U.S. crude oil proved reserves, led by reserve additions in Texas and North Dakota, increased at a record pace in 2012 according to the U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves, 2012 report released today by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Despite notable gains in the Marcellus and Eagle Ford shale gas plays, low natural gas prices drove down natural gas proved reserves in 2012, ending a 14-year run of consecutive increases in gas reserves.

Proved reserves are estimated quantities of energy sources that analysis of geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. Significant year-to-year price changes can directly affect the “existing economic” metric.

Proved oil reserves, which include crude oil and lease condensate, increased 15.4% in 2012 to 33 billion barrels (bbl), both the largest volumetric and percentage increase in oil reserves since 1970, when 10 billion bbl of Alaskan oil reserves were added to the U.S. total. Proved oil reserves in 2012 increased for the fourth year in a row and were the highest since 1976. Tight oil plays accounted for 7.3 billion bbl (22% of the U.S. total) of proved reserves of crude oil and lease condensate in 2012. U.S. production of crude oil and lease condensate increased 16% from 2011 to 2012, rising from 5.8 million barrels per day (bbl/d) to 6.5 million bbl/d.

Natural gas proved reserves, estimated as wet natural gas that includes natural gas plant liquids, decreased 7.5% in 2012 to 323 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) as operators revised the proved reserves of their existing natural gas fields downward in response to lower natural gas prices. The average natural gas price during 2012 was 34% below its 2011 level, presenting more challenging economic conditions for estimating proved reserves. Before April 2012, the natural gas spot price at the Henry Hub had not been below $2.00 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) since December 2001. Despite the drop in natural gas reserves in 2012, U.S. natural gas marketed production increased about 5% from 2011 to 2012, rising from 65.9 billion cubic feet per day to 69.1 billion cubic feet per day.

“With natural gas prices higher in 2013 and technology continuing to advance, EIA expects U.S. natural gas proved reserves to increase in 2013,” said EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski.

At the state level, Texas recorded the largest volumetric increase (up 3.0 billion barrels) in proved oil reserves among individual states, largely because of development in the Permian and Western Gulf basins. North Dakota had the second-largest increase (up 1.1 billion barrels), driven by development of the Bakken and Three Forks formations in the Williston Basin.

Pennsylvania and West Virginia reported the largest net increases in natural gas proved reserves in 2012, driven by continued development of the Marcellus Shale play, which became the largest U.S. shale gas play in 2012 based on proved reserves. Proved reserves in shale gas plays accounted for 40% (129.4 trillion cubic feet) of wet natural gas proved reserves in 2012. However, gains in the Marcellus (up 10.9 Tcf) and Eagle Ford (up 7.8 Tcf) shale plays were more than offset by price-driven reductions of reserves estimates in more mature shale plays, such as the Barnett and the Haynesville, which declined a combined 20.7 Tcf in 2012.

EIA’s report reflects estimates of proved reserves at the end of 2012 based on an annual survey of domestic oil and gas well operators.

By Wilhelmina Agyapong

The third round of talks between the governments of the Dominican Republic (D.R.) and Haiti has been postponed for the third time. It was originally scheduled to take place this past April 8, 2014 and will now hopefully occur on May 6, 2014. COHA hopes that the Dominican Republic and Haiti will follow through with the planned agenda set for the meeting on this newly scheduled date.

This third round of peace talks, which was initially set to take place during the week of March 12, between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, in Jacmel, Haiti, was postponed the first time to March 20, 2014, and was then later on rescheduled for the second time to April 8, 2014 because of a decision taken by the Haitian government. [1]

A tweet posted by the President of the Dominican Republic, Danilo Medina, in the morning of Sunday April 6, 2014 read, “The third high-level meeting between the Dominican Republic and Haiti was postponed to May 6.” [2] Two consecutive tweets followed thereafter stating that this postponement was a mutual agreement between the two countries at the request of the Haitian government and that the recent restructuring of the Haitian cabinet was the reason for doing so. Until the recent restructuring of its cabinet, Haiti was ready to resume ongoing talks with its counterpart, the D.R. On March 27, Haitian Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe said, “Haiti is ready to continue the bilateral dialogue.” [3] It is clear from this new development that Haiti has put the meeting on hold in order to get its government representatives well situated within their various positions in the cabinet. However, the reason for the first and second postponement, which prompted the meeting to be scheduled for April 8, are not the same.

According to the Haitian government, the reason for moving the meeting to April 8, its previous designated date, was in light of the D.R.’s obstinacy to release information to Haiti concerning the proposed Naturalization Plan bill, which was introduced to the D.R.’s congress on February 27, 2014. Significant strides made in immigration and trade talks at the second meeting (which occurred on February 3, 2014) had heightened anticipation set for the objectives for the upcoming legislative session. However, relations between the two neighboring nations are becoming even more strained as Santo Domingo is refraining to initiate greater transparency concerning agreed-upon policies between the two island countries, especially progress in reference to the Naturalization Plan bill.

Since the publication of the “Troubled Haitian-Dominican Bilateral Relations Await Progress” article (published on February 27, 2014), COHA has been in contact with a D.R. government official who asked to remain anonymous. Said official told COHA that there had been a fallacy circulating in the international arena concerning the 2013 immigration law, which was aimed to exile all Dominicans of Haitian ancestry who had entered the country illegally. According to this unnamed official, the D.R.’s purpose “was not to take away citizenship from anyone living in the country, but to give those living in the Dominican Republic an opportunity to normalize their immigration status in the country.” [4] This official also insisted that the D.R. has not attempted to hinder normalization efforts with the Haitian government and that the D.R. government had always opened its doors to negotiations with its counterpart in Port-au-Prince in order to reach bona fide solutions for both sides. When questioned about the present Naturalization Plan bill, the D.R. official was unable to come up with reliable information concerning the current status of immigration matters in the country.

The D.R.’s position, which came just before the fast approaching date for the resumption of the third round of talks, indicated that the Dominican government is making rapid efforts to increase its international image in the midst of criticism. Nevertheless, the D.R.’s reluctance to disclose the standing of the Naturalization Plan bill, which led to the postponement of the April 8 circle of meetings, has raised concern among those monitoring the D.R.s seemingly discriminatory practices. The original announcement for the postponement came on Monday March 17, just three days before the meeting was supposed to take place on March 20. The meeting however had already been delayed once before during the week of March 12 because of U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s planned visit to the Dominican Republic (a visit which was ultimately cancelled). [5] Haiti officials announced that the main reason behind the decision to defer the April 8 meeting was because the D.R. refused to relay information regarding the latest draft of the Naturalization Plan bill. The D.R., on the other hand, announced that its reasons for postponing the meeting was to allow for positive outcomes to result from matters involving trade, health, tourism, and immigration which currently remain listed on the bilateral agenda. [6] All in all, this postponement could become a significant threat to both Haiti and the D.R. as they attempt to reach a consensus aimed at promoting peace.

What issues have been discussed thus far?

The first round of immigration talks took place between the two island neighbors in Ouanaminthe, Haiti on January 7, 2014. During this meeting, the two governments discussed trade, the environment, and agricultural exports. Concerning trade, “Commissions from Haiti and the Dominican Republic met at the Compagnie Industriel Development (CODEVI) free trade zone, where it was overseen by the Dominicano de Desarrollo Integral, a Dominican nonprofit organization.” [7] Additionally, Haitian officials requested that the D.R. consider making a move to help eradicate human rights violations allegedly lodged against Haitians living in the D.R. This included all Dominicans of Haitian ancestry who were considered illegal immigrants even though they had been born in the D.R.

The second round of talks took place on February 3, 2014 in Jimani, D.R. At this meeting, issues concerning trade, agriculture, the environment, immigration, public safety and police, and smuggling were discussed in greater depth. [8] As stated in COHA’s aforementioned analysis, “Troubled Haitian-Dominican Bilateral Relations await Progress,” this meeting was driven by a series of events that hastened its occurrence.

The result of this buildup was first influenced by the pressure coming from the United Nations, CARICOM, and other institutions in the international milieu to reverse the September 2013 D.R. constitutional ruling. The second form of pressure was coerced by the attending countries at the CELAC Summit for the two countries to have a closed-door meeting in Havana, Cuba last January. It was at this meeting that the two Hispaniola countries agreed to hold a second round of talks on February 3. Upon completion of this meeting on February 3, the D.R. agreed to propose a Naturalization Plan bill in D.R.’s Congress on February 27, which would affect all Dominicans of Haitian descent living in the country. In addition, both countries agreed to collaborate on the creation of special visas or work permits for seasonal Haitian workers. This objective was taken up to help provide contract Haitian labor in the Dominican Republic. [9] Overall, significant steps have been taken thus far to help enforce a peaceful agreement between the two nations. However, proposed policies adopted at the peace talks have to be implemented in order to be considered relevant.

Developments concerning the Naturalization Plan bill

Since the second round of talks, which occurred on February 3, 2014, the D.R. has been treading lukewarm waters by switching back and forth in its actions to help mend relations with Haiti. The first of these actions was exemplified in the D.R.’s plea to the United Nations Human Rights Council this past March when the country stated its plans to help reverse the September 2013 constitutional ruling; an order to which the UN had already declared its aversion. The D.R.’s Deputy Foreign Minister, José Manuel Trullols, in his address at the United Nations Human rights Council forum in Geneva on March 6, 2014, stated that the Dominican government’s intention of submitting the Naturalization Plan to its own congress was to seek the legalization of all illegal foreigners found in the country and to address the issue that had resulted in Dominicans of Haitian ancestry being irregularly cited in the Dominican civil registry. [10] He added that the D.R. could be legalizing the status of about 430,000 foreigners from over 100 countries residing in the D.R. in the next few months.

He also specified stating that the D.R. government now “seeks to respond to the deficiencies which have plagued our nation in the immigration field for years, with a comprehensive, inclusive plan and consistent with the laws and Dominican institutions and international standards.”” [11] This plan will not necessarily strip Dominicans of Haitian ethnicity of their nationality and is one measure that seeks to advertise and reach out to people living in the D.R. to participate in the regularization plan. In addition to its plea at the UN, the D.R.’s effort, to contact think-tanks such as COHA, demonstrated its intention to save face in the midst of intense scrutiny. However, the country’s refusal to release any information concerning the status of the Naturalization Plan bill leads one to question its ultimate intentions in this process.

