Some believe the central political issue of our era is the size of the government. They’re wrong. The central issue is whom the government is for.

Consider the new spending bill Congress and the President agreed to a few weeks ago.

It’s not especially large by historic standards. Under the $1.1 trillion measure, government spending doesn’t rise as a percent of the total economy. In fact, if the economy grows as expected, government spending will actually shrink over the next year.

The problem with the legislation is who gets the goodies and who’s stuck with the tab.

For example, it repeals part of the Dodd-Frank Act designed to stop Wall Street from using other peoples’ money to support its gambling addiction, as the Street did before the near-meltdown of 2008.

Dodd-Frank had barred banks from using commercial deposits that belong to you and me and other people, and which are insured by the government, to make the kind of risky bets that got the Street into trouble and forced taxpayers to bail it out.

But Dodd-Frank put a crimp on Wall Street’s profits. So the Street’s lobbyists have been pushing to roll it back.

The new legislation, incorporating language drafted by lobbyists for Wall Street’s biggest bank, Citigroup, does just this.

It reopens the casino. This increases the likelihood you and I and other taxpayers will once again be left holding the bag.

Wall Street isn’t the only big winner from the new legislation. Health insurance companies get to keep their special tax breaks. Tourist destinations like Las Vegas get their travel promotion subsidies.

In a victory for food companies, the legislation even makes federally subsidized school lunches less healthy by allowing companies that provide them to include fewer whole grains. This boosts their profits because junkier food is less expensive to make.

Major defense contractors also win big. They get tens of billions of dollars for the new warplanes, missiles, and submarines they’ve been lobbying for.

Conservatives like to portray government as a welfare machine doling out benefits to the poor, some of whom are too lazy to work.

In reality, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, only about 12 percent of federal spending goes to individuals and families, most of whom are in dire need.

An increasing portion goes to corporate welfare.

In addition to the provisions in the recent spending bill that reward Wall Street, health insurers, the travel industry, food companies, and defense contractors, other corporate goodies have been long baked into the federal budget.

Big agribusiness gets price supports. Hedge-fund and private-equity managers get their own special “carried-interest” tax loophole. The oil and gas industry gets its special tax subsidies.

Big Pharma gets a particularly big benefit: a prohibition on government using its vast bargaining power under Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate low drug prices.

Why are politicians doing so much for corporate executives and Wall Street insiders? Follow the money. It’s because they’re flooding Washington with money as never before, financing an increasing portion of politicians’ campaigns.

The Supreme Court’s decision this year in McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission, following in the wake of Citizen’s United, already eliminated the $123,200 cap on the amount an individual could contribute to federal candidates.

The new spending legislation, just enacted, makes it easier for wealthy individuals to write big checks to political parties. Before, individuals could donate up to $32,400 to the Democratic or Republican National Committees.

Starting in 2015, they can donate ten times as much. In a two-year election cycle, a couple will be able to give $1,296,000 to a party’s various accounts.

But the only couples capable of giving that much are those that include corporate executives, Wall Street moguls, and other big-moneyed interests.

Which means Washington will be even more attentive to their needs in the next round of legislation.

That’s been the pattern. As wealth continues to concentrate at the top, individuals and entities with lots of money have greater political power to get favors from government – like the rollback of the Dodd-Frank law and the accumulation of additional corporate welfare. These favors, in turn, further entrench and expand the wealth at the top.

The size of government isn’t the problem. That’s a canard used to hide the far larger problem.

The larger problem is that much of government is no longer working for the vast majority it’s intended to serve. It’s working instead for a small minority at the top.

If government were responding to the public’s interest instead of the moneyed interests, it would be smaller and more efficient.

But unless or until we can reverse the vicious cycle of big money getting political favors that makes big money even bigger, we can’t get the government we want and deserve.

The post The Government Problem – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In terms of losses in human lives, 2014 has been a horrific year for Palestinians, surpassing the horrors of both 2008 and 2009, when an Israeli war against the Gaza Strip killed and wounded thousands.

While some aspects of the conflict are stagnating between a corrupt, ineffectual Palestinian Authority (PA), and the criminality of Israeli wars and occupation, it would also be fair to argue that 2014 was also a game changer to some degree – and it is not all bad news.

To an extent, 2014 has been a year of clarity for those keen to understand the reality of the ‘Palestinian-Israeli conflict’ but were sincerely confused by the contrasting narratives.

Here are some reasons that support the argument that things are changing.

1. A different Kind of Palestinian Unity

Although the two leading Palestinian parties Hamas and Fatah agreed to a unity government in April, little has changed on the ground. Yes, a government was officially established in June, and held its first meeting in October. But Gaza is effectively still managed by Hamas, which has been largely left alone managing the affairs of the Strip after the Israeli war in July-August. Perhaps Mahmoud Abbas’s authority is hoping that the massive destruction would weaken Hamas into political submission, especially as Egypt continues to seal shut the Rafah border.

But while the factions are failing to unite, the Israeli war on Gaza has inspired a new impetus of struggle in the West Bank. Israeli plans of targeting holy sites in Jerusalem, particularly the al-Aqsa Mosque, coupled with the deep anguish felt by most Palestinians over the massacres carried out by Israel in Gaza, are slowly reverberating into a wave of mini-uprisings. Some speculate the situation will eventually lead to a massive Intifada that will engulf all of the territories. Whether a third intifada takes place in 2015 or not, is a different question. What matters is that the long-orchestrated plot to divide Palestinians is breaking apart and a new collective narrative of a common struggle against occupation is finally forming.

2. A New Resistance Paradigm

The debate regarding what form of resistance Palestinians should or should not adopt is being sidelined and settled, not by international do-gooders, but by Palestinians themselves. They are opting to use whatever effective form of resistance they can that could deter Israeli military advances, as resistance groups have actively done in Gaza. Although Israel’s latest war killed nearly 2,200 and wounded over 11,000 Palestinians that were mostly civilians, nevertheless, it has still failed to achieve any of its declared or implied objectives. It was another reminder that sheer military strength is no longer the only overriding factor in Israel’s conduct towards Palestinians. While Israel brutalized civilians, the resistance killed 70 Israelis, over 60 of whom were soldiers; this was also an important step testifying to the maturity of Palestinian resistance, which had previously targeted civilians during the second intifada and reflected more desperation rather than a winning strategy. The legitimization of the resistance was to a degree, reflected in the recent decision by the European court to remove Hamas from its list of terrorist organizations.

Resistance in the West Bank is taking on other forms. Although it is yet to mature into a steady campaign of anti-occupation activities, it seems to be forming an identity of its own that takes into account what is possible and what is practical.  The fact is that the ‘one size fits all’ modes of resistance debate is becoming less relevant, giving way to an organic approach to resistance devised by Palestinians themselves.

3. BDS Normalizes Debate on Israeli Crimes

Another form of resistance is crystallizing in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS) which continues to grow, gathering steam, supporters and constant achievements. Not only was 2014 a year in which BDS managed to win the support of numerous civil society organizations, academicians, scientists, celebrities and to reach out to people from all walks of life, it did something else that is equally important: It normalized the debate on Israel in many circles around the world. While any criticism of Israel was considered a taboo in yesteryear, it has been forever broken. Questioning the morality and practicality of boycotting Israel is no longer a frightening subject, but is open for debate in numerous media outlets, universities and other platforms.

2014 has been a year that made the discussion of boycotting Israel more mainstream than ever before. While a critical mass is yet to be achieved in the US, the momentum is constantly building up being led by students, clergy men and women, celebrities and ordinary people. In Europe, the movement has been hugely successful.

4. Parliaments are Feeling the Heat

While, traditionally, much of the southern hemisphere offered unconditional support for Palestinians, the West conceitedly stood with Israel. Following the Oslo accords, a bewildering European position evolved, where they flirted with finding the ‘balance’ between an occupied nation and the occupier. At times, the European Union (EU) timidly criticized the Israeli occupation, while continuing to be one of Israel’s largest trade partner, providing weapons to the Israeli army, who then use them to carry out war crimes in Gaza and sustain its military occupation in the West Bank.

This debauched policy is being challenged by citizens of various European countries. The Israeli summer war on Gaza exposed Israel’s human rights violations and war crimes like never before, revealing along the way EU hypocrisy. To relieve some of the pressure, some EU countries appear to be taking stronger stances against Israel, reviewing their military cooperation, and more boldly questioning the right wing policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A spate of parliamentary votes followed, overwhelmingly voting to recognize Palestine as a state. While these decisions remain largely symbolic, they represent an unmistakable shift in EU attitude towards Israel. Netanyahu continues to rail against European ‘hypocrisy’, assured, perhaps, by Washington’s unconditional support. But with the US losing control over the tumultuous Middle East, the Israeli prime minister might soon be forced to rethink his obstinate attitude.

5. Israel’s Democracy Exposed

For decades, Israel defined itself as both a democratic and Jewish state. The objective was clear: to maintain Jewish superiority over Palestinian Arabs, while continuing to present itself as a modern ‘western’ democracy – in fact, the ‘only democracy in the Middle East.’ While Palestinians and many others were never sold on the democracy charade, many accepted the dichotomy with little questioning.

While Israel doesn’t have a constitution, it has a ‘code’, called the Basic Law. Since there is no Israeli equivalent to a ‘constitutional amendment’ – the Netanyahu government is pushing for a new law at the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. This will basically put forth new principals under which Israel will define itself. One of these principals will define Israel as ‘the national state of the Jewish people’, thus casting all non-Jewish citizens of Israel as lesser citizens. While, for all intents and purposes, Palestinian citizens of Israel have been treated as an outcast, and discriminating against in many ways, the new Basic Law will be a constitutional confirmation of their state-enforced inferiority. The Jewish and democratic paradigm is dying for good, exposing Israel’s reality the way it is.

The Year Ahead

Certainly 2015 will bring much of the same: The PA will fight for its own existence, and try to maintain its privileges, bestowed by Israel, the US and others by using every tool available; Israel will also remain emboldened by American funds and unconditional support and military backing. Yes, the next year will also prove frustratingly familiar in that regard. But the new, real and opposing momentum will unlikely cease, challenging and exposing the Israeli occupation, on one hand, and sidestepping the ineffectual, self-serving Palestinian Authority on the other.

2014 was a very painful year for Palestine, but also a year in which the collective resistance of the Palestinian people, and their supporters, proved too strong to bend or break. And in that, there can be much solace.

The post Five Reasons Why 2014 Was A Game Changer In Palestine – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Basrad Pashayev*

In May 2000, the initiative to develop the “Central Asian Productivity Research Center” (CAPRC) was proposed by Professor Harry C. Lepinske and Professor Jamaluddin Hussain of Purdue University Calumet to academia, government officials and business leaders in Turkey and Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan. The initial goals were to concentrate on the needs for economic development in Eurasia and the Caucasus Regions. Working quickly, in cooperation with a small group of volunteers, the concept spread throughout the region. In January 2001, the concept of this strategic alliance was solidified, and the program moved forward. The initial focus for CAPRC was to operate as a strategic alliance assisting with economic development programs within the region.  Today as a mature respected international project, it continues to expand its primary focus.

This year in May 16, 2014 the 9th Annual Silk Road Conference took place at the Kent College of Law Illinois Institute of Technology at Chicago, Illinois organized by CAPRC and Northern Illinois University with the support of Azerbaijan Export and Investment Promotion Foundation (AZPROMO), Silk Way Airlines, Turkish Airlines and Hacetepe University of Turkey. Many guest speakers, diplomats, professors, government leaders and others from the former Silk Road countries, USA and Europe attended the conference. Azerbaijan was represented at the conference by Mr. Natig Bakhshiyev (Embassy of Azerbaijan, USA), Mr. Basrad Pashayev (Entrepreneur/Energy Analyst), Mr. Elshan Baloglanov (AZPROMO) and Professor Elbrus Isayev (Nakhchivan State University).

Other Silk Road countries at the conference were represented by Mr. Kairat Umarov, Kazakhstan Ambassador to the USA, Mr. Bakhtiyar Gulyamov, Uzbekistan Ambassador to the USA, Mr. Ahmad Zahir Farqiri, Minister and Deputy Chief of Mission, Embassy of Afghanistan, Washington, D.C, Mr. Faisal Niaz Tirmizi, Consul General of Pakistan, Chicago, Pulod Amirbekov, Director Promotion-Marketing, Dushanbe, Tajikistan, Mr. Fatih Yildiz, Consul General Consulate General of The Republic of Turkey, Professor Dr. Ozlem Atay Department of Management, Ankara University, Turkey, Dr. Ishaq Nadiri Distinguished Professor of Economics, New York University, Senior Economic Advisor to Afghanistan’s President Karzai.

Among other guests were: US Representatives of Azerbaijan Silk Way Airlines and Turkish Airlines, high level officials of the US Department of State (DoS), Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM).

The conference focused on energy security issues, strategic importance of Azerbaijan for Caspian region, as well as geopolitical situation in Central Asia and the Silk Road region and highlighted the region`s expanding economic development, its growing business opportunities and importance to the global economy. The US-Azerbaijan relations also were discussed during the event.

THE GREAT SILK ROAD and AZERBAIJAN

Azerbaijan

“Great Silk Road” is a general name of a caravan road, which has been the main two-way trading bridge of East and West since III century BC up to now, living its flourishing period in the XV century. It facilitated exchange of cultural, scientific, educational and religious values by traders and pilgrimages. The Great Silk Road starts in Japan and China stretches up to Europe cutting through India, Afghanistan, Iran, Central Asia, Caucasus, Asia Minor, Northern Africa including/connecting Indian Ocean, Chinese sea, Japanese sea, Red sea, Caspian sea, Black sea, Azov sea and Mediterranean sea. The Great Silk Road was named after the main trade item-silk, which until VI century of our era was manufactured only in China. The whole length of the main high way is more than 7 thousand kilometers. Nakhchivan and in general Azerbaijan has played an important role in the whole route for centuries.

The extremely favorable location of Caucasus-juncture point of Asia and Europe, between Mediterranean, Caspian, Black and Azov seas was very attractive for world in the ancient times. That’s why being an inherent, compound part of Caucasus, Azerbaijan played a remarkable role in international relations and trade, exchange of cultural values and ideas between countries and nations. The territory of historical Azerbaijan was 320,000 km2. It started from Darband in the north and stretched up to Hamadan in the south, from Caspian Sea in the east up to Asia Minor and Georgia in the west. Russian and Iran empires waged wars over Caucasus, including Azerbaijan lasting hundreds of years, which ended with division of Azerbaijan in two parts in the beginning of the 19th century. Northern Azerbaijan (now Azerbaijan Republic) and Southern Azerbaijan (now a part of Iran Islam Republic) emerged since then.

Darband, Baku, Ganja, Shamakhi, Tabriz, Sheki, Nakhchivan, Maraga, Hamadan, Julfa, Barda and Ordubad are the key cities which located on the Great Silk Road.

