By Aniket Bhavthankar*

In November 2014, after 33 long years, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Fiji, a South Pacific archipelago of about 300 islands, where 37% of its 900,000 population is of Indian origin. During this visit Modi mooted a concept of Forum for India-Pacific Islands Cooperation (FIPIC) in order to reach out to other Pacific Island Countries (PICs). The first summit of FIPIC was held in Fiji in 2014. FIPIC has India and 14 South Pacific Islands like Fiji, Cook Islands, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

The second summit of FIPIC was held in Jaipur on August 21, 2015. Agenda of the summit touched upon several issues like climate change, blue economy, space collaboration and trade to mention a few of them. Minimum distance between India and the South Pacific Islands is around 11,000 km. Then why is India interested in these remote islands? To understand this we should know the geopolitical and geostrategic issues in the region.

Gravity of the world economy is shifting to the Asia-Pacific region and PICs sit at the pivot of the Pacific. Though land area and population of the South Pacific region is minuscule, it has abundant resources in its store. For example, land area of Kiribati is merely 810 sq. km but its Exclusive Economic Zone is more than 3.5 million sq. km (greater than India’s land area). Until very recently South Pacific Islands were managed by the Western world with the help of Australia and New Zealand. Growing economic and strategic opportunities pushed them to bypass regional big powers Australia and New Zealand and have bilateral relations with powerful countries in the world.

PICs can offer sea lanes of communication and ports, access to fisheries, military bases and decisive votes in international for UN Security Council reforms and its expansion will be discussed and some creditworthy proposals are likely to be taken up at the upcoming UN General Assembly session. Of the 14 PICs, 12 are UN members; and 10 states have announced their direct support for India’s bid for permanent seat in the UNSC and one state supports G4 resolution (thus indirectly supporting India).

Of the 14 PICs, Fiji is the most important Island. In 2006, the Western world boycotted Fiji due to a military coup. China took advantage of this and cultivated relations with Fiji and other states in the region. China wooed this region with aid diplomacy, investing in the region to get access for building military bases – the most important aspect of which is signals intelligence monitoring. China is also seeking naval access to the region’s ports and exclusive economic zones. Washington and other important capitals in the world are alarmed due to increasing Chinese interest in the region.

India also took note of this. Fiji hosts significant Indian diaspora; Fiji is the hub of the Pacific and provides an important link to most of the PICs. Hence India is spending time and money to serve stronger ties with Fiji.

During his visit to Fiji last year, Modi offered Indian help to build a Digital Fiji. India had announced a number of new initiatives and mutually beneficial cooperation programmes during the Suva summit last year. PICs have also welcomed Indian’s assistance of tele-medicine, tele-education, space cooperation, and technical aid for bolstering democracy and community activities. PICSs are eager to have a stronger Indian presence in the region. They do not want to remain over dependent on Chinese support. However, we should know that China has a huge lead over India in its relations with this region. It is not advisable to engage in a zero-sum game with China in this regard.

In Jaipur, India assured PICs of realization of Pacific regionalism. To exploit economic potential of the region, India offered to help them with their hydrography and coastal surveillance via Indian Navy. Geographical location of PICs is very relevant in the monitoring of space. India is one of the leading players in space technology and offered help in preparing an inventory of land and water resources, surveying of forest resources and its management and, in disaster management support. India will also establish a satellite monitoring station over one of the Fiji’s Islands, to track its own satellite independently over the Pacific. Climate change is a major cause of concern for this region. India is ready to share its expertise in mitigation measures and renewable technologies to overcome hurdles faced by PICs.

India, being a maritime country needs to have a coherent maritime strategy. India has just started working on it and views the vast region from Madagascar to Marshall Islands as a one single coherent region – the Indo-Pacific. To make it a success, it is important to reach out to sub-regions and small countries of the world which lack economic and military power. Due to this, prospective countries may look towards India as a viable alternative. The government’s Act East Policy is a sub-part of a grand Indo-Pacific strategy. Strengthening relations with the PICs is pertinent for its success. The summit of FIPIC is a part of India’s extended ‘Act East’ Policy. Through FIPIC, India tried to redefine its core national interest based on a broader geographical canvas and to portray itself as a leading player pushing for stability in the Indo-Pacific.

*Aniket Bhavthankar is a Research Associate at the Society for Policy Studies. His focus areas include India’s Maritime Security and the Arctic region. He can be reached at: aniketb@spsindia.in

By Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund

(Jakarta, Indonesia) — Good morning. Selamat Pagi. I would like to express my appreciation to Governor Martowardojo for the kind introduction.

I am pleased that you could join us today for this conference on The Future of Asia’s Finance.

This is a timely topic, particularly in light of recent events. “These are times that try men’s souls.” That famous statement was written in the 18th century by Thomas Paine. Less well known was what followed: “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value.”

These are words nearly 250 years old that remind us of the true worth of our well-being in trying times. Indeed, financial markets in a few short weeks have underlined the value that we all attach to financial stability—and what we must do to preserve it.

The markets also have demonstrated how much Asia is at the core of the global economy. This is testimony to the extraordinary gains of the past generation. Some Asian countries have taken their places among the advanced economies. Some have achieved emerging market status and are reaching higher. Others are still climbing the ladder of development. Together they have become a key source of global growth.

You have given the world new vitality, and now you are facing renewed volatility. So let me speak for a moment to the current situation.

This region knows from bitter experience where turmoil can lead. In recent years you used the experience of the Asian Crisis to weather the Global Financial Crisis and the 2013 Taper Tantrum. By putting in place strong macroeconomic policies and strengthening your financial systems, you withstood instability.

Now you are feeling the impact of China’s rebalancing, Japan’s continued slow growth, and falling commodities prices. You are facing the prospect of higher U.S. interest rates. My message today is that there is reason for continued confidence in the region. Your governments fully understand what needs to be done and are ready to take further action if needed. Of course, policies need to be tailored to different countries’ circumstances, but they should include:

• strengthening defenses with prudent fiscal policy;

• reining in excessive credit growth;

• allowing the exchange rate to act as a shock absorber;

• maintaining adequate foreign exchange reserves;

• and building up regulatory and supervisory oversight of the financial sector.

At this conference, we are focusing on the financial sector issues that are essential to this policy mix.

So allow me to take a few minutes to highlight some of the key challenges that will be crucial to address if Asia is to create the financial systems that can help ensure stability and fuel the next stage of its success story. I have grouped these challenges as four I’s: innovation, integration, infrastructure and inclusion.

Innovation—Sustaining Asia’s Growth Momentum for the Next Generation

Let us begin with innovation. Asia’s financial sector already has supported extraordinary levels of growth and itself has been transformed by the region’s rapid rise. But finance needs to follow the example of Asian manufacturing, which has continually evolved toward higher value-added products and more cost-effective processes.

What we are talking about is financial deepening within countries. And that means a shift away from traditional banking practices focused on deposit taking and commercial lending to corporations. Deeper markets can help Asia benefit from new trade opportunities, boost the productivity of growing labor forces in some countries, and support the aging in others.

For consumers, new financial services can provide home mortgages, auto financing, insurance products and pensions—as has occurred in a country like Singapore. For business, innovation means risk capital for start-ups and equity financing for expanding companies. It means expanding the role of bond and stock markets, and enabling institutional investors to provide long-term financing.
Let me be clear: I am not calling for risky financing. Deeper financial systems can provide a shield against volatility, but they must also be well-regulated financial systems. That means remaining vigilant to new sources of systemic risk such as shadow banking.

Integration—Creating Financial Market Synergy

What about deepening of financial interactions among countries? That is where financial integration—the second “i”—comes into play.

Asia has made great strides in creating regional trade linkages that have spurred economic vitality. The region has placed itself at the center of global value chains.

Now the time has come to inject the same vitality into regional financial linkages—to overcome a legacy of fragmented markets and build more synergy among financial institutions and capital markets.

Take the example of ASEAN. This region has a combined population of 600 million people and a GDP equal to $2.5 trillion. Intra-regional trade has grown rapidly, bringing benefits to emerging market and frontier economies alike.

Greater financial integration can advance this process by creating larger and more liquid capital markets that reduce the cost of capital. It can advance intra-regional trade. The proposed ASEAN Economic Community is an important step with its call for harmonized regulations and greater policy coordination. We look forward to watching how this initiative develops.

Infrastructure—Building the Future

Infrastructure represents the third “i”. It is key to Asia’s future. For frontier economies, improved roads, railways, and ports, and new supplies of water and electricity will be building blocks of development. For the emerging markets, livable cities with proper public transport and advanced IT networks can help avoid the “middle income trap.”

The Asian Development Bank estimates that Asia’s infrastructure needs will be $8.3 trillion over the next decade. This requires substantial government funding, so the first step is more and better-targeted public investment. In other words, efficient infrastructure spending. That calls for strengthened fiscal policies—something the IMF can assist with—including careful planning, effective spending controls and improved mobilization of tax revenue.

But public money is not enough. Infrastructure also requires capital markets to provide new sources of private financing—including risk capital from infrastructure funds that can be sold to long-term investors. It requires credit insurance.

That said, private investment—and this does not apply to infrastructure alone—also must be built on the foundation of an attractive business environment. That means improved governance—well-designed and transparent regulations and an intolerance of corruption. This can strengthen the expectation that risk and return will be able to achieve the right balance.

Inclusion—Enabling the Next Miracle

Innovation, integration and infrastructure—these address big picture issues. The fourth “i”—inclusion—represents the human side of development.

For all of the region’s progress, nearly 350 million Asians still live in poverty. Most have no bank accounts. Many businesses have difficulty accessing bank loans and investment capital. Many live in the emerging markets, but are not part of that prosperity.

Financial inclusion is not just a matter of products or regulations. It directly improves livelihoods and reduces poverty. It is the provision of services and the creation of opportunities where there is inequality—inequality of income and gender, education and health. Low levels of financial inclusion in many countries are an obstacle to Asia’s continued success. There are exceptions: Korea has reached virtually 100 percent access to banking for its adult population.

But there is also a business case for promoting financial inclusion. At this conference we will be discussing some of our research on financial deepening and inclusion, and will preview research that we will soon release on the subject. This research shows that greater access to financial services can lead to higher growth, and can be instrumental in advancing financial sector stability. There are some risks, as my colleagues will highlight in their presentation, but the benefits are far more important.

I would add that increasing the access of women to financial services has tremendous economic and social benefits. It is shown to stimulate growth. Moreover—and we have yet another paper coming out on this topic—ensuring that more women have leadership roles in finance could also support financial stability. I would also note that Islamic Finance has the potential to broaden access to finance and deepen the investment pool for long term projects.

I am very impressed with inclusion initiatives that we are seeing across Asia—for example, the government’s commitment to a rapid expansion of financial services to the wider population here in Indonesia, and India’s nationwide program to expand access to bank accounts with biometric identification cards.

Conclusion

Allow me to sum up briefly. Asia’s future development presents a complex set of issues in which the financial sector plays a crucial role. They are crucially connected to Asia’s stable economic progress.

It falls to us to work together to ensure this stability and progress. I hope the knowledge and discussion we share today can deepen our understanding and help us make more effective decisions. Once it is issued, I hope you will find our book on The Future of Asian Finance helpful in further examining these issues. I also promise you that the IMF will bring all of its expertise to bear in this endeavor through our policy advice, research, technical assistance and training.

