing Extremism (LWE)]- literature and eatables.

On February 8, 2018, SFs killed an ‘area commander’ of the ‘Madhya Zone’ of Bihar-Jharkhand Special Area Committee of CPI-Maoist, identified as Mahesh Bhokta alias Guardian, in an encounter in the area under the Naudiha Police Station limits in Palamu District. SFs later recovered the body of the Maoist along with eight weapons. One injured female Maoist cadre was arrested from the encounter site, while another cadre, identified as Rajinder Bhuiyan, who had managed to escape from the encounter site reached the Police in Daltonganj city, the Headquarters of Palamu District, and surrendered.

On February 1, 2018, a CPI-Maoist cadre, identified as Birbal Oraon, was killed in an encounter with SFs at Bhitar Pandra village in Latehar District.

On January 17, 2018, an ‘area commander’ of the Jharkhand Jan-Mukti Parishad (JJMP), a splinter group of CPI-Maoist, was killed in an encounter at Jerpahari under Sadar Police Station limits in Latehar District. An AK-47 rifle, four American-made rifles, one INSAS (Indian Small Arms System) assault rifle, and other materials were recovered from the encounter site.

In the intervening night of January 11-12, 2018, two ‘commanders’ of the Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC), a CPI-Maoist splinter group, were killed in an encounter with SFs at Konai Khurd village under Padma Police Station in Hazaribagh District. One AK 47 rifle, an unspecified number of INSAS assault rifles, and around 200 rounds of live ammunition were recovered from the encounter site.

According to partial data collated by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), at least nine Naxalites [Left Wing Extremists (LWEs)] have died in 2018 (data till March 4, 2018), all killed in encounters with SFs. These include six CPI-Maoist cadres, two JJMP cadres, and one TPC cadre. At least four Naxalites had died during the corresponding period of 2017: SFs eliminated a cadre each of CPI-Maoist and TPC, while another two died (New-Sastra Peoples’ Morcha, New-SPM, breakaway faction of the little-known SPM) in internecine clashes. Through 2017, SFs had eliminated 14 Naxalites: nine cadres of the Peoples’ Liberation Front of India (PLFI), a CPI-Maoist splinter group; four CPI-Maoist cadres; and one TPC cadre. Another 11 Naxalites were killed in internecine clashes: 10 TPC cadres and one CPI-Maoist cadre. In 2016, a total of 40 Naxalites were killed, 23 in encounters with SFs: 15 CP-Maoist cadres, seven PLFI cadres, and one Jharkhand Sangharsh Jan Mukti Morcha (JSJMM) cadre. Another 15 Naxalites were killed in internecine clashes: nine PLFI cadres, three TPC cadres, and three Jharkhand Jan-Mukti Parishad cadres. Two PLFI cadres were lynched by the public.

On the other hand, losses among SFs declined considerably: from 10 fatalities in 2016 to two in 2017, yielding a high positive kill ratio of 1:11.5 in 2017, as against the modest 1:1.4 achieved during 2016. There has been no fatality in the SF category so far in 2018.

Moreover, SFs arrested several Maoists, including top cadres, through 2017. State Director General of Police (DGP) D.K. Pandey disclosed, on January 10, 2018, “In the intensive operations security forces eliminated 12 top Naxals in 34 police encounters and arrested 558 Naxals including 50 top ‘commanders’ during the year 2017 and recovered 36 weapons looted from the police in the past.”

The success of SFs on the ground has resulted in improvements in the overall security situation the State. According to the SATP database, total Naxal-linked fatalities came down from 81 (31 civilians, 10 SF personnel, and 40 Naxalites) in 2016 to 56 (29 civilians, two SF personnel, and 25 Naxalites) in 2017. This was the lowest number of overall fatalities recorded in the State since 2005. The previous low of 58 fatalities was recorded in 2015. At the peak of Naxal violence in 2009, the State had recorded 217 fatalities. The trend of overall fatalities has, however, been cyclical in nature , and the potential for escalation remains. In 2018, Jharkhand has already recorded 10 fatalities (nine Naxals and one civilian, data till March 4, 2018).

