By Kevin Rudd, Former Prime Minister of Australia

Back in 2008, at the height of the Global Financial Crisis, there was an intense debate within the international community on the core question of the best institutional response to the unfolding collapse of the global economy.

In the six months between the collapse of Bear Stern to the collapse of Lehmans in September, the question being debated in Washington was whether to expand the G7, and if so to what extent. As the crisis deepened there were many proposals being considered, including a G12 consisting of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Russia, plus the original G7 members, in other words, the G7 plus the BRICS. Then there was the idea of a G15 including Egypt, Spain and the Netherlands or Mexico. Then came about the proposal of a G20 which would elevate the existing G20 finance ministers’ meeting to summit level, and therefore include the G12 plus Korea, Indonesia, Australia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Argentina.

There were concerted efforts both in parts of the Washington bureaucracy and in certain European capitals (who wished to maximize the European voice at the table) to push for a G12, or at maximum, a G15. Of course this would have excluded a number of middle powers in the world, including of course Australia, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, and Turkey.

The advantage of the original G20 structure, established after the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 in order to learn the lessons of that crisis, was that it already had ten years of institutional experience in dealing exclusively with global financial and economic challenges. It had the additional advantage of being representative of about 90% of global GDP, 85% of global trade, and more than 90% of total market capitalization on global exchanges. Furthermore, there was a fairer geographical distribution in G20 decision-making with four members from Europe (or five if we include the President of the European Commission), five from the Americas, five from Asia, and five from elsewhere across the world. And finally, for the first time, there would be three nations from the Muslim world represented around the table.

The internal debate between capitals was fierce, with a number of Europeans still seeking to keep the number as small as possible. As Prime Minister of Australia at the time, I engaged many of my counterparts from around the world, starting with Washington, in support of the G20. In the end President Bush was supportive of the elevation of the original finance ministers forum to summit level for the reasons outlined above. But in the process, it was critical to secure the support of the great powers as well. Britain, Germany, and China were in particular highly supportive. But it was also crucial to harness the support of the middle powers in their collective diplomacy with those who sought a different outcome. Then Prime Minister Erdogan and I exchanged many calls on this subject. Both his diplomacy and that of then Foreign Minister Davutoglu were critical in bringing about a G20 outcome. These are now matters of diplomatic fact and history.

Many have been critical of the G20 since its first meetings in 2008 and 2009. I disagree with much of the criticism. The truth is the G20’s actions at its London meeting in March 2009 under Prime Minister Gordon Brown broke the fall: collectively our actions prevented a deep global recession from becoming the first global depression since 1929, eighty years before. This was no small achievement.

Second, we initiated a major series of systemic financial reforms through the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee, which has produced major changes in the international financial system. These have dealt with stress testing all major banks, lifting capital adequacy ratios, and tacking the problem of “too big to fail.” After five years of painstaking and difficult work, about three quarters of that work has been completed. This reduces the risk of a repeat crisis, while never eliminating it.

Third, where the G20 has yet to succeed is in its implementation of the so-called Pittsburg agenda of “balanced, sustainable long-term growth.” While the crisis may have been averted and the risk of a future crisis may have been reduced significantly, global growth remains sluggish. This must be the core focus of the G20 for the future. Otherwise, growth and employment will continue to suffer, undermining the livelihoods of ordinary families across the world.

Apart from this overriding agenda for the G20, a further debate is alive among its member states. And that is how the organization can sustain its institutional vitality for the future. Its core financial agenda remains strong. But to be successful, every institution must also continue to re-invent itself against the needs of the time. That is where MIKTA comes in.

The G20 at its core is made up of the old G7, the BRICs, and then what I have long called the “Middle Seven.” Namely Indonesia, Korea, Australia, Mexico, Turkey, and possibly Argentina and Saudi Arabia, although their circumstances are in certain respects unique. The core difference between the G7 and the BRICs on the one hand and the Middle 7 (M7) on the other is that the latter have a fundamental need to sustain the integrity and effectiveness of the G20 overall. There is a sense in some of the capitals of what I might call the “greater 12″ that the G20 may in the long term be optional. Yet for the M7 it is not optional, it is crucial.

This is not just an argument about the national importance for countries like Australia, Turkey, and Korea to be a part of the major decision-making body of the global economy. It is about the need to ensure that the world in fact has a functioning system of global economic and financial governance, because all our economies are ultimately vulnerable to any missteps of the great powers. And we, the middle and smaller powers of the world, do not want to become collateral economic damage.

The argument is analogous to why we need a functioning UN multilateral system. Great powers may be able to survive without it, but non-great powers cannot. This is why there is a deep responsibility in the UN system for “constructive” powers to have their core mission statements put forward the continued revitalization of the UN. All our interests ultimately depend on it.

This is why as Australian Foreign Minister in Cancun in 2012 I convened the first meeting of M7 Foreign Ministers including Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, and Turkey, in which I circulated an initial policy paper for our future collaboration within the G20. And I am glad, for the reasons outlined above, this has now grown into MIKTA.

For the future of our global economy, and for the future of our global order at large, it is critical that this group of states continues to work closely together. Turkey also has a critical role to play this coming year as 2015 host of the G20, during which it can continue to revitalize this important global institution.

Kevin Rudd was twice Prime Minister of Australia, first between 2007 and 2010, and again in 2013. He is also internationally recognized as one of the founders of the G20.

This opinion piece was first published in the monthly journal Analist’s January issue in the Turkish language

The post G-20 And Importance Of Mid-Size States In Global Economic Governance – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Geethanjali Nataraj*

As the US and the EU prepare to enter into the largest trade deal in history – the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – an arrangement which would complement the other gigantic US-led trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), speculations run rife over the striking absence from the deal of the countries which emerged as the more assertive leaders after the 2008 financial crisis, and steered the global economy from plunging further, namely the BRICS. The five countries represent about 43% of the world’s population. As of 2013, their combined foreign-currency reserve is $4.4 trillion. From $27 billion in 2002, trade within the group surged to $282 billion in 2013. The group accounts for about 15% of the world trade and 20% of the global FDI flows. Interestingly, according to the UNDP, Brazil, China and India’s combined GDP will be greater than the combined GDP of the US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany and Italy by 2020.

With these developments, however, the question of how the BRICS adapt and consolidate their position globally is one that holds considerable relevance. With the negotiations of the TTIP between the EU and the US-together responsible for the makeup of 46% of the world economy-verging conclusion, the options available to the BRICS are limited. The TTIP is not only an attempt to forge a trade deal aimed at market liberalisation and eliminating trade barriers between the US and the EU, but it essentially marks the latest strategy to preserve the rules on international trade and thus continue to dominate over the international governance structures.

It is notable that while the US and the EU don’t enjoy the same economic prowess as they once did, the emerging economies of the BRICS continue to gain more clout in international forums and work towards evolving an order favourable to their development and growth. This slow, continued transition of the global economic governance from the developed world to the developing countries can be seen at the Doha Round negotiations, where the developing countries led by the emerging economies like India and Brazil form the majority of the membership of the WTO; and the interests of these countries form the core of the negotiations. Furthermore, multilateral forums like the WTO allow these countries to rely on the special and differential treatment to protect their interests and block the initiatives of the developed countries.

Consequently, while the Doha talks continue to drag along, trade agreements like the TTIP seem the perfect avenue for the US and the EU to set standards for world trade-shutting out, in the process, the emerging trade blocs like the BRICS from playing an active role. Considering the fact that the US and the EU account for a third of the world trade, and that the exports from BRICS largely depend on advanced-economies’ demand, the third world countries will presumably be compelled to adapt to their standards and regulations. Thus, effectively, this deal is principled on the policy of exclusion of the emerging economies, resulting in a setback for multilateralism. Considering this, one must consider the potential impact the TTIP would have upon states that are not part of the FTA.

A recent study speculates that low-income countries, collectively, could stand to gain approximately 2.4 billion euros, suggesting benefits for non-TTIP countries. The same study argues that the TTIP would lead to an increase in GDP and thus an increase in income for households in the US and the EU. Such an increase in household income would translate into a greater purchasing power and thus a higher demand for goods and services, including those offered by countries that are not part of the TTIP. However, a similar report sees a significant loss of market share for developing countries as a result of the FTA. The study speculates that trade between Germany and BRICS would drop by around 10% while US-BRICS trade would decline by around 30%. Both studies present distinct scenarios and predictions resulting from the conclusion of the TTIP negotiations.

