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

Shifting Sands: POLRI-TNI Ties In Counterterrorism – Analysis

0
0

Despite many looming questions with regard to the rules of engagement, militarisation of counterterrorism in Indonesia seems to be an irreversible trend. Ruffled ties between the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) and the police (POLRI), however, continues to hinder interoperability between the two.

By Emirza Adi Syailendra*

In the second week of May, a string of terrorist acts broke out in Indonesia, from a prison riot at a police headquarters in Depok, West Java, to suicide bombings on three churches in Surabaya, East Java. Such a worrying development pushed President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) to issue an ultimatum to the House of Representatives (DPR) to conclude the revision of the much-delayed Anti-Terrorism Law.

Otherwise, the President warned, he would issue a regulation in lieu of law (Perppu) to strengthen the authority of the state apparatus against acts of terrorism. While welcomed by some, such an ultimatum has generated some concerns, including the militarisation of the counterterrorism landscape.

Military’s Move to Tweak Status Quo

On 8 January 2018, a letter was personally delivered by the newly appointed Commander of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI), Air Marshall Hadi Tjahjanto, to the DPR’s Special Committee on Revision of the Anti-Terrorism Law.

In the letter, Hadi not only posited the need for a bigger role for TNI in counterterrorism operations, but also specifically proposed to omit the word ‘criminal’ in the title, so it will read Penanggulangan Aksi Terorisme or translated as the Law on Countering the Act of Terrorism.

The Minister of Law and Human Rights, Yasonna Laoly, insisted the name be kept as it is. At the heart of the disagreement, the fundamental question is whether the act of terrorism falls under the category of extraordinary crime thus warranting special measures such as the involvement of the military.

TNI’s Role in Counterterrorism

Since 2000 TNI has attempted to change the status quo that tethered the military to operations led by the Indonesian Police (POLRI) when it comes to counter-terrorism operations. Among many changes proposed by TNI, one of the most pivotal is to remove the position of the supporting role or bawah kendali operasi (BKO). The consequence of such abolition is that TNI can wage independent counterterrorism operations without having to consult the DPR. Such a proposal, however, has faced enormous resistance from civil society.

TNI principally is inclined towards a vague law that enables the military or political leadership to flexibly define the circumstances of TNI intervention in counterterrorism. As explained by the Coordinating Minister of Politics, Legal, and Security Affairs, also a former Commander of TNI, Wiranto, it is best if the law is not too detailed, as this can compromise speed and room for manoeuvre against terrorism.

Indeed, the revised law is likely to only give a broad-brush explanation on TNI’s involvement and a presidential regulation will further specify the rules of engagement. Given their close relationship and President Jokowi’s political reliance on many retired army generals such as Moeldoko, Luhut Panjaitan, Ryamizard Ryacudu, Wiranto, and Agum Gumelar; coupled with the good relationship between Hadi and the Chief of POLRI, Tito Karnavian, it is likely for the military to get what it wants – a bigger role in counterterrorism.

Since the success of the Tinombala Operation, a joint POLRI-TNI manoeuvre on 18 July 2016 led to the killing of Santoso, the leader of the Mujahidin Indonesia Timur. Given that this group pledged allegiance to Islamic State, the perception of TNI involvement has been overwhelmingly positive. On 29 May 2017, in a cabinet meeting, Jokowi reiterated the importance of having TNI involved.

Echoing such instruction, Tito argued that TNI is pivotal especially in circumstances such as hijacking at sea and operations in rough terrain such as mountains and jungles due to its guerilla warfare expertise. Furthermore, according to a survey conducted by Kompas (involving respondents from 14 cities around Indonesia), the majority of respondents (92.6 percent) supported TNI’s involvement.

The survey, however, also indicated as much as 23.7 percent of respondents were worried about the potential of human rights abuses. This concern stemmed from the culture of impunity in the TNI. Due to the legal loopholes and the lack of checks and balances from civilians on the military, there is fear that the involvement of TNI can lead to abuse of power. Moreover, TNI personnel could not be tried under civilian courts.

Militarisation of Counterterrorism?

Despite the Anti-Terrorism Law not yet being revised, TNI and POLRI have been attempting since 2015 to improve interoperability in counterterrorism operations. Publicly known as the Group 5, two of the POLRI anti-terror special units known as Detachment 88 and Detachment C Gegana Brimob, have been working closely with three of the TNI’s own.

The TNI units are namely Detachment 81 of the Army Special Forces (Kopassus), Detachment Jala Mengkara of the Marine Corps, and Bravo-90 Unit of the Air Force Infantry. Five of them are jointly stationed at the National Agency for Combating Terrorism BNPT under the auspices of the Centre for Crisis Control (Pusat Pengendalian Krisis – Pusdalsis).

There have been a series of combined counter-terrorism training ongoing under the coordination of BNPT. For example, in April 2015, a week-long joint exercise called Gulkonsis V on counter terrorism operation against ISIS was held in a hotel in Sidoarjo, East Java. On 8 December 2016, the Gulkonsis VI was conducted in the Soekarno Hatta Airport, Tangerang, involving the Group 5, Aviation Security, and civilians. In October 2017, a joint terrorism training was also held in an offshore oil Rig in Pabelokan Island, North Jakarta.

On 18 May 2018, President Jokowi has also reinstated the formerly suspended Koopsgubgab, a joint force of TNI’s three anti-terror units, to assist the National Police during crisis conditions. These have highlighted the efforts to enhance interoperability between TNI and POLRI in counter terrorism operations.

The Persistence of Tension

Given the significant cuts in the military’s authority coupled with the expansion of the police’s role, and with the police and military sometimes sharing overlapping responsibilities, both institutions sometimes found themselves in opposition to one another. One example is an incident between TNI and POLRI on 27 July 2016, where Team 1 Tinombala Task Force, comprising Kopassus and the local military, was ambushed and attacked by personnel from POLRI Mobile Brigade.

The incident highlighted the lack of communication during the operation. According to the Centre for Political Studies in Bandung, between 1999 and 2014, there have been at least 200 cases of clashes with 20 fatalities. Such altercations show the competitive nature of both state institutions.

The ideal reconciliatory approach warrants a comprehensive solution, not only delineation of functions, but also enhancing interoperability and internal reform of both POLRI and TNI.

*Emirza Adi Syailendra is a Senior Analyst at the Indonesia Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. This is part of a series on Inter-Agency Dynamics in Indonesia.


New Democratic Congress Of Peoples Of Russian Federation Has Far-Reaching Goals – OpEd

0
0

Created to oppose the proposed law making the study of non-Russian languages voluntary, the new Democratic Congress of Peoples of the Russian Federation has a far broader agenda, one that includes “broadening the space of freedom” and promoting federalism, according to political analyst Ruslan Aysin, who participated in its formation.

The failure of officials to take the people seriously on key issues, the Tatar expert says, reflects the fact that “representatives of the nomenklatura do not want and cannot hear the voice of reason, the voice of society, the voice of civil society” and appear to have forgotten that “the state’s functions are to satisfy the needs of the population” (business-gazeta.ru/article/383557).

The Democratic Congress will remind and help them to behave as they should, Aysin suggests. That is no small challenge. “The elite which has given to itself a monopoly right to act int eh name of the state requires the people to delegate ever more powers to it, but in exchange, it does not want to fulfill that which it must fulfill.”

To that end, the analyst continues, the new Democratic Congress includes “real people who have the authority and respect in the localities, real people’s deputies in the ream meaning of this term from Sakha, Chukotka, the Middle Volga, the North Caucasus, the center and west of Russia.”

“The time of simulacra … has passed. Russia carries the adjective ‘Federation,’ that is, unity. And unity is always better than divisions. However, certain ignorant people are inclined to call unifying processes ‘separatist,’ which has the semantic meaning of ‘to divide.’” For such people, Aysin says, “war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.”

Those who say they are fighting separatism are in fact promoting “internal separatism” by “segregating languages, dividing the pupils of schools by nationality, and refusing to fulfill constitutional norms and legal demands!”

In this situation, he says, “the Congress is forced to take on itself responsibility for the fate of the peoples which it represents for the fate of our common Motherland – as we do not have another one. [And] the need to defend federative principles also stands on the agenda” of the new organization.

“Russia is fated to be a federalist country.” Efforts to over-centralize in the past led to the collapses of 1917 and 1991.” Everyone must recognize that “flexibility and the taking account of the interests of all is a precondition of success. By the Constitution, power belongs to the people; taking initiative into our own hands is our direct obligation.”

“The sleep of reason gives birth to beasts, chimeras and manticores,” Aysin concludes. “Our inaction is our common misfortune.”

Depression Speeds Up Brain Aging

0
0

Psychologists at the University of Sussex have found a link between depression and an acceleration of the rate at which the brain ages. Although scientists have previously reported that people with depression or anxiety have an increased risk of dementia in later life, this is the first study that provides comprehensive evidence for the effect of depression on decline in overall cognitive function (also referred to as cognitive state), in a general population.

For the study, published in the journal Psychological Medicine, researchers conducted a robust systematic review of 34 longitudinal studies, with the focus on the link between depression or anxiety and decline in cognitive function over time. Evidence from more than 71,000 participants was combined and reviewed. Including people who presented with symptoms of depression as well as those that were diagnosed as clinically depressed, the study looked at the rate of decline of overall cognitive state – encompassing memory loss, executive function (such as decision making) and information processing speed – in older adults.

Importantly, any studies of participants who were diagnosed with dementia at the start of study were excluded from the analysis. This was done in order to assess more broadly the impact of depression on cognitive ageing in the general population. The study found that people with depression experienced a greater decline in cognitive state in older adulthood than those without depression. As there is a long pre-clinical period of several decades before dementia may be diagnosed, the findings are important for early interventions as currently there is no cure for the disease.

Lead authors of the paper, Dr Darya Gaysina and Amber John from the EDGE (Environment, Development, Genetics and Epigenetics in Psychology and Psychiatry) Lab at the University of Sussex, are calling for greater awareness of the importance of supporting mental health to protect brain health in later life.

