Israel’s post-Gaza domestic battles have erupted days after the withdrawal of Israeli forces, following almost a month of confrontation of Hamas, the Islamist militia-turned-army in the making that controls the Gaza Strip.

At stake is Israel’s performance in the war with Hamas, in which Gaza suffered billions of dollars in infrastructural damage and tremendous human losses and suffering, yet Hamas remains a military force to be reckoned with. Indeed Hamas has emerged as the key Palestinian player with which Israel is now negotiating, rather than the Palestine Authority of President Mahmoud Abbas, albeit through Egypt as intermediary.

Criticism in Israel focuses on the military’s politically mandated strategy and its failure in recent years to reorganize and review its doctrine and strategy in a world in which Israel is more likely to confront unconventional rather than conventional forces. Israel’s last four wars were against the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah, and Hamas.

Changing politics and demography

The debate about the Israeli military comes against the backdrop of its changed demography. Israel’s military today is not what it was in the late 1980s when it told then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin during the first Intifada or Palestinian popular uprising against Israeli occupation: ”We can solve this militarily but not on terms that would be politically or morally acceptable to the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) or the government. .. you, Mr. Prime Minister have to solve it politically.” A few years later Rabin engaged in the failed Oslo peace process with Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Nor is the Israeli government similar to that of Rabin. The government of Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu in the first week of the assault on Gaza apparently turned down a proposal to conduct lightning strikes inside Gaza that would have destroyed Hamas’ command and control centres and other military infrastructure. It also refused to enter ta in a proposal for a full re-occupation of the Gaza Strip. Debkafile, a news website with close ties to the military and Israeli intelligence, suggested that had Israel opted for lightning strikes “at an early stage in the conflict, instead of ten days of air strikes, it might have saved heavy Palestinian losses and property devastation, the extent of which troubles most Israelis too.”

Too fat to enter a tunnel

Israel’s liberal Ha’aretz newspaper added in an editorial: When you’re too heavy, big or bloated, it’s hard to move, run or even bend down. Your arm is so fat it can’t reach into a tunnel. It gets stuck and you stand there helplessly. That’s precisely the situation with the Israel Defence Forces. It’s a King Kong of an army — big and cumbersome; every move unintentionally knocks down a house, bridge or UN school in Gaza… The top brass has forgotten that line in the Book of Proverbs: ‘with wise advice thou shalt make thy war.’

With analysts predicting increased differences between the military and Israel’s political leadership in the wake of the Gaza war, both entities are coping with very different political and demographic constituencies. Israel’s right-wing has moved further to the right forcing Netanyahu to fend off pressure from coalition partners like Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman whose Yisrael Beytenu (Israel is our Home) Party ended its alliance with the prime minister’s Likud early in the war, and economy minister Naftali Bennett’s Habait Hayehudi (The Jewish Home) Party that both advocated reoccupation.

Similarly, religious and conservative forces have become more prominent in the Israeli military. The commander of Israel’s elite infantry Golani Brigade Col. Ofer Winter, that suffered high casualties in the last month, declared holy war on the Palestinians in a message to his troops at the beginning of the Gaza war that went on to say: “The Lord God of Israel, make our way successful. … We’re going to war for your people Israel against an enemy that defames you.”

Winning decisively

Calls for a reorganization of the Israeli military including a review of its strategy and doctrine are fuelled by the fact that military intelligence struggled to cope with Hamas’ ability to quickly change tactics and strategy; faulty analysis that predicted that Hamas would quickly sue for a ceasefire; gaps in intelligence about where Hamas leaders were hiding and where the group had stored its rockets arsenal; a political failure to assess the strategic importance of the tunnels, including the fact that some of them ended on the Israeli side of the border forcing the military to change the focus of its operation; and underestimation of the enemy demonstrated by the use on several occasions of old M113 personnel carriers with inferior armour, and vehicles that had not been reinforced, at times a lack of body armour and radio communications, and the deployment of some troops that had no combat experience.

Said Amos Harel, one of Israel’s most respected military commentators: “These phenomena show that the IDF, especially the ground forces, needs to think hard and plan anew. Israel’s technically advanced forces found an enemy playing in a different field, thus eroding its advantages. The Israel Air Force, with the assistance of MI (military intelligence) and the Shin Bet=0 (Israel’s internal security service), can strike its targets with great precision. But against Hamas or Hezbollah, this may not be enough to win decisively… If the IDF wants to preserve its ability to win using manoeuvres, quite extensive changes must be considered.”

Reorganizing the military and revamping its doctrine and strategy is no mean task. It involves a debate that by definition will have to also include Israel’s broader policies towards the Palestinians at a time that popular anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian sentiment is running high.

This article appeared at S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore (RSIS).

The post Lessons From Gaza For Israel’s Military: Unprepared For Unconventional Warfare – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In recent weeks, the managers, employees, and customers of a New England chain of supermarkets called “Market Basket” have joined together to oppose the board of director’s decision earlier in the year to oust the chain’s popular chief executive, Arthur T. Demoulas.

Their demonstrations and boycotts have emptied most of the chain’s seventy stores.

What was so special about Arthur T., as he’s known? Mainly, his business model. He kept prices lower than his competitors, paid his employees more, and gave them and his managers more authority.

Late last year he offered customers an additional 4 percent discount, arguing they could use the money more than the shareholders.

In other words, Arthur T. viewed the company as a joint enterprise from which everyone should benefit, not just shareholders. Which is why the board fired him.

It’s far from clear who will win this battle. But, interestingly, we’re beginning to see the Arthur T. business model pop up all over the place.

Pantagonia, a large apparel manufacturer based in Ventura, California, has organized itself as a “B-corporation.” That’s a for-profit company whose articles of incorporation require it to take into account the interests of workers, the community, and the environment, as well as shareholders.

The performance of B-corporations, by this measure, is regularly reviewed and certified by a nonprofit entity called B Lab.

To date, over 500 companies in sixty industries have been certified as B-corporations, also including the household products firm “Seventh Generation.”

In addition, 27 states have passed laws allowing companies to incorporate as “benefit corporations.” This gives directors legal protection to consider the interests of all stakeholders rather than just the shareholders who elected them.

We may be witnessing the beginning of a return to a form of capitalism that was taken for granted in America sixty years ago.

Then, most CEOs assumed they were responsible for the welfare of all their stakeholders.

“The job of management,” proclaimed Frank Abrams, chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey, in 1951, “is to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly interested groups … stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large.”

Johnson & Johnson publicly stated that its “first responsibility” was to patients, doctors, and nurses, and not to investors.

What changed? In the 1980s, corporate raiders began mounting unfriendly takeovers of companies that could deliver higher returns to their shareholders – if they abandoned their other stakeholders.

The raiders figured profits would be higher if the companies fought unions, cut worker’s pay or fired them, automated as many jobs as possible or moved jobs abroad, shuttered factories, abandoned their communities, and squeezed their customers.

Although the law didn’t require companies to maximize shareholder value, shareholders had the legal right to replace directors. The raiders pushed them to vote out directors who wouldn’t make these changes and vote in directors who would (or else sell their shares to the raiders, who’d do the voting).

Since then, shareholder capitalism has replaced stakeholder capitalism. Corporate raiders have morphed into private equity managers, and unfriendly takeovers are rare. But it’s now assumed corporations exist to maximize shareholder returns.

Are we better off? Some argue shareholder capitalism has proven more efficient. It has moved economic resources to where they’re most productive, and thereby enabled the economy to grow faster.

By this view, stakeholder capitalism locked up resources in unproductive ways. CEOs were too complacent. Companies were too fat. They employed workers they didn’t need, and paid them too much. They were too tied to their communities.

But maybe, in retrospect, shareholder capitalism wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. Look at the flat or declining wages of most Americans, their growing economic insecurity, and the abandoned communities that litter the nation.

Then look at the record corporate profits, CEO pay that’s soared into the stratosphere, and Wall Street’s financial casino (along with its near meltdown that imposed collateral damage on most Americans).

You might conclude we went a bit overboard with shareholder capitalism.

The directors of “Market Basket” are now considering selling the company. Arthur T. has made a bid, but other bidders have offered more.

Reportedly, some prospective bidders think they can squeeze more profits out of the company than Arthur T. did.

But Arthur T. knew may have known something about how to run a business that made it successful in a larger sense.

Only some of us are corporate shareholders, and shareholders have won big in America over the last three decades. But we’re all stakeholders in the American economy, and many stakeholders have done miserably.

Maybe a bit more stakeholder capitalism is in order.

The post The Rebirth Of Stakeholder Capitalism? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Writing in Bloomberg View, Leonid Bershidsky argues that more and more emerging economies are led by people modelling themselves after the leadership style of Vladimir Putin – Narendra Modi, Najib Razak, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to name a few.

Bershidsky ventures into the phenomenology of modern authoritarians – which, contrary to old school dictators, rely on a combination of selective freedoms and selective repressions:

It’s not that Putin himself is inherently evil or contagious. The crucial similarities are not really among the leaders themselves but among all authoritarian regimes regardless of the continents on which they operate. The most typical ones:

1. The leader’s personal power either exceeds the legal allotment or allows the leader to change the law when needed;
2. Justice is selective and politically motivated (“For my friends, everything, for my enemies, the law”), often in the guise of anti-corruption campaigns;
3. Censorship of the media falls short of totalitarian repression but stifles dissenting opinions;
4. The regime associates itself with “traditional values,” revisionist history and strong nationalist rhetoric (and, sometimes, action);
5. Leaders express irritation with Western “double standards” and “preaching,” believing that the West operates just as cynically, only less openly.

(…) The West squandered its opportunity by cynical and self-serving interference in the emerging world’s affairs. It botched democracy’s marketing campaign: While democratic values themselves are hard to tarnish, the politicians who put themselves forward as their champions did not live up to the task.

A vast generalization perhaps, but Bershidsky has a point – more and more of the world’s emerging economic powers are deficient in rule of law and guided by the “strong hand” approach to state security. But it’s going to take more than just “good examples” to turn this trend around, I would suggest.

The post Defining Modern Authoritarianism – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Patriots, it is frustrating and painful when a good man of the people candidate like Joe Carr loses to a lying Washington machine betrayer of the people like Lamar Alexander. The fact that Lamar Alexander voted for Obama’s agenda 62% of the time is all you need to know about him.

My Conservative Campaign Committee team and I were boots on the ground in Tennessee, driving all over the state participating in rallies and other events for Joe Carr. We felt the pulse of the people and there was excitement and enthusiasm for Joe.

At one of the Joe Carr rallies we attended, a local Carr supporter bent my ear big time, expressing his frustration with the fact that Carr did not run tons of radio ads much earlier in the campaign; missing an opportunity to win over early voters.

I tried to explain to the frustrated Joe Carr fan that his campaign simply did not have funds to run tons of radio ads. Lamar Alexander’s war-chest was $7 million dollars provided by DC power brokers. Grassroots efforts raised $1.3 million for Joe Carr.

But there were several bright spots. Joe Carr received 41% of the vote. Carr would have probably won if we had enough money to really get his message out to Tennessee voters. Thanks to the efforts of Rep. Joe Carr, Tennessee enacted the toughest illegal immigration laws in the country. Carr was eager to get to DC to help Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and our conservative troops on the front-line in the battle to stop Obama’s fundamental transformation of our great nation.

What Republican would have voted for Lamar had they known that he voted to fund Obamacare. He voted for the Gang of Eight amnesty for illegal immigrants. Lamar voted to raise income taxes, death taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes and payroll taxes.

It is safe to say voters would not have selected Lamar over Carr had they known these truths about him. This is why funding is so crucial to winning elections.

Still, there were collateral successes/bright spots in the Carr vs Lamar race.

For example.

Patriot brother Michael Patrick Leahy of Beat Lamar PAC lead the charge. He organized a small army of college age campaign workers who did an amazing job; knocking on over 70,000 doors. Absolutely brilliant! Four of Micheal’s youth workers spoke at a press conference for Joe Carr about their experiences working on the campaign. They shared how Lamar kept running away from answering their questions. Please watch this video of these awesome youths (future conservative leaders): http://youtu.be/5esE48If0kM

I asked Michael how he got so many young people involved. Michael said you recruit a leader and the leader recruits their friends; all done word of mouth.

A black student told me he initially joined Micheal’s Beat Lamar team for college credit. He has since discovered he is conservative.

Another bright spot was the coming together of several national Tea P arty groups to help Joe Carr. A lesson learned is that we should have gotten involved in the race earlier. Despite the huge difference in war-chests, Carr’s $1.3 million compared to Lamar’s $7 million, Carr still got 41% of the vote. Folks, that is huge. Imagine if Carr had our national Tea Party support and funding much sooner.

Another thing I found particularly enjoyable about the Carr race was my Conservative Campaign Committee working with numerous other national Tea Party groups. It felt like a political barn raising, everyone joining in to achieve success for our movement. We simply should have started sooner in the Joe Carr campaign.

