US-ASEAN digital diplomacy reflects continuity under the Indo-Pacific Economic Vision and presents opportunities for growth. Complementary measures and sustained high-level engagements with the US and beyond must be undertaken, however, to unleash the full potential of ASEAN’s digital economy.

By Amalina Anuar*

Months after its unveiling, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo furnished details of the United States’ (US) Indo-Pacific Economic Vision (IPEV) in July. As the economic prong of the US’ larger Indo-Pacific strategy, the IPEV aims to expand Indo-Pacific economic engagement, with Washington reassuring ASEAN of its central position in its latest geo-strategic offering.

The IPEV encompasses multilateral cooperation within three fields: digital economy, energy and infrastructure. Under the Digital Connectivity and Cybersecurity Partnership (DCCP), the Trump administration has pledged US$25 million as a down payment to “improve [Indo-Pacific] partner countries’ digital connectivity and expand opportunities for U.S. technology exports”. The DCCP promises to heighten cooperation in cybersecurity capacity-building and promote market-driven digital regulation policies.

Something Old, Something New

More information communication technology (ICT) infrastructure projects are to be pursued via public-private partnerships, while US-ASEAN Connect will receive $10 million. Under the Innovation Connect pillar, the Digital Economy Initiative involves research, sharing of best practices via public-private policy engagements and capacity-building.

Content-wise, the newly minted DCCP builds on existing modes of digital diplomacy. From 2015 onwards, the US-ASEAN Telecommunications and Information Technology Senior Officials Meeting (TELSOM+US) involved dialogue and development support for, inter alia, broadband infrastructure; IT and innovation policymaking; and bridging the digital divide.

In 2016, US-ASEAN Connect began organising public-private engagements for policy and regulatory framework development.

The consistency infused into the DCCP has its merits. In light of the US’ Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) withdrawal and ongoing trade tensions, it signals positive overtures through continuity in US’ regional digital cooperation. Potential for hedging against China’s Digital Silk Road aside, moreover, the DCCP can aid ASEAN in addressing longstanding obstacles to digital economic growth.

Opportunities for Growth

ASEAN’s development divide, digital or otherwise, remains significant. A mix of official development assistance from Washington and US businesses can complement current efforts to bolster ICT infrastructure, along with the underlying delivery and soft infrastructure such as logistics facilitation and human capital development.

Partnering with the Vietnam E-Commerce Association, for instance, Amazon now provides its members with an export platform. This can encourage connectivity as envisioned by the ASEAN Economic Community and ICT Masterplan, in line with wider multilateral connectivity goals such as the Asia-Pacific Information Superhighway.

Diverging cybersecurity capabilities across ASEAN also highlight the need for aiding local practitioners in constructing and reinforcing a robust, resilient system to underpin the digital economy. Further, progress on digital trade rules and regulations within international institutions remains slow. Designing regionally comprehensive 21st-century trade architecture can accelerate digitally derived economic growth in ASEAN by reducing uncertainty and improving ease of doing business.

DCCP and Beyond

Though the DCCP provides opportunities to nurture ASEAN’s digital engine of growth, it must be complemented by other mutually reinforcing efforts.

Firstly, ICT infrastructure availability has to be matched by accessibility and affordability. According to the World Bank, for instance, Malaysian businesses struggle to adopt digital processes and solutions due to quality and cost issues. These barriers leave Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises— which constitute between 88.8% to 99.9% of ASEAN economies and contribute up to 53% of GDP in some states — at risk in the new economy.

Hence, equally important to mitigating digital divides in non-CLMV countries is the need to ensure that the digital age encourages inclusive growth rather than exacerbates existing inequalities.

Secondly, collaborative digital regulations should be devised with compatibility and interoperability in mind. This facilitates future integration with frameworks spread across the region’s various free trade agreements, including the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and TPP-11, and ASEAN+1 arrangements such as the ASEAN-Australia Digital Trade Standards Initiative launched at the 2018 Sydney Declaration.

This could ensure less frictional and more comprehensive regional governance for key issues such as data sharing, allowing for better capitalisation on the Indo-Pacific’s booming e-commerce markets.

Striking Equilibrium

Nonetheless, it remains to be seen how ASEAN will strike an equilibrium between Washington-promoted market-driven digital regulation and ASEAN’s own proclivity for market-friendly policies, which occasionally subjugate liberalisation to development goals. With an eye towards building strong international brands, states should generally provide a conducive environment for indigenous businesses to thrive without smothering nascent industries via premature overexposure to global competition.

Yet the Trump administration has, for example, targeted Beijing’s Made in China 2025 industrial policy. Dynamics differ as ASEAN has yet to constitute a threat to US tech companies’ dominance. However, it is unclear if ASEAN’s mixed trade policies — which also feature digital protectionist inclinations— will be tolerated to the same extent as before, given Trump’s previous complaints of unfair trade balances at 2017’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

Thirdly, though cybersecurity and US-ASEAN Connect programmes will receive a boost, further cooperation in innovation and digital skills could be explored given their importance in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This could reduce the sting of any potential attempts at overzealous export promotion to reduce the US current account deficit with several Southeast Asian countries, while also accruing benefits such as higher productivity yields.

Avoiding Past Missteps & Staying the Course

This would also help ASEAN avoid past missteps in development policy. During the late 1990s push towards knowledge economies, some ASEAN countries veered towards becoming outposts for low value-added shared services within global value chains rather than innovative hubs. This is despite international private investment in ICT projects such as Malaysia’s Multimedia Super Corridor.

Initiatives for enhancing digital prowess must thus be harnessed strategically to achieve ASEAN’s ultimate aim of not only catch-up but cutting-edge growth.

ASEAN can also explore heightening cooperation with existing partners. ICT cooperation is not officially included under the ASEAN-New Zealand 2016-2020 Plan of Action, for instance. This, despite New Zealand being highly ranked in both the Digital Evolution Index and the Global ICT Development Index that measure national digital economy competencies.

Via the DCCP, the US promises to build upon current initiatives in its digital diplomacy with ASEAN. Certain benefits can be derived from the IPEV, albeit it must be complemented by other multilevel governance efforts. Moving forward, the challenge is to stay the course in sustainably and consistently implementing the high-level IPEV commitment, avoiding a return to prior ad hoc US engagements in Asia for the region’s shared prosperity.

*Amalina Anuar is a Research Analyst with the Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS) at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

While there has been no perceptible effect of tariffs on the economy of either the US or China so far, additional tariffs which could eventually cover the entire $500 billion of US imports from China will most certainly have a negative effect on both countries and the world.

By Manoj Joshi

With the clock ticking towards 6 September, the world stands at the edge of a precipice. On that date, the public comment period on the US’s plans to impose fresh tariffs on 6,000 products worth $200 billion worth of imports will come to an end, and the betting is that the Donald Trump administration is likely to go ahead with the move.

China is expected to retaliate by levying duties on $60 billion worth of US goods. Given Xi Jinping’s political posture, China cannot compromise on its “Made in China 2025” and will therefore fight on, or seek compromise on, other issues relating to market access and intellectual property protection issues.

Efforts to restart US-China trade talks through discussions between mid-level officials in Washington DC at the end of August do not seem to have worked and the reckoning is that a trade compromise, if indeed it is possible, will have to wait for the November elections in the US.

The two countries have already imposed 25% tariffs on $50 billion worth of each other’s imports so far. While there has been no perceptible effect of these tariffs on the economy of either the US or China, additional tariffs which could eventually cover the entire $500 billion of US imports from China will most certainly have a negative effect on both countries and the world.

The likelihood of the additional China tariffs has been strengthened by the deal that the US has struck with Mexico and the possibility that Canada will join in to make a revised North American Free Trade Agreement is being seen as a victory for Trump. This has reinforced the US president’s conviction that tariffs are a winner amongst his electorate and will play well for the November elections.

Another issue roiling US-China relations arise from the difficulties the US is facing in its negotiations with North Korea. In late August, Trump issued a statement on Twitter noting that he felt “strongly that North Korea is under tremendous pressure from China because of our major trade disputes with the Chinese government.” He accused China of providing North Korea with a range of goods that were supposed to be embargoed.

Some reports say that Xi Jinping may visit Pyongyang in September for the 70th founding anniversary of the DPRK; this is only likely to happen if Beijing has decided not to pressure Pyongyang at the US’s behest. On the other hand, in his statement cited above, Trump enigmatically noted that his relationship with “China’s great President Xi Jinping” remained strong.