Dr Gaysina, a Lecturer in Psychology and EDGE Lab Lead, said: “This study is of great importance – our populations are ageing at a rapid rate and the number of people living with decreasing cognitive abilities and dementia is expected to grow substantially over the next thirty years.

“Our findings should give the government even more reason to take mental health issues seriously and to ensure that health provisions are properly resourced. We need to protect the mental wellbeing of our older adults and to provide robust support services to those experiencing depression and anxiety in order to safeguard brain function in later life.”

Researcher Amber John, who carried out this research for her PhD at the University of Sussex added: “Depression is a common mental health problem – each year, at least 1 in 5 people in the UK experience symptoms. But people living with depression shouldn’t despair – it’s not inevitable that you will see a greater decline in cognitive abilities and taking preventative measures such as exercising, practicing mindfulness and undertaking recommended therapeutic treatments, such as Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, have all been shown to be helpful in supporting wellbeing, which in turn may help to protect cognitive health in older age.”

Critically Endangered South American Forests Were Man Made

0
0

Critically endangered South American forests thought to be the result of climate change were actually spread by ancient communities, archaeologists have found.

Huge swathes of land in Chile, Brazil and Argentina are covered with millions of Araucaria, or monkey puzzle trees, thanks to people planting or cultivating them more than a thousand years ago, a new study shows. Recent logging means the landscape is now one of the world’s most at-risk environments.

It had been thought the forests expanded due to wetter and warmer weather. But the research shows the rapidly expanding pre-Columbian population of South America, Southern Jê communities, were really responsible.

New excavations and soil analysis shows the forests, still hugely culturally and economically important to people living in South America, expanded between 1,410 and 900 years ago because of population growth and cultural changes.

Dr Mark Robinson, from the University of Exeter, who led the British Academy and AHRC-FAPESP-funded research, said: “Our research shows these landscapes were man-made. Communities settled on grassland, and then – perhaps because they modified the soil, protected seedlings or even planted trees – established these forests in places where geographically they shouldn’t have flourished.”

The forests date back to the period when dinosaurs roamed. The iconic monkey puzzle tree, or Parana pine, has grown in the region for thousands of years. Its nuts were one of the most important food sources for ancient communities, attracted game for hunting when nuts were ripe. They were also a valuable source of timber, fuel and resin, and became an integral part of southern Jê cosmology. Communities still call themselves “people of the Araucaria”, and hold festivals to celebrate the forests.

Of the 19 species of Araucaria tree, five are classified as endangered and two, including the Brazilian Araucaria angustifolia, are critically endangered. Reports from the late 1800s describe trees with diameters of over 2 m, reaching 42 m in height. Modern trees are only around 17.7 m tall.

The archaeological analysis began because the experts, from the University of Exeter, University of Reading, University of São Paulo, University of New Mexico, Universidade Federal de Pelotas and Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina, noticed that in areas of low human activity forests are limited to south-facing slopes, whereas in areas of extensive archaeology, forests cover the entire landscape. They were able to analyse soil isotopes reflecting vegetation and archaeological evidence from Campo Belo do Sul, Santa Catarina State, Brazil, to test whether this pattern was directly related to past human activity.

The study shows the forests first expanded around 4,480 to 3,200 years ago, most likely near streams, and this may have been caused by a wetter climate. But a more rapid and extensive expansion across the whole region later happened between 1,410 and 900 years ago, when forests expanded into highland areas. The weather during this time was dry and less humid. This expansion of the forests coincides with population growth and increasingly complex and hierarchical societies in South America.

The expansion in forests reached a peak around 800 years ago. The number of people in South America declined 400 years ago when European settlers arrived in the area. The population did not begin to recover until the 19 century, when loggers began exploiting the Araucaria forests for timber.

Professor José Iriarte, from the University of Exeter, another member of the research team, said: “This study shows the Araucaria forests were expanded beyond their natural boundaries, they were used sustainably for hundreds of years, and conservation strategies must reflect this so they balance protection, heritage and economic development.”

Uncoupling human and climate drivers of late Holocene vegetation change in southern Brazil is published in the journal Scientific Reports.

Ireland Votes To Repeal Abortion Ban

0
0

Exit polls released on Saturday morning are projecting the repeal of the abortion ban in Ireland, a decision pro-life groups are calling tragic and disappointing.

“The result of today’s referendum is a profound tragedy for the Irish people and the entire world,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, in a May 26 press release.

“While other Western nations including the United States acquiesced to the extreme abortion lobby, Ireland has been a shining beacon of hope for its strong defense of unborn children and their mothers,” Dannenfelser continued, adding that “we are filled with sorrow at this outcome.”

A statement from the Save the 8th campaign, a group which fought against the legalization of abortion in Ireland, called the vote a “tragedy of historic proportions,” but commended those who stood up for the right to life, saying “we are so proud of all those who stood with us in this campaign.”

The campaign additionally noted that they would continue fighting for the right to life in Ireland, saying that “every time an unborn child has his or her life ended in Ireland, we will oppose that, and make our voices known.”

“Abortion was wrong yesterday. It remains wrong today. The constitution has changed, but the facts have not,” the statement continued.

Exit polls by the RTÉ are projecting 69.4 percent of citizens voted against keeping the Eighth Amendment in the Republic of Ireland’s constitution, while 30.6 percent voted to keep it, according to the BBC.

80 percent of the votes have been counted, according to the New York Times, but official results are expected on Saturday evening.

On May 25, Ireland held a referendum on whether to repeal the country’s Eighth Amendment, which recognizes the equal right to life of the mother and the unborn child. Under current law, the practice of abortion in Ireland is illegal, unless the mother’s health is deemed to be endangered.

The Eighth Amendment was passed in Ireland in 1983, with upwards of 67 percent voter-approval. It reads, in part: “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

Several Irish lawmakers had previously said that if the referendum successfully repealed the eighth amendment, they would propose legislation allowing unlimited abortion up to three months into pregnancy, and up to six months into pregnancy in cases where there might be risk to a mother’s physical or mental health.

Despite the high percentage of the population – 78 percent – that identifies as Catholic, polling was split in the weeks leading up to the vote.

On March 9 the Irish bishops had released a pastoral message on the right to life, entitled “Two Lives, One Love.”

They warned that changing the Irish Constitution would serve no purpose other than to withdraw the right to life from some categories of unborn children.

“To do so would radically change the principle, for all unborn children and indeed for all of us, that the right to life is a fundamental human right,” they said.

Vandal Damages Famous Ivan The Terrible Painting In Tretyakov Gallery

0
0

A vandal has seriously damaged “Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan”, one of the best-known paintings exhibited in Tretyakov Gallery’s main building on Lavrushinsky lane in Moscow, the press service of Tretyakov Gallery said on Saturday, May 26, according to Sputnik.

“As a result of the hits, the thick glass, which was protecting the painting from fluctuations of temperature and humidity, was broken. The painting was seriously damaged, with three holes remaining in the canvas in the central part of the artwork on the figure of Ivan’s son. The original frame of the painting was also seriously damaged after the glass fell. Fortunately, the most valuable parts of the painting, the faces, the hands of the Tsar and his son, were not damaged,” the press service said.

The incident took place on Friday at around 20:55 local time (17:55 GMT) just before the closure of the museum. The man broke into the empty hall, where the painting by Ilya Repin is located, took a metal bar, which separates the painting from visitors and hit the artwork several times.

Following the incident, the administration of the gallery took urgent measures. The painting was sent for restoration and the restorers have already begun studying the damages inflicted on the painting and ways of painting’s restoration. According to the press service, a council will be convened and Russia’s most notable restorers will be invited to achieve the best result.

Assad Accused Of ‘Using Urban Development Law To Carry Out Ethnic Cleansing’

0
0

By Syed Tausief Ausaf

The Assad regime in Syria was accused on Saturday of using a new law on urban development to carry out and rid the country of all political opposition.

The so-called “Law 10” allows the regime to acquire previously private property in which to create zoned developments, and to compensate the owners with shares in the new projects.

However, after a seven-year war that has created more than 5 million refugees and 6 million internally displaced people, property rights are in a state of confusion. Many of the displaced have lost the necessary paperwork, are struggling financially or may not learn of the legal requirements in time.

The Assad regime is using the confusion to create a suitable environment for demographic change, Syrian opposition spokesman Yahya Al-Aridi told Arab News.

“The regime has a two-fold goal,” he said. “First, terrorize the opposition and supporters of the Syrian revolution so that they lose the right to their properties.

“Second, there is talk of reconstruction in Syria now. This law sends out a message to investors that their interests lie with the regime. It is an attempt to tempt companies and business people to support the regime, because the regime is the only party that approves bids and gives grants and contracts. All this merely adds to the Syrians’ plight and misery.”

Al-Aridi said the attempted land grab was being resisted by European countries, especially France and Germany. “The Syrian Negotiating Committee is also exerting a very important effort so that such an evil act will not happen,” he said.

Also on Saturday, the US warned Damascus it would take “firm action” if the regime violates a cease-fire deal, after Syrian aircraft dropped leaflets on a southern province in advance of an expected offensive.

Al-Aridi said any such offensive would be a breach of agreements between Russia and the US on de-escalation zones, and he warned the regime and Iran against “playing games” with the US. “Such threats are part of a response to the two unanswered Israeli attacks on Iran’s military positions in Syria,” he said.

“They area also meant to divert attention from the American-Israeli intent to kick Iranian militias and forces out of Syria.”

He said the regime and Iran could do nothing without Russian support. “We don’t think the Russians are willing to provide such support, or to mess with the US or Israel. Parallel to such threats, Assad is trying to make certain reconciliation agreements with what they call ‘Syrians in liberated areas.’ We believe that they cannot do anything of the sort.”

The On-Off (And Maybe On Again) Summit – OpEd

0
0

By Cornelia Meyer*

US President Donald Trump wrote to the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on the evening of May 24, calling off their summit meeting scheduled for June 12 because of the “tremendous anger and open hostility” emanating from Pyongyang — a reference to earlier statements by North Korea’s First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Kim Kye Gwan.