As in XXI Century – era of globalization in history, the economic potential and power of every state is measured also by its transport-communicational complex. It is impossible to speak on the dynamic growth of any state not having road-transportation network with wide and many-branched, perfect infrastructure under modern standards. From this point of view, the comprehensive activities carried out in the field of realizing the idea to restore Historical Silk Road has further intensified geostrategic and geographical importance of Azerbaijan.

According to project plans, the new Great Silk Road will pass by marine vehicles of Azerbaijan, starting from Japan through the areas of China, Middle East, Caspian Sea and Baku is considered to be a large seaport (located )situated on this road.

Recently-restored, the Silk Road does not consist of only highways, but also has attained new contents like Silk railroad, Silk marine road, Silk energy road, Silk fiber-optic road, Silk Road of cultures, etc.

Implementation of this important project of XXI Century is the result of hard and wide activity and determination of national leader Heydar Aliyev. By opening EU representation of TACIS (Technical Assistance for the Commonwealth of Independent States) in Baku at the end of 1993, the process has started to rebuild all spheres of Azerbaijan economy on the European model. During the summit of the European Union in Brussels in May of that year within the frame of this program, TRACECA (Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia) was adopted which was being implemented in comply with the contract signed with the countries of Middle East and republics of the South Caucasus.

TRACECA project – Europe-Caucasus-Asia transport corridor was considered to join transport networks of the Caucasus region and states of Central Asia and to render advisable services for transportation. As a result of debate conclusion, two official documents “Brussels statement” were signed and it was decided to restore old East-West “Silk Road” corridor under new circumstances, to re-build and reinforce transport-communicational infrastructures.

Constituting very important part of this road, Azerbaijan chose a strategy of open economic policy towards the countries from all over the world, thereupon, estimation and corroboration of Azerbaijan as a serious partner in economy opened such a perspective that Azerbaijan took one of the central positions on the trade road to be restored.

Many preferences of the region, especially, important geographical location of Azerbaijan, its position in an area where the trade roads crossing Black Sea and Caspian Sea, Russia and Iran, are merged, its rich historical and cultural heritage are the main factors which invoke the leading role of Azerbaijan in newly-established international highway.

Leading position of Azerbaijan playing a role of “bridge” between East and West in the development of Europe-Caucasus-Asia transport corridor serves to further increase the integration of the country with the countries from all over the world. And in its turn, this is of vital importance for not only economically, but also from the point of view of political tranquility and security.

NAKHCHIVAN and its contribution to THE GREAT SILK ROAD

One of the areas passed through the Great Silk Road and which historically, has been playing irreplaceable role in the realization of economic, commercial and cultural relationship among many countries and peoples is the territory of Nakhchivan that is regarded to have been an important station between east and west and one of the developed cultural, commercial and handicraft centers of Azerbaijan since ancient times. Nakhchivan was an important Azerbaijani city on the Silk Road.

The first written information about Nakhchivan has been found in Greek geographer Claudius Ptolemy’s book, “Geography”. He wrote that “Naksuana” is the center of the vast country. Turkish traveler Evliya Chalabi (1611-1682) believed that the town was founded by the king Afrasiyab, the legendary ruler of Turan. This city was looted by the Byzantine emperor Heraclius the Second in the first century AD. A geographical book in early thirteenth century, entitled “Ajaib ad-Dunya” (“Rarities of the World”), writes: “Nakhchivan is a big town in Azerbaijan with a large population. The French traveler Wilhelm de Rubruck (1220-1293), who visited Nakhchivan, said that it was a large and beautiful capital of a large country until the Mongolian invasion. It suffered serious damage during attacks by the armies of Chinghis Khan in 1221. Hamdallah Qazvini, a historian and geographer, mentioned Nakhchivan in his book on geography entitled “Nuzhat al-Qulub” (“The Delight of Hearts”). He said: “It is a very beautiful location. It is called “Naqshi-Jahan”. There are several large fortresses near the town. Yaqut al-Hamavi, another geographer who lived in the thirteenth century, wrote: “The town of Nashava is in Azerbaijan. Ordinary people call it Nakhchuan. In the twelfth century, Nakhchivan had a population of 200,000. It was a capital of the state of Atabeys of Azerbaijan dynasty) – a new state founded on the basis of independent atabeylik during the demise of the Seljuks. This powerful feudal state, ruled by the Eldaniz dynasty, existed between 1136 and 1225. Nakhchivan was the capital of the state of Eldaniz in the mid twelfth century. In this period, the town developed into a major commercial and trade center of the state of Atabeys. The rapidly growing town, which was the capital of the state between 1136 and 1175, was of economic and military importance.

One of the main caravan roads joining the commercial centers of Near East with the countries of the South Caucasus, Middle East and Far East passed through the territory of Nakhchivan.
It is not accidental that the principal factors of creation of Nakhchivan city – one of the old centers of urban culture was connected with local geographic, economic and cultural grounds.

Trade had developed here during the middle Ages. The town was known for its craftsmen: potters, jewelers and glass makers. Construction had flourished here even more. According to travelers who were fascinated by the beautify of the town, in the medieval period Nakhchivan had palace compounds of the Eldaniz rulers, a Friday mosque, a madrasah (which had turned into a center of Islamic teaching), state buildings and palaces of royal family members. The Turkish traveler Evliya Chalabi (1611-1682) spoke about local baths where the water of swimming pools was flavored with a basket of rose each day. Talented handicraftsmen in Nakhchivan offered foreign merchants a great variety of useful goods – graceful jewelry, wind and string musical instruments, magnificent carpets, local sorts of silk and etc. The merchants took jewelry, salt, mercury, alum, wool, flax, cotton, mineral dyes, medicines and many other things out from there. Copper items were especially famous: kitchen ware, trays, and candlesticks. Fruitful geographical location, rich natural resources of Nakhchivan and important role played by town in the life of the country for centuries has granted its redevelopment.

Samples of material culture obtained during archaeological excavations prove that Nakhchivan region was one of the areas of primary urban culture. Undoubtedly, new towns were also being appeared in these territories over time though the first town in the explored region was Nakhchivan city. Among those towns, Nakhchivan, Ordubad, Azad, Gilan and Garabaghlar were especially, different. Researches and current geographical location of the towns also prove that these towns were located on important trade roads passing through the area. Though some of these towns became commercial and handicraft centers after the creation, the role of trade roads passing by the area of towns was important in the creation of some other towns. As to the information by ancient and medieval authors, towns were especially, created on trade roads passing by the area and they developed as commercial and handicraft centers. During the archaeological excavations held in the residences and tombstones situated on this road, a lot of tools brought from other countries (money, jewelry, weapons, stamps, metal and clay pots, ivory, figures from colored stones and so on) were found.

In ancient time Salt was also one of the symbols of Nakhchivan. Its natural resources make 90 million tons. The Salt Mountain being the only one in the world was famous both for its pure salt and healing peculiarities. They say that the salt was extracted here 6 thousand years ago. Before world-wide known “Silk Road” there was “Salt Road” extending from Nakhchivan to the countries of Middle East.
Famous rock salt of Nakhchivan was carried by “Salt roads” to different countries of the world.

In XX Century, imperialist interests on the region and Armenia’s occupational intentions separated Nakhchivan from the motherland by occupying historical Azerbaijan lands. Today the territory of Nakhchivan surrounded by Armenia from three sides, is under the blockade. Despite the hard conditions of blockade, there is a great development in the city. The major contribution of New Silk Road to Nakhchivan without any land connection with Azerbaijan is the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars-Nakhchivan railroad project. Somehow, the implementation of this project will set the area free from blockade dependence lasted for long years.

As said above, Nakhchivan is one of the most important parts of the Great Silk Road and it is an undeniable fact that it was considered the most ancient city and cultural center of the East considering the geographical, economic and cultural backgrounds. Formation of Julfa, Gilan, Garabaglar and Ordubad in the region and their turning into art and trade centers over the international caravan roads gave Nakhchivan recognition as one of the important cultural centers not only in Azerbaijan, but also in the Near East.

About the Author:
*Basrad Pashayev was born and grew up in Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan and studied at the Nakhchivan Private University, Purdue University at Calumet-USA, Andrews University-USA and is an Independent Researcher and Energy/Economic Advisor working in the field of Energy/Oil & Gas, Investment Banking & Financial Services since 2004 and is one of the active members of the Central Asian Productivity & Research Center (CAPRC) who organizes Annual Silk Road Conferences in Chicago (USA) every year promoting Azerbaijan, its business opportunities, history and tourism potential. Nakhchivan is always a vital part of all annual Silk Road Conferences and every year a part of this conference is especially dedicated to Nakhchivan, its history, economy, tourism/business potential. Basrad Pashayev every year contributes to the conference by being a guest speaker, moderator or supplies articles promoting Nakhchivan and Azerbaijan as a whole. In 2014 Basrad Pashayev was the moderator of the Azerbaijan government panel at the Conference and was a speaker at the pre-conference day seminars talking about Nakhchivan, business opportunities of Azerbaijan, oil & gas sector, Armenian aggression towards Azerbaijan and other strategic matters concerning the Caspian region.

The post Azerbaijan: The Great Silk Road And Importance Of Nakhchivan – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Clemént Doleac*

After the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1990-1991, the Cuban economy has experienced a reduction of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by nearly one third. This economic crash brought a lot of difficulties and suffering to the island. The GDP contracted an average of 10 percent each year between 1990 and 1993.[1] This contraction initiated a twenty-year economic era that is called the “Special Period” in Cuba (1990-2010). The economy recovered in 1994, and then returned to a positive development. The average wage in Cuba between 1989 and 2009 rose from 188 to 427 Cuban pesos in value, but in real terms (including inflation) it declined from 188 pesos to 48 pesos.[2]

Since then, the economic situation of Cuba has been unstable and quite weak. However, even without the assistance of the USSR and despite the U.S. embargo on Cuba, which begin partially in 1961, the Castro brothers’ government has survived. Their government proved able to struggle through a depressed economy and the animosity of the U.S. government for half century, exhausting 11 Presidents. After 20 years of the Special Period, the Cuban government chose to begin a vast movement of reforms on the island, leading to a progressive liberalization of society and of the economy.

Economic and Political Liberalization in Cuba:

This movement towards more liberalization in Cuba began with the transition in power between Fidel and his brother Raúl Castro. Fidel Castro himself declared in 2010 that “the Cuban model doesn’t even work for us anymore.”[3] The Huffington Post went as far as to announce proudly in February 2013, “Raúl Castro’s first presidential term was marked by economic reform and political liberalization.”[4] Beginning in 2009, Raúl Castro installed a commission in order to discuss and implement important economic reforms on the island. His objective was to institute an anti-corruption agency and to restructure various ministries such as the Super Ministry for Basic Industry that would be in charge of the Energy and Mining as well as the Sugar Industry. These reforms had been conducted by the Council of State and had already been implemented.[5] These changes were accompanied by other impressive reforms such as a fiscal reform, a credit reform, a migration reform, and a new law for the cooperatives in Cuba.[6]

The Cuban government also voted the legalization of numerous markets through their privatization, such as consumer goods (real estate, used cars, fast food and restaurants) and services such as the transportation sector. Through the Sixth Congress of the Cuban Communist Party (PCC, Partido Comunista Cubano), the Cuban government chose to reduce the importance of the State, allowing privatization of unprofitable public enterprises and authorizing small-scale commerce in Cuba in 178 different economic sectors.[7] Also, the remaining public enterprises would be able to keep half of their after-tax incomes for autonomous spending, which was previously forbidden.[8] Furthermore, Raúl Castro’s government gave autonomy to several public enterprises, which before were under the Ministry’s direct control. Such enterprises included the agricultural trading entity Alimport S.A., the sugar exporter Cubazúcar, and the scrap metal and steel exporter Metalcuba.[9]

The government also announced in July 2013 the layoffs of nearly 500,000 workers in conjunction with the expanding of the private sector. The government revealed plans in 2013 to open 50 percent of Cuban GDP to the private sector during the next five years.[10] In early 2014, the State also privatized thousands of restaurants, which were property of the State; these restaurants have a great importance in the Cuban economy because of tourism.[11]

Also, the Cuban economy is still divided in two currencies. The first one is the Cuban peso (CUP), which is the local currency in which Cubans are paid and with which Cubans pay their expenses. The second is the convertible peso (CUC, convertible in USD), reserved for foreign visitors, but which was theoretically not accessible to Cubans. Since reforms passed under Raul Castro’s government, every Cuban can change their CUP into CUC. Furthermore, the main goal of the authorities is to suppress this currency duality and to make both currencies converge.[12] That means that the Cuban government is renouncing its ability to effectively control every U.S. dollar in the economy.

These reforms are a very substantial move towards the liberalization of the economy in the country and have already had a direct impact in the daily lives of millions of Cuban.[13]

Several great projects led by Raúl Castro serve as examples of this opening. The newly upgraded Port of Mariel in Cuba is without a doubt one of these titanic and promising projects in the country. This port expansion project was supposed to cost nearly $1 billion USD, and it received nearly two-thirds of its financing thanks to Brazilian loans. Additionally, the project was engineered by the conglomerate Odebrecht, also Brazilian.[14] The Port of Mariel is envisioned to be one of the most important industrial ports in the Caribbean and is supposed to be able to handle the post Panamax ships, which are enormous cargo ships expected to pass through the Panama Canal after 2015.[15] This port is going to be managed in the future by PSA International, a Singapore-based international port operator, even if the port is mainly owned by the Cuban military and is state dependent. Furthermore, it will be a free trade zone as well as considered a special development zone that will include a golf course in order to attract the global financial elite.[16] We are very far from the terrific communism dreaded by the White House.[17]

Cuba has now become a “public-private hybrid in which multiple forms of production, property ownership, and investment, in addition to a slimmer welfare state and greater personal freedom, will coexist with military-run state companies in strategic sectors of the economy and continued one-party rule.”[18]

Moreover, the popular input to these reforms has been more important than ever, even if it has always existed.[19] In 2011, during the preparation for the Sixth Congress of the PCC, Raúl Castro’s government led a vast consultation process through a series of popular assemblies across the country to hear citizen proposals and grievances.[20] These assemblies, even if they do not prefigure multiparty elections, are at least a good way to promote public debate and bottom-up participation.[21] The Cuban government still defended one-party rule, but the President ordered high level state officials to make themselves accessible to state press, which is supposed to abandon the half-century of official triumphalism.[22] The Cuban government is also facilitating wider internet connectivity and is willing to relinquish complete control of social media and the internet.[23] Public debates are still limited, and not as free as they could be, but the discussions among the high-ranking Cuban officials, when the doors are closed, are vigorous. These first steps are encouraging, even if a lot remains to be done.[24]

The U.S. Stands Alone Against Cuba:

Since the Cuban Revolution, the White House’s foreign policy towards Cuba, regardless of whether the Democrats or Republicans were in power, has been terrifyingly obtuse, and has not changed in fifty years.[25] Since the creation of the embargo, and the 1962 missile crisis, U.S. policies have not evolved.[26] During more than half a century the main goal of the State Department and the C.I.A, backed by Miami-based right-wing insurgents, has been to overthrow the Castro government by killing the líder máximo, or by promoting revolts and riots in the island.[27] Some of the most memorable attempts at U.S.-sponsored regime change include trying to kill Fidel Castro with poisonous cigars or with an exploding seashell. More recent attempts to incite revolt include utilizing a secret Twitter service as well as a “reckless project” led by the C.I.A and U.S.A.I.D. which attempted to overthrow the Cuban government by financing the hip hop local scene.[28]

The U.S. policy towards Cuba has been based on “predictions that the island would undergo a rapid transformation in the manner of China or Vietnam, let alone the former Soviet bloc”, which “have routinely proved to be bunk”.[29] In 1996, during the Bill Clinton presidency, the Helms-Burton legislation conditioned the removal of the U.S. embargo on multiparty elections in Cuba and the restitution of private property which was nationalized in the 1960s.[30] The U.S. government was still frozen in 1962 and in the Cold War.

