President Xi Jinping’s two-day state visit to Manila (November 20-21) was considered a milestone in Philippines-China relations. While depth still requires more work, the increasing breadth of the ties was demonstrated with 29 cooperation documents signed ranging from trade, investment and economic cooperation, infrastructure, agriculture, finance, information and communications technology, education, and culture. This provides much of the substance behind the elevation of the ties to a “Comprehensive Strategic Cooperation.” The visit reinforced continuity, downplaying of disputes and expansion of practical areas of cooperation. It also saw both countries’ attempt to remedy setbacks in some earlier agreed projects.

Despite domestic hurdles to Beijing-backed public work projects, China’s impact already made its presence strongly felt in trade, tourism, investments and employment. Alongside welcoming other regional connectivity undertakings, both sides agree to cooperate in implementing the Belt and Road Initiative. Nevertheless, despite the hype it is getting, relations remain a matter of economic convergence rather than political alignment. Furthermore, China is also a late player catching up with Japan in terms of providing aid and economic goods and with the United States in terms of providing market access and security goods. Thus, China’s learning curve in effectively working with the Philippines is still in its nascent stage relative to that of the country’s established partners. Bumps are not unexpected.

Sustaining the momentum

Twenty-four of the 29 cooperation documents signed during Xi’s visit correspond to seven of the 13 cooperation documents earlier signed during Duterte’s October 2016 state visit to Beijing. A 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Developing Cooperation on Production Capacity and Investment was followed through by a Program for Cooperation on Industrial Parks Development and a Framework Agreement for an Industrial Park between the Philippines’ Bases Conversion and Development Authority and Wuhan-based construction and engineering group Gezhouba. An MOU on Transportation Infrastructure Cooperation Project List was followed through by an Infrastructure Cooperation Program, an MOU on Jointly Promoting Cooperation in Key Infrastructure Projects in Davao Region, and Exchange of Letters for two projects – the Davao River Bridge Project (Bucana) and the China Aid Bridge and Road Project in Marawi. A project management consultancy contract for the Philippine National Railways South Long Haul Project (North-South Railway Project) was also signed. While existing special economic zones enjoy an advantage, other local government units can also vie to host proposed industrial parks especially if they are properly positioned and can offer attractive incentives.

Manila formalized its participation in Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative with an MOU. Duterte also accepted the invitation to attend the second Belt and Road Forum in Beijing in April 2019. The mercurial leader was among the 30 heads of state that attended the first Belt and Road Forum back in May 2017. Mindanao, especially the Davao region, is expected to corner more investments because of its great potentials and perceived policy continuity post-2022 with many local leaders supportive of the engagement policy. The establishment of a third Chinese consulate in Davao will help facilitate greater tourism and capital flows to the country’s second largest island.

In response to a 2016 Action Plan on Agriculture (2017-2019), an MOU on Strengthening the Building of Agricultural Cooperatives was reached. Furthermore, a Protocol of Phytosanitary Requirements for the export of fresh young coconuts and frozen fruits was signed which would facilitate greater Philippine exports of these two agricultural commodities to China. China had ramped up purchase of Philippine farm products. Local growers, in fact, faced difficulty catching up with demand volume. Last year, export of Philippine bananas and pineapples to China increased by more than 50 percent. However, low level of mechanization, weak state support and fragmented landholdings limit economies-of-scale cultivation, thus constraining production.

In finance, a 2016 MOU on Financing Cooperation was followed through by an MOU on Panda Bonds Issuance and an MOU on RMB Clearing Arrangement. A yuan-peso exchange trading market was also established allowing entrepreneurs and tourists from both sides to transact directly without incurring potential exchange rate losses from using a third currency. A Preferential Buyer’s Credit Loan Agreement for the New Centennial Water Source-Kaliwa Dam Project was also inked. This project which has been proposed since the 1970s will boost Metro Manila’s water security.

Addressing roadblocks

Gaps in Philippine absorptive capacity and bureaucratic bottlenecks constitute the major culprits behind the delays in agreed infrastructure projects. This case applies regardless of the donor, funder or contractor. To address these, a 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Philippines’ Department of Finance (DOF) and China’s Ministry of Commerce Supporting the Conduct of Feasibility Studies for Major Projects was reached. As a follow through, a similar MOU was inked between DOF and China’s newly-established International Development Cooperation Agency during Xi’s visit. Two feasibility study implementation agreements for the Panay-Guimaras-Negros Island Bridge and the Davao City Expressway Project were also signed. In addition, government is in a tight bind balancing the desire to fast track project implementation, especially as the Duterte administration enters midway into its term, with the need to observe deliberative processes, such as stakeholder consultation, and adhere to required safeguards.   

In recent years, Beijing had employed various terms to describe its burgeoning relations with an increasing number of countries. China had entered into “comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership” agreements with Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Senegal and Namibia; “strategic and cooperative partnership” with Afghanistan, Brunei, India, South Korea, and Sri Lanka and; “comprehensive strategic partnership” with diverse countries as Germany, UK, France, Australia, New Zealand, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mexico and Brazil, among others. But the use of “comprehensive strategic cooperation” to describe Philippines-China relations is unprecedented. Whether that suggests exceptional importance attached to the renewed ties with Manila or a consideration of the archipelagic country’s unique domestic dynamics and geopolitical setting is up for debate. For now, what is certain is that both sides appear to take a more forward-looking approach in their relations.

This article was published by APPFI.

By Mohamed Chebaro*

If 2018 is to be recorded in history as the year the Syrian uprising against the rule of the Assad dynasty was defeated, 2019 is likely to be the year that will see steps to rehabilitate the regime of Bashar Assad, who is likely to continue as the head of the Syrian state for a long time to come thanks to Iranian and Russian help.

Arab countries have convinced themselves that containment is better than confrontation if they are to continue to oppose Iranian meddling in Arab affairs, as well as to contain Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s resurging ambitions to lead the Islamic world.

In 2019, European countries will also likely join the overtures that were started by Arab countries to re-engage with the Damascus regime. But, make no mistake, Syria after the rebellion and subsequent war will be a fractured country for a long time; mentored and manipulated by an array of forces with divergent interests. Assad and his cronies are likely to rule indefinitely, aided by Russia, Iran and, to a lesser extent, Turkey and an absent America under President Donald Trump. The US is racing to create new realities on the ground that will weaken Syria further, but will stop short of eclipsing the Assad family’s rule.

Russia under Vladimir Putin has made no secret of its resurgent voice in the Middle East and on the international stage. Russian military power and diplomacy worked to prop up and consolidate the Assad regime’s grip on power and to rehabilitate its state institutions following its decisive air power deployment in September 2015, which helped pulverize the opposition groups.

The Iranians are also working parallel to the Russians, seeking to modify the composition of the Syrian demographic by resettling, in depopulated areas, the families of imported sectarian militia fighters from Iraq, Lebanon, Iran and Afghanistan as a thank you for helping to prevent the fall of Assad.

The Syrian opposition groups have, for a long time, warned that paramilitary units working alongside regime forces will become the norm in the Syria of the future. Opposition sources allege that a model similar to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces and Yemen’s Houthis will see such militia units trained and armed by Tehran. The militias have the organization and the lethal force capabilities to check the authority of the national armed forces, the police and other internal security organs.

Turkey, on the other hand, would be content to see that Syria’s Kurdish minority is tamed and not granted any autonomous areas that could, in future, fuel similar demands north of the border, where Turkey’s 10 million Kurds reside. Turkey is also likely to push to keep its 10-20 km buffer zone inside Syria as a safety valve against any Syrian government plans for a Kurdish autonomous area, even if backed by Moscow.

The Arab countries that initially supported the rebellion against Assad have shown pragmatism. Sudanese President Omar Bashir’s recent visit to Damascus and meeting with Assad is a clear indication that the anti-Assad Arab countries are ready to do business with him again. The UAE was the first to announce it would resume work at its embassy in Damascus, with Bahrain swiftly following suit.

Syria under Assad is in no hurry to turn the page and commit to political reform and power-sharing, which would pave the way for reconstruction efforts and the return of the millions of Syrians who fled the violence. That is why it is no surprise to hear Syrian opposition figures and activists speak of the need to repatriate the largest possible number of Syrian refugees to their country, even with limited or no international, regional or local safety guarantees. Those opposition figures warn of controversial efforts to encourage Syrian refugees in neighboring Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey to emigrate West rather than return to their homeland without proper security guarantees.

So there is a gloomy outlook for Syria and half of the Syrian people for 2019. As UK Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt said recently: “The British long-standing position is that we won’t have lasting peace in Syria with that (Assad-led) regime, but regretfully we do think he’s going to be around for a while.”

Statements such as this give credence to the dark Syrian humor that has been circulating lately that Assad might as well start prepping his 17-year-old son Hafez (named after the late president and Bashar’s father, who ruled Syria from 1971 to 2000) to succeed him as president one day.

• Mohamed Chebaro is a British-Lebanese journalist with more than 25 years’ experience covering war, terrorism, defense, current affairs and diplomacy. He is also a media consultant and trainer.

Renewed ties between the Philippines and China are bearing fruit, but questions about the sustainability of this policy, especially after 2022, linger. Notwithstanding delays in agreed infrastructure projects, the upswing in relations spurred trade, tourism, investments and other functional areas of cooperation, including law enforcement. China can have a transformative impact on the Philippine economy. The challenge is ensuring such engagement does not diminish the country’s foreign policy independence and harm its interests in the West Philippine Sea. Manila is not alone in this dilemma: it is also debated in other Southeast Asian capitals. While good-neighbor relations are critical, a diversified trade and security portfolio remain effective cushions against coercive economic statecraft.

Underrated gains outside infrastructure

President Xi Jinping’s Nov. 20-21 visit to Manila reaffirmed the commitment of both countries to manage disputes, build confidence, and expand economic cooperation. Twenty-four of the 29 cooperation documents signed during Xi’s visit implement seven of the 13 agreements signed during President Duterte’s October 2016 state visit to China. Plainly, both sides are working to sustain the momentum in relations. The leadership of both countries is under pressure to deliver gains from better relations. China seems to have responded well to the call.

Infrastructure is an insufficient yardstick to assess Philippine gains from improved ties. Project delays are attributable largely to domestic factors, such as poor absorptive capacity, administrative bottlenecks, and difficulties in procuring right-of-way. These problems are not endemic to China-backed projects but hinder most infrastructure projects regardless of funder or builder. The Metro Rail Transit System Line 7 project awarded to a Filipino-Korean consortium in 2008 did not reach financial closure until 2016 and did not break ground until 2017. Moreover, right-of-way issues on the planned depot in Bulacan may delay project completion to 2020.

