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

World Cup To Allow Foreigners To Form Their Own Unbiased Opinion Of Russia – OpEd

0
0

The first football championship in Russia will be held from June 14 to July 15 in 11 cities of the country: Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kaliningrad, Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara, Saransk, Yekaterinburg, Volgograd, Rostov-on-Don and Sochi.

As expected, the solemn opening ceremony of the World Cup will be held at the Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow, after which the competitions will start with the match between the teams of Russia and Saudi Arabia.

By now, all 12 sports facilities for the World Cup matches are fully prepared to welcome players and fans. Earlier, the stadiums were visited by the commission of the International Football Federation (FIFA) who remained satisfied with them. In addition, all infrastructure facilities, including hotels and airports, are also prepared for the main sporting event of the planet.

The first foreign fans have already begun arriving in Russia. On the last day of the spring, citizens of Peru flew to Ekaterinburg on a transit flight from Prague. They plan to get to the opening of the championship in Moscow, then visit a few games in other cities of the country, and on June 21 return to Ekaterinburg to watch the game of the teams of Peru and France.

Last Friday, May 25, taking part in the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), Russian President Vladimir Putin assured that Russia will make every effort to make the World Cup “a real celebration for everyone who loves sport” and “ensure that fans, experts and players all feel at home in Russia.”

Answering the question of the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg John Micklethwait, who was a moderator of the meeting, about who will win the upcoming tournament, the head of state said that “the winners will be the organizers, those who organize this wonderful event at the proper level for the entire international community, for all lovers of this great international game.”

“In any case, this is how we see our mission. As for the teams, may the best one win, as they say,” Vladimir Putin stressed.

Commenting on preparations for the upcoming World Cup in Russia, Lisa Delpy Neirotti, Associate Professor and Director, Sports Management Programs & MTA, at George Washington University, School of Business, said that she did not doubt the successful organization of a major international event.

“Based on my experiences with previous events in Russia, including the Olympic Games in Sochi in 2014, I know the Russians are capable event hosts and the World Cup will be well organized, safe, and enjoyable,” she told PenzaNews.

According to her, the obvious advantage of the World Cup lies in the tourist flows that will pour into the provincial cities of Russia.

“I think the exposure of more people to less traveled regions of Russia other than St. Petersburg and Moscow will be beneficial. As long as the smaller cities are very welcoming and there are things to do and see – other than the football matches – in each of the cities, I believe the social media posts of spectators and media from around the world will increase interest and excitement about Russia and its people,” Lisa Delpy Neirotti explained.

In her opinion, special attention during such events should be given to logistics and additional information on organizational aspects.

“World Cup tourists like to enjoy their time with other football fans in local restaurants and bars or fan fest areas watching matches that they are not attending. Helping tourists find these gathering spots is important. […]Also it is necessary to help foreign media find the interesting local stories about food and culture. I was pleased to learn of the free ‘city tours’ being offered by some local groups in Moscow,” the expert said, adding that she will be taking advantage of this.

She also positively assessed the number of initiatives taken by the organizers of the championship, which are aimed at creating comfortable conditions for the fans.

“The offer of free train rides from one city to another was very smart and a great idea to encourage fans to travel to lesser known host cities as well as have people explore the country more. It is important that the service and reliability on these trains be at a high level so spectator tourists who took advantage of this are not disappointed. Having the Fan ID card serve as a visa was also a good idea, especially in countries like US where the visa is very expensive,” the analyst said.

In addition, she drew attention to the fact that a great responsibility lies with those who work in hotels, restaurants, as tour guides, and World Cup volunteers. The impression foreigners will get about the country and the people living in it will depend on the communication with these people, she said.

“I know a number of tourists who will be staying in Airbnb properties so more people will experience the life of a Russian by staying in their homes,” Lisa Delpy Neirotti added.

Kirstin Hallmann from German Sport University Cologne, Institute of Sport Economics and Sport Management, expressed confidence that the World Cup Russia will be an exceptional tournament with high service quality due to the outstanding hospitality of Russian people.

“The volunteers have been trained in various training centers throughout the country and should therefore be ready to welcome the world to Russia. The organizers had to follow a strict protocol from FIFA with regards to organizational standards so therefore, the standards will be high,” the expert said, adding that this thesis is confirmed by several large and even more significant events that were successfully held in Russia earlier.

The World Cup for the first time will be held on the territory of two parts of the world – Europe and Asia, which can contribute to the tourism development. However, according to her, this effect is usually rather small. It is more important that the stadia will be also frequently used after the tournament, she said.

Speaking about Russia’s image in the eyes of foreigners in connection with the World Cup, Kirstin Hallmann said that it will consist “of attributes relating to emotions and to factual knowledge.”

“Both are important. That means that it is important that positive emotions are aroused via the tournament and that knowledge of fans being in Russia and potential tourists watching the event in their home countries is enlarged, but also that no major issues like scandals happen. The positive image of the sport football should be in the focus to use this for a positive image transfer. Visuals and videos are strong when it comes to show-casing emotions; they can be a good source as footage during the tournament to provide a positive image about Russia,” Kirstin Hallmann said.

In turn, Christopher Gaffney, Clinical Associate Professor, New York University, drew attention to the fact that at every World Cup “people are glued to the television screen, watching players perform on immaculate grass with global advertisers surrounding them” and there is usually little or no introduction to the cities in which the games are being held or other more reflective coverage.

“I imagine that we will see the same shots of beautiful people in the stands with the occasional shot of an oligarch from FIFA or the Putin government,” the expert said.

However, according to him, the organization will likely meet the high standards because “the full weight of the Russian state and global capitalism is behind this.”

“But there will not likely be any benefit to Russia in terms of sports development and tourism. There is no evidence to suggest that hosting sports mega-events improves either,” Christopher Gaffney said.

Moreover, in his opinion, the World Cup won’t have any serious impact on the prestige of the country.

“It will reinforce Putin’s ‘Great Nation’ narrative that will serve him very well with the Russian people, but how much more prestige is really available to Russia in the international context? If Russian’s had a better quality of life, that would increase prestige, but blowing hundreds of billions of rubles on hosting the global elite is not a way to increase international prestige – it is a way to consolidate political capital,” the analyst explained his point view calling the World Cup “a publicly funded party for the global elite.”

Speaking about the upcoming tournament with the participation of many foreign fans, Martin Muller, Swiss National Science Foundation Professor, expressed confidence in the professionalism of Russian organizers, but drew attention to possible unforeseen circumstances.

“The organizational success of a World Cup is often subject to unpredictable events such as terrorist attacks or political crises. Russia has proven with the Sochi Olympics that it is able to host large events, but it will be in dealing with unexpected things that the true organizational skills will be required,” the expert said.

According to him, research shows that mega-events such as the World Cup have a rather small impact on developing tourism and sports.

“If one wanted to develop that, one would adopt other policies, for example grassroots sports programs. Meanwhile, the image of Russia is, at the moment, driven by geopolitical events. I do not expect the World Cup to change much in that regard,” Martin Muller explained.

Meanwhile, Roy Hay, Honorary Fellow at Deakin University and a partner in Sports and Editorial Services Australia, shared the opinion that a football tournament in Russia will meet high standards.

“Russia has the opportunity to stage a great World Cup. Germany was able to transform its image when it hosted the World Cup in 2006. The stereotypes were overthrown and the people went out of their way to make visitors welcome, despite the boorish behavior of a minority of English fans. The German people presented as friendly and outgoing,” the analyst said and added that Russia has the capacity to do the same if its authorities lead this process.

However, in his opinion, it is impossible to foresee what impact the forthcoming event will have on the sphere of tourism and sports.

“The 2006 World Cup was a boost to the German economy, but that in France in 1998 was a drag on the economy. Participation rates in sports do not rise markedly as a result of World Cups and the impact on tourism is not necessarily lasting. There is a curiosity factor working in Russia’s favor since so many people only get their view of Russia through the distorted lens of American antipathy,” Roy Hay said.

According to him, the influence of the World Cup 2018 on the image of Russia directly depends on the success of the tournament itself.

“A well organized and exciting World Cup would be a boon to Russia and its image. A heavy-handed and dour event would do the opposite. Much depends on what happens on the field, though the experiences off the field in the friendships made and the ease of movement and the accessibility of Russia’s wonderful landscape and history could do more for Russia’s soft power diplomacy than any amount of propaganda,” the analyst concluded.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/65412-2018


SPIEF Creates Ground For Productive Dialogue Between Russia And West

0
0

The XXII St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), which took place in the Russian northern capital from May 24 to 26 under the slogan: “Creating the Economy of Trust,” reached new heights, both in terms of scale and results and was marked by new achievements: according to organizers, 593 agreements had been signed at SPIEF, worth a total of 2.625 trillion rubles, which significantly exceeds last year’s figures.

“In spite of the sanctions imposed by a number of countries, the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum demonstrated that Russia is a land of opportunity. The 17,000-plus participants arriving from 143 countries is testament to that fact. Over the past few years, SPIEF has developed to become an international platform, with its main achievement being the creation of a space where the spirit of trust prevails. Trust is a key asset in the business world, and discussions at the Forum focused on this crucial aspect,” said Advisor to the President of the Russian Federation and Executive Secretary of the SPIEF Organizing Committee Anton Kobyakov at the event’s closing press conference.

The Forum’s honoured guests this year were President of France Emmanuel Macron and Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe.

Moreover, among the high-ranking foreign politicians attending the event was Wang Qishan, Vice President of the People’s Republic of China; Faustin Archange Touadera, President of the Central African Republic; Igor Dodon, President of Moldova; Anatoly Bibilov, President of South Ossetia; Wilmar Alfredo Castro Soteldo, Vice President for Economy of Venezuela; Étienne Schneider, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of the Economy, Minister of Internal Security, and Minister of Defence of Luxembourg; Achim Steiner, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, Administrator of the United Nations Development Program; Ricardo Cabrisas Ruiz, Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Minister of Economy and Planning of Cuba; and Nguyen Van Binh, Member of the Politburo, Secretary of the Central Committee, Head of the Communist Party of Vietnam Central Committee’s Commission for Economic Affairs and others.

From the Russian side, the forum was attended by the head of state Vladimir Putin, all members of the new government and the heads of 75 regions.

Over 40 international investors managing a total capital of over 20% of global GDP took part in SPIEF-2018. As in the previous year, the largest delegation was from the US, Japan and France had the next largest delegations. There were also a number of major business missions from the UK, China, Germany, and Switzerland. More than 200 heads of major international corporations and 700 heads of Russian companies visited the forum.

At the same time, many participants noted a significant improvement in the business climate in Russia over the past few years. This opinion was shared, in particular, by Emmanuel Quidet, the president of the Franco-Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

“I can tell you that the way we do business now is completely different from how we conducted business in Russia 25 years ago. First of all, now there is much more interchange between the foreign and Russian business communities. Therefore, people understand each other better. […] So now business in Russia is no different from doing business in any other country in the world. And from the tax point of view – this is a good system. And this is one of the main reasons why France is such a large investor here. Investing is not difficult, although there is bureaucracy. And there is a special cooperation between France and Russia that takes place in the cultural sphere. We are very close. This is important,” Emmanuel Quidet told TASS.

Commenting SPIEF results, Stefano Maullu, member of the European Parliament from Italy, Group of the European People’s Party member, called the SPIEF a key forum for the economic sector, where Russian corporations and international investors can sign new contracts and discuss on potential joint projects in Russia and abroad.