“Some day, I look very much forward to meeting you,” Trump wrote, leaving the door open. When the North Korean response was emollient, and Kim said he would be willing to meet Trump at any time, the latter responded that this was still a possibility, perhaps even on June 12 as originally planned. This on-off (and now maybe on again) summit is more like the plot of a Latin-American telenovela than high-stakes foreign policy.

If the summit is indeed postponed, there is some good in that — but also some bad in how the postponement was announced.

First, the good: A meeting on June 12 would leave insufficient time for in-depth preparation of the negotiating alternatives and their potential outcomes. Two trips to North Korea by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo do not compensate for detailed preparatory work by professional civil servants.

For example, the two countries define denuclearization very differently. Former US Secretary of Defense William Perry put it aptly during Chosun Ilbo’s Asian Leadership conference in Seoul this month; he explained that to North Korea the situation looked very different from the six-party talks in the mid 2000s. Then, they had to give up the prospect of building nuclear weapons; now, they would have to give up an actual arsenal, which is clearly much more difficult. Unless both sides understand the initial definition of denuclearization, and what it would mean if they made concessions, they are not ready to talk.

There may also be time to familiarize the US President, who is no fan of multilateralism, with another “home truth”; after a potential denuclearization on the peninsula any inspection regime would have to be multilateral, as there are no bilateral alternatives. The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency would most probably be charged with the task, because it is currently the only organization equipped to do so.

And now the bad: The US U-turn stunned its long-term ally on the peninsula. South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in had invested a lot in this summit. It was his overture to the North during the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang that made a dialogue possible. He then drove the agenda further during the Moon-Kim summit in April. Its “Panmunjom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula” even goes so far as to mention a reunification of the two Koreas. Moon has staked his career on a rapprochement with the North. He was also instrumental as a mediator between Trump and Kim when the latter put the summit into question because of military exercises between South Korea and the US, and the ill-timed and ill-judged comparison of North Korea to Libya by US national security adviser John Bolton. Libya’s disarmament famously resulted in regime change, the death of Muammar Gadaffi and a failed state — all red flags to the North Korean leadership.

There are further benefits to having bought time. It is important for the US president’s negotiators to understand the position of all parties involved. The six-party talks were a useful framework in that all the major stakeholders were at the table. Any resolution is significant not just to the two Koreas and the US, but also to China, Russia and Japan.

China will make its influence heard and felt. It has promised billions in aid to North Korea if it renounces nuclear weapons. China as well as Russia have every interest in the North Korean economy not falling into further disrepair because of UN sanctions. Even moderately prosperous nations make better neighbors than destitute ones, and nobody wants to share a border with a failed state. There are also opportunities for Chinese companies in sharing in North Korea’s reconstruction and resources. China and Russia share one concern with the North: The presence of the US military in the demilitarized zone is a thorn in their collective side.

Here, Trump needs to be careful: It is precisely that military presence which has allowed South Korea to achieve prosperity and become the world’s 12th largest economy. It is also that presence, alongside US naval and military bases in Japan, which has given “military air cover” and assured security to Japan, and to a lesser extent to Taiwan. Whatever Trump does, he must not bargain away the presence of US forces on the peninsula. The security of his allies in the Northern Pacific depends on it.

Hopefully the latest wobbles have given the US president time to consult and truly understand the position of his most important allies on the Pacific Rim. At the Chosun Ilbo conference, the former Speaker of Japan’s House of Representatives, Yohei Kono, issued a stark reminder that Japan was an interested party in what happened on the Korean peninsula. The US should consult with its allies before making decisions. The days of in-depth US co-ordination with allies, as we have seen since the fall of the Berlin Wall, are probably over. There is, however, a world of difference between going it totally alone and making progress while taking the concerns of one’s allies into consideration.

*Cornelia Meyer is a business consultant, macro-economist and energy expert. Twitter: @MeyerResources


Macron: France To Make Every Effort To Find Fair Solution To Karabakh Conflict

0
0

The President of France Emmanuel Macron has congratulated President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev.

“I am glad to convey to you and the Azerbaijani people sincere wishes of happiness and prosperity on the occasion of the national holiday of Azerbaijan.
At the time when the 100th anniversary of the independence of Azerbaijan proclaimed in 1918 and restored in 1991 is celebrated, I want to note that I know how difficult it is usually to travel the way to build such a stable, modern and prosperous state.

I would like to assure you of my determination to strengthen the ties between our countries in all areas. Azerbaijan can always rely on France’s support in solving future challenges and continuing its rapprochement with the European Union.

At the same time, let me emphasize once again that France, as the co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, will make every effort to find a fair and sustainable solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through negotiations.

Mr. President, I hope to meet with you in Paris at the end of July. Please accept my highest consideration ” the letter says.

Spain: Socialists Table No Confidence Motion Against Rajoy’s Government

0
0

(EurActiv) — Spain’s main opposition Socialist Party tabled on Friday (25 May) a motion of no confidence in Parliament against the government of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy after his ruling Popular Party was found guilty of corruption in a court verdict. EURACTIV’s partner efe-epa reports.

Socialist Party leader Pedro Sánchez said the verdict, which was published in a National Court statement on Thursday, made it necessary to table the motion and trigger a vote of no-confidence in the government.

The court ruled that the Popular Party and some of its former officials were guilty of fraudulent financial dealings

“The verdict has unleashed a constitutional crisis of extreme gravity on the country,” Sánchez told a press conference in the party’s Madrid headquarters.

Rajoy responded by appearing at a press conference in his official residence, Moncloa Palace, and said the motion was harmful to the stability of Spain.

“This motion is bad for Spain, bad for Spaniards, it introduces a great deal of uncertainty and is harmful to the future of all citizens,” he said.

The Socialists do not have enough votes in Parliament to carry the motion, so they will need the support of other parties to end Rajoy’s conservative government, which also does not have an absolute majority.

The court ruling also cast doubt on the trustworthiness of testimony given by Rajoy, the Popular Party’s leader, Rajoy, who said in court in July that he knew nothing of any wrongdoing.

“The witnesses do not have sufficient credibility to refute the evidence,” the court judgment said, agreeing with Spain’s state prosecution in casting doubt on the testimonies given to magistrates by party officials, including Rajoy.

Former secretaries-general of the Popular Party, Javier Arenas and Francisco Álvarez Cascos, as well as Rajoy, had testified that detailed notes, made by a former party treasurer, “lacked credibility.”

The court handed down jail sentences to various people linked to the party, including one of its former treasurers, Luis Bárcenas, who is set to serve 33 years in prison.

According to the Spanish Constitution, the motion of no confidence must have the absolute majority in Parliament to succeed.

There are 350 lawmakers in Spain’s lower chamber. The Socialists (PSOE) only have 85 seats, so they will have to negotiate with other opposition parties to reach the 176 votes necessary to oust Rajoy, who governs with the parliamentary support of Ciudadanos, a centre-right party.

The Socialists will have the support of Unidos Podemos (67 seats), and could also have the support of small parties of the left and Catalan separatists.

The motion of no confidence was demanded by Pablo Iglesias, the leader of left-wing Podemos party, on Thursday after the court verdict became known.

He said the court ruling proved that Rajoy was in charge of “a delinquent party.”

This will be the second time Rajoy, who has been in government since 2011, faces a motion of no confidence.

Iglesias already filed a motion of no confidence against Rajoy a year ago but did not get enough parliamentary votes for it to prosper.

In 40 years of democracy, three other motions of no confidence have been tabled in Parliament, once against the government of Adolfo Suárez and one against Felipe González, before a brace against Rajoy.

Trump’s Iran Sanctions Are An Obvious Prelude To War – OpEd

0
0

By Conn Hallinan*

The question is: has the Trump administration already made a decision to go to war with Iran, similar to the determination of the Bush administration to invade Iraq in the aftermath of the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington?

Predictions are dicey things, and few human institutions are more uncertain than war. But several developments have come together to suggest that the rationale for using sanctions to force a re-negotiation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is cover for an eventual military assault by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia aimed at regime change in Teheran.

As clueless as the Trump administration is on foreign policy, the people around the White House—in particular National Security Advisor John Bolton—know that sanctions rarely produce results, and unilateral ones almost always fail.

Sanctions aimed at Cuba, North Korea, Iraq and Libya did not dislodge any of those regimes and, in the case of North Korea, spurred Pyongyang into producing nuclear weapons. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar al-Qaddafi were eventually overthrown, but by American firepower, not sanctions.

The only case in which sanctions produced some results were those applied to Iran from 2010 to 2015. But that embargo was multi-lateral and included China, India, and one of Iran’s major customers, the European Union (EU). When the U.S. unilaterally applied sanctions to Cuba, Iran and Libya in 1996, the move was a conspicuous failure.

This time around, the White House has made no effort to involve other countries. The Trump plan is to use the power of the American economy to strong-arm nations into line. Back our sanctions, threatens the administration, or lose access to the US market. And given that the world uses the dollar as its de-facto international currency, financial institutions may find themselves barred from using the Society for Worldwide Interbank Telecommunications (SWIFT), the American-controlled network that allows banks and finance centers to transfer money from country to county.

Those threats have not exactly panicked the rest of the world. China and India, which between them buy more than 1 million of Iran’s 2.1 million barrels per day production, say they will ignore the sanctions. According to Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign affairs minister, “The European Union is determined to act in accordance with its security interests and protect its economic investments.”

Adding up all the countries that will go along with the sanctions—including South Korea and Japan–will cut Teheran’s oil exports by 10% to 15%, nothing like the 50% plus that Iran lost under the prior sanctions regime.

In short, the sanctions won’t work, but were they really meant to?

It is possible that the White House somehow thinks they will—delusion is a characteristic of the Oval Office these days—but other developments suggest the administration is already putting in place a plan that will lead from economic sanctions to bombing runs.

For starters, there is the close coordination between the White House and Tel Aviv. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s April 30 speech shortly before Trump withdrew from the Iran agreement was tailored to give Washington a casus belli to dump the agreement. Virtually all of what Netanyahu “revealed” about the Iranian nuclear program was old news, already known by US, Israeli and European intelligence services.

Four days before Netanyahu’s speech Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman met with his American counterparts and, according to Al Monitor, got a “green light” for any military action Tel Aviv might take against Iran.