In 2017, Jharkhand recorded the lowest fatalities in the SF category since 2005 (a previous low of five was recorded in 2015), and the number of civilian fatalities also declined, from 31 in 2016 to 29 in 2017. Civilian fatalities after remaining static for three consecutive years – 48 fatalities each in years 2012, 2013, and 2014 – had dropped to 16 in 2015, but rose again to 31 in 2016. The highest number of 79 civilian deaths was recorded in 2011.

Other parameters of violence were also indicative of significant security consolidation. In 2017 fatalities were reported from 12 Districts as against 13 in 2016 (out of a total of 24 Districts in the State). Civilian fatalities were reported from nine Districts in 2017 as against 12 in 2016. Incidents of bomb blasts decreased from 12 (resulting in nine injuries) to nine (17 injuries) between 2016 and 2017. The number of major incidents (each involving three or more fatalities) declined from eight (seven initiated by Naxalites, one by SF personnel) to four (all by Maoists) in 2017. Overall Naxal-related incidents, according to Union Ministry of Home Affairs (UMHA) data, came down from 323 in 2016 to 251 in 2017. In 2018, as of January 31, 22 incidents have been recorded, as against 30 during the corresponding period of the previous year.

Buoyed by the success, DGP Pandey noted, on February 28, 2018,

The morale of our security forces is high. The Maoists are too down and running away. Days are not far off when they will have no space to hide their heads. They are beaten up amidst rocks and jungles. It will be too good for them to come and surrender and the State government will take care of them (sic).

Explaining the success mantra (philosophy) of the SFs, DGP Pandey stated on January 10, 2018, that, three years earlier, 13 ‘focus areas’ were identified across the State and 18 security camps were established in these. The 13 ‘focus areas’ included: Chatra, Parasnath, Saranda, Saryu, Banalat, Giridih-Koderma border, Dumka-Godda border, Khunti-Chaibasa border, Khunti-Simdega border, Garhwa-Latehar border, Jhumra, Jamshedpur (Gudabandha, Dumaria and Musabani) and Palamau-Chatra border area. He noted,

Just a few years back, there was a time when Maoists used to run parallel administration in these areas but with the help of the civil administration we established security camps. We used these camps not only for security men but also to facilitate other men engaged in the developmental and welfare activities. It has changed the entire scenario and the Naxals have run away from these areas helping the developmental activities to grow.

Talking about future plans, the DGP stated that 30 additional security camps are planned in these 13 ‘focus areas’. Each of these 13 ‘focus areas’ were also covered under area specific ‘action plans’ activities to grow.

Though most of the security issues have been resolved, continuing turf wars among surviving Naxalite groups operating within the State remain a major worry. Internecine clashes among these groups resulted in the death of 11 Naxalites in 2017, in addition to 15 in 2016. The largest among these groups, PLFI, has emerged, as the biggest challenge. According to the SATP database, PLFI had a share of 33.92 per cent of LWE-linked fatalities in 2017, as against 32.09 per cent in 2016. As SAIR noted earlier, “the State Government has also been instrumental in sustaining PLFI during its initial days, using it to counter the CPI-Maoist. However, the strategy backfired and PLFI became one of the major LWE groups in the State.”

There are some 19 LWE groups operating in the State, prominently including CPI-Maoist, PLFI, TPC, Jharkhand Jan Mukti Parishad (JJMP), Jharkhand Sangharsh Jan Mukti Morcha (JSJMM), Jharkhand Prastuti Committee (JPC), and Tritiya Prastuti Committee-1 (TPC-1), a TPC breakaway.

21 Districts of Jharkhand found a place in a list of 106 Maoist-affected Districts from 10 States across India, released by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (UMHA) on July 18, 2017. Of these 106 Districts, 35 from seven States were categorized as ‘worst LWE affected Districts’: 16 of these ‘worst’ Districts were in Jharkhand alone.