Similarly to what took place at the UN, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) at its 150th session on March 24, 2014 in Washington D.C., held what was said to be the most “dramatic” hearing with the D.R. regarding its plans to expatriate thousands of Dominicans of Haitian descent from the country. [12] Commission officials initiated the discussion of two cases of monstrous impacts. One case concerned Haitian migrant workers and their families in the D.R., and another was related to the September 2013 measure, regarding the right to nationality for Dominicans of Haitian descent. At the event, officials from the D.R. once again made a plea to clarify the D.R.’s intentions for the 2013 denationalization law, when the Commission officials began to question them about an event that took place the day before.

Airport officials in Santo Domingo had prevented Juliana Deguis, a young woman of Haitian descent en-route to testify at the IACHR event, from leaving for the scheduled meeting. The D.R. validated its actions by arguing that a letter in her possession, which had been authorized by the Department of State to permit her entry into the U.S., was not entirely suitable to excuse the absence of a passport. [13] Truth is, Deguis did not have a passport because she, like many others, had been caught in the category of Dominican nationals of Haitian background, who had their birth certificates revoked due to the 2013 law by D.R. authorities. Her inability to leave the country is now being called a process of “de-nationalization.” Preventing Julia from leaving the country, especially because she was attending the IACHR proceeding, once again reveals that the D.R. has alternative motives behind its actions. The Commission further scrutinized the steps taken by the D.R. saying that forcing individuals to register under the “foreigner regularizing plan,” is a definite violation of one’s right to their nationality. This development, in addition to the D.R.’s negligence to offer an appropriate update on the Naturalization plan bill, has led to a major set-back for the country in terms of its international reputation.

The blatant truth is that resentment still lingers between the two nations from the forlorn events of slavery, Haitian territorial occupation (1822-1824), and the Trujillo genocide (1937). This doleful history coupled with the ongoing racial prejudice from Dominicans towards Haitians, still controls much of what takes place between Haiti and the D.R today. For centuries, Dominicans, who consider themselves as superior in race and economic stature, have looked upon Haitians as the lower-class Afro-centric quasi slaves responsible for working physical labor jobs. However, much of this, especially concerning race, has changed. Years of co-existing on the same Island has led to a mixing and diversification of the population in both countries. As a result, lines of racial distinction that previously defined one’s economic or social standing in society in the past no longer exist today. It is quite true that the D.R is much more advanced today in its economic terms and its land tenure definitions while Haiti has consistently suffered from drawbacks in issues of security and land misuse. This conversely does not change the fact that the issue still stands. Dominican children of Haitians who immigrated into the D.R. during its economic climb to work on sugarcane farms should not be subjected to the same prejudice that was bestowed upon their parents, especially if they were born in the D.R. and maintain the birthright to remain in the country. It is prevalent that the Dominican Republic is not ready to accept pragmatic relations with its Haitian neighbor, because of the countless forms of intervention it has taken from outside forces to initiate peaceful talks between the two countries. Cordial relations require that both parties reach a compromise; however, the D.R.’s incentive to withhold information concerning the Naturalization Plan bill continues to take a toll on this much-awaited alliance. Lets hope that Haiti is able to get its internal affairs in order so that this long awaited meeting can take place on its rescheduled date.

Agenda for the May 6 meeting

Overall, D.R. and Haiti delegates, at the conference on May 6, 2014, will pursue the same objectives that were initially scheduled for the April 8 meeting. According to Haiti En Marche, a Haitian news agency, “The Minister to the Presidency in the Dominican Republic, Gustavo Montalvo, announced that the themes of health, tourism, and migration would be discussed during this third meeting to be held in Jacmel on March 20, 2014,” which will now take place on May 6, 2014. [14]

With all things considered, the possibility of relations deteriorating between the Dominican Republic and Haiti will continue unimpeded if the Dominican Republic continues to hold back important information during deliberations with Haiti. This especially concerns the all-important Naturalization Plan bill, which is eagerly being awaited by the broader international community. COHA hopes that Haiti and the D.R. will holdup the end of both their agreements with each other so that the upcoming May 6 meeting will be successful and the two governments will finally reach a viable accord.

Wilhelmina Agyapong, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

References:

[1] “Dominican- Haiti high level talks postponed till April 8.” Dominican Today, March 18, 2014. Accessed March 25, 2014. http://www.dominicantoday.com/./economy/2014/3/18/50884/Dominican-Haiti-high-level-talks-postponed-till-April-8.

[2] @PresidenciaRD. Twitter. April 06, 2014. Accessed April 9, 2014. https://twitter.com/PresidenciaRD.

[4] DiarioLibre.com. “Se aplaza por tercera vez diálogo entre Haití y República Dominicana.” April 06, 2014. Accessed April 9, 2014. http://www.diariolibre.com/noticias/2014/04/06/i557541_aplaza-por-tercera-vez-dilogo-entre-hait-repblica-dominicana.html.

[5] Interview with Anonymous. Representative of Dominican Republic. March 07, 2014.

[6] Haiti En Marche, “2014-03-10.” March 10, 2014. Accessed March 24, 2014. http://www.haitienmarche.com/index.php/component/content/article/71-haiti-en-marche/what-s-up-little-haiti/7806-2014-03-10.

[7] Ibid. “Dominican- Haiti high level talks postponed till April 8.”

[8] Caribbean Journal staff. “Haiti, Dominican Republic Hold High-Level Talks in Ouanaminthe.” Caribbean Journal, January 07, 2014. Accessed March 25, 2014. http://www.caribjournal.com/2014/01/07/haiti-dominican-republic-hold-high-level-talks-in-ouanaminthe/.

[9] “Poll: 67% see no happy ending in Dominican Republic-Haiti talks.” Dominican Today, February 03, 2014. Accessed March 25, 2014. http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/local/2014/2/3/50423/Poll-67-see-no-happy-ending-in-Dominican-Republic-Haiti-talks.

[10] Charles, Jacqueline. “Dominicans of Haitian descent to get legal help.” Miami Herald, sec. Haiti, February 18, 2014. Accessed March 25, 2014. http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/02/18/3944387/dominicans-of-haitian-descent.html.

[8] “Dominican Republic reveals ‘ambitious’ plan to document foreigners.” Dominican Today, March 07, 2014. Accessed March 25, 2014. http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/local/2014/3/7/50774/Dominican-Republic-reveals-ambitious-plan-to-document-foreigners.

[11] Ibid. “Dominican Republic reveals ‘ambitious’ plan to document foreigners.”

[12] “Niegan salida a Juliana Deguis por falta de pasaporte.”Noticias Sin, March 23, 2014. Accessed March 27, 2014. http://www.noticiassin.com/2014/03/niegan-salida-a-juliana-deguis-por-falta-de-pasaporte/.

[13] Ibid. “Niegan salida a Juliana Deguis por falta de pasaporte.”

[14] Ibid. Haiti En March, “2014-03-10.”

By Gauri Khandekar

From 7 April to 12 May 2014, the world’s largest democracy, India, is holding parliamentary elections. A record 815 million people are eligible to vote across 930,000 polling stations nation-wide. 1,616 national and regional parties will compete for places in the 543-seat Lok Sabha, India’s lower house of parliament. The electorate, a 13.6 per cent rise from the 717 million voters registered during the 2009 elections, will feature a large number of first-time voters – 23 million 18-19 year-olds alone (and voters between 18-25 years constitute a fifth of the electorate according to the Indian Election Commission). Staggering figures aside, this election is mainly about change – in leadership, in political discourse, and in general attitudes and aspirations.

Indian citizens want economic growth and development, participatory politics and an end to corruption. They appear less predisposed to caste, communal or dynastic politics. Political discourse has steered more towards good governance, demonstrated by the meteoric rise of parties like the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP, meaning ‘Common Man Party’), begotten of the influential 2011 India Against Corruption movement. As a result, a change in India’s political leadership is almost certain – defeat is very likely for the Indian National Congress (INC)-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), which has governed India since 2004. Narendra Modi, leader of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is widely touted to become the next Indian prime minister, but many factors must fall into place for a BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) to form the next government.

IndIa’s Changing Political Landscape

In recent decades, India’s political landscape has been dominated by two national-level political parties – the 128-year-old INC and the BJP founded in 1980. The INC, led by the Gandhi dynasty, has governed the country for 49 out of 67 years since independence in 1947. The BJP, India’s main opposition party, has ruled India three times (13 days in 1996, 18 months in 1998- 1999, 1999-2004). Coalition politics has become the norm in India – the last single- party majority government was formed in 1984. Both the INC and the BJP lead big alliances – the largely left-leaning UPA (with currently 9 parties in total) and the centre-right NDA (34 parties in total), respectively.

Another grouping, the Third Front, made of mainly ‘left’ and ‘secular’ regional parties also often crops up during elections, but the loosely-bandied association tends largely to disintegrate unless supported from the outside by either one of the two major parties. The Third Front led two brief governments in 1989-1991 and 1996- 1998, one supported by the BJP, the other by the INC. An exciting new-comer in this election is the Aam Aadmi Party, following a stunning victory in the state of New Delhi in December 2013. It has a small but growing national base, having fielded 426 candidates nation-wide. Intriguingly, the charismatic AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal will contest the same constituency as the BJP’s Modi (one candidate is elected in each constituency). Combined, the INC and the BJP generally win around 300 seats out of 543 (2009 elections: INC – 206; BJP – 116). Other parties, therefore, are influential as they usually determine who comes to power.

A pre-election poll conducted for ABPNews by AC Nielson (29 March 2014) predicts that the BJP will win 209 seats compared with only 91 for the INC, while the NDA coalition would win 233 seats and the UPA a mere 119, its lowest tally ever (other polls predict similar results). Other parties are expected to win anywhere between 185 (NDTV poll) to 191 (AC Nielson) seats, in other words a ‘kingmaker’s share’ – assuming the BJP and INC would not form a German- style ‘grand coalition’.

The BJP has succeeded in making a number of strategic alliances with other parties, especially in the North and in Tamil Nadu in the South. However, even with these alliances, an NDA government probably would still need the support of one or more other major parties or politicians. In particular, three powerful women may decide the fate of the NDA’s aspirations for national government. In Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) dominates, and its leader, Mayawati, has served four terms as that state’s chief minister. The BSP claims to represent caste and religious minorities that account for over 85 per cent of the state’s total population. Uttar Pradesh has 80 Lok Sabha seats and the BJP is confident of winning half, while the BSP is expected to win around 17, which could be significant or forming the next national government. In West Bengal, the All India Trinamool Congress (AITMC or TMC) is expected to win some 30 of that state’s 42 seats. It is led by political heavyweight Mamata Banerjee, named by Time as ‘one of the 100 most influential people in the world’ in 2012. Banerjee led the TMC-Congress Alliance in West Bengal to a landslide victory in the 2011 state elections, ending the 34 year-rule of the Communist Party of India-led Left Front government. TMC has been in both INC and NDA camps at different times, and remains open to joining either alliance.