Recognizing these hurdles, a 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Philippines’ Finance Department (DOF) and China’s Ministry of Commerce Supporting the Conduct of Feasibility Studies for Major Projects was signed. A similar MOU was inked between DOF and China’s newly-established International Development Cooperation Agency during Xi’s visit. Two feasibility study implementation agreements for the Panay-Guimaras-Negros Island Bridge and the Davao City Expressway Project were also signed.

The windfall from warmer ties is evident in other areas. China became the Philippines’ largest trade partner in 2016, its second largest source of tourists in 2017 and, in August this year, the country’s top export market. Chinese tourists recorded the fastest growth with a 34.9 percent yearly increase. In the first three quarters of 2018, over 972,000 Chinese visitors arrived and the total is forecast to reach 1.5 million by year’s end. Exports of Philippine tropical fruits increased by 50 percent in 2017. Filipino companies bagged $124 million worth of sales in China’s first international import expo held in Shanghai last month. Chinese company 51Talk already employs 15,000 Filipinos teaching English to Chinese students online and plans to hire 100,000 more in the next five years. Given the huge China market, this promises to be a sunrise industry for the world’s third largest English-speaking nation. China also intends to hire 10,000 Filipino household workers with salary offers higher than those in Hong Kong on direct government-to-government arrangements that can ensure greater protection for workers.

China has become the major driver of the Philippines’ real estate boom. Mainland buyers account for half the international sales of local real estate companies Ayala Land and DMCI. Construction and tourism have a strong trickle-down effect on local and informal economies, creating jobs and opportunities in food, transport, retail, services, and hospitality sectors.

Chinese investments, while still lagging others, registered a 67 percent annual increase. While the first major wave of Chinese investments since the improvement of ties largely focused on the gaming sector, there is great potential to diversify and scale-up. Technical vocational education and training exchanges can help upgrade Filipino skills. A signed MOU on Basic Education can facilitate this. With the first batch of K-12 students graduating this year, some of whom are already looking for work opportunities, skills training and incoming investments are welcome.

Mitigating risks, measured responses

Apart from bureaucratic impediments to infrastructure projects, other challenges beset reinvigorated ties. They include debt sustainability, corruption and institutional vulnerability, and concerns about China’s increasing military footprint in the West Philippine Sea (WPS). Despite bilateral and regional dialogues and confidence-building measures, the public remains wary of China’s presence in waters close to home. A joint oil and gas exploration project may revive upstream activities suspended since tensions erupted in 2012, but the agreement still has to pass constitutional scrutiny.

Meanwhile, responding to hyped fears of a debt trap, Secretary of Finance Dominguez reassured the public that soft loans from China for the Philippines’ Build, Build, Build program will only constitute 0.65 percent of government debt this year and will increase to just 4.5 percent by 2022. Such debt is in fact lower than Japanese concessional loans, which will grow from 8.9 percent this year to 9.5 percent by 2022. He also said that government will not seek funding for projects that will not pay off.

The surge in Chinese workers in the Philippines also triggered a Senate probe. Estimates of 50,000 to 115,000 alien employment permits were issued to Chinese nationals from 2015 to 2017. While many work in the online gaming sector that caters to the Chinese market, which requires Chinese language proficiency, there were reports that they were also working in construction, giving rise to charges of stealing jobs from locals. However, efforts to crack down on foreigners violating immigration and labor laws should be done with caution to ensure they do not scare legitimate investors and tourists – in other words, the majority of Chinese people flows to the country. President Duterte also said that rash actions may trigger a backlash against the estimated 200,000 Filipinos illegally working in China, mostly as household workers and tutors.

The involvement of Chinese nationals in criminal activities, such as the drug trade, illegal online gambling, and financial fraud largely targeting their fellow Chinese back home increases the salience of bilateral law enforcement cooperation. A tip-off from Xiamen Customs authorities, for instance, resulted in the biggest drug bust in Philippine history last year.

Chinese criminals may ride the wave of warmer ties to migrate illegal activities, thinking they can bribe their way out of the local justice system. To this end, both sides are fast-tracking discussions for an agreement on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. This was taken up in the Joint Statement issued during Xi’s visit. While it may not be foolproof, harsher penalties and strict enforcement may deter Chinese nationals from engaging in crimes while in the Philippines. The

PRC claim for custody even over Taiwanese may present irritants in Manila’s relations with Taipei, especially given souring cross-strait ties.

In sum, economic convergence is driving relations between the Philippines and China closer. Both sides realize the value of cooperation in addressing issues of mutual concern. It remains a challenge, however, to translate that top-level understanding to bureaucracies and to reassure the public.

This article was published by Pacific Forum

It is the most obvious indication of the unique problems Belarus faces that it is a headline for an article by Yuiya Telpuk on the Belsat.eu portal that “Aleksandr Lukashenko has begun to speak Belarusian” (belsat.eu/ru/in-focus/aleksandr-lukashenko-zagovoril-po-belorusski/). 

As she points out, this is how it should be. “Trump speaks English. Macron speaks French.” And now “Putin and Lukashenka are losing a common language” because Belarusian President Lukashenka has shifted from Russian to his own in order to stress that “we are proud of our history and land. We know our roots and honor our traditions.”

But what makes this newsworthy is that Lukashenka has rarely used Belarusian and has even slandered it by saying all too publicly that “One can’t express anything great in Belarus. The Belarusian language is a poor language. In the world, there exist only two great languages, Russian and English.”

After becoming president, he orchestrated a referendum which deprived Belarusian of its unique status as a national language and “adopted a course in the direction of Russia,” according to Sergey Naumchik, who was a deputy in the country’s Supreme Soviet between 1991 and 1996.

“In a situation when the Kremlin is beginning the swallowing up of Belarus or more precisely accelerating that process,” he says, “[Lukashenka] intuitively feels that he must do something to save himself … through national identity, the foundations of which are language, history, the coat of arms and the flag.”

But if Lukashenka is serious, he is going to have to give more than a three-minute speech in the national language, Naumchik continues. He must “return the status of Belarusian as the only state language, return the coat of arms and the white-red-white flag, open in Minsk and the oblasts Belarusian language schools” and monitor pro-Russian groups in all parts of the country.

“For a quarter of a century,” the former deputy says, “the language has been developing in the non-governmental sector and is widely sued in the media. It is fighting for users through special projects, literature and the Internet.” Ever more is being achieved, “but a quick result will be achieved only via Lukashenka.”  And Belarus needs that.

Vitaly Tsygankov, a Belarusian commentator for Radio Svoboda, agrees.  If Lukashenka does make these moves, “this would be a signal” that even more could be done to build up the unity of Belarus against foreign occupation. And importantly it would send a signal to the officials in the country that a new wind is blowing, one away from Moscow rather than toward it.

The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered contradictory messages in a speech in Cairo on Thursday, January 18. On the one hand, he said Washington will withdraw American troops from Syria in line with Donald Trump’s momentous announcement on December 19, and on the other, he emphasized the US will continue fighting the Islamic State and will also contain the influence of Iran in the Middle East region.

Obviously, both these divergent goals are impossible to achieve, unless Washington is planning to maintain some sort of long-term military presence in Syria. In an exclusive report [1] by the Middle East Eye’s Turkey correspondent, Ragip Soylu, he contends that the US delegation presented a five-point document to the Turkish officials during National Security Advisor John Bolton’s recent visit to Turkey.

“Those in attendance with Bolton during the two-hour meeting at the presidential palace in Ankara included General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and James Jeffrey, the US special envoy to the anti-Islamic State coalition,” according to the report.

A senior Trump administration official briefed on objectives outlined at the meeting, speaking to the reporter, said, “As the president has stated, the US will maintain whatever capability is necessary for operations needed to prevent the Islamic State’s resurgence.”

And then the reporter makes a startling revelation, though hidden deep in the report and mentioned only cursorily: “The US is not withdrawing from the base at al-Tanf at this time,” the official said. The revelation hardly comes as a surprise, though, as John Bolton alluded to maintaining long-term US military presence at the al-Tanf base during his visit to Jerusalem on Sunday, January 6.

The al-Tanf military base is strategically located in southeastern Syria on the border between Syria, Iraq and Jordan, and it sits on a critically important Damascus-Baghdad highway, which serves as a lifeline for Damascus. Washington has illegally occupied 55-kilometer area around al-Tanf since 2016 and trained a Syrian militant group Maghawir al-Thawra there.

Thus, for all practical purposes, it appears the withdrawal of American troops from Syria will be limited to Manbij and Kobani in northern Syria and Qamishli and al-Hasakah in northeastern Syria in order to address the concerns of Washington’s NATO-ally Turkey pertaining to the Kurdish militias which Ankara regards as “terrorists,” and the fate of US forces operating alongside Kurds in Deir al-Zor in eastern Syria and al-Tanf military base in particular is still in doubt.

The regions currently being administered by the Kurds in Syria include the Kurdish-majority Qamishli and al-Hasakah in northeastern Syria along the border with Iraq, and the Arab-majority towns of Manbij to the west of the Euphrates River in northern Syria and Kobani to the east of the Euphrates River along the Turkish border.

The oil- and natural gas-rich Deir al-Zor governorate in eastern Syria has been contested between the Syrian government and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, and it also contains a few pockets of the remnants of the Islamic State militants alongside both eastern and western banks of the Euphrates River.

The Turkish “east of Euphrates” military doctrine basically means that the Turkish armed forces would not tolerate the presence of the Syrian PYD/YPG Kurds – which the Turks regard as “terrorists” allied to the PKK Kurdish separatist group in Turkey – in Manbij and Kobani, in line with the longstanding Turkish policy of denying the Kurds any territory in the traditionally Arab-majority areas of northern Syria along Turkey’s southern border.

Regarding the evacuation of American troops from the Kurdish-held areas in northern Syria, clearly an understanding has been reached between Washington and Ankara. According to the terms of the agreement, the Erdogan administration released the US pastor Andrew Brunson on October 12, which had been a longstanding demand of the Trump administration, and has also decided not to make public the audio recordings of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, which could have implicated another American-ally the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman in the assassination.

