A new study led by scientists from the University of Cambridge, the Institut Pasteur, Paris Diderot University, the CNRS and the genetics company 23andMe suggests that our empathy is not just a result of our education and experience but is also partly influenced by genetic variations. These results will be published in the journal Translational Psychiatry.

Empathy plays a key role in human relationships. It has two parts: the ability to recognize another person’s thoughts and feelings, and the ability to respond with an appropriate emotion. The first part is called “cognitive empathy” and the second part is called “affective empathy”.

Fifteen years ago, a team of scientists at the University of Cambridge developed the Empathy Quotient or EQ, a brief self-report measure of empathy. Using this test, which measures both types of empathy, the scientists demonstrated that some of us are more empathetic than others, and that women, on average, are slightly more empathetic than men. They also showed that, on average, autistic people have more difficulties with cognitive empathy, even though their affective empathy may be intact.

The Cambridge team, the Institut Pasteur, Paris Diderot University, the CNRS and the genetics company 23andMe can now report the results of the largest genetics study of empathy using information from more than 46,000 23andMe customers. These people all completed the EQ online and provided a saliva sample for genetic analysis.

The results of this study, led by Varun Warrier(1) (University of Cambridge), Professors Simon Baron-Cohen(2) (University of Cambridge) and Thomas Bourgeron(3) (Paris Diderot University, Institut Pasteur, CNRS), and David Hinds (23andMe), first revealed that our empathy is partly down to genetics. Indeed, at least a tenth of this variation is associated with genetic factors.

The findings also confirm that women are, on average, more empathetic than men. However, this variation is not a result of DNA as no differences were observed in the genes that contribute to empathy in men and women. This implies that the difference in empathy between the sexes is caused by other factors, such as socialization, or non-genetic biological factors, such as prenatal hormone influences, which also differ between the sexes.

Finally, the scientists observed that genetic variants associated with lower empathy are also associated with higher risk for autism.

Varun Warrier explained: “This is an important step towards understanding the role that genetics plays in empathy. But since only a tenth of the variation in the degree of empathy between individuals is down to genetics, it is equally important to understand the non-genetic factors.”

Professor Thomas Bourgeron said: “These results offer a fascinating new perspective on the genetic influences that underpin empathy. Each specific gene plays a small role and this makes it difficult to identify them. The next step is to study an even larger number of people, to replicate these findings and to pinpoint the biological pathways associated with individual differences in empathy.”

Finally, Professor Simon Baron-Cohen added: “Finding that even a fraction of why we differ in empathy is due to genetic factors helps us understand people, such as those with autism, who struggle to imagine another person’s thoughts and feelings. This empathy difficulty can give rise to a disability that is no less challenging than other kinds of disability. We as a society need to support those with disabilities, with novel teaching methods, work-arounds or reasonable adjustments, to promote inclusion.”

A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine identifies strategies for improving the reliability of bolts used in offshore oil and gas drilling rigs, thereby reducing the risk that a bolt failure could cause a spill of oil, drilling fluids, or natural gas into the environment. Although the oil and gas industry has made important advances in improving the reliability of bolts, there are multiple opportunities for the industry and the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) to work together to further improve reliability and safety culture, the report says.

Bolts and other fasteners are an integral part of undersea equipment in offshore oil rigs, including for critical pieces of safety equipment such as blow-out preventers (BOP). No major oil spills have resulted from the failure of a bolt or fastener, but there have been minor oil releases and near misses caused by unexpected bolt failures. Such incidents illustrate a compelling need for augmenting the regular inspection with an industrywide continuous monitoring program of bolts that have shown issues, the report says; currently there is no standard industrywide program to inspect bolts that have failed or are being replaced, such as after the five-year inspection required for BOPs.

BSEE could proactively work with the oil and gas industry to construct a comprehensive road map of key objectives and priorities to be implemented by the industry, the report says. Industry should have a large role in determining the priority for addressing potential improvements.

The road map could include sections on:

• investigating bolting cluster failures using a large-scale, fully instrumented test rig that simulates undersea conditions on fasteners;
• researching and developing innovations that could significantly advance the reliability of offshore fasteners in critical service;
• identifying gaps in current standards and obtaining the necessary data to guide updates to the standards; and
• promoting a strategic vision for the safety culture throughout the oil and gas industry. This would include collecting and disseminating information about fastener performance, failures, and near misses, and using this information to guide roadmap priorities.

The report also recommends several other actions the oil and gas industry should take to improve the reliability of undersea bolts. For example, industry should establish a standard laboratory test method to assess how susceptible bolting materials are to cracking and embrittlement from exposure to hydrogen. It should review the standards, such as those related to bolt tensioning, in order to minimize the likelihood of excessive stress being placed on bolts in subsea environments. And it should promote an enhanced safety culture across organizations and disciplines – one that is reflected in work rules and encourages all levels of the organization to improve the reliability of undersea bolts.

The majority of hunt management policies in the U.S. and Canada do not include science-based approaches in their composition, a new study finds.

According to the authors, the results highlight the need for management agencies to more routinely adopt and adhere to science-based approaches, thus leading to better management of natural resources.

U.S. and Canadian governmental agencies in charge of resource management often defend their policies, which can be controversial, by claiming that science plays a central role in their structure, but these state and provincial agencies rarely communicate what science-based management entails.

To date, there has not been a comprehensive assessment of science’s inclusion in these plans. Kyle A. Artelle and colleagues addressed this knowledge gap by identifying four “fundamental hallmarks of science” – measurable objectives, evidence, transparency and independent review – that they believe are indicative of science-based approaches. They tested for the presence of these hallmarks, as well as 11 criteria they say indicate those hallmarks, in 667 hunt management plans across 62 states, provinces and territories in the U.S. and Canada.

Most plans, approximately 60%, lacked a scientific approach to management, the authors found; more specifically, most plans featured fewer than half of the 11 criteria. Of note, measurable objectives were detected in only 26% of plans, and only 9% of plans reported any form of independent review.

Artelle et al.’s results challenge the popular assumption that management agencies base their systems on science, suggesting that these agencies’ policies may warrant review; however, the authors acknowledge, science alone should not shape management strategies.

Consideration of social dimensions, such as indigenous practices, as well as ethics are also important, they said.

By Bong Sarmiento

The Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao has named a deputy governor for Christians, a first in the predominantly Muslim territory.

Regional governor Mujiv Hataman said the new post would ensure that the voices of minority Christians would be heard.

“We will ensure to hear the sentiments and condition of the people so we can address their needs,” said Edgardo Ramirez, who took office as deputy governor on March 1.

Ramirez, a known human rights activist and radio broadcaster, said he would promote inter-religious understanding between Muslims and Christians in the region.

The autonomous region, which comprises five provinces, has a population of about four million — around ten percent are Christians.

Ramirez said among his priorities as deputy governor is to gather socio-economic and demographic profiles of non-Muslims to help policy makers formulate development plans for the area.

By Elise Harris

Rumors of a papal visit to the Baltic states this year have been going around for months, however, the Vatican confirmed the news Friday, announcing that Pope Francis will visit Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in September.

According to the March 9 communique, the Pope will travel to the three nations from Sept. 22-25, visiting the cities of Vilnius and Kaunas in Lithuania, Riga and Aglona in Latvia and Tallinn in Estonia.

The logo and motto for the visits were released along with the dates of the trip. Currently there is no official program for the visit, however, it is expected to be published shortly.

Francis’ September visit marks the first papal trip to the countries in a quarter of a century. He will be the second pope to travel to the Baltic states, exactly 25 years after St. Pope John Paul II, who visited the three countries in September 1993.

The theme for his visit to Lithuania is “Christ Jesus – Our Hope.” The motto for his visit to Lativia is “Show Thyself a Mother” in honor of the Virgin Mary, and the theme for Estonia is “Wake up, my heart!”

Each of the countries is predominantly Christian, with a mix of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox populations, meaning that Francis’ visit, in keeping with his style, will likely have a strong ecumenical focus.

Both Estonia and Latvia have large Lutheran and Orthodox populations. Lithuania, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly Catholic, influenced largely by its historical connection to Poland.

More than 75 percent of the nearly 3 million people in Lithuania are Catholic, while Orthodox Christians make up about 4 percent of the population.

Latvia and Estonia, though historically Lutheran, have become increasingly non-religious. In Latvia, Lutheranism still accounts for about 34 percent of the population of just under 2 million and Catholics make up 25 percent, primarily in the eastern portion of the country. The third largest church in the nation is the Latvian Orthodox Church.

In Estonia, around 54 percent of the population of 1.3 million identify as non-religious. The Eastern Orthodox church accounts for about 16 percent and Lutheranism for almost 10 percent.

Francis’ visit also holds historical significance for the three countries, as the trip will take place during the centenary year of their establishment as independent states.

Until 1917, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania formed part of the Russian empire. They gained independence in 1918, and remained independent until 1940, when they became part of the Soviet Union and endured Nazi domination from 1940-1944.

After their years under Nazi control, they were returned to the Soviet Union in 1945, and regained democratic independence in 1991. They have been members of the European Union since 2004.

St. John Paul II had a special fondness for Lithuania in particular, and shortly after his election famously declared that “half of my heart is in Lithuania.”

The Lithuanian capital of Vilnius is also linked to the image of Divine Mercy, as it was the city in which St. Faustina Kowalska received the visions of Jesus requesting the painting of the Divine Mercy image, and is where the original Divine Mercy image is located, to which John Paul II had a special devotion.

Continuing the upward trend that began in the early 2000s, the volume of international transfers of major weapons in 2013-17 was 10 per cent higher than in 2008-12, according to new data on arms transfers published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

The flow of arms increased to Asia and Oceania and the Middle East between 2008–12 and 2013–17, while there was a decrease in the flow to Africa, the Americas and Europe. The five biggest exporters—the United States, Russia, France, Germany and China—together accounted for 74 per cent of all arms exports in 2013–17.