Clearly, there is need for continuing vigilance. Measures taken in the past need further strengthening and elaboration, and some further initiatives have already been announced. On February 22, 2018, DGP Pandey disclosed that a Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) was being constituted in Jharkhand, and would be equipped with state-of-the-art resources. Its mandate is to enter into the surviving Naxalite strongholds and provide specific intelligence to State Police formations for targeted operations on the ground.

*Ajit Kumar Singh
Research Fellow; Institute for Conflict Management

If you are reading this article it means you are directly involved in the world of internet, this wonderful innovation has made it possible to connect everyone around the world directly. Through this innovation, the most promising new disrupt technologies have emerged for the future; Thus, the world of the blockchain. It is right to ask if the blockchain technology is a disruptive innovation? why is this novelle technology pacing slowly? This because the technology has only reached the required level of maturity wide mainstream use. What is a disrupting technology? It is the one that displays established technology and revolutionizes industry or ground shaking product that creates a completely new industry.

Today disruption, change and competition dictate the new paradigm for the banking industry, the financial institutions are no exception to the dynamics of industrial advancement which is driven by a fast-growing cost and great pressure. The implementation of the blockchain influences a lot of stakeholders in the financial services which include customers, employees, shareholders, investors, suppliers, industry associates, education institutions, government and non-governmental organizations.

The banking world is involved in quick changes of digitalization, a potential cost and labor-saving instrument, the prospects for the global finance market are so appealing that many major financial institutions are investing millions of dollars to research on what will be the best way to implement it.

The high-priced and opaque involvement of a third party in a transaction is the main problem that has been solved by the creation of the Blockchain due to one centralized shared database. In the past, it was impossible because every transaction requires communications between two single databases and thence another authorized controlling layer was needed. A simplified example of remittance can be used in espousing the concept lucidly, your relative who wants to Transfer money from another country to you, but before you receive the money it might take hours perhaps days for you to be able to receive the said money.

This is because transferring money involved some other parties who must authorize and control the transactions. That kind of frustrating and arduous processes get vaporized under Blockchain. The blockchain is a conceptually stored and synchronized distributed ledger that enables safe and transparent transaction across its networks. Every party involved has an identical copy of the shared ledger that is used to record and store information of the asset such as monies and properties.

Every change to the ledger will be synchronized and copied almost directly and transparently to the network where it will be seen as a block. The blocks are linked by cryptographically. An example to illustrate how this works is a situation where A wants to send money to B. The transaction is represented online in a block without a middleman. After the block is sent to every party on the network, approval is given by nodes to validate every transaction. If the transaction is approved the block will be added to the chain which revises the permanent and transparent records of the transactions Finally, the money will move from A to B and this is done in few minutes.

The blockchain network relies on the decentralized systems making it attainable for one person or group of persons to get in control of it. This safe and transparent transaction is facilitated through a decentralized system of the payment system which is allowed by the blockchain technology. Hereby staring in the era that extends beyond financial capital market, global payment, Corporate Governance social institutions and democratic participation Before Digitalization every action in the traditional banking industry had to be done manually. The industry has homogeneously surfaced centralized data stored and many intermediaries linked, this result to poor customer service through complex clearing processes, large amount manual inspections, leaking personal information and high costs.

The practice of keeping ledgers dates back in centuries, the blockchain story started in 2008 when an anonymous person or group of persons with pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto published a white paper which proposes an Electronic peer to peer cash system called Bitcoin The blockchain was originally developed to support bitcoin but now it is used for more than thousand cryptocurrencies which resulted in a long trail effect.

The said technology can be used in so many sectors such as cybersecurity, supply chain, forecasting, networking, insurance, private transport, online storage, charity, voting, government, energy, online music, retails, health care, real estate, crowdfunding and identification As explained earlier the blockchain technology eliminates the involvement of a third party in transactions, or as Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic coined: “Hegemony or hegemoney, a debtor empire/s’ fiat-papers.”