In return, the Trump administration has complied with Erdogan’s longstanding demand to evacuate American forces from the Kurdish-held areas in northern Syria. Another demand Erdogan must have made to Washington is to pressure Saudi Arabia to lift the Saudi-UAE blockade against Qatar imposed in June 2017, which is ideologically aligned to Erdogan’s AKP party since both follow the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, in return for not making public the audio recordings of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

It bears mentioning that after the Khashoggi assassination and the international outrage it generated against the Saudi royal family, Saudi Arabia is already trying to assuage Qatar as it invited Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani to attend the Gulf Cooperation Council summit in Riyadh on December 10, though Doha snubbed the goodwill gesture by sending a low-ranking official to the meeting.

The reason why the Trump administration is bending over backwards to appease Ankara is that Turkish President Erdogan has been drifting away from Washington’s orbit into the Kremlin’s sphere of influence. Turkey, which has the second largest army in NATO, has been cooperating with Moscow in Syria against Washington’s interests for the last couple of years and has also placed an order for the Russian-made S-400 missile system, though that deal, too, has been thrown into jeopardy after Washington’s recent announcement of selling $3.5 billion worth of Patriot missile systems to Ankara.

In order to understand the significance of relationship between Washington and Ankara, it’s worth noting that the United States has been conducting airstrikes against targets in Syria from the Incirlik airbase and around fifty American B-61 hydrogen bombs have also been deployed there, whose safety became a matter of real concern during the foiled July 2016 coup plot against the Erdogan administration; when the commander of the Incirlik airbase, General Bekir Ercan Van, along with nine other officers were arrested for supporting the coup; movement in and out of the base was denied, power supply was cut off and the security threat level was raised to the highest state of alert, according to a report [2] by Eric Schlosser for the New Yorker.

Perceptive readers who have been keenly watching Erdogan’s behavior since the foiled July 2016 coup plot against the Erdogan administration must have noticed that Erdogan has committed quite a few reckless and impulsive acts during the last few years.

Firstly, the Turkish air force shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 fighter jet on the border between Syria and Turkey on 24 November 2015 that brought the Turkish and Russian armed forces to the brink of a full-scale confrontation in Syria.

Secondly, the Russian ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov, was assassinated at an art exhibition in Ankara on the evening of 19 December 2016 by an off-duty Turkish police officer, Mevlut Mert Altintas, who was suspected of being an Islamic fundamentalist.

Thirdly, the Turkish military mounted the seven-month-long Operation Euphrates Shield in northern Syria immediately after the attempted coup plot from August 2016 to March 2017 that brought the Turkish military and its Syrian militant proxies head-to-head with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and their US backers.

Fourthly, Ankara invaded Idlib in northwestern Syria in October 2017 on the pretext of enforcing a de-escalation zone between the Syrian militants and the Syrian government, despite official protest from Damascus that the Turkish armed forces were in violation of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

And lastly, Turkey mounted Operation Olive Branch in the Kurdish-held enclave of Afrin in northwestern Syria from January to March 2018. And after capturing Afrin in March last year, the Turkish armed forces and their Syrian jihadist proxies have now set their sights further east on Manbij and Kobani.

The overall Consumer Price Index (CPI) fell 0.1 percent in December due to a 3.5 percent drop in energy prices. This was the second consecutive sharp drop in energy prices. This drop held the overall inflation rate to just 1.9 percent over the last year, leading it to come in under the core’s 2.2 percent year-over-year rate. In December, the core CPI increased by 0.2 percent for the third consecutive month.

Rents continue to be, by far, the largest cause of inflation in the core. The shelter index rose by 0.3 percent in December and is up 3.2 percent over the last year. The core index, excluding shelter, was up just 1.5 percent over the last year.

As before, there are sharp differences in the rate of rental inflation across cities. The West Coast cities continue to be the big problem areas with Seattle and Portland both seeing rental inflation in the 5–6 percent range and Los Angeles having inflation in a 4–5 percent range. In the last year there has been a sharp increase in the rate of rental inflation in both Boston and Chicago, which has gone from near 2.0 percent to close to 4.0 percent. In contrast, rental inflation in the DC area has remained near 2.0 percent.

Inflation in most other areas of the CPI seems well under control. New vehicle prices and apparel prices were both flat in December. Over the last year, they are down 0.3 percent and are flat, respectively. Even prescription drug prices seem under control, falling 0.4 percent in December and dropping 0.6 percent over the last year. It is important to remember that the CPI shows the change in the price of drugs already on the market. It is not affected by new drugs being introduced at high prices.

Auto insurance prices, which had been a major factor driving inflation, fell 0.2 percent in December, the second consecutive decrease. They are now up 4.6 percent over the last year. The drop in energy costs sent airline fares down by 1.5 percent, following a drop of 2.4 percent in November. They are down 2.6 percent over the last year.

Tuition costs, which had been well contained earlier in the year, are showing some evidence of acceleration. They rose 0.2 percent in December and are up 2.7 percent over the last year. College tuition is up 2.8 percent over the last year.

There also is some evidence that medical care services are returning as a problem area. The price of services increased 0.4 percent for the second consecutive month. They are now up 2.6 percent over the last year. Inflation in hospital services has been even higher, coming in at 0.5 percent the last two months and 3.7 percent over the last year.

Health insurance costs (these are purely administrative costs, net of payments to providers) also are becoming a bigger problem. They rose 1.3 percent in December and are up 5.4 percent over the last year. This is the highest year-over-year rate of increase in two years.

However, in spite of the evidence of some acceleration of inflation in the traditional problem areas of education and health care, there is zero evidence of increasing inflation in CPI as a whole. While the sharp drop in energy prices is a onetime occurrence that will not be repeated, inflation is not accelerating at all in the core. The annualized rate, comparing the last three months (October, November, December) with the prior three (July, August, September), is just 2.0 percent, down slightly from the 2.2 percent rate over the last year.

On the whole, this report shows a very positive picture. Inflation is well-contained almost everywhere, with the important qualification that health care services and education may be returning as major problem areas. The fact that inflation appears to be slowing, rather than accelerating, indicates that the Federal Reserve has little to fear about out-of-control inflation in the immediate future. And, the slower rate of overall inflation is translating into healthy real wage growth.

In a huge potential break in the long-running and controversial case of Philadelphia journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal, currently serving a life-without-parole term in a Pennsylvania state prison at Mahonoy, PA for murder conviction, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office says it has discovered six banker storage boxes of materials about the case in a locked storeroom of the DA’s offices at 3 South Penn Square.

The boxes, spotted by Krasner himself during a search of the previously locked storeroom for an office desk, reportedly had the name “McCann” scrawled on their facing side, apparently referring to Edward McCann, the long-time head of the DA’s homicide litigation unit (McCann left the DA’s office in 2015). When the boxes were removed from under the desk, it was discovered that the name “Mumia” was written on the their hidden ends.

Five of the boxes were reportedly numbered 18/29, 21/29, 23/29, 24/29 and 29/29. The sixth box had no number on it. The department’s Mumia case record is stored in boxes numbered 1-32 and includes boxes similarly numbered to those found in the storeroom.

The newly located cardboard crates, which contain case files, evidentiary material and other materials relating to the Mumia case, are going to be provided to the defense for their inspection, according the DA’s office.

The significance of  this surprising discovery by Krasner, a prominent progressive defense attorney who won election as DA in November 2017 and moved into the DA’s office last January, is that if those boxes contain any evidentiary material that was improperly withheld from the defense, and if what was withheld proved significant enough that it might potentially have led the original jury to a different conclusion — for example a non-unanimous decision to convict — it could be grounds for seeking a retrial of the case.

Even if such evidence were less obviously significant, it could open the door for the defense to seek a new Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) hearing at the level of the court of common pleas. At such a hearing both sides — the defense and the DA’s office — would be able to make arguments and even, depending on the evidence found, to subpoena witnesses — potentially even witnesses from the original trial who could be re-questioned under oath.

The discovery of the crates comes at a critical juncture for Abu-Jamal, who has spent 29 years on death row and a total of 38 years in prison after having his death penalty for conviction in the 1981 shooting death of white Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner vacated on Constitutional grounds.

Just two weeks ago, Common Pleas Judge Leon Tucker issued an order ruling that four important PCRA appeals by Abu-Jamal, including his first lengthy and contentious PCRA hearing in 1995 at which all of the important evidence in the prosecution’s case was challenged before the original trial Judge Albert Sabo, needed to be re-appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Judge Tucker ruled that all four of those appeals, each of which was summarily rejected by the state’s high court, had been unfair because one of the Supreme Court justices, Ronald Castille, had, from 1986-1991, been Philadelphia DA, where he was in charge of the assistant DAs tasked with fighting Abu-Jamal’s appeal of his conviction. Tucker said that even if there was no documentary evidence of Justice Castille’s direct involvement in that appeal fighting process, the mere appearance of a conflict of interest meant he should have recused himself from discussions of and deciding on those appeals. Instead, Castille participated in high court’s majority decision to reject all four appeals.

Following hearings that preceded his ruling, Judge Tucker had ordered a thorough search of the DA’s office in an effort to locate any memos or other documents that might link former DA Castille to his office’s handling of Abu-Jamal’s case. While no Castille memo turned up, Krasner’s office, which had assigned a paralegal to the search, did locate two memos about the case with questions addressed to Castille, but never found his response.

The six crates, interestingly, were discovered on Dec. 28, just a day after Judge Tucker’s ruling was issued.

Krasner’s office still has not responded to the judge’s decision, which would have to be appealed by his office within 30 days, or in other words, by January 26. No other party or agency besides the Philadelphia District Attorney has standing to appeal it, meaning if DA Krasner does nothing, it will stand.

Radio station WHYY, in a local news report Thursday, quoted retired Assistant DA McCann, whose name was on all the newly discovered case document crates, as saying he “doubted” there would be any new evidence undisclosed to the Mumia defense team found in them. McCann suggested that the contents may have been all photocopies of material the defense has already seen.

The defense team, which declined to comment, believes McCann is wrong, and clearly will be going through the materials in the boxes with a fine-tooth comb looking for signs of evidence not disclosed to the defense at trial. (It’s worth noting that nobody in the DA’s office anticipated that Krasner would take over an office that for generations has been run by hard-line prosecutors less concerned with justice than with winning cases, and willing to bend the rules or overlook police or prosecutorial conduce in order to win convictions.)

The case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has become a powerful voice from inside what he calls the US “prison industrial complex,” whose original trial was widely seen as a corrupt travesty of justice, and whose freedom has been sought by supporters around the world who see the progressive journalist and former Black Panther as a political prisoner, is far from over.