But the reality of the situation is that things are changing in Cuba, and the U.S. government cannot afford to continue denying this. Most American citizens are now against the embargo: as reported by the Huffington Post at the beginning of the year, “Nationwide, 56 percent of Americans say they support normalizing relations with Cuba, with the figure jumping to 63 percent for residents of the state of Florida, the poll says. The figure for Latinos nationwide who support a change was also higher than among the general public, at 62 percent.”[31] Even the right wing Cuban-American lobby, based in Miami is seen as obsolete and boring by a new generation of Cuban Americans.[32] Nowadays, “7 in 10 Cuban[-Americans] now favor reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba and about half want the U.S. to end the embargo”.[33] The U.S. government and the U.S. congress were standing alone, without their citizenship, in favor of the embargo on Cuba.

Moreover, the White House has no allies on the international stage regarding its policy against Cuba. As stated by CNN “over the last two decades, the United Nations General Assembly has voted each year against the embargo, calling on the U.S. to reverse its policy”.[34] In the hemisphere, Washington’s influence is on the decline.[35]

In the Americas, both the hardline leftist governments such as Venezuela, as well as pro-American Latin American governments such as Mexico and Colombia welcomed the announcement of Obama to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba, as well as to ease certain restrictions towards Cuba.[36] Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos declared he wanted to see “the dream of having a continent where there is total peace.”[37] Meanwhile Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, far from being the stubborn critic of the U.S., declared that “we have to recognize the gesture from President Barack Obama, a courageous and necessary gesture.”[38] As for José Miguel Insulza, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, he said that the decision was a “great vision on both sides, because this conflict, which has significant negative implications for citizens of both countries, has stagnated politically for too long.”[39]

Similar praises were given on the other side of the Atlantic. The European Union (EU) has been a traditional opponent of the embargo, to the point that it filed a lawsuit against this U.S. policy, challenging the embargo in 1996: nearly 20 years ago.[40] As stated by CNBC, “the EU challenged the embargo in 1996, launching a trade dispute at the World Trade Organization against the U.S. Helms-Burton law, which took aim at non-U.S. companies that did business with Cuba.” After the announcement of President Obama to ease certain restrictions of the embargo and to reestablish the diplomatic relation the EU immediately asked Washington to lift the embargo.[41]

Lifting the Embargo to Stay in the Game

Now that President Obama announced his will to end to the embargo, which he cannot do without the Congress (which will be controlled by the Republicans in 2015), a clear path has been opened towards peace. Without its citizens supporting the embargo, and with no international allies, Washington was alone in its stance against Cuba. Now, the Obama administration is on the right side of history, but further steps have to be made, and the U.S. Congress will hopefully vote to end the embargo. Opposition has come down to (mostly Republican) U.S. senators and representatives, who stands alone in their hypocritical argumentation.

As for Cuba, there is much work to be done. The government will now have to address how to preserve the country’s sovereignty while opening to foreign investment, and how much inequality Cubans will accept in exchange for more economic prosperity. Moreover, human rights and the freedom of speech in Cuba will remain an international concern.

These choices are not going to be solved easily. But the United States can play an important role in it, through bilateral cooperation and dialogue. President Obama announced the U.S. government will be part of the next Summit of the Americas in April 2015, and Cuba will probably attend too. It would be a historical moment if President Obama and President Castro shake hands and discuss a future together.

*Clemént Doleac, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

[1] International Monetary Fund, HERNANDEZ-CATA Ernesto, “The Fall and Recovery of the Cuban Economy in the 1990s: Mirage or Reality ?” in IMF Working Paper, WP/01/48, on December 2000.

[2] LAMBERT Renaud, “Ainsi vivent les Cubains” in Le Monde Diplomatique, on April 2011. Consulted on http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2011/04/LAMBERT/20364 on December 19, 2014.

[3] SWEIG E. Julia and ROCKFELLER David, and BUSTAMANTE Michael, « Cuba after communism:The Economic Reforms That Are Transforming the Island » in Council on Foreign Relations, on July/August 2013. Consulted on http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991 on December 19, 2014.

[4] LOPEZ LEVY Arturo, “Cuba Under Raul Castro: Economic Reform as Priority? » in The Huffington Post, on February 25, 2013. Consulted on http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arturo-lopez-levy/cuba-under-raul-castro_b_2754397.html on December 19, 2014.

[5] SWEIG E. Julia and ROCKFELLER David, and BUSTAMANTE Michael, « Cuba after communism:The Economic Reforms That Are Transforming the Island » in Council on Foreign Relations, on July/August 2013. Consulted on http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991 on December 19, 2014.

[6] LOPEZ LEVY Arturo, “Cuba Under Raul Castro: Economic Reform as Priority? » in The Huffington Post, on February 25, 2013. Consulted on http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arturo-lopez-levy/cuba-under-raul-castro_b_2754397.html on December 19, 2014.

[7] REUTERS, “Cuba permitirá privatizar o liquidar empresas estatales deficitarias” in El Mundo, on May 09, 2011. Consulted on http://www.elmundo.es/america/2011/05/09/cuba/1304960216.html on December 19, 2014 ; EFE, “Cuba permitirá pequeños negocios privados en 178 actividades económicas » in El Mundo, on September 24, 2010. Consulted on http://www.elmundo.es/america/2010/09/24/cuba/1285344654.html on December 19, 2014.

[8] FANGMANN Alexander, “Cuban government announces acceleration of privatization and austerity measures” in WSWS, on July 30, 2013. Consulted on http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/30/cuba-j30.html on December 19, 2014.

[9] Ibid.

[10] SWEIG E. Julia and ROCKFELLER David, and BUSTAMANTE Michael, « Cuba after communism:The Economic Reforms That Are Transforming the Island » in Council on Foreign Relations, on July/August 2013. Consulted on http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991 on December 19, 2014.

[11] Europa Press “Cuba plantea la progresiva privatizacion de miles de restaurantes estatales” in Europa Press, on September 19, 2014. Consulted on http://www.europapress.es/internacional/noticia-cuba-plantea-progresiva-privatizacion-miles-restaurantes-estatales-20140919183211.html on December 19, 2014.

[12] LAMBERT Renaud, “Ainsi vivent les Cubains” in Le Monde Diplomatique, on April 2011. Consulted on http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2011/04/LAMBERT/20364 on December 19, 2014. ; “Cuba to scrap two-currency system in latest reform”. BBC News. October 22, 2013. Retrieved October 22, 2013.

[13] LOPEZ LEVY Arturo, “Cuba Under Raul Castro: Economic Reform as Priority? » in The Huffington Post, on February 25, 2013. Consulted on http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arturo-lopez-levy/cuba-under-raul-castro_b_2754397.html on December 19, 2014.

[14] SWEIG E. Julia and ROCKFELLER David, and BUSTAMANTE Michael, « Cuba after communism:The Economic Reforms That Are Transforming the Island » in Council on Foreign Relations, on July/August 2013. Consulted on http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991 on December 19, 2014.

[15] MUSSEAU Francois, Tailbacks in Panama” in Le Monde Diplomatique on September 2014. Consulted on http://mondediplo.com/2014/09/09panama on December 19, 2014

[16] SWEIG E. Julia and ROCKFELLER David, and BUSTAMANTE Michael, « Cuba after communism:The Economic Reforms That Are Transforming the Island » in Council on Foreign Relations, on July/August 2013. Consulted on http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991 on December 19, 2014.

[17] Ibid.

[18] SWEIG E. Julia and ROCKFELLER David, and BUSTAMANTE Michael, « Cuba after communism:The Economic Reforms That Are Transforming the Island » in Council on Foreign Relations, on July/August 2013. Consulted on http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991 on December 19, 2014.

[19] LAMRANI Salim, “Cuba, the Media, and the Challenge of Impartiality”; foreword by Eduardo Galeano, translated by Larry Oberg ; SWEIG E. Julia and ROCKFELLER David, and BUSTAMANTE Michael, « Cuba after communism:The Economic Reforms That Are Transforming the Island » in Council on Foreign Relations, on July/August 2013. Consulted on http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991 on December 19, 2014.

[20] SWEIG E. Julia and ROCKFELLER David, and BUSTAMANTE Michael, « Cuba after communism:The Economic Reforms That Are Transforming the Island » in Council on Foreign Relations, on July/August 2013. Consulted on http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991 on December 19, 2014.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] LAMRANI Salim, “Cuba, the Media, and the Challenge of Impartiality”; foreword by Eduardo Galeano, translated by Larry Oberg ; SWEIG E. Julia and ROCKFELLER David, and BUSTAMANTE Michael, « Cuba after communism:The Economic Reforms That Are Transforming the Island » in Council on Foreign Relations, on July/August 2013. Consulted on http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991 on December 19, 2014.

[24] SWEIG E. Julia and ROCKFELLER David, and BUSTAMANTE Michael, « Cuba after communism:The Economic Reforms That Are Transforming the Island » in Council on Foreign Relations, on July/August 2013. Consulted on http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991 on December 19, 2014.

[25] CASTENEDA Jorge G., The life and death of Che Guevara, Compañero, Random House Inc., 1998.; GILLUM Jack, BUTLER Desmond, “Castro survived odd, often inept, US schemes” in Big Story, on December 17, 2014. Consulted on http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4ff07787ff8c45f4ba2a1d7d1e5644c6/castro-survived-odd-often-inept-us-schemes on December 19, 2014.

[26] ALLISON Graham, “Conceptual models and the Cuban Missile Crisis”, American Political Science Review, 1969 63: 689-718.

[27] LAMRANI Salim, “Cuba, the Media, and the Challenge of Impartiality”; foreword by Eduardo Galeano, translated by Larry Oberg ; CASTENEDA Jorge G., The life and death of Che Guevara, Compañero, Random House Inc., 1998.; GILLUM Jack, BUTLER Desmond, “Castro survived odd, often inept, US schemes” in Big Story, on December 17, 2014. Consulted on http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4ff07787ff8c45f4ba2a1d7d1e5644c6/castro-survived-odd-often-inept-us-schemes on December 19, 2014.

[28] LEOGRANDE William M., « Washington’s Secret ‘Cuba Twitter’ Program Is the Same Old Policy of Regime Change » in The Nation, on April 23, 2014. Consulted on http://www.thenation.com/article/179510/washingtons-secret-cuba-twitter-program-same-old-policy-regime-change on December 17, 2014. ; BUTLER Desmond, WIDES-MUNOZ Laura, RODRIGUEZ Andread and Associated Pres, “Senator: USAID’s Cuba hip-hop project ‘reckless’ » in Daily Democrat, on December 11, 2014. Consulted on http://www.dailydemocrat.com/ci_27118597/senator-usaids-cuba-hip-hop-project-reckless on December 17, 2014

[29] SWEIG E. Julia and ROCKFELLER David, and BUSTAMANTE Michael, « Cuba after communism:The Economic Reforms That Are Transforming the Island » in Council on Foreign Relations, on July/August 2013. Consulted on http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991 on December 19, 2014.

[30] Ibid.

[31] PLANAS Roqué, “Poll Reveals That Most Americans Don’t Support Cuban Embargo” in The Huffington Post, on February 11, 2014. Consulted on http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/11/cuba-embargo-poll_n_4769455.html

[32] LEMOINE Maurice “Miami se lasse de l’extrême droite cubaine” on Le Monde Diplomatique, on April 2008. Consulted http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2008/04/LEMOINE/15784 on December 19, 2014.

[33] DIAMOND Jeremy, “9 questions you were embarrassed to ask about the Cuban embargo” on CNN on December 17, 2014. Consulted on http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/17/politics/cuban-embargo-questions-answers/ on December 19, 2014.

[34] TeleSur “UN General Assembly Likely to Vote in Favour of Lifting Cuba Embargo, Again” in TeleSur, on October 21, 2014. Consulted on http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/UN-General-Assembly-Likely-to-Vote-in-Favour-of-Lifting-Cuba-Embargo-Again-20141021-0021.html on December 19, 2014 ; DIAMOND Jeremy, “9 questions you were embarrassed to ask about the Cuban embargo” on CNN on December 17, 2014. Consulted on http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/17/politics/cuban-embargo-questions-answers/ on December 19, 2014.

[35] DOLEAC Clément, “Are the Organization of American States’ Imperialist Roots too deep to Extirpate Today?” in Council on Hemispheric Affairs, on December 04, 2014. Consulted on http://www.coha.org/are-the-organization-of-american-states-imperialist-roots-too-deep-to-extirpate-with-today/ on December 19, 2014.

[36] DIAMOND Jeremy, “9 questions you were embarrassed to ask about the Cuban embargo” on CNN on December 17, 2014. Consulted on http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/17/politics/cuban-embargo-questions-answers/ on December 19, 2014.

[37] PARTLOW Joshua, MARTINEZ Gabriela, “Latin Americans praise Obama easing Cuba embargo; Colombia rebels set cease-fire “ in the Washingt Post. Consulted on http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/latin-americans-praise-obama-easing-cuba-embargo-colombia-rebels-set-cease-fire/2014/12/17/cbccbdd6-8607-11e4-abcf-5a3d7b3b20b8_story.html on December 19, 2014.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

[40] MILES Tom, Reuters, “EU wants US embargo of Cuba to end but accepts will take time” in CNBC on December 18, 2014. Consulted on http://www.cnbc.com/id/102281443 on December 19, 2014.

[41] Ibid.

The post Why Obama And US Congress Should Go Further With Cuba – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

At least 23 civilians were killed, and scores of other non-combatants were injured in Aleppo in six separate regime airstrikes on Thursday, a Syrian opposition group said.