In these two contexts, the BRICS can decide to go two ways. First, they can pursue a BRICS FTA as a way to balance the TTIP and further increase the BRICS’ political and economic influence. A study analysing the proposed BRICS FTA found that China, Brazil, India, Russia and South Africa would see gains in welfare. Such a move would certainly be a concrete step towards enhancing cooperation between the countries and would enable them to counter this attempted move to marginalise them. Second, they can maintain status quo. The TTIP does not pose a significant threat to the BRICS and has the potential to have a positive spillover towards other countries. The BRICS could take an approach of passive engagement. While not directly attempting to balance the TTIP, the BRICS could intensify their efforts at closer cooperation among themselves and consolidate position as a powerful trade bloc.

The biggest impediment, however, to the BRICS becoming a cohesive force is the bilateral economic tensions. China, for one, continues to have the lion’s share in the intra-BRICS trade, resulting in fragile bilateral economic relations with the other countries of the bloc. Currency manipulation by China remains another sticking point. Conclusive actions for removal of barriers to trade and investment need to be taken. Inadequate infrastructure and framework conditions, in particular, are barriers-the negative effects of which far exceed the tariff barriers and other non-tariff barriers. The establishment of the BRICS Development Bank would to a great extent address infrastructure funding shortages in these countries.

*The author is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

Courtesy: The Financial Express

The post How Can BRICS Survive Amidst TTIP? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum, which will take place from 21-24 January in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, will convene a record number of participants in 2015.

In addition to the 1,500 top business leaders from over 140 countries, more than 300 heads of state, heads of government and government members are also expected to participate.

In particular, most European countries will be represented by the prime minister, president or chancellor and will be accompanied by strong government delegations. A number of heads of state from Africa will be in Davos as well as most of the leaders from the ASEAN countries. The key Latin American countries will also be represented at the highest level. China, the United States, Japan and Russia will send top-level delegations. The heads of all the world’s major international organizations will also be in Davos.

In addition, the Annual Meeting will also convene the heads of the world’s leading civil society organizations, world-class academics, including 14 Nobel laureates, as well as from leaders of tomorrow, drawn from the Forum’s Global Shapers and Young Global Leader communities. Global media will be represented by their most senior editorial figures.

“Today’s leaders are facing challenges that are unprecedented in their complexity, velocity and interconnectedness. Finding a way to navigate these successfully in 2015 is, therefore, a critical priority for every leader, not just to ensure sustainable growth but to rebuild trust. The Annual Meeting, by bringing together the Forum’s diverse multi-stakeholder community, aims to provide the means to identify answers to these challenges as well as the coalitions of partners necessary to create positive, transformative change,” said Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum.

The post Record Participation Planned For World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2015 appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mohammed Fahad Al-Harthi

In a much-anticipated move, Saudi Arabia plans to reopen its embassy in Baghdad and a consulate in Erbil after 24 years, giving further impetus to recent initiatives by the Kingdom to unify the Arab world.

The new Iraqi government has begun its term in office with positive intentions, if judged by the remarks of various leading officials not least the country’s Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi.

Relations warmed considerably between the two nations after Iraqi President Fouad Al-Masoum visited Saudi Arabia on Nov. 11 last year and met with Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah.

It is not true that the threat posed by the so-called Islamic State (IS) was instrumental in breaking the ice between the two countries. Saudi Arabia has been seeking stronger relations with Iraq for a while but had been stymied by the isolationist and sectarian policies of Nuri Al-Maliki, the former Iraqi prime minister.

Al-Maliki’s behavior had worsened an already deteriorating situation in the country, leaving its main cities vulnerable to attack by IS gangs. The failure of the army to defend large parts of Iraq’s territory was caused by Al-Maliki marginalizing them. These failures ultimately exposed the weakness in his regime and forced him to quit.

Historically and strategically, Iraq’s natural links are with the Arab world. Not only is it unnatural for decisions about Iraq to be in the hands of another country, the situation has damaged its relations with its Arab neighbors.

There is now hope that the new government would return the country to its rightful place. This is sorely needed because of the current deplorable security situation in the region.

We cannot expect Al-Abadi’s government to perform miracles but it can, at the very least, provide a solid measure of balance and openness to the Arab world and neighboring countries. Most importantly, the government should treat all its citizens equally.

The deadly brew of violent sectarianism, politics, and using religion for personal gain, is bound to leave permanent scars on the collective psyche of generations of people. This has been the main problem in the Arab world, which requires new initiatives to counter.

Saudi Arabia’s goal is to send a clear message that Riyadh supports a strong and united Arab world that includes Iraq. It’s time for Iraq to contribute to security in the region.

The two countries have shared interests and can together explore a future that would be mutually beneficial on the economic from. The leading members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) need to unify their positions for this to happen.
Reopening the embassy is a first step in that direction. It cannot just be a handshake and backslapping for the benefit of the world’s media. What the region really needs is reconciliation by resolving problems in an honest and transparent manner. Iraq now needs to introduce practical measures that will breathe life into the rhetoric of its leaders.

Developed countries know that economic development must be at the forefront of policymaking. These interests must guide political decisions. Iraqis need a moderate government that can establish stability and ensure a better standard of living for all citizens.
Saudi Arabia and Iraq share an 850-km border, with close ties between tribes, and a long history of relations. This is the ideal staging ground for the Kingdom’s initiatives because it can reaffirm these links and benefit millions of people. It has all the hallmarks of history in the making.

The post Saudi Arabia And Iraq Can Boost Arab Unity – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iceland is planning to formally withdraw its EU application, the country’s prime minister told the national radio station. Reykjavik also wants to lift capitals controls imposed on Iceland by Brussels after a financial crisis hit the country in 2008.

Despite expected public protests, Iceland is going to make a second attempt to withdraw its application to become a member state of the European Union, Prime Minister Sigmundur Davið Gunnlaugsson said in an interview with Icelandic radio station Bylgjan.

“Participating in EU talks isn’t really valid anymore,” PM Gunnlaugsson said as quoted by the Reykjavík Grapevine.

“Both due to changes in the European Union and because it’s not in line with the policies of the ruling government to accept everything that the last government was willing to accept. Because of that, we’re back at square one,” he said on Sunday morning.

The EU accession negotiations are “at square one as all the work on it that had been carried out before was in fact obsolete,” Iceland’s mbl.is media outlet quoted the country’s PM as saying.

Iceland applied for EU membership in July 2009, at a time when the global economic crisis was unraveling. By February 2010, the European Commission produced a favorable answer and accession negotiations began in July the same year.

The negotiations came to a stalemate in April 2013, when the election in Iceland was won by the centrist Progress Party, and the conservative Independence Party. When Progress Party’s Gunnlaugsson became prime minister, he froze negotiations with the EU in May 2013, largely because of the fish catch quotas insisted on by Brussels – something Iceland’s fishing industry would never agree to.

Today Iceland, with its population of about 325,000, has EU ‘candidate country’ status and is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), Schengen area, and is an EU partner promoting cooperation in northern Europe – all this without voting rights in the EU. Two thirds of Iceland’s foreign trade is conducted with EU member states.

The first attempt to disengage with Brussels in 2014 ended in protests organized and financed by centers in Brussels. Nevertheless, an anti-EU membership resolution will shortly be presented to Iceland’s parliament.

Icelandic Foreign Minister Gunnar Bragi Sveinsson told Vísir he would like to close the EU issue as soon as possible, stressing that the public protests which followed the first attempt hadn’t affected his negative position on EU membership.

Nigel Farage, leader of Britain’s right-wing UK Independence Party (UKIP) and renowned Euroskeptic, commented on Reykjavik’s move, saying: “This move by Icelandic authorities and the increasing Mediterranean opposition to the EU shows that the idea of the inevitability of EU integration has been smashed.”

“More and more people throughout Europe either no longer wish to join the EU or, as in Greece, to leave the euro currency all together,” Farage said.