UK Defense Minister Gavin Williamson haS been widely quoted as declaring that the U.K. will establish a permanent naval base in Southeast Asia – perhaps in Singapore or Brunei.  This would be the first new British military base in the region since the withdrawal of most of its military forces more than half a century ago. Such a move would have unintended consequences for the region—and for Britain itself—many of them negative.

The idea has been stimulated in part by Brexit – the imminent across the board withdrawal of the U.K. from the European Union. The possible effects of Brexit on Britain’s future are an increasingly divisive issue for U.K. citizens.  Many despair. Some members of Prime Minister Theresa May’s government want to use the separation to launch Britain on a path to a successful and independent future.   It is clear that at least initially, the U.K. will be weakened.  They reckon that to “survive and thrive” after the traumatic separation, the nation must boost its economic relations with Asia. To ensure the latter it must be able to protect the sea lanes and its investments there.  Because it cannot do this alone, it must enhance its military relations with the U.S.  The U.S. needs help in its quest to constrain China’s behavior in the South China Sea. So the move could be a quid pro quo. Perhaps as a harbinger of this calculus, then British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said the Royal Navy would be sending HMS Queen Elizabeth and its under-construction sister ship HMS Prince of Wales, into the South China Sea in 2020. 

That is an explanation of the initiative from the British perspective.

 But China would likely see it in a negative light.    Indeed it would likely be perceived as a declaration by one of its former colonial masters to become part of the current US strategic cabal to confront, constrain and contain it. The U.S. has officially made clear that it considers China a potential enemy and China must presume that it is constructing and planning for worst case scenarios — including war– and actively integrating its allies into its strategy.  Indeed, China also sees the new US Indo-Pacific Strategy and the revival of the Quad—a potential loose security coordination mechanism between India, Japan, Australia and the U.S.—as further evidence of this Western response to its rise.   The dialectic is simple and stark. America wants to remain the leading strategic power in Asia and China wants to replace it.

China would also likely see the move as compounding a strategic existential threat.  China has built a new submarine base at Yulin on Hainan in the South China Sea for its nuclear powered, nuclear armed submarines. These are its deterrent to a first nuclear strike against it. To be effective, they need to hide in the South China Sea. The presence of a major British naval and air base and concomitant British patrols and intelligence probes –in addition to those of the U.S.—could inhibit their ability to hide, thus diminishing its deterrent and exposing China to defeat in a nuclear exchange. Already, much to China’s angst and chagrin, a British warship has challenged China’s claimed baselines around the Paracel Islands.

To China it must seem that just as it is regaining its dignity from a ‘century of humiliation’, it is now faced with a possible 21^st century high tech repeat of history. Indeed, these developments may be seen by China as evidence of a grand coalition of Western civilization plotting against it –an Armaggedon–like clash of civilizations as predicted by Huntington. If so, it will oppose this gambit with all it can muster. This is the strategic context that Britain needs to consider in proceeding with building a new military base in Southeast Asia.

An initial concern for Britain should be ‘is it worth it’ economically and politically? The answer is that in its lonely and difficult transitional period, probably not. But if the U.S. considers a British base as part of its grand strategy vis a vis China then perhaps it will support its construction both economically and politically. After all, as an ally the U.S. would presumably have access to the base for its own assets as well.

Perhaps  a more important consideration for Britain is how would such a move be viewed politically in its former colonial sphere of influence?   Singapore already hosts a British naval repair facility and Brunei hosts a battalion of British soldiers—some 500-800 strong. Moreover Britain is a member of the Five Powers Defense Arrangements that includes Commonwealth members Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand and which undertakes military exercises in the region. But a new base would be different in kind, scale and geopolitical significance.

Moreover, it is not only China that would likely view such a development as a resurgence of neocolonialism—both ideationally and strategically. It would likely be opposed by nationalists in both the host and the region. At the least it would raise strong suspicions among neighbors as to the host’s long term intentions towards both themselves and China.  More specifically, the base and the host would immediately become a target for China in a conflict and the host would have difficult political and economic relations with China for the foreseeable future.

Singapore might calculate that it is worth it to host a British base because having it is a form of insurance against bullying by Malaysia and Indonesia as well as a hedge in case the U.S. – which has ‘rotational’ military privileges there– pulls back from the region. But Singapore would then have to live with the long-term consequences as China’s power and influence grow in the region- – and beyond.  As for Brunei, it is difficult to imagine a strict Islamic society welcoming a large contingent of foreign military troops. To do so could eventually undermine the very legitimacy of the Sultan and his government.

The added stress on ASEAN could be fatal.  It is already riven by pro-China and pro-U.S. factions and increasing pressure to choose between the two powers. A new base in the region for a US ally could be the strategic straw that breaks the back of ASEAN unity. It would also accelerate the arms race in the region as China expands outward and the U.S.—aided by its allies—including Britain –  rushes to upgrade their friends and allies’ military capabilities.

In sum a new British base in Southeast Asia could have significant negative unintended consequences for all concerned except perhaps for the U.S.

A version of this piece first appeared in the South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/asia/article/2181540/new-british-naval-base-southeast-asia-could-stoke#comments

In December 2018 David Runciman, Head of Politics at Cambridge University, made the radical proposal that children as young as six should be allowed to vote in elections to deal with the age bias in contemporary democracies. Allowing children to vote he said, would give a ‘jolt of energy’ to democracy. While the thought of six year olds voting sounds extreme and will no doubt be broadly dismissed, there is a strong democratic argument for lowering the eligible age from 18, which is the standard voting age in most countries and allowing children to vote.

In response to Professor Runciman’s suggestion The Guardian newspaper asked a group of children “aged 6-12 what [political] policies would get their vote.” Their intelligent, straightforward answers are inspiring and in accord with the views of many of us. Freed from ideology and party politics these children see the issues clearly and speak in an unencumbered way, direct from the heart.

Thomas Atkinson is 10 and lives in Belfast. “The other day I saw someone sitting on the pavement. He looked about 20. Why is that happening? He needs a job and a home – and there are so many jobs that need doing. Like, for example, the environmental problems. There is plastic on the beaches all around Bangor. We need people to clear that.” Petra Pekarik is 11 and lives in London. She is a Hungarian citizen – “it doesn’t make sense to me that Britain is putting up barriers. I feel the opposite should be happening, and we should be taking barriers away.” She says that in school they talk a lot about fairness, but in society “there are some people who are so special, and other people who don’t even have a home. Sometimes I see people living on the street and I think, why are they there? It’s important because we are all the same: these people aren’t different, they’re people. We are all people.” And Tom Ashworth, who is 9 and lives in Ambleside: “Climate change is the big issue politicians need to work on…. We can’t just let this happen and do nothing – it’s got to be stopped. We have to stop doing the things that cause climate change. It’s really important right now…. We need to stop wasting food and everything else we’re wasting.” The only six-year-old spoken to, Wilfie Tudor-Wills from London, said that, “there should be more houses in London. There are a lot of people in this city and they need places to live…. there should be less pollution, because it’s bad for your lungs.” And, given the chance to speak to the UK Prime Minister, Teresa May, he would “tell her to get more people to have electric cars because they’re better for the world. And also I’d like there to be more parks.”

The other children who were questioned gave answers that are just as insightful, but the views of these children, like all children their age go largely unheard. Children under 18 are commonly, and as these children’s comments demonstrate, mistakenly, thought to lack the understanding to participate in current affairs and as a result are denied the most basic democratic right, that of voting in an election; be it local or national. But at 18, everything changes; it is apparently the age when adulthood begins and with it full citizenship. Previously it was 21.

The arguments for excluding children from voting echo those trotted out in the past to ban other groups – women and people of color e.g. They are usually based on the idea that children are intellectually incapable of understanding the issues, are politically apathetic, and that, lacking a mind of their own, they will simply vote for the same candidate/party as their parents. This facile point was used to justify denying women the vote, only in that particular statement of prejudice, it was husbands not parents who it was said would determine the woman’s choice, because, like children, women cannot, or could not, think for themselves! Even if a child does vote in the same way as their parents, as indeed many over 18s do, it does not invalidate the ‘one person one vote’ system and is not a reason to deny him or her the opportunity to participate.

In countries or cities where 16 year-olds have been allowed to vote these justifications of exclusion have proven to be hollow. Multiple studies show the younger first-time voters are, the greater their participation: The Washington Post related the example of Takoma Park, the first city in America to lower the voting age to 16 (in 2013), where “16 – 17 year olds voted at twice the rate of the voting population.” In the 2016 Scottish Independence referendum 16 year olds were given the vote; they were actively involved in debates and 75% of those eligible to vote actually did so, 20% higher than 18 – 24 year olds. Support for early enfranchisement among the population at large also increased after the referendum – from around a third to 60%. The voting age in Scotland has since been lowered to 16 for all elections.

Whether 16 year olds, or anyone else for that matter, who are given the right to vote actually do so or not, however, should not be regarded as a reason to grant or withhold that right. In most general elections in the UK for example, an average of only 65% of those on the electoral register actually vote, and this is broadly the case in other western democracies.

Young people overwhelmingly support progressive liberal parties; they reject nationalism, embrace people from other countries and are often in the forefront of the environmental movement and calls for social justice. I suggest it is this knowledge that motivates conservative leaning groups of all kinds to resist lowering the voting age.

If representative democracy is to become truly reflective the maximum level of participation by the largest number and broadest range of people needs to be facilitated and encouraged, and this not just in the political sphere, but in all areas of contemporary life. In countries where the voting age has been kept at 18, a huge percentage of the population has no voice of their own; in Britain, which has an ageing population that’s approximately 17 million young people. This is wholly un-democratic and needs to change.

The concerns and views of young people must be heard, acknowledged and acted upon and they should be granted that most rudimentary of democratic rights – the right to vote. The discussion should be focused on what level to lower the voting age to, not whether it should be reduced. The suggestion by Prof David Runciman that children as young as six should be allowed to vote does indeed seem extreme, particularly in a single step, the age most widely proposed is 16; a process of incremental changes, which can be reviewed, may be most fruitful and children themselves should be engaged in the debate.

Democracy is participation: not only should children be allowed to vote in elections of all kinds, they should have an active role in the management of schools and colleges and the composition of the educational curriculum. Facilitating such participation would not only encourage broader social responsibility amongst young people, it would enrich and strengthen democracy itself.

When Herb Kelleher, the joyous, fun-loving Founder and retired CEO of Southwest Airlines soared past permissible flight levels for passenger aircraft on his way to heaven last week, the accolades in the exuberant obituaries were also sky-high.