This chain is disrupting the banking industry as secured, cut cost, reduce delay and it is hugely efficient. Because it is decentralized and permissionless, it can lead to more disruptions in the financial sector, especially in payment clearing. Recently international organizations as well as developed countries and other countries have been paying close attention to the blockchain technology and are exploring their application in various fields.

For the financial sector, a number of the international financial institution have begun to formally plan for the blockchain technology since 2015, Goldman Sachs and other banking Giants have established their own blockchain laboratories working in close collaboration with the blockchain platforms.

Major Financial Institutions have a relatively positive attitude towards studying and improving the beck and processing efficiency of the blockchain technology and place a significant emphasis on its potential to reduce operational cost. In fact, IBM predicted that in four years sixty-six percent of the banking industry will have commercialized the blockchain at a scale. What are our indigenous Africa banks or Ghanaian own banks doing about this? Will they be part of the sixty-six percent as stated in the prediction above, it is high time we start giving opportunities to the IT department in the banking Industry to study this new technology so that we rise to be counted. Other opportunities with this new technology are a point to point payment, sharing credit data, smart contract all this using the blockchain technology.

This technology can drastically reduce the manual intervention of supply chain in finance and employ smart contract or digitized procedures that rely heavily on paperwork, numerous intermediaries, high risk of illegal transactions, high cost and low efficiency. As transaction occurs simultaneously each transaction will need to be verified by all the nodes in the entire network which is harmful to speed this impact will become especially needy when the nodes in the blockchain increase.

Despite the permission-less and self-govern nature of the blockchain the regulation and the actual implementation of a decentralized system are problems that remain to be resolved, however, it is important to note that any beneficiary technology is accompanied by risks, therefore, the blockchain regulation is necessary and should be considered earnestly.

The Financial industry is highly sensitive to technological changes. To keep up with these changes, banks must invest more into research on the blockchain not forgetting the development and empowerment of its staff in knowing more about this new technology. Although the blockchain technology is still unregulated and it could have its limitations, banks would have to improve their position in the industry.

The banks will try to improve their payment systems and overcome information communication resulting in a better customer experience hence the blockchain will become the core underline technology of the financial sector in the future.

*Oliver k. M. Aziator, Senior banking analyst and the Blockchain Advocate. aziatoro@gmail.com

The state senate in Washington has passed a bill forcing health insurance companies that pay for maternity care to pay for abortion as well. There is no “opt-out” clause for religious institutions. The bill would allow the state to tap Medicaid funds to pay for abortions; contraception and sterilization are also covered. Governor Jay Inslee is expected to sign it.

The name of the bill speaks volumes: The “Reproductive Parity Act.” Translated, this means that the proponents of the bill believe it is unfair to allow taxpayers to pay for a mother to give birth to her baby while denying funds to a mother who elects to have her baby killed. Live or die—that is their sick idea of parity.

Conscience rights obviously have little standing in Washington, though if the draft were suddenly reintroduced, it is a sure bet that such rights would quickly be discovered. The bill will certainly be challenged in the courts and is not likely to pass muster, not, at least, at the highest level. We stand with the bishops of Washington, ably led by Seattle Archbishop Peter Sartain, in opposing this unconstitutional infringement on religious liberty.

It is a tribute to the nation that Americans are appalled by mass killings in the schools. It does not speak well that so many are not equally appalled by mass killings in the womb, funded, perversely, against the will of millions.

To the fans of Game of Thrones, the words “Winter is coming” is an exciting overture that has stuck to them becoming one of the mostly quoted movie lines in the popular culture. The words have quite the opposite effect for European leaders challenged to keep their countries warm and industries operating when the winter is coming every year.

This fear is caused by none other than Russia’s ever growing manipulation of gas exports and energy geopolitics, as a whole. Southern Gas Corridor, a mega-pipeline that stretches from the Caspian basin to the Southern Italy might just be the resistance to a single supplier domination.