According to the Syrian Revolution General Commission, combat aircraft belonging to Syrian regime forces pounded Bab town in Aleppo, a target controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Women and children were reportedly among the victims, and several buildings were damaged.

Street protests, ruthlessly repressed by the Assad regime, turned into a bloody civil war which has claimed the lives of more than 150,000 people so far.

The unrest has led to a civil war fought by a fragmented opposition.

It also paved the way for ISIL to gain a foothold in the region.

Original article

The post Syria: Army Airstrikes Pound Aleppo, 23 Civilians Killed appeared first on Eurasia Review.

INRA scientists have shown for the first time that the pathogens responsible for scrapie in small ruminants (prions) have the potential to convert the human prion protein from a healthy state to a pathological state.

In mice models reproducing the human species barrier, this prion induces a disease similar to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. These primary results published in Nature Communications on 16 December 2014, stress the necessity to reassess the transmission of this disease to humans.

Scrapie is a neurodegenerative disease that has been known for centuries and which affects sheep and goats. Similar to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow disease, scrapie is caused by a transmissible pathogen protein called prion.

However, and contrary to BSE[1], epidemiological studies have never been able to establish a link between this disease and the occurrence of prion diseases in humans.

“Risks of transmitting scrapie to humans (zoonose) were hitherto considered negligible because of the species barrier that naturally prevents prion propagation between species”, said Olivier Andreoletti, INRA scientist who led the present study.

Researchers at INRA studied the permeability of the human transmission barrier to pathogens responsible for scrapie, using animal models specifically developed for this purpose. This approach previously allowed the confirmation of the zoonotic nature of prions responsible for BSE in cows and of the variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans (vCJD).

Unexpectedly, in these rodent models, certain pathogens responsible for scrapie were able to cross the transmission barrier. Moreover, the pathogens that propagated through this barrier were undistinguishable from the prions causing the sporadic form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD). This data suggest a potential link between the occurrence of certain sCJD and these animal prions.

“Since CJD is scarce, about 1 case per million and per year, and incubation periods are usually long -several decades- it is extremely difficult for epidemiological studies to try and make this link”, explains Olivier Andreoletti.

In their conclusions, the authors stress the fact that CJD cases are rare though scrapie has been circulating for centuries in small ruminants for which we eat the meat. Even if in future studies scrapie is finally confirmed to have a zoonotic potential, the authors consider that this disease does not constitute a new major risk for public health.

[1] Human transmission of BSE was established in 1996

The post Scrapie Could Breach Species Barrier From Sheep To Humans appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Several children’s programs were aired during the Franco regime; however, they did not have their own programming. Children, otherwise known as young adults, could watch the television during a limited schedule, on one channel. For the first time, a study has analyzed 112 children’s programs broadcast between 1958 and 1975, concluding that the aim was to religiously and patriotically educate children; and later, focusing on the social and economical situation of the country.

The dividing advertisement, Vamos a la cama (1964 – ‘It’s time to go to bed’) was a turning point for children’s programs. Family programs were transmitted up until that time. The aforesaid advertisement just marked a limit for young audiences, nothing else: “adult programs were still relayed during the afternoon,” explains María Antonia Paz, researcher at the department of History of Social Communication in the Information Sciences Faculty at the Complutense University of Madrid to SINC.

The first children’s programs were broadcast in accordance with school timetables, that is to say, on Thursday and Saturday afternoons when children didn’t have class. It was not until 1964 when the airing times for children’s programs increased during the weekdays.

Children’s programs were at the mercy of the dictatorship

The different types of programs shown during the Franco regime coincided with the “attempt to teach children to be good citizens,” highlights professor Paz. According to the author, Catholicism was directly present in Lecciones de catecismo (1959 – ‘Lessons on how to prepare for the Catechesis’) and, indirectly in “each and every one of the means through parabolas, education, recommendations, etc”.

Patriotism was spread by means of exemplary lives: “Spaniards, of both the present and the past, should be a benchmark for all good Spaniards professionally and personally. Examples were always provided in order to show that Spanish inventions, sport, music triumphed all over the world,” added the researcher.

Tradition overpowered modern ideals in this period: folk music, fables, children’s songs, classical tales, regional dances, traditional games, circus, puppets… “It was as if the television aimed to maintain and spread the word on popular culture and convey a television culture,” Paz said.

The aforesaid observations and conclusions were gathered in the study, published in the ‘European Journal of Communication’, by María Antonia Paz. 122 children’s program transmitted on TVE (Spanish National Television) from 1958 -when information media on television programs started to appear- until the 20th November 1975 -after Franco passed away- were analyzed.

According to the study, the main aim of TVE was to entertain children, although they did not miss the opportunity to “educate” children with scientific or musical contents. However, children’s programs prepared its audience for the volatile economical uncertainty as well as the industrialization, urbanization and cultural modifications within the country, with a certain degree of liberalization after the end of the Franco regime.

‘Not suitable for adults’

In 1959, children’s programs started with No apto para mayores (‘Not suitable for adults’), which was broadcast on Saturdays. Recreo (1960 – ‘Break’) and Chavales (1961 – ‘Kids’) were more successful and entertained both children and adults on Thursday afternoons. The main characters -Boliche and Chapinete- started their careers on the radio and later prevailed on the television.

From 1958 to 1963, “children were considered as small fry, young adults and, they were conferred small problems and worries, similar to what adults could experience,” said Professor María Antonia Paz. The formats changed little by little: from imitating radio programs to creating new means adapted to the television.

From 1964, the 55 second advertisement Vamos a la cama marked a milestone: children became a differentiated audience. During this period, programs began to be distinguished with regard to age. Jardilín (1966-1968 – ‘Little garden’), for instance, was for younger children. There were two types of programs for teenagers: the first to solve problems such as Habla contigo (1967-1970 – ‘Speak to yourself’), which rose awareness on religious conflicts and the second to listen to modern music.

The fantastic Antonia character exerted power over girls under Franco. / BNE

There were also gender differences such as Santi, botones de hotel (1965 – ‘Santi, the hotel bellboy’) which was about a brave, adventurous, daring young boy. Antoñita la fantástica (1967 – ‘Fantastic Antonia’), was a girls program about “a modern ingenious girl who was concerned about her physical appearance and full of fantasies,” describes the researcher. There were other foreign boy’s series such as the western Bonanza, which was highly popular among children back then.

From 1969 to 1975, TVE focused on pure entertainment and educational and religious programs disappeared as a consequence of the law on religious freedom in 1967. “Television joined the cause for modernization and reflected the new social and economical reality of the country,” highlights the authors.

The most successful program was emitted for four years (from 1974 to 1979). It was called Un globo, dos globos, tres globos (‘One balloon, two balloons, and three balloons’). This program and ‘Sesame Street’ reached new levels with regard to children’s programs. “The latter and other programs, such as Con vosotros (‘With you all’), were the daily television offer for some time. La Guagua (‘The bus’) was aired in the mornings and Saturday evenings were for children. On Sundays, primarily sports programs were transmitted,” said Paz.

According to the author, “these programs were the first and the only memory of various generations of Spanish television which entertained and, socially, culturally and emotionally educated its audience with its programs, presenters and characters.

The post Spain: TV During Franco Educated Children To Be Good Citizens appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Muhammad Umar*

Ten years ago today, the deadly Indian Ocean tsunami killed over 230,000 people and displaced millions of others. As we remember those we’ve lost, we must also think about safeguarding ourselves from future natural disasters and ways to prevent major catastrophes.

Earlier this month, President Putin agreed to sell India at least a dozen new nuclear reactors in an agreement signed with Prime Minister Modi during the 15th annual India-Russia summit.

As part of a deal agreed to in 1988, Russia has provided two nuclear reactors at Kudankulam in the state of Tamil Nadu, off of the southern Indian coastline. The first went critical last year, and the second unit is expected to go online by the end of this month; this is a cause of concern for the thousands that live along the same coastline, and for the millions that live in neighboring countries.

There is no arguing that nuclear power is a necessity for India. It is important for them to meet their energy needs. But in the process of trying to address an energy crisis, India cannot put the entire region at risk of nuclear disaster.

In 2004, more than 16,000 people died in India when the tsunami hit, and a nuclear power plant at Kalpakkam had to be shut down because the waves had overwhelmed the cooling intakes, a glaring similarity to what would happened at Fukushima in 2011; fortunately in 2004 the safeguards worked, and India averted a devastating calamity.

And since the Kudankulam reactors are located on the same coastline as Kalpakkam, they pose a significant threat to the entire region. God forbid if there were another massive tsunami or earthquake, Kudankulam would become the next Chernobyl or Fukushima.

The Indian National Center for Ocean Information Services (INCOIS) have pointed out several times over the years of the extreme risks nuclear reactors on the coast at Kudankulam and Kalpakkam pose because they are prone to massive waves generated by the Indian Ocean tsunamis, which are caused by underwater earthquakes.

According to an article written by G. Pramod Kumar, the INCOIS said, they saw an “appalling picture” after reviewing the safety protocols being followed at Kalpakkam and Kudankulam reactors. The article referenced to that review of the protocols, and found that instead of designing “site specific tsunami preparedness plans, the Indian Atomic Energy establishment is content with one single partial engineering solution namely locating the reactors above a certain hypothetical height above the sea level!”

This means that we could possibly witness a massive disaster in the near future, a disaster that would not only devastate southern India, but the entire region.

Preventing disasters

I urge the Indian government to order an exhaustive scientific study to test the current safety protocols, and to recommend changes where required to better address the safety needs of each reactor as suggested by the INCOIS.

After the scientific studies are complete, an independent outside party like the IAEA should review the findings, and suggest improvements of their own, again, only if required.

India should only continue building their nuclear power plants along the coast if the comprehensive reviews are carried out, and changes to safety protocols are implemented. For now, all work should be stopped.

It’s better to take these precautions immediately before risking the lives of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people.

The government should also formulate an emergency plan to deal with the possibility of a reactor meltdown; this would include a preparedness plan for those residing in the area.

This is also a great opportunity for the Atomic Energy Regulatory Commission (AERC) in India to prove its worth. The regulatory commission has been under a lot of fire after a 2012 report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India highlighted the ineffectiveness of the organization as a sufficient nuclear regulatory. The CAGI recommended that the organization follow the Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authorities’ model for nuclear regulatory work.

This is not a call for India to stop pursuing civil nuclear projects; instead this should be treated as a wake-up call for the Indian nuclear establishment to the dangers of building nuclear power plants in tsunami and earthquake prone areas. The Indian nuclear authorities should reassess the threats of these nuclear power plants. They should outline plans that would reduce or eliminate the threat of a nuclear disaster in case of extreme events.

The government should quell the fears of its people, and those that live in neighboring countries, by instilling confidence in them that they are doing all they can to ensure the highest safety standards are applied to their nuclear reactors, and that they’ve conducted every test required to safeguard the coastal plants against natural disasters.

*The writer is an Assistant Professor at the National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan. He tweets @umarwrites.

The post Lessons From Past: Remembering 2004 Tsunami – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iranian President Hassan Rohani says his government succeeded in reducing the rate of inflation from over 40 percent to 17 percent within 16 months.

The Mehr News Agency reported on Wednesday December 24 that Hassan Rohani told a gathering of BIrjand residents that the country is becoming economically prosperous.

He credited his government’s policies and measures for the inflation rate decline of more than 20 percentage points.

He added that the economy, which had been shrinking under the former administration, has now shown growth of four percent in the past six months.

In September, the Economic Minister announced that the economy had finally begun to grow after two years of shrinking.

The restructuring of government subsidies and the imposition of international sanctions on Iran put serious pressure on the Iranian economy in recent years. Rohani’s government took power in August of 2013 with promises to remedy the economic situation.

The post Iran: Rohani Credits Government Policies For Economic Improvement appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Cheryl Pellerin

Since 2009, when a Pentagon memo to military department secretaries announced that emerging infectious diseases would become part of the chemical and biological defense mission, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency has worked to advance its biosurveillance capabilities.

Biosurveillance, at least for the Defense Department, is the process of gathering, integrating, analyzing and communicating a range of information that relates to health threats for people, animals and even plants, to help protect troops worldwide, and to increase global health security.

Such advance knowledge comes from monitoring the environment, monitoring medical and clinical disease reporting worldwide, monitoring the many networks established for collecting and distributing disease information, and most recently monitoring social media and online services for crowd-sourced infectious disease news.

The planet’s largest outbreak of the Ebola virus disease in West Africa is the latest example of how an infectious disease in one area can become a major international security issue.

Countries have reported 17,551 cases so far and 6,202 deaths from Ebola, according to the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC.

Preparing for Threat Events

“We work with a lot of interagency partners because [biosurveillance] is a big mission space, it’s not something any single agency can cover all on its own,” Dr. Ronald K. Hann Jr., director of research and development in DTRA’s Chemical and Biological Technologies Department, told DoD News during a recent interview.

“We work with DARPA and some of our other interagency partners,” he added, “to make sure we’re really covering biosurveillance in the country and overseas, to see if there are events we need to be aware of and how to prepare [if] we have to respond to any kind of crisis.”

For the warfighter, biosurveillance offers DTRA a way to identify early on that something is occurring, Hann added, “so we can move diagnostics or therapeutics forward to the battlefield to see who is affected and how to adequately respond.”

Hann likens biosurveillance to the kind of remote monitoring of serious weather events that meteorologists do.

“If you think about how hurricanes work, [meteorologists] look off the coast and see in Africa that a storm is beginning to brew, and it starts to move across the Atlantic over time. You know that it’s going to make landfall in the States but you’re not sure where,” Hann said.

On the Horizon

Biosurveillance works in a similar way, he explained.

“We can watch overseas or within our own country,” Hann said, “to see if something will emerge as an infectious disease that’s going to have an impact on the nation.”

As an outbreak begins to develop, he said, “we can make sure we have adequate resources to respond, and when we respond we can be much more focused.”

Though the Ebola outbreak took most of the world by surprise, Hann said DTRA began seeing the threat several months in advance.

“Even though the biosurveillance tools we have are really prototypes, we could see that there was an emerging threat on the horizon,” Hann said, “and we’ve been steadily engaged ever since.”

DTRA’s Early Response

The initial West Africa Ebola outbreak began in December, Hann said, just around the time the first formulation of the experimental Ebola drug ZMapp was finalized.

Mapp Biopharmaceutical now is manufacturing the Ebola treatment, but for several years before that DTRA, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, or USAMRIID, and the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases had been funding studies and working to prove the validity of ZMapp’s monoclonal antibody technology.

By March, Doctors without Borders, already on the ground in West Africa, contacted a DTRA researcher about the drug.

“We had just completed two nonhuman-primate trials indicating that ZMapp might be useful,” Hann said, “and in the March timeframe we prepositioned one ZMapp regimen, or three doses, in Geneva for [Doctors Without Borders’] use in theater.”