The same day Liberman was meeting with the Pentagon, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Saudi Arabia to end its campaign against Qatar because the Americans wanted the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to be united around a campaign against Iran.

Each of these moves seems calculated to set the stage for a direct confrontation with Iran involving some combination of the US, Israel and the two most aggressive members of the GCC, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The latter two are currently waging war on the Iranian-supported Houthis in Yemen.

It is almost impossible to imagine what the consequences of such a war might be. On paper, it looks like a cakewalk for the anti-Teheran axis. Iran has an antiquated air force, a bunch of fast speedboats and tanks that date back to the 1960s. The military budgets of the US, Israel and the GCC are more than 58 times those of Iran. But, as the Prussian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz once remarked, the only thing one can determine in war is who fires the first shot.

Military might does not translate into an automatic win. After almost 17 years of war, the US is still bogged down in Afghanistan, and it basically left Iraq with its tail between its legs. Indeed, the last time the American military won a war was in Grenada. As for the GCC, in spite of more than two years of relentless warfare in Yemen, the monarchs are no nearer victory than they were when the war started. And Hezbollah fought Israel to a stalemate in 2006.

While Iran does not have much in the way of military force, it has 80 million people with a strong streak of nationalism who would certainly unite against any attacker. It would be impossible to “win” a war against Iran without resorting to a ground invasion.

But none of Iran’s antagonists have the capacity to carry that out. The Saudis have a dismal military record, and the UAE troops are stalemated in their campaign to take Yemen’s capital, Saana from the rag-tag Houthi militia. The Israelis don’t have the troops—and, in any case, would never put them in harm’s way so far from home—and the Americans are not about to send in the Marines.

Most likely this would be a war of aircraft and missiles to destroy Iran’s military and civilian infrastructure. There is little that Teheran can do to stop such an assault. Any planes it put up would be toast, its anti-aircraft weapons are obsolete, and its navy would not last long.

But flattening Teheran’s military is not winning a war, and Iran has other ways to strike back. The Iranians, for instance, have shown considerable skill at asymmetric warfare in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and it does have missiles.

The real damage, however, will be the fallout from the war. The price of oil is already on the rise, and hostilities in the middle of one of the world’s largest petroleum repositories will likely send it through the roof. While that will be good for the GCC, high oil prices will put a dent into the economies of the EU, China, India, and even the US.

What a war will almost certainly do is re-ignite Iran’s push to build a nuclear weapon. If that happens, Saudi Arabia will follow, and the world will be faced with several new nuclear powers in one of the most volatile regions of the world.

Which doesn’t mean war is inevitable.

The Trump administration hawks broke the JCPOA because they hoped Iran would then withdraw as well, giving the anti-Iranian axis an excuse to launch a war. Iranians are divided on this issue, with some demanding that Teheran re-start its uranium enrichment program, while others defend the agreement. Europe can play a key role here by firmly supporting the Joint Agreement and resisting the American sanctions, even if it means taking a financial hit.  Some European firms, however, have already announced they are withdrawing their investments.

The US Congress can also help stop a war, although it will require members—mostly Democrats—to put aside their anti-Iranian bias and make common cause with the “stay in the pact” Iranians. This is a popular issue. A CNN poll found that 63 percent of Americans opposed withdrawing from the agreement.

It will also mean that the Congress—again, mainly Democrats—will have to challenge the role that Israel is playing. That will not be easy, but maybe not as difficult as it has been in the past. Israel’s brutality against Palestinians over the past month has won no friends except in the White House and the evangelical circuit, and Netanyahu has made it clear that he prefers Republicans to Democrats.

Lastly, Congress should cut the arms pipeline to the GCC and stop aiding the Saudis in their war on Yemen.

If war comes, Americans will find themselves in the middle of an unwinnable conflict that will destabilize the Middle East and the world’s economy, and pour more of this country’s resources into yet another quagmire.

*Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and middleempireseries.wordpress.com

Thailand: Police Arrest 5 Monks For Alleged Money Laundering

0
0

By Wilawan Watcharasakwet

Raids involving up to 200 police commandos led to the arrests at Buddhist temples in Bangkok of five senior monks suspected of being part of a money laundering scheme, Thai government officials said Thursday.

Armed with warrants, police searched for seven monks in three different temples – Wat Sa Ket, Wat Sam Phraya, and Wat Samphanthawong – who were believed to be linked to a scam where millions of baht were illegally transferred from temple funds to outsiders.

Of the five arrested, three were members of the Sangha Supreme Council, the organization that governs Buddhist monks in the country, officials said.

In Theravada (conservative) Buddhism, monks are not supposed to touch money. Despite this ban, police said they froze 132 million baht ($4.13 million) in the personal bank account of an abbot at Sa Ket Temple who was not among the five taken into custody.

“We found the abbot was involved with embezzling money from two temple-related projects worth 69 million baht. Money was transferred to lay people outside,” police Maj. Gen. Maitree Chimcherd told reporters.

In addition, Buddha Isara, a well-known activist monk, was arrested for allegedly stealing weapons during street protests in 2013 and 2014 and for violating the country’s strict royal defamation law through the alleged unlicensed use of the royal emblem on a Buddhist image.

The suspects who were arrested did not respond to questions from reporters as they were led into criminal court. The court stripped them of their positions as monks so they could be sent to jail and then denied bail.

Suwapan Tanyuwattana, a minister in the Prime Minister’s Office who oversees the National Office of Buddhism (NOB), told reporters that police were only doing their jobs in arresting and processing the monks.

“In order to take legal action, we have to be concerned about Sangha law and Sangha discipline,” he said. “Everything has regulations and procedures.”

Thursday’s raids were the latest launched by the military-led government in its efforts to clean up corruption among the clergy of Thailand’s dominant religion. In Thailand, about 95 percent of its 69 million people practice Buddhism led by nearly 300,000 monks in 41,000 temples nationwide.

In March 2017, authorities ended a 23-day siege at the nation’s largest temple, Wat Dhammakaya, after they were unable to capture its founding monk on money-laundering and other charges despite deploying hundreds of police and soldiers to hunt him down.

Reformer speaks

A former official of a Buddhism reform panel group said the arrests were a good start to ridding Buddhism of criminal elements.

“Senior monks involved with temple-fund fraud will surely impact people’s faith toward Buddhism. This is going to bring a huge change to Thailand’s religious composition,” said Paiboon Nititawan, a former member of National Reform Council’s panel on Buddhism reform.

“We should amend Sangha law to prevent monks from being involved with money and temple finances. An accountant should be able to examine temple accounts,” he said.

Donald Trump Cancels – OpEd

0
0

It was the sort of party you would be reluctant to turn up to, and its cancellation would have caused a sigh of relief. But when the US president replicates the feigned hurt of a host who has been impugned, the puzzlement deepens. Cantankerous and cranky, Trump’s letter announcing the cancellation of the Singapore meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un was another etching on what is becoming an increasingly scrawled tablet of unpredictable manoeuvres.

“Sadly, based on the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in your most recent statement, I feel it is inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting. Therefore, please let this letter serve to represent that the Singapore summit, for the good of both parties, but to the detriment of the world, will not take place.”

The letter shows traditional Trumpist dysfunction. The issue is not his doing, but that of his counterpart. He wants to be ascendant, and to that end, demands a degree of self-accepted inferiority on the part of his opponent.

Trump is incapable of misbehaving, and must duly exercise his transactional acumen in this to abandon an approach he deems unfitting. His opponent, however, might at any time change his mind. “If you change your mind having to do this most important summit, please do not hesitate to call me or write.”

Alan Bean, Apollo Moonwalker And Artist, Dies At 86

0
0

Apollo and Skylab astronaut Alan Bean, the fourth human to walk on the moon and an accomplished artist, has died.

Bean, 86, died on Saturday, May 26, at Houston Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas. His death followed his suddenly falling ill while on travel in Fort Wayne, Indiana two weeks before.

“Alan was the strongest and kindest man I ever knew. He was the love of my life and I miss him dearly,” said Leslie Bean, Alan Bean’s wife of 40 years. “A native Texan, Alan died peacefully in Houston surrounded by those who loved him.”

A test pilot in the U.S. Navy, Bean was one of 14 trainees selected by NASA for its third group of astronauts in October 1963. He flew twice into space, first as the lunar module pilot on Apollo 12, the second moon landing mission, in November 1969, and then as commander of the second crewed flight to the United States’ first space station, Skylab, in July 1973.

“Alan and I have been best friends for 55 years — ever since the day we became astronauts,” said Walt Cunningham, who flew on Apollo 7. “When I became head of the Skylab Branch of the Astronaut Office, we worked together and Alan eventually commanded the second Skylab mission.”

“We have never lived more than a couple of miles apart, even after we left NASA. And for years, Alan and I never missed a month where we did not have a cheeseburger together at Miller’s Café in Houston. We are accustomed to losing friends in our business but this is a tough one,” said Cunningham.

On Nov. 19, 1969, Bean, together with Apollo 12 commander Charles “Pete” Conrad, landed on the Ocean of Storms and became the fourth human to walk on the moon. During two moonwalks Bean helped deploy several surface experiments and installed the first nuclear-powered generator station on the moon to provide the power source. He and Conrad inspected a robotic Surveyor spacecraft and collected 75 pounds (34 kilograms) of rocks and lunar soil for study back on Earth.

“Alan and Pete were extremely engaged in the planning for their exploration of the Surveyor III landing site in the Ocean of Storms and, particularly, in the enhanced field training activity that came with the success of Apollo 11. This commitment paid off with Alan’s and Pete’s collection of a fantastic suite of lunar samples, a scientific gift that keeps on giving today and in the future,” said Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 lunar module pilot and the only geologist to walk on the moon. “Their description of bright green concentrations of olivine (peridot) as ‘ginger ale bottle glass,’ however, gave geologists in Mission Control all a big laugh, as we knew exactly what they had discovered.”

“When Alan’s third career as the artist of Apollo moved forward, he would call me to ask about some detail about lunar soil, color or equipment he wanted to have represented exactly in a painting. Other times, he wanted to discuss items in the description he was writing to go with a painting. His enthusiasm about space and art never waned. Alan Bean is one of the great renaissance men of his generation — engineer, fighter pilot, astronaut and artist,” said Schmitt.