So far this year, Trump and Xi have not met. But they could meet at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in November to be held at Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea, and again later at the sidelines of the G20 summit at the end of November in Argentina.

Those who believed that Beijing could ride out the issue till the November elections are having to redo their calculations. It’s clear now that whether the Congress is dominated by the Republicans or the Democrats, there will be little change in US policy with regard to China. This becomes clear from the language of the 2019 version of the National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA), as well as the voting in both houses of Congress.

On 13 August, Trump signed the Act which had passed by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress. The Bill declared, “long term strategic competition with China is a principal priority for the United States.” It authorised defence expenditure of $716 billion and called on the president to submit a report on the “whole of government” strategy of the US government with regard to China by 1 March 2019. The secretaries of defence and state have been asked to submit reports to relevant congressional committees on the military and coercive activities of the People’s Liberation Army in the South China Sea. The US government has been barred from using Huawei and ZTE equipment, the key Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CIFUS) has been strengthened.

Many now believe that Beijing underestimated Washington’s resolve in taking on China on the issue of trade and that their bigger failure was in not understanding that the issue actually went beyond trade, and that the US political elites are now united in seeing China as a “strategic competitor.”

In an article in People’s Daily, Long Guoqiang, vice president of the State Council’s Development Research Centre, has called for “strategic patience” on the part of China. In a commentary in People’s Daily, Long said that this was not just about the US gaining more economic benefits, but an “important strategy to contain China.” Long’s comments come in the wake of similar articles in the Chinese media and an editorial on 10 August declaring that the trade war was part of the US’s containment strategy. The idea that trade is just one of a multi-pronged strategy to “thwart China’s rise” has now probably become the official consensus view in Beijing.

Meanwhile, China watchers who were caught up in rumours of Xi’s declining influence and stability in the last few months are eating crow. Since reappearing from the summer party seniors’ retreat in Beidaihe on 16 August, Xi has held four major high-level meetings, beginning with one with the PLA brass, followed by an important first meeting of a commission dealing with propaganda and ideology. The third meeting last week dealt with law and order and deepening reforms, and finally last Monday, Xi chaired a meeting on the Belt and Road Initiative signalling that China intended to stay the course on his signature foreign policy venture.

This article originally appeared on The Wire.

Promoted at Johnson’s Russia List (JRL) on August 31, the recent commentaries from Doug Bandow and Andreas Umland, serve as examples of a continued Western based arrogance, ignorance and hypocrisy regarding Crimea. Please no two faced lectures on civility. As discussed below, it’s not good manners to be so absurdly pious.

As of this writing, no rebuttal to Umland and/or Bandow has been posted at JRL, thereby making this follow-up all the more appropriate. A constructively active pro-Russian advocacy isn’t well served by not addressing the kind of comments stated by Bandow and Umland. Phony, crony, baloney, wonky, tonk establishment snootiness aside, the JRL court appointed Russia friendly regulars aren’t the only viably available option.

The views of Bandow and Umland very much relate to Michael McFaul’s claim that Vladimir Putin is off base when the latter mentions Kosovo relative to Crimea. In his mis-informative filled Washington Post op-ed of July 26, McFaul (who is frequently propped at JRL) flippantly says that Kosovo is unrelated to Crimea. Note that McFaul’s stated academic specialty includes the study known as comparative politics. With that in mind, it’s especially ridiculous for him to out rightly dismiss Putin’s Kosovo reference to Crimea. (McFaul’s comments are discussed in my Strategic Culture Foundation articles of this past July 29 and 12.)

Kosovo and Crimea have populations which (in majority terms) don’t want to be with the given nation that they were a part of. In US foreign policy establishment terms, it’s geopolitically inconvenient to note that since Kosovo was forcefully taken away from Serbia, that disputed territory doesn’t show itself to be less violent, less corrupt and socioeconomically better off than Crimea, since its reunification with Russia – a reunification which was greatly triggered by the coup like circumstances in Kiev, when Ukraine’s democratically elected president was overthrown.

Towards the end of my August 7, 2014 Global Research article, the anti-Russian aspects associated with Yanukovych’s overthrow are noted. By and large, Crimea has a clear pro-Russian majority. The folks heavily embroiled in overthrowing Yanukovych, showed little if any concern for the Crimean consensus, who were disrespectfully expected to go along with the change in Kiev.

These thoughts pertain to the reason Turkey gave for intervening in northern Cyprus and its recognition and support of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus“. On that score, Turkey said that the political instability (at the time) in Greece had prompted Ankara’s move in northern Cyprus. This action was initiated decades ago and hasn’t been met with any notable condemnation and sanctions, along the lines of what happened relative to Crimea and the rest of Russia. (Now that Turkey has been at increased odds with the West, don’t be surprised to see some high profile Western establishment negativity with Turkey’s ongoing northern Cyprus stance.)

In his National Interest piece which JRL picked up, Bandow calls for another referendum in Crimea – a thought that has been previously stated by some others (including Michael O’Hanlon) – who like Bandow overlook the gross inconsistency for that advocacy. Kosovo hasn’t had a referendum, with the Turkish action in northern Cyprus to boot as well. In other words, Russia is once again being hypocritically held to a higher standard.

The result of the 2014 Crimean referendum jive with the post-referendum independent polling (some it Western) on the pro-Russian mood in Crimea. Voter participation in that election is roughly put at 83%. Of those choosing to not vote in that process, it can be reasonably surmised that most of them (not all) are against Crimea’s reunification with Russia. About 3% voted against Crimea rejoining Russia. These two variables reveal that the pro-reunification with Russia sentiment in Crimea is a well over 2/3 majority, in the 80% range. Around 97% voted for reunification.

Upon further review, Andreas Umland’s JRL posted commentary on Crimea falls short of convincing. Among other things, Umland questions the result of the 2014 Crimean referendum and the subsequent polling of Crimean public opinion. His sources disputing the referendum claim that the voter turnout and degree of Crimean support for joining Russia is considerably less than what’s formally recorded. In this overview, Umland conveniently (for him) omits some otherwise key points.

Crimea sought OSCE monitoring of the referendum. The OSCE refused to monitor on the basis that Crimea is Ukrainian territory and (in conjunction to that position), the Kiev regime (which replaced Ukraine’s democratically elected president), didn’t approve of the referendum. It’s reasonable to assert that the Kiev regime didn’t want to consent to the obvious – having to do with the majority pro-Russian consensus in Crimea. Meantime, there were non-establishment Western observers, who observed that election and declared it as being within norms.

Umland contends that the independent polling done in agreement with the referendum result is questionable because the pro-Russian perspective has become top heavy in Crimea. Israel severely muting the mainstream Palestinian perspective in Gaza and the West Bank wouldn’t significantly change the general mood among the Palestinians in these territories. Did Soviet heavy handedness in Galicia and Volhynia eliminate the OUN/UPA sentiment in these parts of western Ukraine?

Crimea isn’t so closed off and repressive. Hence, a considerable anti-Russian movement in Crimea would be evident if it in fact exists, which isn’t the case. Kiev regime controlled Ukraine remains an unattractive choice for Crimea’s pro-Russian majority. A fairly recent article in the not so Russia friendly Atlantic Council, acknowledges the situation with Ukrainian nationalist violence in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine. Its problems notwithstanding, Russia is socioeconomically better off than Ukraine.

People can change their view. Viktor Yanukovych won the Ukrainian presidency. Thereafter, he became less popular. Likewise, Crimea’s enhanced mood towards Russia makes perfect sense following Yanukovych’s overthrow. The neocons are prone to saying that the Serbs lost the right to have Kosovo. That belief arguably applies more to Ukraine relative to Crimea.

Given his anti-Russian slant over the years, it’s not surprising to see Umland’s cherry picked overview of Crimean history. Contrary to what he suggests, the Tatars didn’t inhabit Crimea before the Rus era Slavs – who’re the ancestors of modern day Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. A portion of Crimea was a part of Rus. The Tatars arrived in Crimea later on.

Crimea’s unfortunate past doesn’t just involve the Soviet collective deportation of the Crimean Tatars during WW II. Earlier, the Crimean Tatar Khanate involved itself in a slave trade against Slavs and others. Catherine the Great’s takeover of Crimea was partly in response to that behavior. It’s within reason to believe that the Russian Empire is the successor to the pre-Mongol subjugated Rus entity. (Following the end of the Mongol subjugation, the northern part of Rus, in contemporary Russia, became the strongest and most independent of Rus territories. Prior to the Mongol occupation, there were signs that the northern part of Rus was on the verge of becoming the most influential component of Rus.)