Tamil Nadu state is the stronghold of the All India Anna Dravi- da Munnetra Kazhag- am (AIADMK) group, which may win 21 of the state’s 39 seats. The AIADMK is led by ex- tremely popular former actress and current Chief Minister Jayalali- tha Jayaram, and is much sought-after by both alliances, but she has not disclosed her leaning. Noticeably, though, she has not criticised the BJP or Modi at her rallies.

The Key Election Issues

Inflation, corruption, and unemployment are the key issues in this election. During the ten-year UPA tenure, multiple multi-billion dollar scams involving top politicians were exposed. For example, Prime Minister Singh has been implicated in a coal allocation scam, where 142 coal area blocks were allocated without auction, generating an estimated ‘windfall gain’ of a whopping $170 billion for recipients. The huge scale of such scandals have shocked the Indian public, who had grown accustomed but weary of casual corruption, in a country where the average wage was $132 a month according to data published by the International Labour Organisation in 2011. Furthermore, corruption is not endemic only to the UPA and has been prevalent amongst other parties and state-level politicians.

Economic issues have added to the public’s frustration. GDP growth hit a decade-low of 4.5 per cent in 2012, while consumer price inflation averaged 10.28 percent from2009 to 2012 according to the World Bank. Given India’s enormous size (geographically and demographically), and the fact that it is still very much a developing country in economic terms, growth below 5 per cent feels like a recession to most of its 1.2 billion citizens. Not only has growth of the manufacturing, mining and construction sectors declined sharply since 2012, the national currency, the rupee, hit an all-time low in 2013 at 68.80 per US dollar, which hit the import-dependent Indian economy especially hard (in particular the concomitant rise in cost of energy imports). Moreover, nation-wide joblessness stood at 9.4 per cent in 2009-2010 according to the Labour and Employment Ministry, with 16.3 per cent urban graduates between 15-29 years unemployed (2011-2012). The country’s current account deficit stood at a record 4.8 per cent in 2012-2013, alongside a 29 per cent decline in foreign investments in 2012 according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

The UPA government focused largely on social-protection and poverty-reduction. UPA initiatives, like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme and the Right-to-Food programme, aimed to provide employment and subsidised food to the poor and improve infrastructure. Yet the UPA government failed to maintain high growth rates and attract foreign investment, and it recognises that $1 trillion investment in infrastructure is needed over the next five years. The UPA also failed to connect with the small but growing middle classes, particularly the youth, who desire more economic opportunities instead of drifting at the fringes of poverty. Homi Kharas of the Brookings Institution, for instance, has estimated that India’s middle class accounts for only 5 per cent of the population (as compared to 12 per cent for China), based on a per capita per day threshold income of $10 in 2010. India ranked a poor 136th globally on the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Index in 2013, slipping 13 places since 2004.

No wonder, therefore, that Modi’s vision of an ‘Indian dream’ appeals to aspirational Indians. He promises to create 250 million jobs by 2024, to attract more foreign investment, to kick-start the manufacturing sector, and to construct a high-speed railway network. Furthermore, his governing record supports the credibility of these promises. During his tenure in charge of Gujarat from 2001-2012, Modi transformed that state. Gujarat had the lowest national unemployment rate of 1 per cent in 2012- 2013, a 12-fold rise in agriculture, milk production doubled since 2001, and 37
more universities were created. Modi also generated a revenue surplus of $770 million, having started with a deficit of $1.2 billion in 2001. Furthermore, Gujarat averaged annual economic growth of 10.08 per cent from 2004-2012 (and nearly 15 per cent in 2005- 06). In contrast, the constituency governed by  rising Congress party star Rahul Gandhi, Amethi, has remained backward, with poor transport, little access to electricity and closed factories.
Religion also remains a key political issue. India’s nearly 180 million Muslims are an important bloc of voters. While the Hindu-nationalist BJP has refrained from emphasising its religious identity during these elections, some rival parties continue to accuse Modi of complicity in the 2002 riots in Gujarat, when mobs killed almost 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, after a train carrying Hindu pilgrims was torched. However, the Indian Supreme-Court- appointed Special Investigation Team’s (SIT) cleared Modi of complicity in those riots. Furthermore, Modi is not a political pariah for all Muslims. Maulana Suhaib Qasmi, head of the Jamaat Ulema-e-Hind – one of the leading Islamic organisations in India with 16,000 member clerics – publically supports Modi.

Modi’s Foreign Policy: Open For Business

If Modi becomes prime minister, his record so far suggests he could be assertive and nationalistic. Based on his election campaign promises, Modi can be expected to actively pursue foreign investments with a view to India’s infrastructure development. In this regard, he has long cultivated ties with Japan to woo Japanese investment to Gujarat (Japan is the largest donor of official development assistance to India). Modi was the first Indian state leader to conduct an official visit to Japan in 2007, and shares similar views on economics and to some extent, on China, with Shinzo Abe, the Japanese prime minister.

Modi had already acquired an international profile in the West following accusations of his role in the 2002 Gujarat pogrom – the US banned Modi’s entry to the country, while European Union (EU) countries followed with their own boycott. However, since he is now a frontrunner to be India’s prime minister, Western opinions have shifted. Earlier this year, the US Ambassador to India, Nancy Powell, met Modi, signalling American willingness to work with him. The US-India Business Council (USIBC) sponsored the ‘Vibrant Gujarat Global Investors Summit’ (an annual event created by Modi) in 2013, claiming that Gujarat is ‘one of the most attractive investment destinations for American businesses’.

The British Minister of State for Foreign Office, Hugo Swire, led a high-level trade delegation to Gujarat in 2013 – Britain has more foreign direct investment in Gujarat than in the rest of India combined. Other European governments have also courted the BJP leader. In January 2013, Modi lunched with the 28 ambassadors of the EU at the residence of the German Ambassador to India, Michael Steiner. The BJP has hinted at a renegotiation of the EU-India free trade agreement (which has not yet been finalised), as some members were upset that negotiations have been shrouded in secrecy and may adversely affect their constituencies. While there has been no further elaboration of the BJP position on the specifics of the EU-India trade pact, more generally it is safe to assume that Modi is largely open to international business, especially foreign investment.

Pakistan has mixed feelings about a Modi- led government, because he has promised a tough stand against India’s neighbour. Islamabad hopes to rekindle dialogue with Delhi, which had made new breakthroughs with the NDA government. Modi can be expected to continue his strong rhetoric on Pakistan, but he has pledged to follow former NDA Prime Minister Vajpayee’s policy on Kashmir aimed at reassuring Pakistanis and Kashmiri Muslims. Towards China, India’s largest trading partner, Modi appears to send mixed messages. He has slammed Beijing for its ‘expansionist mindset’ and is likely to try to rebalance commercial ties given the large trade deficit ($31.42 billion in 2013). Yet, he has travelled four times to the country as Gujarat chief minister, where he proclaimed ‘China and its people have a special place in my heart’. In a similar vein, in 2013 Chinese President Xi Jinping told the new Indian Ambassador to Beijing that bettering strategic ties with India was his ‘historic mission’.

Due to its energy needs, India has deep economic and security relations with Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, and these would largely continue. But Modi intends to make India both more energy-secure and energy-efficient through an ambitious ‘rainbow vision’ covering seven energy fields – gas, thermal, hydro, solar, wind, bio-mass and nuclear. On defence, the BJP has plans to boost India’s indigenous defence industry by raising the cap on foreign investment from 26 per cent to 49 per cent. This is significant because India is already the world’s largest arms importer, with Russia and Israel being the main suppliers.

Conclusion

The ability of Indian voters to overcome dynastic affinity and religious and caste considerations has been largely underestimated by their politicians. This election, however, is set to correct that perception and prove that Indians want better governance, an end to corruption, and more economic opportunities. Change seems imminent and the Indian elections will most likely bring a new government in Delhi. Public opinion of the governing UPA is poor, with a ‘Modi-fervour’ sweeping the country. According to a February 2014 Pew Research Centre poll, 7 out of 10 Indians were dissatisfied with the UPA government, with 63 per cent favouring the BJP as opposed to only 19 per cent for the INC. Modi’s own popularity stood at a stratospheric 78 per cent.

The NDA will likely fall short of the required absolute majority, and may then pursue an alliance with the Tamil Nadu-based AIADMK, perhaps by offering AIADMK leader Jayalalitha the position of deputy prime minister. The possibility of the Third Front emerging post-polls cannot be ruled out, although the sheer number of strong regional leaders in that group with prime ministerial aspirations may limit its ability to lead a new government. New parties like the AAP have freshened up this election campaign, but they may not do as well as expected if their anti-establishment image fails to convince voters of their ability to participate in a future government. Taken together, all these developments suggest that India’s 2014 elections will be Modi’s moment.

About the author:
Gauri Khandekar is researcher and head of Agora Asia-Europe at FRIDE.

Source:
This article was published by FRIDE in its AGORA, Asia-Europe Number 16, April 2014 issue, which may be accessed here (PDF).

President Barack Obama has nominated his budget director, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, to succeed Kathleen Sebelius as Health and Human Services secretary.

The move comes hours after Sebelius announced her resignation following her oversight of the botched rollout of President Obama’s signature health care law.

Her resignation comes just a week after enrollment closed for the first year of what is commonly known as Obamacare.

The opening weeks of the enrollment period were marred by widespread website woes, limiting access for millions of people.

Republicans called for Secretary Sebelius’ resignation, but Obama publicly supported her.

However, she was conspicuously absent last week when the president announced the enrollment period was ultimately successful. It surpassed the 7 million figure the Obama administration had predicted.

Sebelius, who is 65, is a former governor of Kansas. She has served as head of Health and Human Services for five years.

Burwell’s nomination requires confirmation from the Senate.

The EU is taking seriously President Vladimir Putin’s letter to 18 European countries, in which he warned that Ukraine’s debt crisis could affect gas transit from Russia, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said.

“There are many reasons to seriously take into account this message […] and for Europe to deliver a joint European response,” Itar-Tass reported Merkel as saying.

She said the issue would be discussed in a meeting between European Union foreign ministers Monday.