Arms exporters: The USA extends its lead

In 2013–17 the USA accounted for 34 per cent of total arms exports. Its arms exports increased by 25 per cent between 2008–12 and 2013–17. US arms exports in 2013–17 were 58 per cent higher than those of Russia—the second largest arms exporter in that period. The USA supplied major arms to 98 states in 2013–17. Exports to states in the Middle East accounted for 49 per cent of total US arms exports in that period.

“Based on deals signed during the Obama administration, US arms deliveries in 2013–17 reached their highest level since the late 1990s,” said Dr Aude Fleurant, Director of the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. “These deals and further major contracts signed in 2017 will ensure that the USA remains the largest arms exporter in the coming years.”

Arms exports by Russia decreased by 7.1 per cent between 2008–12 and 2013–17. France increased its arms exports by 27 per cent between the two periods and was the third largest arms exporter in 2013–17. Arms exports by Germany—the fourth largest exporter in 2013–17—fell by 14 per cent between 2008–12 and 2013–17. However, German arms exports to the Middle East increased by 109 per cent.

Few countries outside North America and Europe are large exporters of arms. China was the fifth largest arms exporter in 2013–17. Its arms exports rose by 38 per cent between 2008–12 and 2013–17. While Pakistan was the main recipient of China’s arms exports in 2013–17, there were large increases in Chinese arms exports to Algeria and Bangladesh in that period. Israel (55 per cent), South Korea (65 per cent) and Turkey (145 per cent) substantially increased their respective arms exports between 2008–12 and 2013–17.

Middle East: Arms imports have doubled over the past 10 years

Most states in the Middle East were directly involved in violent conflict in 2013–17. Arms imports by states in the region increased by 103 per cent between 2008–12 and 2013–17, and accounted for 32 per cent of global arms imports in 2013–17.

“Widespread violent conflict in the Middle East and concerns about human rights have led to political debate in Western Europe and North America about restricting arms sales,” said Pieter Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. “Yet the USA and European states remain the main arms exporters to the region and supplied over 98 per cent of weapons imported by Saudi Arabia.”

In 2013–17 Saudi Arabia was the world’s second largest arms importer, with arms imports increasing by 225 per cent compared with 2008–12. Arms imports by Egypt—the third largest importer in 2013–17—grew by 215 per cent between 2008–12 and 2013–17. The United Arab Emirates was the fourth largest importer in 2013–17, while Qatar (the 20th largest arms importer) increased its arms imports and signed several major deals in that period.

South Asia: Regional tensions drive India’s growing arms imports

India was the world’s largest importer of major arms in 2013–17 and accounted for 12 per cent of the global total. Its imports increased by 24 per cent between 2008–12 and 2013–17. Russia accounted for 62 per cent of India’s arms imports in 2013–17. However, arms imports from the USA rose by 557 per cent between 2008–12 and 2013–17, making it India’s second largest arms supplier. Despite its continuing tensions with India and ongoing internal conflicts, Pakistan’s arms imports decreased by 36 per cent between 2008–12 and 2013–17. Pakistan accounted for 2.8 per cent of global arms imports in 2013–17. Its arms imports from the USA dropped by 76 per cent in 2013–17 compared with 2008–12.

“The tensions between India, on the one side, and Pakistan and China, on the other, are fuelling India’s growing demand for major weapons, which it remains unable to produce itself,” said Siemon Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. “China, by contrast, is becoming increasingly capable of producing its own weapons and continues to strengthen its relations with Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar through arms supplies.”

China’s arms imports fell by 19 per cent between 2008–12 and 2013–17. Despite this decrease, it was the world’s fifth largest arms importer in 2013–17.

Other notable developments

• Arms imports by African states decreased by 22 per cent between 2008–12 and 2013–17.
• Algeria accounted for 52 per cent of all African imports in 2013–17.
• Nigeria’s arms imports grew by 42 per cent between 2008–12 and 2013–17.
• Total arms imports by states in the Americas decreased by 29 per cent in 2013–17 compared with 2008–12. Venezuela’s arms imports fell by 40 per cent between the two periods.
• Imports by states in Europe decreased by 22 per cent between 2008–12 and 2013–17. Deliveries of advanced combat aircraft from the USA will drive import volumes up during the next few years.
• In 2013–17 China accounted for 68 per cent of arms imports by Myanmar, followed by Russia (15 per cent).
• Indonesia increased its arms imports by 193 per cent between 2008–12 and 2013–17.
• Australia was the sixth largest arms importer globally in 2013–17.

By Noah Buckley*

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly promised to tackle corruption. But in his new term, corruption is likely to get worse, not better. The rot of corruption in Russia is no failing of the system – in many ways it is the system working as intended.

Shady practices like the recent discovery that state organs may be complicit in the Latin American narcotics trade, or backroom discussions between senior officials and oligarchs on yachts, will seep only deeper into the foundation of Russia’s politics.

Graft has been present in Russian society for centuries. It was visible in interactions between aristocrats and judges in Imperial Russia, the unofficial “gray markets” in the Soviet era, and more recently in everyday bribery and influence peddling. Nearly every Russian leader has sought to fight corruption – or, when that fails, to shape it to their benefit. Vladimir Putin’s third term in office as president has shown that corruption is not a bug but a feature of government. Corruption and informal dealings serve as a stabilizing force that can manage in the place of formal politics.

Putin’s coming reelection on March 18 will confirm for him and for Russia’s elite that this style of governance works. Shifting from formal to informal methods of rule will deepen during Putin’s fourth term. Corruption is what’s needed to keep informal networks working.

Corruption, in other words, is not an accident, the consequence of insufficient state capacity or a lack of willpower. Rather, corruption responds to political incentives. My research shows that accountability limits how much corruption elites engage in – even when elections are unfree or don’t exist at all. Faced with political competition, authoritarian leaders respond to incentives to decrease bribery. For example, I found that when Russian governors are up for reelection or reappointment, they work to reduce bribe-taking by up to 13 percent.

This is bad news for Russia. So long as Putin ensures his allies face no negative consequences for corruption, there is no reason to temper their greed. The result has been a surge in graft – from the misspent billions for the Sochi Olympics to the National Anti-Corruption Committee’s announcement this month that bribes had tripled year-over-year – accompanied by a withering of the much-discussed “vertical” of formal political institutions that Putin constructed in his early years in office. The vertical of hierarchical control has been displaced by informal deals. Where before the regime was focused on building some semblance of stable state institutions and formalizing authority, the new norm after these elections may well be the abandonment of those institutions and structures in favor of reliance on informal deals and personalized authority-for-hire.

Consider, for example, the case of former restauranteur and Putin associate Yevgeny Prigozhin. He has been involved in everything from multi-million-dollar defense contracts to allegedly creating a troll factory to influence the U.S. presidential election and fielding a mercenary force in Syria. Putin’s judo sparring partners receive inflated government contracts, while unqualified regime insiders are appointed to governorships. Rather than a strict hierarchy, this system of government is more like a network of acquaintances, bound together by self-interest.

Distinctions between politics and business, state assets and private assets, and security services and criminal networks have blurred. Having demonstrated that a system premised on corruption and personal connections is able to keep them in power, Russia’s elite is unlikely to abandon this system after the elections. The result will be an increasingly informal method of government made possible by more theft and graft. In Putin’s expiring third term, paths to development and stability based on institutional rules still seemed viable. But the recent degradation of Russia’s geopolitical position, the resulting scarcity of free resources, and the risks of restraining your own authority with institutional structures (such as political parties or even a viable cabinet of ministers), are pushing the regime towards corruption as the most comfortable political mechanism.

Indeed, my research has found that elections in authoritarian regimes don’t always promote accountability. The goals of meritocracy and effective governance often take a back seat to day-to-day political management and suppression of opponents. This does not bode well for the aftermath of an election with no real choice – and thus will impose no constraint on the main candidate.

True, Russia has launched numerous waves of “reforms” in recent years. But renaming the police or reintroducing hobbled gubernatorial elections do not create a real contestation of political power. Nor do they drive a wedge between the grabbing hand of the state and networks of crony elites.

As complacency rises after what will no doubt be a resounding victory for President Putin, expect a surge of infighting as the government increasingly relies on personal ties to govern around formal rules. This system has proven it can work for Russia’s elites. But it “works” only thanks to corruption, the last grease capable of keeping the wheels of the political system turning.

*Noah Buckley is a postdoctoral associate in political science at New York University Abu Dhabi and a research fellow at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow.

An upsurge of attacks against Muslims by Sinhala Buddhist militants in Sri Lanka has raised fears of a new round of communal violence. In this Q&A, Crisis Group’s Sri Lanka Senior Analyst Alan Keenan says the government needs to act urgently to prevent the violence from spinning out of control, by enforcing laws against hate speech and arresting and prosecuting those involved in organising the violence.

By Alan Keenan*

Sri Lanka has declared a state of emergency for ten days to rein in the spread of communal violence, a government spokesperson said on Tuesday, a day after Buddhists and Muslims clashed in the Indian Ocean island’s central district of Kandy. What are the reasons behind this latest communal violence in the country?

There are many factors behind the recent upsurge of violence against Sri Lankan Muslims. The events of the last ten days have not been local “clashes” between Buddhists and Muslims, but organised and targeted attacks by national-level militant groups who are well known and have made their intentions clear through traditional and social media. The immediate cycle of violence began with the death on 3 March of a Sinhala Buddhist man in the central hill town of Teldeniya. He had been attacked ten days earlier by four local Muslim men, who were promptly arrested and detained. His death sparked anger and limited violence the next day by local Buddhists, 24 of whom were arrested and held by the police. Demanding the release of these men, leaders of radical Buddhist groups converged on the town with hundreds of their supporters from other districts, who later began attacking mosques and Muslim businesses and homes. Even after yesterday’s declaration of a state of emergency, violence continues against Muslims in the hills around the town of Kandy.