Putin has acknowledged and condemned the collective WW II era Soviet punishment of the Crimean Tatars. Since becoming a part of post-Soviet Russia, Crimea has three official languages (Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar). Compare Crimea’s virtually bloodless situation to other parts of the former Ukrainian SSR, whether in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine, or the rebel held Donbass.

Much unlike Putin’s stated desire for multiethnic tolerance, the Crimean Tatar activist Mustafa Dzhemilev is on record for advocating the ethnic cleansing of Russians from Crimea. Dzhemilev’s banned status in Crimea is in line with a tit for that process that sees numerous Russian nationals (among them being the late Ukrainian born singer Iosif Kobzon) banned from entry into Kiev regime controlled Ukraine. While expressing pro-Russian views, these banned Russians (at least most of them) haven’t advocated ethnic cleansing.

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic.

By Daniel Lacalle*

In this era of monetary fiction, one tends to read all types of undocumented and misguided views on monetary policy. However, if there is one that really is infuriating: MMT science fiction.

One of its main principles is based on a fallacy: “A country with monetary sovereignty can issue all the debt it needs without default risk.”

First, it is untrue. A report by David Beers at the Bank Of Canada has identified 27 sovereigns involved in local currency defaults between 1960 and 2016 (database here).

David Beers explains: “A long-held view by some investors is that governments rarely default on local or domestic currency sovereign debt. After all, they say, governments can service these obligations by printing money, which in turn can reduce the real burden of debt through inflation and dramatically so in cases like Germany in the 1923 and Yugoslavia in 1993-94. Of course, it’s true that high inflation can be a form of de facto default on local currency debt. Still, contractual defaults and restructurings occur and are more common than is often supposed.”

No, a country with monetary sovereignty cannot issue all the debt it needs without default risk. It needs to issue in foreign currency precisely because few trust their monetary policies. Most local citizens are the first ones to avoid the domestic currency exposure and buy US dollars, gold or (now) cryptocurrencies, fearing the inevitable.

Most governments will try to cover their fiscal and trade imbalances by devaluing and making all savers poorer.

“A country with monetary sovereignty can issue all the currency it needs” is also a fallacy.

Monetary sovereignty is not something government decides. Confidence and use of a fiat currency is not dictated by government nor does it give said government the power to do what it wants with monetary policies.

There are 152 fiat currencies that have failed due to excess inflation. Their average lifespan was 24.6 years and the median lifespan was 7 years. In fact, 82 of these currencies lasted less than a decade and 15 of them lasted less than 1 year.

Given that the world of currencies is a relative one, the average citizen of the world will prefer gold, cryptocurrencies, US dollars, or Euros and Yen despite their own imbalances rather than their own currencies.

Why is this? When governments and central banks worldwide try to implement the same mistaken monetary policy of the US and Europe or Japan but without their investment security, institutions and capital freedom, then they fall into their own trap. They weaken their own citizens’ trust in the purchasing power of the currency.

The MMT answer would be that all that is needed then is stable and trustworthy institutions. Well, it does not work then either. The first crack in that trust is precisely the currency manipulation needed to finance bloated government spending. The average citizen may not understand monetary debasement, but certainly understands that their currency is not a valid reserve of value or payment system. The value of the currency is not dictated by the government, but by the latest purchase agreements made with such means of payment.

Governments always see economic cycles as a problem of lack of demand that they need to “stimulate.” They see debt and asset bubbles as small “collateral damages” worth assuming in the quest for inflation. And crises become more frequent while debt soars and recoveries are weaker.

The imbalances of the US, Eurozone or Japan are also evident in the weak productivity growth, high debt, and diminishing effectiveness of policies (read “Monetary Stimulus Does Not Work, The Evidence Is In“).

Countries don’t borrow in foreign currency because they are dumb or ignore MMT science fiction, but because savers don’t want government currency debasement risk, no matter what yield. The first ones that avoid domestic currency debt tend to be domestic savers and investors, precisely because they understand the history of purchasing power destruction of their governments’ own monetary policies.

Some 48% of the world’s $30T in cross-border loans are priced in US dollars, up from 40% a decade ago, according to the Bank of International Settlements. Again, not because countries are stupid and don’t want to issue in local currency. Because there is little real demand.

As such, governments cannot unilaterally decide to issue “all the debt they need in local currency” precisely because of the widespread lack of confidence in the central bank or the governments’ perverse incentive to devalue at will.

As reserves dry up, and citizens see that their government is destroying purchasing power of the currency, the local savers read their minister’s talk about “economic war” and “foreign interference,” but they know what really happens. Monetary imbalances are soaring. And they run away.

Inflation Is not Solved with (More) Taxation

Many MMT proponents solve this equation of inflation caused by monetary excess by denying that inflation is always a monetary phenomenon, and that inflation can be solved by taxation. Is it not fantastic?

The government benefits the first from new money creation, massively increases its imbalances and blames inflation on the last recipients of the new money created: savers and the private sector. Then it “solves” the inflation created by government by taxing citizens again. Inflation is taxation without legislation, as Milton Friedman said.

First, the government policy makes a transfer of wealth from savers to the political sector, and then it increases taxes to “solve” inflation it created. It’s double taxation.

How did that work in Argentina? That is exactly what governments implemented, only to destroy the currency, create more inflation and send the economy to stagflation (See more here).

These two factors, inflation and high taxation, negatively impact competitiveness and ease to attract capital, invest and create jobs. This relegates a nation of enormous potential, such as Argentina, to the final positions of the World Economic Forum index, when it should be at the top.

Excessive inflation and high taxes are two almost identical factors that hide an excessive public expenditure that has acted as a brake on economic activity, since it is not considered as a service to facilitate economic activity, but as an end in itself. The consolidated public expenditure reached 47.9% of GDP in 2016, a figure that is clearly disproportionate. Even if we consider primary public expenditure, that is, excluding the cost of debt, it doubled between 2002 and 2017.

The idea that a country’s debt is not a liability but simply an asset that will be absorbed by savers no matter what, is incorrect as it does not consider three factors.

1. No debt is an asset because government says so, but because there is real demand for it. The government does not decide the demand for that bond or credit instrument, the savers do. And savings are not unlimited, hence deficit spending is not endless either.
2. No debt instrument is an attractive asset if it is imposed onto savers through repression. Even if the government imposes the confiscation of savings to cover its imbalances, the capital flight intensifies. it is like making a human body stop breathing in order to conserve oxygen.
3. That debt is simply impossible to assume when the investor and saver knows that government will destroy purchasing power at any cost to benefit from “inflating its way out of debt.” The reaction is immediate.

The Socialist idea that governments artificially creating money will not cause inflation, because the supply of money will rise in tandem with supply and demand of goods and services, is simply science fiction.

The government does not have a better or more accurate understanding of the needs and demand for goods and services or the productive capacity of the economy. In fact it has all the incentives to overspend and transfer its inefficiencies to everyone else.

As such, like any perverse incentive under the so-called “stimulate internal demand” fallacy, the government simply creates larger monetary imbalances to disguise the fiscal deficit created by spending and lending without real economic return.  Creating massive inflation, economic stagnation as productivity collapses and impoverishing everyone.

The reality is that currency strength and real long-term demand for bonds are the ultimate signs of the health of a monetary system. When everyone tries to play the Fed without the US economic freedom and institutions, they only play the fool. Monetary illusion may delay the inevitable, a crisis, but it happens faster and harder if imbalances are ignored.

However, when it fails, the MMT crowd will tell you that it was not done properly. And that it is YOU, not they, who do not understand what money is.

Originally published by DLacalle.com

About the author:
*Daniel Lacalle has a PhD in Economics and is author of Escape from the Central Bank Trap, Life In The Financial Markets and The Energy World Is Flat.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute.

By Hadi Azmi and Ali Nufael

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad on Thursday decried the public caning of two women in Terengganu state this week, saying it tarnished the image of Islam as he called for lighter sentences to prevent a repetition of the case.

The women each received six strokes of the cane after pleading guilty to charges linked to allegedly attempting to have sex in a parked car in the religiously conservative Terengganu. The caning, which took place inside a courtroom at the Terengganu Sharia High Court, was witnessed by more than 100 people, including government officials and journalists.

“What’s important is to show that Islam is not a ruthless religion that dishes out sentences that humiliate people. This is not what Islam encourages,” Mahathir said in a video posted on Facebook.

His cabinet had determined that the punishment meted out by the Sharia court was harsh, considering the two women were first-time offenders, he said.