I want to personally thank Joe Carr for stepping up for America. He is a great man and I pray he will run again. God bless.

The post Collateral Success Of Carr Vs Alexander Tennessee Race – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Marco Simons

The night of the industrial disaster is forever seared into the memory of the people of Bhopal, India. Heavy clouds of methyl isocyanate — a deadly toxin — and other gases engulfed crowded shantytowns, the railway station, and surrounding settlements after a runaway chain reaction at a pesticide plant. Thousands of people died immediately and tens of thousands more have died since from illnesses related to the chemical exposure.

Nearly 30 years after the horrific pre-dawn hours of December 3, 1984, residents whose groundwater continues to be contaminated by chemicals leaking from Union Carbide’s abandoned industrial complex are still getting sick and fighting for justice.

Unfortunately, a U.S. court has once again blocked their quest for justice. A new ruling is again allowing Union Carbide, a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical Co. since 2001, to dodge accountability in the United States.

New York federal judge John F. Keenan ruled in late July that Union Carbide wasn’t sufficiently involved in the plant’s design and construction. Seemingly undeniable evidence demonstrates otherwise: John Couvaras, the project manager who directly oversaw the construction of the Bhopal plant, testified that he worked for Union Carbide at the time. A manager from Union Carbide’s Indian subsidiary confirmed this assertion.

Astonishingly, the court simply didn’t care. Couvaras’s own testimony about the company he worked for is “unsubstantiated,” Keenan decided. Instead, Union Carbide’s statements that Couvaras worked for its subsidiary were “conclusive” evidence. If you ever thought you knew your own employer’s identity, think again — your testimony on that subject isn’t even really evidence.

I lead the EarthRights International legal team that has brought multiple suits against Union Carbide since 1999. So far, none of our lawsuits have brought justice to the people of Bhopal. To see yet another attempt be dismissed by U.S courts is heartbreaking.

The victims haven’t fared much better in their own courts. In 1989, Union Carbide settled a lawsuit in India, giving the victims and their families about $500 each — scant compensation for loss of life or lifelong illnesses.

In 2002, a few years after Dow Chemical acquired Union Carbide, a spokesperson for the chemical giant infamously remarked, “$500 is plenty good for an Indian.”

Earlier this summer, Dow refused to appear before the District Court in Bhopal to face charges related to the new contamination at the site of the pesticide plant’s ruins. Adding insult to injury, Dow has tried to sue Bhopal activists four different times in Indian courts over their continued protests against the company.

In 1999, EarthRights International assisted Bhopal residents in filing new class-action suits in U.S. courts against Union Carbide over the remaining contamination, seeking a cleanup. One of those cases was dismissed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals last year. The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs “may well have suffered terrible and lasting injuries from a wholly preventable disaster for which someone is responsible” — but it refused to place any of that responsibility on Union Carbide.

After the Bhopal debacle, Union Carbide packed up and left a mess that’s still poisoning residents and their environment, and its mess is now Dow’s problem. People living near the plant continue to suffer physical ailments, live on contaminated property, and drink poisoned water. Not only have the victims been denied justice at every door they’ve knocked on, they have also been sued for seeking justice in the first place.

But the fight for justice continues — we aren’t about to give up. We will again appeal Judge Keenan’s ruling to the Second Circuit, hoping that that court will recognize Union Carbide’s obvious role in the tragedy at Bhopal. And we will assist people in India who continue to fight for accountability in that country’s courts, taking the fight to Dow in the United States if necessary.

After 30 years, justice is long overdue.

Marco Simons is the Legal Director of EarthRights International. EarthRights.org

The post 30 Years Of Toxic Injustice For Bhopal Survivors – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Japanese government released the Defense White paper 2014 on 5 August, the 40th released since 1970. The significant tenor of the defense document was how Japan must bolster its vigilance against China’s maritime provocations. In recent times, China has been proceeding with its maritime expansion through force of arms and engaged in relentless surge of provocative actions towards its neighboring countries, thereby causing a sense of unease. In the wake of this development, the White Paper seeks cooperation with other nations concerned.

In particular, China’s recent saber-rattling moves in the East China Sea are seen as a major cause for alarm in Japan and it is reflected in the White Paper. In November 2013, China unilaterally declared Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over an area of the East China Sea that covers the Senkakus, the uninhabited islands administered by Japan but claimed by China, where they are called Diaoyu. The White Paper termed it as dangerous, adding that the Chinese move could result in “unintended consequences” and expressed strong concern over China’s expansion of military power. Japan is understandably concerned that China’s ADIZ over the East China Sea includes the Senkaku Islands, “as if they were a part of China’s territory”, and is prepared to appropriately respond when necessary.

The White Paper observed that Beijing “unjustifiably infringed on the principle of freedom of flight in airspace above high seas” because foreign aircrafts entering the zone are forced to follow Beijing’s rules and identify themselves. Indeed, China’s actions are destabilizing the security environment surrounding Japan. The White Paper expressed concern that China’s rapidly expanding maritime and airspace activities around the Senkaku Islands could trigger an unwanted clash.

Indeed, China’s assertion of maritime claims is counter to existing order of international law. In May and June 2014, Chinese fighter jets flew abnormally close to Air Self-Defense Forces planes in area where Japan’s ADIZ and China’s ADIZ overlap. Air Self-Defense Force jets confirmed for the first time passage of China’s early-warning aircraft in July 2013 and bombers in September over waters between Okinawa Island and Miyakojima Island and over the Pacific Ocean. According to the White Paper, the ASDF scrambled its fighter jets 810 times in fiscal 2013 in response to growing activity by the Chinese and Russian military, and threat to enter Japanese airspace, including their aircraft deployment. It was for the first time since fiscal 1989, the ASDF planes scrambled more than 800 times. Almost 95% of the cases were in response to Chinese and Russian aircrafts.

Noting with alarm, the White Paper observed that China’s defense budget quadrupled in the past decade, reaching 808.2 billion yuan (about ¥12.9 trillion) for fiscal 2014, up 12% from the previous year, while Japan’s defense budget stood at ¥4.78 trillion in fiscal 2014, an increase from ¥4.68 trillion the previous fiscal year. China continues its modernization of equipment under the presumption of maritime military clashes. China is expected to launch its first domestically built aircraft carrier in the early 2020s and drastically strengthen its fleet of new lightweight warships. These are worrying for Japan.

Besides China’s assertive behavior, North Korea’s actions are also cause of worry. In early parts of 2014, Pyongyang successfully fired short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. Its confidence level has considerably increased after the performance of its missiles, whose types have also been diversified. The White Paper therefore raised concern that North Korea may commit more military provocations, stemming from its overconfidence and misconception of its military power, thereby aggravate circumstances and create a messy situation. Its confidence in its deterrent power will be further bolstered if it succeeds in developing miniaturized nuclear warheads, and thus step up its military provocations. For the first time, the White Paper mentioned “gray zone” incidents. It defined gray zone situations that neither the Japan Coast Guard nor the police can adequately handle even though such situations fall short of an all-out war. Gray zone incidents refer to infringements that do not involve the use of force. This was a clear reference to China as China is making many attempts to alter the existing order with a view to obtain economic interests, with potential seeds of triggering gray zone incidents. Gray zone situations cover a wide range of events that are neither normal nor a military emergency. The White Paper feared that such gray zone situations are likely to increase in the future. In reference to the government’s decision of 1 July on the reinterpretation of the Constitution allowing the country limited exercise of the right of collective self-defense, the White Paper termed it as “historic” as the move of Abe government is to further bolster Japan’s peace and safety.

Though the White Paper categorically named China as the key concern because of the latter’s “dangerous” actions at sea and air as it seeks to exert control in waters around Japan and elsewhere in the region, it also listed North Korea and Russia as contributing to the region’s “increasingly severe” security environment. Besides warning that North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs were a grave destabilizing factor, the White Paper also noted that Japan was keeping an eye on Russia’s involvement in Ukraine. According to Japan, Russia is also showing signs of expanding its military actions in recent months and conducting large-scale operations with its navy and air force in the region.

Though Japan’s annual defense reports in recent years have become the routine platform for Tokyo to voice its security concerns, the section on the Chinese military got significantly larger space because of what Tokyo says has been China’s increased intrusion into Japanese territory both in the air and at sea. Japan’s Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera observed: “The report is only seeking to state the facts about China’s actions and that Japan is not the only country concerned about the unilateral establishment of an ADIZ. The United States and the international community have voiced concerns as well”. The report warned China against its attempts to change the statu quo, and called on Beijing to observe international norms.

The White Paper also urged the Chinese military to be more transparent, both about its hardware and intentions in the region, as Japan fears that there is trend towards arms buildup and modernization by neighboring countries in response to their perceptions of threat from China.

Naming Five Isles near Senkaku

Before the White Paper was released on 5 August, Japan gave names to five small isles near the disputed Senkaku Islands on 1 August. This drew immediate protest from Beijing. The Headquarters for Ocean Policy in the Cabinet Secretariat announced that 158 uninhabited islands lying near the outer edge of Japanese territorial waters were given new names that will appear in official maps. Since most of the new names were popular ones already used by local residents, the five islands near the Senkaku were given utilitarian names. Three small islands in the vicinity of Kubashima were named Higashi-Kojima (east small island), Nanto-Kojima (southeast small island) and Seihokusei-Kojima (west-northwest small island). Two islands near Minami-Kojima were named Nanto-Kojima (southeast small island) and Nansei-Kojima (southwest small island). It was not clear who actually owned the islands. For record, territorial waters are defined as the area 12 nautical miles (about 22 kilometers) from land, while a nation’s exclusive economic zone is defined as an area 200 nautical miles (about 370 km) from land. According to the policy document, Tokyo will ease the heavy burden on southern Japan’s Okinawa Prefecture of hosting the bulk of US forces in Japan. Japan is increasing focus on defending remote islands, especially the uninhabited Senkakus. It has plans to station a coastal surveillance unit on the country’s westernmost island of Yonaguni and to set up an amphibious force similar to the US Marines. These moves have upset China.

Reaction of China

As usual, the response from Beijing was on the expected line. The Chinese Defense Ministry was quick to accuse Japan of deliberately embellishing the threat the Chinese military poses to adjust its military and security policies. Chinese security analysts read the report as another sign of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s effort to turn Japan into a regional military power.

China took umbrage with Japan’s naming of the five islets. The People’s Daily condemned Japan’s move, saying that in the capacity of a foreign country, Japan has no right to ‘name’ islets that have been part of the Chinese since ancient times, and Tokyo’s any unilateral move can never change China’s sovereignty over them. It further said that Japan’s unilateral move to name the five islets were illegal and invalid by both historical facts and international law.

According to China, the earlier historical record of the names of Diaoyu Dao (Diaoyu Island), Chiwei Yu and other places can be found in the book Voyage with a Tail Wing (Shun Feng Xiang Song) published in 1403 (the first year of the reign of Emperor Yongle of the Ming Dynasty). China claims that it had already discovered and named Diaoyu Dao by the 14th and 15th centuries. China alleges that Japan “stole” the Diaoyu Islands in 1895 in its war with China and then forced the Qing court to sign the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki and cede to Japan the island of Taiwan, as well as Diaoyu Islands and all other islands appertaining or belonging to Taiwan. China claims that the Cairo Declaration of 1 December 1943 issued by China, the US and Britain stated in explicit terms that “all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa (Taiwan), and Pescadores” shall be restored to the Chinese. Therefore, China argues, in international law, the Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands have been returned to China since then. It further reiterates its position by arguing that Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation of 26 July 1945 reaffirmed that “the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out”.

When Japan took the unilateral move to “purchase” and “nationalize” the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, China saw the Japanese move as an attempt to legalize its act of theft in brazen violation of both the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. Seeing in the same perspective, Japan’s naming the five islets was seen in Beijing as yet another attempt to break the world order established by international law, and “an illustration of Tokyo’s unapologetic attitude towards historical issues”.

Reaction of South Korea

China was not the only country that raised concerns about Japan in the region and its territorial claims. Soon after the Defense White Paper was released, South Korea summoned the Japanese military attaché in Seoul and warned against the mention of Takeshima/Dokdo as part of Japan’s territory. Japan calls the Korea-administered Dokdo Islands as Takeshima, over which a dispute remains between the countries.

Russia

Japan has a long-standing territorial dispute with Russia on the Russian-held Kurile Islands off Hokkaido, known as the Northern Territories. A breakthrough has eluded so far. Abe is treading carefully with President Vladimir Putin and is being forced to strike a balance between acting in concert with the US and Europe over the Ukraine crisis, and maintaining his personal relationship with Putin with the hope to reach a breakthrough on the island issue.

This, however, did not prevent Japan to criticize Russia’s annexation of Crimea as it undermined Ukraine’s sovereignty and territory, besides violating international law. Japan has legitimate worry that such attempt by Russia to change the status quo by force poses global challenge as they have repercussions for Asia and other regions.