I am told that in Bahasa Indonesia the phrase “gotong royong” is very commonly used—referring to a community coming together for the benefit of all.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the spirit in which we need to work together to maintain stability and to ensure Asia’s continued success.

Thank you. Terima Kasih.

By Chayanika Saxena*

Ravaged by series of violent struggles that grew out of a combination of internal pressures and external aggressions, Afghanistan of today finds itself perched — rather unenviably — in the list of the ‘most dangerous places on earth’. The recent spate of terror attacks unleashed throughout the country has accented this perception even more, and not only among the international audience but within the domestic circles too. The ‘progress’ that was made by this nation in the last one decade is gradually receding as its economy tumbles and the political circumstances show little signs of peace, stability and hope.

In these circumstances where the going is already tough, the tougher get going, particularly for women in Afghanistan who find themselves not only at the receiving end of events extraordinaire like war, but also of the daily struggles that are set up for them by the forces of patriarchy. That ‘war’ like every other aspect of our lives unfolds itself in the backdrop of patriarchy is not unknown, but such is the pervasiveness of the patriarchal imprints that their omnipresence makes us lose sight of the finer ways in which they get manifested.

From the daily harassment on the streets, to being deprived of education, to getting widowed and orphaned in wars, women and girl children have faced many gory implications of the struggles in Afghanistan. Here we are not even discussing the kinds of sexual predations that women (and children) have to suffer when anarchy is writ large! Such (and many more) have been the implications of decades-long war on the women of that country that had given them the right to vote as early as in 1919.

The cities of Afghanistan, if not its hinterland, were sites of progress for its women – that was little seen in any of the developing countries throughout the world. Perhaps barring India that had enshrined (and practiced) equality of genders from the beginning, Kabul — which was the seat of central power in Afghanistan, was a place from where images of smart and stylish university going, workingwomen would emerge. But, with the series of conflicts that unfolded, beginning with the Soviet invasion, all these sightings became rarer and were in fact, made to eclipse from the scene as the Taliban took over (almost) the whole of Afghanistan by 1996. Flogging of women publicly around the chowks (crossings) replaced the images of women sitting in the city of gardens (Kabul); the blue burqas became synonymous with the women of Afghanistan.

The US invasion of Afghanistan, although mired in its own set of controversies, nevertheless marked a discontinuation (if not the end) of such extreme gender discrimination. Since 2001, it has been believed that the women of Afghanistan have once again begun to trickle back into the public domain — and not only as an audience that wants to matter, but also as agents that want to make this ‘mattering’ matter!

Even as Afghanistan continues to stumble on the remnants of war — be it the resurgent Taliban, or the intense patriarchal hierarchies that continue to inform public and private aspects of life alike, women of this country are trying to carve out a space for themselves as signs of resistance against the seemingly incessant rule of chaos and male supremacy. They want to be equal partners in progress and rightly so. From politicians to street artists; air force pilots to taxi drivers, women in the cities of Afghanistan are slowly mounting their crusade against those practices that had them reduced to the status of second class citizens in a country that was amongst the first in the world to grant them the right to vote.

These enclaves of resistance are now surfacing on the swathes of a land that is still considered to be the worst place on earth for one to be a woman. Still a handful, but this rising tide of women power in Afghanistan is demonstrated in some of the instances of collective actions mentioned below.

Zanabad (Women’s Town in East Kabul)

A women’s collective that has carved out an exclusive economic and social space for itself in a country where public participation by women is still frowned upon, this particular area in the east of Kabul is dotted by female-led households. ‘Made’ into breadwinners for their families due to the vagaries of wars, these households are run by widows who have broken many taboos by earning and staying without a male ‘support’. While their economic condition is far from being decent, but the women in Zanabad have made their determination into an effective shield against a highly patriarchal society and have won scores of supporters amongst the literate classes in the town.

Scranton Restaurant Chain (Herat)

Another economic enterprise that is run exclusively by women and for women, this chain of (soon-to-be-operational) five restaurants in the western province of Afghanistan — Herat — is an exemplar of rising female entrepreneurship in this country. Funded by the Finnish embassy and the Scranton University, these restaurants exude a modest appeal but with a French Salon (of the Enlightenment era) kind of impact.

Located in a province that had once been a doyen of the literati of Persian and Afghan empires, Herat, for all the unease caused by the wars had witnessed an extensive withdrawal of women from the public space. To bring women back into the ‘mainstream’ one step at a time, these restaurants are making just the right kind of moves.

Art: Street Artists (Kabul)

Sitting between the threshold of the many mighty empires that grew on the Persian and Indian soils, Afghanistan was also covered in the folds of many cultural experiences that left an indelible mark on the world. From art to literature; poems to splendid architecture, Afghanistan has seen it all. But, the things were set to change.

With the flight of most of the Afghan intellectuals in the years of war, the country was left bereft of indigenous genius. Its institutional memory is all but bleak, with the memories from the middle and ancient past having been reduced to rumps in the wake of the war. But, it is on these very shambles that the new generation of educated Afghans are leaving their mark, and women are trying to chip in their bit too.

Banished from the scene, both art and women in Afghanistan were not to be seen for as many as three decades; but there is a revival of art on the streets, and particularly by women who with their stirring paintings want the society to know that they too exist.

It is often said that out of sight is out of mind, and such indeed became the case of women in Afghanistan who still are not out in large numbers to make their presence felt. And, it is to make them count that street painters like Zainab Haidery, Jahan Ara Rafi and Shamsia Hassani have taken to the paintbrush and are painting the city blue — with the images of blue burqa-clad women splattered on the walls of Kabul that serve as their canvas.

Calling art as a tribe-less language, they use their brush strokes to depict the ‘reality’ of Afghanistan that has its own share of good and bad, and unite people to stand up for the rights of those who had long been repressed.

Mirman Baheer (Kabul/pan-Afghanistan)

Where the educated generation of city-dwelling girls has been at the forefront of these initiatives, their uneducated, tribal compatriots are not far behind. Contributing to the cause of women’s emancipation in their own right and (permissible) might, a group of Pashtun women and girls have taken to radio as a way of expressing their angst against their abysmal present circumstances.

Organized around an all-woman literary group called Mirman Baheer, women, particularly those from the hinterlands of the country have found an outlet to convey their unease with life in a war-torn, thoroughly patriarchal country through two-line poems called landays. Similar to (a format more familiar to us) the Japanese Haikus, these landays are compiled around issues that concern the daily toils of women, along with the many perils that three-decades of war brought for them — including marital lives, unfulfilled wishes for love, American drones and the Taliban (to name a few).

Meeting every Saturday in Kabul, this group of women has provided a platform to many voices from across Afghanistan to share their stories and seek support in the extended community of women that is otherwise unavailable to them.

Represented by communities like these, women of Afghanistan have realized the need to come together and present themselves as a formidable force even in the face of countless threats. While an overnight change is neither possible nor feasible in the situations that women have to endure in this country, the steady emergence of such initiatives surely count as steps taken in the right direction.

*Chayanika Saxena is a Research Associate at the Society for Policy Studies and will be conducting her Doctoral Research on state-building in Afghanistan. She can be reached at chayanika.saxena@spsindia.in

10 year old Sakina, an Afghan street kid, had this to say, “I don’t like to be in a world of war. I like to be in a world of peace.”

On 27^th August 2015, Sakina and Inam, with fellow Afghan street kids and the Afghan Peace Volunteers, held a mock funeral for weapons and celebrated the establishment of a green space in Kabul.

Dressed in long black coats, they broke and buried toy guns in a small spot where, over the past two years, they have been planting trees.

Inam, a bright-eyed ten year old, caught the group’s energetic desire to build a world without war. “I kept toy guns till about three years ago,” he acknowledged with a smile.

On the same day, Nobel Laureate Oscar Arias Sanchez, ex-President of Costa Rica, was in Mexico for the Arms Trade Treaty’s First Conference of States Parties.

In his statement at the Conference, he told the story of an indigenous Guatemalan woman who thanked him for negotiating a peace accord 28 years ago. The mother had said, “Thank you, Mr. President, for my child who is in the mountains fighting, and for the child I carry in my womb.”

No mother, Guatemalan or Afghan, wants her children to be killed in war.

Oscar Arias Sanchez wrote: “I never met them, but those children of conflict are never far from my thoughts. They were its (the peace treaty’s) true authors, its reason for being.”

I’m confident that the children of Afghanistan were also in his thoughts, especially since he had a brief personal connection with the Afghan Peace Volunteers in 2014, having been part of a Peace Jam video message of solidarity to the Volunteers, wearing their Borderfree Blue Scarves which symbolize that ‘all human beings live under the same blue sky’.

I thank Mr Oscar Arias Sanchez for his important work on the Arms Trade Treaty, though I sense that an arms trade treaty isn’t going to be enough.

Afghan children are dying from the use of weapons.

To survive, they need a ban against weapons. Regulations about buying and selling weapons perpetuate a trade that is killing them.

I saw Inam and other child laborers who work in Kabul’s streets decisively swing hammers down on the plastic toy guns, breaking off triggers, scattering nozzles into useless pieces and symbolically breaking our adult addiction to weapons.

Children shouldn’t have to pay the price for our usual business, especially business from the U.S., the largest arms seller in the world. U.S. children suffer too, with more U.S. people having died as a result of gun violence since 1968 than have died in all U.S. wars combined. U.S. weapon sellers are killing their own people; by exporting their state-of-the-art weapons, they facilitate the killing of many others around the world.

After burying the toy guns, surrounded by the evergreen and poplar trees which they had planted, the youth shed their black coats and donned sky-blue scarves.

Another world was appearing as Sakina and Inam watched young friends plant one more evergreen sapling.

Inam knew that it hasn’t been easy to create this green space in heavily fortified Kabul.

The City Municipality said they couldn’t water the trees (though it is just 200 metres away from their office). The Greenery Department weren’t helpful. Finally, the security guards of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission just across from the garden, offered to help, after the Volunteers had provided them with a 100-metre water hose.

Rohullah, who coordinates the environment team at the Borderfree Nonviolence Community Centre, expressed his frustration. “Once, we had to hire a private water delivery service to water the tree saplings so they wouldn’t shrivel up. None of the government departments could assist.”

Sighing, he added ironically, “We can’t use the Kabul River tributary running just next to the Garden, as the trash-laden trickle of black, bracken water is smelly and filthy.”

Meanwhile, in the rest of the country, according to figures from the National Priorities Project, a non-profit, non-partisan U.S. federal budget research group, the ongoing Afghan War is costing American taxpayers US $4 million an hour.

It is the youth and children who are making sense today, like when Nobel Laureate Malalai Yousafzai said recently that if the whole world stopped spending money on the military for just 8 days, we could provide 12 years of free, quality education for every child on the planet.

“I don’t like to work in the streets, but my family needs bread. Usually, I feel sad,” Inam said, looking away, “because I feel a sort of helplessness.”

Oscar Arias Sanchez said at the Arms Trade Treaty’s First Conference, “And we must speak, today – in favour of this crucial treaty, and its swift and effective implementation. If we do, then when today’s children of conflict look to us for guidance and leadership, we will no longer look away in shame. We will be able to tell them, at long last, that we are standing watch for them. We are on guard. Someone is finally ready to take action.”

That morning, I heard the voices of Sakina, Inam and the Afghan youth ring through the street, “#Enough of war!”