Listen to former American Airlines CEO Bob Crandall: “He was a man of great imagination. He was a man of diligence. He paid careful attention to the details. And he was a man of integrity. I think we will look back on Herb Kelleher as an example of the kind of people who ought to be our leaders.”

Herb (everyone called him Herb), was much more than a super-successful creator of a low-fare, no-frills, high-pay, unionized, constantly profitable airline (since 1973) that never laid off any workers, with consistently high customer-approval ratings, and the most solid financial stability in a boom-bust, managed industry. In overturning the stagnant, brusque ways of the industry, he challenged his industry, with four Boeing 737s in 1971 flying between Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston, and overcame a cartel-like industry. After beating back numerous lawsuits by other airlines trying to stop his fledging enterprise – he rewrote the book on management for a large company.

For starters, he put employees, not consumers, first. That seemed not effective to me at first. But then came his explanation. You treat employees well in all ways, occupationally and personally, they’ll treat airline passengers well and safely, which makes the airline prosper for the shareholders. He did all three, having fun along the way. More than a few of his pilots, attendants, and other staff became—as workers/shareholders— millionaires.

Making money was not his first personal priority – making work pleasurable and exciting and giving employees discretion to bring the best from themselves – not playing rigidly by rule books – save him the most professional gratification.

After a while it probably did not surprise him that his wealth grew and grew to an estimated $2.5 billion.

His way of doing business, motivating people, and relieving their anxieties should invite many diverse living memorials in his memory. It is easy to think of many ways to recognize business practices that could be established in his same joyously productive fashion.

I’ve made no secret that Southwest is my favorite domestic airline. There is no second. When I step from the jet way onto the plane, I invariably say to the flight attendants and pilots – “the best airline in America” often adding that it reflects the pioneering ways of Herb Kelleher.

Once I called him to say that he is such a critical asset to the airline that shareholders should pass a resolution demanding that he stop his five-pack-a day smoking habit.

His successor CEO Gary Kelly captured the full breadth of Kelleher’s life-long contributions. Kelly said: “His legacy extends far beyond our industry and far beyond the world of entrepreneurship. He inspired people; he motivated people; he challenged people – and he kept us laughing all the way.”

Born in Camden, New Jersey in 1931, young Herb worked in a soup factory where his father labored, later calling it his best education (including his time at Wesleyan and New York University Law School). Because it taught him how to interact with and understand all kinds of people and “how to produce results, not just paper.”

He attributed to his mother an outstanding influence. In one of his many writings, he described why: “She had a very democratic view of life. She had enormously wide interests in politics and business, so it was very educational in that respect, just talking with her. We’d sit up and talk to two, three, and four o’clock in the morning when I was quite young about how you should behave, the goals that you should have, the ethics you should follow, how business worked, how politics can join with business.”

When you fly Southwest and order refreshments, the flight attendant brings you the drink and a napkin emblazoned with the airline’s motto:

“In a world full of No
We’re a plane full of Yes.”

To make such an expectation a reality, Kelleher put in place a recruiting priority that placed “temperament” above talent and skill. He would say “we could change skill levels through training. We can’t change attitude.”

Southwest ate the lunches of their stodgy competitors by doing business differently: no first class seats, no seat assignment, leg room, lower fares, fast turnaround for its efficiently used aircraft (a record breaking 15 minutes), a great safety record, no fees for changing reservations or checking two bags, using less congested, near-to-cities airports (eg. Chicago, Dallas), flying only one class of airplane— the Boeing 737—to reduce maintenance and training costs and avoiding the “hub and spoke” inconvenience for travelers. Southwest engaged in fuel hedging that locked in prices and then won the bet saving hundreds of millions of dollars over their competitors, when fuel prices soared. It also, until recently, answered the phones immediately with a human being. Its global mileage-reward program rejects termination dates. It is now the nation’s largest domestic airlines conveying 120 million passengers last year to over 100 destinations.

“We market ourselves on the personality and spirit of ourselves,” he told an interviewer. Which is why some flight attendants love to tell jokes during the pre-take-off announcements which gets passengers to either chuckle or roll their eyes in mirth.

Kelleher was a many splendored human being. He and his wife, Joan Negley, raised a family of four children. He had a robust, quirky side to him, riding motorcycles, and engaging in amusing stunts that have become legendary in both family and company history.

With his 58,000 productive employees, Kelleher, in the words of Robert Mann, an airline industry analyst, “literally brought air travel to the masses on a scale that was unimaginable.” Small wonder that he immediately approved my suggestion that Southwest’s mantra should be – “We do not imitate!”

His self-deprecation was consistently funny. One sample: “Because I am unable to perform competently any meaningful function at Southwest, our employees [they were also shareholders] let me be C.E.O.”

No one has been able to imitate Kelleher’s super-successful management philosophy, his hands-on behavior and authenticity. They may install cut-rate fares, but unfortunately for the people, Kelleher stands as one of a kind.

By Ryan McMaken*

he Transportation Security Administration, a federal agency, is facing a no-show problem with employees, as paychecks are put on hold during the partial government shutdown. This is reportedly leading to longer lines and security problems at airports nationwide. According to CNN ,

Hundreds of Transportation Security Administration officers, who are required to work without paychecks through the partial government shutdown, have called out from work this week from at least four major airports…

TSA spokespeople, meanwhile, insist everything is completely normal although absenteeism has “increased by 200% to 300%,” according to Marketwatch.

Not everyone was as sanguine about the situation as government officials. One frequent traveler complained “The lines were exceptionally longer than normal, especially for a peak departure time frame of 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.”

Given that the feds admit more employees are skipping work, it’s hard to believe that everything’s humming along normally — unless workers are lowering security standards to get more people through the line quickly.

But, that, of course, is something the feds insist they would never, ever do.

In any case, the whole affair reminds us of just one of the many pitfalls that come with federalizing airport security and making it all part of one giant, nationwide federal bureaucracy.

TSA screeners are federal employees, and their salaries are paid out of a federal budget — of now more than 7 billion dollars. In fiscal year 2018 , more than four billion of the TSA’s 7.5 billion budget came from government appropriations, with the rest coming from fees on passengers and the industry. Since 2017, the Trump Administration has proposed to increasing fees ” to cover 75% rather than 40% of the Transportation Security Administration’s costs.”1

But even if the Trump Administration were to get its wish, the TSA would still remain a federal agency with federal employees, and a substantial of its budget would still come from federal appropriations.

In other words, the next time there’s a government shutdown, we’d be looking, yet again, at a situation in which the entire nationwide system of airports would be affected because a tiny number of politicians in DC couldn’t agree on a nationwide budget.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Nor were things this way prior to the federalization of airport security in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Thanks to the George W. Bush Administration, airport security was federalized only two months after 9/11, with Bush proudly declaring at the time: “For the first time, airport security will become a direct, federal responsibility.”There were federal regulations in place dictating how security was conducted, of course, but the employees and the funding were largely decentralized in how they were distributed and used.

As a result, a federal shutdown under a system like this does not mean that the employees won’t get paid or that “non-essential” personnel are simply sent home.

The TSA Doesn’t Keep Us Safe

In response, supporters of the status quo are likely to respond that the TSA “keeps us safe” and only a federalized version of airport security can work.

Unfortunately, for them, there is no evidence to support this position.

First of all, that there has been no serious and successful terrorist hijacking since 9/11 does not prove the effectiveness of the TSA. After all, the creation of the TSA is just one change since 9/11.

Indeed, 9/11-style hijackings were obsolete by the afternoon of September 11, 2001. Their success rested largely on the fact that the airline industry and FAA regulators adhered to a policy of compliance when it came to hijackers. As a report from Stratfor notes:

Before 9/11, aircraft crews were trained not to resist hijackers but to comply with their instructions in an effort to calm the situation and land the plane. Once the aircraft was on the ground, hijackers would then either surrender or be killed by an aircraft entry team. The Federal Aviation Administration never dreamed that terrorists would commandeer an aircraft with the intent to use it as a weapon. Aware of this, the 9/11 attackers simply had to pretend to be typical hijackers to gain the crews’ cooperation and take control of the aircrafts.

A compliance policy will never be used again:

But the advantage Mohammed [Atta] gained by shifting the hijacking paradigm was short-lived, as evidenced by the events that unfolded that morning aboard the fourth aircraft: United Airlines Flight 93.

The attackers who targeted the plane did not account for the fact that its passengers and crew were able to use their cellphones to talk to people on the ground. When they learned what had happened to the three other aircraft, they revolted and forced the hijackers to crash the plane before it could be used to target the U.S. Capitol.

In other words, a major reason that there haven’t been any 9/11-type hijackings since 9/11 is that terrorists know people will react in a completely different way to a potential hijacking.

In the case of Flight 93, the hijackers only got as far as they did because the crew and passengers initially complied. Once the truth was learned, the situation changed dramatically. Now that 9/11 is common knowledge, not even initial compliance could be expected from terrorists. 

Other factors include the placement of air marshals on some planes, and better security for cockpits.

The maintenance of an an enormous corps of federally employed TSA employees has nothing to do with any of these factors.

And then there is the research which shows that the TSA has a 95-percent failure rate in detecting efforts by terrorists to place weapons on commercial flights. Dylan Matthews wrote at Vox in 2016:

The TSA is hard to evaluate largely because it’s attempting to solve a non-problem. Despite some very notable cases, airplane hijackings and bombings are quite rare. There aren’t that many attempts, and there are even fewer successes. That makes it hard to judge if the TSA is working properly — if no one tries to do a liquid-based attack, then we don’t know if the 3-ounce liquid rule prevents such attacks.

So Homeland Security officials looking to evaluate the agency had a clever idea: They pretended to be terrorists, and tried to smuggle guns and bombs onto planes 70 different times. And 67 of those times, the Red Team succeeded. Their weapons and bombs were not confiscated, despite the TSA’s lengthy screening process. That’s a success rate of more than 95 percent.

Defenders of the TSA — much like defenders of the CIA and other “security” organizations — claim that the TSA surely succeeds in stopping terrorists quite often. Those successes, however, are secret and we can’t know about them.

This sort of faith-based trust in government might be convincing for some, but it ought to strike most people capable of critical thinking as nonsensical.

The fact remains — if we exclude the hypothetical “secret files of amazing successes” maintained by government agencies — there is no empirical evidence that the TSA prevents terrorism, and even in theory, we can easily point to other factors that are much more important in the prevention of another 9/11.