The violence this week came just days after a mosque and Muslim businesses were attacked in the south-eastern town of Ampara. There are indications the attack was planned and carried out mostly by Buddhist militants brought in from outside Ampara town, supported through rumours spread on social media. Government officials have acknowledged that the damage was aggravated by the slow response of the local police.

The ongoing violence marks the resurgence of militant Buddhist groups that first emerged in 2012-2014 with the support of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government. Having ceased during the first two years of the current coalition government, attacks on Muslims began again over a six-week period in April and May 2017 and for two days in November 2017, with militants apparently emboldened by the government’s failure to prosecute those responsible for violence and hate speech under the Rajapaksa regime.

Sri Lanka has grabbed international headlines in the past due to tensions between the Sinhalese and Tamils. But how do you describe the relations between Buddhists and Muslims in Sri Lanka?

Muslims, who make up almost ten per cent of Sri Lanka’s population, live across the island, among both Sinhalese (75 per cent of the population and overwhelmingly Buddhist) and Tamils (about fifteen per cent and mostly Hindu). Relations between Muslims and Sri Lanka’s other communities are mostly harmonious. At the same time, there are longstanding and deeply rooted fears among many Sinhalese that the Sinhala and Buddhist character of the island is under threat and must be protected, even to the extent of using violence. While the threat has previously been seen as coming from colonial rulers and then Tamils, Muslims are now the primary worry for many Sinhalese. Narratives of insecurity, fed by global Islamophobic tropes, present Muslims as violent extremists, as increasing their population so fast as to pose a threat to the Sinhala Buddhist majority status, as misusing their economic power to weaken Sinhalese, and as using underhand means to reduce Sinhala Buddhist numbers such as secretly planting contraceptives in food eaten and clothes worn by Sinhalese. These fears and myths are widely promoted – along with calls for violence – through social media.

The fears are also regularly encouraged by some Sinhala business interests to weaken their Muslim competitors. These rivalries play out at the local level with regular appeals to Sinhala Buddhist consumers to boycott Muslim shops, and with rioting that regularly targets Muslim-owned businesses. They also have a national character, with certain Sinhala business leaders widely believed to be key funders of Bodu Bala Sena and other militant groups. Criticisms of Muslims as gaining greater economic power through unfair means have particular resonance with Sinhalese facing economic difficulties, as the government struggles to control the cost of living and provide sustainable livelihoods, especially in rural areas and small towns.

How vulnerable are Sri Lankan Muslims to being drawn to violence?

Sri Lankan Muslims have been admirably restrained, disciplined and non-violent in their response to what is now five years of severe, sustained and often violent pressure. One can only hope that this continues to be the case, though continued violent provocations – and the failure of the police to protect Muslims – appears to be testing the patience of some, with reports of the first retaliatory violence against Sinhala businesses. Many in Sri Lanka now fear the current wave of militant Buddhist attacks may be designed in part to provoke a violent response from Muslims, which would then be used to justify wider-scale attacks on the community.

How has the Sri Lankan government tried to quell the tensions between Buddhists and Muslims and promote communal harmony?

The government has done very little to address either the underlying mistrust and misunderstandings between the two communities, or to rein in the small number of Buddhists who promote or use violence. Despite coming to power in January 2015 promising to end impunity for attacks on Muslims, the government has launched no proper investigations of past violence, and prosecuted no leaders of groups known to be involved in attacks on Muslims. Despite recent statements from the president, prime minister and other officials that the law will be strictly enforced and those engaging in violence will be arrested, key organisers of the ongoing violence remain free. Some of these have posted on social media information to help target Muslims for attack. Police, in a number of locations, have been credibly accused of siding with the mobs.

While government leaders are not believed to be supporting the violence against Muslims, they appear to be afraid of taking action against the perpetrators, especially those Buddhist monks thought to be involved, for fear of alienating Sinhala Buddhist voters by appearing to favour Muslims. This fear has grown since the poor showing of government candidates in the 10 February local elections, in which former President Rajapaksa led a successful campaign rooted in a strongly Sinhala Buddhist nationalist platform. The increasingly deep divide between the president and the prime minister, who is battling to hold on to his job, appears to have further paralysed the government.

What steps could or should the government take to curb further communal violence?

The government needs to adopt a three-pronged strategy, beginning with enforcing the law, including against hate speech, and arresting and prosecuting offenders. While the state of emergency the government imposed on 6 March appeared at first to reduce the violence, attacks have resumed, with the police and army often failing to stop the rioters. Should the government act decisively with arrests of key figures behind the violence and hate speech and explain the necessity of its actions to the Buddhist religious leadership and the general public, it can likely win the necessary support for those policies. Over the mid- to long term, the government must also work actively to correct the lies and disinformation about Muslims that are spread by radical Buddhist groups, especially on social media, such as the allegation that Muslim restaurants regularly put contraceptives in their food to sterilise their Buddhist customers and reduce their population. The impact of such rumours and “fake news” could be significantly reduced if the government used its media and information channels to combat them. Finally, over the long term, but beginning now, the government needs to more actively promote a pluralist vision of Sri Lanka, in which the country belongs to all communities equally, while still protecting the country’s unique Sinhala and Buddhist culture.

How do you see the security and communal situation evolving in the country in the coming weeks? Will the Sri Lankan government be able to bring the situation under control?

The continued failure to make arrests of well-known Buddhist agitators and the instigators of recent attacks is not encouraging, and despite the state of emergency, the government still appears uncertain about how to respond to the violence. The chaos and infighting that has characterised the coalition government’s response to their defeat in the local government elections has continued and contributed to a sense of weakness that has been seized on by militant Buddhist groups. Strong, decisive and coherent action is urgently needed if Sri Lanka is to avoid tipping into a new and potentially crippling round of communal conflict.

*Alan Keenan, Project Director, Sri Lanka

A version of this Q&A was also published by Deutsche Welle.

The world economy seems to be rebounding definitively from the Great Recession, but many and varied risks still threaten consolidation of the recovery in 2018.

By Federico Steinberg and José Pablo Martínez*

This analysis maps out the scenarios facing the world economy in 2018. After arguing that, for the first time since the Great Recession, the world is once again enjoying synchronised growth in practically all regions –which might eliminate the threat of ‘secular stagnation’– we then detail the principal threats to this new economic dynamism. The central source of uncertainty will continue to be the erratic and isolationist policies of Donald Trump. But both in the EU and, above all, in the Middle East and on the Korean peninsula there are also important loci of tensions. This analysis also contextualises these risks within a long-term perspective by identifying the major trends in international economic relations, along with future challenges.

Analysis

Generalised Improvement in the world economy

After many disappointing years, 2017 saw a significant change in tendency at the global level that suggests that the global economy is finally overcoming the lingering aspects of the Great Recession and entering a new phase of greater dynamism (see Figure 1). At the same time, this change in tendency also allows us to rule out the possibility of ‘secular stagnation’. The US has reached full employment, political uncertainties have barely affected the EU economy, Japan has begun to harvest the first fruits of Abenomics, China is effectively managing the transformation of its productive model, India continues to grow at a rapid rate, South-East Asia boasts a strong dynamism and both Russia and Brazil have managed to pull out of their intense recessions of recent years. This positive scenario is reflected in the rise in the price of commodities, particularly petroleum, the price of which has stabilised above US$60/barrel (after the agreement between OPEC and Russia to limit production), as well as in the 3.6% rise in the volume of world trade. In this context, only the low level of inflation –which continues to resist rising above the targets set by the principal central banks in spite of the extraordinarily lax monetary conditions of the last decade (reflecting a lack of aggregate demand and the efficiency drags generated by the rise in inequality)– keeps us from seeing clearly that we have entered a new virtuous cycle of growth.

The most recent projections released by the IMF for 2018 –in which the international organisation revised upwards its projections from a year earlier (see Figure 2)– support the continuity of this scenario, to the extent that it suggests a faster acceleration on the part of emerging economies and a certain amount of stabilisation in the growth rate of the developed countries. In fact, although the level of world debt continues to rise (in the third quarter of 2017 it reached a new record level of €193 trillion, or 318% of world GDP), credit has begun to grow again strongly, and some countries could be sowing the seeds of new property bubbles.

Nevertheless, as with all years, 2018 will present diverse economic and geopolitical risks that could threaten these projections. Almost all these risks were also present in 2017 but, far from disappearing, they have further evolved to incorporate new factors that must be taken into account. Furthermore, almost all of them have a low likelihood of materialising and the only one that would be systemic –a military conflict between the US and North Korea– should be avoidable. For all of this, and despite the enormous geopolitical changes that continue to affect the world economy, 2018 should be a relatively calm year, although the possible appearance of black swans should never be ruled out.

Trump fails to deliver all he promised, but enough

During his first year as US President, Donald Trump managed to get through his promised tax reform, the most profound since the Reagan Administration. The legislation provides for a general tax cut affecting all income tax brackets but especially corporate taxes. Beyond the short-term stimulus that the tax cut might give rise to, it is likely that the estimated increase in public debt and inflation that it will generate will push the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates faster, with a risk for the stability of the international financial markets due to the possible abrupt appreciation of the dollar and the instability that could appear in the fixed income markets. For this reason, and even though the new Chairman of the Fed, Jerome Powell, appears inclined to continue the policy of his predecessor, Janet Yellen, his first months in the post will keep the financial markets on alert.