“The SPIEF 2018 has shown that despite the Russophobia that keeps on spreading across Europe, there still are key actors that are keen to develop business relations with Moscow. In the framework of the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, there have been signed 550 contracts worth $ 38 billion. This proves that Russia is anything but isolated and a widespread consensus has emerged on the fact that it is necessary to return to dialogue with Moscow,” the politician told PenzaNews.

Moreover, he positively assessed the overall state of the Russian economy.

“The unemployment rate has been substantially shrinking as in April it stood at 4.9% from 5.3% in the same month of the previous year. At the same time, the average wages have been rising. Other two important indicators that attest the Russian recovery are retail sales and capital investment that, on an annual basis, were up 2.4% and 3.6 % respectively. Despite the impact of Western sanctions, Russian economic development is recovering fast. By contrast, what has been proving of having a relevant influence on this latter is the evolution of oil prices – which is not surprising if one considers the dependence of Russia on the export of energy and raw materials,” Stefano Maullu explained.

He reminded that in 2017 the export of Italian technology products in Russia reached almost 3 billion Euro.

“It is about 38% of the total value of exports towards Russia which, last year, reached almost 8 billion Euro. Therefore, I firmly consider the SPIEF as a fundamental economic pivot, and consequentially a useful tool to improve the actual state of the international relations,” he stressed.

In turn, Oleg Prozorov, Director General, the Belgian-Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce in the Russian Federation, also paid special attention to the restoration of the Russian economy.

“Undoubtedly, sanctions are damaging, because restrictive measures were calculated in the conditions of free trade and Russia’s openness to WTO rules. But the situation has adapted, and the economy continues to adapt,” the expert stressed.

According to him, the SPIEF is an important platform for Russia and its partners to conclude significant agreements between the parties.

“The forum is the central annual business event of the Eurasian continent and traditionally attracts a large number of participants from all over the world. One of the significant events for the Belgian-Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce, in particular, was the conclusion of a memorandum on cooperation with the Penza region, which we signed with Governor Ivan Belozertsev,”Oleg Prozorov said.

In the meantime, Pasquale Terracciano, Italian Ambassador to Russia, noted that “the results of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum are encouraging.”

“The leaders of the largest Italian companies took part in the forum, and there were more of them than in previous years. This is another confirmation of the increased interest of Italian entrepreneurs to the Russian market, in particular, to the energy sector. Five bilateral agreements with our companies were signed at the forum,” the diplomat said.

“If we look at the market in general, we have returned to a good pre-crisis level: the trade turnover between Italy and Russia is increasing, and in January, Italian exports amounted to more than 19%. Italy views sanctions as an abnormal period, and we are working to overcome the current stagnation situation. Every time at meetings in Brussels we oppose the bureaucratic and automatic extension of the sanctions regime,” Pasquale Terracciano added.

In his opinion, the SPIEF could create necessary conditions for establishing relations between Russia and Western countries.

“Undoubtedly, enhanced economic cooperation and multilateral ties are instruments for improving political relations. This was also announced by President Putin, who stressed that the trade world, subject to the common rules, can launch a favorable dynamic that will positively affect political relations” the ambassador recalled.

In his opinion, economic interaction can open new prospects for the countries.

“The fifth paragraph of the guidelines developed by the European Union for the current crisis period in relations with Russia, says there is the need to promote the development of civil society in Russia. With the assistance of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), it would be possible to launch financing mechanisms that would facilitate the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises. This would be a prerequisite for the development of civil society, the social layer that supports the values of democracy and an open society,” Pasquale Terracciano explained his view of the situation.

In turn, Anton Friesen, Member of the foreign affairs committee and the committee on humanitarian assistance and human rights of the German Parliament, also supported the idea of expanding cooperation between Russia and the European Union.

“The economy of Russia largely depends on its resources, especially oil and natural gas. The price has been recovering in the last two years and also the economy in Russia. I personally welcome the attempts of the Russian Government do diversify the economy. And in my opinion Germany and the European Union should intensify their cooperation with Russia on the fields of economics, politics and society,” the German politician said.

The Western sanctions on Russia are not so hurtful than many people think they are, he believes.

“The decrease of the oil price was much more hurtful for Russia than all western sanctions combined. Nevertheless, my party wants to abolish the sanctions, because they also hurt European countries like Germany. They are counterproductive and damage the good relationship between the German and Russian people,” Anton Friesen said.

According to him, the SPIEF is always an important platform to debate economic issues, so it is “not surprisingly that it’s often referred as Russia’s Davos.”

“You only have to look on the high-profile guests this year. Especially the presence of Chinese Vice President Wang Qishan was interesting: it’s not a secret that both countries are closely cooperating on many political and economic issues. China fills the gap which is caused by western sanctions. That’s why it’s important to improve the economic ties between Europe and Russia,” the Bundestag deputy said.

In his opinion, the forum in St. Petersburg can also contribute to the establishment of political relations between Russia and its Western partners.

“The SPIEF is always a great opportunity to discuss problems, challenges and barriers and most importantly how to fix these issues. At the current situation it is already helpful to normalize the relationship between the West and Russia. The SPIEF could be a tool how to achieve that,” the politician stressed.

“The seemingly good talks between President Putin and his French counterpart Marcon are positive signs for a further step to normalization. And that is what Russia, Europe and the world need at the moment. We can only profit, if we work together,” Anton Friesen concluded.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/65418-2018

Is China Changing Postwar Consensus Or Enhancing It? – Analysis

0
0

America’s apparent retreat from championing globalization, along with its lesser enthusiasm to sustain the postwar economic and security architectures that it helped establish and lead, has created openings for China, as the world’s number two, to take on greater international responsibilities consequent with its rise. Against this backdrop, leadership transition and political developments in China has become closely watched events by an international community eager to find clues on future policy directions China may take. Will China become bolder in taking greater regional and global commitments as its pronouncements and actions suggest? Or will it be more cautious and circumspect given the risks and uncertainties? Is President Xi Jinping’s third term a move towards stability and continuity, or is it another disruption in a world already fraught with considerable unpredictability?

Xi’s third term broke the post-Deng tradition of term limits and, as such, is considered a disruptive development in domestic politics. Though there had been different accounts on the motive behind the move, the need for steady hands amidst uncertain times is one potent explanation. The United States is in decline, not so much in terms of capacity but rather largely by choice. In the meantime, China’s economy continues to gather strength, but dangers in the transition to a new normal still cast a long shadow in ongoing reforms. Therefore, the need for stability and continuity to take greater advantage of the period of strategic opportunity is imperative. The disruptive impact of Xi’s third term in China’s leadership succession is thus dampened by the perceived benefits of its intended purpose. Meanwhile, in the international realm, Xi’s third term suggest strong policy continuity.

Eroding Traditional Norms and Order

China’s growing economic power and political influence have tremendous disruptive effect. But this disruption can be good or bad depending on where one sits. The inflexibility of Western-led global governance to accommodate emerging powers has encouraged the latter to establish parallel regional and global economic and security platforms that gives due regard to their voices and interests. Xi’s “New Asian security concept” and “community of shared destiny for mankind,” while remaining nebulous and still largely aspirational, is tapping into a strong undercurrent of exclusion, domestic interference and inequality in the current security framework. His Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) are responding to tremendous demand for infrastructure finance long deserted by the Bretton Woods multilateral development institutions. Thus, while there is no question that China’s rise contributes to the erosion of the traditional Western-led global order and the values they underpin, the dormant seeds for that attrition have long been there.

It is arguable whether China desires to supplant the existing order with its own, or if it simply wants meaningful reforms to take place to reflect the changing times. China is the world’s largest crude oil importer, and it makes sense for China to encourage purchases be done in yuan. But even this will not catapult the renminbi to the top from its present position in the lower rung of the world’s most traded currencies. Hence, its immediate disruptive impact tends to be overhyped, although long-term potential is present—especially if this strategy will be replicated in other key commodities that China is a major consumer and importer of. Furthermore, whether Chinese-backed initiatives constitute a better alternative to the prevailing order, or if they are even ready to substitute for the latter, remain to be established. Those who view Chinese intentions with suspicion—who think China, wittingly or unwittingly, may embolden challenges to long-standing rights, market and governance norms—may, thus, see China’s international activities as bad disruption.

Challenging the Order to Reform?

However, a case for a positive disruption can also be made. Six of the world’s top ten fastest growing economies have China as their main trade partner. Fast growing Asian and sub-Saharan African economies are strategically located, rich in natural resources and possessing a youthful demography but lacking in terms of capital goods are getting a big lift from China’s connectivity projects. Chinese-built railways provided landlocked Ethiopia and Zambia outlets to the sea for their trade. While helping China diversify its energy and trade routes and mitigate its Malacca dilemma, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is helping Pakistan develop its transport and energy backbone. The success of China’s late entry into development finance is encouraging a rethinking on the part of traditional donors. But while it may be too late for Japan, the United States and Europe to compete with China in terms of scale, they surely can contribute in enhancing governance and the absorptive capacity of host states, as well as holding conversations on quality, environment and labor standards. In this way, Western criticism over such projects will be seen as more constructive instead of obstructionist. The AIIB’s joint financing with the Asian Development Bank and other multilateral lending institutions are encouraging signs illustrating that China’s disruption is not necessarily anti-establishment. Besides, the pie is still too big: there is plenty of room for the West to pool their funds to take part in the emerging infrastructure boom. This would be welcomed by the Global South—more funders mean more choices. While American firms may not be able to deliver turnkey projects, they surely can participate as consortium partners with Chinese, Japanese or Korean general contractors for infrastructure projects financed or co-financed by China. On the security front, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization provides China, Russia and Central Asian nations a venue to jointly address threats posed by terrorism, separatism and extremism, which have strong resonance in the West as well, and this cooperation platform has now expanded to include South Asia.

Furthermore, more than the financial largesse, China’s industrial, technological and labor capacity make it a combo development partner. Its manufacturing might enable it to mass produce renewable energy technologies (although intellectual property rights remain an issue) to make sustainable and clean energy more accessible to developing countries. Rising wages and increasing focus on services and high technology help facilitate the export of China’s excess industrial capacity, especially labor-intensive sectors like textiles, clothing and shoes to developing countries, creating jobs and sowing the seeds for nascent industries. While such outsourcing may hollow out China’s enormous manufacturing capacity anytime soon, unlikely as that may seem, spreading out its production overseas may help lessen the country’s ability to dump cheaply-produced China-made surplus goods—something which is attributed to a driving out of competition and accumulation of trade deficit by key trade partners.

Knowledge and technology transfers in the operation and management of Chinese-built utilities allow a diffusion of learning and enable host states to have greater ownership of their assets. Long-term leases may constitute China’s risk mitigation measure, especially when investing in volatile regions and post-conflict states. But it also means that China will play an active—not a bystander—role in making the investments pay off. BRI is not a charity, and Beijing has little interest in debt accumulation when its own economy is already overleveraged. Building industrial parks and free trade economic zones open to all to be serviced by the railways and ports can thus be taken as a measure to accelerate business and generate traffic which can have a transformative effect on host economies. That said, prudence and evaluating the capacity to pay for these developments should be seriously considered to avoid charges of ensnaring host states into debt bondage. Ensuring convergence with the national development plans of host states will also avoid accusations of China simply railroading its way in building a network of regional and global connectivity.

In sum, while Xi’s era will promote domestic stability and foreign policy continuity, it will undoubtedly pose challenges to the Western-led world order that has changed little since the postwar period. But before responding to these challenges in both the economic and security domains, the West may see value in looking at the order it had built and championed over the years to evaluate the shortcomings that made Chinese initiatives gain traction. Finally, although China’s disruption tends to be overly seen in the prism of great power competition, its positive but still nuanced impact, especially in the developing world, and its potential complementary role remains underappreciated.