In the UKIP leader’s opinion, EU member states, such as Greece and other Mediterranean countries that “are caught inside the straightjacket of an unsuitable euro currency and unsympathetic political union dominated by Germany” should follow the Icelandic example.

“Greece should decouple from the euro, devalue its currency and grow its way back to prosperity with exports and tourism,” Farage said.

The post Iceland Threatens To Withdraw EU Membership Application appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(Civil.Ge) — Georgia’s annual inflation stood at 2% in December, down from 2.8% in November, according to figures released by the state statistics office, Geostat, on January 5.

On monthly basis inflation was 0.7% in December, according to Geostat.

Annual inflation in healthcare was among the highest across all groups of goods and services in December at 6%, mainly attributed to rising prices on medical products, appliances and equipment, according to Geostat.

Prices on food and non-alcoholic beverages rose by 2.5% year-on-year in December. There was 1.6% y/y decline in prices in transport group and prices on clothing and footwear dipped by 5.5% y/y in December.

The post Georgia: Annual Inflation 2% In December appeared first on Eurasia Review.

“There’s simply no more skilled people left here [in Lithuania].”
Arvydas Avulis, CEO of Hanner, Dec 31, 2014

There was something touching in the symbolic funeral in Vilnius held for the Lithuanian currency, the litas, which received its resting notice as the country formally adopted the euro on January 1. The litas had been in use between 1993 and 2014. If you had asked Nigel Farage of Britain’s UK Independence Party about the service, he would probably have suggested they were burying the wrong one. (The colourful populist insisted on a mock burial of the euro in 2011.)

Moving over to the euro was always a thorny issue. A November poll suggested that 39 percent of the population was against it. Their grounds of suspicion were well founded. While supporters of the euro’s adoption believe – and in this, it is very much a belief – that the adoption of the currency will lead to easier foreign loans and investments – the converse may actually be true.

The Prime Minister Algirdas Butkevičius, adopted the standard line. “The euro will be a guarantee of our economic and political stability. It will allow us to more rapidly develop the economy, create jobs, increase incomes. I firmly believe that we will strengthen the European family.” In theory, at least, the more the merrier. Government borrowing rates are predicted to drop by 1 percent, while a single currency bloc does have advantages in terms of minimising investment risks.

For all that, it is a classic error to link the embrace of a widely used currency with the assumption of economic performance, either current or future. It should go without saying that various countries in the euro zone, irrespective of their use of the currency, are ailing and stuttering. Dealing in euros does not make loans any less troublesome if other parts of the economy are dragging. A collective in a currency union is only as good as its members.

Another fundamental error lies in mistaking the refusal to adopt the euro as being somehow a vote against integration. The Scandinavian countries evidence a long tradition of European institutional involvement while resisting the adoption of the common currency. Lithuanians will have woken up on January 1 to realise that their institutions will not be able to determine interest rates and the budget deficit – that aspect of sovereignty, at least, has been surrendered.

The sovereignty issue is not being seen in purely financial terms. The Russian question looms, and rushing into the bosom of the eurozone is also deemed to be a cover, however poor it may be in quality, for broader security concerns. Either you court Brussels, or end up being grabbed by Putin (AP, Dec 31).

Latvia’s Igor Pimenov, and parliamentary member, views the euro adoption as something of a mania. Those who retain their national currencies, he argues, have a better chance to right the economic ship. Then come the usual imbalances in the various economies, with Lithuania being the euro bloc’s poorest member.

Last year, Pimenov made his views against the common currency clear in his campaign against its adoption. “We are not against European integration. But we voted against the euro because we are sure that it’s not the right time for Latvia to join the eurozone” (Euobserver, May 5, 2014).

Lithuania’s admission to the euro club also comes at a time when the currency itself has been battered. The big league players are still incapable of resolving their differences, with Germany continuing on its unbending austerity platform, and France and Italy deflecting on promised structural reforms. The Economist noted in October 2014 that the entire zone was feeling the deflationary phenomenon. “A region that makes up almost a fifth of the world’s output is marching towards stagnation and deflation” (The Economist, Oct 25, 2014).

To put it bluntly, the price of admission may not have been worth it. This very point is being debated in Greece with elections scheduled for January 25. Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras has issued a warning that the country may well exit the eurozone altogether (Boomberg, Jan 5). The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, is putting on a brave face, suggesting that the zone will cope.

As for Lithuania, the sense here is that the euro is a panacea, a plug that will ease emigration levels that are starting to produce chronic labour shortages. “Retaining talent,” notes a Vilnius University spokesperson Nijole Bulotaite, “is one of our most pressing problems along with demographic changes” (University World News, Feb 7, 2014).

UNESCO’s Global Flow of Tertiary-level Students data from 2012 shows that 8,230 Lithuanian students were studying abroad, with over half at British and German universities.

While such overseas enrolments are dandy, Lithuania’s Department of Social Statistics is unnerved by the annual leak of educated recruits who find work in Western Europe. During the 2008-2011 financial crisis, more than 80,000 people left annually. In areas such as construction, business owners note the frustration at being unable to hold down workers, despite massive wage increases of 10 to 20 percent (Associated Press, Dec 31).

Lithuania may well be the zone’s nineteenth member, but its arrival, in many ways, could not have been at a worse time. To put stock in a currency’s powers of salvation is never sound policy. The fractious big boys are at wit’s end about how to deal with the problem, while the small members either remain submissively silent or are seeking a noisy withdrawal.

The post Funerals For Currency – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

There are no self-identified atheists in the 114th Congress. The one self-identified atheist who ran in the last election, Democrat James Woods from Arizona, got clobbered by his Republican opponent, Rep. Matt Salmon, 68.5 percent to 31.5 percent. There is one unaffiliated person in Congress, Rep. Krysten Sinema, a Democrat from Arizona. According to the new Pew Research Center study, nine of those in Congress, or 1.7 percent, say they don’t know what they are, or refused to answer.

Self-identified Christians constitute 92 percent of Congress, even though they make up roughly three-quarters of the population. The biggest change within the Christian community since the early 1960s is the decrease in Protestants and the increase in Catholics: Protestants fell from 75 percent to 57 percent, and Catholics rose from 19 percent to 31 percent. Jews grew three percentage points to 5.2 today.

We know from previous studies that approximately 16 percent of Americans have no religious affiliation, though only 3.3 percent are agnostics and 2.4 percent are atheists.

The Secular Coalition of America maintains it is a serious problem that so few atheists either want to run for office or are willing to tell the truth about their secular status once in office. Not really. The latter issue is a problem only for the lying office holder, and the former is not a problem at all. Why should anyone be concerned if those who believe in nothing prefer not to run for office? After all, we know from a recent Fortune.com article that most CEOs who are religious hide their faith in the workplace, and no one is fretting over that.

The real problem, which transcends the religious composition of Congress, is the need for more religious-friendly congressmen. In particular, we need more men and women who are willing to defend our Judeo-Christian heritage against the forces of multiculturalism and secularism.

The post No Atheists In US Congress – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Despite New Year’s resolutions to eat better and lose weight, people buy the greatest amount of food and calories after the holidays, finds a study led by a University of Vermont researcher.

The study, published by PLOS ONE, finds consumer spending on food increases by 15 percent over the holiday season (Thanksgiving to New Year), with most of the increase attributed to higher levels of junk food.

But shoppers buy the greatest amount of food after New Year – the equivalent of a nine percent increase in calories above holiday levels, says Prof. Lizzy Pope of the University of Vermont, who led the study as a post-doctoral researcher at Cornell University’s Food and Brand Lab.

“People start the New Year with good intentions to eat better,” says Pope, who recently joined UVM’s Dept. of Nutrition and Food Science. “They do pick out more healthy items, but they also keep buying higher levels of less-healthy holiday favorites. So their grocery baskets contain more calories than any other time of year we tracked.”

The findings are surprising given the holidays’ reputation for overeating – and suggest that people need better strategies for shopping under the sway of “res-illusions,” the research team says.

The researchers recommend that consumers use written grocery lists to deter impulsive junk food purchases; substitute as much junk food as possible with fresh produce and nutrient-rich foods, and split grocery baskets visually to ensure nutritious foods represent at least half of your purchases.