It wasn’t a protest. It was the hands-on building of a green spot without weapons, and an encouraging call for others to do so everywhere.

Through their dramatic colours and clear action, they were inviting all of us, “Bury your weapons. Build your gardens.”

“We will stand watch for you!”

* Hakim, ( Dr. Teck Young, Wee ) is a medical doctor from Singapore who has done humanitarian and social enterprise work in Afghanistan for the past 10 years, including being a mentor to the Afghan Peace Volunteers, an inter-ethnic group of young Afghans dedicated to building non-violent alternatives to war. He is the 2012 recipient of the International Pfeffer Peace Prize.

By C. Uday Bhaskar*

The 50th anniversary of the 1965 war covertly initiated by Pakistan against India is being recalled by the Narendra Modi government in a month-long celebratory commemoration that commenced on August 28 (Friday) – the day when Indian troops captured the Haji Pir pass. This political decision to commemorate the 1965 war is a departure from earlier practice when Congress-led governments preferred to keep a low profile about India’s rich military history, and this was most evident in 1995 – when the P.V. Narasimha Rao government chose (wrongly, in my view) to stay away from the 50th anniversary recall of World War II and the United Progressive Alliance-II ensured that the 40th anniversary of the 1971 war was muted.

However, the Friday recall of the martyrs of 1965 was led by President Pranab Mukherjee who laid a wreath at India Gate and this was followed by Prime Minister Modi who paid tribute through a tweet: “I bow to all the brave soldiers who fought for our motherland.” And to add to the encomiums showered by political leaders, Congress party president Sonia Gandhi recalled party detail when she noted: “Under the able leadership of PM Lal Bahadur Shastri and defence minister Y.B. Chavan, the Indian armed force displayed exemplary courage.”

This is indeed a rare and welcome departure from the experience of the last seven decades when the Indian military and its contribution in the larger national endeavour has often been glossed over – except briefly after the emphatic 1971 military victory that led to the birth of Bangladesh. However, even at the time, the shabby treatment meted out to Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw by the Indira Gandhi government was perceived as the extension of an institutional disparaging of the Indian military and ‘keep-them-at-a-distance’ attitude that is deeply embedded in the Indian political psyche.

Thus the President of India leading the nation to recall a long forgotten war was welcome departure – but the fact that a section of the retired military community decided to boycott the 1965 commemoration in protest over the delay in the OROP (one-rank-one pension) is reflective of the many complexities and contradictions that envelop the month-long celebrations.

Did India win the 1965 war? This is a question that was raised in many quarters when the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government announced its intent to ‘celebrate’ the 50th anniversary of the war, and the answer is mixed. If a war is to be assessed through number crunching by way of comparing lives lost, prisoners taken, major platforms destroyed and territory captured – then India did emerge as the victor. But it was a slender victory, and the margin was nowhere as emphatic as it was in 1971 when India dismembered Pakistan, helped create a new state, captured 93,000 PoWs and obtained the surrender of the Pakistani military.

Most objective assent about the 1965 war is agreed that Pakistan began this war and tried to use infiltrators to stoke local sentiment in Kashmir but were foiled – much to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s dismay. One of the more informed assessments of the 1965 war by a veteran US diplomat and historian Dennis Kux concludes: “Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan’s attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.”

The political resolve of the diminutive prime minister Shastri has not been adequately acknowledged and his decision to open another front against Pakistan in the Punjab province rattled the adversary who presumed that India would be restricted to a defensive war in Jammu and Kashmir. Thus one major strategic inference of 1965 was that for India – any attack against J&K would be deemed to be an attack on India and that Delhi would choose to respond in a manner, time and place of its choice. The offensive-defense Shastri doctrine was born.

On the flip side, India’s higher national security management remained grossly inadequate. Inter-service coordination was poor and the fact that the navy was kept out of the war is illustrative. Army-air force tactical harmonization could have been better and intelligence gathering and assessment revealed many gaps. However, the Indian Army acquitted itself with glory and the capture of Haji Pir, the battle of Asal-Uttar and the advance on Lahore are some of the better known operations. The fledgling Indian Air Force also proved its mettle and the Indian-made Gnat surprised the adversary.

For India, the conclusion of the 1965 war at Tashkent where both sides were compelled to return all territorial gains made and the tragic demise of prime minister Shastri reduced this chapter to a political stalemate. India may have won the war by a modest margin militarily but it could not ensure an abiding peace with its neighbour.

Paradoxically, the sight of Indian tanks outside Lahore induced a deep anxiety in Pakistan about their vulnerability to an Indian military offensive, and consequently it now observes September 6 as Defence Day – and a tenacious narrative has been created by the Pakistan army around the catastrophic exigency that must be deterred – at any cost.

Consequently, post 1965, the ‘fauj’ in Pakistan gradually projected itself as the ultimate guardian of the state and one may conjecture that this war marks the beginning of the primacy of Rawalpindi (GHQ of the Pakistan army) and the deep anti-India hostility that defines the DNA of the deep state. The use of covert operations and ‘irregulars’ by the Pakistan military that began in October 1947 was the centre piece of the 1965 Op Gibraltar – and this investment in irregulars and terror has continued through Kargil of 1999 and Mumbai of 2008 and the summer of 2015, when Pakistani infiltrators and terrorists have been captured alive.

There are many lessons for India that could be derived from the 1965 war – but none more critical than improving the texture of India’s higher defence management and a constructive focus on the need to nurture the Indian military in an empathetic manner (the OROP fiasco could have been avoided) and evolve an affordable and effective strategy to minimize the malignancy of the deep state in Pakistan.

Fifty years after 1965 that objective remains elusive for Raisina Hill.

*C Uday Bhaskar is Director, Society for Policy Studies, New Delhi. He can be contacted at cudaybhaskar@spsindia.in

By Jai Kumar Verma*

The civilian government of Pakistan under pressure of the army cancelled the National Security Advisor-level talks scheduled to be held on August 23-24 in New Delhi. After the NSAs meeting, the Director Generals of Military Operations and head of Border Security Force and Pakistan Rangers had to meet. Although meeting of NSAs was cancelled but the other two meetings would be held as per schedule and both BSF and Pakistani Rangers have exchanged their agenda. The pertinent point is that all the three meetings were planned between the officers dealing with terrorism.

The dominant Pakistan Army which decides the country’s policy towards India was unhappy that in the joint communiqué issued at Ufa “Kashmir” was not mentioned.

In fact General Raheel Sharif sometime back stated at the National Defence University that Kashmir is an unfinished agenda of 1947 and Pakistan and Kashmir are inseparable. The Pakistan Army always takes a very hawkish attitude towards India.

In the slanging match both India and Pakistan blamed each other for making their positions inflexible. India stated that both prime ministers on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) at Ufa decided to hold talks on terrorism, while Pakistan wanted to include several issues including Kashmir in the agenda.

Several analysts mention that both the prime ministers met at Ufa without much planning, it was more of a spontaneous meeting; hence there was no preparation for such a highly sensitive meeting. It is also alleged that the meeting was held because of the insistence of China and Russia. Nonetheless, a more pragmatic view is that both Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif wanted to ease the tension, hence they met and paved the way for future dialogue.

The Pakistani army, opposition as well as anti-India lobby criticized Nawaz for not mentioning the Kashmir issue in the joint communiqué, although the Pakistani Foreign Office claimed that “all outstanding issues” included Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek etc. but the opposition has not accepted this argument. India also interpreted it that all issue means all issues related to terrorism.

The Pakistani army was also upset that Modi in his visit to Bangladesh eulogized India’s role in creation of Bangladesh and in his recent visit to UAE, Modi without naming Pakistan linked it with terrorism.

The insistence of Pakistani High Commissioner Abdul Basit and NSA Sartaj Aziz that they would meet leaders of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference before or after the talks was a clear indication that Pakistan is bent upon sabotaging the talks as India cancelled the meeting of foreign secretaries only on the ground that Basit met Hurriyat leaders.

On the one hand, when separatist leaders like Ali Shah Geelani, Shabir Shah, Yasin Malik and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq who have already lost ground in Kashmir, meet Pakistani dignitaries it gives some acceptability to these redundant separatist leaders; on the other hand the Kashmir issue also comes in the limelight, particularly in Pakistani media.

Nonetheless, the Modi government made it clear that neither will it talk to separatist leaders nor it will allow Pakistan to meet them. The argument that visiting Pakistani leaders had been meeting Hurriyat leaders in the past is irrelevant. The Modi government has taken an unambiguous stand that Pakistani leaders cannot talk about peace and tranquility with Indian leaders and simultaneously encourage Kashmiri separatists. India must stop the policy of appeasement and should give a clear message that now India will not accept Pakistan-inspired terrorism.

The Pakistani media, which blamed India for cancellation of talks, was also very critical of Nawaz Sharif for not mentioning Kashmir in the joint communiqué issued at Ufa. The press also criticized him for cancellation of the talks under pressure of the Inter Services Intelligence as well as army. The media mentioned that once Kashmir was not included in the Ufa statement then there was no use cancelling the talks on the issue of meeting Hurriyat leaders.

The analysts mention that Pakistani army chief Raheel Sharif is an ambitious general and wants to keep Nawaz Sharif under control. Nawaz is not amenable like his predecessors, hence the Pakistani army chief cut him down to size and gave a bold message to the civilian government as well as the world including India that real power lies with him.

General Sharif realized that Nawaz met Modi at Ufa and wants to have cordial relations with India, hence under the pretext of ignoring Kashmir and meeting of Hurriyat leaders, the army compelled Nawaz to abandon the NSA level talks and made it abundantly clear that the army is supreme and it will decide about Pakistan’s relations with India. In fact Sartaj Aziz was only repeating the dictates of the Pakistan army.

Indian analysts also mention that NSA Ajit Doval is a hardliner and had prepared a dossier which contained irrefutable evidences about Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in India. The arrest of Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) operative Mohammed Naved, a Pakistani national who was caught red handed during a terrorist attack in Udhampur, would also be a great embarrassment to Pakistan.

Secondly, a dossier about Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar including the voice of his wife Mahjbeen confirming the presence of Dawood in Karachi would be difficult to counter. Hence Pakistan wriggled out from the meeting and made an unsuccessful attempt to blame India.

Now India must launch an aggressive campaign in the international arena that Pakistan is sponsoring terrorism in the region, including India; hence it should be declared a terrorist state and sanctions should be imposed on Pakistan.

India is the biggest importer of arms and ammunition in the world, hence it must impress upon the exporter countries, including the United States, to impose restrictions on Pakistan.

The cultural and sports events, back-channel diplomacy or Track-2 meetings, have not brought the desired peace hence India should discontinue these exchanges.

India is a peaceful country and it does not want to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, including Pakistan, but India must convey a strong message that Pakistan has several separatist groups and if compelled India can also assist them.

Unfortunately, the slugfest over the cancelled NSA meeting has created a lot of bad blood between India and Pakistan, and it will take some time to normalize the relations and start the dialogue again. However, Pakistan would be hosting the next South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit which is scheduled in July 2016, and for which the Indian prime minster would be visiting Pakistan; before that both countries especially Pakistan would like to resume the dialogue.

There is also a silver lining that Nawaz Sharif wants to have cordial relations with India. He is a businessman-turned-politician, his few contacts who are also business persons, are interested to enhance direct trade with India. On the other hand, Modi came to power in the name of development and hence he also would like to have amiable relations with all the countries, especially with neighbours.