The Kremlin has always made sure that Russian state-owned companies played politics in the winter, when its European consumers were most vulnerable. Nine years ago, Eastern European nations of Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia and Croatia in addition to Ukraine itself, were hard hit by cuts of the Russian gas. Looking back to 2009, when the Russian-imported gas stopped to flow to Europe leading to nearly a dozen deaths in extremely cold winter, European leaders made a commitment to increase their efforts to find alternatives from elsewhere to ease the dependence on Russian gas.

The energy-hungry Europe gets its gas supplies primarily from Norway, North Africa and Russia. Russia is responsible for nearly one third of gas imports in Europe and considers it a strategic leverage in its dealings with the European Union and by association, the United States. A decade ago, the European Commission issued its Energy Security and Solidarity Action Plan, making it a priority to help Eastern European countries diversify its gas imports and now identifies Southern Gas Corridor as the backbone of the greater project for substantially decreasing Europe’s dependency on a single supplier.

The Southern Gas Corridor (SGC) is mega-pipeline which stretches for 2,175 miles by connecting South Caucasus Pipeline (from Azerbaijan to Georgia), Trans-Anatolian Pipeline (TANAP which crosses Turkey), and Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP, picking up on Turkish-Greek border, crossing Greece, Albania, Adriatic Sea and ending in Southern Italy). By far, one of the largest energy projects in the world, SGC will transport 16 bcm of natural gas per year from Azerbaijani gas fields to Europe starting from 2020. At the initial stage, the two-phase Shah Deniz offshore gas and condensate field located in the Azerbaijani sector of the Caspian Sea, is the only supplier of the natural gas through the SGC.

Turkey which is the transit country in this project will also consume 6 out of 16 bcm to be exported from Azerbaijan, leaving 10 bcm to Eastern European customers. According to the BP, the total estimated reserves of the field are 1.2 trillion cubic meters (tcm) of natural gas and nearly 2.2 billion barrels of condensate.

However, the European Union looks beyond Azerbaijani gas, betting on additional supply volumes from potential Central Asian exporters like Turkmenistan, Middle East and increasingly Eastern Mediterranean. As expected, nine European buyers have already committed to import Azerbaijani gas coming though SGC and are likely to increase their imports once the mega-pipeline fills its full capacity with gas from additional sources. According to the European Commission, EU intends to increase these imports to 80 to 100 bcm of gas per year in the future.

Last month the European Investment Bank approved a €1.5 billion loan for construction of the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline making the last part of the grand project a reality. The project has gotten consistent support from both Obama and Trump administrations. In his letter addressing attendees of an annual Oil and Gas Exhibition in Baku in June 2016, President Obama underlined the importance of Southern Gas Corridor for energy security in Europe. Secretary Kerry, in turn, extended unwavering support of the US government to the Southern Gas Corridor in the meeting with Azerbaijani president in Washington in March 2016.

This was followed by President Trump’s letter of support addressed to participants of the International Caspian Oil & Gas Exhibition and Conference in Baku, in May 2017 that stated that the U.S. “remains strongly committed to the Southern Gas Corridor [project], and welcomes the efforts of Azerbaijan and its international partners to complete it.” Washington’s Acting Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs at the State Department Sue Saarnio reiterated the position of the White House at a press conference in Baku following Southern Gas Corridor Advisory Council’s fourth ministerial meeting.

As the things look now, Trump administration needs to go an extra mile in demonstrating Washington’s support to all European partners in realization of this project. First and foremost, the position of the Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs that was skillfully executed by Carlos Pascual and Amos Hochstein until January 2017 needs to be filled as soon as possible. This would show to all the parties involved that the U.S. does have a stake in this energy security.

Second, Secretary Tillerson’s visit to Baku this year would cement the Bill Clinton era strategic outlook that secured the realization of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, an undertaking that linked Baku to the European capitals and one that delivers Azerbaijani hydrocarbons to US ally Israel. Demonstrable steps taken by Washington will ascertain that the project does not fall victim to pressure from neither Moscow nor Tehran.

In the run-up to the presidential elections the internal situation in Libya is getting sharper.