“That is why we are of the opinion that even if there are such cases, consideration should be given to the circumstances, in Islam we can give lighter sentences,” according to Mahathir.

Islam is the dominant religion in multi-ethnic and multi-faith Malaysia. The country has a dual justice system made up of federal courts and Sharia courts that function separately.

Awang Azman Awang Pawi, a sociologist with the Academy of Malay Studies at Universiti Malaya, said any changes to Malaysia’s Sharia court system would require support from the Malay-Muslim majority.

“Just because it is seen as cruel doesn’t change the fact that many Muslims believe that it is part of the Islamic faith,” Awang said.

On Tuesday, Mahathir’s expected successor, Anwar Ibrahim, criticized the caning of the women in Terengganu.

“I’m a practicing Muslim, I don’t share that interpretation and certainly that sort of action to publicly cane without proper due process and understanding, and [a] show of compassion is something most Malaysians do not accept,” he said.

Anwar helped lead the Pakatan Harapan alliance from a prison cell to an upset victory over Prime Minister Najib Razak’s Barisan Nasional coalition in the May general election. Following the victory that put Mahathir in charge of the government, Anwar received a full pardon on a second sodomy conviction.

While Anwar was challenging the punishment, the state government in Kelantan, which is controlled by the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), said it was considering performing canings in a stadium.

Chief Minister Ahmad Yakob said caning was allowed, following last year’s amendment to the Kelantan Sharia Criminal Procedure Enactment of 2002 to allow the punishment to be carried out in public.

“Among the suggestions were in a closed hall, within the compound of a mosque or a stadium,” Ahmad told reporters.

By Rita Joseph

The Indian Supreme Court’s ruling that Dalit and tribal people cannot get quota benefits in jobs and education outside their home states is a retrograde step, according to church leaders, academics and activists.

India’s top court on Aug. 30 ruled that a member of a particular caste or tribe entitled to benefits in one state cannot claim those benefits in another state if his or her caste is not notified there.

Percentages of seats in government jobs and educational institutions are allocated in each state depending on the nature and extent of the disadvantages each group faces.

A caste or tribe considered disadvantaged in one state cannot be deemed to be disadvantaged in another to which they have migrated because that would decrease the quota meant for disadvantaged natives.

India’s constitution allows such reservations to help lift poor people socially, but court orders mean that less than half of available seats are generally reserved.

Dalit activist Franklin Caesar Thomas said the quota order holds inherent dangers. “If a Dalit migrates and loses his identity and protection guaranteed under the constitution, how does he protect his dignity?” he asked.

Constitutional rights do not change if you move out of your state, Rumki Basu, a lecturer at Jamia Millia University, told ucanews.com. “The sons of soil theory is valid but I am surprised about the judicial overreach,” Basu added.

India’s constitution guarantees the freedom to travel and work anywhere in the country, said political analyst Narinder Kumar, a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi.

“A Dalit person carries the social baggage of discrimination with him even if he migrates. But if he also loses the constitutional guarantees to safeguard his right to live with dignity with a good education and a job, then it is not in the interests of justice,” Kumar said.

Father Z. Devasagayaraj, secretary of the Indian bishops’ office for tribal and low-caste people, said it is “an unnecessary hue and cry” over helping the poorest group of people.

“A majority of Dalit people cannot avail these services as they are not qualified, so many quota seats go back to general candidates. The states can give first preference to natives and then consider migrant low-caste and tribal people. It is an unjust move to totally deny all benefits to migrants,” he said.

Many Dalit migrants educate their children by working as manual scavengers in big cities but their children will be denied educational opportunities and jobs based on this court order, Father Devasagayaraj said.

Supreme Court lawyer M.P. Raju said people migrate for a better life and migration continues to increase with better transport and communication systems. He said the issue could be solved if parliament evolved criteria for uniform listing of disadvantaged people.

Nabore Ekka, president of the Delhi region of Bharatiya Adivasi Sangamam (Indian Indigenous People’s Forum), said the judgment will receive a mixed reception. “Migrants to different states will be badly hit but natives will be happy,” he noted.

He said in his native Jharkhand many outsiders get jobs meant for tribal people, some by using fake identity certificates. “The current verdict will help local people like tribal people in Jharkhand,” he said.

The cloud forests of Honduras can seem like an otherworldly place, where the trees are thick with life that takes in water straight from the air around it, and the soundscape is littered with the calls of animals singing back and forth.

Otherworldly, yes, but scientists have found that the cloud forests are not immune to very down-to-earth problems of climate change and deforestation. A 10-year study of bird populations in Cusuco National Park, Honduras, shows that the peak of bird diversity in this mountainous park is moving higher in elevation. Additional land protection, unfortunately, may not be enough to reverse the trend, driven in part by globally rising temperatures. The study is published in Biotropica.

“A lot of these species are specialized to these mountain ranges,” says study lead author Monte Neate-Clegg, a doctoral student at the University of Utah, “and they don’t have a lot of options as to where to go should things go wrong.”

Heads in the clouds

A cloud forest is an ecosystem that derives much of its moisture from water vapor in the surrounding air. Due to elevation and climate conditions, these forests are fed directly by clouds. Nothing ever dries, Neate-Clegg says.

“Cloud forests are pretty special,” he says. “The tropics hold most of the world’s biodiversity to begin with, and then the mountain slopes hold the greatest biodiversity within the tropics.” For example, he adds, Cusuco National Park is the home to at least six amphibian species that are known nowhere else on Earth. The park also supports species large and small-from jaguars to hummingbirds.

Such specialized environments are at high risk for drastic alteration due to climate change,however. Scientists, including U professor and study co-author Cagan Sekercioglu, predicted that rising temperatures and changes in precipitation would cause species, particularly birds, to shift to higher elevations, shrinking their habitat and boosting the risk of extinction.

That, the authors found, is exactly what’s happening.

Trouble in paradise

Neate-Clegg and his colleagues, including researchers from the UK and Belgium, examined a ten-year dataset of bird species counts in Cusuco National Park. The counts were conducted starting in 2006 by Operation Wallacea, a conservation organization. Few long-term studies like this have been undertaken in the tropics, Neate-Clegg says, with a significant data gap in Central America. “I wanted to plug this geographic gap,” he says.

They found most species moving upslope, at an average of 23 feet (7 m) per year. Beyond species-specific changes in elevation, though, the researchers focused on bird diversity along the mountain slopes.

“By looking across all species we could show that the diversity was increasing at higher elevations and decreasing at lower elevations,” Neate-Clegg says.

Losing ground

The authors turned their attention toward discriminating the likely causative factors for such a shift. One factor is the continuing development and deforestation within the park.

“Every year we go back and resurvey, and transects that were forested the previous year are suddenly cut down,” Neate-Clegg says. “They are encroaching year on year.” The terrain’s status as a national park, he says, doesn’t seem to be much of a deterrent for those seeking to expand agricultural land.

But habitat loss is not the only factor. Comparing forested study plots, the authors concluded that changes to the local climate were responsible for the upward shift as well.

Increased land protection would help give the birds more stable habitats, Neate-Clegg says, especially protections that encompass as much elevation as possible. But, as the paper grimly states, “Increased protection is unlikely to mitigate the effects of climate change.”

US interest-rate hikes put the Turkish lira and the currencies of other emerging economies in peril, and the United States may not be a good role model.

By Will Hickey*

The lira has collapsed after Turkey borrowed foreign currency, namely US dollars, at low interest rates to fund increasing economic expansion. Such borrowing, an example of what Berkeley economist Barry Eichengreen has called “original sin,” works fine until conditions derail economic patterns – in Turkey’s case, the US Federal Reserve increasing interest rates. As of this writing, the currencies of not only Turkey, but also Argentina, India and Indonesia continue on a volatile slope, pointing largely downward due to US rate increases.

Pundits are quick to point out that Turkey’s currency woes are not spreading, yet other countries do confront similar challenges. More so, fund managers reduce exposure to all emerging market assets as a matter of course, as one bad apple can spoil the whole basket: Emerging economies must raise interest rates, contain domestic debt, rein in inflation and more.