Background and methods

The authors of the study, New Year’s Res-Illusions: Food Shopping in the New Year Competes with Healthy Intentions, are Lizzy Pope (University of Vermont), David Just (Cornell University), Brian Wansink (Cornell University), and Drew Hanks (Ohio State University).

“We wanted to see how New Year’s resolutions and the end of the holiday season impact grocery shopping habits – how much food people buy, and how many calories the foods contain,” says co-author David Just, Cornell University.

More than 200 households in New York State were recruited to participate in the seven-month study of grocery store spending behaviors, from July 2010 to March 2011.

To identify shopping patterns, researchers split the data into three periods: July to Thanksgiving represented participants’ baseline spending (how much the average shopper regularly spends per week on groceries), Thanksgiving to New Year’s was considered the holiday season, and New Year’s to March the post-holiday period.

Foods were categorized as healthy or less healthy based on a nutritional rating system used at participating grocery stores.

“Despite New Year’s resolutions to eat healthier, people tend to hang on to those unhealthy holiday favorites and keep buying them in the New Year,” says co-author Drew Hanks, The Ohio State University, who worked on the study as a post-doctoral researcher at Cornell.

“Based on these findings,” Hanks adds, “we recommend that instead of just adding healthy foods to your cart, people substitute less healthy foods for fresh produce and other nutrient rich foods. The calories will add up slower and you’ll be more likely to meet your resolutions and shed those unwanted pounds.”

The post Despite Resolutions, People Buy More Food After New Year appeared first on Eurasia Review.

It is estimated that one in three women in the United States will have had a hysterectomy by the age of 60. Although the numbers of hysterectomies are decreasing, a new study of more than three thousand women in Michigan who underwent hysterectomy for benign indications reveals that alternatives to hysterectomy are being underused and that treatment guidelines are often not followed.

Post-surgical pathology showed that nearly one in five (18%) of hysterectomies that were done for benign indications were unnecessary, and that nearly two in five (37.8%) of women under 40 had unsupportive pathology, reports the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Over 400,000 hysterectomies are performed in the US each year. About 68% of surgeries for benign conditions are done because of abnormal uterine bleeding, uterine fibroids, and endometriosis. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends alternatives to hysterectomy, including hormonal and other forms of medical management, operative hysteroscopy, endometrial ablation, and use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device as primary management of these conditions in many cases.

“Over the past decade, there has been a substantial decline in the number of hysterectomies performed annually in the United States,” said senior investigator Daniel M. Morgan, MD, Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Michigan. “An earlier study found a 36.4% decrease in number of hysterectomies performed in the U.S. in 2010 compared to 2002. However, despite the decrease in numbers of hysterectomies in the U.S., appropriateness of hysterectomy is still an area of concern and it continues to be a target for quality improvement.”

Investigators set out to assess how often alternatives to hysterectomy are being recommended to women with benign gynecologic disease before performing hysterectomy and how often the pathologic findings from the hysterectomy supported an indication for surgery. They examined the medical records of 3,397 women who underwent hysterectomies for benign conditions in Michigan with these goals in mind. Data were collected over a ten-month period in 2013 from 52 hospitals participating in the Michigan Surgery Quality Collaborative (MSQC). Indications for surgery included uterine fibroids, abnormal uterine bleeding, endometriosis, or pelvic pain.

Nearly 40% of women did not have documentation of alternative treatment before their hysterectomy. Fewer than 30% received medical therapy, while 24% underwent other minor surgical procedures before the hysterectomy. Alternative treatment was more likely to be considered among women under 40 years old and among women with larger uteri. About 68% of women under 40 received alternative treatment compared with 62% of those aged 40-50 and 56% of those aged 50 or above.

Nearly one in five women (18.3%) had postsurgical pathologic findings that did not support having undergone a hysterectomy. The rate of unsupportive pathology was highest among women under 40 years. Nearly two in five women under 40 (37.8%) had pathologic findings that did not support undergoing a hysterectomy versus those aged 40-50 (12%) and over 50 years (7.5%). The frequency of unsupportive pathology was highest among women with a pre-operative diagnosis of endometriosis or chronic pain.

“This study provides evidence that alternatives to hysterectomy are underutilized in women undergoing hysterectomy for abnormal uterine bleeding, uterine fibroids, endometriosis, or pelvic pain,” said Dr. Morgan.

“Although quality in gynecologic surgery has focused on care after a procedure, these findings suggest that appropriateness of surgery could serve as an important quality metric in gynecology,” said noted expert Jason D. Wright, MD, Chief of the Division of Gynecologic Oncology and Sol Goldman Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York.

Dr. Wright added: “Reducing the number of procedures performed in women who may not necessarily require the procedure in the first place has the potential to have an even more meaningful impact in reducing adverse outcomes and cost than optimization of postoperative care. As reimbursement policies shift, appropriateness of surgery will likely become an even greater imperative from patients and payers.”

The post Nearly One In Five Women Who Have Hysterectomy May Not Need Procedure appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Something extraordinary happened in the futures grain market beginning in 2005. The cash price and futures price, which normally converge by the time a grain contract matures, weren’t coming together. Instead, they were moving farther apart—and not by just a little. By September 2008, the wheat futures price was an unprecedented $2 higher per bushel than the spot price in Toledo at delivery. What caused this unusual non-convergence was a simple difference in the storage rate, but discovering that took several researchers almost three years of hard work and quite a bit of anxiety.

“Agriculture and producer groups went ballistic,” said University of Illinois agricultural economist Scott Irwin about the non-converging price incident. “It looked like someone was really getting taken advantage of. There were hearings. There was an official Senate investigation. The phone calls and emails I received were representative of the firestorm about this issue.”

Irwin said that because the phenomenon happened at exactly the same time that grain prices were spiking, people began to put the blame on futures speculators.

“The argument was that index funds and speculators were pushing up futures, causing a bubble, and one piece of evidence of the bubble was the fact that cash and futures didn’t converge,” Irwin said. “The belief was that the cash market was reflecting the right fundamentals and the futures were badly overvalued by the bubble.”

After Irwin and his colleagues first noticed the price discrepancy, they were approached by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and began working on solving the mystery.

“We had already been studying the spike in grain prices and whether this could be considered a bubble,” Irwin said. “But when you have the futures market two dollars above the cash market, your intuition is that the market is just broken. That was what almost everyone in the world argued. The market was broken.”

Irwin referred to a popular view at the time as the “Masters Hypothesis,” named for testimony by Mike Masters that commodity index investments were to blame for the non-convergence. Irwin and his colleagues refuted the claim, saying that the size and length of time involved in this episode of non-convergence were different from similar price bubbles that were caused by market manipulation.

So, if not an actual market bubble then what was it?

“We got connected with a colleague at the University of California – Davis and together built a theoretical model to try to figure out how these pieces, these arcane specifications in a contract, really fit together and how one affected the other,” Irwin said. “It turned out that it was a storage rate that was built into the contract and the rate had been set too low. It was a eureka moment. The Chicago Board of Trade futures market took our recommendation, and it fixed the problem.”

Irwin explained that the Chicago Board of Trade had set the contracts storage rates for almost 30 years at 5 cents per month per bushel. “Everyone knew that the rate could be adjusted and might need to be adjusted as market conditions changed. The smart traders bid the storage rate into the price.”

“Our model conclusively shows how the rate-per-month difference properly explained that two dollar gap,” Irwin said. “The model finally made sense of it all.”

“Futures Market Failure?” was published in an issue of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics and written by Philip Garcia, Scott H. Irwin, and Aaron Smith.

The post Grain Market Mystery Solved appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Nick Cunningham

As we ring in the New Year, let’s take stock of where we are at with the oil markets. 2014 proved to be a momentous one for the oil markets, having seen prices cut in half in just six months.

The big question is what oil prices will do in 2015. Oil prices are unsustainably low right now – many high-cost oil producers and oil-producing regions are currently operating in the red. That may work in the short-term, but over the medium and long-term, companies will be forced out of the market, precipitating a price rise. The big question is when they will rise, and by how much.

So, what does that mean for oil prices in 2015? It is anybody’s guess, but here are the top five variables that will determine the trajectory of oil prices over the next 12 months, in no particular order.