Speaking in Athens on Friday, Merkel stressed that the price on natural gas should be negotiated. She also said that EU Energy Commissioner Gunther Oettinger and representatives of European states should talk to Russia’s biggest gas producer, Gazprom.

“When we take all these steps, we can be sure that we have reached a joined response for the countries that face this problem because they are getting gas from Gazprom,” Merkel said, adding European states “would like to be good clients but we would also like to be sure Russian gas supplies are not interrupted.”

Merkel said that she also discussed this stance with Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras. “There are no disagreements on this,” she said.

On Thursday, Putin wrote a letter to the leaders of 18 European countries, major consumers of Russian gas such as Germany, France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Moldova, Poland and Romania, warning that Ukraine’s debt crisis reached a “critical” level and could threaten transit to Europe.

He told Russia’s European partners that Gazprom would be forced to ask Ukraine for advance payments.

“In other words, we’ll be supplying exactly the volume of gas that Ukraine pays for a month in advance,” he wrote.

After the coup in Kiev, Gazprom ended all discounts and now charges $485 per 1,000 cubic meters of gas. This is a price Ukraine says it will not be able to pay because it threatens Ukraine’s ability to continue normal gas transit operations to Europe.

Putin also said, however, that introducing advance payments would be an extreme measure.

“We understand that this increases the risks of unsanctioned retrieval of gas flowing through the territory of Ukraine to European consumers,” he said. “And it could also hinder accumulation of gas supplies in Ukraine necessary to provide for consumption during the autumn-winter period.”

On Friday, Putin said that still Russia would fully honor its obligations to supply natural gas to European partners.

“Russia is acting very exactly, very considerately and respectfully towards our partners. We will certainly guarantee in full the honoring of all our obligations to our European consumers. We are not the problem, the problem is ensuring transit via Ukraine,” he said.

Cars, Lorries and Weddings

Along with the choking fumes and piles of putrid waste, sound systems and a constant bombardment of honking horns from cars, lorries and screaming buses assault residents and the unprepared in towns and cities throughout India. Loudspeakers are used to spread political propaganda; celebrate and circulate expensive arranged and prolonged weddings; and, mounted outside temples and mosques, loudly proclaim the jargon of the just and the righteous path to salvation.

Noise pollution in the cities and towns is unbearable and adversely affects people’s health: hearing complaints, sleep disturbance, cardiovascular issues, deteriorating work and school performance are some of the more serious effects of this deafening sociological epidemic, which is adding layer upon layer to the nationwide millieu of stress and environmental degradation.

What may have once been considered simply part of the chaotic charm of this extraordinary country − to be endured along with poor sanitation, burgeoning, filthy slums and open sewers − noise, air and water pollution are now seen as a major environmental issue demanding urgent government and community action.

Sound the Horn

In a recent survey of the world’s noisiest cities, India garnered bronze, silver and gold. The capital New Delhi comes in first, with seven million plus vehicles on its streets every day (more than in India’s three other major cities combined), followed closely by India’s richest and most populous city (with 21 million people) Mumbai and then Kolkata. Cars and motorbikes are the source of much of the cacophony. Driving is a noisy adversarial affair: the thrusting horn is blasted in place of using mirrors, indicating, pulling out or overtaking. “Instead of slowing down while turning or approaching an intersection, drivers will blast their horns to warn others of their presence. They also honk at cyclists, pedestrians, children, pye-dogs, cows and anyone else unfortunate enough to be slower than them.” [BBC] In case the essential tarmac protocol should be forgotten, lorries and trailers carry the slogan ‘sound horn’ on their colourful rear end. At junctions drivers turning right use all lanes, blocking those going straight, instigating a symphony of horn blowing, loud and angry.

Honking is not allowed near schools and hospitals; but this is another law which remains largely unenforced and dangerously disregarded. Much like little yappy dogs, the smallest vehicles are often the noisiest and most reckless; “kamikaze motorbikes and scooters weave dangerously through traffic, popping out unexpectedly………as they emit a violent buzz.”[Ibid] At night deserted city streets too busy during daylight hours, are invaded by lorries. Kings of the Road, they tear along, with enlarged air horns capable of 118 decibels, equivalent to a thunderclap (WHO guidelines for urban areas are around 50 decibels: “anything above 85 dB accelerates ear damage,” India Health), proclaiming their dominance over all lesser vehicles and quieter, sleepier forms of life.

The driving in both urban and rural areas is appalling and hazardous: in 2010, 231,027 [World Health Organisation (WHO) latest figures] people died on the roads of India. Families, three, four and five, with school bags and the daily shop, squash onto a single moped or motorbike, with not a helmet (another unenforced legal requirement) between them. Bus drivers in poorly maintained, overcrowded buses, race from stop to stop competing for fares to boost their wages – honking as they go. Road courtesy is virtually non-existent as is observation of regulations. Laws in India are seen as liberal ornaments displayed before visiting foreign dignitaries paving the way for their corporate benefactors, and allowed to collect democratic dust the rest of the time. Politicians, from Delhi downwards set the dishonest corrupt tone, sending out a message to all in society − from truck drivers to corporate Indian man − that laws mean nothing, will not be enforced and need not be obeyed.

Colourful chaos abounds, compounded after dark when it is not uncommon to see motorbikes, cares, lorries and tractors driven on unlit roads, without lights and often on the wrong side. Noisy, reckless and unregulated, the driving is dangerous: deadly for many, hazardous for most.

Noise pollution, whether it be from a chorus of angry lorries and cars, a four day long wedding event, or political electioneering, is unhealthy, unpleasant and a gross intrusion of privacy.

Filthy Streets, Poisonous Rivers

The lack of environmental awareness and respect is, it seems part of the consciousness of the society (Indians may say ‘culture’ – an overused word, uttered in justification of all manner of sociologically harmful behavioural patterns). It is a deeply destructive attitude of government neglect and community apathy, most evident in the sea of stinking waste that fills the towns, cities, and villages; polluting the ground, air and waterways.

All the rivers are polluted, resulting in high levels of water-borne diseases: the Mother of them all, The Holy Ganges, flowing over 1,560 miles from the Himalayas to the Bay of Bengal, is one of the world’s filthiest rivers. Worshipped by Hindus, the river is full of toxic industrial waste, domestic rubbish, clothing detergent and human waste (55% of the population have no toilets); millions defecate in the holy river every day, as well as using Her waters to clean their teeth, for drinking and cooking. One of the many results is faecal contamination, giving rise to a range of illnesses including diarrhoea, which is the second-largest killer of children under five, causing about 1.5 million deaths annually. A study by India’s National Cancer Registry Programme found that levels of cancer in the country were highest amongst people living around the Ganges basin, due to poisonous metals and toxins.

Waste “scars meadows, contaminates streets and feeds a vast and dangerous ecosystem of rats, mosquitoes, stray dogs, monkeys and pigs.” [New York Times] Packs of dogs prowl urban centres, feeding on municipal waste; they fight for territory and bark into the night – adding to the omnipresent noise pollution. Many carry Rabies, which “is responsible for more than 20,000 deaths in India every year.” In the North Western town of Srinagar in Jammu, where the ratio of dogs to humans is a mere 1:13 (it’s 1:31 in Mumbai), “54,000 people were bitten by stray dogs in the last three-and-a-half years.” [The Hindu]

Residential streets and public spaces where children play and adults gather are polluted with litter, food waste, domestic and industrial filth. The cities alone generate over 100 million tons of solid waste annually, a large percentage of which is plastic (America by comparison in 2010 generated 31 million tons of plastic waste according to ‘Plastic is Rubbish’), and it is estimated that (if urban populations increase at the current rate) by 2045 they will be churning out nearly 300 million tons a year. India’s former Minister for the Environment, Jairam Ramesh stated (in 2010) that, “Our cities are the dirtiest cities of the world. If there is a Nobel Prize for dirt and filth, India will win it, no doubt.” [The Times of India] And the situation has deteriorated further in the years since his damning comment.

New Delhi (population around 17 million) produces almost 700 tons of daily waste, much of which is plastic; even though plastic bags have been banned in India since 2011, they are everywhere. According to the Supreme Court of India, the country is sitting on a “plastic time bomb;” the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) says, “Total plastic waste which is collected and recycled in the country is estimated to be 9,205 tonnes per day (approximately 60% of total plastic waste);” the rest (6,137 tons) remains uncollected in the streets. In a 2013 survey conducted in 60 major cities the CPCB found that “15,342.46 tonnes of plastic waste was generated every day, amounting to 560,000 tonnes a year.”

Plastic is non-biodegradable and takes hundreds if not thousands of years to break down; microscopic plastics may never entirely decompose and India’s cities are awash with them. “Transmission of mosquito-related diseases is caused by non-biodegradable litter, which causes rainwater to stagnate, or clog drains, which in turn create breeding grounds for mosquitoes,” witnessing “a 71% increase in Malaria cases in the last five years.” [The Hindu]
With economic growth, levels of waste increase (on average, for every additional 1,000 rupees of income, solid waste increases by one kg per month), get more toxic, less biodegradable and more deadly. In the cities plastic and electrical rubbish is now the primary problem and lack of segregation means that everything, including biomedical waste from hospitals, gets thrown on the same municipal dumps.

Taking out the rubbish

For most people in India disposing of their waste is straightforward: simply throw it on the road, in the river or, if they’re passing, on the local garbage heap. I was shocked when, travelling by train on my first visit to the country, I saw families gaily throwing their litter out of the window and toilets dropping waste directly onto the tracks. The 20 million plus travelling by train daily produce a mountain of waste around railway lines, which in towns and cities run along densely populated housing/slum dwellings.

In 2000 the Ministry of Environment and Forests issued the ‘Municipal Solid Wastes Rules’, a set of legally binding guidelines agreed by Central Government “to regulate the management and handling of the municipal solid wastes.” The legislation makes clear that “every municipal authority shall be responsible for the implementation these rules, and for any infrastructure development for collection, storage, segregation, transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid wastes.” Local authorities were instructed to set up waste processing and disposal facilities by the end of 2003; in keeping with government neglect, state corruption (local and national) and lack of legislative implementation, to date none of India’s cities have complied.