Both the countries should try to have amicable relations with each other. There should be no belligerent utterances and strong economic relations should be inculcated. It is advisable if the finance minister or finance secretaries of both the countries meet and try to improve trade ties which will benefit both the countries. It will be a good confidence building measure.

In fact the masses of both countries, businessmen and even the civil leadership which is progress-oriented wants to have cordial relations, but the Pakistani army which has usurped the scarce resources of the country, ISI which sponsors terrorism, Islamic extremists who survive on anti-India rhetoric and various terrorist outfits all of them want war-like situation between India and Pakistan just to fullfill their petty selfish interests.

Both countries should not give much importance to the utterances made by the leaders for the consumption of their countrymen. They should decide relations as per the discussions held between them. There is no substitute to peace which can be achieved only through negotiations. Several times small incidents can be sorted out through discussions and war can be avoided.

Pakistan must make sincere efforts to stop sending terrorists to India. The argument that terrorists are non-state actors and the civilian government has no control over them is baseless. The present Indian government which has adopted a practical approach would not accept it.

Pakistan should also consider that so far Pakistan has fought more than three wars with India, and China has not come to its help, hence depending on China may be a dangerous phenomenon.

Pakistan which always threatens India about its nuclear power must understand that Khan Research Laboratories, Kahuta, its main nuclear plant, is about 70 km from the Indian border, well within the firing range of India.

*Jai Kumar Verma is a Delhi-based strategic analyst. He can be contacted at editor@spsindia.in

By James Stafford

After decades of exhaustive attempts to overcome the dirty reputation of oil sands, we finally have an environmentally-friendly and low cost method to tap into these vast resources in the state of Utah—good news both for Mother Nature and all oil and gas investors.

MCW Energy Group’s CEO, former Exxon President of the Arabian Gulf region, Dr. R. Gerald Bailey, tells Oilprice.com in an exclusive interview that his hunt for an innovative technology that simultaneously makes money and cleans up the environment is over. The race to capitalize on Utah’s vast oil sands resources is on, and only the ‘clean’—both financially and environmentally—will survive.

Coming hot off of the successful launch of clean oil sands operations in Utah, while other oil sands projects are under fire from protesters, Dr. Bailey discusses:

• The difference between Utah and Alberta when it comes to oil sands resources.

• How new technology can—and is—extracting oil sands without harming the environment.

• Why the new technology is as much about remediation as it is about extraction

• How to create new revenue streams and use the resulting clean sand for other purposes.

• Why it’s finally possible to make money extracting oil from oil sands cleanly—despite the current world’s depressed oil prices.

• What Alberta’s tailings ponds look like now, and what could be done to clean them up—eventually.

Interview by James Stafford of Oilprice.com

James Stafford: After many years of oil companies attempting to develop Utah’s vast oil sands deposits without harming the environment, where are we now?

Gerald Bailey: Right now, we’re experiencing an exciting moment in the history of oil sands technology. For the first time, we can finally extract oil from Utah’s oil sands without any environmental damage. And significantly, we can do it at a cost that makes sense, even in this depressed oil price environment. It’s taken decades for someone to come up with this technology and actually make it commercially viable; and it was these elements that attracted me to MCW Energy. I wanted to get involved in this project while it was still new and largely off investor radar—now it’s poised to explode as an additional source for independent American oil production.

James Stafford: So, oil sands don’t necessarily have to be dirty?

Gerald Bailey: No, oil sands in themselves are not dirty. It is quite simply sand that contains oil, just like sand underground in an oilfield contains oil. They are dark with oil. The word ‘dirty’ has been derived from the fact that most current extraction processes use hot water or steam, which results in an oily water stream that leaves behind toxic tailings ponds.

James Stafford: How is this new proprietary extraction technology developed by MCW Energy different? How does it work?

Gerald Bailey: It’s really quite simple. The technology works in the same way as soap takes grease off plates: The grease adheres to the soap and pulls it away and off the plate. Our technology—which focuses on proprietary solvents—works in the same way. It adheres to the oil and pulls it away from the sand.

James Stafford: What happens with the sand after this process?

Gerald Bailey: Well, that depends on what other local market uses there are. Generally speaking, we wash the sand with our solvents and then return it to the earth 99.9% clean. You can grow plants on it and it is no longer contaminated with oil.

James Stafford: And are there any other uses for this sand? Is there any kind of a market for this once it’s been cleaned up?

Gerald Bailey: As I mentioned, for now the sand is usually returned to the earth—clean and safe. But there are other potential applications that we are exploring. One possibility is to sell the cleaned sand as frack sands, which is a spin-off business that’s growing as fracking activities in America increase. Frack sands require certain quantities of silicon and not all sands are equal in this respect. Much of the desired frack sand comes from the Midwest—from Wisconsin and Michigan, for instance. For years Utah oil sands containing bitumen/asphalt have been used in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado to build roads and highways.

James Stafford: So the immediate term goal is to focus on ramping up production in Utah and then licensing the technology for global application?

Gerald Bailey: Yes. MCW has achieved commercial viability already through a fully operational oil sands plant in Asphalt Ridge, in the heart of the Utah oil reserves both in sands and in conventional reservoirs, near the town of Vernal. It’s termed “America’s first environmentally-friendly oil sands extraction project.” Since the beginning of this year, we have been cleaning Utah’s oil sands and selling the oil to the market.

James Stafford: Why Utah?

Gerald Bailey: Asphalt Ridge is one of Utah’s 8 major oil sand deposits. Asphalt Ridge alone is believed to hold some 1 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Utah has some 55% (Department of Energy Estimate: 32 billion barrels) of the United States oil sands deposits.

James Stafford: How much is the project producing now and what are the forecasts?

Gerald Bailey: The project is producing 250 barrels a day right now at a very reasonable production cost of $30 per barrel, with plans to build a 5,000/bpd plant, which could bring costs down to $20 per barrel. Even in this current world market, those numbers mean profit. While Alberta’s oil sands are expensive to produce oil using their existing technologies, and are very troubled right now, MCW can make a profit on Utah’s oil sands even with oil at $40 per barrel. And that’s what today’s market is all about—innovations that spell profit even in times of crisis. Finding a company that has no debt—such as MCW—in this atmosphere was a huge selling point for me.

James Stafford: How do you convince the public of the prospects of clean oil sands for Utah given the international outcry about Canada’s dirty oil sands?

Gerald Bailey: That is the challenge. Certainly, Canada has given oil sands a bad name and that is unfortunate, but the process and situation in Utah is entirely different and the two cannot be compared.

Utah oil sands are found in a different position—much of Utah’s oil sands deposits lie from surface to just 400 feet. You can just scoop up the oil sands with a front loader and then process it with MCW’s proprietary solvents. The oil comes out and you sell the oil and put the sand back in the environment.

In comparison, Canada’s oil sands have to be mined because they are several hundred feet deep and the oil needs to be extracted with steam. The resultant polluted water returns to surface with residual oil that cannot be separated. This dirty water and sludge is stored in huge tailings ponds, so large I understand they can be seen from space. Utah’s sands are oil wet, rather than water wet, eliminating the need for tailings ponds.

James Stafford: What does this really mean for the environment?

Gerald Bailey: We are here to clean up the oil sands business—for now, starting in Utah. And any savvy investor knows that technology that is environmentally friendly and commercially viable rules the day. This is already a proven, cost-effective technology. Our main technology process advantage is that we require no water to extract hydrocarbons from the oil sands. Almost all other technologies require up to 3 barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced.

Utah being largely a desert state, usage of water for resource development is an extremely touchy issue. Our system features a closed-loop technology….nothing leaves the system except the cleaned sands and oil. And after tweaking our process, we’ve managed to dramatically reduce our labor costs, decrease the costs of the petroleum products we use in extraction and, increase our process efficiencies —all which result in the lowest production costs in the industry. Our next step is to share this technology with the rest of the world. For now, that means anywhere that has oil sands deposits similar to Utah’s.

James Stafford: Are you talking about a technology that extracts oil sands in an environmentally- friendly manner, or does it have broader environmental applications?

Gerald Bailey: Oh, the environmental applications are much broader. Our process may also be viewed as a remediation technology. This is not just an opportunity to get in on another source for oil, but also an opportunity to clean up the land after disasters or the resulting polluted tailings ponds resulting from other less efficient extraction processes

James Stafford: Are you suggesting such a technology could have played a role in cleaning up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, for example?

Gerald Bailey: I am. We could have applied our technology there and cleaned up significant areas of the contaminated beach. If you go there right now, you can still find a lot of polluted sand behind the beach dunes and in the adjoining swamps. This technology will certainly add value for its wider remediation applications.

James Stafford: For now, though, MCW’s technology seems to be flying under the radar—where many will not have heard of it.

Gerald Bailey: You know, I recognized this when I joined the company that MCW had a technology that nobody else had. I also recognized that it could make a huge splash on the world oil scene. Now it’s ready to reach out to the public. This comes at a time when oil sands extraction is a tense issue in Utah, with protesters attempting to block an oil sands project owned by another company, which is using a water-based technology. Educating the public on the different processes of extracting oil sands will be key to pushing an environmentally friendly agenda forward.

There has been no protest to our Asphalt Ridge project in Utah to date because we emit nothing to the air or soil and there is no water to discard. MCW has worked very closely with the Energy Development Department in Utah, meeting or exceeding all environmental requirements. We’re working under the guidelines of their Responsible Resource Development Program, which is proof that resources may be safely developed with placing the environment at risk. Nonetheless, the general public still needs to be made aware of both the environmental and economic possibilities here for the future.

James Stafford: What is the long-term goal here? Building plants around the world, or licensing the technology?

Gerald Bailey: MCW is prepared to go several routes. We can build a plant for others, or we can build and operate these extraction plants as a joint venture. However, licensing is definitely an excellent way to deploy our technology worldwide. This unique MCW technology has major global applications. You can create an attractive revenue stream for everybody who implements it. Russia, China, Afghanistan, Dominican Republic, Namibia, Jordan and Trinidad—these are all great potential license purchasers with considerable oils sands deposits.

Eventually, we could even potentially clean up Alberta’s tailings ponds by de-watering the abandoned sludge and applying our new solvents to squeeze the rest of the oil out.

It is actually surprising that nobody discovered this before… it is like the Wright Brothers, they found a way and they proved the process. Someone always comes along to solve the problem. MCW has accomplished this…Our technology works; there is no pollution; nothing toxic goes back into the ground or into the air. We will be driving a lot of cars on the refined gasoline that comes from these huge reserves. This is a national and historical first—one I am willing to bet my 50-year reputation on.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Interviews/The-Worlds-First-Clean-Oil-Sands-Project-An-Interview-With-Dr-Gerald-Bailey.html

By John P. Walters and David W. Murray*

Michelle Alexander’s 2012 book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (hereafter, TNJC) is careless. The carelessness produces misdirection and it undermines the argument. Facts are stretched, the scholarly apparatus is weak, and the core argument is often contradicted by its own evidence.

Nonetheless, TNJC is a very popular book—rising to The New York Times best seller list, required reading for incoming students at Brown University, said by the San Francisco Chronicle to be “the Bible of a social movement.” Is its power rooted in a deeper truth or in a revealing lie that many of us want to believe or need to believe in the face of an ugly reality?