1. China’s Economy. China is the second largest consumer of oil in the world and surpassed the United States as the largest importer of liquid fuels in late 2013. More importantly for oil prices is how much China’s consumption will increase in the coming years. According to the EIA, China is expected burn through 3 million more barrels per day in 2020 compared to 2012, accounting for about one-quarter of global demand growth over that timeframe. Although there is much uncertainty, China just wrapped up a disappointing fourth quarter, capping off its slowest annual growth in over a quarter century. It is not at all obvious that China will be able to halt its sliding growth rate, but the trajectory of China’s economy will significantly impact oil prices in 2015.

2. American shale. By the end of 2014, the U.S. was producing more than 9 million barrels of oil per day, an 80 percent increase from 2007. That output went a long way to creating a glut of oil, which helped send oil prices to the dumps in 2014. Having collectively shot themselves in the foot, the big question is how affected U.S. drillers will be by sub-$60 WTI. Rig counts continue to fall, spending is being slashed, but output has so far been stable. Whether the industry can maintain output given today’s prices or production begins to fall will have an enormous impact on international supplies, and as a result, prices.

3. Elasticity of Demand. The cure for low prices is low prices. That cliché can be applied to both the supply and demand side of the equation. Will oil selling at fire sale prices spur renewed demand? In some countries where oil is more regulated, low prices may not trickle down to the retail level. Countries like Indonesia are scrapping subsidies, which will be a boon to state coffers but will diminish the benefits to consumers. However, in the U.S., gasoline prices are now below $2.40 per gallon, more than 35 percent down from mid-2014. That has led to an uptick in gasoline consumption. In the waning days of 2014, the U.S. consumed gasoline at the highest daily rate since 2007. Low prices could spark higher demand, which in turn could send oil prices back up.

4. OPEC’s Next Move. OPEC deserves a lot of credit (or blame) for the remarkable downturn in oil prices last year. While many pundits have declared OPEC irrelevant after their decision to leave output unchanged, the mere fact that oil prices crashed after the cartel’s November meeting demonstrates just how influential they are over price swings. For now OPEC – or, more accurately, Saudi Arabia – has stood firm in its insistence not to cut production quotas. Whether that remains true through 2015 is up in the air.

5. Geopolitical flashpoints. In the not too distant past, a small supply disruption would send oil prices skyward. In early 2014, for example, violence in Libya blocked oil exports, contributing to a rise in oil prices. In Iraq, ISIS overran parts of the country and oil prices shot up on fears of supply outages. But since then, geopolitical flashpoints have had much less of an effect on the price of crude. During the last few weeks of 2014, violence flared up again in Libya. But after a brief increase in prices, the markets shrugged off the event. Nevertheless, history has demonstrated time and again that geopolitical crises are some of the most powerful short-term movers of oil prices.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Top-Five-Factors-Affecting-Oil-Prices-In-2015.html

The post Top Five Factors Affecting Oil Prices In 2015 – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mohammad Ali Mohtadi*

The recent measure taken by the Palestinian Authority for submitting a resolution to the United Nations Security Council urging the world body to recognize an independent Palestinian state was a mistake and its outcome for the Palestinian side proved that it has been an erroneous move on the part of the Palestinian Authority. Apparently, the resolution urged the UN Security Council to take steps to put an end to Israeli occupation of the Palestinian lands and recognize an independent Palestinian state. However, Mahmoud Abbas, who heads the Palestinian Authority, had changed the early draft of the resolution in such a way that it was in fact in conflict with the main cause of the Palestinian nation and the demands of other officials of the Palestinian Authority. Secret talks between Mahmoud Abbas and his aides, on the one hand, and American officials, on the other hand, on the final text of the resolution had caused the original text of the resolution to be changed drastically and include major concessions to Israel and unjustifiable withdrawal of the Palestinian Authority from its positions. The withdrawal of the Palestinian Authority covered such major issues as the Palestinians’ position on the Israeli occupied lands, the issue of Al-Quds being the capital city of an independent Palestinian state, and the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland. Therefore, many high-ranking officials of the Fatah movement, who had seen the final text of the resolution on the website of the United Nations, had asked Abbas to take it back.

Three major changes that had been made to the draft of the resolution included substitution of the phrase “disputed lands” for “occupied lands;” recognition of Al-Quds as the joint capital of the Palestinian state and Israel; and proposing swapping lands instead of taking back Palestinian lands which have been occupied by Israel. According to these changes, it was possible for Israel to conquer the lion’s share of the Palestinian lands in the West Bank. In return, Palestinians would be given plots of barren lands in the Negev Desert. The substitution of the phrase “disputed lands” for “occupied lands” is also very important from the viewpoint of international law. In terms of international law, there is a lot of difference between occupied lands and disputed lands and different rules apply to them.

Even under these conditions and following radical changes, which were made to the resolution according to the United States’ desire, Washington, which is known as the staunchest ally of Israel, did not vote positive for the resolution. There is no doubt that the American officials were fully aware of the text of the resolution because Mahmoud Abbas had already reached an agreement with them over the text of the resolution before taking it to the Security Council. Therefore, the defeat suffered by the Palestinian Authority was not simply because of the United States veto of the resolution, but because it failed to garner nine minimum votes that was needed for the resolution to pass through the Security Council. France gave a positive vote to the resolution, which apparently took many people by surprise. But in reality, France already knew that the resolution would not pass and its positive vote for the Palestinian resolution was just a political gesture in order to gain a more secure foothold in the Arab world in order to meet its own interests.

If the French diplomats were certain that the resolution would win the minimum nine votes it needed, they would have undoubtedly voted negative for it. Now, the question is why Mahmoud Abbas took the resolution to the Security Council at a time that he was aware that it would not be passed by the Council? Most analysts believe that the main goal pursued by Mahmoud Abbas was to quench the wrath of the Palestinian people, especially in the West Bank. The world has been witnessing widespread unrest in the West Bank, which may even lead to another Palestinian intifada (uprising). Mahmoud Abbas, therefore, used this ploy to show the Palestinian nation that he has not been totally idle and is trying to secure the rights of the Palestinians in international bodies.

At any rate, after Mahmoud Abbas’ plan was defeated at the Security Council, the Palestinian Authority started another bid for the membership of the Palestinian Authority at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and announced that it will file a lawsuit against Israel through the ICC in the near future. It seems that such allegations by Abbas are, once again, no more than a new political gesture.

Since the economic system of the Palestinian Authority is closely tied to that of Israel, in case Abbas takes any measure opposite to the desires of Tel Aviv, Israel will cut off the salaries of Abbas and his employees. Under such conditions that Abbas needs to be paid by Israel in order to be able to pay salaries of his staff and Palestinian employees, nobody can expect the Palestinian Authority to take a real legal action against the regime in the future.

One thing is certain. Mahmoud Abbas has lost his legitimacy a long time ago and the legal tenure for his presidency of the Palestinian Authority has expired many years ago. However, since there have been no further elections among Palestinians and even the Palestinian parliament has not been able to convene its sessions in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and other Palestinian territories, the presidency of Mahmoud Abbas has been repeated. It seems that the most important solution for the issue of Palestine under the current circumstances is more resistance against Israel and launching the third intifada, especially in the occupied West Bank.

*Mohammad Ali Mohtadi
University Professor & Senior Middle East Analyst

Source: Iran Newspaper
http://iran-newspaper.com/
Translated By: Iran Review.Org

The post Political Games Hamper Palestine Independence – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iran’s Foreign Minister defended his ministry’s achievements on Tuesday January 6, telling Parliament that the nuclear negotiations have halted the growth of international sanctions.

Mohammad Javad Zarif was supposed to answer seven questions prepared by a group of 100 MPs to critique the nuclear negotiations and the actions of Iran’s negotiating team.

The MPs maintain that “The Iranian people’s nuclear rights have been neglected in the Geneva agreement” and “the approach of the Iranian negotiators” is questionable.

Zarif responded that his team has managed to show an “approachable, firm and powerful” image of Iran and stop the intensification of sanctions. “Today, Iran is by all accounts not a regional problem but a source of stability and security in the region,” Zarif said.

“Today our negotiating parties have realized that in order to reach a deal with the Iranian people, all unjust sanctions need to be removed because sanctions can only bear hatred,” Zarif added.

Iranian media report that Parliament approved of the foreign minister’s response.