Concluding Observations

While China is free to interpret Japan’s policy the way it likes, this is clearly not the case in the eyes of a neutral observer. It is unfortunate that ties between Tokyo and Beijing have been seriously strained since Abe assumed office in December 2012. The shadow of history, the legacy of Japan’s wartime aggression, visits to Yasukuni Shrine by Japan’s political leaders, ‘comfort women’ issue, and a dispute over a group of islands in the East China Sea continue to fray ties.

On more than one occasion, Abe has expressed desire to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping. He is believed to have sent a personal message to Xi, saying the two leaders should meet to repair bilateral relations. With sincere intentions to mend ties with China, Abe conveyed the message through former Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda who secretly met with Xi in late July as chairman of the nongovernmental Boao Forum for Asia. It remains unclear if Xi will agree to meet with Abe on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum summit in Beijing in November, as proposed by Japan.

While in Brazil, Abe had stressed that dialogue was needed between Japan and China to resolve their differences. That Abe is sincere for an early summit meeting with Xi can be seen also from the meeting by Masahiko Komura, the Vice President of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, in May 2014 with Zhang Dejiang, ranked third in the Chinese Communist Party’s powerful seven-member Politburo Standing Committee, during which Komura stressed the need for a summit meeting.

Since both countries are at odds over territory and views on history, China has said there will be no bilateral summit unless Japan acknowledges a territorial dispute over the Senkaku group of islands in the East China Sea and Abe promises not to visit the war-related Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo. Japan insists that the two leaders should meet without preconditions. With both sides hardening their positions, a summit meeting even in November seems unlikely. In the larger interests of peace in the region, it is desirable that both show some flexibility with a spirit of accommodation and try to find a middle path that either can sell to their people.

The real danger is both Japan and China sees and accuse each other as engaging in military provocations in their “preparation for a potential conflict”. A recent report released by the US Defense Department on China’s military strength notes that China has placed its principal focus on attaining the capability to fight and win in preparation for “potential regional conflicts, including those related to Taiwan … [and] defense of territorial claims in the South China Sea and East China Sea”. As per plan, China is expected to build amphibious assault landing vessels around 2020. With this power, China will be able to attack and seize remote islands. The commissioning of such vessels is a cause of concern for Japan and other neighboring countries. The new security initiatives initiated by the Abe government may be seen from this background.

With neither willing to concede an inch, the situation is pregnant for a regional conflagration. Even an accidental or unintended move by either party can lead to a major escalation, drawing in the process other powers. If both Japan and China continue to base their respective claims based on history and the way they interpret, correcting the historical wrong seems to be unthinkable. Best to resolve the disputes is to seek international arbitration.

This article was published by IPRIS as IPRIS Viewpoints Number 150, August 2014, which may be accessed here (PDF).

The post Japan’s Defense White Paper 2014 And Coping With The China ‘Threat’ – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Sean Goforth

The 6th annual BRICS summit, held in the Brazilian city of Fortaleza from July 15-17, went beyond diplomatic pronouncements about the end of the Western world order. On the first day of the summit, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa announced the New Development Bank (NDB). The BRICS bank, as it has already become known, will be capitalized at US$50 billion, which will finance infrastructure and industrialization projects. Also, there will be a US$100 billion Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), from which members can borrow in order to halt any balance of payments crises. By design, the NDB will function as an alternative to the World Bank, while the CRA will be “a kind of mini-IMF”, as Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov put it.1

As if a CRA loan could be arranged at the snap of a finger, rumor quickly surfaced that Argentina stood first in line for a bailout.2 Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff sought to quell those hopes by noting that “we just set up this institution”, but then she went on to say that the BRICS would “examine” any request from Argentina. Instead, it will be at least two years before the bank becomes a reality. Approval from each country’s parliament will be necessary to bring the NDB and CRA to life, a process that will prove especially challenging in Brazil and India, the BRICS two full-fledged democracies. Questions such as the NDB’s headquarters, for instance, are likely to impede parliamentary action in one country or another. If sluggish economic growth continues across the BRICS, the process will probably experience further delays.

Still, countries outside the BRICS were quick to applaud. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro said the bank plan would “change the political and economic world order”.3 “The NDB could be a much needed source of financing to developing countries for infrastructure, industrialization and productive development that many nations, such as those in the Caribbean Community (Caricom), are now denied”, noted the Trinidad Express: “Except for Haiti, Caricom countries … have been ‘graduated’ from access to concessional financing by the World Bank”.4

However, exuberance should be tempered, as the new BRICS bank will likely develop along one of two pathways. As of this writing, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim is wrapping up a three-day visit to India. After one meeting with India’s new Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, Kim dismissed questions that the BRICS bank would be a rival to the World Bank, declaring, “the only competition we have is with poverty.”5 In fact, the World Bank chief has already offered technical advisors to help bring the BRICS bank to life. Should that come to pass, it is not hard to imagine the BRICS bank functioning as more of an adjunct, rather than an alternative, to the World Bank.

Yet, even if the NDB ultimately takes on the hue of the World Bank, this would probably be a positive development. The core mission of the World Bank – “a world without poverty” – is a good one, and in the process of emulation the NDB may inspire the World Bank to loosen up some of the stiffer protocols it now insists on, not to mention ending the narrow-mindedness that sometimes prevails at Washington-based organizations.

Second, as Dingding Chen noted in the Diplomat, the BRICS bank could be a “demonstrat[ion] of China’s global leadership”.6 Beijing will contribute the lion’s share of start-up funding for the bank and credit reserve – US$41 of the US$100 billion, with Brazil, India and Russia kicking in US$18 billion a piece and South Africa US$5 billion.

So if funding means influence, the NDB may be little more than an institutional cover for China’s rising power in world affairs. China already has a long history of doling out developmental aid in Africa and Latin America, but the benefits of Chinese-financed roads and the like have consistently served Chinese demand for natural resources. The impact on recipient countries is more open to debate. Many countries are dangerously dependent on Chinese demand for their commodities, and to date Beijing has expressed no interest in a remedy. A NDB dominated by China might exacerbate such imbalances, reinforcing dependence on commodities rather than encouraging manufactures, and supporting decisive government over democratic government, across parts of Africa and Latin America.

In sum, there is less reason for excitement about the BRICS bank than meets the eye. Certainly the NDB and CRA are concrete proposals that have the potential to consolidate the BRICS prominence on the world stage. But carving out a future for the BRICS bank will be hard. Vesting the bank with more technical skill is likely to produce a mini-World Bank and mini-IMF. The bigger worry though is the twin institutions could be a shell for the assertion of Chinese power.

About the author:
Sean Goforth, Affiliated Researcher, Portuguese Institute of International Relations and Security (IPRIS)

Source:
This article was published by IPRIS as IPRIS Viewpoint 148, July, which may be accessed here (PDF)

Notes:
1. Charles Kenny, “BRICS Summit: A Show of Economic Might Is Nothing to Fear” (Bloomberg Businessweek, 21 July 2014).
2. “Maduro: BRICS Summit Will Change the World Order” (The Morning Star, 16 July 2014).
3. “Maduro: BRICS Summit Will Change the World Order” (The Morning Star, 16 July 2014).
4. Ronald Sanders, “New Bank of BRICS: What’s In It for the Small” (The Trinidad Express, 21 July 2014).
5. Aditya Kalra and Rajesh Khumar Singh, “World Bank Chief Welcomes New BRICS Development Bank” (Reuters, 23 July 2014).
6. Dingding Chen, “Three Reasons the BRICS’ New Development Bank Matters” (The Diplomat, 23 July 2014).

The post Coming To Terms With The BRICS Bank – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

This study examines the prospects for increasing Spain’s business presence in Singapore, with a particular focus on the improvements foreseen in the Free Trade Agreement that the Asian city-state has signed with the EU.

By Maria García and Clara Portela

The recently signed Free Trade Agreement between the EU and Singapore opens up new business opportunities for Spanish companies on the island, which is already Spain’s top trading partner in South-East Asia. One highlight of the accord is the elimination of restrictions on the percentage of foreign investment in financial services and sectors such telecommunications, engineering and shipping. At the same time, the possibility of being able to bid on more government contracts can help companies involved in environmental protection and construction firms. The food industry will benefit from the novel creation of a registry of geographical indications.

Analysis

Introduction

The economy of the Republic of Singapore has traditionally been considered one of the most open in the world, making it an exception in its region.[1] International rankings place the young country among the world’s most open economies and most attractive overall investment destinations. Neither its economic structure nor its trade profile are typical of South-East Asia. So it should come as no surprise that Singapore is the first member of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) to sign a free trade agreement with the EU. The deal is comparable in scope to that already signed with South Korea. So the tiny but stunningly successful republic deserves special attention in our series of ARIs on the prospects for Spanish companies to do business in South-East Asia.

Singapore and its trade relations with Spain and the EU

Singapore has more free trade agreements –be they planned, under negotiation or signed, sealed and in force– than any other Asian country. Its trade ties with the EU are nothing short of excellent. In the past few years Singapore’s rank as a trading partner of the EU has ranged from 12th to 14th, while the EU is Singapore’s second most important trading partner. The volume of bilateral trade in goods totalled €51.8 billion in 2012, up 12% from the previous year. As for trade in services, Singapore is even more important to the EU, as it is the bloc’s seventh-largest partner. Trade volume in services totalled €27.6 billion in 2011. Among the member states of ASEAN, Singapore is the EU’s top trading partner: a third of the trade in goods and half the trade in services between the EU and ASEAN is carried out with Singapore. The situation with regard to investment is similar. The EU is the top investor on the island, while Singapore is the fifth-ranked investor in the EU and its second-biggest Asian investor after Japan. Singapore is known for its business-friendly environment as stated by several agencies including the Economist Intelligence Unit. Singapore also ranks high on the list of the world’s least corrupt countries as published by Transparency International, easily beating its fellow ASEAN members. As shown later in this paper, the free trade agreement reached last year, which is still pending ratification, will increase trade considerably. European Commission forecasts are that European exports to Singapore will grow by €140 billion over the next decade, while Singapore’s exports will rise by €350 billion during the same period.

Spanish trade and investment in Singapore

According to data from the Spanish Economic and Trade office in Singapore, Spanish exports to Singapore totalled €838.8 million in 2012 and €791.81 million in 2013, while Spain imported goods from Singapore to the tune of €381.5 million in 2012 and €405 million. In 2013 the main export category was mineral fuels, mineral oil and derivatives, for a total of €150 million. Next come air navigation, machinery, plastics and goods made from them as well as electrical material and video and audio players, all of which exceeded €50 million. In the case of foundries, iron and steel and goods manufactured from them, exports totalled around €45 million each, while essential oils, resinoids and cosmetics recorded a total volume of €35 million. As for goods imported into Spain, the biggest category was machinery with €101 million, followed closely by organic chemicals.

Of the five original ASEAN members, Singapore takes in the largest volume of Spanish exports. In 2012 Spain’s exports to Singapore accounted for a third of all of its exports to South-East Asia. That is double the volume of exports to Thailand, Spain’s second-largest trading partner in the region, which accounts for 16.6% of the total. Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines received less in exports from Spain; in the case of Indonesia and Malaysia the figure was around €380 million. The export volume to Singapore was three times that of the Philippines. The latter posted the smallest volume, at €274 million, or 11% of the total in the region, despite having historical links with its former colonial ruler.

Spanish companies account for just a small percentage of the more than 9,000 European companies that have set up shop in Singapore: only 76 Spanish companies have a physical presence there, and Spain’s market share is only 0.29%. To some extent this scant presence stems from limited affinity between the countries’ economic sectors. But the psychological and cultural distance that exists with East Asia hinders Spanish entrepreneurs’ search for business opportunities. Traditionally, Spanish businesses are more inclined towards Latin America or West Africa.

Investment flows are relatively modest. According to data from 2010, Singapore was the 73rd biggest investor in Spain, while it was 37th in terms of Spain’s overseas investment. Foreign direct investment by Singapore in Spain is concentrated in civil engineering, which accounts for 70% of the total, while the rest is divided up among wholesale and retail trade and programming. But Spanish investment flows to Singapore have been aimed mainly at shipping and real estate, according to the Spanish Economic and Trade Office in Singapore. In both directions the investment flows tend to be on the decline, although they are subject to significant ups and downs.

The Spanish secretariat of trade has already proposed a market-developing strategy for Singapore, and it was unveiled in 2013. The goals of the strategy are to raise Spain’s market share in Singapore, increase the number of Spanish companies with a physical presence on the island, establish business alliances with Singaporean companies so as to undertake joint projects in other Asian markets, and encourage the channelling of Singaporean financial resources towards Spanish assets. Visits by several government ministers have been arranged as displays of institutional support. Finance Minister Luis de Guindos and Foreign Minister José Manuel García-Margallo visited Singapore in 2012, while Jaime García-Legaz, the Secretary of State for Trade, travelled to the island in both 2012 and 2013. In May 2013 Spain welcomed Grace Fu, who is Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Minister of the Environment and Water Resources. Spain’s market-developing strategy singles out cooperation in naval engineering and ship-building, as well as high-end consumer products and food, as promising sectors. Since Singapore’s railway network is scheduled to add 180km of line through 2021, Spain’s approach also focuses on railway and signalling equipment as well as train facilities. The infrastructure, urban planning and construction material sectors are deemed to be promising because of planned works in Singapore for it to keep up with its growing population. These include the construction of 200,000 new homes in the period 2013‐16. As for investment, according to the priorities set out by the Economic Development Board, highlights again include the transport sector (logistics, maritime and port services), chemicals (petrochemicals, special chemicals and those used in food production and cosmetics), biomedical applications, and, finally, electronics, precision engineering and information technology.