Full disclosure: We have lived through and remember the drug and crime problem of the 1980’s onward. We have done our best to make the problem smaller from positions within the White House, serving for at least a time in every Administration from Reagan to Obama. We know from personal experience that TNJC is built on falsehood. We also recognize that those who want to believe TNJC may view our experience as a cover-up of the great wrong alleged. But we write with the hope that open-minded readers can and will judge the facts for themselves.

In a nutshell, TNJC argues that “[w]e have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it.” From the book jacket: “By targeting black men through the War on Drugs, and decimating communities of color, the U.S. criminal justice system functions as a contemporary system of racial control—relegating millions to permanent second-class status.” A primary concern is the loss of the right to vote.

The specific list of factual misstatements is long. For a book with scholarly pretentions, it is noteworthy that the book lacks a bibliography, and its endnote citations are woeful.

Consider that we are told: “The Reagan administration hired staff to publicize the emergence of crack cocaine in 1985 as part of a strategic effort to build public and legislative support for the war.” The point is not a minor one, since it is offered in support of a core thesis: when there really wasn’t a drug problem in our cities, in order to achieve “social control” over blacks through “mass incarceration,” President Ronald Reagan created and then hyped a crisis using the media. This claim is found in the Introduction. Turning to the endnote, however, one finds no documentation, but rather a simple line that Reagan’s action “is discussed in more depth in Chapter 1.”

That’s a bit cheesy, but what then happens in Chapter 1? There, after reading about “code words” for race, we find again that Reagan “launched a media offensive to justify the ‘War on Drugs.’” And there’s another endnote which, when pursued, leads nowhere. It is a reference to the 1992 National Drug Control Strategy—produced after the Reagan Presidency.

This is cat-and-mouse. It anticipates an unserious, unquestioning reader, one willing to be led.

What about the author’s claim that the “War on Drugs” was initiated by Reagan, (detractors of Richard Nixon will be disappointed), or the even more dramatic claim that Reagan’s “ambitious federal policy” in fact turned into “an actual war.” How are we to take this hyperbole?

The author cites fears “in poor black communities that the War on Drugs was part of a genocidal plan by the government to destroy black people in the United States.” She calls these “conspiracy theories,” but what does the professor actually believe? She tells us: “While the conspiracy theories were initially dismissed as far-fetched, if not loony, the word on the street [i.e., genocide] turned out to be right, at least up to a point.”

To forward the concept of a policy being “genocide up to a point” (that point being the intent to kill a race and actually trying to do so) is such extreme overstatement it should be self-discrediting.

Still TNJC plunges forward. Evidence that the crack epidemic was “genocidal” is supposed to be be contained in the claim that “[t]he CIA admitted in 1998 that guerilla armies that it actively supported in Nicaragua were smuggling illegal drugs into the United States.” The CIA further “admitted that . . . it blocked law enforcement efforts to investigate illegal drug networks” funding its covert war.¹

Whatever the claimed involvement of the CIA, its actual significance—how much illegal drug supply this “conspiracy” dumped into American streets—is something the author tellingly declines to explain or quantify. If you are old enough to remember the Medellin and Cali cartels (which really did traffic massive amounts of cocaine into the United States during that period), you are supposed to forget them here.

Assumptions like these, in which every development suggests the existence of a full-scale “plot,” might incline us to dismissiveness when the author finally gets to actual data. Blacks are disproportionately incarcerated for drug crimes on a straight per-capita basis. That’s certainly true. But it’s not a phenomenon peculiar to drug statutes; blacks are incarcerated for (and, crucially, victims of) almost every Index crime at depressingly higher per capita rates.

Even though TNJC’s attack ostensibly focuses on drug laws, it’s argument ultimately embraces the whole of American criminal justice: it is all “a tightly networked system of laws, policies, customs, and institutions” that produces “mass incarceration” to achieve “social control.” Here, Ms. Alexander quotes Michael Tonry: “Governments decide how much punishment they want, and these decisions are in no way related to crime rates.”

But this claim that blacks are subordinated and controlled creates an obvious problem. TNJC must explain away the election of Barack Obama within a system allegedly dedicated to keeping blacks from power: “Many will wonder how a nation that just elected its first black president could have a racial caste system,” and “[i]t’s a fair question,” she acknowledges. Indeed, it is. But her answer is odd: “[T]here is no inconsistency whatsoever between the election of Barack Obama to the highest office in the land and the existence of a racial caste system in the era of colorblindness. The current system of control depends on black exceptionalism; it is not disproved or undermined by it.” We have no idea what exactly that’s supposed to mean, but it does seem to suggest that for America, where Ms. Alexander is concerned, it’s damned when you do—and double-damned when you don’t.

Caste or Conduct?

TNJC opens with a compelling anecdote about a man named Jarvious Cotton:

Cotton’s great-great-grandfather could not vote as a slave. His great-grandfather was beaten to death by the Ku Klux Klan for attempting to vote. His grandfather was prevented from voting by Klan intimidation. His father was barred from voting by poll taxes and literacy tests. Today, Jarvious Cotton cannot vote because he, like many black men in the United States, has been labeled a felon, and is currently on parole.

The idea that the state of Mississippi, home to Jarvious Cotton, has deliberately designed its laws to create a systematic racial caste system would have been undeniable 50 years ago. But has there been no progress since? Yes, Mississippi continues to deny the ballot to any person convicted of “murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretenses, perjury, forgery, embezzlement or bigamy.”² If this is a caste system—unless you consider “murderer” and “arsonist” perfectly acceptable synonyms for “African American“—it’s an oddly leaky one.

On its face, instead, Mississippi voting status is determined by conduct. And while violent crimes may involve clear racial disparities of the sort TNJC is exercised about, disenfranchisement for typically white-collar offenses like “bribery,” financial fraud, and “embezzlement” would hardly seem consistent with a conscious “project” to create a race-based caste system.

Nor does actual voting behavior sustain Ms. Alexander’s case for the existence of such a project. As the Associated Press reported after the 2012 Presidential election, registered black voters in Mississippi went to the polls at a higher rate than did white voters.³ This is not what “systematic racism” looks like, as anyone old enough to have witnessed the Civil Rights Movement can confirm.

Then there is the problem of Ms. Alexander’s maddeningly slippery rhetoric. TNJC tells us only that Jarvious Cotton cannot vote because, “like many black men in America,” he “has been labeled a felon.” TNJC does not tell us why he has been so labeled. It’s as if “labels” descended willy-nilly, independent of conduct.

In fact, Jarvious Cotton was indicted in Mississippi for the shooting death of 17-year-old Robert Irby, escaped from prison while awaiting trial, and fled to New York where he was subsequently arrested for a marijuana violation—and where fingerprint analysis then “labeled” him a fugitive wanted for a capital crime. Mr. Cotton was later extradited back to Mississippi and convicted of murder by a jury of his peers.⁴

Jarvious Cotton is now out on parole and ineligible to vote in Mississippi, not because he is black, but because he killed someone—which is not the same thing, though TNJC consistently conflates these issues rather than wrestle with the messy and inconvenient details.

Conduct either matters or it doesn’t. New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton asserts that it does. Bratton argues that blacks and Hispanics “represent half of our city’s population, but 96.9 percent of those who are shot, and 97.6 percent of those who commit the shootings.”⁵ These are terrible, troubling numbers. Dismissing the underlying phenomenon as a matter of mere “labels” is an irresponsible evasion.

Or consider TNJC’s fable of the suburbs:

From the outset, the drug war could have been waged primarily in overwhelmingly white suburbs or on college campuses. SWAT teams could have rappelled from helicopters in gated suburban communities and raided the homes of high school lacrosse players known for hosting coke and ecstasy parties after their games…. Suburban homemakers could have been placed under surveillance and subjected to undercover operations designed to catch them violating laws regulating the use and sale of prescription ‘uppers.’ All of this could have happened as a matter of routine in white communities, but it did not. Instead, when police go looking for drugs, they look in the hood.

We are expected to ignore the fact that black and white middleclass suburbs are not, by any objective measure, the primary locus of the criminal conduct at issue: firearms discharges (detected by automated recorders, not subject to “implicit bias”), violent-crime-related 911 calls, actual homicide victims—all these things are significantly less common in suburbs, and every sensible person knows that already.

The Drug Data

Again we must dismiss actual data when we read that “The uncomfortable reality is that arrests and convictions for drug offenses—not violent crime—have propelled mass incarceration.” In state prisons, holding the largest number of incarcerated inmates, only 16 percent are drug offenders—54 percent of those incarcerated are violent offenders.⁶

In the substantially smaller federal system, the proportion of drug offenders does approach 50 percent, largely because federal enforcement focuses on major domestic and international traffickers—34 percent of the federal prison population is Hispanic and 23 percent are not U.S. citizens.⁷ TNJC’s argument that drug crime, particularly among blacks, has propelled incarceration rates simply does not add up.

But how strong is TNJC’s best case about the racial injustice of the drug war? The argument is that blacks are treated unjustly by disproportionate drug arrests when survey data show that their use of drugs is less than that of whites, and even their rate of drug dealing is surpassed by that of whites.⁸

One could refute the specific criminal justice and drug use claims, and we shall try in one case. But we suspect that this is a trap. Every effort to rebut will be seen as confirmation of denial, even complicity, in American injustice. Even invoking the differential victimization of blacks by crime can be dismissed as pretext sustaining the system of injustice.

The primary source for TNJC drug data is a 2006 report, “Juvenile Offenders and Victims,” authored by Howard Snyder and Melissa Sickmund (the author has her as “Sickman,” as do other prior sources).

It is worth examining these claims with care.

Specifically, the “stark racial disparities cannot be explained by rates of drug crime,” because blacks are said to not to use drugs disproportionately. In fact, the author argues, “If there are significant differences in the surveys to be found, they frequently suggest that whites, particularly white youth, are more likely to engage in drug crime than people of color.” Finally, “white youth are more likely than black youth to engage in illegal drug sales.”

Do these counter-intuitive claims stand up when we look at the full battery of statistics, and not just those hand-picked?

First, the claims do not comport with the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the principle data source for drug use among adults. Based on self-reports, it shows that every year since a re-design in 2002 until the most recent iteration (2013 data), black rates of current drug use are not lower than that of whites, Hispanics, and Asians—they
exceed them.⁹

TNJC receives more support for (some) youth drug use rates, but only for the unwary. The major long-term survey of youth drug use, the school-based Monitoring the Future (MTF) study run by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, shows that for high-school seniors, whites report generally higher illicit drug use rates than blacks.¹⁰

Caution is necessary, however, before accepting TNJC. MTF excludes by design youth who are school drop-outs, institutionalized, homeless, or runaways. Which is precisely the fate of many youth drug users. That is, given the large disproportion of black youth who have dropped out (especially drug users), they are simply not proportionately present in the sample measuring seniors.

Blacks also report, in this survey, only half the rate of alcohol use, and only one third the rates of tobacco use, compared to white youth, further suggesting some skewing by virtue of differential attrition.

Finally, there is the claim concerning drug sellers. The source for this is the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, again based on self-reports, that asked whether between the ages of 12-16, youth had sold drugs.¹¹

TNJC seizes on the fact that white youth answered yes in 17 percent of cases, Hispanics in 16 percent, but blacks in only 13 percent of cases. (The confidence intervals are +/- 2 percentage points, making the four points between black and white reports a pretty close thing.)