On the other hand, the federalization of airport security does create a situation in which national politics can easily create a system-wide failure in airport security that would not be possible in a system without the centralization of the TSA system.

• 1. For more, see page 20 of the TSA’s budget documents: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/TSA%20FY18%20Budget.pdf

*About the author: Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for Mises Wire and The Austrian, 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

In a trial of one of the main class of prescription sleeping pills, half the participants slept through a fire alarm as loud as someone vacuuming next to their bed. But a newer alternative preserves the ability to wake in response to danger signals, according to a new research.

Published this week in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, the study showed that mice given the experimental hypnotic drug DORA-22 wake as quickly when threatened as drug-free sleepers – and then fall back asleep as quickly as ones given standard sleeping pills, once the threat is gone.

Common sleeping pills muffle your sleeping brain’s ‘intruder alert’

Even during sleep the brain continuously processes sensory information, waking us if it detects a threat. But the most widely prescribed class of sleeping pills, known as benzodiazepines, makes us less likely to rouse in response to sensory input.

“Benzodiazepines stimulate the widespread brain receptor GABA-A, which makes us sleepy but also suppresses off-target brain areas – including the ‘gatekeeper’ that decides which sensory inputs to process,” explains study senior author Professor Tomoyuki Kuwaki of Kagoshima University, Japan.

Over the last decade, researchers have been developing a new class of hypnotic drugs called dual orexin receptor antagonists (DORAs). DORAs more selectively target the brain’s sleep/wake pathways, which gives them safety advantages over benzodiazepines. These include a reduced ‘hangover effect’, with DORAs less likely to affect driving ability the day after use.

Kuwaki and colleagues hypothesized that the selectivity of DORAs could make them a safer alternative during sleep as well – by allowing the brain’s sensory gatekeeper to stay vigilant to threats.

DORA-22 allows mice to wake to a threat, but still helps them sleep

The group tested their theory in mice.

The mice were dosed and tested after dark, when they are normally most active. One group was administered DORA-22, another a benzodiazepine called triazolam – and a third group was given placebo as a control.

“DORA-22 and triazolam had similar sleep promoting effects, extending the duration of deep sleep by 30-40% compared to placebo,” reports Kuwaki.

One to four hours after dosing, the deep-sleeping mice were presented with a threatening stimulus: the smell of a fox, a high-pitched noise like a dog whistle, or trembling of their cage. The trembling frequency was designed to match that of an earthquake – a serious threat in Kuwaki’s native Japan and many other parts of the word.

“As expected, arousal in response to these threatening stimuli was delayed significantly in the triazolam treatment, but not in the DORA-22 treatment, compared to placebo.

Even more promising, the sleep-promoting effect of DORA-22 remained after the rude awakening.

“Even though the DORA-22-treated mice were quickly woken by a threat, they subsequently fell back asleep as quickly as with triazolam, and significantly faster than with placebo.”

To help demonstrate that the delay in waking to a threat during triazolam treatment was due specifically to inhibition of sensory gating in the brain, the researchers also tested the sleeping mice with a non-sensory stimulus.

“The three groups woke equally quickly when we suddenly reduced the amount of oxygen in their cage. This suggests that the delay in rousing to threatening stimuli caused by triazolam was not caused by a general inhibition of waking systems in the brain.”

Human studies are needed to confirm DORA safety and efficacy

“Although it remains to be seen whether DORAs have the same properties when used in humans, our study provides important and promising insight into the safety of these hypnotics.”

Since 2014, another DORA called surovexant has gained regulatory approval in Japan, the USA and Australia. So far, the high cost and limited clinical testing of surovexant have limited its use, amid concerns that doses high enough to significantly improve sleep lead to drowsiness the following day. New DORAs currently in development could overcome this hangover effect if they are cleared more quickly from the body than suvorexant, so that their effects are less likely to last beyond bedtime. Keep your eyes peeled.

nternational finance markets lagged behind punters having a flutter when it came to getting the Brexit result right on EU referendum night, according to research.

A study shows that gamblers sensed the Leave vote coming an hour before the currency experts in the city – creating a window of “arbitrage” during which the price difference between betting and FX markets yielded up to a 7% return on the pound.

Economists from the University of Cambridge compared the behaviours of the Betfair betting market and the sterling-dollar exchange rate from closure of the polls at 10pm, when odds of 10 to 1 were being offered on Brexit.

Both markets were “informationally inefficient”: very slow to react despite the data already available, as well as that flooding in from vote counts across the country. This meant there was money to be made by trading early on either market, say researchers.

The study shows the betting market moved to a Leave result around 3am, by which time Brexit odds had reversed (1 to 10). Yet the foreign exchange market didn’t fully adjust to the reality of Brexit until around 4am. At 4:40am the BBC predicted a Leave victory.

The difference in efficiency between the two markets created an hour when selling £1 and hedging the result of the referendum on Betfair would have made up to nine US cents of profit per pound sterling – a significant “unleveraged return” that, in theory at least, could have seen astute traders make millions.

Researchers say the findings support the idea that gambling, or so-called “prediction markets”, might provide better forecasts of election outcomes than either experts or polls.

“Clearly, punters trading on Betfair are a different group of people to those dealing in FX for international finance. It looks like the gamblers had a better sense that Leave could win, or that it could at least go either way,” said Dr Tom Auld, lead author of the study published recently in the International Journal of Forecasting.

“Our findings suggest that participants across both markets suffered a behavioural bias as the results unfolded. Initially, both traders and gamblers could not believe the UK was voting to leave the EU, but this disbelief lingered far longer in the city.”

Auld and his co-author Prof Oliver Linton used the expected outcomes for each voting area – data that was publicly available prior to the referendum – to create a “forecasting model”.

By adjusting it with each actual result in turn, they say that their model would have predicted the final result from around 1:30am had it been deployed on the night.

“According to theories such as the ‘efficient market hypothesis’, the markets discount all publicly available information, so you cannot get an edge on the market with data already out there,” said Auld.

“However, using data publicly available at the time we show that the financial markets were very inefficient, and should have predicted Brexit possibly over two hours before they actually did.”

“If there is a second referendum, the vote should be better understood by markets – in line with a theoretical concept called the adaptive markets hypothesis. Studies such as ours will mean that market participants will be primed to profit from any possible opportunities and inefficiencies,” he said.

The researchers compared their modelling with gambling and currency market data from EU referendum night. The website Betfair provided data from their exchange platform – the world’s largest betting exchange – between 10am on June 23 and 5am on June 24.

More than 182,000 individual bets were placed with Betfair and over 88,000 trades were made in the GBP futures market during this seven-hour window. Trading on Brexit broke records for a political event on Betfair, with over £128m wagered including over £50m that was matched on the night of the vote itself.

“Prediction markets such as betting exchanges are an ‘incentive compatible’ way to elicit the private opinions of participants, as people are putting their money where their mouth is, whereas what they tell pollsters can be cheap talk,” added Auld.

“Prediction markets could in theory be used to help value or price financial assets during events such as major votes. This is an area I will be focusing on for future research.”

By Ed Condon and JD Flynn

An allegation of misconduct against Archbishop Theodore McCarrick was reported to Cardinal Donald Wuerl in 2004, despite Wuerl’s insistence he knew nothing about McCarrick’s alleged sexual misconduct until 2018.

Wuerl forwarded the report to the apostolic nuncio in Washington, DC, the Diocese of Pittsburgh said Thursday.

A spokesman for the Archdiocese of Washington confirmed to CNA that an allegation against McCarrick was presented to Wuerl while he served as Bishop of Pittsburgh, as part of a complaint made by laicized priest Robert Ciolek.

In a statement, the Diocese of Pittsburgh said Jan. 10 that laicized priest Robert Ciolek appeared in November 2004 before its diocesan review board to discuss an allegation of abuse Ciolek had made against a Pittsburgh priest.

During that meeting, “Mr. Ciolek also spoke of his abuse by then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. This was the first time the Diocese of Pittsburgh learned of this allegation,” the statement said.

“A few days later, then-Bishop Donald Wuerl made a report of the allegation to the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States.”

The disclosure is the first confirmation by Church authorities that Wuerl was aware of allegations against McCarrick before the Archdiocese of New York announced in June 2018 a credible allegation of sexual abuse of a minor made against McCarrick.

The news raises questions about 2018 statements from Wuerl that denied he had even heard “rumors” about his predecessor as Archbishop of Washington.

Ed McFadden, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Washington, told CNA that in 2004 Ciolek “asked that his complaint against McCarrick be forwarded to the [apostolic] nuncio. And it was.”

“Wuerl forwarded the file and his complaint to the nunciature in 2004.”

“At that time Ciolek asked for complete confidentiality, and that his name never be mentioned.”

The statement from the Diocese of Pittsburgh confirmed that Ciolek had originally insisted on confidentiality, but also that he had recently authorized the diocese to speak about the matter.

“Mr. Ciolek asked that the allegation regarding then-Cardinal McCarrick be shared only with ecclesiastical – that is – Church authorities,” the statement said.

“In November 2018 Mr. Ciolek authorized the Diocese of Pittsburgh to respond to press inquiries about this matter.”

The diocese confirmed that Ciolek visited Pittsburgh recently to review files related to his complaint, and that diocesan officials were aware that he intended to discuss the matter with the press.

Ciolek reached a settlement agreement with three New Jersey dioceses in 2005 in connection with clerical sexual abuse allegations. The settlement awarded Ciolek some $80,000 in response to allegations that concerned both McCarrick and a Catholic school teacher.

The Diocese of Pittsburgh said it was not aware of the settlement until July 2018. Similarly, the Archdiocese of Washington said Wuerl was unaware of the 2005 settlement until that time.

Details of Ciolek’s settlement were first reported in September 2018. At that time, the Washington Post reported that the settlement agreement included references to Wuerl, and to the Diocese of Pittsburgh.

Neither the Pittsburgh diocese nor McFadden offered detail on the specific allegations made against McCarrick, but McFadden said they concerned behavior by McCarrick at his New Jersey beach house, where the archbishop is alleged to have shared beds with seminarians, and exchanged backrubs with them.

McFadden said Ciolek “never claimed direct sexual engagement with McCarrick” in his complaint to Wuerl.

The news that Wuerl received a formal complaint against McCarrick as early as 2004, and forwarded it to the apostolic nunciature in Washington raises serious questions about the intended meaning of Wuerl’s 2018 statements concerning McCarrick.

Wuerl wrote in a June 21 letter that he was “shocked and saddened” by allegations made against McCarrick.