“Open dumping, open burning, landfill/dumpsite fires, and open human and animal exposure to waste are common” are widespread. Burning of waste constitutes one of the largest sources of air pollution in cities; in Mumbai “it is the cause of about 20 per cent of air pollution.” [The Hindu]

Nobody wants landfill sites near their homes; in Hyderabad officials have been engaged in talks with local residents for ten years now without success. Burning of waste by privately contracted operators, an environmentally unpopular remedy “worse than the disease”, is being phased-out in industrialised nations, but appears to be Indian local governments’ preferred option. Incinerators and waste-to-energy schemes are “rotten with corrupt practices [and] cost 12 to 43 times more than simple, easily managed, low-cost composting.” [Environmentalist and a member of the Supreme Court committee on solid waste management Almitra Patel in Asian Times] Corrupt local authorities, do not “have the capacity to operate or monitor these plants under the strict conditions required to ensure that there is no environmental pollution from toxic emissions.” The ideal solution for India is composting, because unlike developed countries, “where waste is segregated and has high calorie packaging that works well with incinerators, Indian waste is high in organics and moisture.”

India is facing what The Hindu described as a “waste management crisis”: a national plague that kills children, causes serious health issues amongst millions of people, pollutes the air and poisons the rivers. If the country is not to become the world’s biggest sewer, government complacency and indifference needs to give way to a strategic plan of action. In 2012, large numbers took to the streets in nationwide protests, and roads leading to waste handling facilities were blocked. From Jammu in the Northeast to Tamil Nadu in the South people demanded an end to living in filth, and their right to live in a clean, safe environment.

Implementation of legislation together with a nationwide education programme and a massive recycling campaign is urgently required. Social responsibility needs to be cultivated; communities encouraged to look after their neighbourhood; local authorities to act in accordance with their constitutional and moral duty; and businesses forced to act responsibly. Sound the Horn of Change, India.

Respected Ms Aung San Suu Kyi,

Thanks to the internet, I have the luxury of putting together this open letter for you (though of course, a busy Nobel Laureate such as yourself must be having better things to do than reading this letter).

Last month, at the third Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), you met the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina. Both of you discussed various issues, such as the importance of providing micro-loans to rural women and the need to restrict the trafficking of meth pills in the region. It was good to hear that steps were being taken for the betterment of the entire region.

However, something was missing. Yes, the plight of the Rohingya people in Myanmar. Did you forget about them? Of course you did! You are a busy lady, after all!

Sheikh Hasina did allude to the Rohingya crisis, though. She told you that both Myanmar and Bangladesh need to resolve the refugee crisis, but you did not respond.

Since my assumption is that you have totally forgotten about the Rohingya populace of your own country (again, you’re very busy, I know that), allow me to remind you a little bit about them. They happen to be Burmese citizens. They are one of the most persecuted communities in the world; the United Nations describes them as “friendless”, and they would have gladly contributed to Myanmar’s GDP, if only they weren’t being massacred. On a sidenote, they also happen to have a religion that’s different from the majority of Burmese folks, and this is why they are being killed. Basically, Myanmar wants to eliminate the Rohingya people from its territory, and Bangladesh does not consider itself accountable for foreign refugees.

Still unsure? Well, here is something that will refresh your memory.

One can blame a lot many people for the destruction and genocide of the Rohingya people, but that’s an altogether different story. My question is, why are you silent?

You see, I have been following your heroics ever since I was a child. Growing up, I just could not fathom what threat a single lady posed to the military junta of Myanmar? After all, they had those big guns and bullets, and you had just flowers! Later on, I realized that the threat was not physical. Instead, you symbolized the heart and spirit of resistance. You stood tall as the champion of freedom and democracy in your country.

Quite obviously, your release from house arrest in 2010 marked a new era in the history of Myanmar.

As a result, your silence on the Rohingya issue is both shocking and disappointing. How can you — a lady who has been fighting for the freedom of her people — be silent whilst an entire section of her country’s population is being killed? How can you — a lady who embodies the very essence of liberty — be a mute spectator of one of the biggest genocide of our times?

Your silence is shocking, Ms Suu Kyi. And the fact that the world is silent about your silence is even more shocking. You see, it seems like nobody wishes to say anything negative about you. After all, you are worshipped as a political hero — *the leader of the resistance* — yeah, something like that. Everyone supports the war you have waged for a ‘free’ Myanmar. Too bad your version of a ‘free’ Myanmar does not have room for the Rohingya people!

Since the Rohingya masses do not have many supporters, your stand is not unique. But that’s why I am writing this letter! You see, when it comes to the Rohingya crisis, the Bangladeshi and Burmese governments are trying their level best to evade responsibility, whereas the international community has chosen to be quiet. You, on the other hand, could have served as a much-needed mediator. You could have facilitated a solution to this crisis by bringing the relevant players to the table and encouraging them to seek a mutual compromise. Unfortunately, you seem too busy to do that.

I know that if you were to express your willingness to help the Rohingya people, the international community would listen. But your inaction is heartbreaking, ma’am.

The world rejoiced when you were released from prison. Why? Because you had fought for freedom, and your imprisonment was unjustified. Today, the Rohingya people of your country need you, Ms Aung San Suu Kyi. You have a political and moral duty towards them. Please, try not to disappoint them!

Sincerely,

A well-wisher.

After a series of headline-grabbing statements about the possibility of “switching” European consumers over to American gas, the US media hastened to announce the launch of Obama’s oil and gas offensive against Russia. In reality the EU is not currently prepared, neither technically nor in terms of price, to buy its energy resources from the US.  It would take at least ten years to adapt even the technically advanced German energy system to work with American gas supply. In a crisis, when it is particularly urgent to see a quick return on an investment, such projects are unrealistic.

Whether German industry is ready to pay more for gas from overseas just for the dubious pleasure of “punishing” someone is a big question. Unlike EU officials, the German government is not publicly calling into question either its long-term contracts with Russia or the future of the South Stream pipeline. On March 13, 2014, the chairman of the board of Gazprom, Alexei Miller, attended a meeting with the Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Economics and Energy of Germany Sigmar Gabriel. “Germany is Russia’s number one partner in Europe’s gas and energy market,” Miller stated. “Russian gas accounts for 40% of all German imports. And we’re also noting an upwards tick in the quantity of gas supplies coming from Russia.  Last year, shipments totaled more than 40 billion cubic meters and we’ve seen a 20% annual increase.” Looking at these statistics, it’s clear that all the talk about Atlantic solidarity is having zero effect on the German government’s rational decision making. “We don’t need conflict escalation”, said Sigmar Gabriel during an expert roundtable on energy policy later in March. “Russia met its obligations under the gas contracts even in the darkest years of the Cold War”.

Sigmar Gabriel knows what he’s talking about. For Europe to be able to fully utilize gas supplies from the US, it will be necessary to build expensive facilities to decompress and store the gas. Moreover, in order to incorporate the “American” gas into the existing local energy systems, the European countries would need to construct new pumping stations. The associated infrastructure will further add to the price for the end consumer. Neither the bosses of the German industry nor the responsible political leaders will support such policy.

So who’s behind the demands that Russia be punished?

Barack Obama continues to look outside of Europe for ways to pressure Moscow. It is no coincidence that the US president’s recent statements on energy policy coincided with his visit to Saudi Arabia. President Obama came to Riyadh to bring down prices in exchange for the development of Saudi Arabian facilities to extract and liquefy gas for delivery to Europe. It’s unlikely that even Charles Maurice de Talleyrand himself could have persuaded the Saudis to dump as many resources as possible onto the market in exchange for the nebulous promise of American help to obtain new gas facilities at some unspecified date in the future.

Qatar’s position needs to be kept in mind too. There are serious personal disagreements between the Saudis and the hypersensitive former emir of Qatar as no one in the Middle East needs a new competitor in the gas industry. Obama’s attempt to repeat Ronald Reagan’s oil trick in the Middle East and “shake down” global prices will face many obstacles. A hike in oil prices below $80 would expose yet another issue that was a real controversy during Obama’s reelection campaign, namely – what to do about Iraq. Even a 10% drop in oil prices would finish off the Iraqi economy, still reeling from the US invasion. And Israel is closely monitoring the White House’s attempts to initiate a rapprochement with Iran. If Uncle Sam tries to levy energy sanctions against Russia using his political positions in the Middle East, he will quickly find he has loaded a gun only to shoot himself in the foot.

The US Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz, an Obama appointee and shale enthusiast, has jumped right into the discussion of “punishing” Russia. He promised to consider new efforts to ship LNG from the USA to Europe. In this particular case his verbal intervention is unlikely to reflect the position of the CEOs of the oil majors. They know very well that the industry’s real break-even points are nowhere near where they were 30 years ago due to inflation and higher operation costs. Today one facility—Cheniere’s $10 billion Sabine Pass terminal in Cameron Parish—has the required approvals from the Energy Department and U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

In early March, the American economist Philip Verleger, who worked in the White House and the US Treasury in the 1970s, spoke as an expert on the issue of using energy as way to “punish” Russia. In the March 3, 2014 newsletter that he publishes for his clients, Verleger wrote that the US has a tool it can use to influence Russia – its Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). US Reserve currently contains almost 700 million barrels of oil, five million of which were unloaded onto the market during the Washington visit of the interim Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. “It almost defies logic to think there isn’t a link,” noted John Kingston, the director of Platts’ news division. Tapping the SPR to manipulate the global market would be a highly extraordinary decision. The only way to exert any real pressure on global oil prices would be to open up at least 50% of the entire SPR and grant export licenses to anyone who wanted one. The American DoE is obviously not ready for such draconian measures.

Looking at the 2014 report written by the DoE analysts who are known for their almost religious faith in alternative energy, the minimum price for oil in 2015 will be $89.75/barr. The Russian national budget in 2014, which was saddled with expenses related to the Olympics, was drawn up based on an average price of $93 per barrel. Ergo, even $80-90 would hardly spell disaster for Moscow, much less $100 a barrel. In addition, the “nonmarket” pressure by the US could be balanced by the exporter nations. For example, the idea of “energy currency” has long been a hot topic within OPEC and the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF).

For the first time ever in the history of US-Russian relations we are seeing a public debate about a threat of economic sanctions that may have a long-range negative effect on global energy security. The Obama administration acts as if it is guided by a chapter out of an old Soviet textbook on political economy. At the moment, apparently, the sacred dogma of the free market, from Samuelson to Friedman, can be conveniently overlooked for the sake of punishing a sovereign nation. When the head of the most influential state in the world talks about manipulating market prices to punish recalcitrant players, what kind of “global free market” and fair play are we really talking about?

This article fist appeared at OilPrice.com and is reprinted with permission.

Cooperation between the littoral states in the search for Malaysia Airlines flight 370 in the South China Sea has prompted calls for more joint activities amongst them. The South China Sea Workshop Process started in 1989 identified many such opportunities. It may be time to revisit them.