Opportunities opened up by the Free Trade Agreement between the EU and Singapore

The goal of the Free Trade Agreement between the EU and Singapore is to facilitate and increase trade in both goods and services, as well as investment flows between the two countries. The accord was signed on 20 September 2013. The European Parliament is expected to ratify the agreement by the end of 2014. From that point on, the accord will be applied on a provisional basis until the national parliaments of the 28 EU member states give it the green light. This process is expected to be smooth, as Singapore traditionally is excellent when it comes to implementing all of its international agreements swiftly and efficiently and the European Parliament has never blocked the ratification of a bilateral trade deal. Judging from the make-up of the new European Parliament, there is no suggestion this practice is going to change.

The accord with Singapore is part of a new generation of free-trade agreements undertaken by the EU under its ‘Global Europe’ trade policy launched in 2006, in which such accords are to be used as a tool to open up growing Asian markets to European competition. The free-trade accords with South Korea and Singapore, negotiations with India, Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand and Japan, and an investment agreement with China are the EU’s priorities in Asia.

The new-generation free-trade agreements stand out because they involve a much greater degree of market openness than those already in force or being negotiated under the aegis of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). To wit, these new accords feature liberalisation of service sectors, opening up the market for bidding on government contracts to foreign companies, competition policy, laws protecting intellectual property rights, designations of origin and other geographic indicators –in other words, those aspects that were of interest to the US and the EU and abandoned during the Doha Round of WTO trade talks–.

The free-trade accord with Singapore features a series of special characteristics that we analyze here:

• First agreement with an ASEAN member: it is the first free-trade accord between the EU and a member of ASEAN. At first, the EU embarked on negotiations with ASEAN to try to reach a deal between the two regions. But the differing levels of development of the ASEAN members, and thus their divergent interests, made such an accord impossible. In 2010 those negotiations were replaced by bilateral ones. First they began between the EU and Singapore, and later with Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand, although talks with these countries are going very slowly. There are also plans to negotiate agreements with the Philippines, Indonesia and Brunei. With the least-developed countries of the region –Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar– it was decided to continue with the generalised scheme of preferences. All that said, the fact that the EU is negotiating bilateral accords does not mean it has given up on it original plan to conclude an agreement between the two regions, as senior European Commission officials have stated repeatedly. The agreement with Singapore was intentionally designed to facilitate its integration with similar, future deals with other ASEAN members, thus achieving an inter-regional accord by combining the various bilateral free trade agreements. This same procedure is being used in negotiations towards the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership in the Asia-Pacific region, which aims to make compatible the series of free-trade accords that ASEAN has signed with China, South Korea, Japan, India, Australia and New Zealand.

• Changes in rules of origin: regional production chains in Southeast Asia are highly integrated. As it strives to create a single market ASEAN has made progress in the ‘accumulation’ of rules of origin, thus allowing the application of advantages inherent in the free trade accord to certain products which are made with parts from other countries in the region. This makes it easier for production chains to work more smoothly. The free-trade accord with the EU includes the possibility of applying advantageous tariffs to certain goods exported to Europe from Singapore, excluding meat and other foodstuffs, as well other products that have not been sufficiently processed in Singapore.

• Reduction of non-tariff trade barriers on electronics, vehicles, energy equipment and pharmaceuticals: of special importance is the reduction in the number of electronic products that require outside testing and certification. Singapore commits to reviewing the list of products and to keep reducing it, so that European electronics manufacturers can self-certify their compliance with safety rules under ISO/IEC 17050, with no need for external testing and administrative costs which could reach €3,200 per product. Singapore will also accept European safety standards for vehicles and parts, as well as European technical standards for generators and renewable sources of energy.

• First ‘green’ agreement: the free-trade accord with Singapore includes for the first time a chapter dedicated specifically to trade in environmental goods and services. The accord does away with rules governing the percentage of locally made content that green technology goods must contain, such as wind turbines and solar panels and equipment, thus eliminating non-tariff trade restrictions. This opens up even more opportunities for cutting-edge Spanish solar energy companies which have already done well elsewhere in the world.

The free-trade accord opens up the markets of the EU and Singapore to companies offering environmental services such as treatment and recovery of water or waste treatment. In Asia the demand for such services is forecast to rise significantly due to the region’s swelling population and the growth of its cities. These mean higher levels of pollution and growing popular demand for government action to combat it. So companies in this sector could benefit from the opening up of the Singaporean market. Companies that establish an office in the city-state could use it as a staging post for trying to gain a foothold in other markets in the region. This is particularly appealing since negotiations started recently at the WTO to reach an agreement on trade in ‘green’ goods and services, and China is taking part in those talks.

These days much of the Singaporean market for environmental services such as recycling and waste treatment is controlled by the French multinational firm Veolia, which has been operating in Singapore since it acquired part of the waste treatment company Purechem Onyx in 2006, and by local companies of medium size. Over the past decade, Singapore has undertaken the privatisation of the energy market and begun to seek private investment in the water and waste treatment sector. In a small city-state like Singapore water is a very scarce resource. Consider this as a good example of how important water is: the ministry charged with environmental issues is called the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources. In fact, Singapore is the only country in South-East Asia that cannot meet its own water needs. It is dependent on Malaysia, and this has caused tension at times with its neighbour and prompted the authorities in Singapore to try to lessen that dependency. Part of the strategy to gain water self-sufficiency is based on increasing the amount of water obtained from desalination plants from the current 10% of total consumption to 30%, and increasing the re-use of water. With this in mind the government will invest in new infrastructure. These plans will offer opportunities to Spanish companies that are positioning themselves as world leaders in the field of desalination equipment. As explained below, the terms of the free-trade agreement with the EU with regard to providing services and bidding on government contracts will improve European companies’ access to such contracts.

• Opening up the service sector: the accord will make it easier for European companies to export all kinds of services, regardless of whether the service is provided from the country of origin or from within Singapore itself. The agreement eliminates many of the restrictions that exist on the number of offices and percentage of foreign investment in financial services, telecommunications, engineering, the environment, architecture, computers, shipping and postal services. Under the agreement, both sides will urge their professional associations to work together to develop recommendations for a future agreement for mutual recognition of qualifications in order to favour the provision of services.

• Greater coverage in bidding for government contracts: besides allowing for more service providers, the accord increases the percentage of government contracts that are open to European companies. As it includes bids from agencies exempt from the commitments called for by the WTO in its Agreement on Government Procurement, such as the Public Utilities Board, the National Environment Agency and the Energy Market Authority, the free trade accord with Singapore will give European companies operating in the environmental, energy and utility sectors the opportunity to bid on government contracts. This includes public works contracts for ports, highways, subways and tunnels and infrastructure so long as the contracts exceed 500,000 Singapore dollars, and service contracts in excess of 50,000 Singapore dollars. European companies will be particularly well positioned with respect to competitors from other countries, as this is the first time that Singapore has included such companies in an international agreement.

• Creation of a regime for a registry of Geographical Indications (GI): unlike other free-trade accords the EU has signed, the one with Singapore does not feature a list of geographic indications that are to be protected. Singapore already has a GI protection regime based on the US model of patented brands. Still, at the insistence of the EU, Singapore will create its own GI registry. In April 2014, Parliament passed a law creating the new GI registry system. To a large extent the registry and the process of registering a GI will be based on the European system; to this end Brussels has organised several visits to the EU for the Singaporean officials that will design the registry, although the authorities have also studied the registries of nearby countries such as Thailand. The EU has given Singapore a list with 196 priority GIs, 45 of them Spanish, and these are already being studied by the Singaporeans. However, the system will only be applied once the free-trade accord has been ratified and implemented. Other GIs may be added to the registry once the system is activated. But a request to include a GI in the registry does not guarantee it will be protected; there will be a period of time for other companies operating in Singapore to object to the inclusion of a GI that they consider generic or that they use under a trademark. But the main obstacles involve mainly products of non-Spanish origin. So the new system will encourage export growth for wine and food products with a Spanish designation of origin. The Spanish designations of origin on the list of 196 that the EU has presented to Singapore are these: Málaga, Rioja, Jerez-Xeres-Sherry, La Mancha, Cava, Navarra, Valencia, Somontano, Ribera del Duero, Penedés, Bierzo, Empordá, Priorat, Rueda, Rias Baixas, Jumilla, Toro, Valdepeñas, Cataluña, Alicante, Utiel-Requena; brandy from Jerez, ‘pacharán’ from Navarra; Mahón-Menorca, Manchego cheese, salt-cured ham from Huelva, salt-cured ham from Teruel, Guijuelo, ‘salchichón’ (similar to salami) from Vic, ‘llonganissa’ (a kind of sausage) from Vic, Baena, Sierra Mágina, Oli del Baix Ebre-Montsia, olive oil from Bajo Aragón, Antequera, Priego de Córdoba, Sierra de Cádiz, Sierra de Segura, Sierra de Cazorla, Siurano, olive oil from Terra Alta, Les Garrigues, Estepa and saffron from La Mancha.

• Simplification of non-tariff barriers and sanitary and plant-protection protocols in food products: Singapore will replace its current system of individual authorizations for companies seeking to export to the island with a system of assessing national inspection and certification regimes in EU member states. This will lower costs and waiting times for European exporters. Since Singapore began allowing imports of Spanish salt-cured ham in 2008, consumption of high-end Spanish ham has risen. A total of 27 brands now export to Singapore, including some of the biggest and best known ones. By changing its inspection system, Singapore will make it easier for other companies in the sector to enter the market.

On the downside one can only point to the growing cost of land and rising price of remuneration packages for ex-pat employees. These could water down the incentive for Spanish companies to set up a physical presence in Singpore. It is worth noting that some degree of offshoring is taking place: together, Singapore and Malaysia are developing the Iskandar business complex in Johor Bahru, the area of Malaysia that borders on Singapore. Many Singaporean companies have moved to Iskandar their lesser value-added activities such as manufacturing, storage and inventory, so as to take advantage of big tax breaks, the low cost of land and manpower and the absence of restrictions on hiring. But they have chosen not to move headquarters and high value-added processes, which have remained in Singapore.

Political situation and its implications for the foreign business community

Thanks to uninterrupted government by the People’s Action Party (PAP), the political situation in Singapore sets it apart from the volatility that is characteristic of other countries of the region. In recent years respect for individual liberties has improved somewhat. In the prestigious index published by Freedom House, the values corresponding to Singapore place it in the category of ‘partially free’ as of 2012.

Elections held in 2011 marked a political milestone for Singapore. Although the PAP won, its margin was much smaller than in previous elections. Unlike in European countries, voter dissatisfaction did not stem from a decline in the country’s level of prosperity, since the economy continues to grow at robust pace. GDP has grown in a sustained fashion: in 2009 it was €139.2 billion; the following year it was €163.8 billion and the year of the elections in 2011 it hit €176 billion. The fall in support for the only party ever to have been in power in Singapore seems to have derived from a deeper social inequality. Closely linked to this is the perception that the significant opening of the Singaporean market benefits foreign professionals more than it does local ones. Traditionally, it was government policy to allow the generous hiring of foreign professionals. Initially conceived as a way to stimulate the economy and attract foreign companies, another motivation was added: easing the demographic deficit caused by a birth rate that is far below what is needed for a generation to replace itself: at 1.28%, it is comparable to Spain’s. But the publication of plans to increase immigration levels with the goal of reaching a population of 6.9 million people in 2030, up from 5.4 million now, triggered controversy and became a key issue in the electoral debate. So the government has gradually toughened legislation on employing foreigners. Although it has drawn criticism from small-and medium-sized companies, the government refuses to ease the limitations. This toughening is already having negative consequences for Spanish professionals seeking opportunities in Singapore. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the Spanish community in Singapore has grown from 500 in 2008 to around 1,500 in 2014. Foreign companies with a physical presence on the island are also seeing their flexibility limited when it comes to hiring, particularly in middle management and jobs requiring lower skills. In fact, small- and medium-sized Spanish companies have expressed discontent with the new restrictions on hiring foreign staff in their units in Singapore. The free-trade agreement counters this problem to some extent: the chapter on services, establishment and e-trade allows companies to use ex-pats as executives, managers or specialists for a maximum of five years. It also allows the use of interns with university degrees for one year, while professionals offering services are allowed to set up shop for up to a year. These terms, which do not place limits on the number of foreign employees in the allowed categories, exclude audiovisual services, maritime cabotage and air transport. Meanwhile, altercations staged by foreign workers in December 2013 caused deep concern in a government that is not used to that kind of problem. It has postponed 2 billion Singapore dollars in infrastructure works in order to avoid a greater concentration of foreign labour on the island.