Potential National Impact

In June, DTRA elements “started to talk about how we could potentially have an impact on [the outbreak] and we established a technical team here within DTRA to evaluate what we were seeing [and] what we had in inventory that would be useful,” Hann said.

Also in June, DTRA reached out through its collaboration with CDC to partner with them. At the time, CDC also was starting to respond to the Ebola outbreak, and Doctors Without Borders announced that the outbreak was out of control.

“For us,” Hann said, “that was the big signal that the Ebola outbreak was something that could have a national impact.”

One of the outbreak-response tools DTRA developed is called the ebolaportal.org, to be used by nongovernmental organizations, the governments of nations most affected by the Ebola outbreak, and DoD labs involved in the U.S. outbreak response.

A larger effort, developed by the Joint Program Executive Office, was accelerated and just now is gaining initial operating capability, Hann said. It’s called the biosurveillance portal.

“You can think of it as a ladder,” he added. “The portal is an unclassified [online] entry point where you can come in and get information on diseases around the world on a secure unclassified network.”

Hann said the portal was brought out recently during the U.S.-South Korea tabletop anti-bioterrorism exercise called Able Response.

“At DTRA we develop [applications] that will hang on the ladder,” he added, such as an app that does predictive analysis to estimate the path of an infectious disease, and others that are available in an app store.

Right now, Hann said, the biosurveillance portal is limited to U.S. government users, “but somebody can get on there and get the latest situation report from our diagnostic lab in place X.”

The post Defense Threat Reduction Agency Scans World For Biothreats appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Hassan al-Obaidi

Dozens of Iraqi activists kicked off on Thursday (December 11th) a campaign titled ” Nuun ” to celebrate Christmas and New Year’s alongside Iraqi Christians in response to the “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s” (ISIL) crimes against them in northern Iraq.

The campaign, co-organised by three youth organisations that include dozens of activists in Baghdad, Basra and northern Iraq, aims to support Christian Iraqis and encourage them to hold and expand Christmas and New Year’s celebrations this year in response to ISIL attacks against them, said the campaign’s director, journalist and rights activist Ihab Ahmed.

“ISIL has expelled our brothers in this country who are currently in displacement camps far from their cities,” he said. “We seek to help them hold their ceremonies and celebrations at their current locations and send ISIL a message that this country is too great to be ruled by backward murderers like them.”

“Mobile bells have been provided in several cities across the country, to be rung on this occasion in defiance of this terror group, emphasising internal peace and coexistence in Iraq, which extremists aim to undo,” he said.

Nizar al-Baghdadi, director of the Baghdad Organisation for Human Development, said the campaign included five different activities, among them celebrations at displacement camps that host Christian families and the distribution of small- and medium-sized bells to be rung in defiance of ISIL.

Campaigners also will place ornaments and decorative lights in Baghdad and other cities and hold small celebrations in a number of streets, to be announced a day before they take place for security reasons, he said.

In addition, volunteers will distribute gifts to displaced Christian children in camps and wherever else they reside, he said.

A number of Muslim families in Baghdad have decided to host Christian families living in camps for Christmas celebrations out of respect and solidarity with them, al-Baghdadi told Mawtani.

“We hope this initiative becomes something that all Baghdad families who have large houses will adopt,” he added.

All sects and faiths participate

Baghdad activist Shaimaa Hamdi told Mawtani that more than 70 young Iraqi men and women from various sects and faiths had so far taken part in the campaign, in the hopes it would deliver a meaningful message.

“Our message is that ISIL and its likes will sooner or later go away but we are here to stay,” she added. “Therefore, we need to think about reconciling with each other before anything else since we are brothers and we all must help one another.”

Hamdi said the campaign had been making an impact on Iraqi society, “as we have received dozens of requests from young men and women to join multiple campaign activities, welcoming the idea behind it. We therefore expect the campaign to grow to other cities.”

The Iraqi government also welcomes the campaign, Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq told Mawtani.

Any popular effort to promote peace and co-existence among Iraqis is crucial to Iraq’s war on terrorism and its quest to achieve security and full stability, he added.

“The government will provide everything needed by the young people who are holding the campaign, and gladly so,” he said.

“Such campaigns and initiatives help abolish the sectarianism, racism and internal strife propagated by terror groups and show that the people are truly one people,” al-Mutlaq said.

The post Iraqis Celebrate Christmas Alongside Christian Brothers In Defiance Of ISIL appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Despite the currency being replaced by the euro, Germans are still have some 12.9 billion in old Deutschmarks, an equivalent of €6.6 billion, the German central bank estimated. Nostalgia is the primary motive for keeping the old coins and notes.

Germany abolished the Deutschmark in 2002, when it entered the Eurozone. When European currencies were unified the Bundesbank started changing marks into euros at a fixed rate of about DM 1.96 per euro and will continue to do so indefinitely.

But a large number of the obsolete banknotes and coins remain, if not in circulation then in possession of the general populace, the bank reported this week. Its estimates say Germans hold 169 million notes and 24 billion coins of various denominations. Divided by Germany’s population of 81 million, this translates into an average of 82 euros per person.

Naturally, less-valuable coins are the Deutschmarks the Germans are reluctant to part with. More than half of those had not been converted, while only four percent of banknotes were returned to the Bundesbank.

Old stashes of hoarded marks are being regularly discovered during renovations of old houses. They fuel a small but steady flow of annual Deutschmark conversions, which amounted to €52.1 million in 2014.

Nostalgia seems to be the most prominent motive for keeping good old D-marks. According to a poll conducted by the Emnid institute for Postbank, 74 percent of Germans with Deutschmarks in their pocket see a sentimental value in them. Some 24 percent keep part of their savings in the old currency, while 22 percent simply forgot to convert their assets, the poll showed.

Some of the marks are likely to have vanished outside of Germany, particularly in Eastern Europe, where the Deutschmark served as a second currency in the early 1990s, but also elsewhere in the world, as the currency was considered stable enough to store value.

The post Germans Still Hoard Billions In Deutsche Marks appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

Thousands of students staged a mass protest in front of government house on Friday, once again protesting against government plans to introduce external, state-supervised exams for graduates.

Students, university professors and their supporters on Friday besieged the main boulevard in front of the government building in Skopje, calling for an end to plans for state-supervised tests for graduates.

The protesters say the state exams will hinder freedom of education and pose a threat to universities’ autonomy.

Students shouted “University is the voice of freedom!”, “No justice, no peace!”, “Can you hear us now?” and “Autonomy!”, while holding banners reading: “We are not another brick in the wall!”, “You can’t be right when the governemtn is wrong”, “We are students, not clients,” and “I want to stay in this country.”

This was the third mass street protest against the reform this winter staged by a movement called the Students Plenum. It follows a protest in mid-December attended by over 12,000 people.

In parallel with the main protest in Skopje, student rallies were held in several other towns across Macedonia.

The proposed amendments to the Law on Higher Education envisage all students taking a “state exam” before they complete their studies.

Ministers say the exams will improve students’ overall education. But the protesters say the amendments are unconstitutional and pose a threat to university autonomy.

Professors, intellectuals, rights activists and student movements from abroad have lent their support to the protesters.

Significantly in the ethnically divided country, ethnic Albanian students in Macedonia have also joined the rallies.

A letter sent to the Prime Minister this week, signed by 110 Macedonian university professors, describes the plans as “state interventionism in the autonomy of the universities” and as a sign of Macedonia’s “disrespect, disapproval and underestimation of its own national academic community.

“This is a direct blow to the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of education because the state will decide who can obtain a diploma”, the letter reads.

Media reports on Friday said that the governing body of deans at the main state university, the Sts Cyril and Methodius University, also requested halt to the reform.

The Dean of the Skopje Law Faculty, Borce Davitkovski, earlier called the reform a piece of “nonsense” and said that it “must not be allowed to pass”.

Undeterred, Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski and Education Minister Abdulaqim Ademi have shrugged aside arguably the biggest student protests to take place in Macedonia in two-and-a-half decades.

They claim that the opposition Social Democratic Party, SDSM, is the real force behind the unrest. Pro-government media have also downplayed the numbers attending the protest to just a few thousand.

There were fears on Friday of a potential clash between the protestors and a smaller group of government supporters who staged a noisy counter protest at the same location.

The post Macedonia: Student Protesters Rally Outside Govt HQ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Jayshree Sengupta*

The ‘Make in India’ campaign of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a very compelling slogan and has an instant appeal. Indeed why not invite people from all over the world to make all kinds of goods in India? In the past, India had highly skilled labour and good quality raw materials and people craved for Indian products specially hand crafted metal, wood and stone wares. Indian handloom shawls were much prized and Napoleon’s queen Josephine had a large collection of Kashmiri Jamewar shawls. Can India reclaim that reputation once again? Only if Make in India campaign leads to achieving excellence in the quality of Indian goods. This can happen if Indian products are meticulously finished, have trendy looks and are price competitive.

Typically, the Make in India campaign is aimed at foreign investors. Indeed that is what China did after opening up in 1978. It invited mostly western foreign investors to set up factories in China and produce branded goods with Chinese labour and raw materials. Thus all famous western brand names went to China and got their products made only to be exported back to the home countries. Multinational companies sold products in the west under their own brand name and only a tiny tag hidden inside revealed: “Made in China”. Billions of dollars flowed in and China became the factory of the world. Today in almost every US store and across stores in the EU, products made in China are sold in the high price range and not among the cheap stuff.

Now China is encountering problems and its economy is experiencing a slow down. The labour costs are rising and manufacturing growth has slowed down. But China still remains ahead of India in attracting foreign direct investment. Its FDI was $ 117.6 billion in 2013 whereas India’s was $ 28 billion. China’s factories are worth seeing because they give the impression of a well supervised, disciplined labour force working under close supervision, producing zero defect goods.

The question is — can we fill in the niche that China may be leaving? At least in a few things India can produce equally well. But our labour force is not as disciplined or educated. Hence first, we have to train them well and introduce a work culture which is similar to China’s.

Second, China’s infrastructure is far superior and efficient. Even in remote villages, there is water supply 24×7 and power. Many of the intensive manufacturing activities are carried out in villages. I visited a village near Hangzhou which is the biggest producer of socks and lighters in the world.

Third, for Indian enterprises, business costs are high because credit availability is less smooth and interest rates are high. Even with talent and discipline, the costs would rise because of high interest rates. Indian consumers on the other hand are very price sensitive. They don’t care where the product comes from as long as it is of reasonable quality and cheap. If Indian products are placed alongside cheaper products made in other countries, Indians will always go for the foreign made ones. A typical Indian consumer admits that Chinese goods are not of very good quality but are cheap and affordable. That is why India has a huge trade with China.

Another question is about what kind of production technique should be used for ‘make in India’ to absorb more labour especially the youth. Is it possible to produce cost effectively with labour-intensive techniques? It is however clear now globally that most production operations require more technology and less and less labour. Already the 3 D printing has started in industrial countries which will not only be cheaper but accessible to individuals to make their own products. How can India compete in this technology driven world with labour- intensive techniques of production? If foreign investors as well as domestic investors have to adopt labour- intensive techniques, they will have to make sure that productivity of labour rises and wages remain low, otherwise, there will be a danger of rising costs as in Germany, leading to falling exports.

Another point raised by Reserve Bank governor Raghuram Rajan is that ‘Make in India’ slogan should be replaced with ‘Made for India’. It means that like the Chinese who have moved away from the export-led growth model and are concentrating on production geared to domestic demand, Indian manufacturers should also cater to domestic demand. This is because the global scene is not as upbeat as before and external demand coming from US and the EU is weak and not enough to sustain export led growth.

Basically, Make in India will require a lot of policy changes that will involve quick and efficient decision-making and eradication of delays and corruption. The main hurdles could be land acquisition and environmental clearances which are much more difficult to surmount in India than in a totalitarian state like China.To make India a choice investment destination will require many changes in the bureaucratic machinery so that India climbs up in World Bank’s index for Ease of doing Business. India’s current rank is 142nd and foreign investors are aware of the problems they are likely to encounter.

Does ‘Make in India’ campaign mean that consumer goods’ imports will be restricted? In the 1960s and 70s, people bought Indian goods not out of choice but because there was no other option. The import substitution regime was imposed because of foreign exchange crisis. Thus Make in India should be accompanied with the exhortation that everyone should ‘Buy Indian’ just like the slogan “Buy British” during the 1980s. Make in India to be successful would need a change in the Indian consumption pattern, now used to imported goods. Indians would have to subscribe again to Gandhiji’s campaign for buying Swadeshi. Otherwise the Make in India campaign may not yield the expected results.

On the whole ‘Make in India’ campaign seems out of sync with today’s world where it doesn’t matter where a product is made because even high exporting countries like China basically assembles parts made elsewhere in the world.

*(The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi)

The post Can ‘Make in India’ Deliver? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ajey Lele

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) claimed on 19 December 2014 that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was “responsible for” the cyber-attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE).

“I don’t think it was an act of war. I think it was an act of cyber vandalism that was very costly, very expensive. We take it very seriously. We will respond proportionally….” – President Barack Obama on CNN’s “State of the Union”

“This is not vandalism. It is a new form of warfare. And we have to counter that form of warfare with a better form of warfare” – Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) on CNN’s “State of the Union”

North Korea’s National Defense Commission warned of strikes against the White House, Pentagon and “the whole U.S. mainland, that cesspool of terrorism.”

“Our toughest counteraction will be boldly taken against the White House, the Pentagon and the whole U.S. mainland … by far surpassing the ‘symmetric counteraction’ declared by Obama,” said the commission’s Policy Department in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

On November 22, 2014, the computer systems of Sony Pictures Entertainment were hacked. And on December 16, 2014, the “Guardians of Peace” hacker group issued a threat that attacks comparable to 9/11 should be expected on cinema theatres screening the Sony Pictures produced film The Interview. Sony Pictures cancelled the release of the film for some time but it is now released in some cinemas and online on 25 December 2014.

The hacking of Sony Pictures was done by compromising the credentials of the ‘system administrator’. This led to the erasing of important data relating to its business plans, various movie scripts, stored data on various forthcoming films, personal details of almost everybody from stars to staff, e-mail details, etc. The hacking has led to complete data deletion. According to some estimates, the loss of revenue owing to various reasons from the box-office sales to distribution transactions to possible lawsuits could exceed US$ 1 billion.

The Interview is in news for being a somewhat ‘crude’ comedy that portrays the assassination of Kim Jong-un, the supreme leader of North Korea. North Koreans have been unhappy about the film since its plot became public around six months back. Claiming that the production of this movie is an act of craziness on the part of the US, they have termed it ‘an act of war’. US authorities have claimed that North Korea was behind the cyber-attack on Sony Pictures. But North Korea has strongly denied this claim. Now, both countries are threatening to fight this ‘battle’ in cyber space.