This article was published at National Interest.

Making A ‘Free And Open Indo-Pacific’ Appealing To Southeast Asia – Analysis

0
0

Strategic location, fast economic growth, young demography, and a politically stable environment make Southeast Asia an important region. Naturally, great powers gravitate to the region to promote their interests and forge mutually beneficial relationships. In such endeavors, a robust strategy is necessary, and deft messaging matters. After facing criticism for the incoherence of his regionwide Asia strategy (aside from a fixation with denuclearizing North Korea and trade war against China), President Donald Trump threw his support behind the notion of a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific,” also called the FOIP.

In a November 2017 speech before the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Vietnam, Trump described the FOIP as “a place where sovereign and independent nations, with diverse cultures and many different dreams, can all prosper side-by-side, and thrive in freedom and in peace.” The 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) added that the FOIP provides prosperity and security for all and that the United States will strengthen its alliances and partnerships in the region to build “a networked security architecture capable of deterring aggression, maintaining stability, and ensuring free access to common domains.” Rolled out during Trump’s Asia tour late last year, FOIP represents Trump’s answer for an Asia strategy that regional states had been looking for from Washington. However, for the strategy to work, seven key issues must be closely considered.

First, the United States and its partners should exert efforts to dispel perceptions that FOIP is a tool to contain or compete with China. This aspect took on greater importance after the release of the NSS and the subsequent 2018 National Defense Strategy, which highlighted major power competition as a primary security concern for the United States. If these two documents are meant to serve as doctrinal anchors for FOIP, then China and the region have reason to be concerned.

The United States must recognize the complexity that China presents for Southeast Asia. While the region welcomes FOIP as an opportunity to build maritime and air defense capacities and to push back against China’s expansive claims and activities, China has at the same time become the region’s largest trade partner and tourism source, and is a major investor, aid donor, and infrastructure partner. FOIP should, in no way, compel Southeast Asian states to choose between the United States or China as the NSS seems to suggest when it says, “A geopolitical competition between free and repressive visions of world order is taking place in the Indo-Pacific region.” The last thing Southeast Asian states would want is to get tangled in a major power rivalry that, gone awry, could turn their homes into a battleground. Furthermore, painting the values of the “democratic Quad,” FOIP’s linchpin, in stark opposition to China is an unhealthy portrayal and may not resonate well in a region that runs the gamut from socialist and junta-led states to single and multiparty democracies.

Second, to allay Chinese suspicions of being the direct object or target of FOIP, Southeast Asia would welcome an opportunity for FOIP to engage China, instead of excluding it. FOIP can provide a platform to impress upon China the significance of navigational and overflight freedoms and observance of fair and reciprocal trade rules. However, one must note that FOIP’s “ensuring free access to common domains” rests on a U.S. interpretation of such freedoms. The United States and China have long been at odds on whether military activities are permissible within a coastal state’s exclusive economic zone absent its consent. The idea that participation in FOIP inadvertently endorses the U.S. position on the matter could be a gnawing concern for Southeast Asia. In fact, even among the Quad powers, India’s view of navigational freedoms converges more with that of China than with the United States.

Third, the United States should highlight cooperation not only with major powers and Quad members Japan, Australia, and India, but also with Southeast Asia. The region welcomes positive steps towards this, particularly when the NSS underscored that regional organizations such as ASEAN and APEC “remain centerpieces of the Indo-Pacific’s regional architecture and platforms for promoting an order based on freedom.” For FOIP to get better traction, it has to have a shared and inclusive ownership. FOIP should accord appropriate space for Southeast Asia to take part in making key decisions since the strategy will have tremendous implications for the latter’s maritime and aviation security, overall stability, and economy. It will be ill-advised for major powers to craft and impose a strategy without regard for countries that will be directly affected by it.

Fourth, Southeast Asia desires recognition on its merits and not merely its value as a bargaining chip in great power negotiations. The region welcomes improvements in U.S.-China relations and recognizes the myriad domains in which their mutual cooperation can bring benefits for the larger community of nations. However, Southeast Asia would be concerned if such cooperation were to be premised on a quid pro quo adversely affecting Southeast Asian interests. For instance, China offering cooperation with the United States on North Korea issues in exchange for allowing Beijing a freer hand in the South China Sea would be unacceptable. Reassurances to dispel such concerns are important.

Fifth, FOIP could augment existing security structures in the region. In order for this to be feasible, the United States would need to be consistent in upholding its treaty commitments and avoid double standards, a sticking point often raised by critics in the Philippines. At a time when concerned partners are raising questions about the U.S. commitment to its postwar security alliances, it will be helpful if FOIP could reinforce U.S. resolve in unambiguously supporting them. Involving other key partners to support security structures would also be helpful. Furthermore, the ability of the alliance to evolve to address new forms of threats (including such non-traditional threats as natural disasters or terrorism) will also allow it to distance itself from its Cold War origins to confront the myriad challenges of the twenty-first century.

Sixth, the United States and its partners should address concerns about the long-term sustainability of FOIP, given U.S. domestic political distractions and possible reversals under a new president. Dispensing with rhetoric critical of past similar U.S. initiatives, such as the Asia-Pacific Rebalance, would impress upon regional states that FOIP is not a complete break from the past, but instead builds on what was been accomplished before with the hope of improving it. Fear of U.S. abandonment or retrenchment with shifting political tides will dampen regional enthusiasm towards U.S.-led strategies that could alienate partners from China.

Lastly, Southeast Asia would welcome a FOIP that is comprehensive and not simply security-oriented. A military-focused pivot must metamorphose to a more comprehensive rebalance (including regionally popular measures like the Trans-Pacific Partnership) before garnering regional appeal. This case is instructive for the United States. Southeast Asia is a vibrant place for investments, open to both private and state capital. Southeast Asia is eager to attract enough private capital for the large-scale, long-term infrastructure projects necessary to sustain its promising growth. Within the region, there are only a few countries able to finance and deliver turnkey projects, namely China, Japan and Korea. Beijing has thus far been quick to engage with less-developed regional states regardless of investment grade or political risk, and Southeast Asia appreciates China’s developmental impact. If the United States can marshal its enormous pool of private equity and pension funds, it can better participate in the region’s booming infrastructure market. To this end, Southeast Asia welcomes the NSS announcement that “the United States will modernize its development finance tools so that U.S. companies have incentives to capitalize on opportunities in developing countries… In addition, the U.S. Government must not be an obstacle to U.S. companies that want to conduct business in the developing world.”

It is still too early to forecast how the FOIP will fare. If it only serves as another facet of major power rivalry, the United States will have to overcome China’s advantages in geographic distance, economic wherewithal, and policy continuity. If it serves as a strategy to cultivate agreed-upon norms and principles applied to all parties, big or small, then it may enjoy greater support. Whichever case, the aforementioned issues merit careful consideration while they can have the greatest impact.

This article was published at CSIS.

Mattis Discusses Singapore Summit, North Korea, DoD Audit

0
0

By Terri Moon Cronk

North Korea was a topic in almost all of his bilateral talks with leaders of other nations, US Defense Secretary James N. Mattis told reporters on his return flight from Singapore and his Indo-Pacific region trip.

The secretary’s trip first took him to Honolulu to attend the change-of-command at U.S. Pacific Command, now renamed U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.

While in Hawaii, Mattis met with his Japanese and Indonesian counterparts May 29.

From Hawaii, the secretary traveled to Singapore to attend the 2018 International Institute for Strategic Studies Shangri-La Dialogue.

“The hopes are on [and] riding with the diplomats,” the secretary said of U.S. relations with North Korea. “This is all pretty — frankly — consistent with what we’ve been saying now for a couple of weeks.”

Large U.S. Delegation in Singapore

The U.S. delegation was impressive at the Shangri-La Dialogue, with Congressional bipartisan support and defense and nondefense representation, the secretary said.

“There is a much broader interest in Congress about our presence in the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean,” he said. “[There was] full support for renaming [the former U.S. Pacific Command] Indo-Pacific Command. And by the way, that was also an international decision.

“So the more we can get the congressmen and women out here — bipartisan, defense and nondefense — I think that says more about a commitment to Asia than just my going,” Mattis added.

Defense Department Audit

The secretary also spoke to reporters about the Defense Department audit that’s underway, which has “traction,” he said.

“It’s an army of auditors going through and taking our programs apart. I just sent a note out to everybody. I just said, ‘We’re going to invite the scrutiny. We’re going to find the problems,’” he said.

“I know it’s uncomfortable to get inspected,” Mattis said. “But this is what’s necessary to maintain [Congressional] bipartisan support and the budgets we need.”

Mueller Accuses Trump Ex-Campaign Chief Manafort Of Witness Tampering

0
0

(RFE/RL) — The U.S. special counsel has levied new charges against President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, saying he attempted to tamper with witnesses from a firm he worked with to promote Ukraine’s interests.

U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller said in a court filing late on June 4 that the indicted Trump aide, while out on bail awaiting trial, “repeatedly” attempted to communicate with two people from “The Hapsburg Group,” a firm he worked with prior to 2014 to promote the interests of former pro-Russia Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

The court filing said the FBI has documents, statements, and telephone records showing that he attempted communication with the potential witnesses in February in violation of the terms of his release on bail.

Mueller cited the alleged witness tampering in asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to revoke or revise the order releasing Manafort ahead of his trial. Manafort was released to home confinement after his arraignment in October.

Manafort has been charged with allegations ranging from money-laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent to bank and tax fraud. He has pleaded not guilty.

Manafort is the most senior member of Trump’s campaign to be indicted, though none of the charges against him to date relate to his activities during his brief stint as Trump’s campaign chairman in mid-2016.

A number of the charges relate to his work on behalf of Yanukovych, who was ousted from power by street protests in 2014 and now lives in exile in Russia.

In an indictment earlier this year, Mueller charged that Manafort secretly enlisted unnamed “former senior European politicians” in 2012 and 2013 to lobby in Washington and in Europe on behalf of Yanukovych’s government.

The former politicians, who were paid more than 2 million euros for their work, did not disclose they were being paid for lobbying, as required by U.S. law, Mueller’s office charged.

“The plan was for the former politicians, informally called the ‘Hapsburg Group,’ to appear to be providing their independent assessments of Government of Ukraine actions, when in fact they were paid lobbyists for Ukraine,” according to the indictment.

In the June 4 court filing alleging Manafort attempted to tamper with potential Hapsburg witnesses, Manafort was quoted as saying in one call that he wanted to give the witness a “heads-up about Hapsburg,” prompting the witness to hang up “because he was concerned about the outreach,” according to a sworn affidavit filed by an FBI agent in the case.

On February 26, Manafort sent the same person a series of messages through an encrypted application, including a link to a Business Insider story with the headline: “Former European leaders struggle to explain themselves after Mueller claims Paul Manafort paid them to lobby for Ukraine.”

Another message said, “We should talk. I have made clear that they worked in Europe.”

The witness told investigators that he interpreted Manafort’s efforts to reach him as a way to influence his potential statements. The witness said that the Hapsburg Group had lobbied in the United States, not just in Europe, and Manafort knew that, FBI Special Agent Brock Domin wrote in an affadavit.

Domin concluded that Manafort’s communications were “an effort to influence their testimony and to otherwise conceal evidence,” and added that “the investigation into this matter is ongoing.”

In light of the new allegations of witness tampering, Mueller urged Judge Amy Berman Jackson to “promptly” schedule a hearing on the whether to change Manafort’s conditions of release, which could result in Manafort going to jail.

His trial in Washington is set to start on September 17.