Conclusions

With the free trade accord with Singapore about to take effect, we make the following recommendations to encourage Spanish companies to take full advantage of business opportunities being opened up by the agreement.

Recommendations for companies

(1) Use the information resources made available by the EU. Specifically, the following sources are quite useful:

• Business Avenues to South-East Asia is an EU project designed to advise European businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized ones, that are interested in doing business in Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand. Over the course of 2014 and 2015 visits to Singapore will be arranged for companies that work in environmental services and interior decorating.
• ASEAN IPR Helpdesk advises small- and medium-sized companies as to how to protect their intellectual property in the ASEAN countries.
• The EU market access database contains information on tariffs, rules and processes for exporting from the EU: Exporting from the EU – what you need to know.
• The text of the free trade agreement, which will be translated into all the official languages of the EU, can be viewed in English on the web site of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade.
• The portal that announces government contracts up for bidding is: GeBIZ Singapore Government.

(2) Companies in the wine-making and food sector will enjoy greater protection and differentiation in the market through the registry of designations of origin. But those companies that are not included in the list of geographical indications that the EU has handed over to Singapore will have to go through the necessary procedures to register them.

(3) For companies that work in environmental products and services, the free-trade accord opens up highly attractive possibilities because the agreement eliminates many of the protectionist measures that exist in this sector.

(4) The use of English as the first official language in Singapore can facilitate and reduce the costs of a company’s first experience in Southeast Asia, be it in exports or services. And this experience can serve as a first step toward a deeper penetration in the regional market.

Recommendations for the Spanish authorities

(1) In order to facilitate food exports, the Spanish authorities should ensure that officials from Singapore visit Spain and approve the Spanish systems for inspecting and certifying food production. This should be done as soon as the free-trade accord comes into effect because for logistic reasons, as Singaporean officials will take some time in inspecting such arrangements in each of the EU member countries.

(2) Keep Spanish companies up to date on the restrictions that exist in Singapore. Because of the political situation, greater restrictions on foreigners gaining access to the labour market can be expected. This would limit companies’ flexibility in hiring.

(3) It would also be a good idea to boost the transparency of and public access to the Tourism Office and the Trade Office, without hindering data-protection for the companies involved, although the latter of the two offices does provide ample information at the link: www.oficinascomerciales.es.

(4) Enhance institutional support for small- and medium-sized companies, as they have fewer resources than large firms. What is more, in this sector there are many managers without much international experience and only a limited command of English. Promoting exports from this kind of companies to Singapore requires an additional effort. According to EUROSTAT, small- and medium-sized companies make up 99.9% of all firms in Spain and account for 74.9% of all jobs in Spain, which is above the European average. It is estimated that 63.4% of Spanish firms with a presence in Singapore are small- and medium-sized companies.

(5) It would be a good idea to enhance the projection of ‘Brand Spain’ in Singapore by bringing together official Spanish representatives in Singapore, the business community, parts of civil society that are linked to Span, in particular in the areas of education, research and science. One thing worth noting is the culinary sector, especially the high profile achieved by successful Spanish chefs in Singapore. Strategic partnership with members of civil society that share goals of Spanish overseas action –such as promoting tourism, trade and the Spanish language– would strengthen the effects of the brand-building thrust. Official Spanish representatives tend to place their trust in civil-society initiatives, which for the most part is unaware of the possibilities there are for cooperation. Here, a more pro-active approach is called for, that involves advising and encouraging strategic sectors of civil society to cooperate with Spanish officials present in Singapore.

(6) The drive to promote ‘Brand Spain’ should go hand-in-hand with efforts to forge the cooperation between companies operating in the region, so that their collective weight allows them to act as a lobby with the Singaporean authorities.

(7) The policy of promoting Spanish language and culture should be in line with the country’s economic and trade interests. For now, Spain’s cultural presence in South-East Asia is concentrated mainly in the Philippines, even though trade with that country is modest, while presence is limited in the main trading partner, Singapore. Promoting the Spanish language holds great promise in Singapore, whose population is one of the most highly educated anywhere in the world. Such a campaign would help spread the word about ‘Brand Spain’.

About the authors:
Maria García
PhD in International Relations and Senior Lecturer at the University of Bath

Clara Portela
PhD in Political Science and Assistant Professor at Singapore Management University

Source:
This article was originally published by Elcano Royal Institute under the title “How to boost Spain’s business presence in Singapore: opportunities in the wake of the Free Trade Agreement with the EU”, which may be accessed here.

Note:
[1] The authors are grateful for the help of Blas García Zornoza of the Spanish Trade Office in Singapore and Raffaele Quarto of the EU delegation in Singapore, and for suggestions made by members of the Working Group at the Elcano Royal Institute.

The post How To Boost Spain’s Business Presence In Singapore – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

For many in the UK, the nearest analogy to the Israel-Hamas conflict that comes to mind is Britain’s 80-year struggle against the Irish Republican Army (the IRA) and its offshoots. On and off, the UK endured nearly a century of terrorist activity by people utterly ruthless in pursuit of their political aims but, against all the odds, the conflict was finally brought to an end through the attrition of the IRA’s military capability and a prolonged period of negotiation.

The question that people of some consequence in the UK are now asking repeatedly is, why cannot the same approach be applied to the Israeli-Hamas struggle? Why will Israel not enter into discussion with the political leaders of Hamas, just as the British government instituted direct negotiations with the political leaders behind the IRA, and finally achieved a settlement?

The question is easy to ask – especially from the comparative tranquility of the UK – and the list of those asking it in the past few weeks is impressive. This, for example, is Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister:

“It is time for the Israeli government to talk to the Hamas political leadership in Gaza. Israel’s refusal to engage with President Mahmoud Abbas’s new unity government, because it includes Hamas, must be reversed.” Then comes the inevitable IRA comparison: “Modern history teaches that you can’t shoot, occupy or besiege your way to lasting security. Peace only ever flows from sustained and stubborn engagement. The Queen shaking hands with Martin McGuinness two years ago reminded us that even the most intractable conflicts can be resolved.” McGuinness was at one time second-in-command of the IRA, and is now deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland.

Then there’s Lord Ashdown, one-time leader of the UK’s Liberal Democrat party and the international High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina from 2002 till 2006. “Neither side can blast their way to victory,” he pronounced, “so there is only one way to get peace now, and that is for the sides to sit down and start talking to each other. Hamas has to be at the table. Who’s firing the rockets? It’s Hamas, and so you have to talk to them… “ And the inevitable clincher: “We had to talk to the IRA, for goodness’ sake.”

Or take blunt John Prescott, once deputy prime minister in Tony Blair’s Labour government. “It was the same with the IRA. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness may have been the leading lights of a paramilitary group, but without their co-operation in a final settlement, we wouldn’t have peace today in Northern Ireland. The only way we’ll get a lasting peace in the Middle East is when Hamas and Israel sit down and agree on a two-state solution. Hamas must stop firing rockets and accept Israel’s right to exist. Israel must end the blockade that keeps the Gazans as prisoners. Both must agree to a lasting ceasefire at the earliest opportunity. If not, the West must intervene.”

Prescott’s piece is replete with “musts”, but devoid of any indication of how they might come about. When he says “Hamas must stop firing rockets and accept Israel’s right to exist”, he is clearly unaware that the very raison d’être of the organization, its only purpose, is to destroy Israel and kill Jews, whoever and wherever they may be. Demanding that Hamas “accept Israel’s right to exist,” is tantamount to asking Hamas to disband.

On this, the Hamas Charter is clear and unequivocal. “Israel will…continue to exist until Islam obliterates it.” To do so, Hamas “strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.” Article 13 declares: “There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.”

As for Hamas’s genocidal purpose, Article 7 states: “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind
me, come and kill him.”

In short, Hamas is essentially nihilistic.

The IRA arose from a nationalism held so deeply that it seemed to justify any action, however ruthless. In pursuit of its objective of an independent Ireland, it was prepared to instigate and countenance acts of bloodthirsty terrorism. Its belief in its cause was so deeply-held that it perverted the morality that lay at the heart of its Catholicism. But, in the final analysis, Irish nationalism was rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is why, eventually, the IRA was prepared to lay down its weapons. Indeed it had been defeated, but the principles of compromise and even reconciliation that are inherent in Christianity played a part in achieving the final détente.

Writing in 2010, distinguished journalist Michael Weiss surveyed the long succession of steps leading from the first formal talks back in 1993 between the British government and Sinn Fein, the political arm of the IRA, to the decommissioning of the IRA’s weapons in 2005, leading to the formal ending of the armed campaign in 2007.

“So what,” he asks, “would the Hamas equivalent of this scenario look like? At the very least, another devastating war with Israel would need to occur, leaving the Islamists completely depleted and certainly not in sole administrative control of Gaza. Israeli intelligence operatives would thoroughly penetrate Hamas’ command structure, so as to be able to predict and pre-empt almost every rocket fired into Ashkelon or Sderot, or every attack on settlers in the West Bank. Hamas would then have to concede that its strategic long-war doctrine of violent “resistance” and its dream of establishing Greater Palestine was a fantasy.” Then, he surmises, if the analogy with the IRA still held, would realistic dialogue with Hamas be started, leading to a demilitarization of Gaza and a formal end to their “armed struggle” against Israel. But as Michael Weiss himself is the first to assert: “Hamas isn’t the IRA”.

This is the reality behind all those ill-informed calls for Israel to sit down with Hamas and talk peace.

The post Hamas And The IRA – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dorian Jones

Saturday was the last day of campaigning by candidates in Turkey’s first directly elected presidential vote. Opinion polls say Prime Minster Recep Tayyip Erdogan is enjoying a commanding lead, but concerns have been growing over an increasingly acrimonious campaign.

Even in an opponent’s stronghold in Istanbul, supporters of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s presidential bid are campaigning hard in the final hours of Turkey’s election, the first time the country will choose its president by direct popular vote.

Erdogan’s campaign, backed by his ruling AK Party, has massively outspent his two rivals, and the prime minister’s supporters are widely seen as well organized and well financed across the country.

Erdogan promises he will represent Turkey’s “national will” when he becomes president. Political analyst Atilla Yesilada, of Global Source Partners, says an Erdogan administration is likely to be very different than the presidential role that Turks are accustomed to.

“It appears to me a new blueprint is being crafted, [with] almost all the major policy decisions of Turkey being taken in the presidential palace by Erdogan,” said Yesilada.

The prime minister contends that a directly elected president has a mandate to exert more power. According to the constitution, Turkey’s president is the head of state but parliament hold the country’s real political power.

In contrast to Erdogan, his rivals, Selahattin Demirtas and Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, are campaigning against “authoritarianism” and promising they will not make significant changes in the country’s balance of power.
Sinan Ulgen of the Carnegie Institute in Brussels says Erdogan certainly is the focus of the election:

“It’s going to be about personalities, because the popular vote will not really take into account this difference between executive presidency versus parliamentary system. This is a debate restricted [to] the elite level,” said Ulgen. “But, I think, fundamentally, for the people who are going out to vote on August 10th, it’s really going to be about do they want to see Erdogan there or not.”

Ahead of the vote, Erdogan has suffered a series of setbacks this year and last. A wave of anti-government protests was followed by major corruption allegations implicating the prime minister’s family, and earlier this year, his government’s handling of a mine disaster prompted sharp protests.

But observers say a combination of easily manipulated media and a decade of unprecedented economic growth – a boom that transformed Turkey from “the sick man of Europe” to a regional power – has kept the loyalty of his base of conservative, religious voters. Most opinion polls predict Erdogan will easily secure an absolute majority.

The prime minister’s fortunes have been boosted by difficulties facing by his chief rival, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. The center-left Republican People’s Party selected the former head of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation as its candidate in the hope that his religious background would win over some traditional supporters of the prime minister.

But analyst Ulgen says that move may have backfired.

“It really hinges on whether [Ihsanoglu] gets full support from the CHP (Republican People’s Party) constituency,” said Ulgen. “And, looking at the reaction from within the CHP, that is not very likely to happen. We may see a split within the party because of the conservative background of the candidate.”

Experts say many CHP supporters could boycott the vote. However, Ihsanoglu also is backed by the right-wing National Action Party.

As the campaign drew to a close, Erdogan stepped up his rhetoric against Ihsanoglu – attacking his opponent’s nationalist credentials and claiming he did not even know the national anthem’s lyrics.

The prime minister has also turned his fire on the media. Erdogan’s public criticism prompted the resignation of the editor of one of Turkey’s few remaining critical mainstream newspapers.

Erdogan has called into question his opponents’ professed religious backgrounds and their supposed appeal to varied ethnic groups.