In the same letter, Wuerl affirmed that “no claim – credible or otherwise – has been made against Cardinal McCarrick during his time here in Washington.”  

In a Jan. 10 statement, the Archdiocese of Washington said that “Cardinal Wuerl has attempted to be accurate in addressing questions about Archbishop McCarrick.  His statements previously referred to claims of sexual abuse of a minor by Archbishop McCarrick, as well as rumors of such behavior. The Cardinal stands by those statements, which were not intended to be imprecise.”  

“Cardinal Wuerl has said that until the accusation of abuse of a minor by Cardinal McCarrick was made in New York, no one from this archdiocese has come forward with an accusation of abuse by Archbishop McCarrick during his time in Washington.”

“It is important to note that Archbishop Theodore McCarrick was appointed to the Archdiocese of Washington in November 2000 and named a cardinal in February 2001, years before Mr. Ciolek made his claims. Then-Bishop Wuerl was not involved in the decision-making process resulting in the appointment and promotion.”

Wuerl’s resignation as Archbishop of Washington was accepted October 12, 2018. The cardinal was appointed by Pope Francis as apostolic administrator, or interim leader, of the archdiocese until a successor is appointed.

The cardinal fell under heavy criticism in the second half of last year, after a Pennsylvania grand jury report about clerical sexual abuse released in July raised questions about his leadership while he served as Bishop of Pittsburgh.

Despite earning a reputation as an early champion of “zero-tolerance” policies and the use of lay-led diocesan review boards to handle accusations of clerical sexual abuse, Wuerl faced questions about his handling of several cases during his time in Pittsburgh after he was named more than 200 times in the grand jury report.

The disclosure also raises further questions about how McCarrick was able to remain in office and in apparently unrestricted ministry during retirement. In July 2018, a priest named Fr. Boniface Ramsey told the New York Times that he expressed to Church authorities concerns about McCarrick’s conduct with seminarians as early as 2000, when McCarrick was appointed Archbishop of Washington.

Concerned by the appointment, Ramsey said that he contacted then-nuncio Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo Higuera to report allegations of McCarrick’s misconduct with seminarians in his beach house. Ramsey said that he had heard accounts of this misconduct from his own seminary students.
 
Ramsey said he put his concerns in writing at the request of Montalvo, who promised to forward them to Rome.

Ramsey subsequently released a letter from the Vatican’s Secretariat of State, dated 2006 and signed by Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, acknowledging his complaint of 2000, apparently confirming that Montalvo had sent Ramsey’s letter to Rome.

Montalvo was still in his position when Wuerl reportedly forwarded Ciolek’s complaint in 2004, and would remain in Washington until August 2006, when he died suddenly.

McFadden told CNA that while he could confirm Wuerl sent Ciolek’s complaint to the nuncio as requested, neither he nor Wuerl were aware that any further action was taken on the matter.

“As far as we can tell, the nunciature never acted on that, but we don’t have any more information.”

Montalvo’s successor as nuncio in Washington was Archbishop Pietro Sambi. CNA has previously reported that in 2008, acting on explicit instructions from Pope Benedict XVI, Sambi ordered McCarrick to move out of the archdiocesan seminary in which he was living during his retirement.

That order, and other measures which may have been imposed on McCarrick during his retirement, were a central feature of the allegations of Sambi’s own successor, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano.

In his now-famous “testimony,” released in August last year, Vigano insisted that Wuerl had been aware of restrictions placed on McCarrick during his retirement for several years, and that they directly concerned his interactions with seminarians.

In a subsequent letter, Vigano said that these measures were not technically “sanctions” but “provisions,” “conditions,” and restrictions,” and they may not have been imposed in writing by Pope Benedict.

In response to Vigano’s claims, Wuerl denied “receiving documentation or information from the Holy See specific to Cardinal McCarrick’s behavior or any of the prohibitions on his life and ministry suggested by Archbishop Vigano.”

Spanish police arrested 15 people, and said another 68 have been investigated, as part of probe into tennis match-fixing by an Armenian criminal gang, Deadspin reports.

In a statement released on Thursday, January 10, the Spanish Civil Guard said that 28 of those 83 people are professional tennis players, one of whom took part in the last U.S. Open. The statement doesn’t name any of the individuals who have been investigated or detained.

“A group of Armenian individuals used a professional player who served as the link between them and the other members of the network,” reads the statement.

“Once the bribe had been paid, the Armenians went to the match venues to use their imposing muscle to make sure that the player kept their end of the deal. They then gave the order for bets to be laid both nationally and internationally.”

The Civil Guard said that the operation had been prompted by complaints from the Tennis Integrity Unit, the sport’s anti-corruption body. Law enforcement began to investigate a Spanish player, which led to the Armenian group.

According to the Civil Guard, which investigated the corruption along with Europol and Spanish tax authorities, the match-fixing group had been operating since at least February 2017, generating millions of dollars in profit. During the operation, police searched 11 addresses in Spain, finding €167,000, a handgun, stolen identity documents, jewelry, more than 50 electronic devices, and five luxury vehicles. Law enforcement froze 42 bank accounts.

As has been repeated in numerous reports and investigations into corruption in tennis, match-fixing is rampant in lower levels of professional tennis where many thousands of players don’t make any money. Last month, yet another report from the Independent Review Panel, which was tasked with finding ways to clean up the sports after Buzzfeed and the BBC published a report in 2016 that revealed widespread match-fixing, recommended that there be no live streaming, or scoring data provided, at low-level professional tennis tournaments.

A pioneering new report has devised a seven-point plan to help policymakers devise new, coherent and collaborative strategies to tackle the greatest global environmental threats.

A team of international researchers, including experts from the Land, Environment, Economics and Policy (LEEP) Institute at the University of Exeter, has examined how politicians and legislators can develop a new way to tackle the growing threat of climate change.

The perspective piece, which is published as the cover article in Nature Sustainability, comes in response to advice from leading scientists, suggesting that the human impact on the environment are already tipping the world into a new geologically significant era.

Called the Anthropocene, this new era is defined by the effect human-kind has already caused on Earth, from mass extinctions of plant and animal species, polluted oceans and altered atmosphere.

In the new report, the scientists argue that while policies are available, there also needs to be a new way to tackle the geographical, boundary, spatial, ecological and socio-political complexities of the issue; and that will require working together across disciplines.

Professor Ian Bateman of LEEP and co-author of the paper said: “The paper shows that the integrated nature of the planetary boundary problems requires an integrated policy response.

“Traditional policies tend to be highly piecemeal, highly inefficient, prone to failure and can even be counterproductive. Such policies take vital resources from key areas while providing short term sticking-plaster efforts for high visibility, often politically motivated causes.”

Recent research into the Anthropocene has suggested that there are multiple threats to the resilience of the Earth systems.

While the report acknowledges that there are no ‘simple solutions’, it does outline seven guiding principles to help tackle the growing environmental threat brought by man-made climate change.

These include selecting existing, robust policies to help formulate policy decisions, the need for decisions to be made consistently across regional, national and global boundaries, and a more conclusive look at the true extent that the environment is being impacted.

The report is authored by Professor Bateman, Dr Donna Carless and Amanda Robinson from Exeter, alongside some of the world’s leading researchers in the field.

These include acclaimed natural scientists Professor Johan Rockström (Stockholm Resilience Centre) and Professor Will Steffen (Australian National University) – who pioneered the planetary boundary and Anthropocene concepts – and eminent environmental economists including Professor Thomas Sterner (University of Gothenburg), Professor Edward Barbier (Colorado State University), Professor Carolyn Fischer (Resources for the Future, Washington) and Professor Stephen Polasky (University of Minnesota).

Together the team undertook the first unified assessment of the policy options for tackling the challenges of the Anthropocene. These include the integrated global problems of climate change; the pollution of air, land, freshwater and sea; and the rapid loss of genetic diversity around the world.

Rather than building up plastic filaments layer by layer, a new approach to 3D printing lifts complex shapes from a vat of liquid at up to 100 times faster than conventional 3D printing processes, University of Michigan researchers have shown.

3D printing could change the game for relatively small manufacturing jobs, producing fewer than 10,000 identical items, because it would mean that the objects could be made without the need for a mold costing upwards of $10,000. But the most familiar form of 3D printing, which is sort of like building 3D objects with a series of 1D lines, hasn’t been able to fill that gap on typical production timescales of a week or two.

“Using conventional approaches, that’s not really attainable unless you have hundreds of machines,” said Timothy Scott, U-M associate professor of chemical engineering who co-led the development of the new 3D printing approach with Mark Burns, the T.C. Chang Professor of Engineering at U-M.

Their method solidifies the liquid resin using two lights to control where the resin hardens–and where it stays fluid. This enables the team to solidify the resin in more sophisticated patterns. They can make a 3D bas-relief in a single shot rather than in a series of 1D lines or 2D cross-sections. Their printing demonstrations include a lattice, a toy boat and a block M.

“It’s one of the first true 3D printers ever made,” said Burns, professor of chemical engineering and biomedical engineering.

But the true 3D approach is no mere stunt–it was necessary to overcome the limitations of earlier vat-printing efforts. Namely, the resin tends to solidify on the window that the light shines through, stopping the print job just as it gets started.

By creating a relatively large region where no solidification occurs, thicker resins–potentially with strengthening powder additives–can be used to produce more durable objects. The method also bests the structural integrity of filament 3D printing, as those objects have weak points at the interfaces between layers.

“You can get much tougher, much more wear-resistant materials,” Scott said.

An earlier solution to the solidification-on-window problem was a window that lets oxygen through. The oxygen penetrates into the resin and halts the solidification near the window, leaving a film of fluid that will allow the newly printed surface to be pulled away.

But because this gap is only about as thick as a piece of transparent tape, the resin must be very runny to flow fast enough into the tiny gap between the newly solidified object and the window as the part is pulled up. This has limited vat printing to small, customized products that will be treated relatively gently, such as dental devices and shoe insoles.

By replacing the oxygen with a second light to halt solidification, the Michigan team can produce a much larger gap between the object and the window–millimeters thick–allowing resin to flow in thousands of times faster.

The key to success is the chemistry of the resin. In conventional systems, there is only one reaction. A photoactivator hardens the resin wherever light shines. In the Michigan system, there is also a photoinhibitor, which responds to a different wavelength of light.

Rather than merely controlling solidification in a 2D plane, as current vat-printing techniques do, the Michigan team can pattern the two kinds of light to harden the resin at essentially any 3D place near the illumination window.