Economists must consider the social ramifications of what they preach. Turkey has many features of so-called vibrant economies: an entrepreneurial mindset, a youthful population with a median age of 30, social media usage, internet penetration greater than 50 percent, and an export-oriented mindset along with a Blue Oceans strategy. Turks are also a large part of new business formation and innovation in Europe, with more than 4 million in Germany and 1 million in France, doing the jobs many Europeans don’t want to do. Further, Turkey has absorbed the brunt of refugees from Syria, sheltering more than 3 million, and helped refugees from as far away as Myanmar. Overall, Turks display what economist John Maynard Keynes called “animal spirits,” engaging in investment even during times of uncertainty. Not being an EU member, not being shackled to stifling Brussels dictates, may be a blessing in disguise for Turkey.

Still, Turkey has problems, some unpalatable for Western analysts. Foremost, Turkey shares borders with conflict-ridden Syria, Iran and Iraq, not to mention a thriving Kurdish insurrection in Anatolia. Easy foreign money has created a false housing boom that enriched a few while many Turks struggle economically. An increasingly authoritarian leader disrupts freedom of the press and speech and blocks social media. Turkey’s conflicts with the Kurds, about 20 percent of the country’s population, has led to accusations of human rights violations. Even so, when the dollar is removed from the equation, Turkey has much to offer investors over the long term, perhaps even more than some developed Western countries with plateaued markets.

Turkey has been among the world’s biggest booming economies during the past 15 years. No country can fake economic growth for 15 years. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan faces market pressures, and issues such as tension with Washington over an imprisoned US pastor, tit-for-tat tariffs or a religious leader hiding out in the United States are sideshows, distracting from Turkey’s economic complexities.

Surrender to the US dollar is often the only game in town for many emerging economies. Currencies ultimately are linked to the dollar, and even the euro, pound and Japanese yen are kept “range-bound” by their respective central banks – meaning that they fluctuate within a band. For example, the Korean won rarely deviates below 1000 or above 1200 won per dollar to protect the export industry from instability. This is similar with other Asian currencies, such as the Singapore dollar, ranging from $1.30 to 1.50 per US dollar.

However, the US economy depends on a mind-boggling national debt overhang, approaching $22 trillion, and a widening current account trade deficit – with more imports than exports to most countries, not just China. Also, the country has an overheated housing market, growing public indebtedness of mandatory entitlements of Social Security and Medicare, not to mention an overextended military policing much of the world on borrowed money.

Other countries being told to reform their economies have similar problems. By using the US dollar as a borrowing currency, other countries also import US economic policy. But the United States, as the world’s largest economy with a reserve currency, can resist adopting others’ policies.

Orthodox economic wisdom suggests that the United States can continue to run large trade deficits as it has the potential to “grow” itself out of debt with innovation, productivity and its status accounting for 60 percent of global currency reserves. Other countries do not have these advantages. Other economies are advised to rely on dollar pegs and fixed exchange rate such as the Hong Kong/US dollar or outright dollarization of an economy as in Ecuador. These arguments are growing old as the United States confronts its own social and political problems including inequality, automation replacing jobs, subsidies and the debt burden.

Other countries exhibiting dollar fatigue are in the same boat as Turkey and should not be judged on dollar scarcity alone. Venezuela has a politically tested population lean and hungry for change. Iran wants to develop its fossil fuel deposits and has cheap, youthful labor. India has a huge market potential ripe for expansion. Russia has vast tracts of land in need of development to feed other booming populations, including those in nearby China. Indonesia, an island nation, offers significant infrastructure and development opportunities, and Argentina has vast natural and agrarian resources.

The global economy should not rise and fall based on one apex factor of dollarization, not when the dollar is flawed. Countries will seek alternatives. such as Zimbabwe with “dollar bonds,” or Venezuela and Russia with cryptocurrency backed by oil – though for the latter, the response is mostly to vast oil exports, crude oil priced in dollars worldwide and US sanctions.

In the information age, entrepreneurship and innovation are increasingly becoming real currency, more so than any devalued fiat money, with nothing behind it in many cases except a printing press. Logically, countries may then ask if it is necessary to continue borrowing in foreign currencies and instead seek domestic advantages via restructured institutions.

In the 21^st century, societies must consider what they can offer and how these opportunities can be monetized. Emerging economies want to free themselves from hanging on every US Federal Reserve interest hike or inflation worry. Countries must start restructuring their own economies to utilize and institutionalize these advantages. For all countries, in particular those seeking to escape the middle-income trap such as Turkey, China, Argentina and Indonesia, upgrading their labor markets to promote domestic demand and value-added activity, as opposed to dependence on raw commodity exports or low value-added manufactured goods, is a consistent theme.

There is no free lunch. Reliance on US dollars to kick domestic problems down the road can quickly turn into a double edged sword in a world of rising US rates. Just ask Turkey.

*Will Hickey is a Visiting ASEAN Professor with Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Canton, China. He is also author of Energy and Human Resource Development in Developing Countries: Towards Effective Localization, Macmillan, 2017. 

Almost three in four Americans, 73%, think the Catholic Church has a serious problem with sexual predators among its clergy; most Catholics feel the same way. That is the central finding of a new Rasmussen survey. Also, only 15% think the media are overhyping the problem, and 12% are not sure. The perception is as predictable as it is erroneous.

Why wouldn’t the public think the Church has a problem with predator priests? That’s exactly the perception given by many news outlets today.

Regrettably, most Americans get their news either from brief social media accounts or radio and TV sound bites: what they get are abbreviated stories with sensationalistic headlines. The same is true of  newspapers, most of which lack the resources to do in-depth reporting. Add to this clear instances of media bias against the Church, and the picture is complete—molesting priests are on the prowl in 2018.

This false perception grew out of the twin summer scandals of 2018: (a)  revelations about Theodore McCarrick’s predatory behavior (he was forced to resign as a cardinal), and (b) the Pennsylvania grand jury report on alleged sexual abuse by priests.

Though many news accounts made a passing reference to the dated nature of these cases—most of McCarrick’s offenses took place in the 1980s and most of the Pennsylvania allegations occurred decades ago—the impression that Americans were left with is that nothing much has changed since the abuse scandal became a big story in 2002.

In fact, much has changed. The Dallas norms of 2002 established by the bishops have worked: in the past two years for which we have data, .005% of the clergy have had a credible accusation made against them. Also, thanks to Pope Benedict XVI’s 2005 edict on screening out men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” from studying for the priesthood, huge strides have been made in busting the network of gay cells in the seminaries. This matters because 8 in 10 of the molesting priests have been homosexuals.

What the public is not told is that Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro has admitted that only two of the 301 accused men mentioned in the grand jury report (not all of whom were priests) could be prosecuted under the statute of limitations today. Two. That’s because almost all of the alleged cases occurred in the last century. Yet the public thinks the problem is on-going.

It’s not just the media that are responsible for floating a false narrative of the Catholic Church, it’s their left-wing friends in Hollywood and the academy. Their goal is to intimidate the clergy from speaking out about moral issues, thus allowing their libertine views on sexuality to triumph.

Joining the agenda-driven enemies of the Church are an astonishing number of conservatives. Angered by the twin scandals, many Catholic conservatives are sounding the alarms, acting as if nothing has changed. There is an odor of self-righteous moralizing present in their quarters, and a liberal dose of lay clericalism to boot: They are going to rescue the Church from degradation.

To be sure, there are some things that must be done. We need to know who knew what and when about McCarrick, and we need assurances that the seminaries are free of the homosexual network today. What we don’t need are endless panels and grand jury investigations about what happened decades ago, all of which feed the false public perception that no progress has been made.

Most of the uproar, left and right, about the revelation — in both a NY Times anonymous opinion page article by a “high official” in the White House, and a new book by Bob Woodward — that there are top people working for President Trump who are actively trying to keep him from doing dangerous or reckless things out of ignorance or anger, has focused on the question of whether such actions constitute treason, or whether it validates the claim that a “Deep State” cabal of secret behind-the-scenes Machiavellians is working to subvert a duly elected president.

There are grounds for making both arguments, but I’d toss in a third.

Missing from most of these analyses is the reality that officials working for the White House, and indeed the entire US government, don’t take a vow or have any legal obligation to support a leader, or even to support the government or for that matter such a nebulous concept as the “country” or “nation” or the United States of America. Rather, like all members of the military, they take an oath to “uphold and defend” the Constitution of the United States.

That is a big difference.

If the person who wrote that piece in the Times, and those he refers to as also acting behind the Trump’s back to prevent disaster (for example the president’s call to invade Venezuela or, as reported by Woodward’s sources, to murder Syrian leader Bashar Assad, or just to kill more people in Afghanistan), they are acting to prevent the president from violating international law and the US Constitution. If they prevent him from firing Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller who is investigating him and his campaign, which would be obstruction of justice and a high crime under the Constitution, they are protecting that Constitution.