With the prime minister promising strong partisanship in his presidency, political analysts and observers expect that Turkey’s deep political polarization will only intensify.

The post Turkey Prepares For First Direct Presidential Poll appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Two Spanish volunteers have joined the fight against Kiev’s offensive on eastern Ukraine, speaking out against the actions of the nation’s military. They say their main objective is to spread the truth about the conflict.

Anhel Davilla-Rivas, 29, and Rafa Munez, 28, arrived in Donetsk two weeks ago to offer their assistance to the residents of eastern Ukraine.

“What we see in these weeks that we are here is only bombing of the people and the assault of all the fronts from Kiev. They are trying to separate the cities, they are sending mercenaries to kill the journalists and to demoralize any person that can tell the truth about what’s happening here,” Davilla-Rivas told RT’s Ruptly agency on Saturday.

The pair has not engaged in the fighting just yet, stressing that their main goal is to reveal the truth about what is happening on the ground.

Davilla-Rivas noted that Russia has no presence in the area and could do more in terms of humanitarian aid.

“I never see a Russian soldier…volunteers like us, but Russia is not really doing anything. And I think that Russia should do more for these people – not with guns, but helping people with medicine,” the Spanish volunteer said.

Davilla-Rivas also called on others around the world to come to eastern Ukraine and help in any way they can.

“More people have to come here. If they don’t want not to take the guns but…all people can help in something: in the kitchen, cleaning, telling the truth to countries from here, and watching the situation with their own eyes. It is more important that a lot of people come here and help in what they can, not necessarily only soldiers.”

Both arrived by train to eastern Ukraine from Madrid and joined the Vostok battalion of the self-defense forces.

Meanwhile, Kiev forces surrounded the city of Donetsk on Saturday.

The Donetsk region militia said it is ready for a ceasefire to stop the humanitarian catastrophe.

READ MORE: Donetsk militia ready for ceasefire to prevent further humanitarian catastrophe

The statement comes as the UN voiced serious concerns over the situation in eastern Ukraine. “Innocent civilians trapped in the fighting continue to lose their lives,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Friday.

“What we are scared about is the way the military operations are conducted. What will happen if we have intense fighting inside the big urban centers of Lugansk and Donetsk? Fighting in highly intensified urban areas could lead to massive exodus and massive destruction,” UN High Commissioner for Refugees Vincent Cochetel stated on Tuesday.

The post Spanish Volunteers Join Fight Against Kiev In Eastern Ukraine appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Frud Bezhan

(RFE/RL) — Turks go to the polls on August 10 to vote in the first direct presidential election in their country’s history. Since the founding of the Republic of Turkey more than 90 years ago, the president had been chosen by parliament.

Outgoing Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a dominant figure in Turkish politics for over a decade, is widely expected to win the election. Erdogan has served three terms in office and is barred from running again as prime minister according to the rules of his party, the Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP).

Around 55 million people are eligible to vote in the historic election, which could shift the nature of political power in Turkey if Erdogan indeed wins and fulfills his stated intention to expand the powers of the presidential office.

Weak Rivals

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu is the joint candidate of the main opposition parties in parliament. But the 71-year-old — an academic and veteran diplomat — is relatively unknown as a political figure.

Ihsanoglu has presented himself as a moderate, and has sought to attract youths and middle-class liberals who have become disaffected with Erdogan’s stewardship of the government, which critics say has bordered on authoritarianism.

The third candidate is Selahattin Demirtas, 41-year-old Kurd who leads the left-wing People’s Democratic Party. Demirtas has campaigned on a platform of diversity and is hoping to draw support from left-leaning Turks.

Opinion polls predict Erdogan will garner about 55 percent of the vote. Ihsanoglu is polling around 40 percent, while Demirtas is a distant third. If no candidate wins more than 50 percent then a runoff will be held on August 24.

Erdogan’s Popularity Unscathed

Sinan Ulgen, a visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe in Brussels, says Erdogan’s commanding position going into election day is due not only to his popularity but also the weak candidates he is facing.

“Erdogan is, and remains, the most popular politician in Turkey even though he is a very polarizing figure,” says Ulgen. “The candidate put forward by the main opposition is someone who has no name recognition in Turkey. They fielded him too late and he doesn’t have enough time to overcome this difficulty.”

Erdogan’s popularity appears unscathed after large antigovernment protests and a damaging corruption scandal. Erdogan’s supporters point to his success in overseeing rapid economic growth, his reconciliation effort with the banned Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), and keeping the country’s powerful military out of politics.

Is Erdogan Pulling A Putin?

The election is not only about who becomes president but also how much power that president should wield.

In Turkey, the president has been a largely ceremonial role, but Erdogan has vowed to revamp the post by pressing for a change in the constitution to grant the head of state more powers. Erdogan has said he will be a strong, hands-on president if elected. He has called on the country to “make a jump” toward a U.S.-style presidential system that would give the president considerable power.

Erdogan’s critics fears that if elected he could look to control parliament, government, and the judiciary and to consolidate power.

“Turkey could find itself with an autocratic regime in a system that is without checks and balances,” columnist Ahmet Ozer wrote in the “Milliyet” newspaper. “The danger exists.”

If Erdogan wins the election he would become the longest serving ruler since Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Erdogan can serve up to two five-year terms as president.

In order to make any constitutional changes to broaden the president’s powers, the AKP would need to have a constitutional majority in parliament, which they do not have. That makes next year’s parliamentary elections all the more significant.

“Even though Erdogan wants to change the constitution he may eventually have to work with the current constitution because his party may not get the kind of support within parliament to adopt those changes,” says Ulgen.

President Abdullah Gul is seen as the likely new prime minister. Observers have speculated that Gul and Erdogan could swap roles — much like what happened with Putin and Dmitry Medvedev in Russia. When Putin was constitutionally barred from seeking a third consecutive term as president in 2008, he became prime minister and eased Medvedev into the presidency. Four years later, the two swapped roles.

Unfair Campaigning?

Erdogan’s critics have accused him of using his position as prime minister to make the election lopsided.

Erdogan’s rivals claim they have been given uneven air time by both state and private television and radio stations, leading Turkey’s electoral authorities and media watchdogs to step in.

Turkey’s Press Council has called for the resignation of the head of state broadcaster TRT for failing to give candidates equal air time. Most of the private media is owned by businessmen associated with Erdogan’s party, which has rejected accusations of unfair campaigning.

Laughing Is No Joke

Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc, from the AKP, caused consternation when he said women should not laugh loudly in public.

“A man should be moral but women should be moral as well, they should know what is decent and what is not decent,” Arinc said in a speech in early August. “Chastity is so important…. She should not laugh loudly in front of all the world and should preserve her decency at all times.”

His comments have become a rallying cause for secular Turks who accuse Erdogan of showing increasingly autocratic tendencies and presiding over a creeping Islamization of Turkey. Arinc’s remarks sparked a campaign on Twitter where thousands of Turkish women posted pictures of themselves laughing which went viral.

Playing The Sectarian And Ethnic Cards

Erdogan sparked a storm of controversy this week after using what critics said was an ethnic slur against Armenians.

During a live interview on the private NTV channel on August 5, Erdogan said the opposition was carrying out a smear campaign against him by suggesting that he was not ethnic Turkish. “They called me a Georgian. Pardon me for saying this, but they said even uglier things: They called me an Armenian!” Erdogan said.

His comments have drawn criticism on social media and from members of Turkey’s Armenian minority.

That came after Erdogan urged Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), last week to publicly say he belongs to the country’s minority Alevi community, an offshoot of Shi’ite Islam.

“Kilicdaroglu, you can be an Alevi. I respect you. Don’t be afraid to say it. I am Sunni and can say it without fear. There is no need to deceive people,” said Erdogan, a member of the country’s Sunni majority.

Frud Bezhan covers Afghanistan and the broader South Asia and Middle East region. Send story tips to bezhanf@rferl.org.

The post Turkey’s First Direct Presidential Election: What To Watch appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Luo Jianbo and Zhang Xiaomin

From 2010 to 2012, China allocated a total of 89.34 billion yuan (14.41 billion U.S. dollars) worth of foreign assistance. This amount no doubt is much smaller than the official development assistance of some big traditional donors such as the United States. However, as a developing country, China has tried its best in this regard. There is no need to deny that, by providing foreign aid, China hopes to promote bilateral relations with recipient countries, and to enhance the economic and trade cooperation with them. But most importantly, China is committed to promoting poverty reduction and development of the recipient countries, so as to finally realize the goal of common development together with other developing countries. China is willing to shoulder its international responsibility.

At present China has become the second largest economy in the world and is more and more engaged in the Asian and African affairs. As a result, China’s foreign aid has become a heated topic all over the world. How big is China’s foreign aid? How much of it goes to Africa? What are China’s motives? These questions have constantly been raised by the international community. However, no final answers have been provided so far. This article aims to address the above questions from the perspective of Chinese scholars.

HOW BIG IS CHINA’S FOREIGN AID?

In 2008, NYU Wagner School released a report which pointed out that China’s foreign assistance and government-supported economic projects in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia grew from less than $1 billion in 2002 to $27.5 billion in 2006. [1] In 2012 and 2013, AidData, based at the College of William and Mary, compiled a database of thousands of media reports on Chinese-backed projects in Africa from 2000 to 2011. According to the database, China financed 1,673 projects in 50 African countries, amounting to a total of $75 billion of Chinese government’s official financial aid commitments, roughly similar in volume with the U.S. Foreign Aid to Africa (which reached $90 billion in the same period). [2] Unfortunately, in the above statistics, China’s foreign aid to Africa was apparently exaggerated a great deal, for it muddled up China’s foreign aid to Africa with China’s investment in Africa.

China’s Information Office of the State Council issued the first White Paper on China’s foreign aid in 2011. According to the 2011 white paper, China’s total foreign aid provided from 1950s to the end of 2009 amounted to 256.29 billion yuan ( The Chinese government didn’t put it in US dollars in the White Paper), 45.7% of which went to African countries. [3] On 10 July 2014, a second White Paper on China’s foreign aid was released. According to the reported statistics in this paper, foreign aid offered by China totaled 89.34 billion yuan (about 14.41 billion US dollars), 51.8% of which went to African countries.

Just as what the foreign observers have noticed, China’s foreign aid has been increasing tremendously ever since 2000. Based on the information, data and references available, the writers estimate the amount of China’s aid and the percentages of foreign aid in GNI since 2000 .as follows: China’s foreign aid increased from $0.64 billion, accounting for 0.05% of GNI in 2000, to $5.04 billion, accounting for 0.095% of GNI in 2009. From 2010 to 2012, China allocated a total $14.41 billion worth of foreign aid, accounting for 0.06% of the GNI in this period.

Table 1 China’s foreign aid since 2000 and the percentage of GNI

Factually, it can be demonstrated that that China’s foreign aid has fast increased over the past decade. However, the total volume of foreign aid from China is still small in comparison with the Western traditional donors’ aid. In fact, there still lies a great gap between China and the traditional donors in this regard. Take 2012 for example (Table 2). During that year, the United States offered a total of $30.824 billion worth of foreign aid to Africa, accounting 0.19% of its GNI; the United Kingdom offered a total of $13.892 billion, accounting for 0.56% of its GNI; Germany, France and Japan provided $12.939 or 0.37% of GNI, $12.028 billion or 0.45%, and $10.605 billion, or 0.17%, respectively. Although none of the above-mentioned countries reached the target of foreign aid accounting for 0.7% of its GNI, a goal set by the United Nations early in the 1970s, they did provide tremendous amount of foreign aid to developing countries.

Table 2 Net foreign aid of main donors and its percentage in GNI in 2012

Source: OECD, “DAC Members’ Net Official Development Assistance in 2012”, http://www.oecd.org/statistics/(2014-07-22)

Measuring the volume of China’s foreign aid has sparked a huge debate about what should be counted as aid and what should not. Some foreign analysts and scholars just mix the government concessional loans with other commercial loans by the Export-Import Bank of China, China Development Bank and other commercial banks. Some have simply confused China’s foreign aid with investment. Consequently, they exaggerated a great deal the actual volume of China’s foreign aid. The financial resources for China’s foreign aid mainly include three types: grant (aid gratis), interest-free loans and concessional loans. From 2010 to 2012, China provided a total of 32.32 billion yuan worth of grants, accounting for 36.2% of its foreign aid volume; 7.26 billion yuan worth of interest-free loans, taking up 8.1% of its foreign aid volume and 49.76 billion yuan worth of concessional loans, accounting for 55.7% of its total foreign aid volume. The concessional loans are raised by the Export-Import Bank of China on the market, with the loan interests lower than the benchmark interest of the People’s Bank of China, the central bank， and the difference is covered by the State in the form of financial subsidies. At present, the annual interest rate of China’s concessional loans stands at 2% to 3%, and the period of repayment usually ranges from 15 to 20 years (including five to seven years of grace).