So, is a Cyber War on the cards? Would the year 2015 begin with the first official Cyber War ever fought, between the US and North Korea? If such a war were to begin, what could be its end result? Would this bloodless war sow the seeds of a bloody war in the future? Although it is premature to answer such questions or reach any definitive conclusion about such a possibility, it is important to take note of what is happening in the cyber world particularly in the context of the US claim of a cyber-attack by North Korea on Sony Pictures. Is it Hollywood’s ‘Snowden moment’ or something more?

Here, it is important to note that there are reports indicating that the cyber attack on Sony Pictures could have been the handiwork of disgruntled employees or ex-employees or even by a Hollywood rival. There is even speculation that the attack could be a case of an egoistic act by a hacker to gain “artistic” satisfaction!

Now the question is what evidence the US has to claim that North Korea has done this? Obama is talking about a “proportional response”. Would the US be able to quantify the nature of this response? Internet services in North Korea were paralysed within a few days of the Obama threat. No one has any knowledge about the source of this attack. It is not clear whether the US Administration launched this attack.

The attack on Sony Pictures should not be viewed only as an attempt to impose extra-territorial censorship by North Korea. Such acts should be viewed as possible warnings for the future. They not only challenge democratic rights but also pose a serious security threat. Indeed, they could be regarded as acts of economic terrorism or acts undertaken to destroy critical infrastructure or to interfere with matters of other states. Till date, globally, there have been no major incidences of a large-scale cyber attack that could disable the functioning of an entire state apparatus, with the exception of the 2007 cyber-attack against Estonia which crippled public utility services.

As per the International Business Times (December 23, 2014), North Korea employs 1,800 hackers in its Unit 121, a cyber warfare unit. This unit and a few other related agencies function under its General Bureau of Reconnaissance. These hackers operate from various parts of the world. It is apparent that their main focus is to train and prepare to launch a cyber attack on South Korea in the event of war. However, they are capable of engaging other targets too. Probably, there are also Chinese and Russian footprints on the North Korean cyber war architecture.

Interestingly, the US is keen to engage with China to address the current issue. US-China relations in the arena of cyber security are not very harmonious. In May 2014, the US Justice Department accused five Chinese military officers of hacking into the accounts of US companies and stealing trade secrets. This had led to China suspending its participation in a bilateral working group on cyber security. It is possible that the US is using the Sony incident to reengage China in the cyber field.

Universally, any cyber aggressor has the basic advantage of ‘deniability’. Today, it is not clear whether North Korea or the US have actually carried out these attacks. The underlying issue is actually politico-strategic in nature. The US is keen to place North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism (in 2008, North Korea was struck off from this list during the course of nuclear negotiations). In November 2014, North Korea threatened to conduct a nuclear test in response to a United Nations move to begin a probe into its human rights violations. North Korea understands that the nuclear threat continues to be the most effective bargaining tool it has. Given the example of the Stuxnet attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, it is aware what a cyber-attack could do to its own nuclear weapons complex. It is possible that it could have used the Sony incident to demonstrate its cyber capabilities.

The question is this: ‘is this just the beginning a possible conflict in cyber space’? Probably, the US has more to lose in the event of an all-out cyber war. Yesterday, it was Sony Pictures but tomorrow it could be major industrial units, strategic assets, rail and air networks and banking infrastructure. It is important to note that North Korea was able to restore its internet connectivity within a few hours after the attack. This indicates that they have access to servers outside their territory. If the North Korean cyber army has succeeded in establishing bases outside the country, then the US would find it very difficult to address this threat effectively.

References
1.http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/update-on-sony-investigation
2. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/21/quotes-from-sunday-talk-shows-police-officers-killed-cuba-sony-hack/
3. http://time.com/topic/sony-hack-2/

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/USNorthKoreaCyberDispute_alele_261214.html

The post The US-North Korea Cyber Dispute – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Pushpita Das

While giving its December 17, 2014 verdict on writ petitions filed by the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, All Assam Ahom Association and others on the issue of illegal migration, a two member bench of the Supreme Court not only asked the Central government why it has chosen to leave the border with Bangladesh porous but also directed it to erect fences and strengthen vigilance to prevent the illegal inflow of people through the border. In addition, the Supreme Court also directed the Central government to streamline the procedure for deportation of illegal migrants and begin parleys with Bangladesh on the issue. The Hon’ble Court further stated that it would monitor the efforts of the Central government and review the steps taken after three months.

The judgment of the Supreme Court is praise worthy given that successive political dispensations have been wishy-washy about the problem of illegal migration. But can fencing prevent large-scale illegal migration from Bangladesh? The answer is no. Fencing can at best be a physical obstruction for easy ingress into Indian territory. But it cannot stop a determined infiltrator. There is enough evidence to indicate that migrants have been devising ways to bypass this physical obstruction (see below).

The idea of fencing the border with Bangladesh to stem the tide of illegal migrants has a long history. The proposal was first put forward by the Assam government in January 1965. Assam, as is well known, has been a destination for migrants from the densely populated neighbouring districts of Mymensingh, Rangpur, Bogra, etc. since the second half of the 19th century. Over the decades, large scale migration altered the demographic profile of Assam’s border districts, as has been evidenced by successive Census Reports since 1871. This trend of migration of “foreigners” continued even after independence, which was only amplified by the inflow of Hindu refugees from the erstwhile East Bengal/East Pakistan following communal riots in the wake of Partition.

Concerned about the socio-economic and political repercussions of the unrelenting flow of people from across the border, the Assam government undertook several measures including the January 1965 proposal to erect barbed wire fences along some vulnerable patches of the International Border with the approval of the Centre. But a shortage of barbed wires and inability to clear a mile-deep area of habitation prevented it from implementing the fencing project and the plan itself was subsequently shelved. But the idea of fencing itself did not fade away and eventually found mention 20 years later in the Assam Accord of 1985.

The Assam Accord brought to an end the six year agitation by the All Assam Student Union (AASU) and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP) against illegal migration from Bangladesh. An agreement between the AASU, the AAGSP, the Centre and the Assam government, the Accord stipulated that “the international border shall be made secure against future infiltration by erection of physical barriers like walls, barbed wire fencing and other obstacle at appropriate places”. Accordingly, the project for constructing fences and roads along vulnerable stretches of the border in Assam was initiated in 1986. But the construction of border fences in Assam, West Bengal and Meghalaya was started only in 1989 because of the decision to construct roads first. It was initially decided that only vulnerable stretches, and not the entire border, will be fenced. But by 2001-02, increasing cases of illegal migration, cross-border movement of insurgents and smuggling forced the Central government to decide in favour of fencing the entire India-Bangladesh border.

It is, however, important to note that the entire India-Bangladesh border cannot be fenced because the terrain – at places riverine or hilly or marshy – does not permit the construction of fences. Moreover, building fences is not an easy task and is fraught with major hurdles. One of the biggest hurdles is delays in the acquisition of land. In addition, vested political interests, the lackadaisical and uncooperative attitude of state governments, stringent environmental laws, paucity of funds and unwillingness of the local people to relocate have all contributed to stalling the process of fencing. Disputed and non-demarcated patches of the border and resistance from Bangladesh further complicate the fencing effort. Nonetheless, a substantial part of the border has indeed been fenced. According to an affidavit submitted by the Ministry of Home Affairs in the Supreme Court in 2014, out of the 3326 km of fences along the India-Bangladesh border (including reconstruction of damaged fences) that has been sanctioned, construction of 2828 km has been completed and another 78.8 km will be completed by May 2016.

While fencing has been successful to some extent in preventing easy access, it has not altogether stopped people from illegally entering India. Migrants have devised means to surmount the fence or bypass it. There are numerous reports of migrants either cutting the fences or placing wooden ladders and planks to climb over. The unfortunate incident of Felani Khatun is a case in point in this regard. Migrants also exploit the poorly guarded Sundabans and the sea route to enter India. Fences have also proven ineffective in areas where they cut through villages and houses for well-known reasons. Thick forested tracts and marshy and low lying areas coupled with the faulty design and use of substandard material have further reduced the effectiveness of fences. Further, migrants desperate to find a better livelihood have started relying on the services of smugglers. Mafias involved in smuggling and trafficking of persons have proliferated and entrenched themselves along the border. Corrupt government personnel and political patrons operating hand-in-glove with the smugglers have ensured that migrants are able to not only cross the border easily but also procure the necessary documents to enable them to live in India as ‘citizens’. Furthermore, an increasing number of Bangladeshis who arrive on valid visas do not return and overstay in India.

In short, fencing as a measure to stop illegal migration from Bangladesh is a suboptimal measure. Migration from Bangladesh occurs because demographic pressure, poverty, political and religious persecution, etc. are pushing people out of that country. At the same time, they are pulled into India because of the demand for cheap labour, the availability of land as well as other attractions such as better medical and educational facilities. Favourable conditions in terms of a porous and easily negotiable border, the availability of shelter from kith and kin, religious and political patronage, lax policing and judicial procedures for identification and deportation of illegal migrants have all facilitated large scale illegal migration. Unless these more fundamental factors – vested political interests, economic compulsions and non-cooperation from Bangladesh – are addressed effectively, illegal migration will continue to take place, fence or no fence.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/BorderFencingWillNotStopIllegalMigration_pdas_261214.html

The post Bangladesh-India: Border Fencing Won’t Stop Illegal Migration – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Lilianne Fan*

The Indian Ocean tsunami, triggered by a massive earthquake just off the coast of the province of Aceh on tip the Indonesian island of Sumatra, released the energy of 23,000 Hiroshima-type atomic bombs and devastated coastal towns and communities. The impact was global in scale – an estimated 270,000 people killed or missing across 14 countries, with casualties in 46 nations.

But while the tsunami’s destruction was felt around the world, Aceh was by far the region most devastated by the disaster, bearing almost half of the total damage and losses worldwide.

Today, 10 years on, Aceh is widely regarded as a success story in disaster reconstruction. This is not entirely surprising -over the four year mandate of the government-led recovery process, Aceh saw a remarkable amount of construction. With the help of hundreds of aid agencies and donors, under the coordination of the government of Indonesia, more than 140,000 new homes were built, along with around 4,000km of roads, 2,000 schools, 1,000 health facilities, 23 seaports, and 13 airports and landing strips. One of the most prominent symbols of Aceh’s reconstruction is the 242km-long highway from provincial capital Banda Aceh to Meulaboh along the province’s formerly devastated west coast, built with the vision of stimulating economic activity and supporting Aceh’s long-term development.

But while Aceh’s physical reconstruction is impressive and the Indonesian government’s Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency for Aceh and Nias (BRR) has rightly been praised as a model of post-crisis governance and leadership, these achievements obscure deeper problems that have made long-term recovery for many Acehnese difficult and elusive. The hard truth is that for most Acehnese, their “recovery” still remains an unfinished journey, as many continue to struggle to make ends meet.

Even after receiving more than US$7.7 billion in aid, from both international and national sources, Aceh remains one of the poorest provinces in Indonesia with 18 percent of the population living below the country’s poverty line (significantly higher than the national average of 11 percent). Today, in spite of much optimism that the province would undergo an economic renaissance on the back of the reconstruction bubble, Aceh’s economy is stagnant and unemployment is high.

And while tsunami aid could not possibly have been expected to lift all Acehnese out of poverty, some critical questions ought to be asked about whether that aid struck the right balance. Was the prioritization on physical rebuilding along Aceh’s west coast appropriate in a province that suffered from not only a tsunami but also a 30-year conflict and decades of isolation and underdevelopment? Should more aid have been spent on supporting sustainable livelihoods and less on physical infrastructure? Could more effort have been made to shift excessive tsunami aid to poor conflict areas?

Ghost villages, empty highway

All along the west coast of Aceh are houses built with aid money – once sturdy buildings, now abandoned and decayed, forming ghost villages, such as in the villages of Lhok Kruet, Nusa and Babah Dua in the district of Aceh Jaya. Without regular income, many Acehnese simply cannot afford to maintain their new houses, nor to pay for infrastructure and utility connections, and have found alternative shelter, including sharing rented accommodation with relatives.

Many tsunami survivors, including children and youth who became heads of households and breadwinners in the aftermath of the disaster, feel they have few options but to migrate, often illegally, to seek work. Moving to big cities in Indonesia and Malaysia in search of work, many have also abandoned their aid-built houses in pursuit of livelihood security. Such economic pressures have a direct negative impact on children’s education – Aceh’s school drop-out rate of 26 percent is one of the highest in the country, and orphans from poor backgrounds are the single largest group among drop-outs. In addition, in 2013-2014, Aceh had the highest number of secondary students who failed the national exams. They also have an impact on women, who are left to take care of children and the elderly, a role which they played during the years of conflict when many men were forced to flee.

In all fairness, tsunami aid cannot be blamed for Aceh’s continuing problems. Indeed, Aceh had multiple problems before the tsunami, first among them the 30-year conflict between the Free Aceh Movement (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka, or GAM) and the Indonesian government that killed an estimated 30,000 people, left over 300,000 seriously injured, and displaced an estimated 600,000 people.

The conflict also devastated the social and economic fabric of the province, and weakened its institutions. During the years of fighting, human rights violations against rebels and civilians alike were rampant, homes and schools became regular targets of arson attacks. The social development costs of the conflict were alarming. In 2002, just two years before the tsunami, the poverty rate stood at 30 percent, more than half the population had no access to running water and one in three children under the age of five was under-nourished. Farmers were too afraid to attend to their fields, while illicit businesses, including in logging, arms, drugs, and extortion, thrived.

Many hoped that the peace agreement, accelerated by the tsunami, would allow Aceh’s conflict-affected communities to also benefit from the large volume of aid in the province. But while damage and loss from the conflict is estimated to be more than $10 billion, conflict aid to Aceh reached only around $800 million, or one-seventh the total of tsunami aid. Today, many rural households continue to struggle to make ends meet: Aceh’s anticipated “peace dividend” has yet to become a reality.

Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, director of BRR, admitted in 2008 that “the rural economy on the coastline that was hit by the tsunami is back, I can say that with full confidence. The rural economy in the hinterland that was affected by the conflict is not back.” Recent psychosocial research by the Mulia Hati Foundation, a local NGO, along Aceh’s west coast revealed that many Acehnese experience poverty as a “third wave of trauma”, on top of the trauma of the tsunami and that of the conflict. Indeed, Aceh’s conflict-era political economy hasn’t disappeared since the tsunami or the signing of the peace agreement; it has, on the contrary, adapted and persisted, creating new inequalities and putting control of the economy into the hands of a new political elite.

Blind aid

But while the international community cannot be held responsible for Aceh’s deep structural and political problems, decisions made about how tsunami aid was spent and short time-frames for aid programmes have had a significant impact on Aceh’s continued lack of social and economic development and the persistence of predatory politics and poor governance in the province.