In international politics, everything now seems to indicate that the Trump Administration has discarded two key election promises that implied a significant risk to world economic stability. It does not appear now that Trump will pull the US out of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), or that he will start a trade war with China (nor has he withdrawn from NAFTA, which instead is being renegotiated). In the end, therefore –whether it is due to the powerful US system of institutional checks and balances, to the influence of multinational corporations (should they have finally managed to have their voices heard in the White House), to the substitution of more radical advisors with more moderate voices, to the dynamics of the upcoming mid-term legislative elections in November or simply to the incapacity of the Administration– it appears increasingly less likely that Trump will take the US out of the liberal and open international order which has sustained global growth and development for decades. On the other hand, it does appear clear that the US will assume an increasingly isolationist position, that it will not be an amenable and cooperative partner with the other countries of the West and that it will continue to pursue gradual measures which undermine global economic governance. Among such measures already introduced have been Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the Transpacific Partnership, his refusal to fill vacant posts at the WTO’s conflict resolution body (which could paralyse the organisation), the cut in US funding contributions to the UN and its withdrawal from UNESCO. This latter decision –justified by the organisation’s supposed anti-Israel bias– together with others like the refusal to certify the nuclear agreement with Iran and the moving of the US embassy to Jerusalem, reflect a higher degree of unconditionality in US support for Israel that could undermine altogether its already degraded role as mediator in the Middle East.

With respect to the Middle East, given that the military defeat of Daesh in Syria and Iraq appears imminent, geopolitical uncertainty will emanate from the increasingly less submerged dispute between Saudi Arabia and Iran over regional hegemony in the Middle East, as well as from the regional implications of such a conflict in countries like Syria, Yemen, Qatar and Lebanon. At the same time, Saudi Arabia is attempting to launch profound domestic reforms that will very possibly face strong opposition from the most intransigent interest groups at home, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is experiencing growing social protests against the regime.

The Korean peninsula, epicentre of Asian Instability

At the other extreme of the Asian continent, the principal focal point of instability is in North Korea. After a year in which the ongoing (and successful) nuclear and ballistic missile tests undertaken by the Pyongyang regime have raised tensions in the area to unprecedented levels, the Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, has proposed a reform of the pacifist Japanese constitution in force since the end of Second World War to allow for the existence of Japanese conventional armed forces. In this respect, the major fear for 2018 –a year in which the South Korean city of Pyeongchang hosts the Winter Olympic Games– is that, within the framework of the current dynamics of action and reaction between North Korea and the US, a miscalculation might unleash armed conflict, something that surely would have devastating consequences for the world economy.

On the other hand, the possibility that China might provoke a systemic crisis appears to be lower than in past years: the transformation towards an economic model which prioritises domestic consumption, services, innovation and development moves forward without significant disruptions, and political stability has been reinforced with the consolidation of power under Xi Jinping at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that that same Congress confirmed China’s intention of pursuing a more assertive foreign policy and –appropriating the power vacuum which the US is beginning to leave behind– to expand its influence on global governance, offering itself as a successful, alternative model of development in which it is not essential to renounce political authoritarianism. But it should also be noted that China has not yet resolved certain structural problems like rising debt and overcapacity, and the longer it takes to resolve them the more difficult they will be to manage.

The EU contains populism (for the moment) as Brexit unfolds

In the EU, the rise of populisms and the evolution of Brexit will continue to be the two potentially most dangerous factors for stability. After a 2017 in which the extremist parties did not manage to triumph in a range of elections (although they strengthened their positions), in 2018 Italy will hold elections in which it is projected that the Five Star Movement (M5S) will do well. If this party were to obtain power in the Euro zone’s third largest economy –the banking system of which is in a delicate situation– one could expect episodes of high volatility in the international markets and a greater delay in necessary reforms for the single currency, which are already difficult to undertake. In the same way, we will need to be on the alert for further authoritarian drift in Hungary and Poland, to the influence that the extreme right in Austria could influence after its recent entry into government and to the possibility that Alternative for Germany could become the principal opposition party –significantly increasing its parliamentary weight and media spotlight– if Merkel’s CDU ends up with another Gran Coalition with the social democrats.

With respect to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, the terms of the Brexit agreement should be known by next autumn. Should a ‘hard’ Brexit result, the profoundly negative effects on the British (and by extension, although to a less degree for the European) economy, will quickly follow, even though formal exit is expected only in 2019, or that the transition period will extend at least to 2020.

Other events that might also disturb EU stability would be a deepening entrenchment of the political situation in Catalonia, or an intensification of Russia hostility –once it has overcome its grave economic crisis thanks to the rise in the price of hydrocarbons–. It seems certain that the image of Vladmir Putin will be further strengthened (if that is even possible) with respect to the upcoming elections in March. In any case, 2018 should be a good economic year for the Euro zone; it could benefit from a depreciation of the euro against the dollar and from an increase in consumption (and the employment it would generate), along with an expected rise in wages, if the announced reduction in BCE market operations (the purchasing of government debt) does not increase the volatility of the markets. It will also be a year that determines whether the EU is capable of forging new free-trade agreements that strengthen its leadership position in international trade as the US withdraws.

Latin America in wait of new governments

In Latin America the coming year will be shaped economically by the rise in the price of raw materials and, politically, by the intense electoral cycle embracing a number of the region’s most important countries, unfolding now in a climate of tension and increasing intolerance of corruption among the electorates. The citizens of the two Latin American giants, Brazil and Mexico, will hold elections and the results should determine the direction in which the continent moves. In Brazil, it will be essential that the chosen candidate can bring an end to the serious institutional and social crisis generated in the wake of the impeachment of Dilma Roussef. At the same time, the new Mexican President will be responsible for renegotiating the NAFTA treaty with the US (it is unlikely that a new agreement will be reached during the first months of 2018, as hoped) and, in general, for dealing with the hostile policy feints that could come from the Trump Administration. Important elections will also take place in Colombia that will affect the consolidation of the FARC peace process. In Venezuela a new Maduro victory seems assured, even if in this case not so much because of the voting, as of the numerous obstacles facing the opposition. However, the elections could spark a new wave of mass social protests, fed by the economic and social debacle of the country –which might be alleviated if the price of oil continues to rise–. In any case, the collapse in Venezuelan oil production has forced a reduction in its aid to Cuba which, together with the cooling of relations with the US, will have to be dealt with by the successor to Raul Castro as leader of the island.

Finally, as in previous year, the epicentre of instability in Africa is the Sahel, the focus of terrorism and organised crime in a context of weak states, extreme desertification and explosive demography. In the end, all of this is provoking large and unorganised migratory flows. In general, however, the African continent will continue to grow and develop its future potential.

Spain in global context

In this context, the Spanish economy should continue to growth relatively strongly, perhaps even surpassing again 3% annual GDP growth, producing half a million new jobs. Growth is driven by the rise in tourism, low interest rates, export sector dynamism, the positive performance of investment and consumption and looser fiscal policy. This should help unemployment continue to fall towards more socially sustainable levels, along with inequality and poverty, which have increased dramatically in the last decade. In addition, assuming oil prices do not rise too much and that Spain’s principal trading partners continue to demand Spanish products, it should continue to combine strong growth with a current account surplus. This would contribute to reducing the very large net deficit international financial position and the vulnerability of the Spanish economy to external shocks. The only great risk to the consolidation of positive economic growth this year is that, as mentioned before, the instability in Catalonia could get worse.

Trends and global challenges on the horizon

All the above-mentioned factors should be placed within a general global context of various megatrends. One should also underline that beyond the risks facing the world in 2018, there are also long-term challenges that the international community will have to face.

As far as global trends are concerned, the tendency towards economic convergence between advanced and emerging countries will continue (although certainly at a slower rate than experienced in recent decades as China’s economy slowly decelerates), advanced-country populations will continue to age, as they will in China, the urbanisation process will accelerate, above all in Africa and Asia, and foreseeably, economic inequality with continue to increase within countries, both in the richest (above all in the Anglo economies) and in the emerging and poorer countries.

In addition, the fourth industrial revolution –that is, the interaction of (1) robotisation/automation of production, (2) interconnection via the ‘Internet of things’, (3) advances in artificial intelligence, and (4) the possibilities opened up by the use of ‘big data’ and 3D printing– will continue to develop. This will oblige our societies to conceive of new proposals for the ‘social contract’ to avoid inequality from reaching politically unsustainable levels as citizens face a decline in high- and medium-skilled employment opportunities.

Finally, the world will continue to face the problem of climate change, without a doubt the largest long-running challenge to the future continuity of our way of life. As Figure 3 illustrates, it is impossible to deny that there has been increasingly intense climate change stemming from human activity and that it is slowly increasing the temperatures of the planet.

To confront this phenomenon is crucial, but requires international agreements at a moment when, as mentioned above, the world is entering a dangerous dynamic in which such accords are increasingly less likely.

Conclusions

The year 2017 was relatively calm and none of the principal geopolitical risks threatening the world economy materialised. Donald Trump did not fulfil his most controversial election promises, the Chinese economy did not experience a hard landing, and populist programmes did not win any further elections in the Euro zone, although the motives underlying the discontent among the citizenry still endure. The situation has allowed for a synchronised acceleration of economic growth across most countries, both emerging and developed, that now appears to augur the approaching end of the long hangover from the Great Recession that began in 2008. This is certainly good news which, if confirmed, would definitively bury the feared ‘secular stagnation’ hypothesis which has preoccupied economists and politicians alike for years.

Nevertheless, the risks have not disappeared and nearly all remain latent. There are also new focal points of tension to consider. It does not appear that the US will destroy the liberal and open economic order, but it is abdicating global leadership and will continue to undermine the already weak global governance system, above all with respect to the WTO. Fears of populism in Germany and France have given way to fears of populism in Italy, North Korea will continue to be the principal global geopolitical threat, Saudi Arabia and Iran will experience domestic tensions, and Latin America prepares to elect a new batch of leaders. At the same time, the principal central banks, given the new macroeconomic scenario, will continue their progressive pull-back from monetary stimulus through a reduction of balances and a rise in interest rates, possibly putting the stability of the financial markets at risk (if such a policy is not executed with care).