Four years after Apollo 12, Bean commanded the second crew to live and work on board the Skylab orbital workshop. During the then-record-setting 59-day, 24.4 million-mile flight, Bean and his two crewmates generated 18 miles of computer tape during surveys of Earth’s resources and 76,000 photographs of the Sun to help scientists better understand its effects on the solar system.

In total, Bean logged 69 days, 15 hours and 45 minutes in space, including 31 hours and 31 minutes on the moon’s surface.

Bean retired from the Navy in 1975 and NASA in 1981. In the four decades since, he devoted his time to creating an artistic record of humanity’s first exploration of another world. His Apollo-themed paintings featured canvases textured with lunar boot prints and were made using acrylics embedded with small pieces of his moon dust-stained mission patches.

“Alan Bean was the most extraordinary person I ever met,” said astronaut Mike Massimino, who flew on two space shuttle missions to service the Hubble Space Telescope. “He was a one of a kind combination of technical achievement as an astronaut and artistic achievement as a painter.”

“But what was truly extraordinary was his deep caring for others and his willingness to inspire and teach by sharing his personal journey so openly. Anyone who had the opportunity to know Alan was a better person for it, and we were better astronauts by following his example. I am so grateful he was my mentor and friend, and I will miss him terribly. He was a great man and this is a great loss,” Massimino said.

Born March 15, 1932, in Wheeler, Texas, Bean received a Bachelor of Science degree in aeronautical engineering from the University of Texas in 1955. He attended the Navy Test Pilot School and accumulated more than 5,500 hours of flying time in 27 different types of aircraft.

He is survived by his wife Leslie, a sister Paula Stott, and two children from a prior marriage, a daughter Amy Sue and son Clay.

Russia Betrayed The Kurds In Syria – OpEd

0
0

On January 20, 2018, the Turkish Armed Forces launched “Operation Olive Branch” against the Kurdish forces in Afrin, an area controlled by Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), which is governed democratically by the Kurds in the region. The military campaign also includes Turkey-backed jihadist groups Free Syrian Army (FSA), who in the past have repeatedly launched attacks on Northern Syria from across the Turkish border. Turkey has never accepted Kurdish self-determination and encouraged first Al Nusra, then ISIS to attack Rojava in past too. It has been alleged that the major political force in Syrian Kurdistan – the Democratic Union Party (PYD) has maintained close ties to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which Turkey has branded a terrorist organization.

Nevertheless, the Turkish Armed Forces could not have started their operation without the consent of Russia because the Russian military controls the airspace over Afrin. For the first time on March 31, 2018, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s chief adviser Ilnur Cevik has confirmed that Russia allowed his country’s invasion of the Afrin region in Syrian Kurdistan. During an interview with CNN Turk, Ilnur Cevik stated that “If Russia did not open the airspace, we would not only not be able to enter Afrin and Al-Bab, we would not be able even to take off a drone.”i Russia which previously backed Syrian Kurdish administration as an important actor and encouraged them to participate in a various forum to end the conflict in Syria has now suddenly turned hostile to Syrian Kurds. This vacillation of Russian positions raised several questions on its policy towards Syrian Kurd and at the same time has also deteriorated its pleasant relations with the Kurdish-led administration in Afrin.

Since the onset of civil war in Syria, the Kurds have been playing a major role in battles against the Islamic State (IS) and other extremist groups. They have liberated vast territory in the north of the country and they have proclaimed Rojava to be a Kurdish autonomous region. The federalism declaration by Kurd is not intended to detach the north-eastern Kurdish region from Syria, but to bring a measure of self-rule in Syria. Since its involvement in the Syria civil war, Russia has indicated on several occasions that it favors an idea of giving the scope of autonomy to ethnic minorities, including Syrian Kurds. Russia has been consistently standing up for the interests of Syrian Kurds and tried to ensure that the Kurds have been represented at every international forum for resolving the Syrian issue, including in Geneva, and Astana Peace Processes. Further, Russia has allowed the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, as Syrian Kurdistan to open a representative office of Syrian Kurdistan in Moscow on February 10, 2016.

Moreover, during the course of Syrian civil war, both Russia, as well as Syrian Kurds, have diversified their strategy in the region to defeat their enemies. On the one hand, Russia has managed to win over Turkey, an ally of the West and second-largest NATO army in the region to its side through its regular involvement in Astana Peace Process. Hence, in order to serve its own interests, Russia is pitting Turkey against the United States. Russia apparently wanted to divide NATO from within. To certain extends, it has succeeded in excavating the contradictions that prevailed among NATO members. Therefore, in order to accommodate Turkey’s interests, Russia was compelled to put aside the interests of Kurds in Northern Syria.

On the other hand, Kurds have also aligned with the United States in order to defeat the Islamic State. This military cooperation with the United States deteriorated its relations with Assad Government and Russia. Furthermore, the Russian leadership alleged that the United States is using the Kurdish forces as a bargaining chip for the future to maintain its dominant position in the Middle East. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov told Sputnik in an interview on February 8, 2018, that “developments of the situation in Afrin, provoked by the actions of the United States among other things, can lead to even greater destabilization in this region.”ii Similarly, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also argued that the United States is moving to establish alternative institutions of state authority on a substantial part of Syrian territory.iii In order to punish the Syrian Kurds for their cooperation with the United States, Russia had allowed Turkey to launch the attacks on Afrin and blamed the United States for assault.

In such conditions, the leadership of PYD failed to understand the game plan of the United States in the region. The United States has never seriously fought against Islamic State in Syria whereas it is more concerned about its own interests in the region rather than Kurdish interests in Syria.  Whatever may be the reasons behind the alignment of PYD with the United States but it is not appropriate for Russia to give the green light for “Operation Olive Branch” in Afrin.

Nevertheless, the Kurds of Syria have been disappointed because their sacrifice in the field has been ignored not only by Assad Government but also by major powers including Russia. Despite the fact that Russia has expressed a genuine interest in Kurdish issues, so far it has failed to pursue Assad Government to accommodate the long-standing autonomy demands by Kurdish in the region. In contrast, Russia had compelled Kurds to hand over Afrin to Syrian President Assad in order to prevent the Turkish military offensive. In this regard, Russia has given up its earlier balanced approach between Kurds and the Assad government in Syria and forced Kurds to compromise with President Assad. However, the Afrin administration refused to obey the dictates of Russia.iv Consequently, when the proposal was refused, Russia withdrew from the region.  It appears that Russia had to abandon Syrian Kurd and “prioritized its alliance with Turkey and Iran.”v

Russia, like the Turkish state, is equally responsible for these bloodbaths in Afrin. In present circumstances, the friendly relationship between the Syrian Kurds and Russia has been shattered. People in Afrin feel that Russia has betrayed them by allowing Turkey to carry out attacks on Afrin in Syrian Kurdistan.

*Manabhanjan Meher, Research Assistant in Europe and Eurasia Centre, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi.


A Choice For North Korea: Live Prosperously Or Die Miserably – OpEd

0
0

On May 24, US President Trump pulled out the rug from under the North Korean leader in their planned summit in Singapore. As I pointed out earlier, the US-North Korea summit went under way on false understandings of denuclearization. North Korea was talking a different language on the methods and scope of denuclearization right from the start, and the summit was bound to collapse without finding any point of convergence.

In his role as the slimy broker, South Korea’s president Moon Jae-in must take full diplomatic and political responsibility for the mess. Moon sent his delegate to the White House in March and delivered to the American people a crafted message that was intended to hide North Korea’s true intentions in the denuclearization talk with the Trump administration.

The 1992 Inter-Korean Pact on Denuclearization

The US position is that North Korea cannot have nuclear weapons and must completely disable its nuclear and ballistic missile program. In 1992, North Korea’s founder, Kim Il Sung vowed it and signed an inter-Korean pact on complete denuclearization with South Korea’s then-president, Roh Tae-woo. Following the pact, the United States had all its nuclear weapons taken out from South Korea, and South Korea has never had a nuclear program of its own.

But in violation of that 1992 pact, the North Korean leader claimed in his January 2018 speech that North Korea had completed its nuclear program and possession of nukes was his country’s solemn right. Moreover, North Korean officials publicly refused abandonment of their nuclear program, talked instead about reduction of their stockpiles of nuclear weapons, and threatened to boycott the Trump-Kim summit.

That bellicose position is qualitatively different from the North Korean leader’s commitment to denuclearization, which the South Korean delegate conveyed to President Trump in March. The North Koreans changed their minds recently, as evident from their unrefined public rhetoric aired in recent weeks.

Obviously, China’s Xi Jinping made a secretive pledge to North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and gave him a boost in their latest, unexpectedly arranged summit. Also, two other major factors appear to have contributed.

A Frustrated Kim Jong Un

The US position on denuclearization of North Korea is firm. As President Trump’s new security advisor, John Bolton pointed out, North Korea’s possession of nukes is a breach of the 1992 pact on denuclearization. Bolton’s remark effectively spoiled the recent inter-Korean scheme to trash the 1992 pact and replace it with the new declaration signed at the Moon-Kim summit in April, ahead of the Trump-Kim summit. The plot is clear: the new inter-Korean pact will put Kim in a better position for negotiations at the Trump-Kim summit.

A bigger reason is that US Congress recently passed a Defense budget that included a clause on the size of American forces stationed in South Korea: Any reduction below 22,000 troops must be approved by Congress.

That’s a stunning defeat for North Korea and China. North Korea and China made a perennial demand for withdrawal of US troops from South Korea at the negotiating table. But this time, the North Korean leader dropped the demand. Why? Because Kim Jong Un’s Communist friends in South Korea’s presidential Blue House will take the job on his behalf and push US armed forces out of the peninsula. Truth is, the two Koreas and China have now formed alliance. But their plot was shattered by the swift act of US Congress. The North Koreans then started barking.