One could argue that someone who is convinced that this president is nuts, “off the rails,” and a petty narcissist who is letting his tender ego get the best of him, that person should have the courage to resign and go public with the complaint and the evidence. But if that person feels that doing so would not solve the problem because the Republican Party in control of Congress does not have the courage or will to control the president or to oust him, and thus the only way to prevent disaster is to stay in the shadows and try to prevent him from doing something truly terrible that could destroy constitutional government or launch a disastrous illegal war or some other such horror, who’s to say that’s a wrong decision?

The Deep State argument is a bit more complex. Certainly there are many people in the military, in the State Department, in the Justice Department, in the intelligence agencies and elsewhere, who believe that this president is a threat to the nation, to the Bill of Rights, to international law, and to basic decency, but there are also those who simply have agendas, both domestic and international, that are themselves dangerous. For example, there are the neo-conservatives and neo-liberals who both desperately seek enhanced confrontation and conflict with Russia, China and Iran, the better to increase military budgets and repressive controls over freedoms at home. There are also those, reportedly, and the Times opinion writer appears to be one, who consider themselves to be “real” conservatives who feel that Trump is betraying their cause and are thus working to keep him on the straight and narrow “real conservative” path of cutting federal spending on social programs, ending regulation of business, weakening environmental protection and worker rights, packing the courts, etc.

Both such proclivities are not so much about defending the Constitution as about pushing agendas which the president was not elected to push. Trump, remember, ran for president successfully by calling for better US relations with Russia. He also claimed to be concerned about the economic struggles of the working class (albeit only the white part of that working class). Both those campaign goals were and remain anathema to many Republicans, and it is clear that they have been working hard in Congress and — if the Times opinion article is to be believed — inside the White House, to promote those goals and undermine the president’s efforts, erratic as they may be, that are contrary to those goals.

If that is what this is all about, then critics like Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept is correct that we are in very dangerous waters as a kind of Deep State coup is underway, and Trump is being reduced to a figurehead consigned to house arrest in the White House and Mar-a-Lago.

It will take a while to figure out which of these situations best describes what is happening in what is clearly a totally dysfunctional White House, being run by a president who, incredibly, is missing a few screws and marbles, has great difficulty focussing, remembering what he’s done before, and understanding how the world works, and who has limited self-control, if any at all. It could be that all are at work: that the author and others like him/her are honestly trying to defend the Constitution, but are also engaged in trying to push Deep State and conservative agendas against the wishes, such as they are or can be deciphered, of the elected president.

To the extent that the author is defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I say, “Right on!” but to the extent that it is either of the latter that is driving this campaign of bureaucratic sabotage in the executive branch, we are in deep danger.

One would think that Congress would be leaping to investigate all this, but don’t hold your breath. I think on the evidence of past responses to Trumpian madness, the Republicans in control of both houses will try to ignore it and hope it goes away to be replaced by the next Trump scandal.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani deplored the Washington government’s negative role in the ongoing crisis in Syria and said the “illegal” military presence of the US will only increase problems of the Arab country in resolving the crisis.

Obviously, we should not expect the US government to play a positive and constructive role in this regard with its illegal presence in Syria and its acts of aggression and occupation as well as its support for the Zionist apartheid regime,” Rouhani said during a trilateral summit with his Russian and Turkish counterparts, Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in Tehran on Friday.

“The US’ illegal meddlesome measures in Syria are not consistent with any international regulation and increase the problems that already exist in the country,” he said, adding that such moves by the US only poses a serious challenge to achieving lasting peace in Syria.

The Iranian president further raised six key points about ways to end the crisis in Syria and highlighted the importance of close cooperation between Iran, Russia, and Turkey as a reliable reference point for restoring peace in Syria and for long-term cooperation at the regional and global stages.

U.S. ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, said in remarks published on Thursday, September 6 he expected Israel to keep the Golan Heights in perpetuity – an apparent contradiction of a statement made by Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton during a recent visit to Israel, Haaretz reports.

Foreign governments, including the United States, do not recognise Israel’s claim over the strategic plateau captured from Syria in a 1967 war.

However, Friedman suggested Israel was there to stay and said it was possible the United States would consider recognising Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights in the future.

“I personally cannot imagine a situation in which the Golan Heights will be returned to Syria. I frankly cannot imagine a situation in which the Golan Heights is not part of Israel forever,” he told the right-wing Israel Hayom newspaper.

Friedman said there was “no one more undeserving of this prize” – control of the Golan Heights – than Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Since early in Trump’s term, Israel has lobbied for formal U.S. endorsement of its control of the Golan. Trump has recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, breaking with other world powers, but national security adviser John Bolton said last month a similar Golan move was not under discussion.

By Madalin Necsutu

The government says it will summon intelligence chiefs for a grilling before parliament, as concern grows over the sudden detention and expulsion of a number of Turkish teachers.

Moldova’s Prime Minister, Pavel Filip, and the Speaker of Parliament, Andrian Candu, both members of the ruling Democratic Party, on Thursday summoned the heads of the country’s intelligence service for a hearing in parliament.

The government asked the Security and Intelligence Service, SIS, to provide further information on the case of the detention and expulsion of a number of Turkish nationals working for a private high-school chain linked to the Turkish exiled cleric Fethullah Gulen.

“We have called for parliamentary hearings in the case of the expulsion from the country of seven foreign citizens. It is very important to make sure that human rights, national and international norms have been respected in this case,” Candu said.

On Friday, President Igor Dodon joined the initiative, and also asked for evidence from SIS, after earlier on Thursday accusing the media of double standards in the matter, referring to the expulsion of Russian diplomats from Moldova over the poisonings in Salisbury, England.

However, some political analysts said the latest move was just smoke and mirrors, as the top Moldovan officials had long known about the Turkish regime’s demands for Moldova to hand over so-called Gulenists.

“Parliament and the government have asked SIS to justify its extradition decision? Just formal hearings? Since when has the SIS been acting on its own?”, analyst Igor Munteanu asked rhetorically on Facebook, stressing that SIS only acts on political orders.

In May 2017, on a visit to Chisinau, Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim urged Moldova to close down the Horizont high-school network on account of its alleged links to the Gulen movement, which Ankara blames for a failed coup in 2016.

Moldovan Prime Minister Pavel Filip did not agree to, or reject, the request back then.

“If there is evidence, of course, we expect Turkish experts to come and contact our Intelligence and Security Service or the Interior Ministry, so we can address this issue legally,” Filip said on May 5, 2017, in Chisinau.

Meanwhile, the EU Commissioner for European Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement, Johannes Hahn, has reminded the Chisinau authorities to respect human rights.

“I expect the Moldovan government and all authorities to respect rule of law and all established judicial procedures,” Hahn said on Twitter.

A group of seven members of the European Parliament have written a joint letter to Moldova’s government urging it “to stop immediately the abusive extraditions”, noting that Moldova “is a country on European roadmap.”

Amnesty International’s Chisinau branch has also criticized the decision to detain and expel the Turkish nationals from the country.

Students from the Horizont private high-schools chain in Moldova have launched an online campaign for their professors, called “Teachers, not terrorists!”

The case of the expelled Turkish professors has been submitted also to the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR, to be examined in an urgent procedure.

You’ve likely heard of hot hands or hot streaks — periods of repeated successes — in sports, financial markets and gambling. But do hot streaks exist in individual creative careers?

A team of researchers, including two from Penn State’s College of Information Sciences and Technology, examined the works of nearly 30,000 scientists, artists and film directors to learn if high-impact works in those fields came in streaks.

According to Lu Liu, a doctoral student in the College of IST and member of the research team, they found a universal pattern.

“Around 90 percent of professionals in those industries have at least one hot hand, and some of them have two or even three,” she said.

The team’s paper, “Hot streaks in artistic, cultural, and scientific careers,” recently appeared in Nature.

Liu says that there are two previous schools of thought regarding hot streaks in individual careers. According to the “Matthew effect,” the more famous you become, the more likely you’ll have success later, which supports the existence of a hot streak. The other school of thought — the random impact rule — implies that the success of a career is primarily random and is primarily driven by levels of productivity.

“Our findings provide a different point of view regarding individual careers,” said Liu. “We found a period when an individual performs better than his normal career, and that the timing of a hot streak is random.”

She added, “Different from the perception [in innovation literature] that peak performance occurs in an individual’s 30s or 40s, Our results suggest that individuals have equal chance to perform better even in their late careers.”