This situation has affected not only ordinary people, but the separated Libyan tribes and communities. Many of them began to realize that their choice will determine the whole country’s future.

Thus, many tribal leaders and Libyans believe that Khalifa Haftar is currently the only person able to reunify the country, and provide its stability and security. He is considered to be a man who will return peace and prosperity to the country.

Representatives of the Supreme Council of the Libyan Tribes and Cities believe that the current situation in Libya is affected by controlled chaos aimed at prolonging the political and economic crisis.

Analysts estimate that such an opinion reflects the nation’s mood. According to different sources, more and more Libyans support the LNA’s leader Khalifa Haftar’s policy. It is also evidenced by his increasing international influence.

At the talks held on July 25 in Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron held a meeting between Libya’s UN-backed Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj and Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar. The negotiations led to the road map that was formulated to settle the Libyan crisis and to the truce agreement between the parties. It was also stressed by Macron at the press conference.

Besides, last December supporters of Khalifa Haftar held demonstrations in Benghazi, Tobruk and Tripoli calling on him to take charge of the country. A lot of Libyans believe that the Government of National Accord headed by Fayez al-Sarraj is no longer legitimate. They condemn Sarraj’s policy that led to the uprising of many fragmented factions controlled by foreign countries like Turkey or Qatar.

Libyan tribes share the same point of view. Their leaders are reportedly showing greater support for Haftar due to their belief that he can be the one to stop the terror in the country and deal with extremist groups that make obstacles on the way of government’s restoration.

Apparently, Libyans are divided between two political forces. However, more and more people realize that their vote will determine the country’s fate. That’s why they are ready to put away all the disagreements of the past and unify under one common goal.

*Adel Karim is an independent journalist with a focus on Middle East issues.

While Brexit has been the center of attention for the UK over the past year and a half since the vote, the economy also faces substantial risks from the UK’s own macroeconomic policies. A new paper from the Washington, DC-based Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) concludes that it “makes economic sense” for the government to finance infrastructure, education, and other public investments to spur lagging productivity, while avoiding cuts to public pensions or attempts to make deficit or debt reduction a main goal in the foreseeable future.

“The UK has been stuck in a low-wage, low-growth, low-investment, no-productivity-growth trap for a decade,” said Mark Weisbrot, CEPR co-director and lead author of the paper, “The UK Economy at the Crossroads.” “There is a serious risk that the Bank of England and UK government will prolong this stagnation, or worse, with overly tight fiscal and monetary policies.

“Of course any damage from mistaken macroeconomic policy compounds the risks and potential damage surrounding Brexit,” he added.

The report argues that despite high levels of employment after eight and a half years of economic recovery, expected interest rate hikes by the Bank of England are unnecessary in view of the recent trajectory and sources of inflation, as well as wage growth. Real median wages are still below their 2009 peak.

On fiscal policy, the authors maintain that the focus on reducing UK public debt as a percent of GDP is misplaced; the more important indicator is the percent of GDP going to service the public debt, which is just 1.8 percent of GDP and unlikely to undergo sudden changes. They note that the UK can borrow at negative real interest rates on 10-year government bonds, and argue that it should do so in order to finance badly needed public investment. The paper also looks at the UK’s high levels of regional inequality ― the worst in the European Union ― and overall income inequality, and argues that public investment will have a role to play in solving these problems.

The paper comes at a time when there is much debate about tightening the budget. The authors note that about half of the deficit reduction since its peak in 2009 is attributable to fiscal tightening, and that this “was unnecessary as well as painful for many people. In addition to unnecessary unemployment and poverty, and the accompanying social ills caused by the slower recovery, the spending cuts were also linked to an estimated 120,000 deaths as a result of decreased access to health and social care” (according to a study in the British Medical Journal).

The authors also argue that proposed cuts to the public pension system would reduce one of the most important equalizing factors with regard to income distribution in the past decade, and note that these reforms would have an insignificant impact on the budget, with an average annual savings of just 0.06 percent of GDP over the next 50 years.