Iran To Increase Production Of Uranium Enrichment Material

0
0

Tehran has said it is revamping its uranium enrichment program, phased out under the nuclear deal. As part of the new build-up, it will boost production of UF6, a gas needed to produce fuel for nuclear reactors and weapons.

The move was announced by Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI) spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which oversees Iran’s compliance with the 2015 JCPOA deal, will be notified of the changes on Tuesday, he told the ISNA news agency.

“In a letter that will be handed over to the International Atomic Energy Agency … Iran will announce that the process of increasing the capacity to produce … UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) … will start on Tuesday,” he said.

The spokesman said it was being done on the orders of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who said in a speech on Monday that AEOI must promptly prepare to start uranium enrichment “up to a level of 190,000 SWU for the time being within the framework of the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).”

SWU or “separative work unit” is a standard measure of the effort needed to separate isotopes of uranium during an enrichment process. 1 SWU equals 1 kg of such effort.

Previously, Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency estimated that its enrichment capacity will reach 190,000 SWUs by the 15th year after the deal comes into effect. For that purpose, Iran planned to gradually increase its number of centrifuges, while staying within the scope of the deal.

Speaking to ISNA, Kamalvandi stressed that, by boosting its nuclear program, Iran does not seek to develop nuclear weapons. “Our goals are not to achieve a nuclear weapon, and it’s against our religious stance.”

“The message of our actions is that we will maintain our capacity for activation at a high level, and if we agreed to limit it now, it is because the parties must adhere to their commitments,” he said.

After the US exit from the deal on May 8, other parties to the landmark agreement, including France, the UK, and Germany vowed to abide by the deal and keep it intact, despite the US withdrawal. However, European nations followed the lead of Washington in demanding that Iran’s missile program and its regional posture must be a part of any future negotiations for a post-deal security framework. Iran has vehemently refused to tie its ballistic missile program, which has not been a part of the original agreement, to the deal and has called on Europe to compensate it for the impact that the reimposed US sanctions will have on its economy. On Monday, Khamenei said Europe should not expect Teheran to stay in the deal if it does nothing to shield it from the brunt of punitive measures coming its way.

It seems from what they say that some European governments expect the Iranian nation to both put up with sanctions and give up its nuclear activities and continue to observe limitations [on its nuclear program]. I tell those governments that this bad dream will never come true,” he said.

He again ruled out that Iran might agree to curtail its ballistic missile development, saying that it’s wishful thinking by Europe if it believes otherwise.

“I am telling the Europeans, ‘Limiting our missile work is a dream that will never come true,” Khamenei stressed.

One of the major points of Iran’s ultimatum to Europe is that it must offset the damage inflicted on its energy industry by buying Iranian oil and protecting trade with the Islamic Republic by providing banking guarantees.

Last week, a senior adviser to Khamenei, Ali Akbar Velayati, told Iranian media that the continuation of the talks would depend on Europe’s readiness to meet these demands.

“We will preserve Iran’s regional and missile power to kill US with envy,” he added.

Legal Review Of Sovereignty Of Afghanistan Post Afghan-US Bilateral Security Agreement – Analysis

0
0

Background

As soon as President Ashraf Ghani took over Kabul, the Bilateral Security Agreement between Afghanistan and the United States of America was signed and was held to remain in force “until the end of 2024 and beyond” unless terminated by either side with a two-year prior notice. Pursuant to this Agreement, thousands of US troops are scheduled to stay in Afghanistan in a non-combat role to advise, assist and train Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).

Previously, President Karzai denied signing the BSA till his presidential term ended in 2014 claiming that he did not agree with two very important and key issues one of which was mentioned in the BSA while the other was missing from the same; i.e. Immunity granted to the US Forces by the Agreement and lack of instances to denote respect to the Afghan Sovereignty.

This article evaluates whether existence of US Forces in Afghanistan enjoying immunity from Afghan legal and judicial jurisdiction conforms to the legal system of Afghanistan? Also, it tends to examine whether it is possible for Afghan government to practice and protect full sovereignty while BSA is in place and foreign forces are present on the Afghan soil?

Immunity of US Forces on Foreign Land: Lessons Learnt

Following the Opium War of 1839, The United States wrote in its treaty with China that in case a European, American or Japanese citizen, or a person who is a member of, or married to, or the child of a member of the American armed forces committed a crime in China, he/she would be turned over to his/her own consular officials, rather than being tried under the laws of China.

It is commonly held that the Western insistence on extraterritoriality reflected the belief that Asian laws were barbaric, and no ‘civilized’ person deserved to be subjected to it. This belief was incorporated in the Japanese-US Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) Article 17, section 5, of which stipulated that ‘When US servicemen, and their families commit crimes, they shall be detained by U.S. authorities until Japanese law enforcement agencies file complaints with the prosecutors’ office based on clear suspicion. And even it gave U.S. authorities the right to refuse Japanese investigators’ requests to hand over suspects attached to the military”. 1

There are many countries today in which the US has bases and troops and in which a SOFA exists including Japan, South Korea and Germany. The criminal jurisdiction articles of such security agreements between the U.S. and other countries vary.

Glimpses of the history indicates that immunity from local jurisdiction is a fundamental necessity of the United States. As in every other country in the world where its forces are based, the US insists on trying American soldiers accused of crimes itself.

For the US this is non-negotiable condition as it showed by walking away from Iraq. As far as the dispute of U.S personnel immunity in Afghanistan is concerned, the US expressly declared that there will be no BSA if Afghan government does not ensure immunity for local jurisdiction to the US personnel. The political, economic and security situation in Afghanistan at the time of signing the Agreement was such that the Afghan government was compelled to agree to the immunity contained in the BSA. Article 13 of the same states that:

Members of the Force and of the Civilian Component. Afghanistan therefore agrees that the United States shall have the exclusive right to exercise jurisdiction over such persons in respect of any criminal or civil offenses committed in the territory of Afghanistan. Afghanistan authorizes the United States to hold trial in such cases, or take other disciplinary action, as appropriate, in the territory of Afghanistan.

2. If requested by Afghanistan, the United States shall inform Afghanistan of the status of any criminal proceedings regarding offenses allegedly committed in Afghanistan by the members of the force or of the civilian component involving Afghan nationals, including the final disposition of the investigations or prosecution. If so requested, the United States shall also undertake efforts to permit and facilitate the attendance and observation of such proceedings by representatives of Afghanistan.”

Immunity of US Troops in Afghanistan: View of the US Authorities

Former US Secretary of State John Kerry in a joint conference with former Afghan president Karzai in Kabul stated that wherever our forces are found, they operate under the same standards. We are not singling out Afghanistan for any separate standard. We are defending exactly what the constitutional laws of the United States require. He further added: we can’t send our forces in places because we don’t subject United States citizens to that kind of uncertainty with respect to their rights and lives. It is no comment on any other country. It’s nothing negative. It’s an historical tradition and something that exists everywhere in the world. So that is a very important principle.

In addition to the importance argument, a major concern had about prosecution of its personnel in Afghanistan remained to be a corrupt and inefficient judicial system of Afghanistan — where prosecutors had no capacity or the training to collect evidence, prosecute the defendant, or conduct the defense. The current Afghan criminal justice system was deemed to lack the procedural safeguards guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to ensure a fair trial. Hence, the US did not want to compromise on the issue of immunity of its personnel.

President Karzai held that granting immunity to US troops and discussing the issue of sovereignty is not the authority of the government. He believed that the traditional Grand Assembly (Loya Jarga) had to decide about granting immunity to US soldiers.

A Consultative Loya Jarga was then conducted and the attendees by a majority of vote approved the BSA with the provision that granted immunity to US personnel. Despite this, President Karzai denounced to sign the BSA claiming that perhaps he should not sign the same when he was leaving the Presidential Palace. He on numerous occasions held that the new elected president was more suitable to decide if he would want to work with US government under the BSA.

The newly elected Afghan President, Dr. Ghani signed the BSA after its approval by the Afghan parliament. By doing so, he indicated to have complied with the constitutional process of ratifying international treaties and foreign policy.

Immunity of Foreign Troops and International Law

Now a very important question arises in the discussion. Whether immunity granted to foreign soldiers in a country remains legal? If so, what are the governing rules?

Foremost amongst the questions raised by the presence of foreign troops in a foreign country is the question of status: what jurisdictional privileges and immunities from local jurisdiction do foreign forces enjoy in another state?

International law does not provide a straightforward answer to this question as no overarching legal framework has been developed in international law to regulate in a comprehensive manner the legal position of foreign armed forces.

Unsurprisingly, this creates uncertainty as to the position of customary international law in this area, reinforcing the preference of states and international organizations to define the status of foreign troops by way of tailor-made international agreements.

Nonetheless, international practice recognizes that the unique composition, responsibilities and nature of the armed forces raise special legal and practical considerations. This is reflected both in customary international law and in international treaty practice. 2

In the light of above discussion, despite the fact that BSA has been approved bay Afghan parliament and endorsed by the President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan it shall also be considered that how can a nation be both sovereign and dependent on foreign aid? It means that exercising full fledge sovereignty without having economic independency and where major part of the government is running through foreign aid is creating a sort of impossibility.

*Abdul Wahid Rizwanzai holds LLB degree from International Islamic University, Islamabad. He writes on legal and political issues in Afghanistan.

Notes:
1. From the Article of Sheila K. Johnson in AlterNet, an anthropologist, an editor for the Japan Policy Research Institute.
2. Research Handbook on Jurisdiction and Immunities in International Law, edited by Alexander Orakhelashvili, University of Birmingham, UK


The SCO Summit 2018: A Geopolitical Gordian Knot For India? – Analysis

0
0

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization was established (2001) to enhance multilateral cooperation in general and for strategic and economic in particular. The upcoming Qingdao SCO Summit (9-10 June, 2018) is anticipated to revisit the Shanghai Spirit i.e., enhancing good neighborly relations through strengthening the solidarity and mutual trust. But the irony is that the SCO has become a regional platform, wherein its members have been exhibiting opposite and contradictory views on various identified areas of cooperation. China, Pakistan, and Russia are popularly known as the ‘Trilateral Axis’, whereas on the other hand- India and the US. However, the US could not find any place in the SCO and, thus, it seems that India stands alone in the same. Moreover, given the myriads of bilateral and regional issues, it seems that upcoming Summit 2018, probably prove as a geopolitical Gordian knot for India?

SCO: Genesis and Rationale

The SCO is a geopolitical and geostrategic pan-Eurasian organization, came into existence through the ‘Shanghai Five’. The Shanghai Five was established under the two treatise – the Treaty on Deepening Military Trust in Border Regions (26 April 1996) and the Treaty on Reduction of Military Forces in Border Regions (24 April 1997). With the entry of Uzbekistan (2001), the Shanghai Five was rechristened as Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). It is comprised of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan (1996) and Uzbekistan (2001). During the SCO Summit (Astana 2017), India and Pakistan have also been admitted as permanent members. With the inclusion of India and Pakistan, the SCO has become one of the major regional organizations in terms of not only demography, geography rather in the economy as well. This argument can be substantiated by the Mackinder, “The Geographical Pivot of History” (1904), i.e., the most important part of the world in terms of geography and the geo-strategy. Also, Seiple (2004) has called this region as, “the greatest natural fortress on earth.”

Gate (May 4, 2001) has argued in one of his commentaries that the main rationale behind the establishment of the SCO was given the aggressive American foreign policy towards Asia particularly under President Bill Clinton (20 January 1993 – 20 January 2001) and President George W Bush (2001-2009). The airstrikes on Iraq, which were not approved by all the UNSC, had alarmed the emerging two powers like Russia and China. Economic sanctions, deployment of troops, quitting of the Kyoto Treaty, knocking down of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, refusal of talks with North Korea etc. were some of the strategic postures on part of the US, that have been denting the dream of Russia and Chinese’s multipolar world.