The researchers also wanted to learn if individuals were more productive during their hot streak periods, which last an average of four to five years. Unexpectedly, they were not.

“Individuals show no detectable change in productivity during hot streaks, despite the fact that their outputs in this period are significantly better than the median, suggesting that there is an endogenous shift in individual creativity when the hot streak occurs,” wrote the team in their paper.

Through their research, the team analyzed data they collected from a variety of sources. They looked at scientists’ most-cited papers from Web of Science and Google Scholar, auction prices for artists, and Internet Movie Database (IMDB) ratings to gauge popularity of films and their directors. Then, they reconstructed a career path for each individual based on that data.

“The question starts from looking at the random impact rule,” said Liu. “We start from that to analyze if it applies to different domains. To our surprise, we found something more interesting.”

She explained that when the researchers looked at a scientist’s highest-impact work through their most-cited papers, its timing was random, as well as the timing of the second-most cited paper. But in looking at the relative timing of these highest-impact works, the researchers found that they are correlated.

“That’s how we find a hot streak period,” said Liu. “We then analyzed [this finding] in other creative domains, like artists and movie directors, to see if there are similar patterns in these careers.”

Liu said that there are many cases when the most famous works of an individual came in sequence. She cited Peter Jackson, director of “The Lord of the Rings” film series; Vincent Van Gogh, whose most famous paintings were completed late in his career; and Albert Einstein, whose four published papers in his “miracle year” of 1905 contributed significantly to the foundation of modern physics.

“[A hot streak] doesn’t just matter to these individuals,” said Liu. “It matters to society as well.”

Liu said that this could help to understand the innovative process, and have the potential to discover and cultivate individuals during a hot streak.

As the research shows that hot streaks do in fact exist in creative careers, the researchers hope to apply the research methods to more domains, including musicians, inventors and entrepreneurs.

“We know that these domains have different natures,” Liu said. “For example, scientists collaborate with each other and artists work alone. If we can find the triggers and drivers behind the universal pattern, that would be much more interesting.”

he reason Pluto lost its planet status is not valid, according to new research from the University of Central Florida in Orlando.

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union, a global group of astronomy experts, established a definition of a planet that required it to “clear” its orbit, or in other words, be the largest gravitational force in its orbit.

Since Neptune’s gravity influences its neighboring planet Pluto, and Pluto shares its orbit with frozen gases and objects in the Kuiper belt, that meant Pluto was out of planet status. However, in a new study published online Wednesday in the journal Icarus, UCF planetary scientist Philip Metzger, who is with the university’s Florida Space Institute, reported that this standard for classifying planets is not supported in the research literature.

Metzger, who is lead author on the study, reviewed scientific literature from the past 200 years and found only one publication – from 1802 – that used the clearing-orbit requirement to classify planets, and it was based on since-disproven reasoning.

He said moons such as Saturn’s Titan and Jupiter’s Europa have been routinely called planets by planetary scientists since the time of Galileo.

“The IAU definition would say that the fundamental object of planetary science, the planet, is supposed to be a defined on the basis of a concept that nobody uses in their research,” Metzger said. “And it would leave out the second-most complex, interesting planet in our solar system.” “We now have a list of well over 100 recent examples of planetary scientists using the word planet in a way that violates the IAU definition, but they are doing it because it’s functionally useful,” he said. “It’s a sloppy definition,” Metzger said of the IAU’s definition. “They didn’t say what they meant by clearing their orbit. If you take that literally, then there are no planets, because no planet clears its orbit.”

The planetary scientist said that the literature review showed that the real division between planets and other celestial bodies, such as asteroids, occurred in the early 1950s when Gerard Kuiper published a paper that made the distinction based on how they were formed.

However, even this reason is no longer considered a factor that determines if a celestial body is a planet, Metzger said.

Study co-author Kirby Runyon, with Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, said the IAU’s definition was erroneous since the literature review showed that clearing orbit is not a standard that is used for distinguishing asteroids from planets, as the IAU claimed when crafting the 2006 definition of planets.

“We showed that this is a false historical claim,” Runyon said. “It is therefore fallacious to apply the same reasoning to Pluto,” he said. Metzger said that the definition of a planet should be based on its intrinsic properties, rather than ones that can change, such as the dynamics of a planet’s orbit. “Dynamics are not constant, they are constantly changing,” Metzger said. “So, they are not the fundamental description of a body, they are just the occupation of a body at a current era.”

Instead, Metzger recommends classifying a planet based on if it is large enough that its gravity allows it to become spherical in shape.

“And that’s not just an arbitrary definition, Metzger said. “It turns out this is an important milestone in the evolution of a planetary body, because apparently when it happens, it initiates active geology in the body.”

Pluto, for instance, has an underground ocean, a multilayer atmosphere, organic compounds, evidence of ancient lakes and multiple moons, he said.

“It’s more dynamic and alive than Mars,” Metzger said. “The only planet that has more complex geology is the Earth.”

There is some evidence of accelerating wage growth in the August report.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the economy added 201,000 jobs in August; although downward revisions of 50,000 to the prior two months’ data brought the three-month average to 185,000. The unemployment rate remained at 3.9 percent, but the overall employment-to-population (EPOP) fell by 0.2 percentage points to 60.3 percent.

This 0.2 percentage point drop also showed up for prime-age workers (ages 25 to 54), although the EPOP for prime-age workers is still 0.9 percentage points above its year-ago level. For men, the year-over-year increase is 1.1 percentage points, while for women it is 0.8 percent. In both cases, EPOPs remain below prerecession peaks and well below the peaks hit in 2000.

Perhaps the most encouraging news in the report is evidence of a modest acceleration in wage growth. The average hourly wage increased by 2.9 percent over the last year. That compares to a 2.7 percent year-over-year rise in July, but it is too early to assume a clear trend. The year-over-year increase was 2.8 percent in July of 2016. The rate of increase, taking the average of the last three months compared with the prior three months, is slightly more rapid at 3.06 percent.

Interestingly, the pay gains are not especially strong in areas where employers have been complaining about labor shortages. The average hourly wage in construction was up 3.3 percent over the last year, but the gain was 3.5 percent back in September of 2016. Wages in manufacturing have risen by just 1.8 percent over the last year.

The hourly wage in leisure and hospitality (largely restaurants) has risen by 3.2 percent over the last year. This compares to increases of over 4.0 percent in the second half of 2016.

The job gains in the establishment survey were concentrated in a small number of sectors. Health care added 33,200 jobs, slightly more than its average of 25,100 over the last year. Professional and technical services added 27,600 jobs, while construction added 23,000. Restaurants added 17,500 jobs, almost exactly in line with its 17,800 average over the last year. Retail lost 5,900 jobs, but employment is still 62,000 above its year-ago level.

After increasing for 12 consecutive months, manufacturing employment fell by 3,000 in August. The decline was all in manufacturing of durables, which lost 4,000 jobs. Employment in non-durable manufacturing rose by 1,000. The auto industry was the biggest loser, giving up 4,900 jobs after losing 3,500 jobs in July.

The weakness also shows up in the index of hours, which dropped 0.3 percent for durable manufacturing in August. The manufacturing one-month employment diffusion index, which shows the percentage of employers intending to add workers, also weakened in August. It stands at 52.6 percent, the lowest reading since January of 2017 when it stood at 50.0 percent, down from a high of 72.4 percent in February. While it is too early to determine if the Trump administration’s trade policy accounts for this weakness, it seems clear that the policy is not showing obvious benefits.

Most of the news in the household survey was positive. The duration measures of unemployment all fell in August. The percentage of unemployment due to voluntary quits rose to 14.0 percent, a new high for the recovery. The number of people involuntarily working part-time fell by 188,000 to a new low for the recovery, while the number of people choosing to work part-time rose by 249,000 to a new high for the recovery.

One somewhat disturbing item in the household survey is a drop in the employment rate of black teens by 3.8 percentage points to 20.3 percent, the lowest since June of 2016. These data are highly erratic, but this is still a large decline.

The overall picture in the August jobs report is overwhelmingly positive. The economy continues to create jobs at a very healthy pace, and there is some modest evidence that wage growth may be accelerating so that wages at least slightly outpace the rate of inflation. The one noteworthy negative in this report is the evidence of weakness in the manufacturing sector. This could indicate that the Trump administration’s trade policy is backfiring.

During a military-related event on Aug 4, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro came close to being assassinated by a pair of drones. While Maduro escaped unscathed, the attack managed to injure seven soldiers. Various media outlets noted that this was the first known drone assassination attempt on a president. This development was however long in the offing.