It should be noted that China Development Bank doesn’t provide foreign aid at all, and the concessional loans granted by the Export-Import Bank of China are just one part of its business. Both banks support Chinese enterprises in conducting overseas businesses through offering commercial loans and providing financing and investment services. For example, in recent years, the Export-Import Bank of China financed the Ethiopian Oriental Industrial Park and the Ethiopian Railway Project; China Development Bank offered financial support to the Guangdong Guangken Rubber Group Co., Ltd. for the construction of its manufacturing/processing base in Southeast Asia, namely the Oman Salalah power Generation and Sea Water Desalination Project, and invested $198 million to support Wanbao Grains & Oils Co., Ltd in the construction of Mozambique Agribusiness Project, the largest one of its kind by China in Africa which can create an integrated chain from crop planting, food processing and warehousing to distribution. However, the funds offered for all the above-mentioned projects by the afore-mentioned banks are non-concessional development funds. They can’t therefore be counted as foreign aid at all.

As a developing country, China by no means plans to keep up with Joneses in regard to foreign aid. According to the poverty standard set by the UN, China still has more than 100 million people living in poverty, which means that China still faces the difficult challenge of poverty reduction and development. On the other hand, when you take the size of its economy into consideration, China is indeed a big power, and in fact it is ranked as one of the fastest developing countries in the world in recent years. Accordingly, the international community expects China to shoulder more and more international responsibilities. Offering foreign aid to underdeveloped countries especially those suffering from humanitarian crises, is also an important way for China to demonstrate and prove that it is a responsible power. Thus, it can be predicted that China will surely increase its foreign aid concomitant with its economic development in the coming years.

WHAT IS THE AIM OF CHINA’S FOREIGN AID?

During the past decades harsh criticism has been leveled against China, accusing China of using aid to recipient countries, to scramble for resources and overseas markets there; to dig for political support from them or especially to maintain close relations with some rogue states.

There is no need to deny that China’s foreign aid serves its overall foreign relations and national interests. China also expects to deepen relations with recipient countries and win the hearts and minds of the people of those countries – just as Western donors do. By providing foreign aid, China demonstrates its willingness to shoulder more and more increasing responsibilities. These can facilitate China to enhance its soft power and image within the international community. At the same time, by helping recipient countries build some economic development-related projects, China expects to reap trade, investment and contracts opportunities overseas, especially for Chinese enterprises going abroad. As a developing country, China never considers foreign aid simply as a donation, but an important form of South-South cooperation to advance the mutual benefit, win-win and common development of China and other developing countries.

The international community should also recognize that, other than the pursuit of its own national interest, China’s foreign aid prioritizes poverty reduction and economic development of the recipient countries. The Chinese people, just like any other people in the world, are imbued with a strong sense of humanitarianism. Although the Chinese political system is different from that of Western countries, the Chinese government is fully aware of its international responsibilities beyond its national interests and strives to fulfill them adequately. Currently, China is dedicated to the path of peaceful development and the realization of common development and prosperity of the whole world. As we all know, many developing countries and regions of the world are facing challenging problems related to poverty, civil wars, conflicts, humanitarian crisis and so on. It is so manifestly obvious that China is doing its best to shoulder more international responsibilities by helping recipient countries tackle the above-mentioned problems, through providing foreign aid to them.

Just as the 2014 White Paper on China’s foreign aid put it, the Chinese government “has endeavored to integrate the interests of the Chinese people with the interests of the people of other countries, providing assistance to the best of its ability to other developing countries within the framework of South-South cooperation to support and help other developing countries, especially the least developed countries.”

From 2010 to 2012, China helped build 80 residential housing and affordable housing projects in other developing countries, totaling about 600,000 square meters in floor space; China helped build about 80 medical facilities projects in recipient countries, providing them with about 120 batches of medical equipment and medicine, and dispatching 55 medical teams composed of 3,600 medical workers to nearly 120 medical centers in 54 countries, treating nearly 7 million patients. Moreover, China donated 1.5 billion yuan worth of materials and cash assistance in emergency humanitarian aid to more than 30 countries. [4]

At the same time, China attaches great importance to fundamentally enhancing development capacities of recipient countries when providing aid for them. China not only gives them the fish, but most importantly, teaches them how to fish so as to help those countries blaze a path of self-dependent development. From 2010 to 2012, China undertook the construction of 580 complete projects, and completed 170 technical cooperation projects in 61 countries and regions related to transportation, communication, electric power, energy, industry, agriculture and education. In recent years, China increased cooperation with developing countries in the field of human resources development by holding training sessions for officials and technical personnel and on-the-job academic education programs in China, and shared with them China’s experience with regard to poverty reduction, development and public administration.

China provides foreign aid mainly in the form of undertaking projects instead of delivering money directly to the recipient countries. China is in charge of the allocation and expenditure of money and the projects are undertaken, constructed and managed by Chinese enterprises, to make sure that the money is made good use of and spent as it should, to enhance the efficiency of the aid projects and to ensure that the money will not be embezzled or pocketed by some greedy and corrupt officials in recipient countries. In fact, even the Associated Press (AP), an American news agency highlighted the advantage of this model. In an article published – on 9 February 2012 and titled: “China skirting African corruption in direct aid”, AP pointed out that “instead of giving cash, the Chinese government prefers to pay Chinese companies to build roads and structures, bypassing local politicians, powerbrokers and construction crews, and to deliver them completed”, adding that, “this model helps defeat the inefficiencies and cash-pocketing corruption associated with other systems of foreign aid delivery”, and “Beijing’s efforts to produce turn-key projects are winning fans.” [5] At the same time, since the cost of Chinese personnel, materials and management are lower than those of Western countries, China, compared with Western countries, can achieve more in Africa in terms of development with similar amount of foreign aid.

Nevertheless, to succeed in the long term, China still needs to gradually adjust its foreign aid policy to the new situation whereby China is becoming a more and more global player shouldering increasing responsibilities. Measures can be taken as the following. First, China needs to reduce its tied-aid and open part of its foreign aid market to the international society and especially to the recipient countries. Thus, the recipient countries can participate more in the aid projects so as to create more employment opportunities for the locals and give them new skills. Second, to enhance aid efficiency and effectiveness in the future, China needs to invite more Chinese and African NGOs to participate in the foreign aid. Third, China needs to lower the annual interest rate of concessional loans, and increase grants to the least developed countries. Last but not least, when adhering to the “non-interference” principle, China needs to actively take advantage of foreign aid to help the recipient countries strengthen the building of governance capacity to realize political stability and good governance. If all other developing countries opt for the path of development and good governance, it will contribute to the peace and development of the whole world. Without any doubt, China will benefit a lot from that.

END NOTES

[1] NYU Wagner School, “Understanding Chinese Foreign Aid: A Look at China’s Development Assistance to Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America”, April 25, 2008.

[2] Austin Strange, Bradley Parks, Michael J. Tierney, Andreas Fuchs, Axel Dreher & Vijaya Ramachandran, “China’s Development Finance to Africa: A Media-Based Approach to Data Collection”, Center for Global Development, Working Paper 323, April 2013.

[3] Jonathan Weston, Caitlin Campbell & Katherine Koleski, China’s Foreign Aid Assistance in Review: Implications for the United States, U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Updated September 1, 2011, pp.1-14; Michael Klare & Daniel Volman, “America, China & the scramble for Africa’s Oil”, Review of African Political Economy, No.108, 2006, pp.297-309; Thomas J. Christensen, “Shaping China’s Global Choices Through Diplomacy”, testimony before the U.S. – China Economic and Security Review Commission, March 18, 2008.

[4] Information Office of the State Council of PRC, “China’s Foreign Aid (2014)”, July 2014, Beijing.

[5] Rodney Muhumuza, “China skirting African corruption in direct aid”, Associated Press, February 9, 2012.

∗ Luo Jianbo, director and professor of the Center for African Studies, Party School of Central Committee of CPC. His study covers China-Africa relations, African integration, China’s foreign aid. Zhang Xiaomin is associate professor of Beijing Foreign Studies University. His field covers China-Africa relations and China’s foreign aid.

THE VIEWS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR/S AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE PAMBAZUKA NEWS EDITORIAL TEAM

The post China’s Foreign Aid: How Big Is It And What Is Its Aim? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By P. K. Abdul Ghafour

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sissi arrives in Saudi Arabia today on his first official visit to the Kingdom after becoming the country’s president.

His talks with Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah would focus on fighting terrorism, major regional issues and expanding bilateral ties.

This is El-Sissi’s second meeting with King Abdullah.

The first meeting took place at Cairo airport on June 21 as the king visited the president on his way back to the Kingdom from Morocco.

The summits indicate the strong relations between the two major Arab League countries.

Former Egyptian Prime Minister Hazem Al-Beblawi emphasized the significance of the president’s first foreign visit to Saudi Arabia.

“It reflects the Kingdom’s important position in the minds of Egyptian people.”

He also noted the king’s historic stand with Egypt and his call for holding an international conference to support Egyptian economy.
Egyptian diplomats said five topics would top the agenda of Saudi-Egyptian summit talks in Jeddah. They are: The fight against terrorism; the situation in Libya, Syria and Iraq; the challenges facing the Palestinian cause; prospects of holding a conference of Egypt’s friends; and ways of strengthening bilateral cooperation in various sectors.

Saudi analysts pin big hope on El-Sissi’s visit, saying it would help strengthen Arab unity and stability.

“The presidential visit shows the Egyptian leadership’s appreciation of the Kingdom’s wise stances and policies,” said Abdullah Al-Qabbae, professor of political science at King Saud University in Riyadh.

El-Sissi’s Jeddah talks would also focus on the continuing Israeli aggression on Gaza in addition to the crises in Syria, Iraq and Libya as well as matters related to fighting terror and bolstering Arab security, he said.

“Saudi Arabia and Egypt are capable of giving a new push for joint Arab action,” said Zuhair Al-Harthi, adding that the president’s visit would contribute to setting out strategies to confront the challenges facing Arab countries.

The post King Abdullah, El-Sissi To Focus On Middle East Stability appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Rasheed Abou-Alsamh

The US decision to bomb targets of the Islamic State (IS) in northern Iraq, announced by a visibly unhappy President Barack Obama on Thursday night, was the right thing to do. But will it be enough, or is it too little, too late?

With the terrible war between Israel and the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip over the past four weeks, the world’s attention turned away from the civil war in Syria and the alarming advance of the IS extremists in Iraq.

With that came the news this week that about 10,000 to 40,000 members of the minority Yazidi sect were trapped on Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq, surrounded by IS fighters who want to kill them because they consider them apostates and devil worshippers.

Reports say that without food and water, and facing daily summer temperatures of 37 degrees, dozens of adults and children are dying every day on the mountain. The Iraqi government tried to drop bottled water to them from planes, but was unsuccessful.

Residents of the town of Sinjar started fleeing there last Sunday when IS took control of the city. The UN estimates that 200,000 people have fled the city, and that 147,000 have managed to reach the semi-autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan, filling refugee camps. The armed forces of the Kurds, the peshmergas, are trying to open a land route between the mountain and the town of Rabia, which straddles the border with Syria, in order to give safe passage to trapped Yazidis on the mountain, but are facing difficulties as they have to go through six villages with populations sympathetic to IS.

The IS is extremely brutal, constantly posting pictures of themselves on social networks proudly displaying the chopped off heads of their victims in Iraq and Syria, which are generally Syrian and Iraqi soldiers. Their level of barbarity is such that there is no possibility of dialogue with them.

Since its control of the city of Mosul in June, the IS extremists have plotted their expansion in Iraq. On Aug. 3 they took control of the Mosul dam on the Tigris River, the largest hydroelectric power supplying Iraq Mosul with electricity. It is also battling Iraqi forces 350 km south of Mosul in an attempt to take control of the Haditha Dam on the Euphrates River. Experts warn that the IS could, in an act of terror, open the gates of Mosul dam and release a wall of water about five meters high that would flood the city of Mosul and possibly reach the outskirts of Baghdad.

President Obama said that he had authorized the airstrikes to protect a small contingent of American officials in Irbil, the capital of the Iraqi Kurdistan region and to avoid a massacre of the Yazidis. He also ordered the airdrop of food and water good enough for 8,000 on the mountain where the refugees are trapped.

It is clear that Obama does not want to commit any ground troops to another military foray in Iraq. He ran for office in part on a pledge to get US troops out of Iraq, and that he has managed to do. But after the US invasion in 2003 and subsequent occupation for 10 years, it is unfair and selfish to believe that the US can just leave and allow Iraq to crumble upon itself. The US owes it to the Iraqis to help them stop the advance of the IS.

Unfortunately, the Iraqis currently cannot do much themselves to stop the advance of the militants because of the political disarray in Baghdad due to differences over the successor to Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, which has left the government paralyzed. The US has sent 300 military advisers to help the Iraqi government, but the long delays in deliveries of American fighter jets, now only expected to begin in December, has left the Iraqi air force hamstrung in attacking targets.