The case is stronger when asked of youth who sold drugs at ages 16-17, only. For these youth, the disparity does grow: whites reported being 42 percent of those who sold, blacks only 29 percent.

Case closed? TNJC leaves off, with the statistical cherry picked. But what does the next, unmentioned, table show? Move forward one year. For those who sold drugs at age 18-19, only, the data flip: blacks represent 44 percent, whites only 28 percent; an even greater disparity, but in the opposite direction.

And completely missing is the report’s summary of case rates, which subverts TNJC’s argument: “In 2002, case rates for black juveniles were substantially higher than rates for other juveniles in all offense categories. . . . [I]n 1991, the drug offense case rate for black juveniles was more than 5.5 times the rate for white juveniles.”¹²

Note that the critical exhibit for TNJC, that blacks are disproportionately imprisoned for drug trafficking crimes that they don’t differentially commit, hinges on the slender reed of a 2006 body of self-report data from juveniles which shows no such thing.

This, as we say, is the book’s strongest case. Once we actually incorporate the reality of criminal conduct, however, the book descends into self-deceptions, more and more difficult to believe. In fact, its claims contradict our shared experience.

The author should acknowledge that great political pressure for tough law enforcement has come from black communities that suffer disproportionate victimization. It has come from the fears, and hopes, of mothers of sons at risk of death from gang involvement. This decisive truth about law enforcement in America is the real refutation of TNJC.

If you’re not troubled yet, you should be. The popularity of TNJC risks engendering a cycle of violent victimization of our most vulnerable citizens, who must depend on the criminal justice system to be their protector. The reality of black victimization requires us to strengthen, not condemn and abandon, institutions of law and order. TNJC makes telling the truth about our struggle on the streets an urgent duty.

The new students at Brown University, required to confront untrue charges that criminal justice in America is no more than an exercise in deliberate “mass incarceration,” should beware lest we fall prey to yet another “low, dishonest decade.”

Note: The original version of this essay, under a slightly different title and without the source notes included below, was published August 30, 2015, on powerlineblog.com.

*About the authors:
John P. Walters, Chief Operating Officer

David W. Murray, Senior Fellow

Source:
This article was published by the Hudson Institute

Notes:
¹ One can only imagine the umbrage if the CIA, instead of admitting, had denied these charges; perhaps it would have to be even stronger proof of genocidal intent. The primary source for these “admissions,” by the way, is Alexander Cockburn, writing in The Nation. ↝

Pope Francis has authorized an expansion of the forgiveness process for those who have had an abortion. Traditionally, when it comes to the sin of abortion, the Sacrament of Reconciliation has been the preserve of designated members of the clergy. But when the Jubilee Year of Mercy begins December 8, all priests will be eligible to participate in the reconciliation process. This includes priests who belong to the Society of St. Pius X, a non-canonical group that rejects the teachings of Vatican II. In doing so, the pope is making genuflections in two different directions.

“Since the first century,” the Catholic Catechism says, “the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.” Nothing that Pope Francis said today changes that reality. Indeed, he refers to abortion as a “profoundly unjust” act. But he emphasizes that forgiveness awaits those who repent; he only seeks to make this process more accommodating. Therefore, during the Jubilee Year, he has decided to bestow on all priests “the discretion to absolve the sin of abortion,” as long as “those who have procured it” come to the priest “with contrite heart, seek[ing] forgiveness for it.”

Already there are pro-abortion activists exclaiming that what the pope has initiated is no t enough. Catholics for Choice, a rabidly anti-Catholic group with no members—it is funded by elites such as the Ford Foundation and Warren Buffett—is denouncing the Holy Father, saying that “this guy” has not changed “the injustice” of the Church’s teachings.

Fortunately, almost all Catholics reject the extremism of this pro-abortion entity. In a Polling Company survey released yesterday that was commissioned by the Catholic League, we found that roughly four-out-of-five Catholics at least partly accept the Church’s teachings on abortion, and that only five percent approve of abortion for any reason and at any time (the position of Catholics for Choice).

Pope Francis is not going “soft” on abortion. He is simply trying to reach out to those who have been a part of it, asking them to seek forgiveness.

By Mohammed Fahad Al-Harthi

The first official visit of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman to Washington beginning on Thursday comes at a crucial time in the history of Saudi-US relations.

Much anticipation surrounds the visit which will see a number of sensitive issues being brought to the table. It is no secret that Saudi-US differences have affected the region. The American mistake in Iraq and Washington’s pointless and naive withdrawal pushing the country into the Iranian swamp is one example.

Other issues such as the Saudi-US disagreement regarding the June 30, 2013, events in Egypt, the shameful retraction of President Obama’s red line on the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the settlement afterward have also led to the two countries drifting apart. The situation has been worsened by the Iranian nuclear agreement that poses more questions than answers.

Probably the most important question is whether our problem with Iran is limited to the nuclear deal. Many feel that the problem has its roots in Iran’s political policies in the region. Tehran seems to insist on intervening in internal Arab affairs and inciting sectarianism in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain and Yemen.

While Riyadh and other Gulf capitals voice reservations, Washington is busy working for the agreement. Internally, the deal must be approved by Congress and externally, the Americans must keep other countries convinced of the deal’s importance. The Gulf states have made their position and desires clear: A region free of nuclear weapon and free of political conflicts, wars and militias — all of which are linked to Iran.

Saudis recognize the strategic value and importance of the bilateral relations between Riyadh and Washington. As relations have stretched over a long history of ups and downs, the foundation and shared interests of the two countries have met all challenges. This has been particularly true when, on numerous occasions, Saudi-US relations have served as the region’s safety valve.

Saudis stress the importance of the strategic relationship for both countries, acknowledging that disagreements arise from time to time. Washington has sought Saudi wisdom and experience many times since it knows that the Kingdom is a country with balanced and credible political thought which rejects extremism. This translates into both countries needing each other.

The claims that the declining US interest in Saudi oil negatively affects the alliance are short-sighted. Saudi Arabia is not a barrel of oil but an influential country, a great economic power and member of the G-20. Shared interests thus override the points of dispute.

King Salman, a veteran decision-maker and the experienced consultant of previous Saudi rulers, understands the importance of bilateral relations. Just as we saw in Operation Decisive Storm, he can be firm and take the initiative, knowing that Arabs can protect their interests in the region and will not acquiesce in the face of expansionist powers.

In diplomatic relations between countries, respect is for the powerful. And power means not only military force but also the ability to influence and build political alliances. In this context, the Gulf system remains one of the most influential forces in the region, led by the highest-level coordination between Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

The two countries filled the vacuum in the Arab political system and, with their alliance with Egypt, can save the region and prevent chaos. Once they share a political position, they have an influence on major powers.

Washington knows that Saudi Arabia has launched a war on terror and the Saudi security forces’ success confirm Riyadh’s role. Only a few days ago, it arrested Ahmad Al-Mughassil, the mastermind behind the 1996 Alkhobar attacks.

The Kingdom also provided important information to the US that foiled a possible suicide attack in a plane flying over Detroit in 2009. It also uncovered the presence of a bomb hidden in an ink container on a plane bound for Chicago in October 2010. Apart from intelligence and security cooperation, the US knows that Saudi Arabia has paid the price for its own safety and security in its fight against terror.

The interlinked interests of the two countries make it difficult to put Saudi-US relations at risk. Economically, American companies have enormous investments in the Kingdom while Riyadh has huge deposits and investments in the US. Many senior Saudi officials graduated from American universities and there are currently 120,000 Saudi students studying in the US.

In the context of what I have outlined, certain disagreements between the two countries are expected but their shared interests are stronger and dwarf the differences. It is important to concentrate on, and develop, this relationship for the benefit of both Saudi Arabia and the entire region with all its issues.

Reeling from low oil prices, Canada fell into a recession in the first half of the year, government data confirmed Tuesday, putting Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper on the defensive in the run-up to October elections.

According to Statistics Canada, the economy contracted 0.5 percent in the second quarter after retreating 0.8 percent in the previous three months.

It is Canada’s second recession in seven years and it is the only Group of Seven nation in economic retreat. The figures are the weakest since the 2008 global financial crisis.

The data reflects fears about the health of the global economy as more gloomy evidence emerged of a slowdown in China, a main engine of growth worldwide.

Harper, whose Tories are trailing their rivals in opinion polls ahead of the October 19 election, blamed the overseas turmoil for Canada’s woes, and emphasized an expansion in the economy in June.

“We are living, once again, in a time of ongoing global economic instability,” Harper said.

“Obviously there has been challenges, particularly in the energy and some commodity sectors because of falling prices. But the fact of the matter is over 80 percent of the Canadian economy has been growing.”

Canada, the world’s fifth-largest oil producer, has been hit particularly hard by the halving of world oil prices from above $100 last year.

In the second quarter, its mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction sector posted a “notable decrease” for a second consecutive quarter, said the government statistical agency.

Analysts said the damage, however, could be limited.

“Despite the weak start to the year, there is good reason to believe that the worst is over,” said TD economist Brian DePratto.

DePratto cited the sharp increase in GDP in June, “providing positive momentum to start the second half of the year.” He predicted a “sharp rebound” in the third quarter with growth reaching 2.5 percent by year’s end.

Harper under fire

On the campaign trail, where the economy has dominated the debate, opposition parties pounced on the grim data, urging voters to send the Tories packing.

“Under Stephen Harper, this has been Canada’s lost decade,” leftist New Democratic Party candidate Andrew Thomson told a press conference in Ottawa.

“Ten years of job losses, continued crumbling of infrastructure, tax breaks for the wealthy and a situation where the middle class continues to struggle to get ahead, 150 billion dollars in new debt and two recessions — people are telling us they have had enough.”

Thomson — whose critiques were echoed by the Liberals — said the Conservatives’ stewardship of the economy has been a failure.

“We need to bring change to Ottawa,” he said.

Harper has insisted that, oil aside, the rest of the economy is doing well, although the figures point to broad declines in a third of sectors.

At a steel plant in Hamilton, Ontario, he urged voters to support his party’s leadership, saying he had “the proven experience to keep us safe and keep our economy moving forward.”

Business investment down

In the second quarter, business outlays for machinery and equipment, communications and audio and video equipment, furniture, fixtures and prefabricated structures, and intellectual property products fell.

New housing construction decreased, but this was mitigated by an increase in renovations and strong resale activity, according to Statistics Canada.

Canadians also bought more cars and trucks, insurance and financial services, as well as food, beverages and accommodation services in the period.

Overall, exports edged up 0.1 percent after decreasing 0.3 percent in the first quarter. Imports declined 0.4 percent.

Stock-market volatility for China and beyond signals reassessment of global risks; investors in transparent markets should not panic.

By David Dapice*

China’s stock market crash and the international volatility set in motion have again put the world on edge. Analysts vie to predict what comes next. According to the noted economist Paul Samuelson, the stock market has predicted nine of the last five recessions. His point: There is often little or no relationship between stock prices and the real economy. Even after a stomach-churning week of jagged movements, the US stock market index S&P 500 is 10 percent below its recent high and up 37 percent from three years ago. In China, where the volatility has been higher, the Shanghai index, 2288 a year ago, is above 3100 now, a gain of near 40 percent – though it dropped 40 percent from its peak in June.

The volatility signals reassessment of global risks.