On the other hand, the world economy is to likely face diverse global trends that will, inexorably, shape the world’s future evolution in the decades to come. These trends include the fourth industrial revolution, the transition from multilateralism to multipolar rivalry and the displacement of the world’s geopolitical centre of gravity from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Original version in Spanish: La economía mundial ante 2018

*About the authors:
Federico Steinberg, Senior Research Fellow, Elcano Royal Institute | @Steinbergf

José Pablo Martínez, Research Assistant, Elcano Royal Institute| @jpromera

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute

By Marvin C. Ott*

(FPRI) — Over a very long history, governance has been China’s greatest achievement—and its greatest failure. Every Chinese, whether a senior official in Beijing or a farmer in a remote village, will tell you with certainty that China has the oldest (“five thousand years”) and greatest civilization on the planet. It is a point of deep national pride and with reason. For millennia, China was ruled under a system that placed the Emperor (“the son of Heaven”) at the center as a seemingly all-powerful monarch. There was no constitution, no legal limits in the Western sense on the emperor’s authority. However, he was constrained by institutional norms and practical limitations. The emperor ruled through a class of scholar officials (“mandarins”) who were steeped in a Confucian culture that emphasized authority tempered with benevolence and responsibility. Moreover, China was a vast country with a relatively weak standing army. It was not easy to assert imperial power into the far corners of the empire. A traditional saying noted, “The emperor’s authority stops at the village gate.”

This system was surely the world’s most successful and durable form of governance from ancient antiquity to the 19^th century. However, by the early 1800s, the imperial order had become a victim of its own success—hidebound, backward looking, and incapable of change. When Western naval fleets arrived armed with new weapons and empowered by modern industry, the Chinese court was paralyzed and impotent. Blinded by its past, China had great difficulty coming to terms with modernity. The Republic of China, founded by Sun Yat-sen and led by Chiang Kai-shek after World War I, was crippled by corruption and fatally wounded by Japan’s invasion. A civil war between Chiang’s forces and the communists produced a communist victory under a young, magnetic, and immensely talented leader, Mao Zedong. The People’s Republic became part of a post-World War II wave of new communist states from Czechoslovakia to North Korea—inspired and led by Moscow. But Mao had two fatal flaws: he was a megalomaniac unwilling to share or relinquish power, and he was an ideologue obsessed with remaking China according to a vision of a pure communist society. As time went on, fanaticism tipped into dementia and the aging dictator nearly destroyed China with one insane ideological campaign after another.

Upon Mao’s death, power passed to a very different leader—a pragmatist and reformer named Deng Xiaoping. Deng not only set China on a course of modernization, he also instituted constitutional changes designed to prevent a recurrence of Mao’s forty-year despotism. Henceforth, China’s leaders would be elected by the Party to a five-year term renewable only once—making for a maximum of ten years in power. The Party would select the next leader years in advance. It produced a system of “collective” leadership that was a little dull, but stable and predictable. Deng had solved the problem that bedevils every dictatorship: leadership succession. And for over thirty years, it worked exactly as Deng designed it. But now, in Xi Jinping, China has a leader unwilling to be constrained by Deng’s system. Xi has used an “anti-corruption” campaign to destroy systematically all potential rivals in the upper ranks of the Party. He has centralized power in his own hands to a degree not seen since Mao. And now, he has dropped all pretense of constitutional rule and has directed that the constitution be changed to allow him to rule indefinitely.

This is not good news. The implications for China are obviously profound. Unlimited authority can act decisively and rapidly to achieve remarkable things. But as Lord Acton warned long ago: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Xi already exerts power within China that is beyond the wildest dreams of early emperors. He has made it clear that it is not enough that Chinese do not oppose him; they must also agree with him. The internet, the media, the schools, Party doctrine—everything is being brought into line with “XI Jinping thought.” George Orwell predicted Xi.

For America, the implications are stark. China is ruled by a dictator determined to dominate Asia and supplant the U.S. there—and beyond. Xi is obsessed with power—his own within China and China’s on the world stage. And the two are already starting to intermingle; we are seeing China making increasing efforts to control the behavior and thinking of ethnic Chinese living, working, and studying outside China. If you are a Chinese student in Australia, you are expected to actively defend and support Xi’s policies. If you are third or fourth generation Chinese citizen of Malaysia, you are expected to understand that your primary loyalty is to China.

It is hard to overstate how expansive and confident Xi’s China is. China has moved aggressively to take effective control over much of the South China Sea. China’s military buildup and modernization is explicitly designed to match and surpass the U.S. Chinese strategists and publicists who echo and amplify Xi see the U.S. in inexorable and accelerating decline even as China ascends. They see validation in the current disarray and policy incoherence emanating from the U.S. presidency. Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (designed to offset Chinese influence) is understood as part of a U.S. retreat. As one senior Chinese strategist put it, “Xi is exploiting the space that America voluntarily abandoned.” America, ready or not, is in a global strategic contest with China—a contest that Beijing, led by Xi, fully expects to win.

About the author:
*Marvin C. Ott is a Senior Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

By Bhaso Ndzendze

By Timur Toktonaliev

Uzbekistan is continuing to push forward its key policy of opening the country up for tourism by relaxing visa rules for a host of countries.

Nationals of 39 countries can now obtain visas through a simplified procedure, while those of seven others – Israel, Turkey, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore – will be able to stay in Uzbekistan for 30 days without a visa.

President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, who replaced his authoritarian predecessor Islam Karimov in December 2016, has made tourism promotion a strategic part of much-anticipated reforms.

“The enormous potential of our country in the travel industry has not been efficiently or fully used for many years,” Mirziyoyev said at a special meeting on tourism promotion on February 22. “No favourable economic and procedural and legal conditions have been created to develop tourism, and this sphere has been left unattended.”

The tourism potential is certainly there. Uzbekistan has a wealth of historical monuments, not least the towns of Bukhara, Khiva and Samarkand which were the capitals of powerful kingdoms for many centuries.

In 2017, Uzbekistan was visited by 2.7 million foreign citizens, although only a tiny minority were tourists.

According to the State Tourism Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the travel industry accounts for 2.3 per cent of national GDP, a figure which they forecast could reach five per cent.

Karimov, who died in September 2016, was a ruthless leader who had ruled with an iron fist for 27 years and there has been much speculation over whether Mirziyoyev truly intends to open up one of the world’s most isolated states.

Soon after he took office in December 2016, Mirziyoyev decreed that tourism would be a government priority and announced that an ambitious visa-free regime for a range of countries in Europe and Asia would be introduced from April 1, 2017.

However, this was delayed due to objections from the National Security Service, in what some analysts interpreted as an internal power struggle.

Uzbekistan has visa-free regime agreements with the majority of CIS countries, although it has always been a closed-off country. Strict police controls made it particularly unattractive for tourists during the Karimov era, and part of his successor’s campaign has involved changing this image.

Previously, all foreign nationals had to register at a local police station within three days of arriving at their destination. Now this registration will be performed by hotel staff or the visitor’s host.

“A tourist should travel instead of visiting law enforcement agencies,” Mirziyoyev said, adding that “if we want to create tourism-based jobs, we should create [positive] conditions for tourists instead of making demands on them.”

According to presidential decree, the interior minister will now have a special deputy responsible for both the security and comfort of tourists. The National TV and Radio Company and the ministry of culture have also been tasked with launching an international advertising campaign.

National carrier Uzbek Airlines has cut the cost of air travel, with a return ticket from Bishkek to Tashkent costing 150 US dollars, compared to 220 dollars in the past.

The Uzbek ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, Komil Roshidov, said that his country now allowed visitors to “take pictures of everything” rather than trying to tightly control what tourists saw and recorded. Towns popular with would also be provided with free Wi-Fi, he continued.

According to Roshidov, it now takes 20-30 minutes to pass through border control in Tashkent airport, compared to one and-a-half to two hours in the past.

“Many things have been done to open the country to the world so far,” Roshidov told IWPR. “Yes, we did have opportunities, but now we want to expand them even more to familiarise tourists and visitors with Uzbekistan.”

“Last year the town of Samarkand was visited by 1.25 million tourists. Of them, 249,000 were foreigners. They spent 62 million US dollars – when the Samarkand region receives around seven million from cotton production. Now you can see why [tourism] is a strategic area,” Roshidov said.

Some remain sceptical of how far these aims will be achieved. A journalist based in Bukhara, who asked to remain anonymous, said that while work had already begun on revamping the city’s historic sites, progress had been haphazard.

“The old town is under reconstruction, yet it looks more like a bull let loose in a china shop,” he said. “The local authorities try to make everything go as fast as they can, without consulting specialists who favour a methodical approach in such operations within the old town. As a result, some architectural monuments have been damaged.”

Others note that opening up the tourism industry would not supersede other important revenue streams.

Central Asia expert Sheradil Baktygulov noted that Uzbekistan had had a well-established travel industry back in the Soviet period. However, he said that Uzbeks should be realistic as to how far tourism could impact on the economy.

Cotton, for instance, was an Uzbek product that was an important source of foreign currency, he continued.

According to official data, Uzbekistan earns around 500,000 dollars in cotton sales each year, and in 2017 this sector accounted for 3.5 per cent of a total 14 billion dollars in exports.

“The demand for cotton always has been and always will be [there],” Baktygulov said. “Therefore we cannot say that tourism would replace the export of cotton because it’s a strategic product.”

This article was published by IWPR

The prevalence of child marriage is decreasing globally with several countries seeing significant reductions in recent years, says UNICEF. Overall, the proportion of women who were married as children decreased by 15 per cent in the last decade, from 1 in 4 to approximately 1 in 5.

South Asia has witnessed the largest decline in child marriage worldwide in the last 10 years, as a girl’s risk of marrying before her 18th birthday has dropped by more than a third, from nearly 50 percent to 30 percent, in large part due to progress in India. Increasing rates of girls’ education, proactive government investments in adolescent girls, and strong public messaging around the illegality of child marriage and the harm it causes are among the reasons for the shift.

In Sri Lanka, the prevalence of child marriage remains low when compared to other South Asian nations. However the recommendations issued by the Committee on the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in February 2018 highlight a high prevalence of child marriages in some communities within the country. Whilst there remains a gap in data regarding the absolute number of child marriages, it was estimated that in 2014 between 16,000 and 24,000 boys and girls under 18 were either formally married or co-habiting.