The post Iran: MPs Grill Foreign Minister About Nuclear Talks appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dr. Hubertus Hoffmann*

Russian President Putin Vladimir Putin delivered his annual Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly on December 4th, 2014. This speech was traditionally held at the Kremlin’s St George Hall before an audience of more than 1,000 people.

While the reaction in the Western media focussed only on the part about Crimea and his remark „All of this allows us to say that Crimea, the ancient Korsun or Chersonesus, and Sevastopol have invaluable civilisational and even sacral importance for Russia, like the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for the followers of Islam and Judaism“, our more detailed analysis provides some hope for discussions:

Why not take Mr. Putin at his words:

• “Every nation has an inalienable sovereign right to determine its own development path, choose allies and political regimes, create an economy and ensure its security. Russia has always respected these rights and always will. This fully applies to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.“
• “We will protect the diversity of the world.“
• “We will never enter the path of self-isolation, xenophobia, suspicion and the search for enemies.“
• “Our goal is to have as many equal partners as possible, both in the West and in the East. All this is evidence of weakness, while we are strong and confident.“

First, we now need as many open and controversial discussions as possible between Russia, NATO, the EU and the U.S. (see, Russia Paralyzed by Isolationism and Nationalism and the Myth of a NATO Threat). To exchange different points of views is the essence of democracy and the beginning of compromise. To cancel the NATO-Russia-Council or other meetings out of frustration or as a tool of punishment is counterproductive and self-defeating. Despite many state-banquets and vague speeches in the past, real discussions are still missing. This Western “no-talk no-meetings approach“ is as well neglecting the lessons learned in the months before World War I – after so many good books have been published in the year of the 100th anniversary of this European core drama.

Second, the EU should now initiate detailed Ukraine-Russia-trade- negotiations, which were neglected in the past : “In the case of the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement, there was no dialogue at all. We were told that it was none of our business or, to put it simply, we were told where to go,“ Putin complained. This mismanagement in the lower EU-level must stop now.

Third, peace and a reset of Russian-Ukrainian and Russian-Western relations are possible when both sides look for a compromise based on international law and best practices in Europe.

The ultra-nationalists on both sides will be disappointed, but we belief only a compromise is in the national interests of Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the EU and the international community.

After several open and controversial talks with representatives from all sides, including Ukraine, Russia, the EU and member states, we have written down some proposals to solve the Ukraine crisis in a peaceful and responsible way in a “White Paper Ukraine” for broader discussions:

A South Tyrol Accord for the Donbas, Codes of Tolerance for Ukraine and a Reconciliation Referendum for Crimea

I. 100 years ago the Great War started. When we look back with the full knowledge of facts and background information about the main actors and states we may come to the conclusion that Europe could have avoided this major catastrophe of the 20th century with more sensitivity, knowledge of the opposing actors and endeavor to discuss and reconcile.

II. The war in the Donbas-region has cost more than 4000 lives and destroyed many villages and cities within a few months. After the sad experiences in World War I and World War II, weapons are speaking again in this war-torn region. Each side blames the other, as usual.

The Russian involvement is heavily disputed. The Russian people want to protect their people. Some speak about volunteers who help their Russian friends, others of a silent invasion. In Kiev some talk about terrorisrm, others in Russia see them as heroic freedom fighters. There is a lot speculation about the Russian interests and master plans for Ukraine, ranging from political to military influence, securing Crimea or a continuation of a ‘cold conflict’ to keep influence in Ukraine.

Within the Minsk-process there is hope for a peaceful solution that would benefit the people in the East and West of Ukraine likewise as well as all neighboring nations and Europe as a whole.

One of the options to be discussed is presented here in a neutral White Paper: A South Tyrolean Accord for the Donbas and Codes of Tolerance for Ukraine.

What does this mean?

Using best practices of a resolved ethnic conflict in Europe, mainly caused by the change of borders in World War I and World War II, the South Tyrolean Accord from 1971, signed by the Republic of Austria and the Italian Republic, could offer a way out.

A long time after Italy seized control over this region from Austria in 1919, the German majority (60 percent in 1971) felt insecure and discriminated by the Italian central government in Rome. The locals wanted to protect their traditional culture and identity. The Accord solved that problem. Now the Germans live peacefully and happily within Italy and as citizens of the European Union.

III. Transferred to the situation in Ukraine the following agreements could settle the conflict:

The human rights of the Russian population in the Donbas are guaranteed to the same degree like for the Germans in South Tyrolia. This includes: a self-ruling local government with much autonomy. Bilingual schools, media, public administration, street signs or cultural institutions.

The same rights are given to citizens of Ukrainian roots who may enjoy all freedoms.

The status of autonomy will be integrated in the constitution of Ukraine and cannot be changed.

An international guarantee is given by signatory states including Russia, Belarus, Germany, Poland, France and Italy. A standing Donbas committee is established with ambassadors from each country within the OSCE in Vienna. This committee appoints Ombudsmen for any complains, which cannot be avoided.

An annual progress report by the Donbas OSCE committee and the Kiev government presented by the OSCE and the Kiev government in parliament.

A reconciliation fund of € 3bn for the region, financed equally by the EU and the Russian Federation and utilized to build up infrastructure.

The establishment of roundtables in each city to promote mutual understanding and reconciliation, moderated by the OSCE.

The establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission by the Donbas OSCE group, using best practices from South Africa, as more than 20 other countries have done so far. Reporting live on TV in Ukraine and Russia with an annual report.

Radical reforms to stimulate new jobs, especially for small businesses.

Free trade agreements negotiated by the Kiev government with the EU and the Russian Federation.

Special passports for visits like done for the Oblast Kaliningrad and Poland, where residents can travel up to 60 kilometers without visa and visit the other country.

The Donbas stays within the state of Ukraine.

To support the reconciliation process and start a fresh peaceful chapter, the Russian patriots will lay down their governmental positions and declare the established local entities in the Donbas dissolved, as they have reached its purpose to protect the Russian culture and identity.

IV. For the Russian population in Ukraine and all other minorities Codes of Tolerance will be implemented. They include:

The Kiev government appoints a Minister for Tolerance and Reconciliation with sufficient staff and funding by the EU. He promotes respect towards all ethnic and religious minorities in Ukraine and reports annually to the parliament and the OSCE with an “Ukrainian Codes of Tolerance and Reconciliation Report.”

Within the context of reconciliation an amnesty committee will be established, as in South Africa, for people from all conflict parties.

V. The peace-making effort may include:

Kiev will withdraw all troops and Russia will stop any support for the Donbas at its border.

Safeguarding a UN peace mission with 3000 soldiers from Mongolia, Italy, Austria and South Korea, sealing the border and disarming the Russian fighters.

Kiev and Moscow declare to respect and enhance both the principles of the Charta of Paris from 1990 and the guarantee-declaration from Budapest of 1994 and to honor the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

NATO and the Russian Federation declare not to utilize their military against each other.They will not use their forces, equipment, active or non-active soldiers or allow those activities against each other. Only self-defense according to international law is allowed.

VI. Concerning the status of Crimea, the following mechanisms could be agreed upon:

The OSCE, with the support of the UN, will organize a fresh Reconciliation Referendum for Crimea in three months with two options: A vote to stay within the Russian Federation or to leave it and become as an Autonomous Region within Ukraine. All parties may register and promote their vision for two months with the same time on TV. The result will be respected by all local authorities as well as by the government in Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the EU, the U.S. and the international community.

Kiev and Moscow will guarantee free travel of goods to Crimea.

In case Crimea stays with Russia, Moscow will, as a gesture of good will and reconciliation, discount its gas supply for Ukraine by 25 percent over the next ten years based on the lowest payment in Europe.

We ask all parties involved to discuss and consider carefully these first ideas, or maybe better options, to find a peacefull solution for the people in Ukraine, and consider the lessons learned from the Great War 100 years ago for a better understanding, mutual trust and reconciliation.

About the author:
*Dr. Hubertus Hoffmann is a German entrepreneur and geostrategist. His three main focuses as a philanthropist are: – ‘Networking a Safer World’, with the largest global elite network in foreign affairs, the independent World Security Network Foundation (www.worldsecuritynetwork.com).