By Hasjim Djalal and Ian Townsend-Gault

IN THE aftermath of the initial search for Malaysia Airlines flight 370 in the South China Sea, commentators have drawn attention to the need for ASEAN countries to work closely together to respond to such emergencies. They have also touched on the fact that territorial and jurisdictional disputes did not prevent the littoral states from engaging in a broad range of cooperation. This raises the question: Is this not a strong basis for regional cooperation in the South China Sea?

Reviving the South China Sea Workshop Process

The answer, of course is an emphatic yes. We have been making this argument since 1989, when we took the first steps to initiate what was to become the South China Sea Workshop Process. The central premise of the initiative was to have maritime cooperation over as broad a range of areas as possible to defuse the essentially divisive claims and counterclaims to sovereignty over the disputed islands.

While any form of cooperation was thought desirable as an end in itself, the 60 plus meetings in the decade that followed the First Workshop in 1990 tended to look at areas where cooperation was an absolute requirement to achieve a given objective.

With the passage of time, the extent of the work carried out under the aegis of the Workshop Process has perhaps been forgotten. Perhaps the time has come to revive the process. So what can be done? One immediate step perhaps is to re-examine some of the themes for cooperation identified by the leading experts of the South China Sea region and see how far they have developed over time.

Process in preventive diplomacy

A number of scholars, including ourselves, had described the Workshop Process in some detail in published works. It was and is an organic and highly responsive exercise in informal preventive diplomacy. It did not address issues of sovereignty and jurisdiction per se – that would have been entirely pointless.

Cooperation, however, was not a “second best” choice. Issues of the protection and preservation of the marine environment, safety in navigation and shipping, the promotion of marine scientific research and the institution of the sustainable development of resources are hardly trivial.

The South China Sea is semi-enclosed within the meaning of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which was ratified by and is binding on all the littorals. While the applicable regime lacks teeth and specificity, the states bordering such bodies of water are encouraged to cooperate in areas such as marine scientific research, the protection and preservation of the marine environment, and the sustainable exportation of living resources. This was the thinking which was to lead to the evolution of concepts such as the large marine ecosystem and single ecosystem management.

The position was that pursuing uncoordinated and possibly incompatible management strategies on the part of the littorals is fraught with danger. But unilateral control lies at the heart of the modern law of the sea. Cooperation cuts across this deeply entrenched notion. Although benign and a good end in itself, cooperation is sometimes regarded with suspicion, if not outright hostility by some. This is exacerbated by the fact that it is not always clear to states at the outset as to what regional cooperation in a given field might entail.

It should be stressed that the Workshop participants agreed on numerous occasions that there were no practical barriers to cooperation. It is reasonable to take this to mean that the existence of disputes concerning sovereignty and maritime jurisdiction did not in and of itself preclude the possibility of joint action for the common good in the South China Sea. Furthermore, as many participants remarked, the various proposals for cooperation advanced in the Workshop had already been implemented in other marine areas, and the South China Sea region was lagging behind – seriously so, in some respects.

What’s at stake

From the very beginning the “oil factor” would loom large over all discussions. However, as the 1990s wore on, doubts began to be expressed by some as to whether the most optimistic views of the hydrocarbon potential of the South China Sea was not in fact exaggerated. It was pointed out, for example, that there were no independent and verifiable estimates because the requisite amount of exploration had simply not been undertaken.

For some, this indicated the effect of the “El Dorado Factor”, the commonly held desire to believe the best and to disbelieve the worst about the resource potential of a given area. This is precisely what is happening in the Arctic today. An expert body publishes estimates hedged with clear conditions, but the popular media promptly delete the careful qualifications and represent what “might be” as what “is”. Recently published studies have revised these hydrocarbon estimates downwards significantly.

Set against this are arguments such as those by Yu Humming of the United Nations Environment Programme at a Group of Experts Meeting in Shanghai in 1999. Dr Yu pointed out that the renewable non-fish resources of the South China Sea had been largely ignored. Yet their dollar value seen over the years would outweigh that of the most optimistic estimates of hydrocarbons.

Furthermore, several of us working on South China Sea issues became increasingly concerned that the human security or food security issues were likewise being ignored or relegated to secondary or tertiary importance. For instance proposals for a Marine Park in an area of the Spratly islands was not simply an exercise in conflict avoidance or environmental do-good, but was backed by solid ecological considerations.

To many of us, these did not seem to be in the least hypothetical. They were not likely to grab headlines, but we hoped to shift the debate to a higher plane. The mere possibility of mass starvation is hardly a trivial matter.

Lesson from MH370

It came as no surprise when the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines plane found oil slicks and debris in the South China Sea. It has long been known that tankers clean out their empty tanks and other oil contaminated water there, possibly thinking that they cannot be detected by national authorities because of the jurisdictional impasse.

The tragic circumstances surrounding MH370 notwithstanding, the missing airliner saga may well trigger renewed attention on the importance of cooperation in the South China Sea. Our purpose is to remind the scholarly community and governments that a great deal of work on this has already been done, and it is available to them. What have been achieved can be built on.

We do not, therefore, have to re-invent the wheel. But now is the time to start.

Dr. Hasjim Djalal is Senior Adviser to the Indonesian Minister for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. Professor Ian Townsend-Gault teaches law at the University of British Columbia. They contributed this specially to RSIS Commentaries.

On April 9th, shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from across the country converged upon Washington, D.C. to make their voices heard in the halls of Congress. And Tim Pagliara, an investment advisor who also owns shares of stock in Fannie and Freddie, launched the Investors Unite coalition. As the housing finance reform debate heats up on Capitol Hill it is vital that the voices of shareholders – which have, until now, been ignored – are heard so that a bad precedent not be set for disenfranchised investors.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), which buy mortgages on the secondary market, pool them, and resell them as mortgage backed securities. Their business helps support and finance the secondary mortgage market. In principle, this is supposed to help keep mortgage rates down and make products like the 30-year mortgage available to borrowers.

Since the 2008 bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the beginning of their conservatorship, the stockholders of these two companies, of which I am one, have been stripped of their basic rights as shareholders.

Prior to the financial crisis, shareholders of these companies had legal rights to challenge management decisions through the courts and through proxy battles, or by offering shareholder resolutions. Many prudent investors purchased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac common stock because these stocks were considered safe investments. In the spring and summer of 2008, knowledgeable, high-ranking government officials like the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, and the GSEs’ regulator James B. Lockhart, publically and explicitly claimed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were rock-solid companies to reassure their owners.

On September 7, 2008, when the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) established a conservatorship for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, common shareholders lost their voting rights, dividends on preferred and common stock were suspended, and annual shareholder meetings were canceled. Share values plunged to pennies, and countless small and institutional investors who viewed their investments in Fannie and Freddie as secure were financially devastated. Obviously they were deceived by top government officials.

At the time, the administration, the FHFA, the Treasury, and Congress all left shareholders with the impression that the conservatorship was a necessary, but temporary, measure to address the GSEs’ immediate liquidity concerns. The legal mandate of the conservatorship was – and is – to “conserve and preserve the assets” of the companies taken into conservatorship and “restore them to safe and sound condition.” But, at this point, neither goal is being advanced by the FHFA or the Treasury.

In 2012, as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were returning to profitability despite financial and operating restrictions on their activities, the U.S. Treasury unilaterally changed the terms of its investment in the GSEs to its own benefit. The Treasury replaced the already well-above-market 10 percent dividends that the GSEs were paying to a “sweep” taking all of the profits of the companies. The GSEs are now sending nearly all of their earnings to Treasury, cannot rebuild their capital, and their shareholders remain in a limbo where they are neither eliminated nor given an opportunity to recover.

The federal government helped stabilize AIG and Citigroup, both of which had investors who were allowed to benefit from the recovery of these companies. It should be no different when it comes to the GSEs’ shareholders, who, in addition, are very useful to the U.S. Treasury in keeping the GSEs’ liabilities off the government’s deficit.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders are not asking for a subsidy. Taxpayers should be paid back in full for their support of the GSEs during the financial crisis. And in fact, taxpayers have already recouped their investment. In March of this year, the two GSEs had finally paid more back to the federal government in dividends – $192 billion – than the $187.5 billion bailout they received.

But the abuse of Fannie and Freddie shareholders isn’t yet over. A number of proposals for housing finance reform have recently been advanced in Congress. Most notable is Senators Johnson’s and Crapo’s bill.

Taxpayers, consumers and shareholders should have serious reservations about this proposal for housing finance reform. It does not sufficiently protect taxpayers from being saddled with another bailout. It does not advance adequate support for affordable and low-income housing for underserved communities. It sets an objectionable precedent for shareholder rights and treatment in this country. Specific concerns about this bill can be found in a letter I wrote to Senators on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. To see the letter, visit shareholderrespect.org.

Unfortunately, the legislative proposals in the Senate and the House do not adequately anticipate the greed and power embedded on Wall Street in its incentive structure. And without laying out a strict regulatory structure, they seem to wrongfully assume that private capital will regulate itself. Do we really want to give even more power to the ‘Too Big to Fail’ banks that were principally responsible for this crisis to begin with?

The GSEs were certainly not blameless for transgressions similar to those larger ones committed by the Wall Street crowd prior to the financial crisis in 2008. But to eliminate the GSEs and unravel this intricate market further, Congress could be opening the door wide for runaway corporate exploitation. We aren’t arguing that the GSEs should be maintained as is; but instead urge they be regulated strongly to prevent their previous missteps and abuses.

Shareholders have begun to fight back by bringing lawsuits challenging Treasury’s “Third Amendment” dividend sweep. This is a good step – but this isn’t enough; shareholder voices need to be heard in Congress.

The news conference on April 9th, followed by meetings on the Hill, was a sign that investors – big and small, individual and institutional – are getting fired up and fighting back. Shareholders from 20 different states made the trip to D.C. to kick off this campaign. Investors at the event were holding signs that read “Where is Our Due Process?” and “Don’t Wipe Us Out!” One of the speakers, Haran Kumar, an IT professional from Georgia and investor in Fannie Mae, said of his investment “I believed it was a sound decision based on statements and laws that politicians had enacted. None of us are saying don’t reform the housing sector. We are saying do it appropriately, respecting the laws that you have enacted.” Mr. Kumar continued, “One of the big issues is we are not being heard. We are taxpayers too.”

I urge other Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders, individual and institutional, who have yet to come forward to join us and make their voices heard in the coming weeks and months.

Visit shareholderrespect.org to learn more about what you can do to protect shareholder rights.