The effects of the IS advancement is already causing spillovers in Lebanon, where fighting between the Lebanese Army and rebels in the town of Arsal on the border with Syria, has left 16 soldiers dead, 85 injured and dozens of rebels killed. The former Prime Minister Saad Hariri had recently flown to Saudi Arabia and got an additional donation of $1 billion from Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah to help Lebanese Army fight militants.

With chaos of war and instability in Syria and Gaza, the IS took opportunity to expand its control over Iraq, spreading their reign of terror and bloodshed, and destroying the rule of law in Iraq and Syria. This is danger not only to the Middle East, but to the whole world. Obama would do well to sit down and discuss a ground military strategy with the Iraqi government, the Kurds, Turkey and other regional allies on how to stop IS once and for all. Bombing them won’t ever be enough, even if it does keep Obama out of hot water with US voters and Republicans.

American leadership is needed now more than ever. Sadly for Obama, isolationism is not really an option.

The post We Took Our Eyes Off Militants – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Frequent marijuana use can have a significant negative effect on the brains of teenagers and young adults, including cognitive decline, poor attention and memory, and decreased IQ, according to psychologists discussing public health implications of marijuana legalization at the American Psychological Association’s 122nd Annual Convention.

“It needs to be emphasized that regular cannabis use, which we consider once a week, is not safe and may result in addiction and neurocognitive damage, especially in youth,” said Krista Lisdahl, PhD, director of the brain imaging and neuropsychology lab at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Marijuana use is increasing, according to Lisdahl, who pointed to a 2012 study showing that 6.5 percent of high school seniors reported smoking marijuana daily, up from 2.4 percent in 1993. Additionally, 31 percent of young adults (ages 18 to 25) reported using marijuana in the last month. People who have become addicted to marijuana can lose an average of six IQ points by adulthood, according to Lisdahl, referring to a 2012 longitudinal study of 1,037 participants who were followed from birth to age 38.

Brain imaging studies of regular marijuana users have shown significant changes in their brain structure, particularly among adolescents, Lisdahl said. Abnormalities in the brain’s gray matter, which is associated with intelligence, have been found in 16- to 19-year-olds who increased their marijuana use in the past year, she said. These findings remained even after researchers controlled for major medical conditions, prenatal drug exposure, developmental delays and learning disabilities, she added.

“When considering legalization, policymakers need to address ways to prevent easy access to marijuana and provide additional treatment funding for adolescent and young adult users,” she said. She also recommended that legislators consider regulating levels of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the major psychoactive chemical in marijuana, in order to reduce potential neurocognitive effects.

Some legalized forms of marijuana have higher levels of THC than other strains, said Alan Budney, PhD, of Dartmouth College. THC is responsible for most of marijuana’s psychological effects. Some research has shown that frequent use of high potency THC can increase risk of acute and future problems with depression, anxiety and psychosis. “Recent studies suggest that this relationship between marijuana and mental illness may be moderated by how often marijuana is used and potency of the substance,” Budney said.

“Unfortunately, much of what we know from earlier research is based on smoking marijuana with much lower doses of THC than are commonly used today.” Current treatments for marijuana addiction among adolescents, such as brief school interventions and outpatient counseling, can be helpful but more research is needed to develop more effective strategies and interventions, he added.

Additionally, people’s acceptance of legalized medical marijuana use appears to have an effect on adolescents’ perception of the drug’s risks, according to Bettina Friese, PhD, of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in California. She presented results from a 2013 study of 17,482 teenagers in Montana, which found marijuana use among teenagers was higher in counties where larger numbers of people voted to legalize medical marijuana in 2004. In addition, teens in counties with more votes for the legalization of medical marijuana perceived marijuana use to be less risky. The research findings suggest that a more accepting attitude toward medical marijuana may have a greater effect on marijuana use among teens than the actual number of medical marijuana licenses available, Friese said.

The post Regular Marijuana Use Bad For Teens’ Brains, Can Lower IQ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

High rates of suicide among military service members and veterans may be related to traumatic experiences they had before enlisting, making them more vulnerable to suicidal behavior when coping with combat and multiple deployments, according to the findings of several recent studies presented at the American Psychological Association’s 122nd Annual Convention.

Experiencing child abuse, being sexually victimized by someone not in the service and exhibiting suicidal behavior before enlisting are significant risk factors for service members and veterans who attempt or commit suicide, according to experts with the National Center for Veterans Studies (NCVS) at the University of Utah.

Suicide is the second-leading cause of death among U.S. military personnel. In 2012, there were 319 suicides among active duty service members and 203 among reserve service members, compared to 237 combat-related deaths of active duty service members in Afghanistan, according to the Department of Defense.

Soldiers who reported abuse as children were three to eight times more likely than those who were not abused to report suicidal behavior, which could include thoughts about, planning or attempting suicide, said retired Army Col. James Griffith, PhD. He and other researchers examined Army survey data gathered in 2010 from 12,567 Army National Guard soldiers in 180 company-sized units. Army National Guard and Army Reserve personnel supplement active duty personnel and, at times, comprised 30 to 40 percent of the ground forces in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The study found that 16 percent of the respondents reported harsh punishment during childhood and 8 percent reported physical abuse, findings that are similar to those of studies of active duty Army soldiers. Studies of civilians have also shown childhood abuse to be a significant risk factor for suicide, Griffith said.

“Experiencing abuse early in life in the home may lead to a tendency to perceive and experience stressful events as catastrophic and insurmountable,” said Griffith. “A child experiencing abuse has little opportunity to effectively cope when stressed, being in a powerless position with no recourse. This may lead to less ability to handle future stressful circumstances.”

Sexual trauma of any type, whether or not the perpetrator is in the military, increases the risk for suicidal behavior among military personnel, according to other research presented. To determine if there was any difference in suicide risk from military sexual trauma compared to civilian sexual trauma, researchers surveyed 426 service members and veterans from all branches in the armed services enrolled in college classes. More than 25 percent of women and 4 percent of men reported sexual trauma while in the military, which is similar to the prevalence of sexual victimization among the general U.S. and college student populations.

Sexual victimization both within and outside of the military was associated with significantly higher rates of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, but there were no differences between groups that had suffered either civilian or military sexual victimization, according to the presentation. However, there were differences in how men and women coped with sexual victimization.

“Previous research has found that male survivors of military sexual trauma are less likely to seek mental health care than female survivors,” said Craig J. Bryan, PsyD, an Iraq veteran and NCVS executive director. “Men may see it as a threat to their masculinity and be especially prone to shame, which is a strong predictor of suicide attempts in military personnel.”

Service members and veterans who attempted suicide before joining the military were six times more likely to attempt suicide after joining the military than those who had never attempted suicide, said Bobbie N. Ray-Sannerud, PsyD, who previously served as an Air Force psychologist. Among service members and veterans who attempted suicide, approximately 50 percent had thought about committing suicide and 25 percent had attempted suicide before joining the military. For these findings, researchers examined data collected from 371 college student veterans via an anonymous online survey and from 151 military personnel receiving outpatient mental health treatment. The study participants came from all branches of military service.

“No previous studies report when many military personnel and veterans first experience suicidal behavior, despite the fact that these vulnerabilities may have a relatively stronger relationship with military and veteran suicide than other commonly investigated risk factors, such as psychiatric symptoms and life stressors,” said Ray-Sannerud. “Information about how suicide risk first emerges in military personnel and which military personnel are most vulnerable after they join the service is important for screening and treatment.”

The post Trauma Before Enlistment Linked To High Suicide Rates Among Military Personnel, Veterans appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The immediate aftermath of an oil spill The fate of oil during the first day after an accidental oil spill is still poorly understood, with researchers often arriving on the scene only after several days. New findings from a field experiment carried out in the North Sea provide valuable insight that could help shape the emergency response in the immediate wake of disasters.

It is well known that oil and water don’t mix. Less well known is the fact that when petroleum is spilt onto a water surface, a fraction of the oil immediately begins to evaporate into the air or dissolve into the seawater. These dissolved toxic hydrocarbons can threaten aquatic species, while evaporated compounds may pose a risk to rescue workers or populations downwind of an accident site.

Publishing in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, a team of European and American researchers report on a unique study focused on the fate of hydrocarbons during the 24 hours that follow an oil spill.

Following a spill, oil suddenly finds itself in a radically new environment – exposed to light, air, and the water surface after millions of years underground. “In its new environment, the oil immediately begins to change its composition, and much of that change happens on the first day,” explains Samuel Arey, a researcher at EPFL and Eawag in Switzerland and corresponding author of the study. Oil is a complex mixture of many hydrocarbon compounds. Certain volatile compounds evaporate within hours, contaminating the overlying atmosphere. Others, such as toxic naphthalene, simultaneously dissolve into the seawater, posing a threat to aquatic life.

Especially since the Exxon Valdez catastrophe in 1990, which released over 40,000 cubic meters of oil into the ocean, researchers have sought to evaluate to what extent marine species in the vicinity of an oil spill are exposed to toxic hydrocarbons. But this question has largely remained debated, because many of the hydrocarbons are dispersed into the water or the overlying air well before scientists arrive at the site.

In order to collect data on the immediate aftermath of an oil spill, the researchers collaborated with emergency response specialists of the Dutch Rijkswaterstaat to recreate a four cubic meter oil spill in the North Sea, in a shipping zone already burdened by pollutants, 200 kilometers off the coast of the Netherlands. By studying this relatively small oil release, they were able to gain a better understanding of what goes on in much larger spills, with findings that could be useful to assess the risks to underwater life, as well as to emergency response team workers at the sea surface.

No two oil spills are alike. Aside from the sheer volume of oil released onto the sea surface, the environmental impact of an oil spill depends on external factors, such as the wind, waves, and the temperature of the air and the water. The North Sea experiment, for instance, was carried out on a summer day with two-meter high waves. Within just over a day, the surface oil slick had almost dissipated. On a cooler day with less wind and smaller waves, the slick would have likely persisted longer.

Thanks to a computer model that was tested against the data collected in the North Sea, the researchers are now able to extrapolate their findings to larger spills and other environmental conditions. Results from the study will provide the researchers with tools to better assess the immediate impact of future disasters on humans and on the environment, as well as to plan the emergency response, even in settings that differ strongly from those encountered in the North Sea.

The post The Immediate Aftermath Of An Oil Spill appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Gun control activist and former Reagan White House press secretary, James Brady death this week was ruled a homicide resulting from John Hinckley Jr.’s 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, according to a police report on Friday.

The medical examiner’s and police department’s report states, “[Brady's] remains were transported to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for the Northern District of Virginia. An autopsy was conducted and revealed the cause of death to be a gunshot wound and consequences thereof, and the manner of death was ruled a homicide.”

Now that the liberal icon’s death is classified a homicide, the “Metropolitan Police Department’s Homicide Branch, the United States Attorney’s Office, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are reviewing this case.”

The assassin, John Hinckley, Jr., was found not guilty by reason of insanity for the shooting that left Secret Service agents dead and wounded, and left Brady partially paralyzed and depending on a wheelchair.. The shooting of President Ronald Reagan shocked the nation and he was “saved by the quick-thinking for his security force and the medical prowess of his physicians,” according to former New York homicide detective, Richard Barlinger.

Originally the 73-year-old Brady’s death was believed to be from natural causes when he passed away on April 5. The medical examiner claims that his death was caused by the bullet that entered Brady’s head when Hinckley fired his.22-caliber revolver until it was empty in March 1981.

The 59-year-old Hinckley continues his confinement to St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Washington, D.C., and

where he still receives psychiatric treatment in spite of his acquittal in 1982.

During a controversial government decision in 1999, he was allowed to leave the facility without supervision to visit to his mother in Williamsburg, Va., for up to two weeks.

Gail Hoffman, who once served as the legislative director for Handgun Control, Inc., headed by Brady and his wife Sarah, said on Friday that she could not make a statement until she read the M.E.’s report. Hoffman, a Democratic Party activist, claims she “led the historic legislative campaigns to pass the Brady Bill and assault weapons ban, winning unprecedented victories against the powerful gun lobby.”

To liberals, Brady and his wife were at the forefront of battling the “uncaring gun lobby” in their campaign to end violence in American society. But to conservatives, they posed an enormous threat to the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment freedoms.

In a statement released by Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the advocacy group that bears the name of the former press secretary and his wife, Sarah, he said:

“We are heartbroken over the passing of James Brady. We offer our deepest condolences to his wife, Sarah, and the rest of his family as we mourn the loss of our dear friend and a true American hero.

“Jim never gave up fighting and never lost his trademark wit despite suffering a traumatic brain injury after being shot in 1981 by a mentally unstable young man attempting to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. Since then, he and Sarah have worked tirelessly to pass legislation that makes it harder for criminals and other dangerous people to buy guns.”

Brady’s widow Sarah, just hours after he passed away, wrote an op-ed in which she states: “Congress needs to finish the job the Brady law so effectively started to ensure that guns are kept out of the hands of people who should not have them.”

The post Gun Control Icon James Brady’s Death Ruled A Homicide – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The post Would Half Of Israelis Really Like To See Obama Dead? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.