The post Engineering Peace: White Paper Ukraine – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Since President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) assumed office, many have been wondering whether ASEAN will still be the cornerstone of Indonesia’s foreign policy or merely just a vacuous diplomatic formality.

By Emirza Adi Syailendra*

ASEAN centrality has always been a dominant theme in Indonesian foreign policy. Despite deficiencies of ASEAN in providing Indonesia with a suitable dispute settlement mechanism with its members, Indonesia’s foreign-policy makers continued to maintain their usual stance emphasising ASEAN Centrality in its foreign policy. For example, ASEAN had paid little attention to Indonesia’s notes of protest during its boundary dispute over the Sipadan-Ligitan with Malaysia.

Indonesia’s interests have sometimes been compromised for the sake of ASEAN, such as its view on the adoption of a peacekeeping force within the ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC) framework. Nevertheless, during Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration (2004-2014), ASEAN Centrality had been the main thrust of his policy of ‘dynamic equilibrium’ that sought to promote the grouping as the main vehicle of the evolving regional architecture in the Asia Pacific Region.

Jokowi’s new focus

Under President Joko Widodo (Jokowi), foreign policy appears to be increasingly high-profile as Jakarta seeks to tighten bilateral relations with Pacific and Indian Ocean major powers, with a heavy focus on the domestic-economic dimension. This is in opposition to the focus on multilateralism and norms promotion that were stressed during Yudhoyono’s administration. How would ASEAN be positioned under the Jokowi government’s foreign policy?

As Indonesia’s global profile rises, the choices of partners are expanding but doubts have also resurfaced on whether ASEAN is still the bedrock of its foreign policy. With foreign policy given a high profile – in contrast to earlier predictions by some analysts that President Jokowi would be more inward-looking – it is tempting to argue that Indonesia’s foreign policy priorities are shifting beyond ASEAN.

For example, Jokowi’s new maritime doctrine of ‘global maritime fulcrum’ has highlighted Indonesia’s intention to ‘Look West’ in terms of deepening relations with major players in the Indian Ocean such as India and South Africa. Strengthening bilateral ties with Pacific powers is also becoming a major agenda instead of multilateralism. The emergence of a more nationalistic approach has further underscored these shifts.

According to Retno Marsudi, the new foreign minister, the current policy focus would be people-oriented. This statement was echoed by Jokowi during a discussion on the implementation of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). The President said Indonesia would not be supportive of the AEC’s goal of a single market and production base by end 2015 if it puts Indonesia at a disadvantage by merely being a market for goods produced by neighbouring countries. Several other policies such as the sinking of the illegal fishing vessels in Indonesian waters have been interpreted as signals that Indonesia would not hesitate to defend its national interest at the expense of ASEAN.

Reframing ASEAN?

These emerging trends are worrying as ASEAN is entering a deeper phase of integration and the proactive role of Indonesia is being awaited. However, it is not unfair to oppose the view that point to several nationalistic approaches as confirming Indonesia’s apparent move away from ASEAN. The continued commitment toward ASEAN with regard to the community building process has been reasserted by the Indonesian Ambassador to ASEAN, Rahmat Pramono, in December 2014.

Historical trajectories have steered Indonesia’s willingness to maintain the centrality of ASEAN. However, Indonesia has perceived ASEAN differently from a mere buffer zone of neutrality as in the past to a forum that is able to accommodate its bigger goal to maintain its relevance. Indonesia’s ability to position itself as the main mover of ASEAN norms and identity has buttressed its stature as the natural leader of ASEAN, as acknowledged in policy circles as well as the academic literature.

For external powers, ASEAN is also important as the most comprehensive venue of interaction in the Asia Pacific due to its capacity to enmesh many prominent powers within its overarching structures. Perceptions of other members of Indonesian activism in norm promotion and its facilitating of dispute settlement in the region is one of the biggest factors that contribute to Indonesia’s international image as the leader of ASEAN.

Indonesia’s strategic positioning in ASEAN has led to an unprecedented surge of partnerships with key countries, including the United States, China, Japan, Australia, South Korea, and the European Union.

Consensual leadership and its implications

However, considering the consensual nature of ASEAN, Indonesia has to negotiate its positions to gain the support of other members in making ASEAN as the main driver of the Pacific and Indian Ocean regional architecture. “Bargaining” is required in terms of providing public goods such as being at the forefront to strengthen ASEAN unity, working together with the member states to push for deeper integration of the institution, resolving conflicts between members in the region, and promoting norms such as human right and democracy.

The point to stress here is that Indonesia’s proactive and consensual leadership in ASEAN will endure during Jokowi’s administration. However, pragmatism will be its defining feature. A recent effort by Indonesia to push ASEAN as the centre of the regional architecture was its proposal to expand the ASEAN Chiefs of Defence Forces Informal Meeting (ACDFIM) into an ACDFIM Plus that includes counterparts from key players like the US and China in the Asia-Pacific. The proposal underscores the interest of Indonesia to expand scope of ASEAN into a more inclusive and accessible forum extending to major Pacific and Indian Ocean countries.

With the present security environment in the region marked by many flashpoints, exacerbated by external pressures arising from the US-China rivalry, Indonesia is concerned about ASEAN’s ability to speak with one voice. Considering that the benefits Indonesia gains depends on how effective it is in rallying ASEAN, a break on ASEAN unity will have implications on Indonesia’s image as the first among equals.

In this regard, pragmatic shifts in Indonesia’s foreign policy will be a reflection of its ‘free and active’ foreign policy while keeping ASEAN Centrality unbroken, harmonising interests, and making normative bargains. Indeed, this positioning is very important as a prerequisite for reaching the vision of ASEAN as the heart of Asia–Pacific and Indian Ocean regionalism – which is also an important element in the current ‘Global Maritime Fulcrum’ strategy.

* Emirza Adi Syailendra is a Research Analyst with the Indonesia Programme of the S. Rajaratnam of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

The post Consensual Leadership In ASEAN: Will It Endure Under Jokowi? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(EurActiv) — The three terrorists that carried out the murders at the Paris offices of the French paper Charlie Hebdo are on the run. Politicians have called for national unity after what François Hollande described as “an act of exceptional barbarism”. EurActiv France reports.

On Wednesday (7 January), the satirical paper Charlie Hebdo was the victim of the worst terrorist attack seen in France since the Saint Michel bombing in 1995. Three gunmen armed with Kalashnikov rifles and rocket launchers attacked and killed two police officers who were surveying the building in the 11th arrondissement of Paris, before bursting into the paper’s weekly editorial meeting and shooting people at point-blank range. They then left the scene shouting the name of Allah. The attack lasted ten minutes and the terrorists made their getaway in a stolen car.

The artists Charb, who was also the director of publication, Wolinski, Cabu and Tignous are among the dead. The economist Bernard Maris, a member of the General Council of the Bank of France, is also among the victims. Reports say that the terrorists did not shoot at the women who were present in the meeting, including Luce Lapin, specialist in animal protection and vegetarianism.

The satirical paper has received numerous threats from Islamic extremists since it published a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed in 2006. In response to these threats, one of the victims, the journalist and artist Charb, published a section called “fatwa of the week”. The publication employs 30 regular journalists and freelancers and around twenty artists.

In November 2011, the offices of the weekly paper were destroyed in an arson attack. In 2013, a 24 year-old man was imprisoned for calling for the decapitation of the director of Charlie Hebdo following the publication of caricatures of Mohammed.

The French Prime Minister Manuel Valls immediately activated the highest-level security alert, Vigipirate. Schools will be protected as a priority, and their exits blocked. Investigators launched an appeal for witnesses on Wednesday afternoon after the attacks which left 12 dead in the offices of Charlie Hebdo, but the brigade in charge of the operation lost the trail of the terrorists.

Crisis meeting in the President’s office

The ministers Bernard Cazeneuve (Interior), Jean-Yves Le Drian (Defence), Christiane Taubira (Justice), Laurent Fabius (Foreign Affairs) and Fleur Pellerin (Culture and Communication), as well as the heads of the main police and gendarmerie services was called into a crisis meeting by the President.

Security was greatly increased around the presidential palace, where extra police officers have been deployed with bullet-proof vests and automatic weapons.