First, international donor funding went from billions to virtually nothing in the space of a few years, making it difficult for most agencies to develop long-term community programmes. Second, aid was dramatically uneven, with the bulk focused on rebuilding housing and infrastructure and only a small portion allocated to livelihood recovery. Third, even when aid was allocated to livelihoods initiatives, these were too often unsustainable, with many agencies involved in “supply-driven” short-term assistance, such as distributing fishing boats and large cash grants which distorted the market, without also addressing the root causes of poverty. Fourth, tsunami aid was conflict-blind, creating new inequalities and exclusions, with an enormous amount of tsunami aid creating a “gold coast”, while the conflict-affected areas received barely any assistance after the signing of the peace agreement in Helsinki in August 2005. At the same time, housing construction also created some opportunities for Aceh’s new GAM elite, some of whom transformed successfully into contractors, deepening perceptions among Aceh’s conflict affected communities that they had simply been forgotten by the international community as well as their own leaders alike.

Part of the problem was one of volume. As Craig Thorburn of Monash University, who led a multi-year research project on community recovery in Aceh, observed: “the sheer volume of this aid -in combination with the ambitious deadlines set for the recovery process -inevitably resulted in serious overlaps and redundancies, mistargeting and hastily planned and implemented programs.” Poor use of aid funds were also due to the intense pressure on aid agencies – from donors, the public and media – to spend funds quickly, rather than to invest it in ways that might support more thoughtful and sustainable recovery and transition processes. At the same time, in their enthusiasm to help, many actors were simply blind to the realities of power in Aceh, including the impact of 30 years of armed conflict.

A key lesson for the aid community from the 2004 tsunami and the Aceh reconstruction process is the need to think more critically about what will actually help people the most in a given political context in the long-run, not just what we want to do to help them.

While this seems straightforward, such common sense continues to elude the aid community over and over again today, including in the 2010 Haiti earthquake response and the recent Typhoon Haiyan response, both cases where local government, civil society and private sector felt by-passed by international aid actors who created parallel systems and overlapping initiatives.

A more sustainable approach must start with a deeper understanding of the root causes of vulnerability as well as the relationships of power that keep people vulnerable. Even if international aid cannot solve all problems within crises-affected societies, at the very least aid actors should ensure that they are not blind to them. At the same time, international aid donors and agencies must work harder to overcome institutional and financial barriers that prevent them from implementing responses that put the realities of vulnerable people at the centre.

The tenth anniversary of the tsunami is a time for remembrance and reflection; it also offers us an opportunity to recommit our efforts to help Aceh and other tsunami-affected communities complete their unfinished recovery. So much has already been invested in rebuilding these societies. What is now needed is renewed momentum to complete the last mile so that the response to the tsunami can be a proud legacy for us all.

* Lilianne Fan is a Research Fellow at the Overseas Development Institute’s Humanitarian Policy Group in London. She has worked on Aceh since 1999, including four years in tsunami recovery operations.

The post Aceh’s Unfinished Recovery – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By James A. Baer*

The announcement on December 17 that both U.S. President Barack Obama and Cuban leader Raul Castro would address their respective nations where they proceeded to declare a breakthrough in relations caught much of the world by surprise. This development came after more than a year and one-half of engagement.

The resulting deal outlined the freeing of Alan Gross, the American contractor who had been held for five years in a Cuban jail, along with Rolando “Rollie” Sarraff Trujillo, who had worked clandestinely for the United States, in exchange for three highly visible Cuban prisoners in the U.S. who had been convicted of spying in a very highly controversial U.S. trial.

The implications of the announcement go far beyond a prisoner swap, signaling a radical shift in U.S. policy toward Cuba. Already we are seeing a highly visible opposition by Republicans and cries of betrayal from older Cuban-Americans, many of whom fled the island when Fidel Castro took power after the 1959 revolution. Florida Senator Marco Rubio (R) denounced the change in policy, bitterly claiming that it rewarded a dictatorship. Rubio, an expected 2016 presidential candidate, recounted his family’s long opposition to the Castro regime. Recent polls, however, have shown that a majority of younger Cuban-Americans and most citizens in the U.S. favor improved relations with Cuba.

Relations between the two states had remained frozen in a Cold War time warp for more than fifty years. The U.S. trade embargo had not led to any realization of U.S. policy objectives, although it did certainly make life more difficult for many Cubans. But recently, high-level policy advisors from the White House and Havana met in Canada with the encouragement of Pope Francis, the first Latin American pope. Pope Francis had visited Cuba with Pope John Paul II and had written about the need for better relations between the United States and Cuba.

Nevertheless, there are still many issues that need to be resolved. This dramatic first step will not immediately or automatically end the U.S. embargo or permit unrestricted trade or travel between the U.S. and Cuba. But it does bring to an end a policy that had proven to be indefensible and even counter-productive. Most Latin American countries have shunned the U.S. and established economic and political ties with Cuba on their own, with the U.S. increasingly isolated by the passage of time. Latin American representatives to the 2012 Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia demanded that Cuba be invited to the next summit in Panama, and the U.S. had acquiesced. However, the announcements on Dec. 17 was universally seen as only the beginning of a process to single-mindedly change the steadfast opposition of the U.S. to the Cuban regime headed first by Fidel and then Raul Castro.

The United States had sponsored an invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs in 1961, had all but threatened war with the Soviet Union over Moscow’s decision to construct nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962. The White House also had attempted to assassinate Fidel Castro on several occasions. The U.S. has accused the Castro regime of arming the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and Marxist guerillas in El Salvador in the 1980s, as well as permitting drug shipments through Cuba to the U.S. and of perpetrating many human rights abuses for political crimes. The Cuban government has accused the U.S. of supporting terrorism, providing a safe haven to Luis Posada Carriles. This Cuban terrorist is the author of the 1976 attack on a Cuban airliner, killing 73 people. Also, La Havana accused Washington of fomenting anti-government activities in Cuba and killing a number of Cubans in Washington’s infamous attack on Grenada in 1983. But by far, the longest-lasting and most contentious issue has been the U.S. imposed economic embargo, launched in 1961.

When the Castro regime confiscated property from U.S. companies and individuals in Cuba, the government offered compensation in bonds and with the sale of sugar. The U.S. refused and instituted the embargo in 1961, hoping to further squeeze the Cuban economy and weaken the Castro regime. Washington’s 1961 Foreign Assistance Act had forbidden assistance to Cuba as a communist regime and to any country giving assistance to Cuba.[1] President John F. Kennedy suspended all trade with Cuba in February 1962 in accordance with this legislation. The 1963 Cuban Assets Controls Regulations (CACR) froze all Cuban property in the U.S. and mandated that all commercial relations with Cuba be controlled by this division of the Treasury Department.

To this day, visitors from the U.S need a license issued by the Treasury Department to travel legally to Cuba. Restrictions on travel apply to all U.S. citizens and all residents of the United States, regardless of their nationality. Legal travel to Cuba under a Treasury Department license included travel which was limited to research or study, journalist reporting, attendance at conferences, and religious activities, travel by humanitarian aid workers and government employees assigned to Cuba. Cuban-Americans could visit relatives, although there were restrictions on remittances and travel. Over the past several years, approximately 90,000 Americans have traveled legally to Cuba each year, along with hundreds of thousands of Cuban-Americans.

Nevertheless, the embargo prohibited bringing items purchased in Cuba, such as cigars and rum, into the United States and restricted purchases to printed material or artwork. Travelers from the U.S. in Cuba could not use credit cards or write checks on U.S. banks, and all travel had to be arranged through an agency specifically licensed for travel to Cuba. Violations of this act could result in fines of up to $250,000 for individuals. The law even allowed for imprisonment for up to 10 years for those traveling to Cuba illegally. According to most estimates, some 20,000 did so each year, through Canada, Mexico or the Bahamas. The U.S. government made no special effort to find and punish these individuals, although on occasion a few travelers were hit with stiff fines

The embargo was amplified by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act (Torricelli Act) that forbade subsidiaries of U.S. companies from trading with Cuba. Regardless of the country they operated out of, and restricted remittances by Cuban-Americans. In March 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) or Helms-Burton Act. Title I of the act tightened financial restrictions by threatening to withhold any amounts intended for Cuba from international lending agencies, such as the Inter-American Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Prior to this measure, any U.S. President could use Presidential discretion but not require Congressional legislation. Title II required the return of all property seized from U.S. nationals by the Cuban government after January 1, 1959. Title III allowed U.S. nationals to sue foreign companies that benefited from investments in seized properties and Title IV permitted the United States to expel or refuse admission to executives and their families from such corporations doing business with Cuba. International condemnation of the act was so strong that both President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush signed waivers so that the provisions were not enforced.

There had been some movement over the past 15 years toward easing restrictions and improving relations with Cuba. The Congress of the United States passed the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSRA) in 2000 which allowed limited sales of agricultural goods and medicines to Cuba, increasing total US exports to Cuba from US$7.2 million to US$711 million between 2001 and 2008. The Obama administration also lifted some Bush-era restrictions on travel and remittances.

But the convergence of politics, pope and presidents that made a new relationship between the United States and Cuba only occurred in late 2014. As President Obama enters his final two years in office he appears to be looking for some way to enhance his legacy, especially with the resounding defeat of Democratic candidates in the fall elections. The president has used many of his broad powers to conduct foreign policy, and with a Republican majority soon to be seated in both houses of Congress, Obama belatedly decided to take the initiative with Cuba.

In Cuba, Raul Castro has already begun a series of economic reforms allowing Cubans to own small businesses, purchase and sell their own homes and buy and sell newer-model automobiles. There have been few political reforms to go along with these economic changes. The average Cuban is beginning to see opportunities that did not exist before.

Change will come slowly and with some difficulty, as President Obama admitted in his speech. Politicians in the United States, whether in Congress or considering running for president, will support or oppose this initiative depending on their perception of voter approval. Partisan politics will shape these policies as it does with other measures supported by President Obama.

And, one final point that many Americans may not fully consider, or will decide to shrug off, is whether or not Cubans want a completely unrestricted relationship with the United States. The Cubans that one visitor to Cuba has spoken to while visiting the island profess admiration for many aspects of U.S. culture. But they also support the right of Cuba to follow its own path, unrestricted by U.S. interference. Cubans may want a freer economy and a more open political system, but they do not universally want U. S. control of finances, land and businesses in Cuba. Many Cubans would agree with Fidel Castro, who refers to the “Apostle of the Cuban Revolution” as José Martí, not Karl Marx, and share Martí’s criticisms of the predatory power of the United States over its small island neighbor.[2] If Cuba and the U.S. are ever to have a good relationship, it must come from a mutual acceptance of differences and not an imposition of U.S. values.

*James A. Baer, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

References

[1] For a detailed discussion of the U.S. embargo and its implications, see “The US Embargo against Cuba, its Impact on Economic and Social Rights,” London, Amnesty International Publications, 2009

[2] John M. Kirk, “José Martí and the United States: A Further Interpretation,” Journal of Latin American Studies, Volume 9 / Issue 02 / November 1977, pp 275-290

The post US-Cuban Relations Reimagined – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Nida Hameed*

The US has yet again decided to prolong the agony of Afghans by extending its stay in Afghanistan. It has been successful in signing the stalled Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) with the new elected President of Afghanistan effective from January 2015. Former Afghan President Karzai had refused to endorse the agreement due to strained relations with the US and left the decision to his successor.

Afghanistan witnessed some major political setbacks in the year of 2014. The Afghan election was marred by large-scale fraud and Afghanistan was held hostage by political stalemate. Presidential candidates Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah were at odds over an election. Abdullah complained of mass vote rigging in the June runoff election by Ghani. The US pressured both the candidates because it implied a risk for the US troops in the aftermath of the withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan, and finally on September 21, 2014, both the candidates agreed to form a national unity government.

In the meanwhile, the Independent Election Commission (IEC) conducted an audit of all the ballots cast approximately eight million ballots and 23,000 ballot boxes. And after the formation of the government IEC announced the results of the audit which were not made public and declared Ghani as President and Abdullah to be sworn in as Chief Executive. Surprisingly this was an extra-constitutional position because later on the Constitution would be amended to create an empowered Prime Minister. This new setup undermines the Constitution, hence this fragile resolution will lead to political chaos.

Karzai’s successors were committed to sign the BSA. Therefore the very first act of the unity government after assuming power was to sign the agreement with the US as both the Presidential candidates had declared support for the agreement during their election campaign. They signed the BSA because both are pro-western and signing the agreement was an indicator that they support the US stance to continue its counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan post 2014.

The BSA stipulates long term US military presence in Afghanistan. President Obama confirmed initial residual force of 9,800 till the end of 2015, which will be reduced to half in 2016. The end of 2017 envisages further reductions in these numbers. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement it shall remain in force till the end of 2024 and beyond. Ironically the US maintains its presence in Afghanistan and on the other hand it opposes aggression by foreign states. According to Article 6 of the BSA, “Afghanistan has been subject to aggression and other uses of force inconsistent with the United Nation’s Charter by foreign states and externally based or supported armed groups. In the context of this Agreement, the Parties strongly oppose such uses of armed force or threats thereof against the territorial integrity or political independence of Afghanistan, including in this regard provision to armed groups of support, such as sanctuary or arms, by any state or other armed groups”.

The security agreement between Afghanistan and the US will further complicate situation in Afghanistan and the region. Amongst its major drawbacks are:

Firstly, this agreement will not let the Afghan nation unite. US obligation to Afghan nation is to withdraw its troops completely and initiate political reconciliation among the Taliban and rest of the factions. Instead it has decided to prolong its stay. In this case Taliban will continue to fight against foreign forces and there are minimal chances of peace and stability not just in Afghanistan but in the region as well. The Taliban have dismissed the BSA and consider it a “sham”, orchestrated by the US. The Taliban’s official spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid said in a statement, “The Americans must understand that our soil and land belong to us and all decisions and agreements are made by Afghans, not by the US foreign secretary or ambassador.”

Secondly, this agreement will render legal cover to the US forces and will facade its future military and foreign policy objectives in Afghanistan and the region. Afghanistan’s strategic significance and position is central in the region. It is highly probable that US would pursue its goals in Central Asia regarding the New Great Game. This prolonged stay in the region would aid the US in achieving its goals of keeping a hawk’s eye on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons as US rhetoric is, they are not safe. Henceforth by staying in the region it shall be more viable for the US to contain China and Russia’s growing influence in the region. Such developments will determine the future strategic composition of the region.

Thirdly, Under BSA US led drone strikes in Pakistan will continue for next 10 years or more. Drone attacks launched in tribal areas originate from Afghanistan. Therefore the US will continue to breach sovereignty of Pakistan.