Start with China where the data are poor and the strategy of the economic managers is less clear. China is in a transition from an investment and export-led economy to one more based on consumer spending and services. The economy seems to be slowing more than anticipated. Electricity consumption is flat; industrial production, exports, imports and car sales are down; and there is evident surplus capacity in most industries and real estate for many cities. Yet GDP growth is said to be 7 percent. Some analysts say this is possible due to a shift to services which consume less energy, but others express doubt about the data, suggesting lower growth.

It is indisputable that debts are growing much faster than incomes. In 2007, debt/GDP in China was 158 percent; by 2014 that ratio had risen to 286 percent, according to a McKinsey report. Since debt is serviced from income, this trend is ultimately not sustainable. Yet the Chinese authorities seemed to think that a soaring stock market would create a wealth effect and help consumption. They touted the stock market and made credit easily available to encourage borrowing to buy stocks. Foreigners were less exposed, owning less than 5 percent of the market. While less than 70 million stock accounts were created, with more than 20 million having since left the market, many investors were not sophisticated and of modest means. They bid up the price of Chinese stocks, even when the economy was struggling.

This set up the dramatic decline in prices – a decline that happened even though the government bought stocks, stopped new stock offerings, threatened short sellers, prevented executives from selling stock they owned in their own companies and aggressively eased monetary policy. These steps work mostly against the reforms promised to make the economy more market oriented.

The seeming impotence of the government has raised questions about competence. Capital outflow, though manageable, was nearly $150 billion in the second quarter. It may well be higher in the current period. The recent effective, if modest, devaluation of the yuan will not improve sentiment. One interpretation is that the yuan adjustment was sensible and measured, a response to a super-strong dollar to which China had kept a stable relationship until recently. In addition, the letting go of stock prices may have been a recognition that stock prices have to be allowed to fluctuate, even if that damages those who followed the official line. However, many will see chaotic and erratic policy – a suggestion that the world’s leading source of growth is not under control.

In any case, the rich world is not in particularly good shape. Commodity producers like Canada and Australia are under pressure as commodity prices plunge and quantities contract. Prices for copper and oil, often indicators of global economic health, are near multi-year lows. Japan recently had a contraction in its GDP. The European Union is barely growing despite a weak euro. The United States had seemed to be set for 2.5 percent growth, but a strong dollar and weak foreign demand are putting future growth in doubt and corporate profits under pressure. Prospects of an interest rate rise, all but promised by the Federal Reserve, further increase nervousness.

The US stock market had gone through an extraordinary period of low volatility and steadily increasing prices in the last several years – it had tripled from its post-crash lows. Despite evident problems in corporate profits, the market sailed smoothly on until August. Some had decried the use of borrowed money to buy company stock so that per share earnings rose even while revenue, investment, R&D, and even total profits declined or were anemic. None of this seemed to matter until the high-speed algorithms that control so much of the traded volumes decided that it did matter. Or perhaps it was also nervous human traders that wanted to lock in gains in what seemed a market “priced for perfection” – that assumed everything would work out and risk was as low as recent volatility. In any case, there was a breathtaking drop of more than 1000 points in the Dow Industrials index, a fall of 6 percent or so, in just a few minutes on August 24. By Friday’s close, the Dow was higher than before its fall before volatility kicked in once again this week after China’s release of manufacturing data.

There is no doubt that the global economy is not in balance. Much of the developing world had relied on Chinese commodity demand to fuel their exports and overall growth. Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, the Gulf States, and much of the rest of Latin America and Africa are under pressure from lower export prices and a strong dollar that makes repayment of dollar debts more burdensome. While foreign exchange reserves have been built up, this only buys time to adjust. If resource investments plunge while uncertainty holds back consumer spending that might have increased in response to lower raw material prices, there could be an overall lack of global demand. This will create pressures for competitive devaluations and hidden trade barriers. It will also create political instability in many countries and further chill investments. With sluggish or negative growth in much of the rich world and outright contraction in many large developing nations, it’s not surprising that investors and consumers are nervous.

In all of this, the US economy has held up relatively well. Manufacturing is only 15 percent of GDP, and much of that is not highly sensitive to the strong dollar – refining, aircraft, biotech and local food processing, for example. The banks are sound, real estate is reasonably priced and consumers have deleveraged debt. Government deficits are modest, and companies have large offshore cash hoards that can be mobilized once lobbyists negotiate another tax amnesty through Congress. But even the United States cannot be an island of prosperity in a sea of troubles, nor can slow US growth provide enough demand for the rest of the world. US stock prices still look pricey and rising interest rates, even if the Fed is slow in guiding them higher, will create more competition for stocks. Most analysts expect future stock price gains to be muted and volatility to be higher than in recent experience.

In summary, the recent volatility does not mean a great depression or even a significant recession, but it does signal a return to a more historically normal and realistic assessment of the risks in the real economy and to stock prices. For long-term investors, the best advice may be to turn off the television and check your asset allocation.

*David Dapice is the economist of the Vietnam Program at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski has become the 34th member of the Senate to come out in favor of the Iran nuclear agreement, and allowing President Barack Obama’s top foreign policy legacy to survive in Congress.

Mikulski announced on Wednesday that she would support the deal reached between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries — the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany – in the Austrian capital, Vienna, on July 14.

“I have concluded that this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the best option available to block Iran from having a nuclear bomb,” the Maryland Democrat said in a statement.

“For these reasons, I will vote in favor of this deal. However, Congress must also reaffirm our commitment to the safety and security of Israel,” she added.

Original article

David Bowie is just one of a number of notable musicians who will be providing music for the SpongeBob Squarepants Broadway musical, which is set to debut next June, according to Gigwise.

Entertainment Weekly reports that Bowie, Dity Projectors, Cyndi Lauper, John Legend, The Flaming Lips and They Might be Giants have all signed up to contribute original music for the production.

For those fortunate enough not to remember, Bowie previously voiced the role of Lord Royal Highness of the lost content of Atlantis in the 2007 TV Movie, SpongeBob Squarepants.

The new musical based on the cult children’s cartoon is set to make its debut in Chicago between 7 June – 3 July 2016, before heading to New York for a Broadway run between 2016-2017.

Bowie is also writing music for an off-Broadway production called Lazarus, based on his character from Walter Tevis’ ‘The Man Who Fell To Earth, which will be starring Dexter’s Michael C. Hall.

For those who are eager to add some value to their vinyl collections, Ziggy Stardust is also preparing to release an extensive run of beautiful vinyl re-releases.

Should a responsible judge of the Highest Court in a democratic country meet the family members of a condemned criminal even as the trial continues? Can the interaction between them ultimately influence the verdict over the case? Finally should the mainstream media comment on such issues, which might create confusion among the people about the credibility of the legal system?

These and many more similar questions are lately being asked, raised and debated in Bangladesh, a secular Parliamentary democracy of South Asia, following a recent judgment from it’s Highest Court convicting two editors of an influential Bengali daily for contempt of court for a critical commentary over the ongoing war crime trials.

Swadesh Roy, the executive editor of the Dhaka-based Dainik Janakantha, recently invited the wrath from the Supreme Court of Bangladesh for one of his articles titled Saka Paribarer Tatparata! Palabar Path Kome Geche (Lobbying of Salauddin’s family! Ways to Escape Come Reducing), where he expressed dissatisfaction over the meeting of an appellate division bench judge with the family members of war criminal Salauddin Quader Chowdhury while the appeal hearing was underway.

The young journalist-editor in his article, published on 16 July 2015 in Janakantha, expressed apprehensions that the meeting could create enough space for diluting the punishment towards the war criminal, who was a part of the aggression to torture and kill freedom fighters (Muktijoddha) and rape Bengali women during the 1971 blood-soaked Bangladesh freedom struggle.

“A Dhaka based privately owned news channel Ekattor TV broadcast an audio clipping comprising a leaked conversation of two senior judges, where the Bangladesh Supreme Court chief justice Surendra Kumar Sinha admitted that he met the family members of war criminal Chowdhury and also a BNP leader Moudud Ahmed,” claimed Roy.

Speaking to this writer from Dhaka, the outspoken journalist was astonished how the war criminal’s family could manage to meet the Supreme Court chief justice. He raised pertinent questions, do judges ever meet the family members of a condemned criminal and was it within the ethical parameter of responsible judges?

We need not mention that war criminal Chowdhury was accused of being a notorious collaborator with the Pakistani forces, which unleashed a reign of terror in East Pakistan during the 1971 Muktijuddha, and which finally gave birth to Bangladesh — and Chowdhury was a notorious supporter of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) operating in Bangladesh.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed, who is also the daughter of Bangladesh’s founding father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, set up the war crimes tribunal in 2010 amid oppositions from the Jamaat-e-Islami, an Islamist party that was once a ruling ally to the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

Two Bangladeshi Jamaat leaders (Abdul Qader Molla and Muhammad Kamaruzzaman) were already hanged following the order of the war crimes tribunal, which was endorsed by the Bangladesh SC. A few other Bangladeshi war criminals, including Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, are awaiting the gallows.

Despite resistance from the inflating Islamist elements in Bangladesh in recent time, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence of war criminal Chowdhury on 29 July, which was originally pronounced by the special tribunal for his crimes against humanity in the 1971 Bangladesh freedom struggle.

It is understood that Roy’s article had influenced a sizable population of Bangladesh’s new generation under the umbrella of Ganajagran Mancha, which was relentlessly demanding harsh punishment for the war criminals. A number of demonstrations, rallies and public debates in precious media space with the same content were organized.

However, the appellate division bench headed by Supreme Court Chief Justice, also took strong note of Roy’s 16 July article and sent a contempt of court notice to him along with the Janakantha’s printer, publisher and editor Atikullah Khan Masud.

Even though the Highest court reportedly admitted the meeting of a senior judge with war criminal Chowdhury’s relatives, it observed that the criticism of a court verdict should be constructive. The criticism should be fair and not made with oblique motive or with the object of maligning the justice delivery system and lowering the majesty of the law and dignity of the court in the estimation of the public, added the observation.

In such cases, a working journalist in countries like Bangladesh normally makes an apology. But here, Roy continued contesting the case against the Supreme Court with his insights supported by evidence.

Finally, Roy and his editor were symbolically punished by the Bangladesh Supreme Court directing them to stay for nearly three hours in the courtroom on 13 August until the case was adjourned. They were also fined Taka 10,000 (USD 130) each to be donated to charitable organizations within a week.

Nonetheless, the case appears to be a moral boost for the vibrant media fraternity of Bangladesh, as both the Janakantha editors could sustain their point of views in the court rather than begging an apology. The representatives from civil society and advocacy groups also appreciated both of them for their commitment towards journalism enriched with commitment and patriotism.

Multiple religious ceremonies were held Wednesday and Tuesday in Polonnaruwa to mark Sri Lanka President Maithripala Sirisena’s birthday tomorrow.

A Jaya Pirith chanting was held in front of the Somawathie Stupa last night to bless the President. A Kap Ruk Puja and Kiri Ahara Puja were also held there this morning.

Another Jaya Pirith chanting was held in front of Rankoth Viharaya at Galviharaya in Polonnaruwa.

Menwhile a service of blessing was held at the Catholic Church in Palugasdamana.

A Hindu blessing ceremony was held at the Ganmge Devale in Manampitiya while Islam blessing ceremony was held at Jumma Mosque in Kaduruwela.