Internally, the region has also been pestered by some geopolitical and geostrategic issues like the exponential growth of terrorism, separatism, fundamentalism and of course New Great Game. In this backdrop, China had asked Russia and Central Asian neighboring countries’ support to protect stability, security and promote unity, integrity, and sovereignty against the separatist movements not only of per se rather the entire region through the regional organization –SCO.

In the beginning, the of SCO is committed to rooting out the terrorism, fundamentalism, and secessionism. However, during the Dushanbe Summit (2008), some other areas of cooperation have been identified like stand against the intervention by the external powers in the internal affairs in general and on the pretexts of ‘humanitarianism’ and ‘protecting human rights in particular.

India and SCO

Since the inception of the SCO, India has been trying to be a permanent member. India has been taken on board as an observer in the SCO (2005). Now the question is, why India has been trying to get engaged in the SCO? The first motivation is to get engaged with the SCO, is the Eurasian region rich in the mineral resources and untapped market. India has also been sharing common concerns like terrorism, fundamentalism, secessionism, and human and drug trafficking with the region.

Prima facie, it has been argued that the SCO was established for regional cooperation, but the West has alleged that it has come into existence to counter the US strategic influence in the Eurasian region. It is also argued that the SCO was established out of the geopolitical manoeuvers. In order to counter China, Russia had supported India’s membership. On the other hand, China made India’s membership conditional, subjected to the Pakistan membership. However, Russia and China came to an understanding that both India and Pakistan should join the SCO as permanent members. In SCO Summit (Astana 2017), both India and Pakistan joined the SCO as permanent members.

Additionally, it has been anticipated that the 21st century would be Asian Century. In the Asian Century, both China and India have been at loggerheads for the Asian leadership. PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s (1998 to 2004) argument for its nuclear tests given the strategic posture of China, substantiate the view of bilateral competition in the Asian politics. Moreover, both countries have been trying to expand their strategic influence in each other’s backyard.

SCO Summit 2018: A Geopolitical Gordian Knot for India?

The upcoming SCO 18th Summit (Qingdao) would be chaired by the Chinese President Xi Jinping. In his press briefings, the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang pointed that the leaders of SCO member and observer countries, chiefs of various international organizations likely to attend the Summit. In order to execute the 18th Summit (2018) successfully, various preparatory meetings at various levels covering political, economic, security, justice, terrorism issues etc. have been organized.

In the electronic and print media, there is an anticipation of the issue of the Qingdao Declaration. The statement of the Chinese Foreign Minister clearly indicates that the Qingdao Declaration will revisit the Shanghai Spirit i.e., good-neighborliness friendship, mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, long-term multifaceted cooperation among the SCO member. In order to implement the provisions of the declaration, a three-year action plan would likely to be signed by the member countries.

Since the Eurasian region is highly infested by the three evils – terrorism, separatism, and extremism. Thus, from a security point of view, along with the terrorism, separatism, extremism, cybercrime and drug trafficking will also figure prominently in the Summit Agenda. Documents related to economic, humanitarian and many other areas will be signed. According to the Chinese Diplomat to Belarus, “China attaches great importance to the effective integration of the Silk Road Economic Belt with the Eurasian Economic Union. There are certain difficulties…. including of the participating states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, will be effectively implemented.” The statement clearly indicates that that OBOR project again would figure prominently in the Summits’ deliberations.

The SCO has organized about 160 preparatory meetings of various level for the upcoming SCO Summit 2018. The SCO Ministerial Meeting took place in April 2018 in Beijing. The same was attended by the Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. However, no bilateral meetings took place between Indian and Pakistan respective ministers. The 13th meeting of the SCO National Security Council Secretaries was held in Beijing (21-22 May 2018), which was attended by India’s Deputy National Security Adviser Rajinder Khanna. Likewise, various other meetings were held, in which Indian delegations took part. The SCO Summit would likely to be attended by Indian PM Narendra Modi.

It has made crystal clear that the SCO has been highly overladen by the geopolitical maneuvers. There are many divergent issues likely to be discussed in the summit on which India may not find per se convergent. These issues may include terrorism and OBOR. India has already been registered its objections to the President Xi’s ambitious project OBOR. CPEC is another serious issue for India, which is a major part of the OBOR. Except for India, rest of all other countries have extended their strong support to these project.

What is the meaning of the SCO for India? Would it facilitate India to achieve its strategic and geopolitical goals in the Eurasian region? For this, one has to understand, how SCO is overladen by geopolitical maneuverings? Russia and China are the major dominant players of the SCO. The US is one of the factors for their convergences. Notwithstanding their convergences, Russia and China are also geopolitical competitors, which has been substantiated by the entry of India and Pakistan on a conditional basis.

The bird’s eye view of the relations between India on the one hand, and Russia, China and Pakistan on the other, clearly indicate that India is among the estranged partners. Despite their good economic cooperation, Indo-China relations have been haunted by boundary dispute, the 1962 War, divergent positions on Tibet, Kashmir etc. The list of bilateral irritants is further inflated with the inclusion of serious issues like South China Sea issues, String of Pearls Strategy, OBOR, CPEC, competition for Asian leadership, strategic forays in each other’s backyard etc. These are some of the issues that have dented their bilateral relations.

Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Russo-India relations have not been on the even keel as in the Cold War. Given the breakdown of the USSR and its economy, India had reoriented its Western world policy. India has become a strong partner of the US, perhaps given the China factor and disintegration of the USSR. From estrange partners, India-US have become strong strategic partners. It has been corroborated by strong strategic cooperation including the nuclear deal, the General Security Of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) and R&D in joint equipment production. During the last one decade, trade, energy, industry, research and development cooperation have seen the exponential growth. Irked by this, perhaps Russia’s India policy has undergone a paradigmatic shift. During the BRICS Summit (Goa), both India and Russia have been remained divergent on the terrorism issue particularly in respect of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Even when India urged Russia to cancel its military exercise with Pakistan soon after a terrorist attack in the former’s territory, was also ignored by the latter. On the other hand, Pakistan which was bête noire for Russia till date has turned into a strong strategic partners.

Terrorism and boundary issues are critical factors between India and Pakistan. The International Border is turbulent. All the Confidential Building Measures (CBMs) have been jammed. On the other, boundary issue, OBOR, CPEC, leadership competition, military modernization, nuclearization are some of the issues, that have been putting India and China at the loggerheads. The US factor in Indo-Russia relations has been putting India into a tightrope walk. It clearly indicates that Russia, China, and Pakistan had emerged as dominant partnership particularly in the SCO, whereas India has been put in marginalized mode. How with these divergent stands on haunting issues, India and trilateral axis can think of good neighborly relations and would these issues would remain major geopolitical Gordian knots for India to be with the estranged partners in SCO?

Conclusion

Qingdao Declaration could achieve good neighborly relations, if regional geopolitics, the difference in respect of terrorism and fighting strategy, the bilateral and regional irritants, mutual distrust and mistrust and turbulent international borders (Indo-Pak), would be taken care of. The trilateral axis members and India have been on different notes on the issues likely to emerge in the agenda of SCO Summit (8-9 June 2018). Divided SCO would fall and united it can succeed. Had Russia, China, India, and Pakistan united stand, the good neighborly relations, peace, prosperity, stability, overall development would search the SCO. Thus, SCO has the potential to change the existing world order, neo-economic order and can restrict the role of external power/s in the region provided the member countries remain on one board.

How can India remain onboard as an active member of the SCO? For that, India needs to re-strategize its foreign policy and may be reciprocated by the other member countries to overcome mistrust and distrust to open the internal existing geopolitical Gordian knots and make the SCO as the successful regional organization.

*Dr. Bawa Singh is teaching at the Centre for South and Central Asian Studies, School of Global Relations, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda, India.

King Abdullah Of Jordan: Balancing On An Ever-Tighter Tightrope – Analysis

0
0

A look at a decade of failed social, economic and political reform in Jordan goes a far way to explain recent mass anti-government protests demanding the resignation of the government.

The protests, prompting concerns about the survival of the Hashemite dynasty, also bear witness to the fallout of the region’s epic power struggles and the pitfalls of government failures to respond to long-standing discontent that has been simmering across the region just below the surface.

Pent-up anger and frustration with governments that have failed to deliver public goods and services were at the core of popular Arab revolts in 2011 that initially toppled the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen.

If anything, the Jordanian protests in a Middle Eastern nation viewed as relatively stable, have defied notions that the brutal rollback of Egypt’s successful revolt and the bloody conflicts wracking Libya and Yemen as well as Syria have cowed the region’s public into accepting autocratic rule as the best of all evils.

The protests target corruption and a proposed tax bill that protesters say will reduce living standards in a country with double digit unemployment, 21 percent of the population living below the poverty line, and finances and services burdened by the influx of more than 2 million refugees, including 600,000 plus Syrians.

The bill would raise taxes on employees by at least five percent and on companies by between 20 and 40 percent in line with the terms of a three-year $723 million dollar loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that Jordan secured in 2016.

Jordanians have seen repeated price rises on staples such as bread and increased taxes on basic goods like electricity and fuel since the beginning of this year. The Economist Intelligence Unit earlier this year ranked Jordan’s capital Amman as one of the most expensive in the Arab world.

The writing has been on Jordan’s wall since the 2011 protests when in a seismic shift of Jordanian politics, tribal leaders took their criticism public rather than relying on traditionally secret, behind closed-door interactions with the country’s monarch.

The change in tactics that in the current protests has brought a wide swath of Jordanians irrespective of whether they are of Palestinian or East Bank tribal descent on to the streets bears a cautionary note for regimes across the region.

Scores of prominent East Bank Jordanian tribal leaders signalled the change in an unprecedented public letter to the king in February 2011 that accused King Abdullah’s glamorous Palestinian wife, Queen Rania, of corruption.

The leaders charged that Queen Rania, “her sycophants and the power centres that surround her” were dividing Jordanians and “stealing from the country and the people.” It warned King Abdullah that if he failed to tackle corruption and introduce reform “similar events to those in Tunisia and Egypt and other Arab countries will occur.”

The letter and a 2011 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report written by former Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Marwan al-Muasher constituted early warnings of what is at the core of the current protests: a popular demand for a government that garners public support by catering to popular social and economic aspirations as well as demands for political participation.

Mr. Al-Muasher argued that King Abdullah’s efforts to squash protests in 2011 by projecting himself as a reformer failed to secure a public buy-in, in part because he was unwilling to relinquish chunks of his power.

Perhaps most fundamentally, Mr. Muasher, in comments that are particularly relevant today with Prime Minister Hani Al-Mulki’s imminent resignation, warned that cosmetic changes won’t do the job.

“The selection of several prime ministers did not lead to serious progress on reform… Reform needs reformers who are cognizant of the need for an orderly, gradual process but are also committed to a serious roadmap that would lead to true power-sharing through strong legislative and judicial bodies,” Mr. Al-Muasher said.

“All efforts to open up the political system have been thwarted by a resilient class of political elites and bureaucrats who feared that such efforts would move the country away from a decades-old rentier system to a merit-based one. This group accurately predicted that reform would chip away, even if gradually, at privileges it had acquired over a long period of time in return for its blind loyalty to the system. It thus stood firm not just against the reform efforts themselves, but also in opposition to the king’s own policies,” Mr. Al-Muasher added.