UNICEF urged the Government of Sri Lanka to take all necessary steps to eliminate the practice of marriage under the age of 18 years in the country, as clearly recommended by the Committee on the UNCRC. Further, UNICEF will continue to encourage the prioritization of girls’ education, especially in communities with high rates of child marriage, as a means of tackling the cultural and traditional norms surrounding this issue.

“When a girl is forced to marry as a child, she faces immediate and lifelong consequences. Her odds of finishing school decrease while her odds of being abused by her husband and suffering complications during pregnancy increase. There are also huge societal consequences, and higher risk of intergenerational cycles of poverty,” said Anju Malhotra, UNICEF’s Principal Gender Advisor. “Given the life-altering impact child marriage has on a young girl’s life, any reduction is welcome news, but we’ve got a long way to go.”

According to new data from UNICEF, the total number of girls married in childhood is now estimated at 12 million a year. The new figures point to an accumulated global reduction of 25 million fewer marriages than would have been anticipated under global levels 10 years ago. However, to end the practice by 2030 – the target set out in the Sustainable Development Goals – progress must be significantly accelerated. Without further acceleration, more than 150 million additional girls will marry before their 18th birthday by 2030.

Worldwide, an estimated 650 million women alive today were married as children. While South Asia has led the way on reducing child marriage over the last decade, the global burden of child marriage is shifting to sub-Saharan Africa, where rates of progress need to be scaled up dramatically to offset population growth. Of the most recently married child brides, close to 1 in 3 are now in sub-Saharan Africa, compared to 1 in 5 a decade ago.

New data also point to the possibility of progress on the African continent. In Ethiopia – once among the top five countries for child marriage in sub-Saharan Africa – the prevalence has dropped by a third in the last 10 years.

“Each and every child marriage prevented gives another girl the chance to fulfill her potential,” said Malhotra. “But given the world has pledged to end child marriage by 2030, we’re going to have to collectively redouble efforts to prevent millions of girls from having their childhoods stolen through this devastating practice.”

Members of a delegation from Germany’s regional parliaments, who visited the Crimea, intend to begin a discussion in their country on the need to lift anti-Russian sanctions. This was stated by a deputy from North Rhine-Westphalia Nick Fogel on the results of a week-long visit to the peninsula, which ended on February 9.

“After contacts with people here in Crimea, we can say for sure the sanctions should go, and we’ll begin the discussions on revoking them after we return to Germany,” said the deputy from the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which is the third largest in the Bundestag.

He also added that German residents, according to recent polls, feel sympathy for Russia.

Earlier at a meeting with deputies of the State Council of the Crimea, Nick Fogel drew attention to the fact that information in the Western media about the Crimea did not correspond to reality.

“The picture painted by our media suggests that the Crimea is an occupied and suppressed territory where there are soldiers all around and the people’s eyes are full horror. Still, as far as I can see, our media are somewhat mistaken. We’ve have an opportunity of free communications with ordinary people and the impression we’ve gotten is that people are very satisfied and looking into the future with confidence. […] The world community will realize sooner or later that the mainstream media supply incorrect information on the Crimea. The dam has been broken and there’s no stopping the flood. You can only wait,” Nick Fogel said.

According to the Crimean State Council’s Deputy Chairman for Interethnic Relations, Chair of Germans’ regional national and cultural autonomy Yury Gempel during the visit, the German deputies “could personally get acquainted with the political, economic situation on the peninsula.”

The guests visited the international children’s center Artek, the airport being built in Simferopol, met with teachers and students of the university, as well as representatives of national public associations, members of the presidium of the State Council of the Crimea and head of the republic Sergey Aksenov.

“In an open dialogue, the German deputies publicly announced that their party was in favor of abolishing the sanction policy towards the Russian Federation, appreciated the Crimean referendum in 2014, were convinced of the great economic potential of the Crimea,” the politician told PenzaNews.

He stressed that the republic’s authorities intend to further expand contacts with representatives of the public and the deputy corps of Germany and a number of other countries.

“Today we have a large number of appeals from politicians, businessmen, public figures from Germany, Austria, Norway with a request to participate in the IV International Economic Forum, which will be held on April 19–21 in the Crimea,” he explained.

Commenting on the results of the visit of German MPs to the peninsula, Aldo Ferrari, Head of the Russia, Caucasus and Central Asia Program at the Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI) in Milan, Professor at Ca’ Foscari University in Venice, said that Russia and European countries have the opportunity to establish dialogue and restore cooperation.

“Unfortunately the relations between Europe and Russia are in a very difficult period mainly because of the Ukrainian crisis. Yet, while the deadlock in the relations still seems a plausible scenario, it is not the only one we can imagine. Russia and the EU should resume dialogue on several issues, including the most difficult ones and engage in an active dialogue in order to restore friendly relations,” the Italian analyst said.

The end of the mutual sanctions could really give a new enhancement to both European and Russian economies, he believes.

“The present day difficult political relations damage partnership that is strongly necessary in the light of the international political and economic scenario where many countries are rapidly emerging,” Aldo Ferrari stressed.

In his opinion, the visit of German MPs to the peninsula is a very positive signal from the political point of view.

“The EU is slowly acknowledging the need to adopt a tailored approach in its relations with Russia. In spite of the strong rusophobic stances of many EU countries, a more active search for a thaw in the relations with Russia is clearly needed. I would like to express my personal hope that 2018 should be the time when both the EU and Russia demonstrate more creativity and audacity, starting from a genuine attempt to understand each other’s point of view and interests,” the expert said.

In turn, Patrick Sensburg, German MP from the CDU/CSU fraction, reminded that the MPs who visited the Crimea “are members of the right-wing-populist party, which, although being present in almost every German parliament, holds no position of responsibility or power within German politics.”

“In our new coalition treaty the governing Christian Democratic Union and the Social Democrats have once again set out the principle, that the future of the sanctions depends on the implementation of the Minsk Protocol. This principle remains at the core of German policies in this regard and is backed by a broad consensus within the population and throughout the German Bundestag,” the politician said.

He also stressed that despite the troublesome history, the economic relations between our two countries have always flourished when the circumstances allowed it.

“Therefore I am optimistic that our economic relations will return quickly to previous levels once the sanctions are gone. Maybe we could discuss in the near future the list of people sanctioned by the EU,” Patrick Sensburg said.

Meanwhile, Anton Friesen, a member of the AfD parliamentary group, stated that Germany – one of the main players of the EU – has changed course on Russia.

“Now, instead of a strategic partnership for mutual benefit, Germany is following the course of the transatlantic community, in fact representing not its own, but the interests of the United States and its European allies: Baltic States, Poland. This goes hand in hand with German claims to lead the ‘Western value community,’ leading a kind of cultural war of liberalism vs. conservatism — traditionalism — instead of cooperating on energy, security and cultural matters with Russia,” the deputy explained.

According to him, the sanctions and the economic downturn in Russia in general have led to a creeping, steadfast deterioration in EU-Russian trade relations.

“EU-Russian trade totaled 300 billion EUR in 2012, but fell under 200 billion in 2016. The politics of import substitution in Russia could in fact lead to the substitution of European goods especially in the agricultural sector. Nevertheless, European, especially German companies remain the most technologically advanced in the machine construction and engineering sector. So, I don’t think that Chinese or other companies can really win the contest against them. I think that the trade between EU and Russia will return to its previous level and even surpass it, let say, towards 2025,” Anton Friesen suggested.

According to the politician, Germany should engage in mediation between Russia and Ukraine, using wise, diplomatic and balanced actions, which can lead to the end of sanctions. However, official visits of state players can only be carried out to the internationally recognized countries and regions, he said.

Meanwhile, Howard Shatz, Senior Economist at RAND Corporation, shared the opinion that German deputies’ visit to the Crimea would not affect the situation around the sanctions.

“My understanding is that this was a visit by private citizens in an unofficial capacity. European sanctions do not bar private travel. However, Europe does not recognize the annexation of Crimea by Russia. This visit will not change the situation with sanctions,” he said.

Howard Shatz reminded that the sanctions are always designed to change the policy of the country targeted by the sanctions.

“If the policy or policies in question change, then the sanctions should be lifted. If they are lifted, it is very likely that economic relations will return to levels at or near the levels that existed before the sanctions. Absent sanctions or other barriers to trade, trade relations are largely determined by the size of the respective economies and their distance. Russia borders Europe, so the distance is very small. And Russia is a fairly large economy – slightly smaller than Korea, but slightly larger than Spain It may be that during the sanctions period Russian and European business people found alternate suppliers, but I do not think that this will have a large effect on the overall level of post-sanctions trade,” the expert explained.

According to him, Europe and the United States stay solidly behind the sanctions.

“As a sovereign nation, Russia can make its own policy choices, but those choices could have costs. Russia has tremendous potential in terms of resources and, far more important, human capital. It will have a better future with strong links to Europe, and this will involve adherence to European norms, especially since Europe is the far larger economy and a very promising market for Russian goods and services,” the economist added.

In turn, Fernand Kartheiser, Luxembourg Parliament member for the Alternative Democratic Reform Party (ADR), called the visit of Western politicians to the Crimea highly symbolic.

“I think that a lasting agreement on the status of the Crimea has to be found. It is simply unrealistic to imagine that Russia would reverse her decisions and act not only against her strategic interests but also against the will of a large proportion of the Crimean population. From the beginning of the crisis, I therefore asked for an international settlement based, on the one hand, on internationally binding commitments by Russia on the rights of minorities on the Crimea and, on the other hand, a recognition of the status of the Crimea as a part of the Russian Federation by the international community,” the politician said.

The economic sanctions harm both sides and it will take a long time to come to a normalization of relations, he believes.