Lastly, the agreement also prevents the US military personnel from being prosecuted under Afghan laws for any crime they may commit in Afghanistan. Thus they will be free to commit crimes, torture and massacre Afghan civilians and their war crimes will not be investigated. “Two major examples include Special Operations Forces raid on a house in Paktia province in 2010, and enforced disappearances, torture, and killings in Nerkh and Maidan Shahr districts, Wardak province, in November 2012 to February 2013, involve abundant and compelling evidence of war crimes. No one has been criminally prosecuted for either of the incidents. These war crimes have not been investigated.

According to Richard Bennett, Amnesty International’s Asia Pacific Director, “Thousands of Afghans have been killed or injured by the US forces since the invasion, but the victims and their families have little chance of redress. The US military justice system almost always fails to hold its soldiers accountable for unlawful killings and other abuses.”

This agreement reflects that the US is the sole guarantor of security and stability of Afghanistan. Although President Obama when announced the timetable for drawing down troops May 2013 he said, “Afghanistan should not rely on the United States to manage the creation of a more stable society. That was up to its own security forces and elected officials … We have to recognize that Afghanistan will not be a perfect place, and it is not America’s responsibility to make it one.” It becomes clear from the statement of President Obama that the US lacks roadmap for Afghanistan; its military presence in Afghanistan is for merely strategic concerns.

It is high time for the US to accept its defeat in Afghanistan and completely withdraw its troops as its flawed strategy has done irreparable damage to Afghanistan as well as the rest of the region. Afghanistan requires a reliable state structure not the presence of foreign troops because BSA will not end reliance on the US assistance. The general elections were a farce, the Afghan election commission and the monitoring bodies had failed miserably in conducting free and fair election, a government which is not a result of public mandate but a product of a brokered deal cannot be accepted as a legitimate government. Urgent need of hour is intra-Afghan peace dialogue so that Taliban and all other factions can resolve their differences and every faction must be given due representation. This will facilitate peace not just in Afghanistan but in the Pakistan and the region as well.

*Writer is a graduate of School of Global Studies, University of Sussex.

The post Afghanistan In Shambles – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Felix K. Chang*

How effective are economic sanctions as a policy tool?  The United States appeared to answer that question in two different ways over the past year. Just last week, President Barack Obama announced a major shift in U.S. policy toward Cuba. He would begin to remove longtime U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba. He contended that “fifty years have shown that isolation [had] not worked” and that the sanctions represented “a failed approach.” Thus, he argued, American engagement, through commercial and cultural exchanges, would offer a better chance of bringing about change in Cuba.^[1]

But across the Atlantic Ocean, Obama championed what seemed like a contrary rationale.  In March, he argued that economic sanctions against Russia were needed to discourage it from intervention in Crimea and Ukraine. Starting with financial sanctions against members of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle, the United States and its European allies gradually expanded their sanctions, banning Western energy companies from helping Russia to extract oil from the Arctic, deep-water offshore fields, and shale formations, and then restricting all but short-term financing to Russian banks and selected defense and industrial firms.  On Friday, the West levied new sanctions that barred investment and trade with Crimea and enlarged the number of Russian and Ukrainian individuals under sanction.  The Obama administration underlined that “These actions… send a strong message to the Russian government that there are consequences for their actions that threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.”^[2]

So, are economic sanctions effective or not? The short answer is that it depends on the situation.  From an economic standpoint, the direct impact of U.S. sanctions against Cuba was quickly blunted.  Soon after sanctions were imposed in 1960, the Soviet Union began to provide large amounts of economic aid to Havana. That would last for 30 years. More recently, Cuba benefited from the largesse of anti-American Chavista Venezuela. Even so, Cuba has suffered. Long-term U.S. economic sanctions ultimately raised the cost of capital needed for it to develop its economy.  While it is hard to separate the impact of sanctions from the deleterious effect of Cuban government policies, evidence of Cuba’s failure to create a modern economy is clear.

At first glance, one might assume that economic sanctions against Russia have been more successful.  Within ten months of their implementation, Russia’s economy has materially deteriorated and the country is now closer to a financial crisis than at any time since the late 1990s.  But observing the decline in Russia’s financial fortunes, one can see a closer correlation to the drop in the global prices for energy and commodities (on which the Russian economy relies), than to the implementation of Western sanctions. Indeed, the fall in the value of the Russian ruble has closely tracked the fall in the global price for oil.  Both began to weaken in July; and both tumbled after November.

From a political standpoint, economic sanctions did not elicit changes in Cuban or Russian (so far) behavior that the United States had desired.  They did not deter Cuba from fomenting trouble in Central America and as far away as Africa, during the Cold War.  Similarly, they have yet to alter Russian behavior toward Ukraine.  Indeed, a month after the first sanctions were levied, Russia annexed Crimea and has continued to intervene in Ukraine since then.  Only the shoot-down of a Malaysian airliner in July seemed to briefly restrain Russian efforts in eastern Ukraine.  Western sanctions against Russia, however, have provided Putin with a scapegoat on which to pin Russia’s economic woes—one of his often mentioned “external factors.”  Together with his control of Russian media, that has helped to sustain his domestic popularity.  Meanwhile, those in the West who support economic sanctions against Russia believe that they will ultimately loosen Putin’s grip on power.

Whether or not sanctions are effective is not an academic question.  Cuba and Russia are but two of several cases where the United States has used economic sanctions as a policy tool since the end of the Cold War.  In the months leading to the Persian Gulf Conflict in 1991, the effectiveness of economic sanctions was the subject of heated debate.  A political chorus, fearful of war, argued that economic sanctions would be sufficient to compel Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to withdraw his army from Kuwait and even remove him from power.  They were not.  In the latter case, not only were economic sanctions insufficient, but neither were a decisive Allied military victory over his army nor a domestic uprising that followed.  It would take the 2003 American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq to finally topple Saddam Hussein’s regime.

On the other hand, economic sanctions were successful on a number of occasions during the 1990s.  There is the case of Malawi.  In 1992, the United States severed its economic aid to the country in order to compel it to improve its democratic practices and human rights.  Substantially dependent on that aid, Malawi quickly succumbed to the pressure and made its government more open.  There is also the case of Guatemala.  The mere threat of U.S. economic sanctions encouraged Guatemalan business leaders to force out the country’s president, who had dissolved the legislature and sought to rule by decree.  Lastly, some have argued that economic sanctions against Serbia played a key role in the successful conclusion of the Dayton Accords, which split Bosnia and Bosnia and Herzegovina from Serb-dominated Yugoslavia.  (However, others contended that NATO’s bombing campaign against Serbia was responsible for putting more pressure on its leaders to reach a deal.)

Ultimately, the effectiveness of economic sanctions seems to revolve around three factors:

• First is the question of whether economic sanctions are suited to achieve the objectives of the sanctioning country.  Does the sanctioning country have sufficient economic leverage over the target country?  Is the objective of the sanctions to deter a target country from an action or to compel it to take one?  Is the objective straightforward (like punishing a target country) or more complex (like supporting an opposition group within a target country)?
• Second is the matter of the type of economic sanctions that a sanctioning country chooses to impose.  Will the sanctions have an immediate effect or will their effect take time to materialize?  Are they sufficiently broad or narrow?  Naturally, those that are broad are more likely to have a bigger effect, but they might also produce unintended consequences given the less discriminating approach.  Conversely, those that are narrow may be less likely to produce unwanted consequences, but their effect might be limited.
• Third is the issue of the susceptibility of the target country to economic sanctions.  What is the capacity of a target country to withstand or adapt to sanctions?  How resilient are its political and economic institutions?  Is its financial situation already precarious?  Moreover, there are also other features that must be considered: highly cohesive societies or those under effective authoritarian rule may react far differently than others comprised of fractious ethnic groups or those with organized opposition groups.

To see how these factors can interact, one need look no farther than North Korea, a country that has been under stringent international economic sanctions for over 60 years.  While it enjoyed Chinese and Soviet support during the Cold War, their support had largely faded by the 1990s.  At that time, some believed that North Korea would eventually be forced to come to the negotiation table, lest it face total economic ruin.  Already, reports had surfaced that mass starvation gripped parts of the country.  But North Korea stood fast.  It continued to pursue a nuclear weapons program and, on occasion, threaten Japan and South Korea.  American policymakers had to accept that they had underestimated the resilience of the Pyongyang regime and overestimated the ability of economic sanctions alone to compel North Korea into genuine negotiations (or even deter its actions).

In some ways, Cuba’s situation resembles that of North Korea.  Both are relatively small countries ruled by despotic communist regimes.  Both were also left in a lurch at the end of the Cold War when Soviet aid disappeared.  Fortunately for Havana, tourism and high nickel prices provided the Castro regime with enough hard currency to keep its economy afloat.  When high oil prices threatened Cuba after the turn of the millennium, Havana was again fortunate.  Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, an admirer of Fidel Castro, provided Cuba with free or low-cost oil that it could resell on the international market to raise even more hard currency.  Hence, the plummet in the global price of oil since July has hit Cuba doubly hard.  It has not only put into question whether Venezuela, itself grappling with budgetary problems, can afford to continue its largesse to Cuba, but also reduced the profits Cuba can earn from reselling its oil.  The Cuba that the United States opened relations with last week is one that ran out of lifelines.  While Obama may have been correct that economic sanctions failed to work, he could have rightly claimed that they did make the Cuban economy more vulnerable to the vagaries of the global economy by limiting its ability to adapt to them.

Unlike Cuba, Russia is an enormous country endowed with an abundance of natural resources.  But the Russian government’s dependence on those natural resources to fund its budget made it vulnerable.  That is well known.  Putin even pointed out the danger of that dependence in a news conference last Thursday.  (He also reiterated the need for Russia to diversify its economy.)  As a result, it is easy to understand why a number of U.S. and European sanctions targeted Russia’s ability to profit from those natural resources.  But those sanctions are not what threaten the Russian economy with recession now.  Banning Western energy companies from providing their services and technology to Russia’s oil exploration efforts really hinders its oil production in the future oil production, not its oil revenues today.

What has hurt Russia’s ability to generate more revenue from oil is the precipitous decline in the global price of oil.  That decline was the result of growing expectations of lower oil demand due to economic slowdowns in China and Europe and higher oil supply as a result of new shale oil production in North America and the reluctance of OPEC countries to slow the growth of their oil output.  (Interestingly, had those expectations not existed, Western sanctions that restricted future Russian oil production may have actually raised the price of oil.)

Since half of Russia’s government budget relies on revenues derived from energy production, the decline in those revenues has led to concerns that the Russian state may have trouble financing its dollar-denominated debts.  It is widely known that Russia’s 2015 budget balances only when the price of oil is over $105 per barrel.  Today it is under $60 per barrel.  Those concerns grew into alarm in mid-December when the value of the Russian ruble plunged 20 percent in two days, the sharpest fall the currency has experienced since Russia’s sovereign debt default in 1998.  But Moscow is not without financial defenses.  Learning from its earlier experience, Russia has built up a massive foreign exchange reserve of $415 billion (as of late December 2014).  Though that reserve was $100 billion larger only a year ago, it is still a substantial sum that Russia can use to defend its currency.  However, Russia also knows that the need to use those reserves would be seen as a sign of weakness and might precipitate another run on the ruble.  And so, the Russian central bank hiked its key interest rate to 17 percent in a bid to curb further market speculation.  Unfortunately, the interest rate hike will also curb economic activity in Russia, likely pushing it into an even deeper recession.  Even Putin expects that that economic downturn could last for two years.^[3]

Politically, U.S. and European economic sanctions did not prevent Russia from annexing Crimea.  Nor did they impede its intervention in eastern Ukraine.  As one newspaper put it, “Sanctions have hurt the Russian economy, but they have had no discernible effect on Mr. Putin’s military strategy.”^[4]  Instead, Putin has mounted counter-sanctions against the West, banning its food exports to Russia.  Clearly economic sanctions can be a double-edged sword.  Policymakers should recognize that some sanctions can backfire and others can even turn out to be counterproductive to their intended goals.

After last Friday’s round of economic sanctions, the United States and Europe have signaled that they are ready to do more, if Russia does not comply.  One dramatic action they could take would be to block Russia’s access to the all-important international payments system that is run by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications or SWIFT.  Doing so would exclude Russian banks from dollar transactions (much as Iranian banks were in 2012) and further strain Russia’s already weakened economy.  But would even that alter Putin’s behavior?  At this writing it appears that any success will likely be partial, especially if the West brings to bear no other sort of pressure.  Russia still has a number of avenues open to it, not to mention a wealthy neighbor, China, whose foreign minister recently said that his country was willing to help Russia if it needed it.^[5]  Ironically, tighter economic sanctions today against Cuba, which has far fewer resources at its disposal, might have delivered a more clear-cut success than they are likely to produce against Russia.

The debate over the effectiveness of economic sanctions will not be settled anytime soon.  Indeed, the effectiveness of international sanctions against South Africa during the 1980s is still disputed.  Certainly under the right conditions, they can work as a policy tool.  But one should not expect more than partial success in all but the most exceptional cases.  Over the long run, sanctions can make national economies more brittle—vulnerable to larger changes in the global economy.  However, policymakers must recognize that they are difficult to use as a precise means to compel or deter those countries that are not easily isolated.  Then again, many simply see them as a way to punish a country without having to resort to military force.  But to do so without a reasonable chance to achieve some objective consigns them to being more symbolic than practical.

About the author:
*Felix K. Chang is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is also the Chief Strategy Officer of DecisionQ, a predictive analytics company in the national security and healthcare industries, as well as Chief Executive Officer of LMODQ, a data-driven marketing firm. He has worked with a number of digital, consumer services, and renewable energy entrepreneurs for years. He was previously a consultant in Booz Allen Hamilton’s Strategy and Organization practice; among his clients were the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of the Treasury, and other agencies. Earlier, he served as a senior planner and an intelligence officer in the U.S. Department of Defense and a business advisor at Mobil Oil Corporation, where he dealt with strategic planning for upstream and midstream investments throughout Asia and Africa. His publications have appeared in American Interest, National Interest, Orbis, and Parameters.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI and may be accessed here.

Notes:
[1] President Barack Obama, “Statement by the President on Cuba Policy Changes,” Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, Dec. 17, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/12/17/statement-presiden….

[2] Peter Baker, “U.S. Tightens Crimea Embargo to Pressure Russia,” New York Times, Dec. 19, 2014; “Ukraine and Russia Sanctions,” U.S. Department of State website, http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/ukrainerussia, accessed Dec. 18, 2014; Angela Monaghan and Jennifer Rankin, “EU and US sanctions against Russia: which will they hurt more?” The Guardian, Jul. 30, 2014.

[3] President Vladimir Putin, “News conference of Vladimir Putin,” Presidential Press and Information Office, President of Russia, Dec. 18. 2014, http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/23406.

[4] “Too smart by half?” Economist, Sep. 6, 2014.

[5] Ben Blanchard, “China foreign minister says willing to help Russia,” Reuters, Dec. 21, 2014.

The post Economic Sanctions Reconsidered: US Sanctions Against Cuba And Russia – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.