As a result, King Abdullah, despite consistently trying to strike a balance between the requirements of reform and the hesitancy expressed by many of his more traditional supporters, ended up at almost every bend of the road appeasing the conservatives at the expense of the reforms he was seeking to implement.

In the process, the king raised questions about how serious he was about reforms, in part by seemingly conceding defeat from the outset.

“Sometimes you take two steps forward, one step back. There is resistance to change. There is a resistance to ideas. When we try to push the envelope, there are certain sectors of society that say this is a Zionist plot to sort of destabilize our country, or this is an American agenda. So, it’s very difficult to convince people to move forward,” King Abdullah told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria in 2010, a year before the 2011 protests erupted.

King Abdullah may no longer have the luxury of lamenting opposition to reforms. Although conscious of the fact that Jordan has been spared the destructive violence that has wracked its neighbours, Jordanians may this time round not be pacified by cosmetic measures like Mr. Al-Mulki’s resignation and the temporary rescinding of price and tax hikes.

“While it is easy to argue that citizens want bread before freedom, economic liberalization took place without the development of a system of checks and balances and resulted in the benefits of economic reform being usurped by an elite few… Economic reform must be accompanied by political reform, such that institutional mechanisms of accountability are developed to monitor excesses and ensure benefits are made available to all,” Mr. Muasher cautioned in 2011.

King Abdullah’s current need to win public support rather than pacify the public has been compounded by tectonic shifts in the Middle East that have reduced the value of Jordan, a country that is dependent on foreign aid, to its traditional allies such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and driven a wedge between them on key policy issues.

With Gulf states liaising directly with Israel, Jordan is no longer needed as an interlocutor. The same is true of Jordan’s ability to leverage its geography in the wake of the defeat of the Islamic State in Iraq and a growing acceptance that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is winning his country’s brutal civil and proxy wars.

Jordan’s usefulness in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has also diminished because of US president Donald J. Trump’s policies that have effectively dashed hopes for a two-state solution.

Adding to King Abdullah’s woes is pressure on Jordan’s labour market as a result of economic reform in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that involves a push to reduce reliance on foreign and expatriate labour.

Jordan’s refusal to back Israeli and Saudi support for Mr. Trump’s approach coupled with his rebuttal of Saudi pressure to join the one year-old Saudi-UAE-led economic and diplomatic boycott of Qatar and more recent symbolic overtures to Iran have won it little sympathy in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi and cost it badly needed financial aid.

Said Jordan scholar Sean Yom: “The real heart of public outrage is not about tax brackets, but something far broader – the notion of the state radically scaling back its end of the social contract and not providing anything in return. From the monarchy’s perspective, it has little choice. Nonetheless, the prospect of more social turmoil makes the search for a new geopolitical conduit to survival even more pressing.”

Survival could well mean that Jordan forges closer ties to countries like Iran, Turkey, Qatar and Russia – a prospect that is raising concern in Jerusalem, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.

Already, Jordan’s smouldering discontent has Israeli and Western intelligence analysts worried. Even if it may seem at best a theoretical notion, some have nonetheless begun to ponder the survivability of Jordan’s Hashemite dynasty.

That may be a scenario too far. What is beyond doubt, however, is the fact that King Abdullah’s options are narrowing as he walks an ever more tightly spun tightrope.

Ron Paul: Homeschooling Protects Children From Violence And Marxism – OpEd

0
0

The February mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida prompted many parents to consider homeschooling. This is hardly surprising, as the misnamed federal “Gun-Free Schools” law leaves schoolchildren defenseless against mass shooters. Removing one’s children from government schools seems a rational response to school shootings.

School shootings are not the only form of violence causing more parents to consider homeschooling. Many potential homeschooling parents are concerned about the failure of school administrators to effectively protect children from bullying by other students.

Of course many parents choose homeschooling as a means of protecting their children from federal education “reforms” such as Common Core. Other parents are motivated by a desire to protect their children from the cultural Marxism that has infiltrated many schools.

The spread of cultural Marxism has contributed to the dumbing down of public education. Too many government schools are more concerned with promoting political correctness than ensuring that students receive a good education. Even if cultural Marxism did not dumb down education, concerns that government schools are indoctrinating children with beliefs that conflict with parents’ political, social, and even religious beliefs would motivate many families to homeschool.

Even when government schools are not intentionally promoting cultural Marxism or other left-wing ideologies, they are still implicitly biased toward big government. For example, how many government schools teach the Austrian economics explanation for the Great Depression — much less question the wisdom of central banking — or critically examine the justifications for America’s hyper-interventionist foreign policy?

Parents interested in providing their children with a quality education emphasizing the ideas of liberty should consider looking into my homeschooling curriculum. The Ron Paul Curriculum provides students with a well-rounded education that includes rigorous programs in history, mathematics, and the physical and natural sciences. The curriculum also provides instruction in personal finance. Students can develop superior oral and verbal communication skills via intensive writing and public speaking courses. Another feature of my curriculum is that it provides students the opportunity to create and run their own internet businesses.

The government and history sections of the curriculum emphasize Austrian economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of liberty. However, unlike government schools, my curriculum never puts ideological indoctrination ahead of education.

While government schools — and even many private schools — pretend religion played no significant role in history, my curriculum addresses the crucial role religion played in the development of Western civilization. However, the materials are drafted in such a way that any Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist parent can feel comfortable using the curriculum.

Interactive forums allow students to engage with and learn from each other. The forums ensure students are actively engaged in their education as well as give them an opportunity to interact with their peers outside of a formal setting.

Concern about the safety of students in government-run schools is one reason many parents are considering homeschooling, but it is not the only reason. Many parents are motivated by a desire to give their children something better than a curriculum that has been dumbed down by federal initiatives like Common Core. Other parents do not wish to have their children indoctrinated with views that contradict the parents’ political, social, or even religious beliefs.

I encourage all parents looking at alternatives to government schools —alternatives that provide children with a well-rounded education that introduces them to the history and ideas of liberty — to go to RonPaulCurriculum.com for more information about my homeschooling program.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

What The Supreme Court Got Wrong In Its Gay-Wedding Cake Decision – OpEd

0
0

By Ryan McMaken*

The US Supreme Court Monday ruled 7-2 in favor of a Denver small business owner who has been threatened, sanctioned, and ultimately driven out of business by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The controversy arose when the cake shop owner, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, claiming to be motivated by religious beliefs.

The cake shop was hauled up before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission where the commission ruled that the shop must “change its company policies, provide ‘comprehensive staff training’ regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers.”

Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch and Thomas all voted to overturn the earlier appeals court’s decision to uphold the Commission’s ruling against Phillips. Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented.

In the decision, authored by Justice Kennedy, much of the reasoning centered on the fact that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had demonstrated an apparently obvious bias against religious people, even though “neutrality” is legally required in such cases. The ruling states:

As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.

The SCOTUS ruling also noted that both the Commission and the appeals court largely ignored and glossed over the fact that the Commission had on three prior occasions ruled in favor of bakers who had refused to bake cakes with anti-gay slogans on them. There was an enormous double standard at work.

As Kagan notes in her concurring opinion, the Civil Rights Commission was abandoning neutrality in favor of making decisions “based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness.”

In other words, the Commission was deciding, based on the members’ own personal prejudices and biases, who shall be forced to bake cakes, and who shall not.

As is sometimes the case with these decisions, the SCOTUS’s decision is highly specific and certainly doesn’t amount to a general “you don’t have to bake that cake” edict. Nevertheless, the decision does reinforce certain limits on “civil rights” organizations that pretend to be doing battle against prejudice and bigotry.

In reality, as the behavior of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has made clear, governments are simply substituting their own bigotry in place of the alleged bigotry practiced by small business owners like Philips. As the ruling notes, the members of the Commission showed hostility toward Phillips’s religious beliefs, and this was a motivating factor in the Commissions efforts to destroy him.

Government-imposed bigotry is worse than private-sector bigotry, of course, because there are numerous private-sector firms which one can voluntarily boycott or employ to bake cakes. If one bakery is rude or intolerant toward certain customers, the customers can choose to go elsewhere. When it comes to government commissions, on the other hand, there is no escape. One can’t simply say, “I don’t like you and I’ll go to the government next door.” No, you’re simply stuck with the bigots at the government’s commission, and if they don’t like your religion, you have no other choices — except of course uprooting your entire life and moving to another state. This situation is even worse when policy is federalized, and one can’t even take advantages of different legal environments in different states.

Ignoring the Real Solution: Property Rights

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s ruling does not address the central problem with “anti-discrimination” laws and other “public accommodation” requirements.

At their core, such laws and regulations are fundamentally based on eliminating the private property rights of business owners who ought to be free to dispose of their property as they see fit.

As such, the problem in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case could be easily addressed by simply respecting the property rights of business owners everywhere. Unfortunately, the choice of judges and legislators in recent decades has been to fall back on very narrowly defined “rights” such as religious liberty and the right to free speech. Much of the legal debate has thus centered on whether or not baking a cake, or not baking one, counts as the exercise of religion, or is free speech, or is even a form of artistic expression.

But, as Murray Rothbard has demonstrated, rights to religious expression and speech are simply types of property rights. Consequently, religious liberty and free speech can be protected with a more general respect for property rights.

In other words, if a cake shop owner is allowed to contract freely with whomever he chooses, his rights to religious expression and speech, and artistic expression will also automatically be protected.

As it is, though, judges and lawmakers have repeatedly sought ways to destroy property rights in order to take control of business owners’ private property in the name of anti-discrimination.

Faced with political resistance to a wholesale micromanaging of private business decisions — resistance based largely on stubborn reverence for the rights mentioned in the First Amendment — lawmakers have been forced to carve out exceptions to this takeover of private businesses.

This has led to a number of absurd legal and legislative acrobatics in which property owners must prove that their business decisions are motivated by artistic choices or religious conviction, but not by some other motivating factor. Thus, government commissions and courts are required to read the minds of business owners and determine whether or not their internal feelings and religious views fall under some government-approved motivation for refusing some sort of business service.

Proving or disproving internal motivations, of course, has always been an extremely sketchy way of doing things. After all, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission concluded that Phillips was using his religious views to justify unlawful discrimination. This, of course, requires that the commission members somehow have certain knowledge about the thoughts in Phillips’s head.

This sort of reasoning also has the habit of working against business owners who hold views that are held only by small minority or otherwise might be considered especially idiosyncratic. One might argue that one is religiously opposed to providing some sort of service. But unless those views are recognizable to judges and bureaucrats as part of a known religious movement, the business owner is likely to be accused of simply making up an ad hoc religion to “mask” unlawful discrimination.

Ultimately, this invites just the sort of corruption and bigotry we see on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission: the commissioners were able to decide based on personal whim whose religious views are legitimate and whose or not.

This sort of power in second guessing a person’s religious and personal views ought never be allowed of a government agency. This is likely to lead to a situation in which pretty much any business can be brought up on charges of “discrimination” and shut down based on whatever the bureaucrats imagine to be in the mind of the business owner.

As I’ve discussed before, if lawmakers see discrimination as a problem, the real answer lies in increasing the number of firms available to customers by lowering barriers to entry and encouraging entrepreneurship. And, as I’ve discussed here, the history of business in ethnic enclaves, and entrepreneurship among minority populations has long demonstrated that underserved groups of customers encourage the creation of new firms to address those unmet needs. Dealing with discrimination this way, however, would involve government giving up some of its regulatory power — and thus such a solution is unlikely to be popular with the people who make the laws.

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

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute.