“Much harm has been done for no result. Modern Russia is a natural partner of the Western countries, not an enemy. Russia is not a stranger to Europe; it is Europe, along with all of us. Certainly we should emphasize what unites us and try together in good faith to resolve our differences,” Fernand Kartheiser said.

In his opinion, for an objective assessment of the situation with the Crimea, the West needs to study in more detail the history and prerequisites for separation of the peninsula.

“The economic sanctions against Russia due to the situation in Crimea are based on a – maybe intentional – misunderstanding of the history of the peninsula as well as the chain of events that has led to the secession of the Crimea from Ukraine. It is an oversimplification and – in my view – a misinterpretation of History to try to present those events as a simple Russian ‘invasion’ and a mere ‘annexation’ in violation of international law. We should learn in the West to interpret and to understand the conflicts in the post-Soviet area in all their complexity and to try to reach a higher degree of objectivity,” Luxembourg Parliament member concluded.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/65107-2018

Not long ago, US President Donald Trump warned North Korea in severe terms and almost said that US would not hesitate to destroy North Korea in one stroke, if necessary. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un retorted that his nuclear missiles would hit US, if he would so desire.

The war of words and exchanges between both these persons were so sharp and urchin like that many thought that a bitter war between US and North Korea would be imminent, that would cause serious disturbance and destruction. The stock market dived and the crude oil price saw sharp upward movement, in the wake of such an exchange of threats between President Trump and Kim Jong-un.

While the world has been looking anxiously at the acrimonious relations between US and North Korea, President Trump has suddenly turned around and said that he would meet Kim Jong-un in the month of May. Trump said in his tweet “the deal with North Korea is very much in the making and will be, if completed, a very good one for the world”. With equal suddenness, the rhetoric of Kim Jong-un against Trump has toned down considerably.

Everyone is left to wonder as to what has happened now that has caused the hitherto bitter foes to move towards a friendly approach. It is said that even senior US officials were surprised, when Trump announced that he would meet Kim Jong-un.

It is now very well known that both Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un are capable of making obnoxious remarks and using vituperative, insulting language at the drop of a hat with no one knowing as to who would be their friend or foe the next day. Many observations of these two persons have often been viewed by people around the world as bordering on eccentricity .

Now, the world cannot but wonder as to whether both these persons who gave an impression a few months back that they were readying the war heads and are now taking about peace, have been fooling the world.

While Trump said a few days back that he would meet Kim Jong-un and only the time and place has to be determined, White House Press Secretary have now said that the meeting would not take place without “concrete actions” that match the promises made by North Korea. He further said that Trump administration will continue with it’s “maximum pressure” campaign on North Korea. Then, why did Trump say a few days back that he would meet the North Korean leader in the month of May?

The climb down of President Trump on North Korea only clearly highlights the fact that US is no more as powerful in the world arena as many Americans and the US government think. Many nations have now got the courage to stand up to US and Iran revealed it very clearly sometime back and North Korea has done it now.

With China becoming an economically and militarily strong country in the world and with it’s unconcealed ambition to dominate the world militarily, economically and politically, the hegemony of US clearly stands challenged.

Obviously, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un developed the courage to talk out the President Trump in the exchange of bitter rhetoric only due to the fact that North Korea has the total backing of China in confronting US and even the world opinion. China has played its card well by egging on North Korea to confront US and in the process showing US it’s place in the world. China has done this, even while giving an impression that it has no involvement in the US -North Korea confrontation.

The present assertion of US that in dealing with North Korea “we are making no concessions. We are not going to move forward until we see concrete and verifiable actions from North Korea” is obviously a face saving strategy, to give an impression that it has not buckled down in dealing with North Korea. The fact is otherwise.

In a “Russia Insight” TV interview of Russian President Vladimir Putin that was uploaded to youtube with English subtitles on March 10th, NBC’s Megyn Kelly asked him why America’s ABMs wouldn’t be able to knock out Russia’s new missiles. He answered (16:40): “We have created a set of new strategic weapons that do not follow ballistic trajectories, and the anti-missile defence systems are powerless against them. This means that the U.S. taxpayers’ money has been wasted.”

A ballistic missile — the types of missiles at which an ABM or anti-ballistic missile is directed — is not just any type of missile, but instead is a missile with a certain type of trajectory, which goes above the Earth’s atmosphere and then comes down largely using the force of gravity instead of continuously under propulsion and strict control. Putin is saying that Russia’s new missiles, which are designed so as not to be adhering to the flight-paths that ballistic missiles do, can’t be hit by anti-ballistic missiles.

Putin referred to Russia’s largest new missile as “Voyevoda.” The missile’s manufacturer posts online about it, “33 launches in all were conducted, 97.4% of them successful.”

She then asked him whether these weapons will be used only if Russia comes under a nuclear attack, or against any attack; he answered it would be either a nuclear attack “or a conventional attack on the Russian Federation, given that it jeopardizes the state’s existence.” He implied that if an ally of Russia gets attacked, Russia will respond only with non-nuclear forces.

Then, he volunteered to say, in response to a question about what the issues would be that Russia would want formal negotiations with the U.S., that, “today, when we are acquiring weapons that can easily breach all anti-ballistic missile systems, we no longer consider the reduction of ballistic missiles and warheads to be important.”

She asked whether the new weapons he was referring to could be “part of the discussion,” and he said they “should, of course, be included in the grand total.”

This interview continued with non-nuclear matters, such as the accusations that he had interfered in America’s 2016 Presidential contest, or tried to. His answers were very direct, but viewers who support the ongoing Russiagate investigations will probably not believe his answers.

As regards the weapons-issues, there is posted online a brilliant technical description of the types of engineering issues that the Russians have been developing for decades, in which they’ve led the world and in which their lead has been widening, and which were behind what Putin was speaking about in his March 1st speech. Though that technical description was a reader-comment, instead of an article, it was article-length, and makes the issues clear; and the article that it was commenting upon was itself brilliant: and it links to an earlier brilliant article by Andrei Martyanov; so, all three of those together enable a pretty clear understanding of what’s involved in Russia’s biggest strategic-weapons breakthroughs.

*Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

By Lela Gilbert*

The first time many Americans focused their attention on the violence-torn African country of Nigeria was in April 2014.

That was when some 276 young girls – mostly Christian – were kidnapped by the Islamist terror group Boko Haram.

Social media erupted with the #BringBackOurGirls hashtag, and a small army of Hollywood A-listers joined in, along with then-first lady Michelle Obama. Their images were splashed around the globe as they held signs declaring: “BringBackOurGirls.”

Even then, the perilous conditions of Christians in northern Nigeria were not fully apparent. And few grasped Nigeria’s vital role in the economy of Africa, and the world.

In recent days, shocking reports have once again made their way to the West spotlighting the brutality of Islamist thugs, and the increasing vulnerability of Christians.

Just Wednesday, I received an alarming email from a Nigerian journalist – a longtime Christian friend who must remain anonymous.

“These are difficult times for Christians in the northern part of Nigeria,” he explained. “When their school girls are not being abducted by Islamist terrorists, as in Dapchi where 110 girls were recently seized without trace from their schools, their little daughters are being forcefully converted to Islam and married off without the consent of their parents, as in Kaduna State.

“Or they are massacred by marauding herdsmen as in Benue State, where 73 villagers were killed on New Year’s Day.

“These Christians are refusing to budge,” he added, “but they need help. Someone needs to pressure the Nigerian authorities to act strongly and impartially against these dastardly acts. So far, the government has not done so.”

The BBC reported March 1: “The kidnapping of 110 girls from a school in the northeastern Nigerian town of Dapchi bears striking similarities to the 2014 abduction of 276 schoolgirls from Chibok – right down to the contradictory information from the authorities . . .”

Such stories are certainly tragic, but they are quickly eclipsed by bad news from some other global bloodbath. Most of us assume there is nothing we can do but pray.

However, in the case of Nigeria, the rationale for bringing pressure to bear on the Nigerian government transcends sorrow and compassion.

Former Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., a Distinguished Senior Fellow for 21Wilberforce and served 34 consecutive years in the U.S. House of Representatives, remains a stalwart champion of international human rights, religion freedom, and persecuted minorities.

He traveled to Nigeria about a year and a half ago, and just last week hosted a conference of 25 Nigerian Christians. His concern often pinpoints persecution and abuse. But when I contacted him about Nigeria, he pointed out there is more at stake there than coldhearted terrorist behavior.

Rep. Wolf explained Nigeria is the largest nation in Africa, with a population of 186 million. Of those about 86 million, or 46 percent, are Christian.

Year after year, Nigeria is the top economic performer in Africa. It is also a key regional force, capable of stabilizing – or destabilizing – the surrounding countries – Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso, and Mali.

With this in mind, it is noteworthy Burkina Faso suffered an Islamist terrorist attack March 2, in which at least 35 died and some 90 were injured. And in late November 2017, four U.S. Special Ops soldiers were killed in an ambush in Niger.

Although ISIS, aka Islamic State, might be losing ground in the Middle East, it is still able to implement terror attacks on a global scale. Boko Haram, the most notorious and active terror group in Nigeria and its neighborhood, has formally pledged allegiance to ISIS.

Wolf told me there are enormous numbers of Nigerians entering Europe as refugees – nearly 30,000 in 2016 – arriving in Italy via Libya. Meanwhile, human trafficking of female Nigerians is a massive criminal problem in Italy. These issues underscore ways Nigerian destabilization affects not just Africa but the West.

He also quoted an unexpected source he believes accurately understands the significance of Nigeria: Bono, of U2 fame. A human rights activist himself, Bono has invested considerable time in Africa.

Bono told The New York Times in September 2016: “There’s so much strategic importance in Nigeria — that’s why it’s odd that there’s not more focus on what’s happening. It’s pathetic. If Nigeria fails, Africa fails. If Africa fails, Europe fails. And if Europe fails, America is no longer America.”

As for the BringBackOurGirls campaign? Frank Wolf thinks, in the captors’ eyes, it actually increased the monetary value of every Boko Haram kidnapping victim.