North Korea: A Deceitful and Aggressive Country

North Korea took the wrong step of improperly closing their nuclear facility in Mt. Mantap by detonating the entrance to the underground tunnels where nuclear stockpiles are supposedly kept. Before detonation, North Korea however refused US scientists and experts, from the International Atomic Energy Agency, for inspection of their nuclear site, which was just a flawed procedure in North Korea’s denuclearization pledge made to the United States. Only journalists were allowed this time to watch the detonation from afar, and nothing was verifiable.

North Korea has built webs of underground tunnels all over its territory. Even if the nuclear test site was disabled by explosion in what was supposed to be a public show-off, few doubt there may be secret underground access to the facility. Experts also suspect the nuclear test site was partially collapsed and became unusable, due to the last six test blasts, and closing it would cost North Korea very little. The point is, North Korea closed its nuclear site in an unverifiable and extremely hasty manner, which is of paramount importance since it showed the true intentions of North Korea’s denuking overtures. By disabling the underground nuclear site, the regime was also able to conceal other details of their illicit activity done for decades.

Such unilateral action, however, only invites a military response from the United States and its allies, since it reveals Kim’s sick mind and juvenile skills in diplomacy. The world should not approach North Korea on international standards, for this insane regime does not understand the meaning of diplomacy. North Korea only knows aggression and deception, and that’s how they managed themselves for 70 years. How North Korean diplomats behave publicly at UN meetings is telling us enough. How the fate of innocent tourists, such as Otto Warmbier, ended up in the inhumane hands of the regime is telling us enough.

North Korea’s Choice

Where can North Korea go from here? The only choice North Korea now has is (a) to surrender unconditionally and accept thorough inspection, or (b) to war with the United States.

President Trump said many times that a path to prosperity would lie ahead if North Korea gives up its nuclear capabilities. His suggestion to North Korea should be read as an ultimatum: Kim will be allowed to run his country with help and protection from the United States, should North Korea abandon weapons of mass destruction and close prison camps; or Kim will be removed by force and the North Korean elite will be prosecuted at the International Criminal Court, if Kim refuses to back down and threatens the United States with his nuclear toys.

For either choice, however, the outcome is identical: The country we have known as DPRK, under the Kim family’s most brutal dictatorship, will finally disappear from the map. It is a question of when, not if. Waging war with the United States means ultra-devastation to North Korea and rebuilding the country from war debris and ash will take long. But the path for the country’s future remains the same in the end: Ordinary North Koreans deserve freedoms of speech, press, religion, as well as a new government that lets them live freely and as equal peers under law. That is President Trump’s resolve clear from his November 2017 speech at South Korea’s National Assembly.

In his May 24 speech at the White House, President Trump alluded to an impending war with North Korea as the last resort. He said the U.S. military is “ready if necessary” and South Korea and Japan “are not only ready should foolish or reckless acts be taken by North Korea, but they are willing to shoulder much of the financial cost or a burden” of a conflict. It is a sharp warning to the people of South Korea and Japan that freedom has a price to pay for.

*Max S. Kim
received his PhD in cognitive science from Brandeis University and taught at the University of Washington and the State University of New York at Albany. Besides his own field of profession, he occasionally writes on regional affairs of the East Asia, including the two Koreas.

Atheists In Muslim Majority Countries Between Inclusion And Exclusion – OpEd

0
0

Authoritarian regimes and religious institutions in the Muslim majority world see eye-to-eye on the topic of atheism. United by their fear of losing control over their populations and their desire for conformity, consecutive governments have pushed for unfair restrictions on their subjects’ beliefs since their inception. But even in society, non-belief remains a taboo. Should atheists in Muslim majority world become more vocal?

With the increasing number of persecution and punishment cases as well as discrimination campaigns against atheists in Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East and North Africa, another question arises as to whether Islam establishes discriminatory demarcations to atheism or there are other factors that play a crucial role.

Since March 2018, the Parliamentary Committee on Religion in Egypt has been preparing a bill to criminalise atheism in Egypt. This move is one of many Egypt has recently undertaken to combat atheism. The proposed law consists of four articles. The first article defines Egyptian state’s understanding of atheism; the second criminalises atheism and imposes severe punishments upon atheists; the third stipulates that the penalties are lifted when a person abandons his/her atheistic beliefs, and the fourth is that the penalties for atheism prescribed by law should be “very strict”.

As If There Is One Islam

It is not inaccurate to say that there is no one version of Islam that we can speak of. There are different, and sometimes competing and conflicting interpretations of Islam. Therefore, to be speaking of Islam’s tolerance or intolerance of atheism and other religions is more likely to be futile. It is futile because there is no unified definition of Islam that applies to the beliefs of the majority of those who describe themselves as Muslims. Thus, a representative version that encompasses all Muslims is simply a myth.

Thus, a phrase such as “in my version of Islam” is very common in Muslims’ narratives. In this sense, there are Muslims, who tolerate freedom of religion and even protect it, while others trample such freedom under their feet.

In fact, there are several contradicting verses on atheists and nonbelievers in the Quran. There are verses in the Quran such as “there is no compulsion in religion,” which emphasizes the freedom of choice. However, there are other verses in the Quran that argue otherwise such as “fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and his messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians).”

While Islam itself does not speak, its scriptures provide precepts for social inclusion and exclusion. It is the task of Muslims to organize and communicate the scriptures in order to bring them to life in a pluralistic society.

Regimes Thrive for Conformity

Anti-atheism is more likely to find roots in Muslim and Christian teachings and traditions of the countries of the Middle East and North Africa. However, the alliances between political elites and religious elites in authoritarian states are particularly important because they enforce a religious, social and political conformity within the territories they govern. These three levels of conformity eventually enforce exclusionary social norms towards atheists.

The negative connotation of the word “atheism” has not been invented by the dictators. The word atheism has been used by secular dictators to remain in power and simultaneously eliminate political opponents. In other words, the word “atheism” had already been a buzzword. The dictators such as Nasser and Sadat in Egypt or Assad in Syria associated the word “atheism” with specific political actors such as the communists in order to exclude them from political participation. Nevertheless, the anti-atheist campaigns in Muslim-majority countries are not only motivated by politics, but also by the conservative religious elites who have come to consensus with dictatorships in the region since the 1950s.

The anti-atheist campaigns have not arisen because of, but in spite of authoritarian dictators. The secular dictators have allowed “anti-atheist campaigns” in order to remain credible to their internal allies – the conservative religious elites. In this sense, it is about wielding power, especially that a political actor is automatically excluded from political participation as soon as it is associated with atheism.

Through dictatorial practices and statements, discrimination against atheists has become commonplace not only in religious discourse, which seeks to legitimize political despotism, but also in media discourses throughout the region. In these discourses atheism remains a taboo subject that is often considered inappropriate or harmful for the society.

In 2014, Al-Azhar’s Grand Iman Ahmed El Tayeb condemned atheism as a disease spreading among young people. He said, “Atheism is the deviation from the right to falsehood, from sanity to insanity and from integrity to deception and from religions to heresy, infidelity and materialism”.

Atheism in Modern Islamic Narratives

The modern Islamic interpretations, regardless of what they might be, are mediated by state religious institutions and Islamic clerics. These interpretations focus more on conservative traditions in an authoritarian political landscape, in which socio-political exclusion is commonplace. That means the delineation of Islamic interpretations towards atheists is primarily a product of conservative traditions and a power alliance between authoritarian regimes and religious institutions. Both parties of this power alliance prefer conformity to diversity.

The Islamic narratives against atheists in authoritarian states can be divided into three main streams. Although these three streams are increasingly competing, they are consistent on the subject of unbelievers.

The first narrative is disseminated by state-affiliated religious institutions. These narratives focus on the elimination of any rivalry to state power, such as the elimination of leftist or communist parties that have been labelled as atheist since the independence of these countries from colonialism in the 1940s and 1950s.

The second is the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, also known as Salafism, which attempts to uphold and preserve ultra conservative traditions. This narrative constitutes the ultra conservative social code of conduct, especially in relation to their own communities and families.

The third one is the Islamist interpretation, which is the politicization of Islam. This narrative constitutes the desire to impose a specific Islamic interpretation on the entire society. The followers of the Islamist interpretation are in most cases active in political opposition, especially in countries such as Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Algeria and Morocco.

In recent decades, state-affiliated religious institutions in authoritarian predominantly Muslim countries have managed to take legal action against atheists. Laws against blasphemy (insulting a deity or something holy) and apostasy (voluntary and public renouncement of Islam) are common in these countries. Although the concept of apostasy has come from the Christian tradition, especially the Roman Catholic Church, it is now being used more often under Islam.

“If there were no apostasy laws in Islam [i.e. no laws that mandate death if someone had left religion], Islam would not exist today”, said Yousef Al-Qaradawi, a very well known Egyptian Islamist preacher in 2013. This is an extraordinary statement by a Muslim cleric that brings to the forefront how atheism is perceived as a threat in modern Islamic interpretations.

As far as blasphemy laws are concerned, not only are atheists in the spotlight, but also Muslims yearning for a change outside the framework of the permitted religious, social and political conformity of the authoritarian state.

According to a 2014 Pew Research Centre report, laws restricting apostasy and blasphemy are most common in the Middle East and North Africa, where 18 of the region’s 20 countries (90%) criminalise blasphemy and 14 (70%) of these countries criminalise apostasy. The legal punishments for such transgressions vary from fines to death. Indeed, in ultra conservative countries such as Saudi Arabia, atheists are legally considered terrorists.

In most of these countries, it is legally permissible to only choose one of the monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam. If we turn this statement the other way round, it is safe to say that not all those registered as Muslims are actually Muslims.

Different Atheists

Atheism remains a taboo subject, often unspoken of or regarded as something harmful to Muslim dominated societies. Intolerance towards disbelief is a common denominator among the three monotheistic religions. Nevertheless, atheism remains outstandingly a taboo in non-democratic Muslim majority countries. While Islam is strongly predicated on the sovereignty of God, atheism becomes one of the most abhorred taboos amongst many Muslims. In other words, there is a stigma against atheists among Muslims in general. This stigma reaches its peak when an atheist was born to a Muslim family i.e. an atheist who happened to be an ex-Muslim as well.