Argentina Drops Pre-World Cup Friendly With Israel In Jerusalem Amid Palestinian Outcry

0
0

A friendly match between the Argentinian and Israeli squads, set to take place in Jerusalem on Saturday, was nixed after Palestinians called out the team for “whitewashing” Israeli occupation and the crackdown against protesters.

Pressure for the football match to be cancelled has been rising since last week, with Palestinian activists staging protests near the prospective venue in West Jerusalem and sport officials penning letters to the Argentinian authorities, asking them to revise the decision in light of the recent deadly Gaza clashes and Israel’s insistence on holding the game in Jerusalem.

While there has been no official word on the fate of the match so far, Argentinian striker Gonzalo Higuain appeared to confirm the news while speaking to ESPN on Tuesday.

“They’ve finally done the right thing,” he said, referring to the Argentine Football Association’s apparent decision to scrap the game, which was scheduled to be the Lionel Messi-led team’s last warm-up before it takes the pitch at the World Cup in Russia next week.

In a statement on Monday, the Palestinian Football Association threatened to thwart Argentina’s bid to host the World Cup in 2030, if the game takes place as planned.

“The Palestinian Football Family calls upon the Argentinian Football association, and the Argentinian national team, to refrain from being used, by politicians in the Israeli Government, as a tool to normalize the illegal annexation of Occupied East Jerusalem, and to whitewash the Israeli systematic violations of international law and human rights,” the association said in a strongly-worded statement.

Last week, The association’s chief, Jibril Rajoub, launched a personal broadside at Argentine’s biggest star, Messi. Noting that the forward “has tens of millions of fans in the Arab and Muslim countries,” Rajoub went as far as to call on this multi-million army to “burn their shirts which bear his name and posters” unless the Argentinian refuses to partake in the game.

The calls for the Argentinian team to withdraw were echoed by Arab Israeli MPs, with Israeli Knesset member Yousef Jabareen (Joint List) meeting with the Argentinian ambassador to Israel last Friday. The MP said that by agreeing to play in Jerusalem, the Argentinian footballers would condone the “gross human rights violations” by the Israeli government while emboldening it further with a “dangerous message.”

As the cancellation emerged as the most likely option, the issue was raised at the highest intergovernmental level. It was reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Argentinian President Mauricio Macri, asking him to throw his support behind the match.

However, Macri reportedly told Netanyahu that the final decision was out of his reach, Haaretz reported.

The match was originally set to take place at the Sammy Ofer Stadium in Haifa. However, the Israeli authorities recently moved the game to Jerusalem’s Teddy Stadium, even though it has fewer seats.

European Commission’s Budget Chief Is Spain’s New Economy Minister

0
0

By Jorge Valero

(EurActiv) — The EU’s director-general for budget, Nadia Calviño, was picked on Tuesday (5 June) for the post of the economy minister by the new Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, signalling the Socialist government’s readiness to meet the EU’s fiscal commitments in times of market instability.

Sanchez stressed his priority would be to ensure Spain’s stability, following his successful no-confidence motion against Partido Popular’s government led by Mariano Rajoy last week.

The Socialist leader promised he would maintain the centre-right budget for this year. Calviño’s appointment is yet another signal aimed at reassuring Brussels and the markets that the fourth largest eurozone economy will continue balancing the public accounts.

Sanchez told European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker of his intention to appoint Calviño in a phone call on Tuesday.

Sanchez took over in a frenetic week as political instability in Italy sparked fresh tensions in the markets. Calviño’s expertise in managing the one trillion EU budget, her prestige in Brussels and her international experience will be an asset for Sanchez’s minority government.

The finance ministry will be controlled by María Jesus Montero, who was in charge of the same portfolio in Andalucía.

Her latest remarks before the news broke were unusually political for a senior EU official. She criticized Rajoy’s disregard for women’s demands during a massive demonstration in early March.

Calviño has been the director general for budget since May 2014. Before that, she was deputy director general in DG internal market, where she oversaw the immense review of EU rules to tighten the control of the financial sector.

Completing the reform of the Spanish banking sector and privatisation of its banks will be among her top priorities.

Calviño already held a senior post in the previous Socialist government led by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. She was director-general of competition until she left to join the Commission in August 2006.

She is very well regarded in the institutions. Various EU officials contacted by EURACTIV agreed she is “very competent and smart”, with a “contagious energy and enthusiasm”. She proved the command of her dossiers from her early days in DG Competition, where she was in charge of mergers.

She is seen as a tough but respectful colleague. Her communication skills were noted by journalists when she explained the complexities of the EU budget or the financial reform.

Her negotiating skills were shown during the long trilogues with the co-legislators on the annual budgets. People in the room recalled her leadership in steering the discussions at 3.50 am, when the energy among the legislators and diplomats was running low.

Her appointment will facilitate Sanchez’s first steps in Madrid, but itr comes at a critical moment for her former team in the Commission.

The EU is about to start the negotiations on the next multiannual financial framework (2021-2027), the EU’s long-term budget. Commission officials and MEPs admit these negotiations could be the most complicated ones because of the increasing number of priorities to be addressed with less money, given Britain’s exit from the EU next year.

The MFF negotiations come on top of handling the trade dispute with the US, tensions with the newly formed populist government in Italy, the long-standing battle with Hungary and Poland, and the slow progress on the Brexit talks.

But inside the Commission, her departure wasn’t seen as a blow to the ongoing work.

“This is good news for Spain and for the EU”, a Commission spokesperson said. “It proves the experience and the talent of the senior managers in the Commission”, he added.

Shining A Light On More Accurate Way To Estimate Climate Change

0
0

It doesn’t matter if it’s a forest, a soybean field, or a prairie, all plants take up carbon dioxide during photosynthesis – the process where they use sunlight to convert water and carbon dioxide into food. During this changeover, the plants emit an energy “glow” that is not visible to the human eye, but can be detected by satellites in space.

Now, researchers at the University of New Hampshire have taken that one step further. By using satellite data from different major land-based ecosystems around the globe, they have found that the photosynthesis glow is the same across all vegetation, no matter the location. This first-of-its-kind global analysis could have significance in providing more accurate data for scientists working to model carbon cycle and eventually help better project climate change.

“The importance of these results is that rather than look at several different types of data and computer-based models from information collected on the ground to monitor plant photosynthesis across the globe, using the satellite observations will provide a near real-time option that is simple, reliable and fast,” said Jingfeng Xiao, a UNH research associate professor and the principal investigator on the study recently published in the journal Global Change Biology.

Plants across the globe are a major carbon sink helping to remove carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. Because of this, accurate photosynthesis estimates are crucial for scientists who examine ecosystem functions, carbon cycling, and feedbacks to the climate. The challenge has been in the ground-based data scientists previously used to estimate it, including air temperature, solar radiation, precipitation, and other information used in computer-based Earth systems models that focus on the carbon cycle. However, those calculations have large variations that can affect results.

To measure the amount of carbon taken up by plants through photosynthesis, known as gross primary productivity (GPP), scientists have increasingly been measuring the energy glow of plants, called solar-induced fluorescence (SIF). This light that is emitted through the leaf is found at the high end of the light spectrum. While scientists have used this data for specific biomes, or distinct biological communities like a forest or a desert, this study is the first to look at the relationship between ground-based GPP and satellite-observed SIF in different areas across the globe – from grasslands to mixed forests and even areas with sparse vegetation.

Researchers collected the SIF data for plants in eight major biomes, or ecosystem types, from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) satellite and found that it didn’t matter where the plants were, that just like earlier studies in single areas, where there was more SIF, the plants took up more carbon from photosynthesis, and vice versa. Xiao’s research establishes this universal relationship across eight major ecosystem types and shows that SIF can indeed serve as a proxy for more time-intensive calculations.

“This is a big step towards being able to solely rely on satellite measurements,” said Xiao. “Because it is a very simple model it could help reduce uncertainty in the data, lower computational costs and help better project climate change.”

This is the first time the OCO-2 has been used in a global analysis based on SIF observations. In addition, the direct universal relationship revealed in this study allows the estimation of photosynthesis without knowing the ecosystem type. This is especially important for areas of the globe where the satellite might not have reliable, fine-scale data on the vegetation type. Xiao is currently working on developing global SIF estimates for areas ranging on the scale of a few to tens of square kilometers, which he says will be useful for the scientific community studying these topics.


Does Living Near Wind Turbines Negatively Impact Human Health?

0
0

Wind turbines are a source of clean renewable energy, but some people who live nearby describe the shadow flicker, the audible sounds and the subaudible sound pressure levels as “annoying.” They claim this nuisance negatively impacts their quality of life.

A team of researchers from the University of Toronto and Ramboll, an engineering company funding the work, set out to investigate how residential distance from the wind turbines — within a range of 600 meters (1,968.5 feet) to 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) — affects people’s health.

They reanalyzed data collected for the “Community Noise and Health Study” from May to September 2013 by Statistics Canada, the national statistical office. The team reports their new analysis in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

“The Community Noise and Health Study generated data useful for studying the relationship between wind turbine exposures and human health — including annoyance and sleep disturbances,” said Rebecca Barry, an author on the paper. “Their original results examined modeled wind turbine noise based on a variety of factors — source sound power, distance, topography and meteorology, among others.”

The team’s new assessment confirmed Statistics Canada’s initial findings. “Respondents who live in areas with higher levels of modeled sound values (40 to 46 decibels) reported more annoyance than respondents in areas with lower levels of modeled sound values (<25 dB),” Barry said. Unsurprisingly, the survey’s respondents who live closer to the turbines “were more likely to report being annoyed than respondents who live further away.”

The earlier Statistics Canada study found no direct link between residents’ distance from wind turbines and sleep disturbances (as measured by sleep assessments and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), blood pressure, or stress (either self-reported or measured via hair cortisol). However, the more recent study showed that survey respondents closer to wind turbines reported lower ratings for their environmental quality of life. Barry and her co-authors note that their cross-sectional study cannot distinguish whether these respondents were dissatisfied before the wind turbines were installed.

“Wind turbines might have been placed in locations where residents were already concerned about their environmental quality of life,” said Sandra Sulsky, a researcher from Ramboll. “Also, as is the case with all surveys, the respondents who chose to participate may have viewpoints or experiences that differ from those who chose not to participate. Survey respondents may have participated precisely to express their dissatisfaction, while those who did not participate might not have concerns about the turbines.”

The team’s more recent study didn’t explicitly find evidence that exposure to wind turbines actually impacts human health, but in the future, “measuring the population’s perceptions and concerns before and after turbine installation may help to clarify what effects — if any — exposure to wind turbines may have on quality of life,” Sulsky said.

Millions Could Have Incorrect Statin, Aspirin And Blood Pressure Prescriptions

0
0

More than 11 million Americans may have incorrect prescriptions for aspirin, statins and blood pressure medications, according to a study led by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine.

Their findings are based on an updated set of calculations — known as pooled cohort equations, or PCEs — that are used to determine the risk of a heart attack or stroke.

The PCEs are the foundation for cardiovascular-disease-prevention guidelines in the United States. They help physicians decide whether to prescribe aspirin, blood pressure or statin medications, or some combination of these, by estimating the risk a patient may have for a heart attack or stroke. Most physicians calculate a patient’s risk using a PCE web calculator or a smartphone app; the equations are also built into many electronic health records so that a patient’s risk is automatically calculated during an office visit.

But there has been debate over whether the PCEs are based on outdated data and therefore putting some patients at risk for over- or under-medication.

“We found that there are probably at least two major ways to improve the 2013 equations,” said Sanjay Basu, MD, PhD, assistant professor of primary care outcomes research at the School of Medicine and a core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy. “The first was well-known: that the data used to derive the equations could be updated.”