The type of drone used in the Venezuelan attack was reportedly a DJI M600 model that can be ordered online for $5,000. Each drone allegedly carried 1 kg of C-4 plastic explosives which itself can be confected from online DIY tutorials – if one knew where and how to look for them. Imagine what would happen if a few C-4 laden drones crashed into an oil tanker truck at a congested traffic stop or an oil refinery itself? Or even a crowded children’s playground? A month since the assassination attempt on Maduro, terrorists in Syria’s Idlib province have begun using drones against Russian military bases in the region.

These incidences were preceded by an alleged drone attack on Abu Dhabi’s international airport in late July by Yemen’s Houthi rebels. According to rebel sources, the domestically-built Sammad-3 drones were launched and guided through 1,500km of mostly Saudi and UAE airspace before reaching the airport. This incredulous feat continues to raise many questions. Do Houthi rebels really possess such technology and navigation support systems to execute this feat? Or were they aided by a state actor? It is also within the realm of possibility for a few rebels to slip quietly across the porous Saudi-Yemeni border and assemble weaponized drones from smuggled kits nearer to the airport.
This ominous form of remote-terrorism is compounded by the relative anonymity enjoyed by the perpetrators. While the study of remote killings had, up till now, focused on cyberattacks in hospitals or nuclear power plants, the use of drones for assassinations have finally crossed the boundaries of fictional bestsellers and movies into an emerging global threat.

Drones can be used for any variety of nefarious activities. Some drones can see through walls and generate high-resolution 3D images of targeted structures or record passwords clacked on a keyboard in a secure high-rise office. It can be used to transport contraband, particularly narcotics, munitions and small arms across the US-Mexico border or be adjusted to make a special delivery all the way to Trump Tower. US President Donald J. Trump should perhaps scale up the projected height of his fabled wall.

Net-centric devices, including drones, will emerge as a major social disruptor in the coming years unless new regulations are drawn up to add extra layers of security to the information grid. Otherwise, hackers may find a way to crash planes into skyscrapers or get a robot sex doll to administer a terminal climax. The possibilities are endless. Here is where the Internet of Things (IoT), Industry 4.0, cryptology and psychopathology meet at the confluence of a terrifyingly complex reality.

From now on, we may see increasing calls to restrict the sale of drones that can operate beyond a maximum 200 to 500 metre radius. However, there are many ways to circumvent these restrictions.

The advent of 3D-printed drones, just like 3D-printed guns, will pose new challenges to law enforcement agencies worldwide.

Eventually, the ongoing drone revolution may lead to renewed calls for greater Internet surveillance as well as a raft of drone-specific laws that will include mandatory licensing regimes. Drone enthusiasts may be required to attend drone piloting schools as a prelude to obtaining a license. Similar to vehicular licenses, drone permits can be revoked if users indulge in risky or anti-social activities.

But how does one prevent the transmission of a variety 3D-printable drone designs through cryptographic channels? If secure blockchain transmissions are good enough for Bitcoin, they will do equally well in an underground, cyber-facilitated illegal weapons industry.

The drone security solutions market is projected to be worth up to $2 billion by 2024. Several companies are already developing technologies that can detect and commandeer unauthorized drones in private or restricted airspace through radio frequency jamming and denial-of-service attacks.

However, a combination of swarm intelligence and drone-mounted electromagnetic pulse devices would be able to “jam the jammers” and neutralize anti-drone solutions. Technologically-savvy subversives will be a step ahead in the future net-centric battle space. Countermeasures developed will be protracted, expensive and based on hindsight. In the meantime, techno-subversives will work on new ways to breach defences that are still in the theoretical stages.

Security gurus therefore need to undertake regular risk foresight to think ahead and out-think the perpetrators of future forms of net-centric subversion. This is the real tricky part. The prevalent global talent identification regime is incapable of spotting those endowed with anticipatory or “metic intelligence” in this area. The open source domain – the fertile data mining ground for OSINT analysts – is equally disappointing with its mounting e-waste of suspect or toxic information.

Google search, for instance, is no longer as effective and accurate as its previous iterations. It is increasingly pandering to psychologically fragile snowflakes and ideological pansies whose flaccid viewpoints are prioritized in search results. Information integrity is being continuously sacrificed at the altar of fake news and political correctness — all for the sake of short-term political capital.

Ironically, the very “data smog” that facilitates political chicanery may turn out to be the ideal smokescreen for hi-tech subversive activities. This will have future implications for democracy – nominal or otherwise – as fake news societies would be at the forefront of technology-mediated discontent.

*Mathew Maavak is a doctoral candidate in risk foresight at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

(RFE/RL) — Georgia has extradited a Russian man to the United States to face charges that he took part in a massive computer hacking scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase & Co and other Wall Street firms, U.S. prosecutors announced on September 7.

Andrei Tyurin, 35, was arrested in Georgia at the request of U.S. authorities, according to U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman. His lawyer, Florian Miedel, declined to comment on the charges.

Tyurin is the latest person charged in connection with one of the largest data breaches ever. Wall Street giant JPMorgan disclosed the breach in 2014 and said it had exposed information associated with about 83 million customer accounts.

Other victims included web-based Wall Street brokers E*Trade and Scottrade, as well as Dow Jones & Co, the publisher of the Wall Street Journal. Prosecutors said a total of more than 100 million customers of the hacked companies were affected.

Prosecutors said the scheme was led by Gery Shalon, an Israeli who is already facing charges over the hack in a U.S. court in Manhattan along with two other Israelis, Joshua Samuel Aaron and Ziv Orenstein.

According to prosecutors, participants in the scheme used hacked information to further other crimes, with Tyurin, Shalon and the other conspirators making hundreds of millions of dollars through their alleged criminal schemes.

Tyurin is charged with computer hacking, wire fraud, and conspiracy. The most serious charges carry a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison.

The US Air Force seems to be unsure how to react to SpaceX CEO’s marijuana smoking, and whether to review the security clearance of Elon Musk, whose company provides satellite launch services to the US government.

Following Musk’s pot smoking performance during a live podcast show with comedian Joe Rogan, reports have emerged that the Air Force was conducting an investigation into SpaceX CEO’s behavior. Despite the rumors, a formal probe has not yet been launched, an Air Force spokesperson told the Verge.

“It’s inaccurate that there is an investigation. We’ll need time to determine the facts and the appropriate process to handle the situation,” the spokesman said.

As a government contractor for the United States Air Force and NASA, SpaceX is subject to the Drug-Free Workplace Act, which requires firms that receive federal money to maintain a drug-free policy.

Back in April 2016, Musk’s company was awarded with its first national security launch – a nearly $83 million contract with the Air Force to launch a GPS III satellite. In 2017 SpaceX won a similar $96mn contract, and more recently in March 2018 was given an additional $290mn contract to launch three more satellites. In addition to the Air Force, the aerospace manufacturer also has contracts with NASA’s commercial cargo and crew programs.

While Musk himself claimed that he “almost never” smokes weed, because it decreases his “productivity,” the public exposure of the 47-year-old with a joint in his hand seems to have contributed to Tesla Motors’ massive stock plunge on Friday.

Ever more analysts and commentators in Moscow have been criticizing the Russian government’s plan to divide the country into 15 economic macro-regions as nothing more than a reprise of Nikita Khrushchev’s failed effort to do something similar 60 years ago (stoletie.ru/vzglyad/ne_nastupit_by_na_sovetskije_grabli_892.htm).

That opposition has been noted, but a potentially more powerful negative vote on the new plan by the economic development ministry is being cast in the regions, and especially in the Urals Federal District. There, the presidential plenipotentiary reports, “all the regions” within his district oppose it (kommersant.ru/doc/3733372).

Such opposition may not be sufficient to kill central efforts at putting this plan into place, of course; but it almost certainly means that if Moscow does go ahead, the regions are ready, willing and in many respects able to kill it from below after the ministry and the government declare victory.

Kommersant journalists have been able to confirm the negative attitudes of at least some regions, including that of officials in Perm Kray. And they quote Ivan Devchenko, a KPRF deputy in the Tyumen Oblast Duma as saying that the whole idea of macro-regions is “a profanation” that will “bring us nothing good.”

Meanwhile, Moscow political analyst Konstantin Kalachev tells the paper that “the very idea of macro-regions looks to be far from fully developed and offers only the imitation of activity.” Worse, it represents “a revival of Soviet practices” with their over-bureaucratization and hyper-centralization. Both will kill any chances for real economic growth.