U-M has filed three patent applications to protect the multiple inventive aspects of the approach, and Scott is preparing to launch a startup company.

A paper describing this research will be published in Science Advances, titled, “Rapid, continuous additive manufacturing by volumetric polymerization inhibition patterning.”

By Suadad Al-Salhy

King Abdullah of Jordan visited Iraq on Monday to activate security agreements between the two countries and finalize an oil pipeline project from Basra to the port of Aqaba.

The king, on his first visit since 2008, was greeted by President Barham Salih on a red carpet at Baghdad airport before heading to meet Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi. Salih welcomed the visit as strengthening “joint interests and security.”

The visit took place amid confusion in the region after the US administration’s decision to withdraw its troops from Syria and the escalation of US pressure on Iran over its nuclear program.

“Baghdad and Amman will be the basis for strengthening relations between Arab brothers and starting a serious and constructive dialogue to end the crises in the region,” Salih’s office said.

The king also had talks with parliamentary Speaker Mohammed Al-Halabousi and Ammar Al-Hakim, head of the Reform Coalition, one of the biggest parliamentary blocs.

Iraqi officials told Arab News the visit was aimed at activating economic and security agreements signed by Jordanian Prime Minister Omar Al-Razzaz in Baghdad last month, including the pipeline.

“The Jordanians eagerly want the project of extending the oil pipeline from Basra to Aqaba as this will revive the port and it will bring great financial resources to Jordan,” a senior Iraqi official said.

Thank you for your letter of 14 January 2019.

As you are well aware, we regret but respect the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. We also consider that Brexit is a source of uncertainty and disruption. In these challenging times, we therefore share with you the determination to create as much certainty and clarity as possible for citizens and companies in a situation where a Member State leaves the European Union after more than four decades of closest economic and political integration. That is why the Withdrawal Agreement that you and the Leaders of the 27 EU Member States agreed after long negotiations is so important. It represents a fair compromise and aims to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, thereby limiting the negative consequences of Brexit. That is also why we wish to establish as close as possible a relationship with the United Kingdom in the future, building on the Political Declaration, which the Leaders of the 27 EU Member States agreed with you. It is also why we want negotiations to this effect to start as soon as possible after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

As you know, we are not in a position to agree to anything that changes or is inconsistent with the Withdrawal Agreement, but against this background, and in order to facilitate the next steps of the process, we are happy to confirm, on behalf of the two EU Institutions we represent, our understanding of the following points within our respective fields of responsibility.

A. As regards the President of the European Council:

On the 13 December, the European Council (Article 50) decided on a number of additional assurances, in particular as regards its firm commitment to work speedily on a subsequent agreement that establishes by 31 December 2020 alternative arrangements, so that the backstop will not need to be triggered.

The European Council also said that, if the backstop were nevertheless to be triggered, it would only apply temporarily, unless and until it is superseded by a subsequent agreement that ensures that a hard border is avoided, and that the European Union, in such a case, would use its best endeavours to negotiate and conclude expeditiously a subsequent agreement that would replace the backstop, and would expect the same of the United Kingdom, so that the backstop would only be in place for as long as strictly necessary.

In this context, it can be stated that European Council conclusions have a legal value in the Union commensurate to the authority of the European Council under the Treaties to define directions and priorities for the European Union at the highest level and, in the specific context of withdrawal, to establish, in the form of guidelines, its framework. They may commit the European Union in the most solemn manner. European Council conclusions therefore constitute part of the context in which an international agreement, such as the Withdrawal Agreement, will be interpreted.

As for the link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, to which you make reference in your letter, it can be made clear that these two documents, while being of a different nature, are part of the same negotiated package. In order to underline the close relationship between the two texts, they can be published side by side in the Official Journal in a manner reflecting the link between the two as provided for in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

B. As regards the President of the European Commission:

The Political Declaration agreed at the November Special European Council (Article 50) describes a future relationship of unprecedented depth and breadth, reflecting the continuing strength of our shared values and interests. The Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration represent a fair balance of European Union and United Kingdom interests. They will ensure a smooth withdrawal and a strong future relationship in the interests of all our citizens.

As the European Council has already stated, it will embark on preparations for a future partnership with the United Kingdom immediately after signature of the Withdrawal Agreement. As regards the European Commission, we will set up the negotiating structure for these negotiations directly after signature to ensure that formal negotiations can start as soon as possible after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, having in mind the shared ambition of the European Union and the United Kingdom to have the future relationship in place by the end of the transition. Should national ratifications be pending at that moment, the Commission is ready to propose provisional application of relevant parts of the future relationship, in line with the legal frameworks that apply and existing practice. The Commission is also ready to engage with you on a work programme as soon as the United Kingdom Parliament has signalled its agreement in principle to the Withdrawal Agreement and the European Parliament has approved it.

There is an important link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, reflecting Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. As stated in Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement and reflected also in Paragraph 138 of the Political Declaration, the European Union and the United Kingdom have committed to use best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration.

In light of your letter, the European Commission would like to make the following clarifications with regard to the backstop:

The Withdrawal Agreement including the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland embodies the shared commitment by the European Union and the United Kingdom to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland as part of ensuring the orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. The Commission can confirm that, just like the United Kingdom, the European Union does not wish to see the backstop enter into force. Were it to do so, it would represent a suboptimal trading arrangement for both sides. The Commission can also confirm the European Union’s determination to replace the backstop solution on Northern Ireland by a subsequent agreement that would ensure the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing.

The European Commission can also confirm our shared understanding that the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland:

• Do not affect or supersede the provisions of the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 in any way whatsoever; they do not alter in any way the arrangements under Strand II of the 1998 Agreement in particular, whereby areas of North-South cooperation in areas within their respective competences are matters for the Northern Ireland Executive and Government of Ireland to determine;
• Do not extend regulatory alignment with European Union law in Northern Ireland beyond what is strictly necessary to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland and protect the 1998 Agreement; the Withdrawal Agreement is also clear that any new act that the European Union proposes should be added to the Protocol will require the agreement of the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee;
• Do not prevent the United Kingdom from facilitating, as part of its delegation, the participation of Northern Ireland Executive representatives in the Joint Committee, the Committee on issues related to the implementation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, or the joint consultative working group, in matters pertaining directly to Northern Ireland.

The European Commission also shares your intentions for the future relationship to be in place as quickly as possible. Given our joint commitment to using best endeavours to conclude before the end of 2020 a subsequent agreement, which supersedes the Protocol in whole or in part, the Commission is determined to give priority in our work programme to the discussion of proposals that might replace the backstop with alternative arrangements. In this context, facilitative arrangements and technologies will be considered. Any arrangements which supersede the Protocol are not required to replicate its provisions in any respect, provided that the underlying objectives continue to be met.

Should the parties need more time to negotiate the subsequent agreement, they could decide to extend the transition period, as foreseen in the Withdrawal Agreement. In that case, the Commission is committed to redouble its efforts and expects the same redoubled efforts from your negotiators, with the aim of concluding a subsequent agreement very rapidly. Were the backstop to enter into force in whole or in part, it is intended to apply only temporarily, unless and until it is superseded by a subsequent agreement. The Commission is committed to providing the necessary political impetus and resources to help achieving the objective of making this period as short as possible. To this end, following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, and until a subsequent agreement is concluded, the Commission will support making best use of the high level conference foreseen in the Political Declaration to meet at least every six months to take stock of progress and agree the appropriate actions to move forward.

Finally, in response to your concern about the timetable, we would like to make it clear that both of us will be prepared to sign the Withdrawal Agreement as soon as the meaningful vote has passed in the United Kingdom Parliament. This will allow preparations for the future partnership with the United Kingdom immediately thereafter to ensure that negotiations can start as soon as possible after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

By Samuel Stolton

(EurActiv) — The global e-commerce giant Amazon has been hit with claims that it has destroyed up to three million unsold products from French warehouses over the past year. The news comes a week after Amazon became the world’s most valuable public company in terms of market value.

An investigation carried out by the French television programme, Capital, aired on Sunday (14 January), brought to light the allegation that 300,000 new objects were disposed of over the course of three months at a particular facility, after a journalist equipped with a camera went undercover at an Amazon warehouse in the Bourgogne-Franche-Comté region.

This led to estimates from the French trade union confederation, the Confédération générale du travail, that around 3.2 million new products may have been disposed of nationally in 2018.

Speaking to the French newspaper Le Monde, Guillaume Cahour of the Capital programme said: “The Amazon system exacerbates over-production, because its principle is to offer a huge plethora of goods.” Le Monde said the destroyed products ranged from nappies to children’s toys.

“I’m not saying buying or selling on Amazon is wrong. On the other hand, do sellers and buyers know the conditions? I don’t think so.”

Financial efficiency of waste

Indeed, one of the findings of the investigation was that ‘waste’ is financially more efficient than stockpiling unsold products.

The conditions for vendors to store their products in Amazon warehouses feature a €26 per three-square metre charge initially, which rises to €500 after six-months and €1000 after a year.

“Amazon is becoming more and more a marketplace rather than a retailer. Amazon doesn’t own the majority of the products that are stocked in their warehouses.” Alma Dufour, from environmental NGO Amis de la Terre, told EURACTIV.

“Economically for Amazon, it doesn’t cost anything to destroy items because they don’t mind them. Small sellers lose a lot but Amazon doesn’t lose money.”

Dufour added that the reason why there is such a large quantity of waste for Amazon is due to issues arising out of a culture of overproduction by which there is a race-to-the-bottom war on prices between global vendors on the website, saying that policymakers had a due to look at the legal frameworks in place that allow Amazon to work in such a way.

“When we speak to EU citizens, they don’t understand why businesses destroy so many products,” Dufour said.

German waste

France is not the first EU country to have unearthed problems related to Amazon’s mass disposal of products. In mid-2018, reports surfaced in Germany of a throw-away culture at Amazon, stating that employees had been quoted as saying they dispose of tens of thousands of new items every day, ranging from fax machines to vacuum cleaners and computers.

In response to Sunday’s allegations, Amazon came out on the defence. saying that the “vast majority” of unsold items are “recycled, resold, returned or donated.” A statement from the e-commerce giant concluded: “We are working hard on continuing to reduce the number of items we have no other choice than destroy.”

In early January, Amazon overtook Microsoft to become the world’s most valuable publicly listed company with a valuation of  $797 billion. The company’s owner, Jeff Bezos, is the world’s wealthiest man with assets amounting to $135 billion.