The National Union of Journalists has called for a rally on Wednesday evening at Place de la République, close to the site of the attack.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, stated in a press release that he was “profoundly shocked by the brutal and inhuman attack which hit the offices of Charlie Hebdo. This is an intolerable act of barbarism which affects us all as human beings. My thoughts are with the victims and their families. I express, personally and in the name of the European Commission, my greatest solidarity with France”.

Angela Merkel has also published a press release, saying “this horrible act is not only an act of aggression against the lives of the French citizens, but also an unjustifiable attack on the freedom of the press and opinion, a foundation of our free and democratic culture”.

The post France On High Alert After Bloodiest Terrorist Attack In 20 Years appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Cuban authorities have freed some of the 53 political prisoners identified on a US list, US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

The move comes a few weeks after an historic step in the normalization of ties between Washington and Havana, starting in fact with a prisoner exchange.

US and Cuban officials are set to hold further talks later this month on normalizing diplomatic relations, still hindered by the embargo imposed by the US in 1962.

The post Cuba Frees Prisoners, Talks Planned Soon With Washington appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Myanmar’s top religious leaders must hold a dialogue aimed at ending sectarian violence in the country that has undermined its transition to democracy, Charles Maung Bo, the Buddhist-majority nation’s first Catholic cardinal, said Wednesday.

Speaking three days after the 66-year-old archbishop was named as cardinal by Pope Francis along with 19 others, Bo said the country’s heads of faith were key to controlling religious conflict in Myanmar, including Buddhist-Muslim violence that has left at least 240 dead since 2012.

“I want to work for my country to attain true democracy and I want the world to see our country as a peaceful nation—if we, all religious leaders, could hold friendly discussions and work together, we can achieve peace,” he told RFA’s Myanmar Service in an interview.

“All people in Myanmar respect their religions and they listen to their religious leaders, so if the leaders meet with the people and hold frequent discussions with them, the situation will get better,” he said.

Bo, who will travel to the Vatican to assume his official duties at a papal ceremony on Feb. 14, also called on Myanmar’s religious leaders to refrain from stirring up extremism.

“No religious leader should promote hate speech, and the government should take action against any leader from any religion who does so.”

If the government wants Myanmar to enjoy development, it must first address underlying injustices suffered by certain communities that have fueled the sectarian violence and contributed to instability in the country, Bo said.

“The most important thing in our country is achieving peace. If we have peace, we can develop,” he said.

“But to get peace, it is important to have justice. As long as people are poor and live with injustice, we won’t have peace.”

Bo said he would strive to alleviate the injustice of poverty in Myanmar, where only around one percent of the country’s 51 million people are Catholics, as an extension of the work of the Pope and the Catholic Church.

But President Thein Sein’s quasi-civilian government—which took power from the former military junta in 2011—must do more to protect human rights, end fighting in Myanmar’s remote ethnic areas, and improve the education system, to level the playing field for the country’s varied communities, he said.

Nation’s first cardinal

Bo, who was ordained as a priest in 1976, was nominated and installed as Archbishop of Yangon in 2003.

His Jan. 4 appointment as cardinal comes amid growing religious intolerance in Myanmar despite democratic reform introduced by Thein Sein’s administration.

Violence targeting Muslims of the Rohingya ethnic minority by members of the country’s Buddhist majority have left hundreds dead since 2012.

According to the Democratic Voice of Burma, Bo raised eyebrows in his New Year’s Day address last year when he proposed granting citizenship for members of the Rohingya Muslim community born inside the country.

He has called for the protection of rights for all ethnicities and religious faiths, and warned about the growing influence of extreme Buddhist nationalism in Myanmar, adding that the government should bring to justice those who incite discrimination and violence.

Reported by Kyaw Thu for RFA’s Myanmar Service. Translated by Khet Mar. Written in English by Joshua Lipes.

The post Myanmar’s First Cardinal Calls For Meeting Of Country’s Religious Leaders appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Three gunmen are on the run after killing 10 journalists and two policemen at the Paris headquarters of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. Police launched a manhunt and raised security levels in the French capital.

The three attackers have been identified as Said Kouachi, 34, Cherif Kouachi, 32, and Hamyd Mourad, 18, AP reported citing French police. The names and photos of Kouachi brothers were later officially released by the authorities.

The 18-year-old Hamyd Mourad reportedly handed himself in at a police station in Charleville Mézières after seeing his name on the list of shooting suspects on social media, French media reported.

According to French channel iTele, Mourad claims to have alibi of his innocence, which is being investigated.

Earlier, police announced an anti-terror raid in the northeastern city of Reims, AFP reported. Dozens of police officers were dispatched to a site in the city, where one of the terror attack suspects reportedly lived.

RT’s Ruptly agency reported sounds of gunfire, citing witnesses in Reims, after a special police assault team surrounded a building in a council estate where at least two of the suspects were believed to be hiding.

However, neither gunfire nor any arrests or casualties reported by various world media have been confirmed locally. According to iTele citing police, the Reims raid was a search operation only, and no suspects have been found at the scene.

Live footage showed the majority of police officers who had entered the building leaving the site.

“We are going in soon. Either there is going to be a shoot out or they have got away, tipped off by social media,” an unnamed police officer told AFP earlier.

Police have arrested one man following another major raid in the northern commune of Charleville Mézières, iTele reported. The individual was detained for questioning as a relative of a shooting suspect, and is not a suspect himself, the French media outlet said.

At least two black-hooded men gunmen armed with Kalashnikov rifles entered the building of the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in the 11th district on Wednesday morning. Some reports suggested that they even had a rocket-propelled grenade.

“Somebody who was nearby on the roof and saw much of the incident said three policemen then arrived on a pushbike,” Henry Samuel, the Daily Telegraph’s Paris correspondent, told Sky News.

“When they saw how armed these men were they left and then there was a kind of gunfight in the street.”

Intense shooting broke out, with the gunmen fleeing the building and getting into in a black Citroen. They left behind dead bodies and a police van riddled with bullets. France’s top security official said later there were three gunmen.

Four famous French cartoonists were killed in the attack – Georges Wolinski, Jean Cabut aka ‘Cabu’, Bernard Verlhac aka ‘Tignous’ and Stéphane Charbonnier aka ‘Charb’.

“They shot Wolinski, Cabu… it lasted about five minutes… I took cover under a desk… they spoke perfect French… they said they were Al-Qaeda,” cartoonist Corine Rey, aka “Coco”, was quoted as saying by the weekly Humanité.

Several videos posted on social media showed two masked gunmen standing next to a black car on the Paris street shouting “Allahu Akbar” (“God is greatest”) and firing shots at a police car. The footage came from the upper floors of the buildings next to Charlie Hebdo’s offices.

“While fleeing they wounded a policeman and a passer-by was also hit,” the Daily Telegraph’s Paris correspondent said.

The attackers got into a getaway car and set off in the direction of Porte de Pantin in northeast Paris, according to police. Abandoning the first car, they hijacked a second turning the driver out on to the road.

No terrorist group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack. However, an Islamic State militant praised the attack on the French satirical magazine on Wednesday.

“The lions of Islam have avenged our Prophet,” Abu Mussab, who fights for IS insurgents in Syria, told Reuters via internet connection. “These are our lions. It’s the first drops – more will follow,” he said, speaking via an internet connection from Syria. He added that he and his fellow fighters are happy about the incident.

Mussab said he did not know the gunmen who carried out the attack, but added “they are on the path of the emir [IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi]….and our Sheikh Osama (bin Laden).”

Reports suggest that the cartoons portraying Prophet Muhammad published earlier by the satirical paper were the reason for the attack. The gunmen reportedly called out the victims by name, shouting: “We have avenged the prophet.”

In November 2011, Charlie Hebdo published an issue with the Prophet Muhammad as its “guest editor”. The prophet, who Islam bans from portraying, was put on the front page saying: “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter.”

The magazine said it was how they decided to celebrate the victory of the Islamist party in the Tunisian elections. Its office was firebombed following the publication.

In 2005, Charlie Hebdo was sharply criticized by Muslims after it reprinted cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad from a Danish newspaper.

The post France Manhunt: Gunmen Identified, Police Raid Homes, Suspect Surrenders appeared first on Eurasia Review.