Wolf sees the situation as even more urgent now than it was then: Instead of applauding the hashtags, the Nigerian government, led by President Muhammadu Buhari, needs to crackdown on terrorists and those who support them.

Indeed, that might be a requisite for his government’s survival, as reported in an AFP story headlined: “Nigeria’s Buhari Under Pressure Over Boko Haram Abduction, Attacks.”

If Wolf is right in his view that Nigeria is a global lynchpin, then both the United States and Europe must act decisively – until Boko Haram and its ISIS cohorts are eliminated once and for all.

About the author:
*Lela Gilbert, Adjunct Fellow, Center for Religious Freedom

Source:
This article was published by the Hudson Institute

By Frank Shostak*

Prior to 1933, the name “dollar” was used to refer to a unit of gold that had a weight of 23.22 grains. Since there are 480 grains in one ounce, this means that the name dollar also stood for 0.048 ounce of gold. This in turn, means that one ounce of gold referred to $20.67.

Observe that $20.67 is not the price of one ounce of gold in terms of dollars as popular thinking has it, for there is no such entity as a dollar. Dollar is just a name for 0.048 ounce of gold. On this Rothbard wrote,

No one prints dollars on the purely free market because there are, in fact, no dollars; there are only commodities, such as wheat, cars, and gold.1

Likewise, the names of other currencies stood for a fixed amount of gold. The habit of regarding these names as a separate entity from gold emerged with the enforcement of the paper standard.

Over time, as paper money assumed a life of its own, it became acceptable to set the price of gold in terms of dollars, francs, pounds, etc. (The absurdity of all this reached new heights with the introduction of the floating currency system).

In a free market, currencies do not float against each other. They are exchanged in accordance with a fixed definition. If the British pound stands for 0.25 of an ounce of gold and the dollar stands for 0.05 ounce of gold, then one British pound will be exchanged for five dollars.

This exchange stems from the fact that 0.25 of an ounce is five times larger than 0.05 of an ounce, and this is what the exchange of 5-to-1 means.

In other words, the exchange rate between the two is fixed at their proportionate gold weight, i.e., one British pound = five US dollars.

The absurdity of a floating currency system is no different from the idea of having a fluctuating market price for dollars in terms of cents.

How many cents equal one dollar is not something that is subject to fluctuations. It is fixed forever by definition. 2

The present floating exchange rate system is a by product of the previously discredited Bretton Woods system of fixed currency rates of exchange, which was in operation between 1944 to 1971.

Within the Bretton Woods system the US$ served as the international reserve currency upon which all other currencies could pyramid their money and credit.

The dollar in turn was linked to gold at $35 per ounce. Despite this supposed link to gold, only foreign governments and central banks could redeem their dollars for gold.

A major catalyst behind the collapse of the Bretton Woods system was the loose monetary policies of the US central bank, which pushed the price of gold in the gold market above the official $35 per ounce.

The price, which stood at $35/oz in January 1970 jumped to $43/oz by August 1971 – an increase of almost 23%.

The growing margin between the market price of gold and the official $35 per ounce created enormous profit opportunity, which some European central banks decided to exercise by demanding the US central bank to redeem dollars for gold.

Since Americans didn’t have enough gold to back up all the printed dollars they had to announce effective bankruptcy and cut off any link between dollar and gold as of August 1971.

In order to save the bankrupt system policy makers have adopted the prescription of Milton Friedman to allow a freely floating standard.

While in the framework of the Bretton Woods system, the dollar had some link to the gold and all the other currencies were based on the dollar, all that has now gone. In the floating framework, there are no more limitations on money printing. According to Murray Rothbard

One virtue of fixed rates, especially under gold, but even to some extent under paper, is that they keep a check on national inflation by central banks. The virtue of fluctuating rates–that they prevent sudden monetary crises due to arbitrarily valued currencies–is a mixed blessing, because at least those crises provided a much-needed restraint on domestic inflation.3

Through policies of coordination central banks maintain synchronized monetary pumping so as to keep the fluctuations in the rate of exchanges as stable as possible.

Obviously, in the process such policies set in motion a persistent process of impoverishment through consumption that is not backed up by the production of real wealth.

Furthermore, within this framework if a country tries to take advantage and depreciate its currency by means of a relatively looser monetary stance this runs the risk that other countries will do the same. Consequently, the emergence of competitive devaluations is a surest way of destroying the market economy and plunging the world into a period of crisis.

On this Mises wrote,

A general acceptance of the principles of the flexible standard must therefore result in a race between the nations to outbid one another. At the end of this competition is the complete destruction of all nations’ monetary systems.4

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

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

Notes:

• 1. Murray N. Rothbard “The Case for a Genuine Gold Dollar,” in Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., The Gold Standard: An Austrian Perspective (Lexington, Mass: D.C. Heath, 1985), pp. 1-17.
• 2. Ibid.
• 3. Murray N. Rothbard Making Economic Sense Mises Institute p 256.
• 4. Ludwig von Mises, Human Action 3rd revised edition Contemporary Books, Inc p 791

Promoting innovation through fostering disruptive technologies can power Europe’s economy for decades and give the continent a competitive edge in an increasingly challenging market, according to experts and policymakers who gathered in Brussels on March 7.

At an event in the European Parliament European Leadership through Disruptive Technologies: Future and Emerging Technologies Towards 2030, hosted by Patrizia Toia, MEP and Vice-Chair Industry and Research Committee (ITRE), European Parliament, and by Isabella De Monte, MEP and ITRE Committee, participants learned more about the European Union’s focus on encouraging innovation through its flagship Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme, and efforts to support the public and private sectors to move towards the new generation of disruptive technologies.

The event on the EU Future and EmergingTechnologies (FET) programme showcased Europe’s leadership in catalysing scientific and technological advances to anticipate needs and make a difference in some of the most important challenges facing society – from ageing to automation, urbanisation to healthcare.

Khalil Rouhana, Deputy Director-General DG CONNECT, European Commission, said, “The FET programme is a success story from the European Commission perspective, when we started we were not thinking it would get to that level, although we hoped. It’s unique because of its multidisciplinary approach, it’s about combination of various disciplines into technologies breakthrough and application.”

As Maria Chiara Carrozza from Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa said, “If we want that our industry in Europe become leader in the future key technologies and future production of the industrial revolutions, we must invest in basic research but also in the transformation of research into technologies. That means taking high risks and have high benefits. It is not possible to have high benefits, high values without taking risks”.

The importance of the FET program is well summarized by the following figures: around 25% of FET projects lead to patent applications within three years of completion; roughly 40% include partners from high-tech research small and medium enterprises; one in eight lead to a start-up company within three years of finishing.

The event, organized by the EFFECT project and held in cooperation with the European Parliament’s ITRE Committee and with the support of the European Commission, brought together parliamentarians, EU officials, industry experts, scientists, academics, members of the FET Advisory Group and the Horizon 2020 FET Flagship Interim Evaluation Committee.

Discussion focused on how to best maintain Europe’s position as the cradle of FET innovation, prospects for the next EU research and development program post-2020 and ensuring the right long-term research policy support framework in the coming decade.

Patrizia Toia said “We will fight to ensure that FET will receive an adequate financial support in the Framework Program 9 under the next Multiannual Financial Framework.”

The Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation program has earmarked around €2.5 billion for FET in the current budget cycle, thus so far allowing 180 projects from 40 countries inside and outside the EU to benefit from collaborative platforms to work towards fine-tuning new applications from discoveries.

Participants at the meeting agreed that if Europe is to build on this competitive advantage in FET and lead the world in promoting disruptive technologies, a larger funding envelope will be essential.

Illegal wildlife trade is one of the biggest threats to biodiversity conservation and is currently expanding to social media. This is a worrisome trend, given the ease of access and popularity of social media. Efficient monitoring of illegal wildlife trade on social media is therefore crucial for conserving biodiversity.

In a new article published in the journal Conservation Biology, scientists from the University of Helsinki, Digital Geography Lab, argue that methods from artificial intelligence can be used to help monitor the illegal wildlife trade on social media.

Tools for conserving biodiversity

Dr. Enrico Di Minin, a conservation scientist at the University of Helsinki, who leads an interdisciplinary research group where methods from artificial intelligence are being developed and used to investigate the supply chain of the illegal wildlife trade in an innovative and novel way, stresses the importance of such novel methods to identify relevant data on the illegal wildlife trade from social media platforms.

“Currently, the lack of tools for efficient monitoring of high-volume social media data limits the capability of law enforcement agencies to curb illegal wildlife trade,” said Dr. Di Minin

“Processing such data manually is inefficient and time consuming, but methods from artificial intelligence, such as machine-learning algorithms, can be used to automatically identify relevant information. Despite their potential, approaches from artificial intelligence are still rarely used in addressing the biodiversity crisis,” he said.

Images, metadata and meaning of a sentences

Many social media platforms provide an application programming interface that allows researchers to access user-generated text, images and videos, as well as the accompanying metadata, such as where and when the content was uploaded, and connections between the users.

Christoph Fink, stressed how machine learning methods provide an efficient means of monitoring illegal wildlife trade on social media.

“Machine learning algorithms can be trained to detect which species or wildlife products, such as rhino horns, appear in an image or video contained in social media posts, while also classifying their setting, such as a natural habitat or a marketplace,” Fink said.

Assistant professor Tuomo Hiippala highlighted how machine learning methods can be used to process the language of social media posts.

“Natural language processing can be used to infer the meaning of a sentence and to classify the sentiment of social media users towards illegal wildlife trade. Most importantly, machine learning algorithms can process combinations of verbal, visual and audio-visual content,” Hiippala said.

In the ongoing project, the researchers are applying machine learning methods to automatically identify content pertaining to illegal wildlife trade on social media. They also stressed the importance of collaborating with law enforcement agencies and social media companies to further improve the outcomes of their work and help stop illegal wildlife trade on social media.