By and large, there are two categories of atheists in the modern Islamic narratives: The first category is atheists born to non-Muslim parents and the second one is atheists born to Muslim parents. While Islamic interpretations do not primarily focus on the first category, they obsessively do on the second. The reason is that those who break off of their religion are then perceived as a threat and a direct attack against what can be termed the Muslim identity, let alone the literalist apostasy laws against ex-Muslims.

Lack of a Counter-Narrative

Understandably, the words “atheist” and “ex-Muslim” are not synonymous to the term “liberal democrat”. There is still a lack of a balanced communication strategy of ex-Muslim atheists to construct their counter-narratives.

Indeed, there is a more non-liberal narrative against Muslims amongst atheists on social media outlets that qualifies to be described as radical. For instance, after the Arab uprisings in 2011 when atheist voices started spreading all over the social media to openly declare their atheism, radical atheists, or what someone might call radical ex-Muslims, have become increasingly vocal as well. Many of these social media atheists have turned to discriminatory polemics to offend Muslims.

This trend, which is, based on my observations, a by-product of a bitter reaction to feelings of being deceived due to previous religious indoctrination, has led to a further demonisation of atheists on two levels.

First, according to the three narratives explained above, there are radical atheists, who have increasingly embraced a toxic form of anti-Muslim bigotry masquerading as rational atheism. This offers a proof for fundamentalists that atheism is indeed extremism, which makes atheists susceptible to socially justified exclusion.

Second, according to the three narratives explained above, atheism is absolutely forbidden in Islam, which makes atheists susceptible to a religiously justified oppression and persecution. Although it remains debatable amongst Muslims whether these practices of social exclusion of atheists find a solid foundation in the Islamic religion.

Are China-US Relations Entering Dangerous New Phase In South China Sea? – OpEd

0
0

Most analysts agree that China and the U.S. are locked in a seminal long-term struggle for dominance in Asia. With the military of both sides engaging in nearly simultaneous shows of force in the South China Sea and sensationalist headlines blaring alarm around the world a casual observer could be forgiven for thinking the “strategic competitors” are on the verge of war. http://www.news.com.au/military/beijing-launches-enormous-south-china-sea-livefire-exercise-as-three-us-carrier-battle-groups-pass-by/news-story/bb837b51545c2370283257d415046b92; http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/2141169/us-aircraft-carrier-sails-disputed-south-china-sea-display-military-might

This is not so – not yet anyway.  But a new and more dangerous phase in their troubled relationship may be beginning and one window on this evolving dynamic is their behavior in the South China Sea.

Now that US President Donald J. Trump’s administration has declared China “a strategic competitor” https://www.ft.com/content/215cf8fa-e3cb-11e7-8b99-0191e45377ec and China President Xi Jinping has assumed total long term power and is promoting a more nationalist Communist agenda, the two powers are increasingly likely to come face to face politically and militarily  in the South China Sea or at other ‘hot spots’ in the region.  China scholar and government advisor Shi Yinhong has postulated four scenarios for the future of China-US relations.  “First, China undertakes a historic contraction, thus averting a clash.  Second, the U.S. and China gain equal power in the Pacific, and Washington recognizes Beijing’s strategic advantage in the western area.  Third, the two sides enter a cold war or quasi cold war.  Fourth, they engage in direct confrontation.” http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2069520/trump-era-we-cant-rule-out-war-between-china-and-us-whether

The situation seems to be entering Shi’s third scenario –in which the two competitors “enter a cold war or quasi-cold war” –and could well– in the South China Sea (or in the even more fraught East China Sea or Taiwan issues), –proceed to the fourth—”direct confrontation”.  While the U.S. and China seem to have reached an uneasy and unsteady status quo in the South China Sea https://ippreview.com/index.php/Blog/single/id/688.html some see this as a proverbial calm before the storm.

The situation seems to be entering Shi’s third scenario –in which they “enter a cold war or quasi-cold war” –and could well in the South China Sea (or in the even more fraught East China Sea or Taiwan issues), and proceed to the fourth—”direct confrontation”.  While the U.S. and China seem to have reached an uneasy and unsteady status quo in the South China Sea https://ippreview.com/index.php/Blog/single/id/688.html some see this as a proverbial calm before the storm.

For many years the two have shadow boxed in, over and under that Sea.  Despite numerous US warnings, China has continued its construction and “militarization” of disputed features and apparently maintains and even, occasionally enforces its historic claim to a large part of the Sea, its features and resources.  China has been altering the status quo in steps just small enough to avoid provoking a military response from the U.S.  It has deftly used coast guard vessels, lawfare, and economic coercion to advance and back up its claims vis a vis other claimants including US ally, the Philippines.  According to Kurt Campbell and Ely Ratner, former senior Asian officials responsible for Asia policy in the Obama administration, “Washington is at risk of adopting an approach (to Asia) that is confrontational without being competitive.  Beijing, meanwhile, has managed to be increasingly competitive without being confrontational.”

http://www.chinafile.com/conversation/american-policy-toward-china-due-reckoning

This –and the status quo –may be about to undergo more rapid change—for the worse. China has now installed missile systems with ‘offensive’ reach on three of its occupied features and the White House has declared that there would be “near-term and long-term consequences”  for doing so. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/05/03/white-house-says-china-faces-consequences-for-militarization-of-south-china-sea.html; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-missiles-usa/white-house-says-will-be-consequences-for-china-militarizing-south-china-sea-idUSKBN1I42FY?il=0

However, one can debate what constitutes offensive and defensive weapons or military posture. For example, are US ‘forward deployed forces’ in Asia and the South China Sea, its FONOPs, and its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance probes all purely ‘defensive’?  Or do some have ‘offensive reach”—or can they be interpreted as having such by objective observers?

Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to push the limits of China’s tolerance with Freedom of Navigation Operations that publicly challenge China’s “illegitimate” maritime claims.  Moreover, despite China’s strong objections, it continues its ISR probes over, in and under China’s near shore waters. Such probes and China’s kinetic responses thereto have resulted in a series of international incidents beginning with one involving an EP-3 (2001), and followed by those involving the  Bowditch (2001), the Impeccable (2009), the Cowpens (2013) and Poseiden 8 (20014). Continuing these probes –or at least the particular actions China strenuously objects to –invites miscalculations and accidents.

The two have very different political narratives.  According to Chris Buckley, writing in the New York Times, Xi has encouraged a rejection of Western influence and implicitly of Western models.  According to Xi thought, ‘many aspects of China’s modernization process must have Chinese characteristics and the Chinese Communist Party must provide guidance on every aspect of human behavior’.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/world/asia/xi-jinping-thought-explained-a-new-ideology-for-a-new-era.html; https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/world/asia/china-xi-jinping-helmsman-congress.html

This is of course anathema to those who strongly believe in the superiority of Western values like the United States, especially under American hype-nationalist US President Donald J. Trump.  The Trump administration, with new National Security Advisor John Bolton, is likely to strengthen its military ties with Taiwan back Japan’s new muscular posture in the East China Sea, and be more aggressive militarily in the South China Sea. With a looming economic ‘war’ further tightening tension doing so may cross a red line for China.

There are many scenarios that could beckon the apocalyptic red horse of war. According to David C. Gompert former Deputy Director of the CIA, “Tensions exist between the United States and China on a number of issues,”_ _ “and a crisis could occur and involve incidents or miscalculations that lead to hostilities.  For example, China could try to intimidate its neighbors below the threshold of U.S. intervention and misjudge where that threshold is, or underestimate U.S. willingness to back Japan militarily in a crisis over disputed territory in the East China Sea.”  https://www.wearethemighty.com/china-us-war-what-happens.  I would add to these worst scenarios a miscalculated confrontation in the South China Sea.

On 6 April, news.Com.au reported that “forty Chinese warships and three American aircraft carrier battle groups converge[d] in the South China Seas as dangerous tensions between the super powers simmer.” The nearly simultaneous timing of these displays of force may have been completely coincidental but their messages were clear.  Both have the intent and capability to use force if necessary to protect their interests in the South China Sea.

These exercises were followed by Chinese naval live-fire exercises close to China’s coast opposite Taiwan and a foray of Chinese bombers east of Taiwan that theoretically could have threatened Guam.  In what Taiwan has described as military intimidation, a Chinese air force sortie circumnavigated Taiwan. In what some say was a clear response, two US B-52H Stratofortress bombers flew over the Bashi Channel and within cruise missile striking distance of China.  The B-52s are deployed to Guam are part of a ‘continuous bomber presence mission’ meant to reassure allies and display strength against potential adversaries– like China.

Both China and the U.S. have clearly stepped up their planning and exercises focused on potential military conflict in the Western Pacific. The US military has announced it will continue its contingency planning for a conflict with China. Admiral Philip Davidson, Trump’s nominee to be the new US Pacific Forces Commander testified to Congress that he will “maintain a robust blunt layer that effectively deters Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific.”  To him, the Chinese military buildup is a “threat to US forces and bases (that is) substantial and growing.”  http://www.atimes.com/article/us-admiral-outlines-new-military-buildup-to-counter-china/ The enhanced US militarily posture in the Western Pacific is likely to include more submarines and warships as well as another aircraft carrier strike group and advanced warplanes and drones.  Davidson would also like to have “hypersonic and directed energy weapons [and] resilient space, cyber and network capabilities _ _.”  His policy and wish list reflect President Trump and Defense Secretary James Mattis’ desire to make confronting Chinese aggressiveness a strategic priority.

Meanwhile China’s burgeoning military modernization continues. China is no match for the U.S. militarily on a global scale. Nevertheless it is making rapid progress particularly in military technology and already would pose a formidable challenge in a conflict in its near shore waters especially in the South China Sea.

The stage does seem to be set for a US-China confrontation in the South China Sea. Hopefully wise minds on both sides will recognize the disaster this would be for both—and for Asia—and will be able to find compromises for their differences.

*Mark J. Valencia, Adjunct Senior Scholar, National Institute for South China Sea Studies, Haikou, China.

This piece first appeared in the IPP Review.

Electoral Tsunami For Malaysia – Analysis

0
0

Malaysians recover from the election shock, ending UMNO’s 60 years of power, and prepare for tougher job: ending corruption.