Pope Francis called April 11 for an “even stronger” Catholic Church response to combat sexual abuse, saying he felt compelled to “personally ask forgiveness” for priests who have sexually abused children.

“The Church is aware of this damage, it is personal, moral damage carried out by men of the Church, and we will not take one step backward with regards to how we deal with this problem, and the sanctions that must be imposed,” the Pope told the International Child Bureau in an April 11 audience at the Vatican, according to Vatican Radio.

He said the response to sex abuse has to be “even stronger” because “you cannot interfere with children.”

The International Catholic Child Bureau is a Catholic NGO dedicated to global work on behalf of children.

The Pope also discussed other issues affecting children. He stressed the importance of fighting slave labor, recruitment of children as soldiers, and “all forms of violence against children.”

“On a positive note, we must reaffirm the right of children to grow up in a family with a father and a mother capable of creating a suitable environment for the child’s development and emotional maturity,” he said.

The Pope voiced support for parents to decide their children’s moral and religious education, while he rejected “any kind of educational experimentation with children.”

“The horrors of the manipulation of education that we experienced in the great genocidal dictatorships of the twentieth century have not disappeared; they have retained a current relevance under various guises and proposals and, with the pretense of modernity, push children and young people to walk on the dictatorial path of ‘only one form of thought’,” he warned.

Pope Francis also reflected on the need for sound formation of human rights advocates.

He said that work for human rights presupposes a good understanding of the human person and “knowing how to respond to the problems and challenges posed by contemporary culture and widespread mentality propagated by the mass media.”

He urged the children’s rights advocates to propose the “positive values of the human person.”

In 2012, Karen L. King presented a small piece of papyrus with an inscription that indicated Jesus had a wife: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife….’” She was ecstatic, as were many in the media. It has now been determined by some scientists that the fragment, the size of a credit card, is likely of ancient origin and not a forgery. But not everyone agrees.

Some scholars say the text refers to the “bride of Christ.” Others, like those at the Vatican, say it is a fake. Dr. Leo Depuydt, a professor of Egyptology at Brown University, said it is so fake that it “seems ripe for a Monty Python sketch.” He noted that the “gross grammatical errors” are an exact match to writings found in the Gospel of Thomas, and that “an undergraduate student with one semester of Coptic” could have forged the lines.

Another issue is King herself. According to New York Times reporter Laurie Goodstein, King “has said all along that it [the papyrus] should not be regarded as evidence that Jesus married….” But she was much more confident initially about her claims. Indeed, in 2012, King said, “certainly the fact that this is the first unequivocal statement we have that claims Jesus had a wife, is of great interest.”

Fact. Unequivocal. Those words do not spill out of King’s mouth today. This may explain the contrast between the way the media first reported on her claims, and now. In 2012, 128 newspapers covered this story. Today, only four did. In 2012, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and PBS reported on this story. Last night, there was no coverage by NBC, CNN, or PBS.

King, a professor at Harvard’s Divinity School, does not believe in the divinity of Jesus, though she has invented a wife for him. She also thinks Mary Magdalene was an apostle. And she still won’t disclose the identity of the donor. It’s a secret. Sounds like more fodder for Monty Python.

By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

The pre-election silence for Macedonia’s first round of presidential elections begins on Friday at midnight and lasts until Sunday’s vote.

Campaigning for the presidential election will halt in Macedonia ahead of Sunday, when more than 1.7 million registered voters will choose between four candidates.

Voters will choose between incumbent President Gjorge Ivanov who is running for a second five-year term for the ruling VMRO DPMNE party and three other hopefuls.

Ivanov’s main challenger is Stevo Pendarovski from the opposition Social Democrats, SDSM.

Iljaz Halimi, candidate of the opposition Democratic Party of Albanians, DPA, as well as Zoran Popovski, running for the new opposition party, Civil Option for Macedonia, GROM, are also running for office.

A second round, involving the two best-ranked candidates, takes place on April 27, alongside snap general elections.

Authorities say that all is set for the voting on Sunday.

The State Electoral Commission said it had started distributing the election materials to the 3,480 polling stations. The police aim to engage some 7,000 officers on election day, to guarantee safety.

For their part, domestic and international observers will field over 3,000 election monitors for the first round of voting.

During the campaign, observers noted that three of the four presidential candidates started their campaigns prematurely.

OSCE monitors said Ivanov visited some 70 villages and published a report on his achievements before the race had begun.

The OSCE also said that Pendarovski and Halimi also started prematurely by attending party rallies and meetings.

The campaign saw one televised debate, staged by Macedonian Television. Ivanov refused to appear at other debates organized by independent organizations and media, however.

The economy, over which the President has little say, as well as issues of democracy, the rule of law, and the long-standing dispute with Greece over Macedonia’s name, dominated the election campaign.

According to the constitution, the President is significantly less powerful than the Prime Minister. The President is the supreme commander of the armed forces and, together with the Foreign Ministry, shares responsibility for foreign policy, having the final say on appointments of ambassadors.

In domestic affairs, the presidential role is largely ceremonial. However, the President has the power to block bills that parliament has passed, by refusing to sign them.

One stain on the presidential race has been the insistence of the DUI, the junior party in government, that it will dispute the legitimacy of the next President, whoever his is.

The ethnic Albanian party had wanted the country’s main Albanian and Macedonian parties in parliament to agree on a presidential candidate in advance.

The party has since urged ethnic Albanians who make a quarter of the population to abstain from voting in the presidential race.

By Natalya Dzhanpoladova and Claire Bigg

(RFE/RL) — Roman Romanenko, a journalist, publisher, and charity activist in Russia’s northwestern Vologda region, had long suspected authorities of lacking a sense of humor.

But he’s still in disbelief at the backlash sparked by a joke he pulled in March when he called on the Kremlin to send troops to liberate Russian-speakers from corrupt officials in his region. It was a not-so-subtle reference to President Vladimir Putin’s decision to deploy troops to Crimea, which Russia has since annexed from Ukraine.

Romanenko’s March 4 letter, which he posted on his Facebook page, has already earned him two interrogations by prosecutors, who are mulling pressing extremism charges against him.

The door of his apartment has been daubed with a swastika and leaflets have been stuffed in his neighbors’ letterboxes branding him a “scum” and a “Ukrainian Jew.”

Now, the medical charity that he runs is under threat.

On April 4, exactly one month after Romanenko penned his ill-fated letter, inspectors launched a spot check on the group, saying they suspected it of embezzlement and money laundering.

“We undergo mandatory audits and we’ve never received any complaints,” he told RFE/RL. “I believe these actions aim to damage the group’s reputation, because people think that if it’s being inspected then there must be grounds for suspicion.”

Romanenko’s charity, “Good People,” cares for critically ill patients in the Vologda region.

He says the organization fills a vital health-care gap and fears its closure will deprive many patients of life-saving financial and moral support.

“There are many bed-ridden patients, including cancer patients, who are completely alone with their diseases,” he says. “People still contact us, and we are continuing to pay for medicine or treatment. But I’m very concerned about the group’s future.”

Anticorruption Crusader

Romanenko suspects regional governor Oleg Kuvshinnikov, the man who ordered the probe against him, of using the letter as a pretext to settle old scores.

The journalist, who has not balked at denouncing official corruption in his newspaper, “Premier,” has long targeted the governor and his entourage.

“We’ve had a long-standing conflict, ever since we published several articles about how regional authorities spend money,” says Romanenko. “Although the Vologda region is severely strapped for cash, officials save money on everyone but themselves. After we wrote about them renovating and buying new furniture for their administrations, I was told I’m now the governor’s enemy.”

Despite its playful tone, Romanenko’s plea to Putin, too, paints a damning picture of authorities in Vologda.

“Everyone here is a Russian speaker and our rights are severely violated,” the letter said.

“Our sick cannot get the medicine and treatment they need, the level of our education is decreasing every year, children’s clubs and interest groups are closing, agriculture has virtually been destroyed.”

Romanenko also asked that the money earmarked for Crimea be spent instead on medicine and education in the Vologda region.

The instant popularity of his letter, which went viral on the Russian Internet and has since generated similar jokes in a string of cities, suggests many Vologda residents share his view.

“We are suffering a lot,” Romanenko wrote to Putin.

“But the occupiers, who have seized power with the help of dishonest elections,” he added, “are not doing anything for the conquered people.”

Natalya Dzhanpoladova reported from Moscow. Claire Bigg reported and wrote from Prague

By Alexander Müller

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is currently visiting Athens on Friday (April 11th) in order to express her support for the Greek government.

Merkel commends the positive success of the Greek government in returning to the bonds market following the first budgetary surplus in over 11 years. The Greek government successfully managed a bond sale that generated €3 billion. This marks the first sale of bonds since Greece was confronted with near-bankruptcy in 2010.

The return to markets had been a long-term objective of the Troika consisting of the IMF, European Commission and European Central Bank.

Merkel also praises the Greek population for their endurance in the crisis and guaranteed her trust and assistance in future issues.

This represents the second trip of Merkel to Greece, the last being in 2012, since Greece had to undergo harsh austerity measures in order to qualify for two EU-IMF bailouts totaling €240 billion.

Security is expected to be tight. During Merkel’s last visit, Greeks took to the streets wearing Nazi uniforms and issuing provocative and insulting statements, portraying Germany as an authoritarian state. Such protests reflected widespread public anger at the time against what people perceived to be a German austerity diktat.

However, the mood does not appear to have improved. Ordinary Greeks feel little has changed despite their government’s efforts to tackle the economy and budget deficit.

Merkel’s visit was accompanied by protests in Athens and Thessaloniki, where people criticized the declining living standards and growing inequality in Greece, as well as the lack of incomes. Demonstrations were also directed against the growing number of unemployment, given that new statistics revealed an increase in the jobless rate to 26.7%.

IMF chief Christine Lagarde also defended Greek financial developments. She stated that the bond sale signaled that Greece was heading into the right direction.

Acting European economic commissioner Siim Kallas stated that the bond sale indicated a return to capital markets and represented a foundation to regain the confidence of investors. He also stated that Greece’s far-reaching economic and financial reforms appear to be paying dividends.

Former US Secretary of State was nearly hit by a shoe during a speech in Las Vegas Thursday, dodging the object at the last second as an usher escorted a young woman from the audience.

Clinton had only been on the stage at an Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries meeting near the Mandalay Bay hotel and casino for moments when an object flew toward her from the crowd. Clinton, also a former New York State senator and First Lady, stepped out of its path and joked, “good thing she didn’t play softball like I did,” as quoted by the Associated Press.