Old equations

For example, he said, one of the main data sets used to derive the original equations had information from people who were 30-62 years old in 1948, and who would therefore be 100 to 132 years old in 2018 — that is, likely dead. The older equations were often estimating people’s risk as too high, possibly by an average of 20 percent across risk groups.

“A lot has changed in terms of diets, environments and medical treatment since the 1940s,” Basu said. “So, relying on our grandparents’ data to make our treatment choices is probably not the best idea.”

Basu is the senior author of the study, which will be published June 5 in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The lead author is Steve Yadlowsky, a graduate student in electrical engineering at Stanford.

Furthermore, the researchers found that the old data may not have had a sufficient sample of African-Americans. For many African-Americans, physicians may have been estimating the risks of heart attacks or strokes as too low.

“So while many Americans were being recommended aggressive treatments that they may not have needed according to current guidelines, some Americans — particularly African-Americans — may have been given false reassurance and probably need to start treatment given our findings,” Basu said.

The researchers have updated the PCEs with newer data in an effort to substantially improve the accuracy of the cardiovascular risk estimates. The National Institutes of Health, which maintains and updates the cohort data, approved the updated equations.

Updating statistical methods

A second improvement to the equations, the authors found, was to update the statistical methods used to derive the equations.

“We found that by revising the PCEs with new data and statistical methods, we could substantially improve the accuracy of cardiovascular disease risk estimates,” the authors wrote.

The work is an example of Stanford Medicine’s focus on precision health, the goal of which is to anticipate and prevent disease in the healthy and precisely diagnose and treat disease in the ill.

Surprising Resurgence Of Red Spruce Likely Result Of Cleaner Air And Warmer Winters

0
0

Red spruce, for decades the forest equivalent of the canary in the coal mine signaling the detrimental effects of acid rain on northeastern forests, is making a comeback. New research by a team of scientists from the USDA Forest Service and the University of Vermont suggests that a combination of reduced pollution mandated by the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act and changing climate are behind the resurgence.

The study, “The surprising recovery of red spruce growth shows links to decreased acid deposition and elevated temperature” by lead author Alexandra Kosiba of the University of Vermont with co-authors Paul Schaberg of the USDA Forest Service’s Northern Research Station and University of Vermont researchers, was published this week in the journal Science of the Total Environment.

The research team assessed the relationship between red spruce growth and factors that may influence growth such as tree age and diameter, stand dynamics, plot characteristics (elevation, slope, aspect, geographical position), and environmental variables including temperature, precipitation, a suite of climate indices, and sulfur and nitrogen pollution deposition that cause acid deposition. In a study that encompassed 658 trees in 52 plots spanning five states, they found that more than 75 percent of red spruce trees and 90 percent of the plots examined in the study exhibited increasing growth since 2001.

“Our research suggests that the reductions we’ve seen in acid rain are making a difference to forests in the Northeast,” said Schaberg. “Acid rain decline has helped red spruce recover, as well as higher temperatures in the fall, winter, and spring. Higher temperatures help some species and hurt others – right now, red spruce are benefiting, but they could be vulnerable to change in the future.”

Red spruce have unique characteristics that make them particularly susceptible to acid rain. For example, they have little genetic variation and they have only moderate tolerance to the cold. But they are also able to “wake up” and photosynthesize during warm interludes of the dormant season, a characteristic that may better position the species to take advantage of recent climate shifts that extend the functional growing season. Yet the study notes that future changes in habitat suitability may not be as favorable to red spruce as those already experienced – it will likely depend on how extreme future changes are.

Scientists are confident that their research represents the state of red spruce in the entire region, according to Kosiba. “Our study included a broad range of tree ages and sizes as well as a variety of plot locations and characteristics,” she said. “We are confident that we are capturing the regional status of red spruce forests, not just a snapshot of a specific location.”

“More broadly our work demonstrates the importance of using research to identify ecosystem problems that inform policy to mitigate those issues, and result in biological recovery,” noted Kosiba.

Events In Ukraine, Kazakhstan And Belarus Behind Putin’s Push On Languages – OpEd

0
0

Many have wondered why Vladimir Putin waded into nationality policy last July with his call to make the study of all non-Russian languages voluntary while keeping instruction in Russian compulsory, a position that has proved to be extremely unpopular among non-Russians.

But there is a good explanation, political geographer Dmitry Oreshkin says, and it is this: “Putin is beginning to feel a loss of control … looking at what is taking place in Ukraine or more accurately in Belarus and also in Kazakhstan, the center feels that if things proceed further, something like a ‘Tatarstan identity’ will appear” (rosbalt.ru/moscow/2018/06/04/1708008.html).

And so a decision was made in the Kremlin to “quietly prevent that,” the scholar says. But it hasn’t proved as quiet as Putin had hoped.

In reporting this, Rosbalt journalist Leonid Smirnov notes that putting Putin’s idea into law is more complicated than many imagined. First, he cites the fact that many non-Russian parents don’t want their children to study non-Russian languages or perhaps even Russian but rather English or some other foreign language.

Second, he reports that the authors of the legislation have agreed to form yet another working group to draft revisions in the bill because as one of its authors Alena Arshinova notes, “we have to think together how to motivate children and their parents to study native languages without using administrative methods.”

And third, he cites the observation of Academician Valery Tishkov, former director of the Moscow Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology and close advisor to Putin on ethnic issues, that whatever the law says, Russia will have to live with regional differences in how languages are handled because the situations in some republics are so different than they are in others.

China’s Steelmakers Push Back On Downsizing – Analysis

0
0

By Michael Lelyveld

China’s steelmakers may be trying to push back their timetable for cutting excess production capacity, three months after the government promised to speed it up.

The shifting of target dates and production totals appears to be an attempt to preserve China’s overwhelming share of the global steel market while easing international pressure on its producers to make cuts.

China’s huge surplus of steel capacity has been a constant problem for foreign competitors and a hot issue behind the U.S. decision to slap a 25-percent tariff on imports. A recent statement from China’s producers may only add fuel to the fire.

In a speech published on May 18, the president of the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA), Yu Yong, said the country would lower its annual production capacity to less than 1 billion metric tons by 2025, according to Reuters.

China’s industry had already reduced capacity by as much as 120 million tons since 2016, when the government ordered 100 million to 150 million tons in cuts by 2020, Yu said.

Despite the apparent compliance, Yu’s speech raised a host of questions, since the industry’s current capacity has already been estimated at less than 1 billion tons.

In a separate report on May 16, Reuters estimated China’s crude steel capacity as about 950 million tons, exceeding its 2017 production of 831.7 million tons.

Last year, China accounted for 49.2 percent of global output, according to the World Steel Association. China made nearly eight times more steel than second-ranked Japan.

Under pressure, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) said on Feb. 7 that China would complete the 150 million tons of reductions this year, two years ahead of the 2020 schedule.

The CISA’s target date of 2025 appeared to be at odds with the accelerated timetable, leaving it unclear whether China is speeding up cuts or slowing them down.

Confusion over the starting point for reductions and capacity totals have complicated the conclusions.

Estimates based on National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) data suggest that the country’s production capacity is already at or near the 1-billion ton mark.

In a posting at the Peterson Institute for International Economics last June, research analyst Zhiyao Lu noted that the NBS statistical yearbook for 2016 listed crude steel capacity as 1.1269 billion tons.

The claimed cuts of 115 million to 120 million tons would bring the total close to 1 billion, leaving little or no downsizing to be done by the CISA’s target date of 2025.

But the CISA cast further doubt on the pace and direction of industry shutdowns by citing a higher capacity estimate of 1.2 billion tons in 2016 as the starting point for reductions, essentially adding over 70 million tons of slack.

In April 2016, a senior MIIT official said that China’s crude steel capacity stood at 1.13 billion tons, Reuters reported at the time.

In an email message, Lu said the government has frequently lumped together iron and steel data when reporting the reductions, an inconsistency that she noted in her posting last June.

If the CISA is mixing iron capacity figures in with some of its crude steel totals, it may be hard to determine whether the industry is meeting any of the steel targets.

“I think China’s capacity cut numbers tend to create some confusion, so it is difficult to assess China’s capacity reduction progress,” Lu said.

Questions from the start

The success of the government’s downsizing initiative has been subject to questions from the start.

In 2016, the government claimed that steelmakers had exceeded the annual shutdown target of 45 million tons by idling 65 million tons of production capacity. Steel prices rose with concerns of tightening supplies.

But a study sponsored by Greenpeace East Asia last year found that 54 million tons of the idled production reopened to take advantage of the rising prices.

In 2017, officials claimed that the annual reduction target of 50 million tons was achieved by last August. But whether the numbers included double-counting from 2016 was hard to tell.

This year, the downsizing target has been set at 30 million tons, but the total includes both iron and steel capacity, the official Xinhua news agency said on May 21, citing a government work report.

Meanwhile, China’s crude steel production has continued to climb, rising 1.2 percent in 2016 and 5.7 percent last year, according to NBS data. The results make the case that capacity cutting, so far, has been largely irrelevant.

Over the first four months, output is up 5 percent this year from the year-earlier period with record production in April.

The industry posted gains despite government-ordered shutdowns to curb smog in the industrialized northern region during the winter heating season that ended on March 15.

On April 27, the CISA’s secretary general, Liu Zhenjiang, issued a warning against overproduction, Xinhua reported.

“Many steel plants profited from price rises last year, and they want to make more money this year. But they ignored that China’s economic growth has transitioned from a rapid pace to a stage of high quality development,” said Lu.

“Steel plants should rein in output rises and speed up destocking,” he said.

The South China Morning Post reported that the CISA blamed the production surge on output by non-member mills, which rose 17.2 percent in the first quarter from a year earlier.

In his speech published by China Metallurgical News, Yu appeared to acknowledge the ineffectiveness of the capacity cutting targets.

“In the future, China’s overall steel demand will fluctuate downwards and overcapacity is likely to persist for a relatively sustained period of time,” he said.

“Overcapacity has not been solved fundamentally,” the CISA said, according to the SCMP.

China argues that the problems of overcapacity and overproduction are largely its own since it exports only a small percentage of the steel that it makes.

But as domestic demand drops, more steel has been pushed onto foreign markets, which have been buffeted by the secondary price effects of domestic oversupply.

Steel exports rose in April despite a 25-percent U.S. tariff that took effect March 23, Reuters reported. Exports of steel products jumped 14.7 percent from a month before, it said, citing China’s customs data.

US industry complaints

Based on U.S. Census Bureau data for the first quarter, China ranked eleventh as a source of steel imports behind countries including Canada, South Korea, Mexico, Russia and Japan. Imports of some 57,000 tons of Chinese steel rose 4.5 percent in volume and 6.3 percent by value from the year-earlier period.

Last year, U.S. imports from China of 740,000 tons accounted for only 2 percent of total imports, according to Census statistics.

But there have also been signs that China’s surplus has been diverted to other countries and finding its way to the United States after processing.

On May 21, the Commerce Department backed U.S. industry complaints about diversions of Chinese hot-rolled steel, imposing anti-dumping duties of nearly 200 percent on corrosion-resistant and cold-rolled steel from Vietnam.

After Commerce slapped anti-dumping duties on Chinese steel products in 2015, cold-rolled steel shipments from Vietnam soared from U.S. $9 million (57.3 million yuan) a year to U.S. $215 million (1.3 billion yuan), Reuters said, citing the decision.

In the first quarter, U.S. finished steel exports from Vietnam fell 27.9 percent from a year earlier, but imports in March jumped 147.3 from February, the American Iron and Steel Institute said.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images