By Philip Bowring*

An electoral tsunami swept away Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, ending 60 years of rule by the United Malays National Organization, UMNO. The outcome was welcomed at home as well as abroad – viewed as a democratic system asserting itself against corruption and erosion of the rule of law and perhaps presaging the decline of race-based politics.

Enthusiasm, though, is tempered by questions about the new ruling government – a disparate four-party coalition headed by 92-year former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, a former physician with a limited record of compromise. Will the coalition hold? Will it attack corruption generally or focus on the ousted government? Will economic policies be populist or pragmatic? Will racial and religious harmony improve? Will foreign policy, particularly towards China, change?

The tsunami resulted from a mixture of factors including Mahathir’s personal appeal, economic grievances straddling all races, comprising Malay, Chinese, Indian and others; a desire for more inclusive politics particularly among urban Malays, as well as resentment against greed and arrogance of UMNO leadership. Any of these elements could guide the future. Race and religion-based politics remains alive, indeed represented by Mahathir himself as creator of the Malay Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia, a breakaway from the UMNO he led for two decades. Although his party has only 12 of the coalition’s 113 seats, Mahathir’s personality dominates for now.

The coalition’s cohesion and durability will be determined in large part by relations between Mahathir and his former deputy Anwar Ibrahim. The party Anwar founded,Parti Keadilan Rakyat, PKR, won the largest number of coalition seats and is currently led by his wife. The king pardoned Anwar, who was released May 16 from jail after being found guilty of dubious sodomy charges. Anwar will not return directly to politics in the short term, stating he is content for Mahathir to lead so long as the government prioritizes reform issues including corruption and the administration of justice.

Mahathir has promised to pass leadership to Anwar within two years – a long time in Malaysia’s now volatile politics – and Anwar and his team may try to bring their policies to bear soon. In principle, the PKR should be able to work with the second largest party, the predominantly Chinese Democratic Action Party. But PKR must also protect its position among the Malays, be they nationalists like Mahathir or Islamists like Amanah, the coalition’s fourth member, as well as a potential UMNO revival. PKR may have to contend with policies favoring majority Malays who are overwhelmingly Muslim while non-Malay expectations of a shift away from racial preferences must also be met. Growing social and educational divides and religious intolerance require reversal.

Urban shift: The proportion of Malaysia's urban population increased from 34.2 percent in 1980 to 71 percent in 2010 (Source: Department of Statistics Malaysia; photo of commuters in Kuala Lumpur, Reuters)
Urban shift: The proportion of Malaysia’s urban population increased from 34.2 percent in 1980 to 71 percent in 2010 (Source: Department of Statistics Malaysia; photo of commuters in Kuala Lumpur, Reuters)

The racial question relates directly to an economy held back by an exodus of capital and talent caused by preferences. In turn, government spending financed by borrowing has boosted economic growth. The pattern could continue, at least in the short term, as the government has already fulfilled a promise to abolish the unpopular goods and services tax introduced by Najib. Addressing this problem now falls to leader of the Democratic Action Party, DAP, Lim Guan Eng, the first Chinese chosen to be finance minister since the 1970s – though he must first face corruption charges brought by the ousted government. As a successful chief minister of Penang state, Lim is well regarded by the business community as a reassuring figure for those with memories of crony capitalism during the Mahathir era. He must also fend off pressures for more spending and replace lost revenues.

Current high oil prices will help, and so may new scrutiny of huge infrastructure projects including rail and port projects financed by massive Chinese loans, part of the Belt and Road program. Critics accused Najib of kowtowing to China, which had helped bail out 1MDB, the multibillion-dollar scandal-ridden state investment company, by buying some assets at generous prices. 1MDB – under investigation by authorities in Singapore, the United States and Switzerland – may now be subject to scrutiny in Malaysia.

Infrastructure projects provide fat contracts for some local firms. Others complain that China’s state companies get the bulk of benefits and import Chinese workers. While the money is welcome, some Malays express concern about an influx of migrants. More generally, Malaysia wonders whether, as a capital surplus country, it should rely on foreign money for projects like housing for which foreign technology is not needed.

Malaysian Chinese also have mixed feelings about China’s rise and Belt and Road projects – the economic spur offers a potential antidote to “bumiputra” policy of preference given to ethnic Malays, but the display of wealth and power stirs Malay resentment. The new government will likely continue welcoming Chinese money while being more discriminating. Some China-backed projects could fall foul of anti-corruption investigations.

Suspicions of China are unlikely to have much impact on foreign policy. Although Malaysia’s maritime area comes well within China’s claims in the South China Sea, the government has kept a low profile. China, while taking military action against Vietnam and the Philippines, has left Malaysia alone. This is unlikely to change, at least so long as the Philippines remains supine in the face of Chinese encroachment, and the Trump administration continues to undermine regional confidence in the United States. Likewise, no new direction in defense policy is expected in the near term. Defense Minister Mohammad Sabu, leader of the Islamist Amanah party and not known for prior interest in the topic, will likely focus initially on uncovering arms-deal kickbacks. Modernization of the navy may get more attention, but budget pressures will constrain big-ticket purchases.

Waters subject to Chinese claims are off the east Malaysian states, Sabah and Sarawak, neither predominantly Malay nor, in the case of Sarawak, Muslim. The election showed a sharp rise in the appeal of parties demanding more local autonomy and a fair share of state resources. Once in the UMNO pocket, they may flex their muscles.

Malaysia’s neighbors have varying perspectives. Singapore had good relations with Najib and is wary of Mahathir, but was well aware of corruption’s threat for Malaysia. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will be the first foreign leader to meet Mahathir as prime minister. Singapore may worry about the new government’s stability, but hopes for a more balanced ethnic composition. Lee may also hurry to choose his successor, scheduling an election before rebellious “me too” ideas penetrate his electorate.

Thailand’s ruling generals may see Malaysia as reason to delay long-promised elections. Mass discontent can overwhelm even the stoutest constitutional barriers to free and fair democracy. Alternatively they may assume that an early election could cement their power before the opposition gains momentum. Hopes for a return to the rule of law and judicial independence in Malaysia was well received in the Philippines by critics of President Rodrigo Duterte.

Indonesia’s President Widodo, facing an election in 2019, may feel most comforted. His personal popularity could yet be overwhelmed by big-money backed opponents mobilizing Islamic and anti-Chinese sentiment. Malaysia has shown that such tactics may not work and that anti-corruption efforts win votes.

UMNO’s fall is the biggest event in Malaysia’s political history since the 1969 racial riots or the 1965 separation of Singapore from the Federation – and may lead to fundamental changes in the structure of politics, a revival of state institutions or reshuffling of the party pack. Much depends on harmony between Mahathir and Anwar, which in turn hinges on whether Mahathir acknowledges that seeds of corruption and abuse of the judicial system were sowed during his previous premiership. The new coalition’s name, Pakatan Harapan – Alliance of Hope – sums up popular expectations that the tsunami sweeps away not just UMNO leadership but systemic sleaze.

*Philip Bowring is a journalist who has been based in Asia since 1973. He lives in Hong Kong, dividing his time between writing columns, books and helping develop Asia Sentinel, a news and analysis website.

Will Targeted Ads Survive Our New Era Of Data Transparency?

0
0

Now that Europe’s sweeping General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect starting May 25, 2018, we seem to be entering a new era of data transparency and responsibility. For Europe, at least, the onus has been shifted onto the companies collecting data to prove they need it and to dispose of it when they don’t. And elsewhere, big online players — e.g., Google and Facebook, especially after its Cambridge Analytica debacle — are clearly making moves to be increasingly transparent and expand consumers’ control over their own data.

Amid some companies’ nervousness (near panic) about GDPR implications and data-scandal backlash, a timely study by Tami Kim, Kate Barasz and Leslie K. John Kate reveals that increased transparency about data usage in online advertising can actually increase ads’ effectiveness — under the right conditions. When customers understand the benefits of data collection for a personalized experience online, increased transparency is positive. But “the scales tip in the opposite direction when transparency reveals unacceptable practices,” Barasz summarizes.

Why Do You Think I Would Want to Lose Weight?

Have you ever seen ads online that make you wonder what the provider knows about you and how? Sometimes the answer to that question will make you feel better about the platform serving it up — and sometimes it will make you feel worse.

Via a series of controlled experiments around online ads, the co-authors of the paper, titled “Why Am I Seeing This Ad? The Effect of Ad Transparency on Ad Effectiveness,” find that striking the right balance between consumers’ privacy and ad targeting, and using their data judiciously, are the keys to keeping consumers happy and engaged — and more likely to buy the product advertised. When done right, ad targeting should increase the relevance of the product or service to the consumers targeted, which is why the practice can be beneficial for both sellers and buyers in the marketplace.

Yet, naturally enough, being transparent re: ad-targeting practices scares consumers away when that transparency reveals something unsavory.

More specifically, the co-authors find that when third-party sharing occurs (i.e., when information is gathered outside a website on which a personalized ad appears), consumers tend to care more about their privacy and are less appreciative of being targeted. Consumers also react negatively when it is revealed that their information has been deduced or inferred from analytics. As the study mentions, there was a headline-grabbing example when U.S. retailer Target Inc. correctly inferred that a teenage customer was pregnant, based on her purchasing history of unscented lotion and other seemingly innocuous pharmacy supplies. The retailer then served up pregnancy-related coupons to her family’s computer before she had a chance to tell her parents about her condition. This is just the kind of inference that backfires for advertising. Online marketers, take note.

On the flip side, when consumers are told why they are seeing a certain ad on Facebook, for example, and their data is gathered in an acceptable manner (e.g., provided directly), these consumers express higher interest in purchasing a product and engaging with the advertiser. Even if it’s a weight-loss product. Trust is important, and transparency helps reinforce trust.

Methodology, Very Briefly

In two field experiments, the co-authors partnered with a company which runs redemption websites for loyalty programs to track actual behavior — with and without transparent claims about why customers were seeing a certain ad. In four other experiments, hundreds of participants, recruited via Amazon’s mTurk, answered questions about online advertising in various conditions in order to better understand what causes consumers to object to targeting and how marketers can use personalization while respecting people’s privacy.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images