People’s representatives and people of those areas participated in these religious ceremonies.

Spain’s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said he “can guarantee that the law will be upheld in Spain and the country will not break up.” Rajoy med the comment at a press conference with the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, during the Spain-Germany Summit held on Monday and Tuesday.

Rajoy also referred to the need for a common European policy to tackle the issues associated with immigration and asylum.

Rajoy, described the immigration and asylum issue as the most important challenge facing the European Union in the years ahead and regarding which “we will not remain impassive” because “Europe cannot turn away from what it is; a land of rights”.

Based on the experience of a country such as Spain, which is receiving a large number of immigrants and where the number of asylum applications has tripled, the Rajoy defended the need for a “genuinely European policy for responding to this major task”, on which the European Commission should work “decisively, courageously and with determination”. Furthermore, he called for cooperation and collaboration with the countries of origin so they can progress economically and help combat the mafias that cause the “terrible tragedies that we have witnessed”.

On this point, Rajoy said that the Government of Spain has offered to take in 2,739 people applying for asylum and is open to revising this figure provided that asylum and economic immigration application situations are clarified and differentiated, and that other countries meet their commitment to open shelters.

Spanish elections

When asked about the upcoming elections in Spain, especially the regional elections to the Catalan Parliament, the Rajoy said that “what matters most to me is that everybody votes”.

Furthermore, he said that the Government of Spain will “defend national sovereignty” and that he sees it “grossly unfair” that someone can feel like a foreigner in their own country. Rajoy said that as long as he is Prime Minister, “the law will be upheld and, naturally, Spain will not be broken up as some would have it”.

Economic growth

Rajoy highlighted the changes in the Spanish economy between 2012 and 2015, in which time the country has moved “from being in the shadow of a bailout to growth of 3.3%”. The President of the Government announced that “the goal for the Government of Spain is for the number of taxpaying workers to reach 20 million in the next legislature, which will require half a million jobs being created per year”.

Rajoy highlighted how important the increasing availability of loans is for the general public, the number of which has risen by 40% on the same month last year. He also highlighted the latest Economic Sentiment Indicator from Eurostat – measuring public confidence in the economy – is at a 14-year high.

Rajoy underlined the importance of training and said that “one of the priorities in the 2016 budget is to return to previous spending levels on R&D+i: we are aware that a large part of our future will be determined in this area”.

By Ronald Joshua

A new ‘Generation of Change’ is making its presence felt, pledging to walk the talk over the last 70 years in a clarion call for freeing the world of 16,000 to 17,000 nuclear weapons that continue “to threaten every single person with the prospect of a cruel and inhumane death”.

Concluding a three-day International Youth Summit on Nuclear Abolition in Hiroshima, commemorating the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings that also razed the city of Nagasaki to the ground, the pledge stated on August 30: “Nuclear weapons are a symbol of a bygone age; a symbol that poses eminent threat to our present reality and has no place in the future we are creating.”

The Youth Summit followed on the heels of the 25th UN Conference on Disarmament Issues in Hiroshima, organised by the Bangkok-based United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (UNRCPD).

The Summit brought together 30 key youth activists on nuclear disarmament from more than 20 countries – including Austria, Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines, Romania, Thailand, Tunisia, UK and the USA – who are actively engaged in nuclear disarmament and related fields at the local, regional and international levels.

They also met with survivors of the atomic bombing (hibakusha) and discussed future strategies aimed at ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

The pledge concludes: “We, the Generation of Change, invite you to join us as we raise our collective voice to call for action; we refuse to stand by while nuclear weapons continue to threaten our lives and future generations. Join us, take action and create change!”

Participants argued that for 70 years speeches have been made, statements issued and endorsed saying “never again”. And yet we are still held hostage by nuclear weapons. “We, youth around the world, are mustering the courage to stand up and fulfill these decades-old promises of abolition. We need to eliminate this threat to our shared future and we urge you to join us, the Generation of Change. It is time to take action.”

The pledge goes on to state: “We, youth seek human security and sustainability, which are impossible to achieve fully in the presence of nuclear weapons. Youth see the potential for a world without nuclear weapons – we see the potential for security not to be based on fear and more militarism, but on diplomacy, cooperation and trust.

“Abolishing nuclear weapons is our responsibility; it is our right and we will no longer sit by while the opportunity of nuclear abolition is squandered. We, youth in all our diversity and in deep solidarity pledge to realize this goal. We are the Generation of Change.”

“The continued existence of nuclear weapons,” says the pledge, “is unacceptable and action must be taken to protect our shared future.”

Therefore, as the Generation of Change, they vow to:

• Continue to educate and empower ourselves in order to better spread this awareness amongst our peers;
• Recognize that diversity in this work is important and work to educate ourselves on how gender impacts disarmament
• Take action, raise our voices and pursue nuclear abolition in our communities and our countries;
• Share our knowledge about the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and the experiences of hibakushas and survivors of nuclear weapons tests;
• Encourage others to join the nuclear abolition movement and establish a strong unity among all nuclear abolition campaigners.
• Call upon every State to start negotiations on an international treaty for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons;
• Call on our elected representatives to adopt national legislation prohibiting and criminalizing the manufacture, investment in, testing, deployment, threat or use of nuclear weapons.

The pledge was issued at a wider public forum joined by 250 participants at which summit cochairs Rick Wayman of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) and Anna Ikeda of Soka Gakkai International (SGI) presented the Youth Pledge to Ahmad Alhendawi, the UN Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth.

Alhendawi urged, “Let’s be the generation that makes peace possible. This youth summit is sending a strong message to the world, that the youth are for peace and for a nuclear-free-world, and the world must listen.”

The public forum also featured a film made by atomic bomb survivor Masaaki Tanabe, whose childhood home stood right next to the Atomic Bomb Dome in Hiroshima. He said, “Seeing my film, I hope that you really understood that these were real lives, people, genuine human beings. I want the world’s leaders to know this truth.”

Youth participants said the summit had deepened their sense of urgency. Erin Hunt of Mines Action Canada (MAC) commented: “This network of young people who now have this shared experience of knowing what these weapons can do – I think is very, very important.”

Messages of support were received from peace activists including NAPF President David Krieger, International Institute on Peace Education Founder Betty Reardon, SGI President Daisaku Ikeda and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) Executive Director Michael Christ.

The event was coordinated by representatives, among others, of ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons), MAC, NAPF, SGI and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).

Cosponsors included the City of Hiroshima, the City of Nagasaki, Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation, PCU Nagasaki Council, Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, Mayors for Peace, ICAN, IPPNW, the Basel Peace Office, Global Zero and Ban All Nukes generation (BANg).

Nobuyuki Asai, program coordinator for peace affairs of the SGI, a socially-engaged Buddhist network with 12 million members around the world that promotes peace, culture and education that has been campaigning for the abolition of nuclear weapons for over 50 years, said:

“Youth have intrinsic potential and capacity to change the status quo. The world stands at a critical juncture as we are marking the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is the time for young people around the world to unite together, to make a breakthrough toward a world without nuclear weapons.”

I keep imagining the White House with a big, really big neon sign TRUMP across the top of the roof.

Count me as fully supporting the candidacy of Donald Big Mouth Trump. Why? Because for a long time we have had a delusional democracy, the product of a political system destroyed by both major political parties and the moneyed interests supporting both of them. Trump is the only possible president capable of productively disrupting this fake democracy, actually a plutocracy. It is more rational to fear whatever conventional Democrat or Republican won the presidency than to fear Trump. More of the same is far more frightening than nothing like this before. Moreover, there are sufficient constitutional checks from the other two branches of the federal government to curb fears of nutty actions by President Trump.

The pundits and intelligentsia enjoy demeaning Trump supporters as ignorant, uncouth, racist schmucks. Sure they have every right to be totally fed up with our political system. Who wouldn’t be? But how can they possibly buy into the insanity, stupidity and insulting rhetoric of Trump? I think all these shocked people on the right and left still don’t see the larger truth.

We must imagine something akin to electric shock therapy applied forcibly to the political system. Many urgently needed reforms will never be pushed by any conventional Republican or Democrat. In our delusional democracy ordinary elections can no longer produce the cleansing that our filthy, corrupt system needs. I believe that many millions of Americans who do not vote would be motivated to vote for Trump. They would enjoy sending a big F-you to the establishment. I certainly would. I would like to see polling of people eligible to vote but who have not voted in past presidential elections.

Sure, I confess that I would have preferred Michael Bloomberg spending a billion of his dollars on a presidential campaign as a third party candidate. But I gladly accept Trump as a second choice, even as a faux Republican.

I am a highly educated former full professor, former official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, and author of a number of books, including Delusional Democracy. I say this to demonstrate that Trump surely has more current and potential supporters than the media and political establishment can accept. Unlike Trump, they have no imagination. Trump, to his credit, is really on to something Great. I hope that many more Americans recognize that he is exactly what the nation needs. Stick that middle finger up at all the chronic liars that have sold out the vast majority of Americans. We really do have to make America great Again or watch its continuing slide into a two-class society based on economic inequality. Only a traitor to the upper, upper powerful class of insanely rich Americans can save the nation.

By Dr. Mousa Abu-Marzouk*

The Israeli occupation has closed the doors to Al-Aqsa Mosque from 7.30am to 11.30am, during which they prevent worshippers from entering the mosque. This is being carried out in light of Arab silence and Palestinian preoccupation with projects that only deepen the divide; projects that separate us, not unite us.

The occupation has closed the doors to Al-Aqsa Mosque and is trying to prevent our presence in Al-Aqsa and legally prosecute those who are stationed in Al-Aqsa and Al-Awqaf employees. There has also been an increase in the storming of Al-Aqsa, led by the terrorist Miri Regev, the Israeli Minister of Culture and Sport and the Minister of Jerusalem Affairs, Ze’ev Elkin.

The Israelis believe that the current state of the Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims allows them to take such measures that aim to divide Al-Aqsa in terms of time. What are we doing about this? Jerusalem is the compass of our nation, its political kiblah, and the source of its pride and dignity.

There must be media, political, and social campaigns to confront the Zionist plans on an individual, collective and factional level.

On a Palestinian level, Al-Aqsa needs to be attended to by Abu Mazen and Fatah in order to mobilise the Palestinians for this cause. What the Israelis are effectively doing is tearing up the Palestinian arena and dividing it; will anyone respond to this?

Al-Aqsa is the first kiblah of the Muslims, the third holy mosque, a beacon for Arabs and Muslims and the source of their sovereignty and concern. Will Arab and Muslim leaders take action to stop Al-Aqsa Mosque from suffering the same fate as Al-Ibrahimi Mosque?

Will the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Al-Quds Committee, Al-Azhar, kings, presidents, leaders and emirs all take action to thwart the Zionist plan to enforce the temporal division of Al-Aqsa? If the Zionists succeed, God forbid, this will be a prelude to spatial division and the beginning of the construction of a temple or synagogue in the Al-Aqsa Mosque courtyard.

There are still people stationed in Al-Aqsa and they will not allow the Zionists to implement their plans; not now and not ever. They act as the armor and fortress of Al-Aqsa and are a source of honour and pride for their nation. We are counting on them and await their victory. They will ask you: “When will this happen?” Say, “perhaps it will be soon.”

* Dr. Mousa Abu-Marzouk is a top official in Hamas. (This article was translated from Qudsnet by Middle East Monitor)