The young woman was not identified, although security personnel at Mandalay Bay told reporters the police had been called and she would likely be arrested.

Considered likely to run as the Democratic candidate for president in 2016, Clinton is touring the country and delivering a series of speeches while at work on a book about her time in the State Department, a term that stretched across the first four years of the Obama administration. She appeared at the Las Vegas conference alongside Steve Wozniak, Apple’s co-founder.

A group of MPs representing both majority and opposition parties have asked Russia’s Prosecutor General to probe the events leading to the breakup of the Soviet Union. They view possible action against former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.

In the letter, signed by two MPs from United Russia, two Communists and one representative of populist nationalist party LDPR, the parliamentarians claim that at the March 1991referendum the majority of Soviet citizens voted that their country should remain united, and therefore the actions of several top officials that led to USSR breakup were unlawful.

They also noted that in November 1991 the Prosecutor General’s Office of the USSR commenced a criminal case against President Mikhail Gorbachev, but closed it the next day under pressure from higher courts.

According to the authors of the letter (and the prosecutors in 1991), Gorbachev is personally to blame for the creation of the State Council of the USSR – the new body that was not described in the Soviet Constitution and yet took the responsibility to decide on the secession of the three Baltic republics. The MPs also noted that such crimes have no statute of limitation and Gorbachev himself did not enjoy any sort of immunity at current moment.

In comments with the popular mass circulation daily Izvestia, one of the sponsors of the initiative, Evgeny Fyodorov, claimed that the thorough investigation into the 1991 events would allow for a “correct historical and political picture” and veritable conclusions that, in the politicians’ view, would give an impetus for the “national liberation movements” in former Soviet republics.

MP Mikhail Degtyaryov said that it was extremely important to hold an investigation and restore a full picture of the 1991 events as these are the roots of all events on the post-Soviet space, including the current violent crisis in Ukraine.

“People in Kiev are dying and will keep on dying because of the people in the Kremlin who made a decision to break up the country a long time ago,” he told Izvestia.

Gorbachev has dismissed the accusations against him as attention seeking and “complete foolishness.”

“These calls only reflect the urge for self-promotion experienced by certain MPs. They like being named and talked about, but their appeal has not been worked through and is completely unfounded from the historical point of view,” the ex-Soviet President told Interfax.

Gorbachev also noted that he must still have enemies in Russia who try to blacken his name through various campaigns.

“I must be a hindrance for someone, the fact that over the last 20 days there were several reports about my death supports this allegation,” he said. “I do not react to such statements, I keep tending to my business and my health,” the veteran Russian politician added.

The search for a missing Malaysia Airlines jetliner resumed on Saturday, five weeks after the plane disappeared from radar screens, amid fears that batteries powering signals from the black box recorder on board were about to die, Reuters reported.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said signals picked up during the search in the remote southern Indian Ocean, believed to be “pings” from the black box recorders, were “rapidly fading”.

“While we do have a high degree of confidence that the transmissions that we’ve been picking up are from flight MH370′s black box recorder, no one would underestimate the difficulties of the task still ahead of us,” Abbott told a news conference in Beijing.

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 disappeared soon after taking off on March 8 from Kuala Lumpur bound for Beijing with 227 passengers and 12 crew on board, triggering a multinational search that is now focused on the Indian Ocean.

Search officials say they are confident they know the approximate position of the black box recorder, although they have determined that the latest “ping”, picked up by searchers on Thursday, was not from the missing aircraft.

Batteries in the black box recorder are already past their normal 30-day life, making the search to find it on the murky sea bed all the more urgent. Once searchers are confident they have located it, they then plan to deploy a small unmanned “robot” known as an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle.

“Work continues in an effort to narrow the underwater search area for when the autonomous underwater vehicle is deployed,” the Australian agency coordinating the search said on Saturday.

“There have been no confirmed acoustic detections over the past 24 hours,” it said in a statement.

The black box records data from the cockpit and conversations among flight crew and may provide answers about what happened to the plane, which flew thousands of kilometers off course after taking off.

The mystery has sparked the most expensive search and rescue operation in aviation history.

Malaysia’s government has begun investigating civil aviation and military authorities to determine why opportunities to identify and track the flight were missed in the chaotic hours after it vanished.

Analysis of satellite data has led investigators to conclude the Boeing 777 crashed into the ocean somewhere west of the Australian city of Perth. Four “ping” signals, which could be from the plane’s black box recorders, have been detected in the search area in recent days by a U.S. Navy “Towed Pinger Locator”.

Once the search area is narrowed down to as small as possible “it is our intention to then deploy the submersible, conduct a sonar search of the sea bed and, based on the sonar search, attempt to get a visual of the wreckage,” Abbott said.

The U.S. supply ship USNS Cesar Chavez has joined the Australian-led task force to provide logistics support and replenish Australian navy ships, a Pentagon spokesman said.

Up to nine military aircraft, one civilian aircraft and 14 ships were scouring a 41,393 sq km (25,720 sq mile) patch of ocean 2,330 km (1,445 miles) northwest of Perth.

The extensive search and rescue operation has included assets from 26 countries.

Australia’s Ocean Shield, which has the towed pinger locator on board, is operating in a smaller zone, just 600 sq km (232 sq miles) about 1,670 km (1,040 miles) northwest of Perth. That is near where it picked up the acoustic signals and where dozens of sonobuoys capable of transmitting data to search aircraft via radio signals were dropped on Wednesday.

Experts say the process of teasing out the signals from the cacophony of background noise in the sea is slow and exhausting.

An unmanned submarine named Bluefin-21 is on board the Ocean Shield and could be deployed to look for wreckage on the sea floor some 4.5 km (2.8 miles) below the surface once a final search area has been identified.

By K.V. Kesavan

The Japanese government has taken a major decision to modify its decades-old ban on arms exports to foreign countries. The new policy, taken by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on April 1, 2014, will open a wide range of possibilities in the sphere of arms transfers, defence production and defence cooperation. The salient features of the new policy are that Japan will continue to be committed to the philosophy of a pacifist state that respects the UN Charter. Japan will not export weapons to countries that are involved in conflicts and have violated UN resolutions.

Under the new policy, arms exports will be permitted only for ‘contributing’ to international cooperation such as the UN peace-keeping missions and the protection of the sea lanes of communication. It also prescribes strict screenings and transparency whenever arms are exported. In order to prevent the transfer of Japanese arms and equipment to third countries, the new policy has made it incumbent for a partner country to take Japan’s consent for the transfer. For ensuring transparency, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Economy, Trade and Industry (METI ) will conduct strict screenings and whenever there is need for greater precaution, the National Security Council ( NSC ) will make the final decision.

Export of arms has always been a sensitive subject in Japan and it is also considered one among several taboos that have prevailed in Japanese politics for a long time. One obvious reason for the restrictions on the export of arms is Japan’s post-war pacifism. It was way back in 1967 that the Japanese government under Prime Minister Eisaku Sato adopted three principles on arms exports. Under this, Japan prohibited arms exports to countries under three categories- communist countries, countries facing arms embargoes under UN resolutions and countries involved in international conflicts. In 1976, under Prime Minister Takeo Miki, an intense pacifist, the Japanese government made the three conditions a virtual ban on arms exports. The government announced new guidelines in that year that restricted arms exports even to other areas not mentioned in the three principles.

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry ( METI ) controls the exports of arms based on the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Law. The government has also put in place an Export Trade Control Order which has listed a number of arms and equipment for arms production that require export licenses to all destinations as they are considered prejudicial to the maintenance of international peace and security. The government has also strictly controlled direct overseas investment for the purpose of manufacturing arms abroad as well as participation in the overseas construction projects of military facilities. Similarly, the export of technologies that are related to the design and production of “arms” has also been under severe official control.

In 1983, the government somewhat diluted the three principles when it permitted the transfer of military technologies to the US during the administration of Yasuhiro Nakasone. It was done as an exception with a view to ensuring what it called the “effective operation” of the US-Japan security alliance. It is reported that more than twenty such exceptions have been made since then and the latest one was that which allowed Japanese companies to participate in developing F-35 fighter. But the government made a definite departure from its restrictive policies in 2011 when it relaxed the rules to permit exports for humanitarian and peaceful purposes and to participate in joint development and production of weapons.

One can see two major reasons that have driven the Abe administration to make the present policy change. First, Abe is keen to remove many of the self-imposed taboos that have stood in the way of Japan becoming a ‘normal country’. At a time when the security environment in East Asia has become so tense, Japan cannot afford to neglect the modernisation of its defence industry. Second, the removal of restrictions on arms exports, many believe, will provide a great impetus to Japanese companies for participating in joint development and joint production. Due to government’s stringent restrictive policies, defence industry in Japan has stagnated a great deal and defence production has been entirely geared to the needs of Japan’s Self-defence Forces only thereby exerting a big negative impact on the country’s technological base.

Ever since he returned to power in December 2012, Abe has been encouraging his government to conduct negotiations with foreign countries for exporting Japan’s defence technology and equipment. He has supplied patrol vessels to the Philippines in order to strengthen its troubled coasts. Negotiations for the supply of indigenously produced US 2 amphibious aircraft to India have been going on for the last about two years. A successful agreement is expected to usher in a new era of cooperative relations between India and Japan in the defence sphere. In 2013, Japan signed an important defence agreement with Britain.

Japan will soon start negotiations with Australia and France. At the time of his first official visit to Tokyo on April 7-8, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Japanese Prime Minister Abe agreed to start negotiations for creating a framework for defence equipment and technology cooperation. As a first step, both countries are planning to collaborate in basic research on submarine technologies. It is also useful to note that Abbott was invited to attend a meeting of Japan’s National Security Council as a special guest. It may be recalled that it was during the first tenure of Abe’s prime ministership that both Japan and Australia signed the Japan-Australia Joint Declaration on Security and Cooperation in 2007.

Japan and France are also expected to start their first working level meeting soon for designing a similar framework that would identify areas for bilateral defence collaboration.

Prime Minister Abe’s new policy, to be sure, has also aroused some concerns both at home and abroad. Many in Japan worry that Japanese weapons could be used in international conflicts and cause great embarrassment to Tokyo. They also see a danger of Japanese weapons falling into the hands of terrorist groups or countries that are hostile to Japan. In addition, as expected, both China and South Korea have expressed their apprehensions and called upon Japan to show the maximum level transparency in implementing the newly adopted policy.

(Prof K.V. Kesavan is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi)